When same-sex marriage first became legal in 2004, the critics declared that the world would end that this marked the end of civilization as we knew it. Of course they were wrong. Nothing has changed.
I understand how some people dont like the concept of same-sex marriage. I understand how it is contrary to their religious traditions, and I respect their opinions and their traditions. We live in a society, however, that values diversity and respects our differences. We also live in a society that allows each of us to practice our own religions without interference from government in any way. That is why it is of utmost importance to remember that same-sex marriage is only about civil marriage not religious marriage. Every religion is free to choose whether it recognizes same-sex marriage or not, and I will always work to protect that right.
I also understand how the people who signed the petition in favor of the constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage feel cheated today. Many of them thought that the decision should have been put before the voters for a popular vote on this issue. I understand their frustration.
The Massachusetts Constitution is clear that the Legislature must approve any proposed Constitutional amendment before it is placed on the ballot. If the framers of the Constitution did not want the Legislature to have this role, then they would have allowed proposed amendments to go directly to the ballot without requiring the Legislature to first consider its merits. The role of the Legislature was not to consider the question of whether or not the people should vote on the issue our job was to consider the merits of the issue. A majority of the Legislature was opposed to the proposed amendment because we thought that it was discriminatory. The majority ruled the day.
I just went through a re-election campaign in which I personally spoke with over 9,000 voters. Perhaps 15 of them mentioned same-sex marriage as their primary issue. Most of them mentioned the economy, property taxes, health care or public education. A lot of them talked about the need to improve the state college and university system.
Those are the issues that we need to deal with. I have voted on same-sex marriage sixteen times, consistently on the side of supporting same-sex marriage rights. My constituents know how I stand on the issue. My votes have been public and well-publicized and I have consistently made my views known to anyone who asked. My final vote was a vote to end the debate, to heal, and to move on to working on the issues that really matter to the people of Massachusetts. I am excited about moving forward on the issues that truly matter in most of our lives making sure that our families have good jobs, strong public schools, good health care and are safe in our homes. It is time to move on and work on those issues.
from getting its 2nd due ConCon vote this session? And please don’t try to use the infuriatingly lame excuse of “we’re already doing it” insinuating that the Chapter 58 health reform law establishes a permanent right to comprehensive affordable and publicly accountable health care for all. Chapter 58 does not, as many of your legislative colleagues spoke to quite eloquently in their July 12 ConCon testimony. The citizens health care amendment does.
<
p>
I look forward to your reply. Thanks.
<
p>
Ann Eldridge Malone, RN, MSN
Community Health Nurse
Director, Alliance to Defend Health Care
<
p>
P.S. do you really believe that the anti-marriage rights bigots will go away now, thus “ending the debate”? I wish.
At the risk of sounding condescending, I really admire your tenacity.
Not condescending in the least, especially if you’re willing to put your shoulder to the wheel with us. 🙂
David, good to see you here!
<
p>
Is the debate over? As I understand it, it’s merely been postponed — again — to January 2nd. Is there a significant chance of anything actually happening that day, or is this just a parliamentary move to effectively close the discussion?
<
p>
I’m guessing the latter, but you’re in a (much) better place to know…
Right, Rep. Linsky might have thought he was voting “No” to end the “divisive” debate, but actually, he voted “Yes” to go into recess. It was a confusing, long day, after all.
<
p>
…until final action has been taken upon all amendments pending, the governor shall call such joint session or continuance thereof.
<
p>
So, Rep. Linsky will get another chance to vote to end the debate soon, after Governor Romney calls for a continuance of the session. The legislature is Consititionally obligated to stay in joint session until final action has been taken, and that won’t happen until 75% of the legislature joins Rep. Linsky in voting to “No” on advancing the amendment.
<
p>
The world won’t end if voters vote on marriage. It’s not as if the world hadn’t started or the sky wasn’t in the sky until marraige was legal, and the world won’t end if we vote on marriage. End the debate by letting us vote already. We’d have voted by now, and ended the divisive debate, if the original amendment hadn’t been scuttled by Jane Swift and Tom Birmingham.
It really gets me when people want to vote on whether I should be married or not. I mean really, what makes other people so superior that they should get to vote on whether I can marry the person I choose to love. I ask again, you would want the people of the Commonwealth to vote on whether you should be able to get married? This amendment is so insulting. How would another minority group feel if their rights were put to vote by the majority? Do people think that if 120,000 people signed a petition to prohibit Republicans from running for Governor that it should go to a majority vote?
Which came as the result of an amendment to the Mass Constitution?
http://www.massmomen…
…that had to be ratified by the states. And yes, men DID vote on the rights of women. I think of this every time somebody tells me I cannot vote because I am not gay.
<
p>
It’s the fabric of society – it’s similar to the argument that people without children shouldn’t have to pay for schools. A sort of boutique government.
<
p>
I don’t rike a bike – don’t fund trails? I have health insurance – screw Mass Health?
<
p>
I will get signatures to put this on the ballot again, if Rep. Linsky and Co. continue to punt instead of take a stand, so I can vote against it. But I want my right to vote.
But I want my right to vote.
<
p>
In this particular case, you don’t have that right. You do have a right to gather signatures, and I encourage you to do so if you think its the right thing to do. However, the MA Constitution is very clear: you do not have a right to vote on a proposed ammendment unless some other things happen first… and they, legally speaking, don’t have to happen.
<
p>
So, lose the “right to vote” crap. You get to vote for the lege, but that’s where it may end in this particular process.
…when did the downgrade to the POSSIBILITY of Free Petition occur?
No one prevented anyone from petitioning. No one was denied their rights — not even those wanted to deny rights to others. The requisite number of signatures were gathered, even though some were fraudulent (which in some places, I gather, invalidates the petition entirely, no matter how many were legit), and the amendment went onto the ConCon schedule. It didn’t get acted on, and I’m not a legal scholar, so it’s not entirely clear to me whether what was done does or does not constitute the proposed amendment being “laid before a joint session of the two houses.” But as far as I can tell, the joint session is not explicitly required to actually hold a vote on such a proposed amendment, and stomv says, and as I said not long ago, there is no automatic “right to vote” here. You have the right to vote on a Constitutional amendment if and only if if passes two subsequent Constitutional conventions. If it had been voted on, and had gotten fewer than 50 votes, or if it had passed this ConCon and been voted down at the next one, would you have complained about being denied your rights, and demanded that the legislature “let the people vote”? Of course not, but what actually happened doesn’t infringe on your right to vote any more than the amendment being voted down by the ConCon would.
<
p>
I agree with you that it looks underhanded to kill the amendment this way, and I agree with you that it will likely be counterproductive, because it will give more fuel to the pro-discrimination movement, who will raise exactly the same unfounded hue and cry that you have. I agree that having the vote, and voting the amendment down either at this ConCon, at the next one, or at the ballot in 2008, would have been much more effective in putting the matter to rest once and for all. But stop acting aggrieved because some supposed right to have all proposed Constitutional amendments immediately brought to a plebiscite has been violated — you are clearly an intelligent and educated person, so I doubt you don’t actually know that there is no such right, which unfortunately leaves as the only reasonable conclusion, that your arguments are simply disingenuous.
