Sen. President Therese Murray has announced her intention to allow the legislators to vote on the marriage petition at the Constitutional Convention.
“My vote is going to be just what it was the last time,” Murray said on her way into her first formal Senate session as president. “But I’m not going to move to adjourn. I will call for a vote and I will try to help the advocates get the votes that they need.”
Murray hopes it is ultimately defeated but wants to give lawmakers a chance to weigh in, she said.
I think activists were misled by her vote against the plebiscite; however, I am not surprised that she intends to allow her fellow Legislators to vote. That is what the SJC ruling requires.
And that is why she is a leader – she respects the rule of law.
“I think it’s important that we vote,” she said. She’s right.
The Glob
doth not require her to vote. It says she should vote, but there’s no way to compel her to do so. Is that a matter of semantics? Sure, but I’m still right =p
<
p>
I wish we could axe this vote, for reasons I’ve made loud and clear on this website and my own, because the system just doesn’t work – so I don’t see why we’re going to make it work only when it’s going to potentially restrict the rights of a minority.
<
p>
I say we fix the system before we let the system roll on.
she stalls on the vote as long as possible. It seems to me that the longer gay marriage is in effect, the easier it’s been on “fence sitters” to realize that it’s perfectly OK to be heterosexually married and in favor of gay marriage.
<
p>
I know it comes up over and over again, but the last vote had 62 ‘yeas’ and 4 no-votes. What does the count look line now?
If the people vote to make gay marriage illegal than what happens to all the gay marriages we have had since 2003?
<
p>
What kind of action can the police take?
<
p>
as for the police, what did you have in mind? “hand over your marriage certificate or we’ll shoot!”?
I just wanted to know what the police would do that’s all….Incase I wanted to make a citizens arrest…I just want to do it by the book.
<
p>
Of course I would not shot someone. But I would still insist that they turn over their marriage certificate to me. That’s all.
<
p>
go up to a married couple and demand to make a citizens arrest and seize their marriage certificate, I want tickets to the event.
This amendment would not affect existing same-sex marriages, they will still be married. MFI thought the amendment might get challenged if it tried to void existing marriages, because amenments cannot reverse a court decision (but the Goodridge decision didn’t actually declare anyone married, so they probably didn’t need to do that).
<
p>
And same-sex marriage doesn’t change the legality of any activities the way marriage does for a man and a woman. Police could (but don’t) arrest an unmarried couple for having sex (fornication), whereas marriage makes sex legal. But same-sex couples don’t commit fornication anyhow, so marriage doesn’t make anything legal for them (Lawrence v Texas supposedly made “crimes against nature” legal, regardless of marriage). So, if their marriages were declared void (which wouldn’t require any action by the electorate, it would be an executive action), they wouldn’t be suddenly be vulnerable to arrest for anything, the way a man and a woman are when their marriages are declared void.
Not having the pleasure to know you personally, he only thing I respect about your is your ability to produce a red herring out of thin air.
<
p>
I have no idea what point you were trying to prove with the fornication tangent — that even if were to invalidate gay marriages, it wouldn’t endanger formerly married couples? Ie you put heterosexuals at legal risk if you invalidate their marriage but we really don’t need to worry about the queers?
<
p>
Nice one.
…of saying something that I’ve been saying for a long time. When push comes to shove, Democrats aren’t particularly interested in equal rights for gay people, merely because they’re Democrats. Democrat politicians would just as well throw gay people over the rail if they believed that it would enhance their electoral chances with the general public.
<
p>
I don’t believe for a minute that Murray will help twist arms to get enough support against the amendment for a vote on the merits. Not for a minute.
…Republicans. The repeal of the estate tax. It was not the intent of the repeal to benefit gay people, but it had the effect of doing that. What have the Democrats ever accomplished except DADT and DOMA?
As you point out, lots of gays are rich and aren’t really democrats, maybe you’re one of them. Gay rights has appeal to the libertarian-right wing, the pro-business, anti-government segment. And meanwhile, lots of working people don’t want their party being led around by these rich self-interested gays who think nothing is more important than gay marriage.
<
p>
If you want to be a Republican, be my guest. I want to be a Democrat, because I think our priorities should be basic health care for everyone rather than genetic engineering and same-sex conception, and protecting the family and a family wage rather than indivualism and broken families. I think the Democrats should support civil unions (hey, they do!) for same-sex couples and other couples that do not have conception rights that give all the other protections of marriage, but I think it would be a terrible mistake to give big-biotech the green light to start exploiting same-sex couples that want bio-related children. That is a huge waste of resources.
It costs around $130,000 to have a child by surrogacy.
<
p>
I think that if you were to pay every gay and lesbian couple $130,000 to give up any future rights to same-sex reproductive assistance, most of us would go for it.
<
p>
Except of course all of gays who are rich and aren’t really democrats.
what about “ex-gays”? do they have to pay back the $$$, with interest & penalty, when they begin to live in denial? John Howard, maybe you can clarify? Would the pay-back be pro-rated depending on how long they’d been gay before they became ex-gay? What if they were bisexual to begin with? DOes that make them eligible for only $65,000 in the first place? And finally, isn’t this a huge incentive for people to “go gay”? Do I smell a page from The Gay Agenda, sunsection 5: Sneaky Indoctrination Procedures? John Howard, what are you advocating?
