What if those young black men had followed the law and not sat down at the whites-only lunch counter?
What if those colonists hadn’t thrown the tea into the harbor?
What if Schindler hadn’t made his list?
“Let the people vote and they’ll do the right thing and vote this down.” That’s what I’ve heard many say. Really? And if they don’t?
My marriage will remain. But am I destined to become an artifact? Years from now, as we age and our numbers dwindle, will reporters drag us into the spotlight on the anniversary of the vote and say, “Here’s the last married lesbian couple in Massachusetts.” If I die, will my wife be allowed to remarry? Is that something anyone should even have to think about?
None of that will happen, you say. The tide, however slowly, is turning toward acceptance. So here’s what might happen. We fight this for the next two years. Maybe it can be stopped in the next ConCon. Maybe it gets to the ballot. Then the real dirt slinging begins. Say the amendment passes, narrowly.
Do we start all over and amend the constitution again to take out this discrimination?
Why do the supporters of this amendment care so much?
I’m trying to understand how making the marriage tent bigger takes anything away from straight people. Homophobia won’t go away until the Bible goes away, which means never. There will always be those who think homosexuality is wrong. It’s right there in black and white. Who can argue that? Catholics say my relationship is an “intrinsic evil.” That my wish to parent “does violence to children.” Never mind that I’ve been a foster parent to children whose straight parents have done real violence to them. Never mind that you can separate church and state and not end civilization as we know it.
At some point straight supporters of marriage equality will get tired of it all. Enough, they already are saying. Let’s move on. At the end of the day, it doesn’t affect them. The other side won’t tire so easily. Never mind that it doesn’t really affect them either. They have that book to guide them. I can’t think what else could motivate them so. Surely they have family members who are gay. Maybe a co-worker. A friend, even.
Are you married? What was your wedding like?
I eloped. Partly because my wife and I don’t like big parties, but mainly because we were terrified that Governor Romney would find a way to stop the marriages. Weddings take months to plan. What are the chances I could find Maria’s wedding dress? So one summer day in 2004, we went to City Hall and got married.
The city clerk asked us why we waited so long. We could have gotten married in May. I said it’s because we wanted the headlines to die down. We didn’t want to be a news story. We just wanted to be like everyone else.
Can’t they get that?
Did Kris Mineau get a migraine that day? Was Evelyn Reilly overcome with nausea? I don’t think so. Did Sean O’Malley stub his sandaled toe at the moment we were declared spouses for life? Hardly.
I just don’t get what’s in it for them.
When a Jewish family moved in across the street from us when I was a kid, my parents lamented that “there goes the neighborhood.” How? What happened to change anything? The street didn’t crack open. We weren’t visited by any plagues. The grass was still green and cut trimly. No paint peeled off the clapboards. Roofs didn’t start leaking.
There are so many other things I’d rather be spending my time and energy on.
I want to get to Glacier National Park while there are still glaciers.
I’d like to see the foster-care system reformed so no more Dontel Jeffers or Haleigh Poutres have to suffer at the hands of the state.
I’d like to write a novel.
Just like everyone else.
“They voted. They upheld their oaths of office.”
<
p>
No. They killed the health care amendment unlawfully.
and frustration. I have never been one of the process purists and am appalled at yesterday’s outcome. Appalled and embarrassed. As well, I am appalled and embarrassed by some of the condescending and dismissive one-liners and lectures posted on this site by people who should, given their apparent verbal abilities, know better.
<
p>
Religious dogma and superstition will, unfortunately, be with us always in America. Despite the occasional bright spots–like the Goodridge decision in Massaschusetts–this nation is full of bigots and hypocrites who feel compelled to legitimize their fear and mask their intellectual incuriosity by invoking their atavistic religion.
<
p>
There are people posting on this site who are comfortable with what happened yesterday and feel no compunction whatsoever in offering ways to “compromise” or to facilitate cooperation. Many more, I suspect, are clearly aiming to validate their own bigotry through this obscene perversion of “letting the people vote.” Let’s translate that, shall we? I demand the opportunity to foist my bigoted and superstitious religious beliefs upon the lives of people I don’t know.
<
p>
I cannot profess to know what it is like to walk in your shoes, to live your life. And I imagine it is equally true that you cannot 100% understand my life. But I firmly believe that you and I are partners in our commitment to working for human rights and social justice. For all. Forever. Not just for some and just for a while (that’s what most health reform seems to bring).
