Delayed AND Denied
Published January 02, 2007
On the last possible day, the Boston Globe editorializes on decisions that the legislature will face this afternoon concerning the definition of marriage amendment.
The editorial is muddled by half-truths and irrelevancies.
It starts out well enough by advocating plainly against the amendment.We urge legislators to reject the amendment and the costly, divisive circus of a campaign that would doubtless follow its appearance on the 2008 ballot.
Ah! Those “costly and divisive” campaigns are a nuisance, aren’t they? Democracy is such an untidy process!
Then the editorial gets far worse:There has been much gnashing of teeth over whether the voters will be heard if the Legislature declines to vote on the amendment today.
Sorry, no. I must call “bullshit”. The issue of a vote is not about “whether the voters will be heard”. The issue of a vote concerns whether the lawmaking process specified in the constitution of the Commonwealth – our highest law – will be followed or not, as the Supreme Judicial Court ruled last week.By now, legislators have debated the question in multiple constitutional conventions in 2004, 2005, and 2006. It is hard to say that the matter has not been aired.
It has been aired indeed, but the only actual vote on the central question was taken by the 7 members of the Supreme Judicial Court. Is it just possible that the desperate avoidance of democratic and due processes of law is what has causes so “much gnashing of teeth”?Last September, legislators took a final vote on a more lenient amendment — which denied marriage but explicitly established civil unions as an alternative — and defeated it, 157 to 39. That cleared the way for today's harsher version of the ban, which needs only 25 percent of the convention to advance.
Again quite irrelevant. That was a procedural vote on a proposed change to the amendment and it did not fulfill the constitutional obligation. The low support for this more permissive proposal resulted from its widespread rejection by members with many different viewpoints. The Globe editorial is being disingenuous to suggest that such a vote (and the paltry 20% support it received) is all the support amendment has. If that was the case, the gay marriage militants would not be fighting tooth and nail against a vote.The voters also have been heard at the polls in two separate statewide elections, where not one of the proponents of gay marriage was defeated and their margin in the Legislature increased. Governor-elect Deval Patrick was the only major-party candidate to steadfastly support gay marriage in the November election, and he won in a landslide.
- Delayed AND Denied
- Published: January 02, 2007
- Type: Opinion
- Section: Politics
- Writer: Harry Forbes
- Harry Forbes's BC Writer page
- Harry Forbes's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
Doesn't this amendment have to go for a popular vote after it passes the legislature? That being the case I don't see how it could ever actually become law, since the people of Massachutsets seem to generally favor gay marriage. Maybe they should focus on voting out these legislators who are so out of step with their constituents.
Dave
The measure, which only needed 50 votes to stay alive, must still be approved in the next legislative session to make it on the ballot as a referendum in 2008. Harry seems to think (or at least hope) that it will pass. It apparently doesn't take many lawmakers to stir this particular pot.
Nalle who the hell told you the people in Mass generally support gay marriage?
There is absolutely no evidence that supports this.
The SJC made gay marriage through their usurping of the legislations power to make law. The people didn't get together and pressure the legislation to make it legal.
Also, a recent poll on boston.com stated that 50% of Mass residents oppose gay marriage while only 46% support it.
Lastly.....if the people in Mass are so gung ho for gay marraige why is the gay lobby in marriage fighting so hard to keep it off the ballot? Don't you think that the gay lobby in Mass would be ok with a ballot initiative if "the people of Massachutsets seem to generally favor gay marriage," Nalle?
As for you handy. It's nice to see that not you're typical run of the mill idiot leftist who throws out baseless epithets like "bigot" when someone has a differing opinion.
Just say no! If you're against gay marriage then don't marry a gay! It's that simple.
If you're against states banning gay marriage in their constitution then don't live in a state that has done it. It's just that simple!
hmm. bliffle says you don't have to marry someone of the same sex. archie says get outta the state.
so... you leave your home, your job and your life... in archie's world.
in bliffle's, you don't have to stick it up your butt. (or go diving.)
the fairness of the situation is questionable.
and obviously, restricting someone's access to a word (baseless epithet coming) is bigotted, even if it is more stupid and a complete waste of time. whomever spends state money on making a word straight or gay better gimme a tax refund.
Archie, dense as usual, doesn't get It.
The 50%-46% figures Arch cites from Boston.com are a nationwide poll on gay marriage, not just Massachusetts. The question asked was whether people thought their states should recognize Mass.'s same-sex marriages. [And polls that close are usually within the margin of error.]
Sept 2005 survey of Mass. voters:
51.9 percent opposed to the ban on gay marriage
42.6 percent supported the ban
I can't find a more recent Mass. poll figure than that, but I wouldn't be surprised if it continues to move in favor of gay marriage and against the ban, a movement nearly every poll has shown since 2003.
By the time a vote occurs, if it occurs, there are likely to be 12,000 or more marriages already conducted in Mass. These marriages would be allowed to stand under the amendment. Once that is pointed out to people, even fewer are likely to vote for the amendment, since it would create even more confusion and inequity.
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/57690)
I guess this mean-spirited article's headline and argument are now moot and invalid, since the legislature did indeed vote, and the amendment did receive the 50 votes it needed to proceed [the vote was actually 132-61 against the amendment; in someone's topsy-turvy mind this may make sense as a way to make laws]. This guarantees that this divisive issue that right-wing bigots love so much will stay in the headlines for two more years.
One hopes the good [and supposedly liberal] people of Massachusetts will have noticed by 2008 that the sky has not fallen in because gays have been getting married there, and will vote the awful, discriminatory amendment down. And maybe that will shut some loudmouths up, for five minutes or so.