Let’s advance the fight for Same-sex Reproductive Reparations!
<
p>
(I hope the slavery reparations people can take a tongue-in-cheek joke, but what a perfect opportunity to bring the thread even further off topic!)
This actually is similar to my arguments when trying to convince the extremists on the other side to support my compromise on full federal benefits. When they ask why they should support any form of federal benefits to same-sex couples, I tell them that it is only fair that the government takes some monetary responsibility and supports people that our government has indoctrinated into homosexuality in our public schools.
i went to public school. hmmm. must have happened that day i dozed off in math. you know, the day they were explaining binary thought.
They asked:
<
p>
Do you like 1 or do you like 0.
<
p>
If a boy liked the 1 or a girl the 0, they were promptly sent to =ahem= alternative education classes.
Ever since they started teaching that it didn’t matter, it’s really been criminal negligence, but not all that tragic. We’ve also been teaching children that they will soon be able to have kids with someone of their own sex, which is shameless shilling for the state biotech industry. Apparently teachers are telling elementary school students that they will be able to have children with both sexes by the time they are adults. That is a seriously fucked up thing to tell people, especially impressionable kids. There is no reason to believe that this will ever be possible, let alone legal. And yet teachers are teaching little kids that it doesn’t matter what sex anyone is, you can have children with anyone. Does that have anything to do with the big biotech cash flow? Is that in any way green or democratic?
It costs around $130,000 to have a child by surrogacy.
<
p>
I think that if you were to pay every gay and lesbian couple $130,000 to give up any future rights to same-sex reproductive assistance, most of us would go for it.
<
p>
raweel, in case you’re under the wrong impression, I am not talking about surrogacy or sperm donation or any existing form of “reproductive assistance”, I am talking about new techniques that attempt to genetically modify a person’s genome so that same-sex couples can have children together that are genetically related to both of them, the way a man and a woman do. These techniques haven’t been attempted yet in humans, but scientists are working on them and there is no law against trying it right now, in spite of the huge risk of birth defects.
You don’t seize someone’s house by imminent domain and give them tickets to Disneyland. You provide them another place to live.
<
p>
You expect me to feel grateful that somehow you feel the need to care about ‘fairness’ in your moonbat one-man crusade. It would be disgusting if the whole thing weren’t so laughable.
Well, had you been under the wrong impression? Had you understood that the “egg and sperm” law would not outlaw sperm donation and surrogacy, which are still natural conception? In fact, there is nothing that is currently being done that would be outlawed by the compromise. Only things no one has done yet would be banned: cloning and genetic engineering.
<
p>
I’m trying to ban genetic engineering and protect everyone’s natural conception rights, rather than let biotech companies and mad scientists start creating people and people losing the right to have their own children with the person of their choice. I think this ban can be accomplished only by joining forces with supporters of equal benefits and protections for same-sex couples. I also think it’s the only way to accomplish true equal benefits and protections for same-sex couples.
“I’m trying to ban genetic engineering and protect everyone’s natural conception rights, rather than let biotech companies and mad scientists start creating people and people losing the right to have their own children with the person of their choice.” (my emphasis)
So what, exactly, does this sentence even mean? Are you on a crusade against…forced impregnation or something?
Sent to save us from some terrible tragedy that will happen once we start tinkering with our DNA.
are there some Dems who will base their vote on getting reelected? Sure. Some will vote yes, some no.
<
p>
But, I know with certainty that there are some Dems in the leg who will vote yea or nay without any regard for the majority-wish of their constituents.
<
p>
I also know some Dems for whom being pro-gay marriage was the principal (not only!) reason why they decided to run in the first place.
<
p>
It’s clear that, nationally, the Dems are the lesser of two evils w.r.t. gay rights. But within Massachusetts I believe that the majority of the Dem party is in favor of equality on this issue.
But apparently Murray was unwilling to brush aside a question (I assume that this was a response to a question). Why was she unwilling to do that? I don’t know. Maybe she hasn’t learned the art of responding with the usual “que sera, sera” (what will be, will be). But given the probable length of time that she has been in politics to become Senate president, I doubt it.
<
p>
I acknowledge your point regarding
<
p>
But, I know with certainty that there are some Dems in the leg who will vote yea or nay without any regard for the majority-wish of their constituents.
<
p>
and you’re exactly right. The example is Miriam Walsh (sp?) from Quincy. She was hounded by the RCCi and more than a few of her conservative constituents for her vote against the amendment in the previous ConCon. She stated her position–that the ConCon process is part of the constitutional process–and despite her vote in the ConCon, she won re-election in a landslide.
<
p>
Unless Murray knows something that I don’t–and I’m sure that she does–I will remain skeptical about her ability and willingness to defeat the amendment in the ConCon, or her willingness to do so. I’ll be watching.
