How ... surprising. I wonder what made the legislators decide to take this off the table and actually vote on it.
The future of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts hangs in the balance after yesterday's vote advancing a proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. Lawmakers will vote on the same proposal at another Constitutional Convention later this year. And if at least 50 approve it - 12 fewer than the number who voted in favor of it yesterday - the measure will be placed on the 2008 ballot.
If voters approve the amendment, gay marriage in Massachusetts - to date, the only state to legalize same-sex marriage - would officially come to an end and, with it, 1,400 benefits, rights and protections that go with it, according to Arline Isaacson, co-chairwoman of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus.
"All of that can be eliminated in one fell swoop," Isaacson said. "Unfortunately, many of those saying, 'Let the people vote,' dont realize how fundamental and critical those protections are." [...]
Well, that's impressive disingenuity. Of course they realize how fundamental and critical those protections are; that's the entire point of the vote. (Yes, yes, I know, they're trying not to alienate the people that are going to be telling them, once again, that those icky icky gays with the butt sex and the lesbionnage and all that distasteful stuff simply are not entitled to unalienable human rights, because if they make nice, there's a vague nebulous chance that sudden and catastrophic enlightenment will strike -- and I fully concede that in a state that will have had gay marriage for several years, the chances are better than in states that haven't. This is not to say that chances of shocking enlightenment are good.)
..."This is democracy in action," countered Kris Mineau of the Massachusetts Family Institute, which backs the amendment. "It's not a vengeance campaign. It's not a hate campaign. It's just an opportunity for the people to vote."
Well, yes. It certainly is democracy in action.
Of course, there's a reason that most enlightened democracies don't permit majorities to vote for granting rights to minorities. Because majorities DONT LIKE MINORITIES. This has nothing to do with enlightened self-interest, and everything to do with petty prejudice. Most states had to be bludgeoned by the courts into granting ethnic minorities their civil rights; imagine what things would look like if all the states had been able to say, "Well, you know, we'd really prefer to vote on our Jim Crow laws," and then gotten away with it.
And more disingenuity by the bad guys, to boot. Of course it's a hate campaign; it's just one that doesn't have to show itself to be one. It can wrap itself in the American and Massachusetts state flags and call itself honoring the principles of our various governments.
Nice to see that both sides can call a spade a gardenia.
Well, they'll remain legally married until the next go-round, when anti-gay legislators introduce legislation to strip all recognition of marriages no longer considered legal in the state. And you know they'll do that; only an idiot would think otherwise. For that matter, it only makes legal sense; why would you want to have a grandfathered category of marriage when sweeping them off the board will make life easier for the state?
So gay marriage will end in Massachusetts in 2008, absent a parliamentary move that keeps the convention from voting on it during the next session. Because if it makes it out of the convention, it will pass.Posted by iain at January 02, 2007 11:55 PM