Gov. Mitt Romney said Sunday he would ask the state's highest court to order an anti-gay marriage amendment question onto the ballot if legislators fail to vote on the matter when they reconvene in January.
The rest of the story is here.
I'm glad to see Romney addressing this. The pro-gay marriage groups have worked hard to prevent this initiative from reaching the ballot. Given that the Massachusetts Constitution allows for this sort of thing, it seems only fair that the people get to use it.
"The constitution quite plainly states that when a qualified petition is placed before them, the Legislature 'shall vote.' It does not say 'may vote,' or vote if procedures permit a vote, or vote if there are enough of the members in the chamber. It says, 'shall vote.'" Romney said.
But there's more at stake here than the constitution, folks. This isn't about the people of Massachusetts determining what marriage means to them. That's why those in favor of gay marriage have spent their time arguing about equal protection and whatnot in court as opposed to trying to pass legislation. And it's why the Massachusetts legislature is deadset against obeying their own constitution. Time for another tea party?
This isn't about the people of Massachusetts determining what marriage means to them
ReplyDeleteWell, of course it is. And - after two elections - I think it's quite evident that what marriage means to the people of Massachusetts is the same as it now means to the rest of the world: two unrelated adults who want to be legally joined as a married couple. Marriage between same-sex couples is now legally recognised in Canada, the US, Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain, and Israel (see: recent court decision that any legal civil marriage outside Israel was legally valid inside Israel). It will soon be recognized in South Africa.
Legal civil unions with all the same rights as civil marriage are recognized in even more countries, with cross-recognition so that a couple can register their partnership in Norway (or Maine) and move to the UK with no loss of legal rights.
And it's kind of strange to think that some people still object to this, when it's a pure example of giving a discriminated group equal civil rights without any other group suffering any loss of privilege: it's just intrinsically a good thing.
Sorry jesurgislac, you're wrong. What would be the people of Massachusetts determining what marriage means to them is allowing them to VOTE on the amendment. A court determining that homosexual marriage is constitutional by judicial fiat isn't the same thing.
ReplyDeleteWhat would be the people of Massachusetts determining what marriage means to them is allowing them to VOTE on the amendment.
ReplyDeleteIf the people of Massachusetts decided they wanted a constitutional amendment to redefine what marriage means in Massachusetts, away from what it currently means, they needed to elect people to represent them who would do so.
Instead, two elections running, the people of Massachusetts elected people to represent them who supported the principle that lesbians and gays ought not to be discriminated against in Massachusetts by having their legal marriages denied.
Now Romney wants to find activist judges who will take his side and rule against the will of the people's elected representatives.
It's evidently not a problem for most of the people of Massachusetts that two men, or two women, as well as a man and a woman, can legally marry: they've elected people to represent them who support that principle.
Because Governor Romney is thinking about running for President in 2008, and knows homophobic measures look good in the Southern states, he wants to kick up a fuss about marriage in Massachusetts.
Really, what happened is ideal for him: he gets all the credit of having tried to redefine marriage away from its current state, without actually having to run the risk that the people of Massachusetts actually prefer the status quo, and would vote for that.
The legislators are right to refuse to consider it: civil rights should never be dependent on majority rule.
Sharon, do you feel the need to cast a vote on whether your friends and relatives are allowed to marry whomever they want to?
ReplyDeleteI'm a woman, married to a man, living in Massachusetts, and I personally don't give a good g*ddamn if I ever get to vote on gay marriage. They have had the right to marry their partners for 2 1/2 years, and my personal marriage and life haven't changed one iota because of it. Bottom line: it isn't detrimental to families and marriage or anyone at all. Really.
Jesurgislac is right: civil rights should never be dependent on majority rule.
Norah
And it's why the Massachusetts legislature is deadset against obeying their own constitution.
ReplyDeleteI just noticed this: you have this exactly backwards. The Massachusetts constitution supports the right to same-sex marriage. Romney is dead set against obeying the constitution of his own state.
jesurgislac,
ReplyDeleteThe courts of Massachusetts have said the state constitution supports gay marriage. That Romney wants the legislature to obey another part of the constitution is different.
The question should be: why is the legislature so afraid of putting the marriage amendment on the ballot? I think the reason is that they know almost every proposition restricting marriage to one man and one woman has passed and they don't want the people to overturn the judiciary. There's no other reason that the legislature has worked so hard to avoid doing what it is required to do in this instance.
Look, if the initiative gets voted on and the people reject it, that's fine. But this is a case where the legislature is circumventing one part of the state constitution because it doesn't like that part.
As for your argument that the people voted for gay marriage by electing these representatives, if that is true, why not just put the initiative on the ballot and let people vote again for gay marriage? Is there a good reason to avoid allowing people to vote directly on this issue? Or is it that the legislators are afraid that they are out of step with the majority from their state on this issue.
anon,
Sometimes laws, traditions, and morality aren't about how they affect you directly but about how they affect society now and in the future. Laws which restrict where strip bars and liquor stores are don't affect me personally. But they are good for society, too.
The question should be: why is the legislature so afraid of putting the marriage amendment on the ballot? I think the reason is that they know almost every proposition restricting marriage to one man and one woman has passed and they don't want the people to overturn the judiciary.
ReplyDeleteIf they're afraid that a majority might vote equal civil rights away from a minority, when those equal civil rights are guaranteed to all by the Massachusetts state constitution, then I can't say they're wrong.
If the voters wanted legislators who would support legal discrimination against lesbians and gays, they've now had two elections to vote them in, and they haven't done so.
Bigots complain that the judiciary and the legislature won't permit them to impose their views on others: Romney complains that he's not allowed to use a bigoted amendment as a springboard for his run for a Presidential nomination.
The people of Massachusetts do not appear to be complaining, aside from this disgruntled minority complaining that they don't like another minority having equal civil rights.
Sometimes laws, traditions, and morality aren't about how they affect you directly but about how they affect society now and in the future.
ReplyDeleteHi, my name is Norah, not Anon. Nice to meet you.
How does a right that gay people in Massachusetts have had for the last 2 1/2 years affect society in general?
From what I can see: gay couples are able to secure legal rights for themselves and their partners and their children by being allowed to marry. Also, the wedding business just doubled, so it's good economically. Traditions evolve and grow over time, but they had to start somewhere, no? Marriage used to be basically a business contract between two families. Don't believe me? Look at the royal families of Europe over the last several centuries. And morally? Well, I don't concern myself with the sex lives of other fully fledged tax-paying citizens of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. If all are consenting adults and nobody is being hurt, why is it anyone else's business?
But please, I'd love to hear your take on it, Sharon.
Norah
See the post at "Why Marriage?"
ReplyDelete