<
p>
My same sex spouse and I were married a couple of years ago, so one might presume that this would be merely an academic issue for me. That presumption would be decidedly wrong.
…The only reference that I had regarding Walsh was a newspaper article regarding a meeting that she had with constituents in Quincy. I have no idea where she resides, or the shape of her district.
<
p>
The other points stand.
She has all or parts of Dedham, Westwood, Norwood and in the city West Roxbury and (I think) Roslindale and JP.
thought it was a state house insinuation, nevermind. if it’s paritsan, it’s not worth a joke.
Insults, personal attacks, rudeness, and blanket unsupported statements reduce the level of discourse, interfere with our basic objective, and are not permitted.
based on personal experience, that most of the GOP legislators are quite happy.
Gary, I can only laugh at the absurdity of your apparent belief that your “personal experience” could ever be taken seriously.
Where’d I ask that it be taken seriously?
Peter, can you support that statement or are you just being a nuisance and saying ridiculous things? (And breaking the rules).
Another victory for the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Are you applauding the procedure or the outcome?
I don’t know how I will vote on Gay Marriage. I have not made up my mind yet. But for an issue as important as changing a millenium old definition of marriage, the people should have a say. The Legislature has no right to deny that after the signatures collected. None.
<
p>
It is not the job of the SJC to make law. Which is what they did in this case. Yes they are legally able to in a common law state, but they should not be.
You may wish to read up a bit on the history of marriage. It’s form, purpose and meaning have changed drastically over time – even in the past 100 years. I hope you will want to arrive at your ultimate decision informed. Here’s an brief historical write-up if you’re not near a library any time soon.
I’m reading that Coontz book right now, actually, and through every “shifting definition”, every “drastic change”, marriage has consistently always meant that the couple is allowed to attempt to conceive children together. I’m not quite done wit the bok, but so far there hasn’t been a single case of a marriage that has been prohibited from attempting to conceive children together.
<
p>
There have of course been countless couples that were prohibited from conceiving together, and they were therefore not allowed to marry.
<
p>
Different periods have had different punishments for conceiving out of wedlock, but no couple has ever been punished for conceiving in wedlock, or prohibited from attempting it. If we enact an “egg and sperm” anti-genetic engineering law that prohibits unnatural conceptions, and yet keep same-sex marriages, it will mark the first time that a marriage has not had a right to conceive together. That would be a huge change of marriage, not in a tinker-with-the-roles way, but in a way that removes the core of the definition of marriage. And it wouldn’t jsut change same-sex marraiges, it would change marriage for everyone, it would mean that all marriages could be prohibited from conceiving together. That isn’t what you want, is it?
You write: “If we enact an “egg and sperm” anti-genetic engineering law that prohibits unnatural conceptions, and yet keep same-sex marriages, it will mark the first time that a marriage has not had a right to conceive together. “
<
p>
You are correct…in that case SOME marriages would not be allowed to conceive. Just like in most states SOME couples are not allowed to marry. It will not mark the first time that gay couples have gotten the short end of the stick.
<
p>
You write: “That would be a huge change of marriage, not in a tinker-with-the-roles way, but in a way that removes the core of the definition of marriage. “
<
p>
Let’s first both acknowledge that this culture war is not a fight over a definition but a fight over social acceptance and recognition of homosexual relationships.
<
p>
You write: “And it wouldn’t jsut change same-sex marraiges, it would change marriage for everyone, it would mean that all marriages could be prohibited from conceiving together.”
<
p>
Absolutely illogical leap. But let’s entertain it anyway.
<
p>
If there are good reasons to ban SSRT, you could still have same-sex marriage and argue that a ban on SSRT would be fair in some now-familiar ways: ie no one has an absolute right to reproduce with anyone they want; second, the ban is fair because it limits reproductive options in the same way for those in different-sex marriage where the partner is infertile.
<
p>
You write “That isn’t what you want, is it?”
<
p>
Ban SSRT, give me my $135,000 to allow me to reproduce via heterosexual surrogacy, and we’ll call it even.
From the Causes in Common Pledge of Commitment:
<
p>
I think by “affordable”, you mean “the state pays for it” right?
<
p>
And raweel, if SOME marriages are prohibited from conceiving, then clearly marriage does not guarantee a right to conceive, and that means NO marriage could claim that marriage gives them a right to conceive. Because marriage’s conception rights are not explicitly stated but are intrinsic to the historical definition of marriage, and can only be inferred legally from other laws and cases, they are vulnerable. If we redefine marriage by allowing there to be ONE legal marriage without conception rights, then nothing will protect anyone’s conception rights.
…Best to ignore him
From your comments I doubt very much that you still don’t know how you will vote on gay marriage. The let-the-people vote crowd must recommend this as a stock disclaimer.
<
p>
Two comments
<
p>
One: the millenially old definition of marriage as has been pointed out many times isn’t one man, one woman, but one man, as many women as he can afford. More recently in American history, in the majority of states, the legal definition of marriage was one man, one woman of the same race. (Neither of these landmark changes went to a popular vote, I suspect.) So a so-called ‘definition’ of marriage changes more frequently than you suggest. You can argue whether or not the law should have waited legally recognize same-sex relationships, but gays and lesbians aren’t going anywhere.
