What we are against:
1. A massive influx of outside money. The anti-gay side will have nearly unlimited money. Just the very idea that they have the possibility of actually rolling back gay marriage from the only place it is legal will unlesh a flood of enthusiasm and cash that probably hasn’t been seen before. The grandmothers in Kansas will open their checkbooks big for this.
2. The Catholic Church. From the top guy in Rome all the way down to the local bishops, you can bet marching orders will go out to hew to the party line and hard. Pols — and probably ordinary people as well — will be threatened with excommunication if they do not advocate and vote as the church expects. Every Sunday the church will be used as a font of political activism in a way that even abortion never caused.
3. The hidden bigotry of ordinary people. Lots of people, especially in a “progressive” place like MA will not openly admit their prejudice. They will tell pollsters what they want to hear, but in the secrecy of the ballot box, their true colors come out. This happens nationwide. In almost all of the statewide ballot initiatives, the anti-gay side was about 10% higher in reality then they were in polls.
4. Mitt. This will give his presidential bid a huge boost. He can (truthfully, it must be said) go before primary voters in Red states and say: “It was because of my efforts and my lawsuit that there is a marriage vote in Mass.” — he can ride this all the way to the nomination and it will be a major part of his campaign nationally (see #1 above).
So we are up against a lot.
What do we have in our favor (besides obviously simply being right, which along with 75 cents will buy you a newspaper).
1. Gay marriage has been legal for over 4 years (by the time of the 08 election) and the sky hasn’t fallen. People may be a bit more used to it and none of the negative effects predicated by right-wingers have come true. Will logic and reality and knowing normal married same-sex couples live next door and are not monsters be enought o overcome prejudice?
2. Pretty much all of the political establishment will be on our side, for whatever that is worth.
3. We ought to be able to raise good money also. This is a national issue for gay people, and if knowing the only place in the US where we can get married is at risk doesn’t cause volunteers and donations, nothing ever will. But can we match the hate-powered enthusiasm of the right-wing?
4. Traditionally, voters are more hesitant to change existing rights as opposed to voting on theoretical or proposed things. Hopefully, this will remain true.
I think we are really the underdog in 2008. That is why so many have been fighting using all the tricks of the book to keep this off the ballot. When you are the underdog fighting a huge bully, cheating can seem very fair if the alternative is getting beaten up.
So, what do you think? Can we win in 2008, and if so, how?
The proposed amendment doesn’t include any civil union provision. There are a lot of mushy middle people who might not like gay marriage, but they do at least understand that same-sex couples need some legal protection, and the fact that this amendment leaves couples high and dry might influence a few to vote against it. The people pushing this amendment actually understand this, which is why they have proposed a really weak reciprocal benificiaries law as a “substitute” for marriage. So hopefully we can use this to go after some moderate voters.
I thought that even if they vote on it and get the necessary 25%, they will need to do it again at the next ConCon at which point there will be a few less anti-gay legislators so they might not be able to get enough votes the second time around, especially if they sense the electorate doesn’t have the appetite to debate this issue further.
<
p>
But if it does make it to the ballot, I think the way to win this issue is to let the anti-gay crowd continue to show their bad side while at the same time sending a positive message about the value of happy, productive gay families. Once the campaign turns from “let the voters decide” to actually lobbying people to take away gay citizen’s rights, it is going to be really hard for the anti-gay side to appear like the good guys.
<
p>
The comment above is right: if the amendment gets 50 votes in this session, it has to do the same in the next legislative session before it gets to the ballot. And there’s a major shift in the legislature for the next session. With Travis, Goguen, Parente, and others gone, the 50-vote threshold is far from guaranteed. And as Charley (I think) suggested in another thread, there may well be legislators who are inclined to vote “yes,” but who aren’t so committed to it that they wouldn’t rather have some nice line-item for their district. A lot can happen.
<
p>
All of which is to say: if the amendment gets 50 votes this session, the place to beat it is in the next legislative session. Yes we can win this in 2008 at the ballot, if we have to. The good news is that we don’t have to, yet.
