A gay marriage repeal stays off the ballot in Massachusetts
I said some of this in comments on Luna's headlines post, but she convinced me to put it front and center.
Basically, a bunch of people petitioned the state legislature to put an anti-gay marriage amendment on the ballot. Because yes, there's a chance that even in Gayassachusetts, it might pass. But so far, the legislature's having none of it, delaying and in effect killing a vote to put the amendment on the ballot in 2008.
Gay rights advocates cheered the move, seen as a crushing blow to opponents of gay marriage who had gathered 170,000 signatures in a petition that asked lawmakers to put the culturally divisive issue before voters in 2008.
By adjourning until January 2, the last official day of the legislative session, the Democratic-controlled legislature virtually guarantees the proposed amendment will not be taken up and therefore be killed.
The anti-gay marriage... hell, let's call 'em what they are, anti-gay protesters, chanted "let the people vote," but that's not getting a lot of traction either. From the Boston Globe editorial before the non-vote, Say no to discrimination:
The civil rights of individuals, most especially minorities, are properly enshrined in the state Constitution. They should not be subject to the kind of popular plebiscite voters used to decide the fate of wine sales in grocery stores. ...
It bears repeating that no one is asking any religious organization to condone, approve, or bless same-sex marriage. This is a civil right obtained through a piece of paper from city or town hall. It correctly does not attempt to dictate the policy of any church. Likewise, no religious organization should be deciding the policy of the state.
The Supreme Judicial Court's ruling in 2003 was a ringing affirmation of the principle that civil rights belong to everyone; that the protections of citizenship belong to gays and heterosexuals alike. It recognized the simple desire of all people to be treated as equals under the law. As the country learned though its experience with racial segregation, separate is hardly ever equal.
At its essence, the proposal to ban gay marriage establishes two classes of citizen, one less complete than the other. Legislators should imagine facing their gay neighbors, relatives, co-workers, and constituents and saying, "You are less than me." The parallel to race superiority is obvious. It's discrimination, it's wrong, and it has no place on the ballot or in the Constitution.
In another article, this got me teared up:
Democratic Sen. Jarrett Barrios, an openly gay member of the Legislature, pointed to his wedding ring as he warned colleagues that putting same-sex marriage on the ballot would open the doors to a negative campaign vilifying gays.
"You don't have to live next to us, you don't have to like us," Barrios said. "We are only asking you today to end the debate so that we can sleep easily knowing that while you may not live next to us or even like us that we will at least have the right to enjoy the same rights the rest of you enjoy."
I agree with luna_k that the new spate of anti-gay-marriage initiatives passing across the country is disheartening. But this is what they're fighting; this is what they're so afraid of. Once you give a person or group their civil rights, taking them away seems barbaric. In effect stripping the wedding ring from a person's hand looks like the vicious, cruel act it is. One of the proposals to amend the constitution would have invalidated the more than eight thousand same-sex marriages that have taken place in Massachusetts since 2004. It went down 196-0.
One hundred ninety-six to zero.
Sure, this is Massachusetts, and in other states you'd probably get a handful of despicable Santorum-types to vote for voiding others' marriages... to "protect marriage", of course. But here not even the bigots and the social conservatives... and we do have them, as evidenced by the 170,000 people who signed the petition for the other amendment, and the fact that they've bothered to try to get it on the ballot... could be that heartless and unfair.
Basically, a bunch of people petitioned the state legislature to put an anti-gay marriage amendment on the ballot. Because yes, there's a chance that even in Gayassachusetts, it might pass. But so far, the legislature's having none of it, delaying and in effect killing a vote to put the amendment on the ballot in 2008.
Gay rights advocates cheered the move, seen as a crushing blow to opponents of gay marriage who had gathered 170,000 signatures in a petition that asked lawmakers to put the culturally divisive issue before voters in 2008.
By adjourning until January 2, the last official day of the legislative session, the Democratic-controlled legislature virtually guarantees the proposed amendment will not be taken up and therefore be killed.
The anti-gay marriage... hell, let's call 'em what they are, anti-gay protesters, chanted "let the people vote," but that's not getting a lot of traction either. From the Boston Globe editorial before the non-vote, Say no to discrimination:
The civil rights of individuals, most especially minorities, are properly enshrined in the state Constitution. They should not be subject to the kind of popular plebiscite voters used to decide the fate of wine sales in grocery stores. ...
It bears repeating that no one is asking any religious organization to condone, approve, or bless same-sex marriage. This is a civil right obtained through a piece of paper from city or town hall. It correctly does not attempt to dictate the policy of any church. Likewise, no religious organization should be deciding the policy of the state.
The Supreme Judicial Court's ruling in 2003 was a ringing affirmation of the principle that civil rights belong to everyone; that the protections of citizenship belong to gays and heterosexuals alike. It recognized the simple desire of all people to be treated as equals under the law. As the country learned though its experience with racial segregation, separate is hardly ever equal.
At its essence, the proposal to ban gay marriage establishes two classes of citizen, one less complete than the other. Legislators should imagine facing their gay neighbors, relatives, co-workers, and constituents and saying, "You are less than me." The parallel to race superiority is obvious. It's discrimination, it's wrong, and it has no place on the ballot or in the Constitution.
In another article, this got me teared up:
Democratic Sen. Jarrett Barrios, an openly gay member of the Legislature, pointed to his wedding ring as he warned colleagues that putting same-sex marriage on the ballot would open the doors to a negative campaign vilifying gays.
"You don't have to live next to us, you don't have to like us," Barrios said. "We are only asking you today to end the debate so that we can sleep easily knowing that while you may not live next to us or even like us that we will at least have the right to enjoy the same rights the rest of you enjoy."
I agree with luna_k that the new spate of anti-gay-marriage initiatives passing across the country is disheartening. But this is what they're fighting; this is what they're so afraid of. Once you give a person or group their civil rights, taking them away seems barbaric. In effect stripping the wedding ring from a person's hand looks like the vicious, cruel act it is. One of the proposals to amend the constitution would have invalidated the more than eight thousand same-sex marriages that have taken place in Massachusetts since 2004. It went down 196-0.
One hundred ninety-six to zero.
Sure, this is Massachusetts, and in other states you'd probably get a handful of despicable Santorum-types to vote for voiding others' marriages... to "protect marriage", of course. But here not even the bigots and the social conservatives... and we do have them, as evidenced by the 170,000 people who signed the petition for the other amendment, and the fact that they've bothered to try to get it on the ballot... could be that heartless and unfair.