<
p>
Two: in fact, most of the citizen-initiated ballot initiatives have died in the legislature in one way or another without making it to a ballot. The process would absolutely allow the Legislature to kill the initiative with 66% of the vote. We are arguing on other whether other measures that avoid a vote would be justified in any sense of the word. Some of the initiative didn’t make it to the ballot, but somehow these don’t matter as much as having a vote over gay marriage.
You may be surprised to know but I’m probably 90% libertarian. I have a big issue with the government getting involved in peoples lives for instance. On this issue, it is fact that marriage in western civilization has been one man and one woman for millenia. Does that mean it can’t change. I don’t think so, but I would like a say in that process. I really haven’t made up my mind.
<
p>
I’ll be honest here, I was very upset with Goodrich when it came down. But as time has gone on, my views on whether same sex marriage should be allowed. I’d still like the Quebec way where all partnerships are a civil union only, and a “marriage” takes place in a church. But if I get the chance to vote, I’m not sure how I would vote. You can believe me or not, but that is my opinion.
<
p>
Goodrich should have never been decided in my opinion. The “equality” crowd should have tried to effect change through the ballot initiative process themselves or through the legislature.
That had been tried for decades, EaBo. Ask Sen Havern sometime. He was one of the lone voices for equality under the law in the state. He can fill you in on just how interested the legislature has been in allowing legislation to get a hearing. We ultimately went to the courts for relief out of despiration. Just like mixed-race couples had to do.
<
p>
Btw, it’s Goodridge, in case you ever want to look it up.
In the eyes of many, that would have had a legitimacy that the court decision never could. AND – you would have had no problem getting your fifty votes to advance it to the ballot!
Sure, just like all those mixed-race couples being deluged with signatures by the majority whites who really really really wanted them to be
lynchedable to marry.and it happens. all. the. time. anyone who cares to know can find the information readily enough.
1998, Matthew Shepard.
<
p>
http://www.matthewsh…
Most of us marriage rights supporters would have been happy had the legislature passed civil union legislation in advance of the Goodridge decision. Especially if Clinton hadn’t sold us out on DOMA.
I apologize if I read too much between the lines. I do respect the truly libertarian view in this solution (no civil marriage as such for anyone, civil unions only with federal recognition) but I think there is little chance of this happening as a realistic political outcome. DOMA took this off the table.
<
p>
My thinking has progressed as well, in the past in the heat of debate I probably have condemned as bigots those who disagree with Goodridge, but I see now how many honestly have problems with the decision that aren’t based on views on homosexuality at all. But still, it happened and it directly benefits my life and many others.
<
p>
I’d say finally that even as a kind of libertarian purity test, the proposed ban in Mass. is a dilemma. The remedy for doing something good (from a given perspective) in the wrong manner is certainly not doing something bad in the right manner. If you believe the government should stay out of the bedroom, and sanction as little as possible, this could matter as much to you as trying to even a score.
how is making yourself as a decisionmaker for other people’s personal decisions at all libertarian? that only works if it goes both ways, right? please convince me that a majority controling a minority’s access to a civil institution is libertarian.
…self-described “libertarians” are rarely nothing more than Republican who want to smoke pot and carry guns–to the OK Corral.
<
p>
Nothing more. Nothing less.
would never smoke pot, but wouldn’t want to stop you from doing so.
<
p>
And he’s much too clumsy to carry a gun.
<
p>
But he does subscribe to the belief that has been pretty much the cornerstone of Massachusetts society since the “Sons of Liberty”, “Leave me alone!
…All men are born free and equal…
<
p>
That was the provision (“free”) of the 1780 Constitution that the MA courts used to declare–in 1783–slavery unconstitutional in Massachusetts. And that was the provision (“equal”) of the MA constitution that the SJC used in the Goodridge case to determine that the state’s refusal to register same-sex marriages was unconstitutional in Massachusetts.
…gay people should not be able to pursue their constitutional rights through the courts.
<
p>
Who else should not be able to pursue their constitutional rights through the courts? Negroes? Spics? Dagos? Kikes?
<
p>
Give me a break. “You should have done it this way.” “You should have done it that way.” At some point you radical conservatives/Republicans get to be rather silly.
you mean a few thousand years, than the claim
<
p>
is a strange one. For one thing, “western civilization” didn’t really exist much 2000 years ago, no less 3000 years ago. Furthermore, in the past few thousands of years, a number of societies allowed various sorts of polygamy, including assorted old testament families, vikings, Mormons, Irish, Native Americans, etc.
<
p>
Check out Yale history professor John Boswell’s [admittedly controversial and not free of academic criticism] work on gay marriage within the Christian church — it’s all over the place, with many instances before the 14th century.
<
p>
The meme that marriage is unchanged for thousands of years is false, plain and simple. In addition to homosexual marriage and polygamy, society has also changed opinion on divorce, female subservience, procreation rights, much within the past 50-100 years.
though. I would really like to see the leadership in our legislature stand up and show the nation that this debate is a little bit archaic (to say the least) and it would be nice to move on and focus our legislative efforts on issues that actually effect the lives of Massachusetts citizens.