<
p>
Words cannot express how truly devastating the concon vote on gay marriage is for so many reasons. And the perversion of the concon process used to kill the hc amendment leaves only a visceral response of fury for now. Please give consideration to the perspective that process what not in the least upheld yesterday. And as a result two fundamental human rights have been dealt serious but not mortal blows. No one in my world “won” yesterday and most of us are thinking about all the work there is to do. Kira, I want to stand with you shoulder to shoulder and continue our work for justice for all.
<
p>
“process was not in the least upheld yesterday”
<
p>
There was absolutely no “process over people” prevailing at the MA concon on 1/2/07.
But only for gay people.
<
p>
Process liberals played a critical role in convincing legislators that they had no choice but to allow the vote. If they had argued otherwise–or just STFU–the outcome would have been different.
<
p>
Today, some have learned. It’s great that they had this chance at education, though it’s a pity that it comes at the expense of a man pulled away from his partner’s deathbed.
<
p>
Others have not learned, and are rigid in their high and mighty beliefs that gays must obey the most punctilious and arcane rules if they are to dare to claim equal rights to the people who are really important.
<
p>
And most seem to be running very hard and very fast from their responsibility for all this. Too bad; it’s right behind them.
<
p>
and please be accurate. the gay marriage amendment has not advanced past its second concon vote or onto the statewide ballot so no one has been pulled away from a deathbed. (would that happen due to the parents of the ill person denying the gay partner the right to be there?).
<
p>
let’s also try to facilitate our entire community, our society, to grow and learn so that there will be fewer and fewer parents, co-workers, neighbors and others harboring homophobic attitudes and then acting on them.
One of the leaders of the gay rights movement was pulled away from a deathbed AND a funeral parlor in Provincetown, yes, Provincetown, AFTER their same-sex marriage had been recognized by Goodridge. Only getting a lawyer involved during his moment of grief finally set things right. Only the law gave him back his rights.
<
p>
This happens all the time. All. The. Time.
<
p>
I find straight supporters of marriage equality are often completely clueless about what gay couples actually have to go through. While straight people are casually confident of their rights, gay people experience things that are no different from what people suffer in a Communist or Fascist dictatorship, and always at the most vulnerable moments.
<
p>
And if you have been reading recent reports, the Amendment will almost definitely advance during the second ConCon, too.
<
p>
was it the ill person’s parents? or staff at a health care facility or at the funeral parlour? by law i thought it was only the parents who could do that sort of thing.
<
p>
but in addition to having solid protections against this sort of thing by law, don’t we also need to try and foster growth and change in people who are homophobic so we won’t need to engage lawyers and the like to enforce legal protections so much in the future?
out of school anymore, at least not in public. Is it because Alabamans like to sing kumbaya at multi-racial candlelight vigils? No, it’s because they will get their butts sued from here to Shinola if they tried such a thing.
<
p>
Sure, education is vital. But it’s legal protections that secure civil rights–not placing faith in the genteel good will of one’s fellow citizens.
AnnEM, we need both. But if I had to choose, I’d first choose legal protection, for the very scenario steverino mentioned, because we will never change the minds of every homophobic person and need those protections when up against a bigot in an emergency situation.
<
p>
However, you may find it ironic that I think one of our best paths to getting those legal protections is through talking to people. I mean all of us, L, G, B, T, A (A if for allies!). All LGBT-A folks need to get out there daily and personally speak with someone on LGBT-A fairness and equality issues. If we don’t do this, we won’t have enough constitutents pressuring their legislator at the next ConCon, which is only a few months away. And if Trav rams through another vote immediately and we face the anti-equality amendment at the ballot, the only thing that will save us is a populace comfortable with equality because they’ve had that conversation already with one of us.
<
p>
I have joined an LGBT-A speakers bureau (it’s fun!). I hope others will do something similar.
<
p>
What ya think?
or tell me where i can do so. and thanks. btw both my leges voted the “right way” on SSM but the “wrong way” on the HCA, so i guess they don’t need LGBT-A persuasion. they do need HCFA-FRF persuasion (health care for all for real forever).