“there may well be legislators who are inclined to vote “yes,” but who aren’t so committed to it that they wouldn’t rather have some nice line-item for their district.”
<
p>
You’re talking about perhaps the most visible, significant, salient roll call vote in many of their careers. Not a single legislator would flip because of a $100,000 earmark to a pet project, and I don’t think leadership would go that route to pressure them anyway.
<
p>
The truth is that the pro-marriage equality camp should have held that first concon vote back at the first concon of the 2005-2006 session. Then they could run pro-equality candidates against opposing legislators in September or November. Now, by delaying and delaying, to after the elections, there is no opportunity to do that. The vote – if it happens – is after the elections. Yes, the lege is losing three or four anti-equality votes, but not nearly as many as could have been ejected through a concentrated campaign. Now, if it does advance on Jan 2nd, we need to focus on persuading legislators – already on the record as opposed to marriage equality (probably the most visible public position they’ve ever taken) – to change their votes. Next to impossible on this kind of issue.
<
p>
Hate to be a cynic and not to write off attempts to persuade legislators, but they have the votes and if it gets a vote on Jan. 2nd, I’d say expect it to advance in the 2nd session, too. It’s never too early to start strategizing for the campaign.
I think this is correct that this is a bit premature.
<
p>
I do think though that gays and lesbians should take to heart the discussion here and the unreasonable hand-wringing and hyperbole over process that has occurred. It is difficult to be thankful for the support of progressives to win it at the ballot when they have publicly undermined any popular support for legislators for what they did by not voting.
<
p>
Instead of supporting what the legislature did, gays and lesbians were thrown under the bus at the first opportunity on half-baked notions of political process. I’m only glad to see that Patrick hasn’t taken this position on process.
And the Right Wingers get to waste our time and money on their pet issue so we don’t focus on things like making Massachusetts more affordable for more people, making our streets safer, and making education better for more children, then it wouldn’t hurt to schedule the election for when college students are back in school. Young people tend to be less prejudiced about gay marriage, that might help us win.
<
p>
Just as a random afterthought, I wouldn’t be surprised if a few of these anti-gay marriage leaders were really in the closet. Drawing lots of public attention to the issue with a statewide vote might encourage knowing persons to step forward with evidence of hypocrisy.
<
p>
Just sayin’.
Would you attempt to achieve any other end with blackmail?
<
p>
If not, why would intruding into another person’s personal life be acceptable here?
<
p>
Spare me the rhetoric about how nobody should really be ashamed – coming out is an intensely personal decision, and your your suggestion is despicable. Have some respect for others.
a la Ted Haggard. I agree with you that whether someone is closeted or not is none of anyone’s business. However, this respect for privacy becomes a moot point when the closeted person in question spends his time, energy, and tax payer dollars vilifying homosexuals. It’s not OK to intrude into someone’s personal life, however, this is exactly what these homophobes are doing. Again, it’s the hypocrisy.
Any sort of hypocrisy, when exposed, causes shame. Yes, shame exposes people to the risk of suicide.
<
p>
A favorite theme in the press in 2000 was Al Gore’s hypocrisy. Somehow, we saintly folks on the Left are supposed to be nice and sit on our hands while Swift Boat Veterans for “Truth” pollute the airwaves, while we watch the seventieth rerun of Howard Dean’s scream, or while we learn again how Michael Moore is an extremist, the equivalent of the isn’t-murder-funny Ann Coulter. The reputations of our guys are thoroughly expendable. The reputations of right wing gay men who should know better is untouchable.
<
p>
Give me a break.
…between being a heroic individual and risking your own life to save the President and having your courage ignored because you are gay, which makes you the victim of other people’s prejudice and being a closeted homosexual who covers up his personal shame by trying to erradicate the civil rights of others, which makes you a hypocrite who choses to engange publicly in political issues that bear directly on your personal conduct. Not the same thing at all and I have no moral issue with the Ted Haggards of the world being called to task for their hypocrisy.
Have faith. This is the bluest state in the union. The amendment is DOA.