…that we all know that if the lege votes and kills the amendment, this will not be enough for the marriage amendment people. Partisanship means that outcomes are important, not process.
… we live in a republic. That means process is important and sometimes trumps outcomes.
For some of us, a minority on both sides of the issue, the outcome will crucially effect the shape of our lives.
<
p>
I understand how you are able to maintain an idealism about process, but I respectfully submit to you that the vote either way wouldn’t affect you one way or another.
<
p>
So yes, I recognize your point, you have the advantage of some emotional distance from the matter, but I only ask that you understand that for many gay and lesbian families, this has strong consequences.
but what you have to understand is that this isn’t about “shiny idealism.” It’s about the law. The only thing that holds a democracy together is the tacit understanding that governments behave according to their ownconstitutions.
<
p>
The choice you would leave the rest of us is this:
<
p>
1. Live under a benign oligarchy, where everyone pretends we’re in a democracy until someone proposes a law we don’t like, and then we abandon the law to ensure the liberal ruling class survives; OR
<
p>
2. Live under a representative democracy that hears ALL of its citizens in accordance with its own laws, even at the risk of denying a minority a fundamental right.
<
p>
That’s it. That’s the choice. Line up wherever you want on this, but just know that it’s really hard for both sides.
You make a good comment.
<
p>
Some would say we do live in a benign oligarchy led by corporate interests.
<
p>
I know where I stand, if indeed this country is still a representative democracy. I believe everyone has the right to be heard, but fundamental rights should not be up to popular vote.
<
p>
In fairness, I’m not advocating any resolution that is outside of the powers of the legislature, but I argue that the same legislative maneuvers that so often seem to favor corporate interests in this case are the right thing to do to protect fundamental rights.
And advocate for killing the amendment by voting to adjourn, how long would it take for the system to fall apart?
<
p>
I ask this because a similar amendment-killing vote was taken at the last concon (and many previous ones), yet life seems to be proceeding normally.
James Madison said that fanctions were the most horrible thing for a democracy. He described them as “a number of citizens? who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens.” To impede such factions, he called upon the elected officials when he stated:
<
p>
“The effect of the first difference [between a Republic and a Democracy] is, on the one hand to refine and the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice, will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations.”
You? Me? A BMG pole?
<
p>
Enough Massachusetts citizens (or Massholes as I like to call us) had decided that this was important enough to make it part of the agenda by the ballot petition system. I wouldn’t call this “disappointing” it is the correct thing to do. The big question is how the leg will vote.
<
p>
I for one would like the vote to be to either keep marriage for all, including same sex couples, or get ride of marriage for all. Make everyone go to a lawyer and set up civil union type agreements.
what you want is marriage for all or marriage for none? that doesn’t make sense to me.
I think he was saying it matters that the lege take up the amendment, regardless of the outcome.
<
p>
It makes me nervous too, but I understand his point and respect his position. Many of those who don’t have strong feelings one way or the other have some notion that an up or down vote is more fair. And why wouldn’t they, if the outcome doesn’t really affect them one way or another? Better they can maintain the shiny idealism of good process.
And written by EB3, of course.
Request to anyone using the phrase “the millenium old definition of marriage”: please provide the source upon which you base this statement, which assumes that marriage hasn’t changed in 1000 years. Thanks.
that marriage at one time was more a contract between the father of the bride and the groom. Than yes, marriage has changed. If you mean that marriage has not been one man and one woman in the British Common Law tradition that this nation is based upon than I would say no, marriage has not changed. It is that second definition that I am referring to.
“The claim that marriage existed unchanged for thousands of years is also false. Two hundred years ago, the generation that produced the Enlightenment and the American Revolution overturned thousands of years of tradition by insisting that the older generation must allow young people to choose their own mates on the basis of love rather than to further their parents’ economic and political ambitions.
<
p>
Even more radical and recent has been the innovation of giving wives and husbands equal rights in marriage. Until the late 19th century, a husband legally owned all his wife’s property and earnings and could do with them what he pleased. He had the right to physically “correct” his wife and even imprison her in the home for disobedience.
<
p>
When courts began to treat wives as separate legal entities with their own individual rights, defenders of “traditional” marriage predicted that such a radical social change would “destroy domestic tranquility” and subvert the “order of society.”
<
p>
from Stephanie coontz editorial
….specious or less powerful than we must maintain it because it has always been. By your reasoning we should all still be under British rule. At least we’d all be earning pounds instead of our week little dollars.
Our laws and customs are directly descendent from British Common Law and the Magna Carta. Well at least in 49 of the 50 states with the exception being Louisiana which has a civil code that can be traced to Emperor Justinian and his Corpus Juris Civilis.
<
p>
These are facts and not debatable. That is all I was bringing out, nothing more nothing less.
So our laws and customs stem from British Common Law and the Magna Carta. Indeed they do, and it’s an astute historical observation. It’s a shame that non-debatable fact has nothing to do with the issue at hand, marriage equality in 2007, whatsoever. As that’s all you’re bringing out I’m gonna assume that your comment was similarly irrelevant.
