In the comments regarding this Merrimack College poll, Wayne points to the support for gay marriage among MA residents. It pretty much squares with the Boston Globe poll from a year ago, which showed 56% support.
Sometimes our “differently-winged” friends like to say that if there were a vote, gay marriage would get voted down in a landslide. This is clearly just not true. Better find another talking point, folks.
Please share widely!
Actually, Charley, what your ‘diffeently winged’ friends say is that by getting the signatures the voters deserve to be ABLE to vote. It is the activists that mistrust the electorate and think they are too dumb to vote properly without their guidance.
<
p>
Ironincally, I always thought the so-called Super-DOMA that Rep. Travis (D) originally introduced had the greatest risk of failure. By refusing to recognize ANY relationship between except that between a man and a woman, it wold have efffectively disallowed domestic partnership benefits for heterosexuals, too – and they would have voted against it as well as gay people and people who do feel that gay marriage is proper.
<
p>
By watering down that languange in order to pander, Birmingham, and Finneran and Traviglini after him, gave unmarried heterosexual couples an easy out by creating civil unions – which NOBODY had signed a petition for! Frankly, activists who would have been clicking their heels with joy if a civil union bill had passed then decided it was marriage or bust after the SJC decision.
<
p>
Now, some six years – eight? – after the fact, there are some voters who would have voted against the Super-DOMa who will now vote FOR that amendment in exasperation at being thwarted all these years. A crisis which never had to be, if only you would trust to the decency and common sense of the electorate.
Peter, you make an interesting point, and indeed, Congress got around to passing Civil Rights laws in ’64 and ’65. Hooray for democracy, right?
<
p>
No. It was wrong to withhold people’s rights for so long.
<
p>
Similarly, “rights” must never be put to a vote. That’s majority tyranny, and that’s what courts are for: to protect the rights of minorities, be they religious, political, or sexual. When it comes to safeguarding the rights of minorities, you’re darned right I don’t trust the majority. History, QED.
<
p>
Furthermore, whether activists would have been “clicking their heels” at one result or another is beside the point. Let’s address principle: Is it right to have other people vote on your rights? No.
<
p>
That being said, it is obviously a political issue here and elsewhere in the country, and folks’ rights are being put to the vote. That’s not good, but it seems that MA residents are leading a little on this issue.
Tell that to the suffragettes – it took them years of patient work, but in 1920 they gained the ‘right’ to vote – after hundreds of voters cast ballot to allow them to do so – in an election they could not vote in.
<
p>
Interestingly, because the voters themselves made this choice, the validity of women voting was never questioned or fought the way ‘rights’ forced by top-down court decisions are.
<
p>
I DO trust people to make the right decisions, and they deserve to be able to vote without being thwarted by their “representatives”.
but the second one sucks.
<
p>
Is it better to wait longer, so that society at large accepts extending civil rights to a marginalized group, or…
<
p>
is it better to extend those rights as soon as possible, even if it does lead to lots of debate and discussion and political upheaval? After all, you’re talking about human rights and human dignity for real people, real people who are suffering in the mean time.
<
p>
I say it’s urgent to extend civil rights as soon as possible.
This seems to be a bit confused on suffragists. Yes, it was long-fought and yes, they needed to have their rights approved by male voters only.
<
p>
However, in addition to not being a court mandate, this required overturning inequitable Constitutional provisions with an amendment. This is another good argument for states and the feds not institutionalizing discrimination driven by ballot initiatives.
<
p>
It was Woodrow Wilson driving the U.S. Congress under prolonged protests by women that started this. Then the (men in) states ratified it.
<
p>
That’s a ton different from a plebiscite in a state.
<
p>
Ballot initiatives that want to strip existing civil rights or keep minorities from getting them are the big issue. They are definitely the wrong approach. The half of the states that use initiatives should all fine-tune them to prevent that type of voting on rights.
This site is therapy for me. I read it and always have a healthy laugh. People are inclined to be politically correct today & are inclined to answer questions and even speak to co-workers in a trained manner due to various fears.
When they get into the privacy of the booth (like all those union workers and democrats who have told the democrats you can’t have the corner office since Weld) they will crush Gay Marriage. It will be defeated at the box and the cultural wars will continue; you cannot force your agenda down people’s throats.
You cannot continue to claim that people that disagree with your perspectives are bigoted. Sincerely held beliefs are just that and as long as there is no civic engagement (the tragedy of Catholic Charities withdrawal from adoption, the examination of hospitals policy due to emergency contraception) your agenda cannot be forced down the politically trained throat.
I respect the right of any religion to withdraw from civic involvement (from receiving gvt. funds or grants)in order to comply with internal doctrine. Don’t you? Or would you like this to be North Korea? Your way or no way with your why can’t you be as smart and enlightened as us attitude. Dudes, wake up,
about poll results differing wildly from what would happen in a real vote – but I sorta doubt it. As I recall, in the various other states that have voted on gay marriage, the poll numbers haven’t been far from the real results – that is, poll respondents apparently haven’t felt pressured to give false answers either way.
As we found out from Speaker Finneran’s campaign against clean elections, polls all depend on wording. having been involved in the past on a ballot measure I can personally tell you that down to the last word it counts. So the poll is heartening but we’ve go to be ever vigilant to make sure everything is on the up and up and fairly done.
If you have not seen this already – please read this testimony from this Dem testifying before the Md. state Senate regarding their anti-gay amendment….
<
p>
and this KICK-ASS rebuke…
<
p>
“Senator, when you took your oath of office, you placed your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution. You didn’t place your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible.”
<
p>
Read the whole amazing thing here:
<
p>
http://www.raskin06.com/marriageequality.php
<
p>
Some of our “undecided” reps and senators need to read this. I’ve sent it to mine already….
You don’t support popular vote on Gay Marriage but I’m assuming you support (or did) a popular vote on Clean Elections, Universal Health Care, etc?
There’s a significant difference between putting a group’s rights up for popular vote and putting forth a question on how to manage elections or health care.
Of course, because you want your cake and you want to eat it too; keep talking out of both sides of your mouth-the apathetic public usually buys your spin anyway! Hope you sleep well at night knowing how phony it is though.