Exactly right!
A formal written request, typically one signed by many people, appealing to authority with respect to a particular cause; she was asked to sign a petition against plans to build on the local playing fields;
<
p>
(v., trans.), make or present a formal request to (an authority) with respect to a particular cause: Americans who moved west petitioned the Legislature for admission to the Union as states | [trans.] Leaders petitioned the government to hold free elections soon.
<
p>
ORIGIN: Middle English; from Latin, petitio (n-), from petit-, ‘aimed at, sought, laid claim to,’ from the verb petere.
<
p>
[Oxford American Dictionary]
<
p>
<
p>
You’ll notice that voting upon said request is not part of the definition nor of the word’s derivations. I’m no lawyer, but it seems pretty clear-cut to me.
<
p>
The promulgators of this cause did petition the legislature freely, as is their right, and as per the above definition. The petition was received and acted upon by the legislature.
<
p>
You may not like how they acted upon it, but there in fact has been no “downgrading” whatsoever of the anti-equal marriage faction’s right to petition.
Had they voted it DOWN, well and good.
<
p>
But strike up the fiddles for the Weasel Dance, for the Recessive Legislators!
But MY point, that the act of petitioning still doesn’t inherently include voting, still stands.
Do you think the Bill of Rights was handed down over a burning bush? Those rights and all the rest were indeed voted on.
There is a distinction to be made here that is important. While there have been votes to extend rights to groups of people and while there have been votes to deny right to people who have never had them (i.e. the anit-gay marriage amendments in places like VA, SD, etc.), there has never been a popular vote to take away rights from a group that already enjoys those rights. That is a huge and important distinction.
and the outcome, I think, speaks for itself.
With the exception of one amendment, every amendment has been adopted through the process where Congress passed the amendment and then 3/4 of state legislatures (and not a popular vote of the people) have then approved the amendment.
<
p>
The other way an amendment was approved was the process by which the amendment was approved by congress and then by 3/4 of the states through conventions called to vote on such amendment. Ironically, that was the 21st Amendment which ended prohibition.
<
p>
So, my statement stands. Never had a popular vote to take away existing rights.
Representative, its good to see someone from the General Court on here to talk about the ConCon. We can play pundit all we want, but you were there on the floor. Unfortunatly, while you are correct in what the Constitution requires of you, you are incorrect in what you voted to do. You said, correctly
<
p>
<
p>
Unfortunatly, thats not what you did. You voted to recess the ConCon, with the hope of killing the amendment, before you ever got the chance to “consider the merits of the issue.”
<
p>
You also say that
<
p>
<
p>
and while you are correct there, unfortunatly thats not what the Constitution requires. It requires a supermajority of 75%+1 in order to kill this amendment.
<
p>
You punted on this issue, and did a disservice to all who care about democracy by doing so. I don’t feel disappointed, Representative, I feel disenfranchised. I don’t think I was cheated, I think our Constitution and our Commonwealth was.
<
p>
You sought to protect what you belive to be, but are not really, civil rights for a minority. While your intention is noble, you actions trampled on the civil and Constitutional rights of 170,000 other citizens. If this amendment was so unpopular that it was voted down in the ConCon I would accept it and move on. Unfortunatly you did not, and so the battle continues.
<
p>
You may think that your vote was to “vote to end the debate,” but you have only prolonged it. The argument that its time to move on rings hollow.
‘You voted to recess the ConCon, with the hope of killing the amendment, before you ever got the chance to “consider the merits of the issue.” ‘
<
p>
What makes you think that he, or all the other legislators, or all the other citizens of this state, haven’t gotten a chance to “consider the merits of the issue”?!?
<
p>
You really think that Thursday was the first time that 200 legislators had ever seen the ballot measure, ever had a chance to hear the arguments pro and con?!
The problem with same-sex marriage in Massachusetts is that it is not statutory. It is a common law decision by interpretation of the state constitution.
<
p>
There is no statute which explicitly authorizes same-sex marriage.
<
p>
Therefore, until there is, the issue will not go away. The only reason that the invasive radical-right is attempting to address this issue by a petitioned constitutional amendment is they know there will be no legislative statute in their favor given the current state legislature.
<
p>
The only action that can be taken to put this issue to rest is to pass a statute explicitly authorizing same-sex marriage.
<
p>
It’s something that all three branches of Massachusetts government agree upon.
<
p>
Why not actually take affirmative steps to put the issue to rest?
<
p>
Then, and only then, I will agree it is time to move on.
<
p>
Thank you for your comments on this website. I appreciate your continued participation.
What we have is actually better than a statute or law because this emanates directly from the constitution which means the only way it can be “overturned” is by the constitutional amendment or a majority decision again in court that would reverse the thousands of marriages. A statute can be repealed by a simple majority of of legislators. As we have seen the process involved in getting the marriages overturned as things stand now isn’t an easy one and I actually think marriages are safer now than if we just passed a law.
and is not explicit. Given a different MA Supreme Court, there can be different results (Read: SCOTUS re: Roe v. Wade)
<
p>
The constitution itself is a statute; if determined to be more appropriate than passing a legislative statute, they can themselves put forth a constitutional amendment using explicit, bright-line language of equality.
<
p>
Which the Governor-elect would most likely sign
Which the MA Supreme Court would rule with, in every case, in every change of personnel.
<
p>
By your measure, abortion will never be overturned. I disagree with this suggestion entirely, because the thesis is flawed. The courts can reasonably change their mind.
I am not sure what your point is with Roe as that decision is still valid and still good law. Abortion is still legal. I will concede that the right to an abortion has been seriously eroded but nonetheless the right still exists.
<
p>
Secondly, at least from a legal perspective, the constitution is NOT a statute, not even close. That is why the process of changing a constitution is vastly different from changing a statute.
<
p>
Thirdly, I never said that, nor suggested, that judicial precedent cannot be overturned. Actually my point was quite the opposite. I recognized that both a statute and a judicial interpretation could be overturned. I took issue with your suggestion that a “law” made marriage safer. The principle of stare decisis is for the most part sacred in our courts. That is why Roe still stands despite the onslaught of conservative judges. Judicial precedent is only overturned in the rarest of circumstances. A statute, however, can be overturned with the simple switching of parties. That is why Dems have a chance to undo a lot of Republican harm. We do not want an issue as important as same-sex marriage being at the mercy of simple politics.
<
p>
Lastly, I would like to remind you that many, many rights of this country are protected by only judicial decisions. There is no explicit right to privacy in the Constitution yet courts routinely recognize such a right. Marriage wasn’t declared a fundamental right until 1957 in Loving v. Virginia. Do you think that before then people didn’t assume they had the right to marry? Why is that? Because of past judicial decisions. Hypothetically five Supreme Court justices could erase 100 or more years of precedent on whim. No right any of us holds is absolute. Most can be taken away with the stroke of a pen or at the very least can be seriously undermined. Legislature are often petty places. I am happy that a judicial decision that interpreted our constitution is what is protecting the rights of gays and lesbians to marry because history has shown that that method is far more secure than a simple law.
for posting here. Thank you for your vote(s) on this issue. Thank you for understanding that this issues does not belong on the ballot. Thank you on so many levels.