…amounts to absolutely nothing but a statemet of historical “fact” that has no more bearing on how this issue should be decided than the existence of thousands of years of slavery should have been considered when the emancipation proclomation was issued. Again, the persistence of something is not a valid justification for its continuence. Your point is specious because it purports to carry the weight of history but is in no way relevant to how the current issue should be decided. The seal on the marriage issue has been broken, in MA and in many other places around the country and around the world. If you want to put the genie back in the bottle you can’t use the “tradition” argument because it is no longer true that “marriage is between a man and a woman.”
<
p>
…you are referring to this
<
p>
And even the “tradition” asserted in the preceding comment is wrong.
If you mean that marriage has not been one man and one woman in the British Common Law tradition that this nation is based upon than I would say no, marriage has not changed.
<
p>
Unless and until same-sex couples were denied the right to marry, we would have had no idea whether common law tradition would have said that they did not have a common law right to marry. That should be obvious to anyone (even to a blithering idiot) peradventure.
<
p>
Now, you tell me, Mr. ArmChairLawyer. What same-sex couples were denied the right to marry under British common law? Cite me chapter and verse.
<
p>
Recognize that British common law was pretty much established by around 600CE, and was pretty much based on Roman law. If you want to go back to Roman law, just say so.
when it was now or never for the health care amendment, which the SJC ruling also required to be brought up for a vote. If she could have gotten all 34 senators that voted for her on the same page, she could have had them defy “Master Traviglini’s wishes”.
<
p>
“The rule of law” argument is cheap and anything but consistent. It’s only implied when a group of bigots start beating their chests and claiming righteous victimhood. None of them cared about whether the state senators followed the law on the health care amendment, and that exposes them as bigots who will care about ‘the rule of law’ when it benefits them and can throw it aside when it doesn’t.
Especially on this site, there are people for whom the ideals of process and ‘good government’ are paramount. Most of these people won’t be personally effected by a same-sex marriage ban so they can hold these views with little conflict.
<
p>
However I don’t think it’s fair to call all of these people bigots. It is annoying how the rhetoric of good government can be used to rationalize bigotry in this very particular instance, but in the end, the process liberals and the good government libertarians are our natural allies!
…and I can tell you that “process liberal” is nothing more than horse manure to cover their anti-gay bigotry. The “process liberals” prattle on about “process” regarding the process for the anti-same-sex marriage amendment, and (voila!) nothing else.
<
p>
Some of us were born a night, dear, but not last night.
<
p>
Self-described “liberals” are not necessarily allies of gay people on equal rights issues. I’ve noticed that long ago, as I’ve noted here before.
is a process liberal. And I think he’s with you on Gay Marriage.
Cursing out the rest of the party that you need isn’t really there. “Anti-gay bigotry”?
<
p>
I’m not even a “process liberal”, I’m a “quit whining it’ll be here soon enough, meanwhile we’re laying off teachers, why are we wasting so much energy on this” liberal.
<
p>
Rough budget meeting last night – but anyways, me not caring (either way, honestly) about whether you call it marriage or civil unions or whatever as long as legal rights are taken care of certainly doesn’t make me a bigot
…you not caring about how an issue of equality resolves itself for people who’s overwhelming point of view is that it is best resolved in a particular way, when one way carries with it undeniable rights and privileges and the other way would create a separate and in no way equal status kind of does make you a bigot. If bigotry can be separated into degrees, which I believe it can, you are guilty of bigotry by indifference. Doesn’t really affect you, so why should you care? Sounds bigoted to me.
Meanwhile, while you get worked up about it to the exclusion of other issues, how’s your school district doing?
<
p>
Anyways I’m not telling you not to work on the cause you’re passionate about — but telling everyone who’s not working on it that they’re bigoted? I’d suggest better word choice, honey, vinegar and all that.
<
p>
As far as “bigotry by indifference”, am I to assume that if I was REALLY MAD AND FIRED UP ABOUT GAY MARRIAGE then I’d be a shiny happy person and morally sound? Come on. I suppose you’re “hating the children by indifference” if you’re not working on local aid and education funding.
the logical approach, if you think marriage equality will be secure eventually anyways, is to help make it secure sooner rather than later. doing that will free up resources that otherwise will be tied up in the defense of equality. do you want those resources available now, or in some misty distant future? think about it. working for something you don’t really care about can actually advance the issues you do care about.
I wasn’t saying nobody work on it, I was saying don’t gratuitously throw words like “bigot” around at your allies. Which you didn’t.
…is another judgment call being made. Why do you presume the use of the term bigot is gratuitous?
…that I am not concerned with local aid. I never said that I wasn’t and have given no indication that it is not important to me. And I certainly did not go into a thread about local aid and admonish people for thinking that it is important. And as far as bigotry by indiffernce is concerned I should amend this in your case as bigotry by active display of indifference. You made an effort to denegrate the efforts of others to further the security of marriage equality by actively commenting on their efforts with no affirmative need to do so. You made a choice to publicly state that your indifference is more important than my activism because your issues are “actually” important.