<
p>
100 years from now this debate will seem like the progressive colonials debating a constitutional ammendment to ban singing hymns outside of church. In fact, let’s propose the first-in-the-nation ban on all marriages in favor of civil unions…
<
p>
http://zauberblog.bl…
<
p>
Hans
All three inits this last time around failed. Even the wine-in-grocery stores, which was the easiest to understand.
<
p>
I actually think the anti-gay crowd would be the underdog…at least, that’s my reading of it, and my greatest hope.
<
p>
We’ll see next week though if this doesn’t get killed anyway.
You all may not know this, but the Salt Lake City Mormon Hierarchy drafted a “call to arms” letter, and demanded & required that it be read from every pulpit in every Mormon church exhorting and even demanding that Mormons support President Bushes federal, national marriage amendment.
<
p>
One of the Mittsters prime source of presidential running money is and must be the Mormon “old boy” network. That is folk like the Marriotts, among others. After all, Mitt comes from Mormon Royalty, in that his grandfather Marion G. Romney was a founder-type and member of the “council of the 12” and he is descended from Mormons who ran to Mexico and lived there rather than give up polygamy.
<
p>
At any event, I protested the reading of that letter, got hate mail and calls, and stopped anhy involvement with the church I had joined in Michigan in 1974 in disgust.
<
p>
You should know that Mormons only allow men to hold the priesthood and discriminate severely against anyone of a same-sex orientation in their governance.
<
p>
So much for facts.
<
p>
As a personal matter, I prefer that the government get 100% out of the marriage business Let government register civil unions, and anyone who wants their relationship called “marrige” go to some religion or group and get the title bestowed by walking someone’s party line.
<
p>
As a family law attorney, I prefer the legality of same sex unions as long as the state is in the marriage business because same sex unions having the same legality and obligations as other marriages is better for children. The ability of a child’s parent to seek contact with the child is critical – and so is the support obligation.
<
p>
For reasons that would make this long post too long (but which I would be glad to explain) being found a defacto parent and getting visitation or custody is way more complex.
<
p>
A few links on Mormonism for thoss who want more:
<
p>
http://www.beliefnet…
<
p>
http://en.wikipedia….
<
p>
Apparently, there is a view that acceptance of homosexuality would “destroy the church” even among educated Mormons, which I found and find shocking:
<
p>
http://www.nauvoo.co…
<
p>
herefore, Gov. Mitt Rromney can be seen, in this issue, as consistent with the teaching of his church, even slavishly so.
I read
I’m not sure that Roman Catholics would continue to assert that a “wife is helpter to the husband” or that the Catholic Church would be so sweeping as to say homosexual rights must be “vehemently opposed”.
<
p>
I always think that religion requires a huge dose of double think. (If you wish to exercise yours, may I suggest Sammuels II?) But I certainly found the last quoted sentence delicious! It was like Quayle’s “irreversible trend toward more freedom and democracy – but that could change.”
Dear Peter: I did take one class in comparative religion as a college freshman – in 1966. We did read C.S. Lewis, Kierkegaard, etc. But I really do not feel competent to compare the source material above on Mormonism to Roman Catholicism, Moslem tenets, Judaism, Buddhism, or any other religion. I did convert to Mormonism in 1974 and was an actively involved member of that faith until about 2003 – so I felt competent to discuss, as well as listing links to neutral and Mormon sites.
<
p>
My own personal opinion is that sexual attraction of any variety is a symptom with multiple causes. I consider that for some, same-sex attraction is genetic, for others it is personal [as in “to a particular person, se no relevant or determinative].
<
p>
Good boundaries and good manners, and keeping any promises seem to me to matter far more than to whom one is attracted.
<
p>
I do not consider sexual attraction to either the same or the opposite sex either good or bad – except as an individual’s behavior makes it so.