<
p>
I think it is really sad that so many people who say they support marriage equality say this won’t rest for them until it either goes to the general ballot, or to a vote up or down vote on the ‘merits’.
<
p>
This has been voted on many times, as you point out.
<
p>
How many times do we all have to go through this? Do any of the “Vote! Vote! Vote!” people understand what it is like to go through a campaign on this issue? Go ask the people of Ohio. Or Missouri. It is horrible. On so many levels. Do I feel bad that the legislature acted to stop that? No Way!
<
p>
If the Constitution demanded an up or down vote on the merits and no other way to dispose of issues, then there would be no other way to deal with them. Everybody knows the rules don’t force a vote in that way.
<
p>
If this measure had the support there is no way the other methods would have been availible. It did not have the support, so it will die.
<
p>
How about we deal with something that will make the state better? Jobs, education, health care. Why harp on this issue that will hurt the state.
Now, I understand that this has taken up lots of legislative time — time that could be spent working on health care, education reform, infrastructure improvement, energy plans, environmental programs, etc. Additionally, I can’t even begin to understand the fear and frustration that married homosexuals are feeling right now.
<
p>
But, there is a silver lining. The longer this drags on, the longer it stays in the news both in MA and across tUSA. We are currently the sole beacon of full civil (equal protection) and other rights in the nation, and every time that news goes out, I believe that we convince more people that this really is “no big deal” to their lives. It doesn’t threaten their marriages, jobs, homes, 401ks, or fishing poles.
<
p>
So, as this drags on, think of the bright side. The longer it stays in the news, the more the middle will come to the side of full rights for all adults.
<
p>
Exactly right and well said.
I, for one, appreciate Representative Linsky’s comments. More importantly, I appreciate his vote and the votes of the majority of his colleagues. It is time to put this silly, divisive and hateful debate behind us.
<
p>
The rights of any minority should never be on a ballot. The legislature stepped up to the plate and did the right thing. Voting to postpone was essentially saying no to the right wing bigots and ensuring equal treatment for all Massachusetts citizens and taxpayers. Bravo!
<
p>
Now, let’s get on with the important issues of the day…
Yet I still wait with baited breath to hear the good Representative’s reply to my sincere and earnest inquiry about the status of the citizens health care amendment.
<
p>
As I understand it, the health care amendment held the status of item #3 on the ConCon calendar yet was placed after item #20 on the Nov 9 ConCon agenda.
<
p>
State Senators who were present at the Nov 9 pre-ConCon Caucus report that when a Senator inquired of Senate President Travaglini if the “special study committee” assigned to study the health care amendment (comprised of the joint committee on health care finance led by Sen Moore and Rep Walrath) would be directed to report their findings back to the full ConCon body for deliberation so that a second vote on the health care amendment could proceed, the Senate President laughed and stated in essence not to expect anything. Ever.
<
p>
Very disturbing to say the least.
<
p>
Adding to these facts, ever since the prior ConCon on July 12, calls and letters from scores of citizens to legislative leadership and to their own legislators asking for a clear explanation about the status of the citizens health care amendment
have gone unanswered.
<
p>
When legislators have been asked in person, the answers amount to little more than a dance of distraction with no substance, or ending with “it’s in the Senate President’s hands” (that is what Sen Richard Moore said me and a colleague on Nov 5 at the American Public Health Association conference).
<
p>
Thus any information that you would be so kind as to provide about the status of the citizens health care amendment would be deeply appreciated.
Thanks David for your vote to recess this intolerant attempt at amending our state constitution. I only wish my outgoing Rep.Shirley Gomes had the compassion to do the same for her gay constituents, but it appears that she only represents the homophobes of her district. Say what you want, justify away, but this petition was bigotry plain and simple. Time to move on.
I’m a constituent from Natick — I applaud your position and appreciate you posting here on BMG. This is a tough situation because the initiative process doesn’t leave you many options. In a perfect world it would be great to just vote this thing down during the Con Con. Given that you only need 50 votes to move it forward — and amazingly there are 50 people who want to move it forward — I support the procedural maneuvering to stop it on moral grounds (you don’t vote on cival rights).
<
p>
Will you continue the fight to lower the criminal penalties on bestiality, perhaps even eliminating them altogether?
http://www.weeklydig…
When I read the bill, all I could think was – how INSULTING to gay people, that An Act To Eliminate Archaic Laws, meant to eliminate criminal penalties for adultery and sodomy, and intended to protect gay people, should INCLUDE a relaxation of bestiality penalties.
<
p>
Link – http://www.mass.gov/…
which included lots of different kinds. 20 years in jail seems like a lot for doing gross stuff with animals. Is 2.5 years long enough? I’m glad I’m not expected to come up with answers sometimes, but I am glad that the lege “lightened up” on the laws. Sometimes removing laws or making them simpler is a part of legislative activity that doesn’t ever get done.
I sure hope not. That would be beneath even you.
..and yet that is how the bill was written, whihc I found insulting and shocking.
my question was directed at pers-1765.
Using beastiality as an argument point against gay marriage is an overt attempt to equate the two, and I am ashamed of that comparison for you. People have a right to choose their own path and follow their own beliefs. That right is inalienable. We are only now coming out of the dark ages of religious tyrrany, our history of such does not constitute justification for oppression.
We should not be able to vote on the cival rights. It’s up to the Courts to interpret the Constitution, and they have. Please, let’s kill this thing once and for all.
…why did the decision specifically mention that the legislature could act?
Respectfully, Mr. Representative, you just did the wrong thing.
<
p>
The pro-gay-marriage folks have, by your decision to recess and dodge the vote, lost a shot at legitimacy. Upthread, someone said you can’t vote civil rights. The opponents however, don’t think the gay marriage is a civil right. Isn’t that a fair disagreement between two opposing factions in a democracy?
<
p>
Regardless if you think it is or isn’t, the 109 weasel votes interrupted the democratic process in favor of an early dinner, and with it you interrupted the opportunity for the reasoned debate, and the opportunity for the legitimacy of gay marriage.
<
p>
Massachusetts, to my chagrin on many other issues, is quite liberal. I think the gay marriage vote would pass. I’d vote for it. Without some stalwart politicians with the strength of conviction we’ll never know.
<
p>
Absent a change of attitude, I’ll personally support your opposition in your next election.
<
p>
Supporters of Jim Crow didn’t think it was a matter of civil rights, either. They thought they were upholding some twisted form of a) social primacy b) God’s will c)the natural order of things or d) all of the above.
<
p>
It’s never about civil rights when you disagree, right? Who wants to be on record opposting that?
<
p>
Pathetic.
Pathetic is a strong word, isn’t it? For example, I think I have a civil right to housing. The government should provide for high quality, free shelter for me from when I am 21 until I die. It’s a civil right!
<
p>
Furthermore anyone who opposes me does so because they believe in some twisted idea that God wills that it be the natural order of things that we pay for housing. So don’t have a vote — gimme gimme gimme!