<
p>
I love the children and support local aid. I voluntarily pay 6% on my state taxes every year to contribute more to the Commonwealth and donate money to 2 schools in my neigborhood every year.
<
p>
As far as the honey/vinegar argument goes, I’m not so worried. If what I’ve said is going to convince you to vote against marriage equality then my bigot comment was all the more accurate.
<
p>
“You’re a jerk! And if you don’t like me now, that proves I was right about you!”
<
p>
I’m gonna vote for gay marriage if it gets to the ballot, don’t worry.
…what that comment means, and I’m really not concerned with how you personally plan on voting. I just think it is important for people to understand that deliberately belittling other people’s efforts for no reason is suspect behavior and should be avoided.
…why not just get it called “marriage” and be done with it?
<
p>
Why? I’ll tell you why. It is because the difference is nothing more than verbal Apartheid. Nothing more, nothing less. Verbal Apartheid.
<
p>
That is what Margaret Marshall, the author of the Goodridge decision probably recognized when the SJC, in their 2004 advisory opinion to the legislature as to whether civil unions would meet their decision, said no. Marshall had been raised in South Africa under the Apartheid regime, and she was probably well aware of the differences that even a word would make.
<
p>
I’m sorry. Let’s not go through the charade of suggesting that rights under a different–and hence lower–name, mean the same. They do not.
<
p>
I actually used to believe that civil unions granting the same rights and obligations as marriage to same sex couples would be OK. The longer that I had considered it, the more that I determined, no. If the rights and obligations are the same, why would people be opposed to just calling civil unions marriages? Why? And suddenly it dawned upon me. Because the different term is still a put-down of gay people. And that is aside from the fact that people and organizations who are opposed to same-sex marriage are also fighting tooth-and-nail against civil unions.
<
p>
All people are born free and equal. That’s what the MA constitution says. And that’s what it means. And that is how it should be applied.
I’m not fine with people telling me it’s the most important distinction on earth when most of the cities and towns in the state can’t even pay the bills to do the things that actually are some of the most important things in the country
…are not as you say “fine with it” if you have to dismiss it in the same sentence. Protecting gay families is not less important than providing decent education for all families. It is part of the same package of issues that are actually important. Your dismissive tone belies your feigned but time pressed support of the proposition. If you are so busy with other matters of “actual” importance however did you find the time to stop by and comment dismissively on something that you clearly have no time for? Seems you have plenty of time to be critical but no time to be supportive. I have plenty of time to state that this seems like “actual” hypocrisy to me.
That’s my basic point. Being a “process liberal” is totally justifiable and calling someone a bigot for it is BS.
<
p>
And yes, trust me, I’m totally fine with it, I have the strong opinion that legal rights should be taken care of and then after that a mild opinion that you may as well just call it marriage, it doesn’t hurt anyone. Knock yourself out. But don’t throw around words like bigotry at people who just aren’t particularly amped up about it.
…process includes the parliamentary procedures that are available to the opponents, including tabling, sending to committee, adjourning, avoiding the ConCon so as to prevent it from having a quorum, usw.
<
p>
The self-described so-called “process liberals” want to single out this one proposed amendment for their so-called “process liberalism.” Why is that?
<
p>
I would conclude that it is because they really don’t give a tinker’s damn, or a flying f@ck, about equal rights for gay people. And that’s one reason why I don’t particularly give a tinker’s damn, or a flying f@ck, for self-described liberals, just because they are self-described liberals.
<
p>
As I’ve mentioned before, at the national level, the only people who have done anything for gay people were Republicans, with the repeal of the estate tax. Nobody has suggested otherwise. And it is the Democrats who want to overturn that.
….a continuum of bigotry ranging from mouth foaming haters to people who quietly make decisions that undermine the civil rights of others. The process liberals being discussed here, which is in the context of our new head process liberal Ms. Murray who states that she will call for an up or down vote on gay marriage because process is important but had no problem killing the health care amendment. If you are for process you are for process. In this there is no continuum or scale. Clearly Ms. Murry is not a process liberal and neither is anyone who would not kill the marriage amendment but would kill the health care amendment. They are willing to act in a manner that risks the civil rights of many while hiding behind a facade of respect for process that is demonstrably dishonest. That is bigotry. The word was not gratuitously misapplied, it was appropriately thrown at the feet of those who deserve to scrape it off their shoes should they accidentally step in it.
…Clearly Ms. Murry is not a process liberal and neither is anyone who would not kill the marriage amendment but would kill the health care amendment.
<
p>
Murray is a hypocrite. And that’s why I don’t trust people who claim to be liberal with my civil rights just because they claim to be liberal.
…cities and towns issue marriage licenses and register marriages for same-sex couples on the same basis that they do so for opposite sex couples? If so, the relationship escapes me.
<
p>
Quite frankly, if you are concerned about the state legislature in all this, you should be suggesting that they ignore the same-sex marriage issue and get on with other issues. Do you not acknowledge that? If not, why not?
If the rights and obligations are the same, why would people be opposed to just calling civil unions marriages?