<
p>
As a family law attorney, I prefer that any individuals who do not thereby perpetuate disease [including genetic] and are committed to doing so, be able to marry as long as they are of the age of consent. marriage is better for children, including same sex marriage. Also, I project the rate of divorce will ultimately be the same for same sex and for heterosexual marriage. The remedies available to protect income for children’s households, and access to beloved parental figures are better upon divorce than utilizing either the out-of-wedlock statute (G.L. c. 209C) or the judicially recognized doctrine of “Defacto parent” or “parenthood by estoppel.”
<
p>
I find nothing inherently either attractive or repellent about same gender sexuality and marriage either morally or psychologically.
<
p>
On the other hand, I do find pedophilia repellent, and not to be confused with same sex marriage.
As was pointed out, this is very premature – just ask the Health Care people! However, to respond to your negatives –
<
p>
1. Outside Money – as you point out, money from both sides will flow into the state, but historically, the pro-gay-mariage forces have had bigger checkbooks; if anything, the large amounts of out-of-state money could contribute to the anti-marriage underdog effect (I agree with Lynne on this).
<
p>
2. Catholic Church – this is an accurate assessment, but their influence is hard to measure. People are not honest with pollsters about this.
<
p>
3. Hidden bigotry – See #2. But, there are many who are pro-vote who are not anti-marriage, which can magnify the apparent overall anti-marriage sentiment. It’s really too bad that a knee-jerk decision that a vote for a plebiscite was a vote against gay marriage was made by activists early on, and people were villified for it, because it simply isn’t true, Arlene.
<
p>
4. Mitt – Yes, it is his court suit that may force a vote, and I hope Democrat legislators remember that a new petition drive will help him even more as champion of the underdog and disenfranchised than a quiet ‘yes’ vote which passes the decision to the next Session’s ConCon – which may occur after the 2008 election, and certainly after the 2008 nomunations.
I really think you and msilverman are overestimating the Church on this one, Peter.
<
p>
Pols — and probably ordinary people as well — will be threatened with excommunication if they do not advocate and vote as the church expects.
<
p>
Well, for one thing, the Church won’t know how people voted once they got inside the booth, so they wouldn’t know who to excommunicate. Excommunication is a HUGE deal in the Catholic Church, and they won’t be doing it to massive numbers of people at the same time, nor on the basis of a single vote.
<
p>
Look at abortion. It violates ‘Thou shall not kill’ and they don’t excommunicate those Catholics who believe it should be legal. They believe strongly that marriage is between a man and a woman, but I haven’t heard anyone argue that two men marrying each other rises to the level of violating a commandment.
<
p>
No bishop went as far as to try to excommunicate Kerry in the 2004 campaign. A few said he couldn’t receive communion in their cities, but the rest of the country’s bishops reigned them in and told them not to use the Eucharist as a political football. The issue was shipped off to a study (sound familiar?) by a committee led by the archbishop of DC. That study has never been heard from again.
<
p>
If the vast, vast majority of bishops will still allow a presidential candidate to receive Communion even if he supports the legal murder of innocent life, you really think they are going to try and excommunicate (a much higher penalty) Joe and Jane Voter because they voted against the church’s wishes on gay marriage?
Is a legislative session 2 years? or are the two-year terms of a legislature split into two sessions?
<
p>
If it is the entire two-year term of office per legislative session, what would stop this next ConCon from being put off until AFTER the 2008 election – thereby pushing the vote on the ammendment out to 2010?
<
p>
Just asking. I’m sure Peter knows ….. 🙂
We are currently in the 2005-2006 Session, which ends a few days into 2007 – the Legislature will be sworn in on Jan. 3, the first Wednesday (occasionally, the first Wednesday IS the First, and I remember much grumbling when that happened a few years ago).
<
p>
Jan. 3 will begin the 2007-2008 Session, which will end on Jan. 6, 2009 (a whole WEEK to play post-election end of Session games!). So you are correct – the EARLIEST the question could appear on the ballot is 2010 – when Gov. Patrick will be up for re-election. Did you PLAN it this way?
The amendment, if approved in this session and approved quickly in the next (say sometime in 2007), could appear in the 2008 ballot. It’s also possible that, by delaying a ConCon until after the ’08 elections (as they did this year), they could push it off until the 2010 election.