<
p>
Snark aside, I am as firm a supporter of marriage equality as you’ll find. However, It will not be a lasting right until the majority of Americans believes so. They may disbelieve for any good or reprehensible reason, but the way our country is set up does not allow for the prolonged infliction of something that people don’t believe on the population. And the way to convince them so is not be sneaking around procedural maneuvers to thwart the people’s will to voice an opinion.
<
p>
So you’re equating housing to the right to marry? So the government should purchase–housing must be bought or built, remember, at someone’s expense–housing for you as a civil right? On what legal basis are you entitled to financial remedy at taxpayer expense to procure your housing? Housing and marriage are not analogous in any way.
<
p>
The term “civil rights” has specific meaning in law. Civil rights are rights of personal liberty established by the 13th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution as well as certain Congressional acts. These rights are specifically considered civil in nature when applied to an individual or a minority group. A civil right does not derive its legitimacy from the beliefs of a majority of Americans. Indeed, every advance in protecting or advancing civil rights under these Amendments has been done through unpopular and divisive decisions rendered by the courts. These decisions are based on the inherent unconstitutionality of the substitution of separate but equal for denied access. The same considerations were applied by the SJC in the Goodridge decision.
Just because the Court rules, it doesnt mean they are right, and it doesn’t mean the decision won’t be overulled and looked back upon with shame.
<
p>
At one point in time the due process clause was found to include the “right” to work as many hours as “you” wanted, never mind if it was healthy or safe for you or the people around you. You could “agree” to work 96 hours at the top of a skyscraper (or, in the case of Lochner v NY, as a baker) if you wanted because that was a civil right granted to you under the 14th amendment to the US Constitution.
<
p>
I could go on and on – Dred Scott, Plessy v Ferguson, etc etc etc.
…but I can assure you that there are many of us who won’t. I believe that the Court’s decision was courageous and just, as was the legislature’s decision to recess on Thursday. And I believe that ten years or so from now, people will look back and wonder what all the fuss was about gay marriage.
Lightiris, you make a very good argument, and one that I agree with. However, it’s an argument for one side of the debate. As long as people feel that there is another side, its very existence makes legalism and definition a tool to be used in debate, not a path to finding a correct answer. You could make a similar argument about women’s suffrage, but that argument is only seen as relevant because everyone agrees with it — the same argument would have been laughable in 1906.
<
p>
The idea of “civil rights” and what constitutes one is the product of a consensus, later codified in legal language. There is a high wall around civil rights, but if it goes against the consensus, then the wall can be brought down by electing different politicians to appoint different judges.
<
p>
People spoke of civil rights back when gays did not officially exist in America. That consensus changed at least in Mass., but it has not changed relative to same-sex marriage. The only way to preserve the civil right of marriage equality is to change the consensus — and using cheap parliamentary trickery to preserve the status quo is the exact wrong way to do that.
buys the one thing the foes of this wave of progress don’t want granted – time. Time for the ordinary citizen to realize that equal marriage rights for gays and lesbians does not detract from nor weaken their own marriages, despite the lies and propaganda spread by the Christianists and other right-wing factions, most of whom appear to be coming from out of state to stir up a hornets’ nest against something that, like the brouhaha over “illegals,” most residents of this Commonwealth wouldn’t give more than a passing thought to otherwise.
<
p>
The more time passes and the more folks see that same-sex marriage makes ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE in the state or legal status of their own marriages; the more that folks realize that the right of various religious authorities to deny same-sex marriages within their own faith traditions will not be affected by the SJC ruling, and the more that folks come to see that denying the legal, social, economic and civil rights afforded by the state to same-sex married couples that they grant to hetero couples is destabilizing to not only the individuals (and their families) who are directly involved but to the well-being of society as a whole; the more these same ordinary people will finally shrug when confronted with attempts to whip up a lathered hysteria on the subject and say, “So? What’s the big deal?”, and the less likely a push to deny civil rights will gain a purchase with voters.
<
p>
That’s why those opposing equal marriage rights are so incensed by the delays in bringing this to a popular vote. They’re afraid – with good reason – that average voters will see that the sky won’t fall if same-sex couples have the right to visit each other in hospitals, to inherit each other’s property without having blood relatives suddenly appear out of nowhere to contest the will, to assume custody of children without the additional burden of a formal adoption process that is not required of hetero couples… you get the picture.
<
p>
Time is the enemy of the anti-gay marriage crowd. If their cause was solid and just, time wouldn’t be an issue, and they know it. Popular opposition to slavery – another cause justified on biblical grounds – grew with time. It didn’t diminish. As much as the anti-marriage equality folks like to equate the abolitionist movement with their own, these folks dread, not welcome, the effects of time upon support for their cause.
<
p>
That “cheap parlimentary trickery” is EXACTLY the way to change the consensus. That’s what’s driving their rage at the delays by the legislature. They know that given the opportunity, time will, prior to the issue coming up for a popular vote, render their cause superfluous and – dare I say it? – quaint.
“the Christianists and other right-wing factions, most of whom appear to be coming from out of state” (whatever a Christianist is). There are plenty of us who favor this amendment who are native born and bred agnostics like myself, who serve on Town Democratic Committees, attend Democratic conventions, vote Democratic, volunteer for Democratic candidates, etc, etc, etc. Youve never heard me argue against SSM on Biblical grounds, just Constititional ones.
<
p>
You can try to paint a picture thats more to your likeing if you want, but it doesn’t look like reality.
Kai,
<
p>
I think this is the first time I have seen you say you support the amendment. Interesting, because in past posts you have argued that people shouldn’t object to some of your posts because they did not know whether you were pro or anti gay marriage. Good to know now so we can truly put your comments into perspective. Now we know for sure that your problem is not one over procedure, but one over outcome.
<
p>
What picture I, and other like me, can paint is one where over 63% of those in Massachusetts polled oppose this amendment. This amendment has zero chance of passing. If it were left up to a vote of the people what is will do is twofold. One, it will mark Massachusetts as the first governmental entity ever to allow a vote that on an amendment that actively seeks to take away a set of rights that a group of people actively enjoy. Two, it will invite a terrible and divisive debate into the state the result of which will be to incite homophobic feelings and acts and will really tear this state apart. Given the cicurmstances, why would anyone who cares about this state want to see that happen?
<
p>
As for your Constitutional argument, you have yet to express in any coherent matter why the SJC was wrong in stating that under a rational basis review the state had no legitimate interest in denying gays the right to marry.? You keep harping back to this idea that marriage is not a “civil right.” Why that is part of the argument that pro-gay marriage people use, it’s not the basis for the decision in Goodridge. So, in fact, the argument you make isn’t a “Constitutional” one, it’s a debate over semantics. So what is the legitimate state interest that exists to deny gays the right to marry?
I wrote the sentence in which I say I support SSM twice, and didn’t properly clean it up during the rewrite. Like you said I did try to keep how I felt about the amendment unclear so as not to cloud the issue, but now I guess its time for me to come out, as it were.
<
p>
Several years ago, before Goodridge, an amendment came before the ConCon to ban gay marriage. I believe it was voted down because no one believed that the Courts would actually rule the way they did, and so it was unnecessary. Around the same time a gay friend from college and his boyfriend drove up from NYC to visit. They had never been to P-Town before, so we spent a few days on the Cape. The first discussion I ever had on this issue was with them, in P-Town, in a lesbian bar of all place. All the eyes in the bar were on us to begin with, and our conversation did nothing to diminish the attention.