SpeakOut Boston, found here, is an LGBT-A speakers bureau that works throughout MA (but obviously centers in Boston). If they aren;t active in your area or there is some other lack of fit, they should be able to direct you to other speakers bureaus in MA or nearby.
<
p>
If you are interested in canvassing door to door, MassEquality does plenty of that for marriage equality. Their website is [here massequality.org], or ask for Julie, the canvass director, at 617-878-2300.
<
p>
Thanks, AnnEM!
<
p>
btw I’m happy to say my legis done good.
i signed up for massequality’s action alert listserve back when the Goodridge lawsuit was happening…
<
p>
Excatly.
<
p>
EXACTLY.
<
p>
Only according to the Massachusetts Constitution. And the constitution provides that ballot initiatives SHALL be heard. The SJC wrote, dicta or not, the legislature had an obligation to vote.
<
p>
Ironic, isn’t it, that you’re advocating EXTRA-Constitutional solutions to a problem that you acknowledge here can only be solved through the law.
<
p>
And, by the way, since this scenario you’ve pointed out happened while gay marriage was legal, how would that situation be helped by voting to adjourn yesterday?
that you would compare a law protecting a fundamental civil right for a minority with a poorly drafted, seldom-applied and thinly justified procedural rule, and find the procedural rule more important.
<
p>
It doesn’t surprise me at all.
for about 24 hours about a word I’d used to describe you. I’ve been going back and forth on two: “demagogue” and “insane.”
<
p>
It never occurs to you that procedural rules DO protect fundamental civil rights, does it? Miranda? Search and seizure requirements? Due process?
<
p>
My point to you is that you like the law, and want it to protect you, but that you’re also willing to discard it when it doesn’t suit your purposes. Which is fine enough I suppose. But the rest of us would rather law and government worked the way it should. With debate and voting, rather than the way you want it to, just because you say so.
and there are a lot of things that you don’t seem to understand or pick up on very well.
<
p>
One thing you don’t understand is that laws conflict. Rights conflict. This is standard fare in law school. Hell, most lawyers get their first introduction to this concept preparing for the LSATs.
<
p>
Sometimes there is a conflict of laws involving two states. Sometimes there is federal preemption of a state statue. And there are plenty of cases in which constitutional rights conflict–most famously, when the various grants in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution collide with each other.
<
p>
Courts and scholars use various means to determine which law prevails in a given case. Where rights are involved, they look closely at the hierarchy of rights, to determine which ones are fundamental and which infringements demand the strictest scrutiny.
<
p>
And obviously, courts deal with procedural due process all the time. But they do not treat every process requirement equally; for instance, a clerical error in a search warrant does not automatically invalidate a conviction, even though process has been violated. Courts may, and have, ruled that in certain circumstances police may skip the “knock and announce” before a home search where their personal safety is at risk.
<
p>
You don’t seem to have any grasp of this at all. Time and again, you privilege a poorly crafted, seldom-observed rule about the mere form of a legislative vote far above the constitutional duty to protect a fundamental right. You think the imaginary right of a few thousand petitioners–a right never formally recognized by anyone–outweighs the established right of citizens to be free of de jure discrimination in their own state. You elevate voting procedures to the status of divine law, and downplay civil liberties and the low status of improper court dicta to mere technicalities.
<
p>
Sometimes, you seem to labor under the delusion that rights don’t conflict, and everything is as neat and tidy as it was in your fifth-grade civics textbook. Other times, you’re happy to have rights conflict, so long as you can choose the one that makes you feel the most high and mighty at least sacrifice to yourself.
<
p>
Very strange.
<
p>
Steverino. I’ve been patient. It seems like you’re either a law student or a young lawyer. You seem to know what I would describe as a “dangerous” amount about the law and how it works – enough so that you can form what seems like a decent opinion, but not enough to ever back it up. For instance, the following is completely conclusory and would thrown out on its ass by any decent law professor:
<
p>
<
p>
That’s just unreal, and not really worthy of a response. I’d admire your enthusiasm for your cause. But your self-righteousness is tiring. And your penchant for conclusory legal anaylsis, based mostly on anechdote, is absolutely going to get you into trouble one day.
<
p>
Just some friendly advice. Knock it off.
LOL.
<
p>
And I am neither a law student nor young.
<
p>
Since you have had nothing of substance to say to me over many posts, only smug insults that make you look foolish, it’s probably time for you to go ahead and knock it off.