It is rather blithely stated that the amendment is coming up for a vote unavoidably. I’d be interested to know the source for that assertion; are there specific legislators prepared to throw the gay community under the bus on Tuesday?
I got an email from him saying the SJC didn’t give him much of a choice, and now he will oppose adjourning.
who will be switching the other way – not against us, but against the ammendment…
<
p>
But I do like the fact that they can then go back to the delay tactic and do the final vote – which is what they are told they have to do, on January 2, 2009….
<
p>
And IF it passes then, onto the ballot in 2010 – not 2008 like the American Taliban would like to see…..
Though it may seem academic, I think the argument that “Massachusetts has the oldest Constitution in the world, and we shouldn’t be amending this great document to take away rights” would be effective.
<
p>
This is somewhat similar to your #4, but I think it is possible that even some people personally unconfortable with gay marriage would vote against the amendment because they don’t think it belongs in the Constitution (much like national sentiment about a proposed federal anti-gay marriage amendment).
I would think that if the vote were to be held on a presidential year (like 2008…ahem…) the crazies will be busy helping out the Republican candidate.
<
p>
On the other hand, if it occurs during a gubernatorial year/federal “off-year” then the out of state nutjobs will have more money and time to devote to combatting the devil in Massachusetts. Something perhaps worth considering…
That may be true, although I think a chance to vote for an anti-equality repub prez candidate + ability to vote for an anti-equality amendment might be synergistic, as it was in ’04 in other states.
<
p>
The conventional wisdom is that any vote, if there is one, should eb delayed as long as possible so more and more people can get to know married gay couples and see that it’s a fine thing.
They all have the same position as the Republicans, don’t they? So I think they are looking for a good reason to explain why they think marriage should only be between a man and a woman, and they will find it in conception rights. Marriage grants conception rights, and everyone agrees that it is far too risky – at least right now – to allow anyone to attempt it in people. Then the debate will be about whether this should be a moratorium or a permanent ban.
I have read that over 2/3 of the legsilature supports gay marriage. I’m praying these lawmakers have it in themselves to stand up for civil rights and not turn Rommney’s hate into a popularity contest.
<
p>
I am confident that this will not reach the ballot. I hope Massachusetts can stand up for change when mostly every other state in this country has fallen down.
so more than 2/3 need to step up. eek!
I still think it’s a coin toss on vote v. adjourn
If you read this news article:
<
p>
http://www.eagletrib…
<
p>
they show 1 out of the 10 or so legislators they surveyed as saying he will change his vote from adjourn to not adjourn. A bunch more who voted to recess last time are listed as “undecided” — extrapolate this out, and assume even that most of the undecideds still vote to adjourn, and you will have a solid 20-25 vote swing, which would mean that at most only 80 or so will vote to adjourn.
<
p>
In the end, the supreme court decision was a sweeping win for Romney and he couldn’t have done better if the court had actually directly ordered a vote. That is why when I made this original post, I figured it is a very sure thing that there will be a vote and this thing will be on the ballot in 2008 (or I guess 2010 depending on the timing of the second vote).
and if they do vote, don’t forget that it’s not just about whether they vote — it’s about what the result of the vote is. They need 50 votes. Yes, they’ll probably get them this session. But they may well not get them in the 2007-08 session. We should do everything we can do line up 151 “no” votes.
You wrote:
<
p>
<
p>
I agree. It is not the court’s role to “force” a vote. But they have done well in clarifying the Constitution’s requirements, a benefit for all types of future initiatives, whether they be sponsored by Reds or Blues.
<
p>
Note, though, the opposite spin put on the SJC decision by the Boston Globe in its front page story of December 28:
<
p>
<
p>
Some victory. I’d say the decision was a victory for the rule of law, which will help us all in the long run.
like not being able to get to a vote due to fillibustering. i don’t know if this is an attractive splitting of hairs for any of the legislators, but it is still an option that sorta end-runs the question of voting for adjournment or voting on the amendment directly.
At a concon?
