Big Win in Massachusetts

Read a a first-hand account of the Massachusetts constitutional convention that defeated an anti-marriage amendment. It appears from this that the final vote was 151 to 45. They needed fifty to put the measure on the ballot.

Believe it or not, for a blog post it's really exciting.

Here are comments by Dale Carpenter, a view of the Christianist meltdown via Pam's House Blend (actually, a couple examples), and here is a statement by Mass. Sen. Gale Candaras on why she changed her vote to support same-sex marriage. It's a wonderful statement.

And here is a somewhat troublesome post by GayPatriotWest that very gracefully avoids the major issues -- or counts them as faults. He is ambivalent about the vote, apparently, because the legislature was voting due to a decision by the Massachusetts courts. He objects to the fact that the question wasn't put on the ballot.

I’m ambivalent on the issue because I believe that legislatures (rather than courts) are the appropriate institution to decide a state’s policy on marriage. And here, an elected legislature (though under special circumstances) did vote on the policy. So, I should favor the decision. But, it troubles me that they only acted because the state Supreme Judicial Court (the highest court in the Bay State) had mandated marriage, taking it out of the legislature’s hands, leaving only the state’s complicated constitutional amendment process as a means of recourse. . . .

[Dale Carpenter]notes that the vote shows “how dramatically support for SSM [Same-Sex Marriage] has grown in the legislature,” but agrees that “a successful referendum vote in November 2008” would have represented an “even bigger win.“

Given the prospect of such a successful referendum, I wonder (yet again) at why gay groups so delighted in blocking it. Such a victory would have done much to undercut the argument of gay marriage opponents that gay activists seek to “impose” gay marriage on an unwilling public.

Can someone from the right side of the aisle please explain to me where in the Constitution, or in the legislative or judicial history of this country, it is stipulated that civil rights are subject to popular referendum? Is the Bill of Rights merely window-dressing? Is the concept of "limited sovereignty of the people" a complete mystery? Sure, a successful referendum might have been a bigger propaganda win, but that's only a might have been. Don't think that the anti-gay Christianists would sit still for that any more than they're going to sit still for this.

As for "imposing gay marriage on an unwilling public," that has no contact with reality at all. Let's look at the history here: the question first came up in the last legislature. By law, it must pass twice (with, mind you, a tiny minority vote) to be put on the ballot. In the time since the first vote, a new legislature has been elected, voters knew that this question was going to come up, and many of those legislators who opposed SSM lost their seats. Who is trying to impose what here? The way to deal with the distorted rhetoric of the Dobson Gang is not to accept its terms, but to challenge them. No one's "imposing" same-sex marriage on the voters of Massachusetts. Within the agreed framework of how their government works, the voters have spoken. What is so hard about that? So why can't we hear gay conservatives say that?

I think this is a good response to the whining from the anti-gay bigots (and I am calling them bigots -- there's no other name that fits) who are now claiming "horse-trading" and "political pressure" (which seems to be fine when they do it -- remember the controversy over the first vote, when the Archbishop of Boston supposedly made threatening phone calls to Catholic legislators?)

Among those who switched was Rep. Richard Ross, a Wrentham Republican who said there was no trading for his vote.

Ross said he no longer believes that people should vote on the matter, and feared that "hatred and vitriol" would dominate the ballot question campaign.

"Nine thousand of them have now married, who have blended into society, who have hurt no one," Ross said. "I just couldn't see exposing them to all of that stuff over the next two years.

"I know there's going to be a lot of folks that I need to apologize to in my district," he said. "Whatever happens I'm moving forward. I know I did the right thing."

GPW is also still beating the "real meaning of marriage" horse, grumbling because "no one" is talking about marriage as a social institution -- and then proceeds to link to several posts that do just that.

I don't know if it's denial or a high tolerance for cognitive dissonance. I've taken him to task for that before, and he doesn't seem to get it. It seems to be a defining characteristic of the posters at GayPatriot that they simply ignore whatever they don't want to hear. (Anyone remember the "Democrats' Culture of Corruption" post over there?)

To put it in the simplest terms possible, the courts did their job in Massachusetts and declared the Commonwealth's marriage laws unconstitutionally discriminatory. The Legislature did its job in dealing with a proposed constitutional amendment to overturn that decision. The voters, with full knowledge of what they were doing, elected legislators who would reflect their will.

And we, as a community (ad raggedy-assed as it is) win a major victory for the hearts and minds of America, and gay "convervatives" are ambivalent about it because it didn't happen they way they thought it should, even though the way they thought it should has nothing to do with the way the country is actually supposed to work.

Draw your own conclusions.