<
p>
Even though I then opposed SSM I opposed the amendment then because I didn’t think it was necessary. Today I still oppose SSM, but now support the amendment. I could write a whole diary on why, but its not as Sharoney accuses upthread because I am a “Christianist” using Biblical arguments.
<
p>
It is Aristotle. I look at marriage and ask what its telos is. Unlike CJ Marshall I think that the begetting and raising of children is an essential part of marriage. Children are best served being raised in loving homes with both their mother and father present and active in their lives. In short, biology matters.
<
p>
Is marriage solely about procreation? No, of course not. Rarely does anything in this world have a single telos. Using anything without (all of) its proper telos(es) in mind is to use it improperly, however. Children are one important aspect of marriage and to remove them would be to diminish the marriage. Can gay couples provide stable and loving homes for children? Absolutely. Its second best, however, and when it comes to our children the state should settle for nothing but the best.
<
p>
So, I apologize for the error in my above comment. I will have to be more careful when posting from now on, especially when I go through more than one draft of a post.
Kai, I frankly think it’s disengenous to argue the merits on the amendment in a forum like this without disclosing your true feelings. It somehow discredits your argument and makes people wonder what ulterior motives you have whenever you make a statement/argument. Since you suddenly appeared on this site on election day, you have been arguing that your objection is based on so-called consitutional grounds. However, we now learn the truth.
<
p>
I think there are many flaws in your argument, and I’m not really sure where to begin. If, as I take it, your opposition to gay marriage is based on procreation, then I have some questions for you. The obvious is, if gays should not be allowed to marry because they cannot procreate with each other, should we then prohibit people who are sterile from marrying? How about post-menopausal woman? And if the concern is that anything less than a mother/father home is subpar, shouldn’t the amendment be about outlawing gay adoption as opposed to gay marriage (or both)? And should we outlaw single family homes? How about an amendment where if you have children, you cannot divorce?
<
p>
I am sure that all those straight couples out there who either choose not to have children or are simply unable to do so will really appreciate your notion that their marriage is somehow less worthy than those relationships that beget children.
<
p>
And what evidence do you have to support your mother/father families are better? The studies used to support the idea that families without fathers are subpar focused on single mother families and not a family with two mothers. So those aren’t really relevant. And there, socio-economic concerns really cloud any potential conclusion. In fact, studies which have compared same sex and opposite sex parental homes have shown that there are no discernable differences on the long term well-being of children from each sets of households.
<
p>
Also, your argument contradicts itself. In one paragraph you argue that gays shouldn’t marry because if they have children it is bad for the child. Then in the next your argue that gay marriages are likely to be less worthy or valuable because they might not have children. So which is it?
about whether or not when a man and a woman present themselves for a marriage license if they are capable or willing to have children. Since we can not determine their intentions, we have to give them the benefit of the doubt. When two men present themselves for a license, we can be sure that they are unable to concienve a child together.
<
p>
The world is less than perfect so no, we should not outlaw single parent households, or outlaw divorce for households with children, etc. Life happens, and we need contingency plans. However, we should not encourage those situations like we encourage marriage.
<
p>
I can not cite specific studies off the top of my head, though I know they exist. I would instead refer you again to The Philosopher. Something that is natural is better than something manufactured. A baked potato is better than a potato chip. A child will do better with her biological parents than she will in a foster home (the biological and foster parents being equal, of course). It may not be the most popular thing to say on BMG, but truth isn’t determined by popular vote, as I have read on here before.
<
p>
No true at all. As someone with a family ravaged by cancer, for example, I am very grateful for manufactured pharmaceuticals that have saved the lives of every single member of my immediate family.
<
p>
I am also grateful for the manufactured surgical instrumentation used to excise tumors. I’m pleased the surgeons didn’t use pointed sticks.
<
p>
I am grateful for manufactured insulin that comes in nice little bottles to go with those manufactured syringes.
<
p>
Do we really need to create a “manufactured” list that demonstrates the ways in which “manufactured” is more advantageous than “natural”?
<
p>
<
p>
First, the scenario you set up does not exist in the real world. Children are placed in foster care precisely because their parent(s) are unable to provide adequate and safe care. It frequently goes something like this: frustrated parent beats living shit out of child. Sometimes withholds food as punishment. Sometimes goes to jail. Or, perhaps, substance abusive parent neglects child and a mandatory reporter drops a dime. Or biological parent drinks his/her supper every night. DSS removes child from home and places child in emergency foster care and then into a more stable foster care environment until such time as the parent is, perhaps, stable, clean, and even, in many cases, out of jail.
<
p>
Children do best in the care of stable and loving adults. It’s a very nice thing when those adults are stable and loving as well as biologically related to the child, but often that is not the case. You seen, “natural” is not always better at all. Does society prefer to have children in the care of biological parents? Yes. Does society often decide that the child cannot flourish with those parents? Yes again.
<
p>
Your simplistic, black/white approach to complex issues is disturbing, to say the least. The logic you exhibit in this comment alone reveals you to be incapable of rational discussion on the merits of same-sex marriage primarily because you insist on cluttering the landscape with irrelevant baggage and/or biases. You argue the margins, and when you manage to drift in from the margins, you resort to abstractions that have no real applicability, like arguing consenting menopausal women should be allowed to marry their sons.
<
p>
Baked potatoes and chips, indeed.
knew when we planned to marry that we would not be having any children. That reality was not subject to debate, second thoughts, or persuasion.
<
p>
Under your scenario, I should not, therefore, have been encouraged to marry because I would not ever become a biological parent as a result of that union.
That kind of thinking is not only insulting, it is chilling. Marriage is not, nor should it be, an institution based upon biological functions, nor would I want to live in a society that defined it that way.
<
p>
Pick another argument, because not only does that one not hold water, it is offensive on its face.
don’t put words in my mouth.
<
p>
<
p>
Go back and read what I said again. I didn’t accuse you of being a Christianist or acting from Biblical motives. If you want to own that title, fine, but I didn’t presume to know your motives for opposing SSM, so don’t pretend that I did.
<
p>
<
p>
I have no children, nor do I ever plan to have them, nor did I plan to have them before I married my spouse of 25+ years. Are you therefore saying that because my emotional, religious and legal relationship with my partner of choice intentionally did not include children that it is therefore inherently “diminished”? That it is “second best”? That I am “using [marriage] improperly”?
<
p>
How dare you, Kai. The arrogance of that sentiment, even wrapped in philosophical packaging, is utterly breathtaking.
Marriage gives a couple the right to conceive children together, and same-sex couples should not have the right to conceive children together. Whether a couple is actually able to, or intends to, doesn’t matter, what matters is that they are adults, not married to other people already, and not too closely related. If they pass these things, then they can get married, which means we (the state) approves of them having children together, in principle. Because same-sex conception would be unsafe and unwise and unethical, we should withhold approval of a same-sex couple having children together. We would do that by adding “another man” to the list of relationships that men are not allowed to marry, and “another woman” to the list of relationships that women are not allowed to marry.