<
p>
As long as we are talking crazy scenarios, two others that come to mind are that they take up the health care amendment first (remember, they have to vote on both) and it takes so long that they run out of time, or they just call the whole thing off since state offices are closed for the Ford national holiday.
<
p>
But, neither of these is likely.
<
p>
And we won’t know how close we are to 50 votes until they actually vote.
<
p>
I know several anti-gay bigots are gone for the next legislature (the one being sworn in wednesday), so if this thing passes with say 55 votes, maybe we have a shot at straight-out defeating it on the votes next time around. But, if the vote total is in the 60s, that probably won’t happen, and then the next decision is strategizing how to beat the thing on the ballot (well, after figuring out if it is better to have it onthe ’08 or ’10 ballot)
<
p>
Butch Cassidy: No, no, not yet. Not until me and Harvey get the rules straightened out.
<
p>
Harvey Logan: Rules? In a knife fight? No rules.
<
p>
Butch immediately kicks Harvey in the groin.
I would likely abstain from voting in either direction since it disgusts me that I would be placed by a democracy in such an arbitrarily powerful position to decide someone elses rights. Unless of course I felt it needed to be voted down, but voting on someone elses rights violates every sacred principle of our Republic and it sickens me. So you will see me either tare up or burn that ballot if that is the sole referendum of the day, or merely abstain from answering a question I have no right to answer.
If your anwer is ‘NO, of COURSE I would vote against the amendment!’, then your argument is one of strategy, not principle.
I cannot agree with this sentiment. If this thing makes it to the ballot, how can you possibly not take a position on it? Is it more appropriate for unelected judges to have the final word on who has what rights? More to the point, would you leave it to those who would vote gay people off the island to cast their ballots while you stand by? (Rest assured — none of them will feel any compunction about voting.) In a constitutional democracy, the contents of the Constitution must, at the end of the day, be under the control of the people (either directly, as in MA, or indirectly, as with the US Constitution), otherwise it is basically a dictatorship like any other. If the people then refuse to participate in determining the Constitution’s contents, what’s the point?
…which is why a procedureal vote or an abstention is so unacceptable.
<
p>
Abstaining. It’s the new recess. >:~)
I cannot in good conscience vote for a motion that is so inherently undemocratic, so inherently unamerican, and so inherently reminiscent of ballot measures that are used in non democratic countries to put or to keep tyrannies in power. It is against every notion of a democratic republic to have one group of people vote on the rights of another, Article 48 clearly allows it, but the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence, and the Federalist papers all demonstrate that this principal of one group of people voting upon anothers rights is completely null and void. And of course it has happened in history, I am embarassed that legislatures in the past have prevent blacks and Native Americans among many others from having their natural rights endowed to them by creation. And having this measure on the ballot would add to that list of American embarassments and hypocracy and I simply cannot excercise power that I dont have.
<
p>
Yes I fully feel gays deserve to have the right to marry, but how should I have the right to determine this? What gives me the special priviledge to act like a little dictator over their lives and tell them what to do? The answer is clear, I lack the right to grant or not to grant rights to other men since they were born with those rights and it would be unnatural for me to vote in the affirmitive or the negative. Which is why I hope it doesnt make it onto the ballot since the legislature has a responsibility to toss the motion out. Unlike others on this site, I respectfully disagree with the idea of sacrificing my principles for pragmatism. I vote for the candidate I like not the lesser of two evils, in 2000 that would have meant Nader, in 2004 it would have meant Cobb, and in 2006 it meant Patrick. In 2008 with gay marriage on the ballot it will mean abstain since principly I cannot in good conscience vote upon the rights of others.
but this is still off base. If this amendment makes it to the ballot (which I hope it doesn’t), the question before the people of Massachusetts will be: do you, the people, want to amend the Constitution in order to restrict marriage to a man and a woman? If your answer to that question is “no,” it is your right and your duty to vote against the question. We are all fortunate to live in a country in which the people have control over their government. Occasionally, the people are asked to exercise that control directly, and never moreso than when they are asked whether they want to amend their governing charter. If you decline to take a stand when that happens, I ask again, what’s the point?