That’s how I was brought up, and that’s what I believe in. This straight supporter of equal marriage will never give up.
<
p>
Though I’m not religious, I’m culturally Jewish. I doubt anyone could have emerged from a Jewish suburban home between the 50s and the 60s without a stubborn empathy for the discriminated against (as we were and still are), not to mention a keenly honed paranoia (don’t ask my husband about why he carries his passport around).
<
p>
Rights issues have always been a dealbreaker for me with politicians. To me, anti-choice/anti-gay (or even unable to get beyond “civil unions”) indicate a lack of compassion, narrow-minded bigotry, and/or just plain political expedience. I wouldn’t vote for anyone who doesn’t see all people as deserving of equal rights.
<
p>
This anecdote is not when I became enlightened–I grew up in the suburbs of New York City and my friends were all in the drama club. But I do tell this story to personalize the issue: My cousin is gay. He has been living with his partner in Connecticut for more than 25 years. Several years ago he had a heart attack. I’m sure you can guess what I’m going to say. The nurse at the reception desk wouldn’t let his partner in to see him. Thankfully the doctor came out and was properly horrified by this and brought him back.
<
p>
How can anyone think this is the way civilized people behave?? I don’t understand homophobia. I’m rabidly prochoice, but I can understand why the moderate anti-choice people believe what they do. But I cannot for the life of me understand homophobia. I can understand the desire to want to force your way of thinking on other people–I want to do that all the time (because I’m right, of course!). But I cannot understand homophobia.
<
p>
I don’t even think the Bible is the only thing to blame (though it certainly is a major offender–and let me clarify that I don’t mean Jesus, because I think Jesus would be horrified at the amount of hating done in his name) . Lots of homophobes have other perfectly reasonable-sounding explanations for why they’re not homophobic: “Marriage should only be between a man and a woman.” “You can’t change the definition of marriage.” That’s all so much crap they hide behind so they don’t have to face whatever is causing their homophobia.
<
p>
Probably because a lot of them are actually homosexuals and desperately afraid, and desperately angry. Look at Lynne Cheney. Tell me she didn’t do some “practice kissing” with girls at boarding school.
<
p>
Just because I do think the tide is turning slowly–for example, my three teen nephews don’t understand why this is an issue, and neither do most of the younger people I know–doesn’t mean I’m not going to continue fighting.
<
p>
I am lucky in that my state rep is David Linsky, and he’s a very strong supporter of gay rights and will continue to fight. We have Deval, whose steadfast support for equal rights was one of the first things I loved about him. No waffling.
<
p>
So please don’t fall into a mirror image of the prejudice you hate. Please don’t assume that just because someone hasn’t experienced what you have means they can’t understand it (believe me, I’ve experienced enough discrimination for other things about me that were as equally rooted in genetics, not choice).
<
p>
My husband likes this motto from the Navy Seals: You’re only as strong as your weakest link. It’s a way of pointing out, even to people who don’t agree with you, that equality is for the good of everyone.
<
p>
And I, and many others like me, will not be strong until we are all strong.
<
p>
What’s the female equivalent of “mensch?” Or is that it?
<
p>
Whatever the word, you’re it.
I just wished you were all as vocal when I seemed to be arguing this alone that time and time again judicial opinion especially on the Supreme Court has held that the rights of individuals are more inherently important than procedural rights of the states or federal government.
Yes, there is precedent that individual rights are more important than governmental procedural rights. But we don’t have to adhere to process in following that precedent.
<
p>
Yes, longstanding Constitutional jurisprudence required the SJC to avoid speaking about the Legislature’s responsibility to vote. If the court could have decided the case narrowly on the basis of no remedy–which it did–it should never have spoken more broadly on a constitutional issue. That’s absolutely standard process. But we don’t have to follow it here.
<
p>
Yes, the fact that the court’s comments were mere dicta make them non-binding. But we don’t have to follow that process here.
<
p>
Yes, the Amendment was improperly gaveled to a vote without debate, even though the members never had a chance to debate the SJC action. But it’s not important to follow the process in that case.
<
p>
But advancing an attack on gays and lesbians? Well, there process must be followed scrupulously followed, as we sit erect and tightly clasp our anal sphincters.
<
p>
You see, we are very committed to process here. Sometimes. For some people.