<
p>
This response is not only off-topic, but utterly nonsensical. I’ll leave it at that.
I am trying to help Kai get across how marriage relates to procreation: it gives the right to procreate. it doesn”t matter if the couple is able to or not, it doesn’t even matter if they intend to or not, they can still get married. And it doesn’t matter that they can procreate without marriage, the point is that marriage grants the right to procreate, and so any couple that is allowed to procreate is allowed to marry (in fact, the idea is (not was) that they are required to marry, to publicly commit to each other and consent to procreation, before they are allowed to do anything that might result in procreation). And no one should have the right to procreate with someone of their own sex, because it is unsafe and unethical. Same-sex conception should not be allowed, researchers should be redirected to other fields. If you don’t know about same-sex conception, visit my site eggandsperm.org
but there is a great show called (I think) Myth Busters. They try to prove or disprove all sorts of urban legends and in the process use all manner of everyday items for completely crazy purposes.
<
p>
I don’t think that anyone would argue that the purpose of vodka is to eliminate poison ivy, or that salami was designed to be used as rocket fuel. Does it make for good television to see chickens shot out of cannons and crash test dummies blown up? Sure, but are they using these objects properly? No.
<
p>
Just because I don’t think they are respecting the telos of the hammer (or chicken, or vodka) doesn’t mean that I think any less of them. I can think of several ways in my own life I abuse things for my own satisfaction.
<
p>
If you hadn’t told me, I never would have asked about your willingness or ability to have children – its none of my business. As a single man I don’t profess to judge you and your spouse, or the men on Myth Busters for that matter. All I’m saying is that this is how I understand the institution to be. If you would like to offer another vision, I would love to hear it, rather than be dismissed out of hand.
<
p>
Nice try. You the one who first brought up children as the ultimate object or aim of marriage. Obviously you didn’t expect to be challenged on it by someone whose personal situation is not simply a convenient but irrelevant philosophical abstraction designed to define the terms of a discussion.
<
p>
But you’re correct that it’s none of your business – or anyone else’s. That was my whole point. I’m glad you agree.
<
p>
<
p>
Oh, please. This after saying that not “respecting the telos” = “abusing things for my own satisfaction”? I hardly call that a non-judgmental statement.
that having children was “ultimate object or aim of marriage.” I said it was one of several important aspects of marriage. You missrepesented my statement elsewhere, as well.
<
p>
As for it being a non judgemental statement, it was directed towards myself, and not to you or anyone else. You can infer what you like from it, but I really do not presume to judge you or the state of your marriage, or anyone elses. As I said before, I am laying out my vision of the institution, and you are free to rebut me with another. So far you haven’t, you’ve only gotten defensive when there was no slight intended.
The Civil Rights Act and the Votings Rights Act are what established many of our civil rights in the first place.
Perhaps my inartful articulation is problematic for you, but a little patience in helping someone clarify what they are trying to say would go a long way. I don’t dispute what you say; indeed, I didn’t mention the legislation specifically because I didn’t really think it was necessary. I was referring instead to the controversial court decisions that have resulted.
<
p>
Really, Bob, your tone sometimes is such that you have no authority whatsoever to lecture anybody on civility on this site. Dial it back a bit.
You’re trying to refute the notion that because marriage is a civil right, there should be no vote on same-sex marriage. But that’s not the question at issue here.
<
p>
Whether marriage is a civil right is irrelevant, because it’s not really the civil right we’re talking about here. We’re talking about equal treatment under the law, which I’m pretty sure no one will deny is a civil right. Lightiris’s response to you crystallized this for me. And to let opposite-sex couples marry, and not same-sex couples, is to treat some people differently under the law than others.
<
p>
I haven’t really changed my mind much about the problems with the ConCon’s action on the amendment, for purely pragmatic reasons: voting on the measure would have shut up the bigots (until the next ConCon, anyway), and when it got defeated at the second session, or at the ballot — I remain confident that it would — they would be completely out of ammunition and credibility. However, ignore all the language specific to marriage, and all the heightened emotions easily whipped up by that subject, and consider the fact that the proposal before the ConCon was not, as it purported to be, just to enshrine a particular legal definition, but to treat one class of citizens differently under the law from another. The question of civil rights involved would be exactly the same if the proposal were not to ban same-sex marriage, but to deny gays the right to own property, or women the right to vote. To propose such a thing is deeply horrible; it is inhuman. So whatever the pragmatic arguments, to look at such a proposal and decide that it is so unacceptable on its face that it should not even be voted on, is an eminently morally defensible position.
namely family members. A woman who wishes to marry her son will still be excluded, and thus treated differntly under the law. So should we then allow incestuous marriages? After all,
<
p>
<
p>
Society can no longer claim that it has an interest in preventing them, and its not only a question of equal treatment under the law. We don’t have to worry about the products of incestuous sexual relations in marriage either according to Goodridge. As CJ Marshall said
<
p>
<
p>
and the money quote:
<
p>
<
p>
However, just to make it easy, tell me why a post-menopausal woman shouldnt be allowed to marry her son.
if the legislature has taken any action to affirm the right and describe the process of equal marriage? As far as I remember, the legislature refused to act during the 6 months the court gave them. The court said: make marriage open to couples of all genders or eliminate marriage and make civil unions available to couples of all genders. The legislature did nothing, and I think Romney had to formalize it by changing the forms from “husband” and “wife” to “spouse 1” and “spouse 2”. What has happened since then? Has the legislature affirmed same-sex marriage rights at all?
Get real! Yes, it is only Demon Romnney who has reacted to the legal chang.
I am happy that so many of you have decided to way in on my post concerning the Constitutional Convention. Discussion on this topic is healthy.
<
p>
I will try and give some answers to some of the questions raised:
<
p>
1. As to the Health Care Amendment: I was proud to be one of the Members of the Legislature to vote in favor of the original amendment and against putting into a study. The order of the agenda for November 9th was set by the Senate President, and as a House Member, was not present at the Senate Caucus so I can’t comment on what went on there. It is unfortunate that the Health Care Amendment was lost in collateral damage to the recessing of the Convention to kill the anti-gay marriage amendment. While I fully support the health care amendment, it was more important to me personally to kill the anti-gay marriage amendment. I am sorry, but that was the choice we had to make.
<
p>
2. My vote to recess was not a way to avoid being counted. I have voted in favor of equal marriage 16 times and my constituents know where I stand. I have opined on the topic numerous times in the local media and it was a major issue in my two most recent re-election campaigns.
<
p>
3. There is ample precedent for what we did this week. Interestingly, in 1990 a state constitutional amendment that would have codified abortion rights under Roe v. Wade was headed toward passage, but the Constitutional Convention recessed before taking a final vote. This move was backed by the Catholic Church and many of the same players who now decry the same tactics that were used this week.
<
p>
4. I have stated repeatedly, it is time to move on. the vast majority of my constituents do not care about this issue very much. They want us to move on to more important issues like health care, the economy, public education and public safety. They want our legislature to stay out of our marriages, our bedrooms and our bodies.
