Is this old news? [Update: apparently it is, according to wahoowa in the comments.] If it is, I sure missed it the first time around. The Globe did a nice job of collecting the three Democratic Gov candidates’ views on “social issues” (immigration, marriage, sex ed, gambling, stem-cell research) in this one table. Most of what’s in there, I already knew. But this was a surprise to me:
Would you sign a bill repealing the 1913 state law that forbids gay couples from states that ban same-sex marriage from marrying in Massachusetts? Why or why not?
GABRIELI: I support repealing the 1913 law. Currently, the 1913 law is being used to discriminate against same-sex couples and it is being unfairly applied.
PATRICK: Yes. In the first place, the law has suspect roots in attempts to ban interstate recognition of interracial marriage. Further, gay men and lesbians have married in Massachusetts, accepted the rights and responsibilities of marriage, and moved on with their lives out in the open.
REILLY: I support the right of same-sex Massachusetts couples to marry. The 1913 law has no effect on them. This law only affects same-sex couples from other states, preventing them from marrying in Massachusetts if their own states forbid same-sex marriage. I do not support repealing this law.
I know Reilly has defended the 1913 law’s constitutionality in court. I don’t have a problem with that; frankly, it’s probably constitutional. (And stop calling me frankly.) But to oppose its repeal by the legislature? Whoa. Bad, bad call by Reilly.
I’ve been saying for over a year that advocates for marriage should focus their efforts on the legislature rather than the courts, at least when victory in the legislature seems possible, because legislative victories tend to generate less backlash and will likely hvae more staying power. Repeal of the 1913 law – which serves no useful function, and just prevents people who otherwise would be coming to Massachusetts to spend thousands of dollars each on wedding ceremonies – strikes me as a no-brainer. If gay couples whose home states don’t recognize gay marriage want to come here and get married, God bless ’em – leave it to them to work out the legal complexities when they get home. If gay people can get married under the laws of this state, it shouldn’t make any damn difference where they come from.
I’m quite surprised and disappointed to learn of Reilly’s position.
of access for the disabled? You know, like the blind being able to use a screen reader to use the Boston Globe table linked above?
<
p>
Oh wait, that won’t work, because the thing is one masive image. Great journalism, but (frankly!) piss poor (online) publishing.
I couldn’t cut and paste from the table. Had to type it out myself.
Your comment totally baffled me. I hadn’t actually clicked on the link because the main point was quoted in the post, so I really had no idea what you were talking about ’til I saw David’s reply. And now that I know, I agree with you, images of text are a stupid way to web.
David,
<
p>
This position by Reilly isn’t new at all. MaverickDem and I have had some back and forth on the gay marriage issue and my feeling that Reilly’s history on GLBT issues is less than stellar (hell, it’s not even good). In his interview with Bay Windows a few weeks back, Reilly made this same point, saying that not only was he doing his job when he argued the validity of the 1913 law, but that he believed the law was correct.
<
p>
It’s just another in the long lists of problems I have with Reilly, especially when it comes to the issue of gay marriage. While he says he now supports gay marriage, every action he has taken has suggested otherwise.
As far as I’m concerned, the fact that he’s not voting against gay marriage puts him in the minority, at least nationally. Reilly’s work is good, in the sense that he’s on the progressive side of the issue. Has he worked hard enough, long enough, and with enough vigor for your tastes? It seems not.
<
p>
For my money, I’m not going to bash a guy for not “doing enough” when what he has done has been in the right direction (or required by his job as AG).
<
p>
I’m no Reilly fanboy, but it’s disingenuous to make him out to be Pat Robertson redux.
What work can you point to that puts him on the progressive side of this issue? The only evidence that we have that Reilly is in favor of gay marriage is that he says he is after a long history of being on the opposite side of the issue(he doesn’t have a vote on the issue, so we can’t know if he would back up his words). All his actions indicate the opposite. His office put up the most vigorous defense to date to a challenge regarding equal marriage. When he lost, rather than accept the decision, he instead sought to have the SJC reinterpret their decision so as to allow for civil unions rather than full marriage equality. He then vigorously defended the 1913 law, a law that is is based in racism, so that out of state gay couples cannot marry in Massachusetts (like straight people do). He also says that rather than merely doing his job, he also believes the law is correct. He then certified a citizens petitionm which he knew had fraduluently obtained signatures, that would not only ban same sex marriage, but also civil unions. This despite the opinion of the past two attorney generals that he had grounds to deny certification (and in its decision, the SJC did not say he had to certify the initiative but that it was in his purview to do so…if had not certified the petition, it’s not clear that the SJC would have found he was wrong).
<
p>
On top of all that, Reilly is the only of the three candidates not to have had a single event designed for the GLBT community. He did not march in this years pride parade (the second largest parade in the city annually). He is the only of the three candidates to decide not to participate in next week’s GLBT candidate debate.
<
p>
Has Reilly worked hard enough, long enough or with enough vigor? Well, no. He hasn’t really worked at all for GLBT rights. In fact, he has worked hard and long and with vigor trying to deny equal marriage to the citizens of Massachusetts.
Good posts Dave and wahoowa. Reilly’s actions do not match his rhetoric. Not surprising given what we have seen so far from him in his campaign.
To be disappointed in Reilly’s act would imply that I expect better of him. I stopped expecting better after Thursday night’s display of below-the-belt punches.
<
p>
Either Reilly is now showing us his true colors, or he’s pandering to the Steve Lynch vote, or both.
He was late to the game and hasn’t strongly protected my rights, why would I think he actual believes it? He was against equality in marriage until the polls made it seem very, very silly to be against it in a democratic primary.
<
p>
Quite simply, I don’t trust him on that issue. The only one I explicitly trust is Deval, though I think Gabrieli would be okay.
<
p>
That said, there’s no way Reilly wins now, so I’m not going to fret over the fact that he’s no friend to the gays.
Why would Reilly want to protect anti-gay regressives in other states? His first duty should be to Massachusetts residents and Massachusetts businesses. The 1913 law, as David points out, is blocking us from reaping millions and millions of dollars in lucrative marriage business. We need all the money we can get. Cut nose: spite face.