<
p>
5. I haven’t exactly been hiding after the vote. I have posted here, been interviewed by and written an Op-Ed for the local newspaper and have talked to many constituents about the issue.
That is a fact. You chose not to vote in favor of gay marriage a 17th time.
Rep Linsky,
<
p>
I congratulate your commitment to this issue of fundamental fairness and justice. You ended your initial post saying that nothing has changed for the rest of us (as a result of equal marriage rights) – but I sumbit to you that things HAVE CHANGED for all of us – and it is for the better.
<
p>
The fact that a segment of society that has been consistently demeaned, demonized, and separated has been able to formalize their love (as they deserve) makes Massachusetts a better place for all of us. I do not need to know someone who is gay, lesbian, et cetera to feel ‘victorious.’ My life and everybody else’s life in the Commonwealth has been fundamentally changed for the better by turning its back on old bigotry and fear and recognizing our similarities.
<
p>
Keep up the good work and let’s just move on!!!
and it is wrong now. As a pro-life Democrat I would have voted against the 1990 amendment, however I would certainly would NOT have voted to adjourn before taking a vote on it. I am happy that the amendment was rejected, but I do not agree with the process used to achieve the result.
<
p>
I imagine many of the people supporting the actions of the 109 this week were up in arms in 1990, and for good reason. It would be hypocritical for anyone to support these tactics then but oppose them now, as you point out. However, its just as hypocritical to decry them then, and support them now.
<
p>
I might add, the SCOTUS has found that women have a Constitutional right to an abortion. Wouldn’t putting the 1990 amendment on the ballot simply been putting the rights of a minority on the ballot? Perhaps by your logic it was a good thing it was scuttled by procedural maneuver.
Your comment about putting the rights of a minority up for a vote is wrong. If the 1990 amendment had failed, it would not have taken away an individuals right to an abortion. So therefore, it wasn’t a vote to take away the existing rights of a minority group. Passage of the anti-gay marriage amendment would take away existing rights from a minority group. Big and important difference.
I think at least some members of the legislature voted to recess rather than vote because they don’t want to go on record voting on gay rights, whether pro or con. It is a “no win” situation politically; no matter how they vote, they are going to have a substantial number of their constituency absolutely livid at them AND a life-long record of voting that way that will be trotted out at every election from now till they lose office.
<
p>
Voting to recess in the long run is sure to have less impact on their political careers than going on record either for or against gay marriage.
<
p>
sigh
The vote had nothing to do with “going on record on gay marriage”; it had everything to do with whether 1) they are for or against gay marriage itself, and 2) whether they separately believe gay marriage rights should be voted on by the people. Group 1) is quite a bit smaller than group 2).
<
p>
Just about every legislator is already on the record on gay marriage one way or another. This vote was about substantive viewpoints on 1) and 2) above, not pushing things off.
Most if not all members in both chambers have repeatedly and publicly stated their opinion of gay marriage. And those that chose to run for reelection faced an electorate that understood their position on this issue. No indication anyone who publicly support gay marriage paid a price last week.
The Great and General Court passed on this until 1-2-07 because there were between 54 and 58 votes in favor of the amendment. The legislature does not want this to pass and is very much against having to deal with this issue again next session. Had they taken a vote last week, it would have passed and therefore they chose not to take a vote. Pretty easy to understand. These folks are politicians first and foremost. The majority has an end in sight, it’s just the means that are a bit messy.
<
p>
I sympathize with those good government types like Mr. Porcupine and Gary who I’m sure were just as outraged at the conclusion of Bush v. Gore. Once that democracy bug bites you, it just doesn’t matter who the players are.
<
p>
Anyway, what the legislature will do on 1-2-07 is unknown given the possibility that the court may have something to say.
In all of the responses that I have read through here, I was particularly struck by the one regarding a vote by the people or a direct vote by the legislature would confer some kind of legitmacy on my legal marriage to my spouse, who has been my partner in a religious marriage for more than 10 years. Sorry, the only legitimacy my marriage ever needed was the one confirmed by the State Supreme Court and by our marriage license. You can all kick and scream about your assumed right to vote upon the rights of others, but that will never legitimize your argument. I would like an opportunity to weigh in on who marries. A few examples of marriages I find morally reprehensible: Serial marriages (how many marriages should any one person get), people who marry for money, people who abuse previous spouses or children and are free to marry again to name a few.
<
p>
Gay Marrage in Massachusetts can be laid at the State Legislature led by Tom Finnernan. If Finnernn had ever let the issue of domestic partnership get to the floor, Gay marriage proponents might not have needed to force the issue through the courts. Legislative manuevering is not something new. Where was the outcry when Tom Finnernan pulled his manuevers?
<
p>
As a Democrat and a lesbian, I will tell you that this amendment being on the 2008 ballot does nothing but hurt our chances of electing a Democratic president. Do not underestimate the political power and money in the Gay Community. If this ammendment appears on the 2008 ballot, I, like many active gay democrats, will be spending my time and money working to defeat the ammendment rather than elect a democratic president, and the religious right will have a field day using the ammendment to bolster the candidacy of another fraudulent born again candidate.
Sorry, the only legitimacy my marriage ever needed was the one confirmed by the State Supreme Court and by our marriage license.
<
p>
So, you don’t care about being considered legal strangers by your own country? You don’t mind that when you leave the state, you aren’t legally bound to each other anymore? Either one of you could marry a man in another state without divorcing first.
<
p>
How important is it to you to have children genetically related to both you and your spouse? Would having children some other way make for a loving family, or would it leave something lacking that you aren’t both related to your children?
<
p>
Well, assuming you are upset by not being recognized nationally, and not bothered by not being able to have bio-related children, then I’ve got a good solution. We could get Congress to work out a compromise: the right to have bio-children together, and the word marriage, in exchange for civil unions that have all the rights of marriage except do not have conception rights, which would be recognized as marriages federally and hopefully in all fifty states.
Rep. Linsky, you have my profound respect and gratitude for your forthrightness, and for your many votes as you saw them in support of equal marriage rights, and for your two votes in support of the health care amendment.
<
p>
In addition to marriage equality, is it not also possible for the people of the Commonwealth, together with their elected officials, in the year 2006 (or on Jan 2, 2007) to advance another right, one that is fundamental to happiness, and, literally, to life itself: a right to comprehensive health care?
<
p>
I am proud beyond words that our Commonwealth is leading the way for the entire country on marriage rights. I yearn to be equally proud for our state’s leadership on a right to comprehensive health care. So many of us, from all walks of life, have worked so so hard to advance this effort, as you well know.
<
p>
Your answer to my inquiry is deeply appreciated. I do feel compelled to ask for clarification on the following element of your generous reply:
<
p>
“It is unfortunate that the Health Care Amendment was lost in collateral damage to the recessing of the Convention to kill the anti-gay marriage amendment.”
<
p>
Inside sources at the State House say that the “leadership” is set on killing the citizens health care amendment no matter what else is going on. Believing that despicable report to be true, wouldn’t a thinking person rightly wonder if the marriage rights issue being on the ConCon agenda is just a convenient way to create some much needed political cover for killing the citizens health care amendment?
<
p>
My own State Rep. Sanchez has been extremely unhelpful on this issue and my State Sen. Wilkerson non-communicative. Rep. Sanchez voted for the “study/kill it” motion that was strong-armed through by “leadership”. Sen. Wilkerson voted against that motion which I am very grateful for and have said so to her. But despite multiple requests for a forthright discussion about the health care amendment neither of my legislators has responded. At all.
<
p>
Thank you again and again for communicationg with me, and with us, the public, on these issues so vital to health, happiness and human dignity in the Commonwealth.
<
p>
Sincerely yours, Ann Eldridge Malone
This has nothing to do with gay marriage or civil rights. The citizens worked to put it on the ballot. It is the law that it be put in front of the voters of the commonwealth. What’s everyone afraid of? Clearly a threat is feared.
It is not at all “the law that it be put in front of the voters of the commonwealth.” Proposed amendments don’t go on the ballot unless they pass two consecutive Constitutional conventions, that’s the law. If you want to argue that the ConCon flouted the spirit of the law by failing to vote on this amendment, go ahead and argue that, and we can have a worthwhile discussion, but don’t claim things that aren’t true.
<
p>
Just as soon as a proposed Constitutional amendment passes two consecutive Constitutional conventions and then is not put on the ballot in the next election, you can complain that “the people” are being “denied their right to vote.” Until then, either talk about what is actually happening, or don’t talk.
and the world will end.
…please keep pounding away at Democrats in this state for “ducking the issue” on gay marriage, and claim that Democrats are “afraid” of this getting to the people. Please make gay marriage a staple of future electoral efforts of Republicans in this state.
<
p>
Who knows, it might just be successful. Maybe next time the Republicans will just lose one State House or Senate seat instead of three, like in ’04 and ’06.
I’m amazed at how the hatred these people have for gay relationships can blind them so. They are literally flushing thier party down the toilet over this issue.
<
p>
The people of Massachusetts do not want and do not deserve a two year campaign in which outside interests pour millions of dollars into a vicious ad campaign that will demonize gay families. The legislature should use every means possible to kill this thing now.
<
p>
The only result of putting it before the voters will be to hurt the citizens of the state by subjecting us to an argument between out of state interests that do not represent the views of Massachusetts. The amendment would fail at the booth, but we would all be left with wounds and we would all be distracted from the real problems we must face now. Putting this question on the ballot would be damaging to all the people of Massachusetts.
<
p>
The people of Massachusetts have made themselves perfectly clear. Take a look at the election results, take a look at the polls, and for crying out loud, use your goddamn brains.
What are you talking about? My child is my and my spouses based upon the co-adotion laws ot of the Commonwealth and many other states. Are you insulting the relationship of adoptive parents to their children? You sound like Phil Travis, who once told me that I thought I had a family or Ron Crews who said that having children doesn’t make a family because afterall orphanages have children. You are way off base with this comment, which is really not on point to the discussion of gay marriage, unless your point is that the only reason to have a marrige is to have children in which case there are increasing numbers of married folk who don’t have children, are you suggesting we take back marriage for those who cannot or do not want to have children?
<
p>
Would I like my marriage to be recognized nationally, you bet. Does it anger me that it isn’t, you bet. Does it totally enrage me each week when I get my paycheck that I am taxed on the imputed income of the value of my spouse’s health insurance absolutely.
<
p>
Marriage at the Federal level is another matter. State recognition is just the beginning. If the state renegs on gay marriage, I don’t see this moving to the federal level. I suspect that many of the gay marriage bans will be overturned in the courts. I also don’t see the anti gay marriage ammendment going forward with this new congress in Washington. When I came out at 18, which is 32 years ago, it never occurred to me thatI would hear the words “By the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, I pronounce you married.” That as a lot of meaning to me. Is it everything I would want? No, but, It is significant and worth having!
I assumed that everyone knew I was referring to my proposed compromise where Congress prohibits attempts at conceiving children by any other means than joining a man’s sperm and a woman’s egg, in exchange for granting feeral recognition of state ciil unions as marriages.
<
p>
I agree with you that love makes a family, and it is not necessary to be bio-related to children to have a fully loving family. Indeed, attempting to have a child that is bio-related to two people of the same-sex would be unloving, as it would subject that child to a huge potential of extreme lifelong suffering, perhaps some aspects of which woudln’t become apparent until late in life or in their own children. It is much more loving to adopt a child that needs a home, and same-sex couples are proven to exemplary adoptive parents.
<
p>
So since we agree about that, why not help me convince others that this would be a good trade? There is no point in insisting on a right to do something that probabbly can never be done, is not necessary to ever be done, and would be unloving and unethical to do if it ever were possible. So offer to trade conception rights (and therefore the legal status of marriage, which must continue to guarantee a right to conceive children together) for federal recognition of civil unions. The civil unions would be exactly like marriages but would not grant conception rights, and they could be referred to as marriages by everyone, even though they would technically be civil unions.
<
p>
i don’t see federal recognition happening any other way. Other states have put marriage definitions into their constitutions, so their courts can’t challenge them, and the Supreme Court is further to the right than ever, with another Justice likely to be replaced by Bush soon also.
A lot of people don’t understand that were this amendment to go to the people for a vote, the current polls show it would be voted down like in Arizona. You and the other legislators have done us a great service by not wasting more time on this vessel of hatred. You helped secure for the citizens of Massachusetts yet another spot in history where our great commonwealth lead the nation out of darkness with our courage and compassion. My article, “109 People to Thank” on LiveLovelearn247.blogspot.com was written for you and the other legislators that brought nobility back into politics. I am confident that I speak for all of us at KnowThyNeighbor.org when thanking you for your leadership.
marriage equality absolutely should be recognized and treated within our social structures as a fundamental human right.
<
p>
and so should health care be recognized and treated as a collective right.
<
p>
many people, counting myself among them, believe that certain human rights are worth fighting for. And fighting with all you’ve got, especially if lives hang in the balance.
<
p>
what’s that quote about “inaction in the face of injustice being a form of evil” ?
<
p>
as a nurse, witnessing what I have over the past 15 years and actually being a direct participant to much preventable suffering and premature death merely by working within our tragaically dysfunctional system, and as a human being, I am forced to confront and to act on what I know to be true.
<
p>
“Of all forms of inequality, injustice in health care is the most shocking and inhumane” -Martin Luther King, Jr.
<
p>
how to reconcile this cruel juxtaposition of injustices we are confronted with in the 2006-07 ConCon?
You guys are really alienating a group of people who are passionately in favor of gay marriage, 95% of whom support your health care cause. Why not find a way to work together on the issue instead of eating our own?
<
p>
So – are you admiting that the Jan. 2nd Sesssion is a sham?
I am glad that you were not dissing adoption. It is a very sensitive issue to adoptive parents. People who ask,’but where are her real parents?” and other such ignorant and insensitive comments.
<
p>
I still don’t grasp what the trade is that you are looking for with regard to conception rights and civil unions. I am not aware of the issue of conception rights. I also am not undertstanding why it would be for gay people to offer such a trade? Could you give me a basic history of this issue. I must cofess, I am very ignorant of what you are talking about.
he’s the only one who’s talking about it, AFAIK.