<
p>
I agree with you, there is no good reason except bigotry, and it makes no sense to support equal rights but give them a different name. At the same time, though, if the rights are different, they should have a different name.
<
p>
And the rights should be different: every person should have a right to conceive with someone of the other sex, but not with someone of their same sex.
<
p>
We should definitely not allow people to attempt to conceive with someone of the same sex. And if the rights of same-sex couples are not the same, this should be acknowledged by giving the union a different name, rather than redefining marriage so that it no longer gaurantees a right attempt to conceive together.
<
p>
Hopefully the candidates will make this case and can push for an egg and sperm law along with civil unions.
It is indeed fit-inducing to watch good-government idealism get used as an assault weapon. I don’t think these guys are all bigots though. Maybe you disagree, in which case feel free to patronize me all you like, but whether or not people like me give these guys cover sooner or later they will be exposed.
<
p>
There are indeed some real bigots who don’t feel comfortable for whatever reason to acknowledge their own gut feelings and need political cover, whether from the left or the right.
<
p>
The time may come when the process actually produces an outcome these guys don’t like, we can expect that the process liberals will then all sit down but the bigots will grasp around for another rationale to get behind.
is doubly reprehensible.
<
p>
If not following the Constitution is bad, not following it selectively is surely worse.
that NO ONE is pressing a lawsuit against the legislators who voted to not vote on the merits of the HC amendment. where’s the outrage? there is none. so your point falls kind of flat. when “good government” people get serious rather than selective about their outrage, then i’ll take the arguement more seriously. until then, you can inderstand why the ‘b’ word keeps surfacing. there is little other explanation for the selective outrage.
and I said so here on BMG at the time. I called my state rep on his cell phone to express my disappointment with his vote to keep it in committee.
before the state Supreme Judicial Court. Has been for some time. Has been discussed here on BMG with link to the case.
<
p>
Donald Stern, a former U.S. Attorney, is the plaintiff’s lawyer for the case (disclosure: I am one of the plaintiffs).
<
p>
This from the HC Amendment website:
Thanks AnnEm for this. FOrgive me if this is on the linked website and I just missed it, but what groups beyond the one sponsoring the HC amendment will be party to a lawsuit against the legislators who took that final “no, dont take it from committee” vote? I fully anticipate Romney to write another letter in support of anyhing the HC folks initiate, because it will be useful to his campaign.
<
p>
But as for the VoteOnMarriage et al, they clearly only cared about glomming onto your lawsuit because it benefited their goal of killing equality. When they got their vote but you didn’t, did you get an immediate and outraged call from them stating they were going to sue the legislators who voted against HC? If not, my point is made.
A good question and a very telling question.
<
p>
The Jan 2 2007 ConCon votes the he HC Amendment can be seen on a pdf that’s posted on the HCA campaign homepage (I don’t know how to link to a pdf). Look for the link in this section:
<
p>
It’s also worth knowing this: Did Murray “Vote with leadership” on the July 12, 2006 DISINGENOUS TACTIC TO KILL THE AMENDMENT BY SENDING IT TO A BOGUS “STUDY COMMITTEE” THAT NEVER MET NOT EVEN ONCE. click here for July 12 2006 roll call vote
<
p>
btw Murray voted to kill the HC Amendment in July and she voted to break the law and keep it from its 2nd required up or down vote on its merits on Jan 2 2007. (It got its 1st ConCon vote in July 2004 where it received 153 YES votes.)
<
p>
Could this have anything to do with how Murray’s been able to stay in “leadership”? Who’s really running this state, anyway, in all honesty… No wonder so many people have checked out.
Anne – why haven’t the proponents of the HC amendment followed up with the Bar Association to censure those legislators who are ATTORNEYS who flouted the decision?
<
p>
I realize this would not apply to Sen. Murray, but there are a lot of legislators out there who still don’t seem to understand that refusing to bring HC to a substantive vote was wrong.
…exactly?
…the Bar Association issued a press release that they would censure any attorney who voted for a recess/adjournment in lieu of a substantive vote, given the SJC ruling that a substantive vote is legally required, and that a procedural vote does not satisfy the requirement that a vote be taken. The idea was that they would be censured as officers of the court for ignoring a legal directive fom the highest legal authority in the Commonwealth.
<
p>
I don’t see why voting to leave the HC petition in a study – which was a procedural roll call vote – is any different. All the light and press were directed at the marriage petition, but legally, they enjoy the same standing – a properly filed citizen petition which should either be sent to the electorate or voted down by the legislators on the record.
…the bar association has absolutely no power over the standing of any attorney in the Massachusetts bar.
<
p>
Please, give me a break.
Does a bar censure or sanction have no practical affect on the standing of an attorney?
….Overseers who are chaged with the duty of policing the ethics of attorneys in MA, not the Bar Association.
…As was indicated above, it is the Board of Bar Overseers that regulates admission and membership to the Massachusetts state bar.
<
p>
In some states, there is what is referred to as an “integrated bar,” in which the analog to the MBA actually does regulate admission and membership to the respective state bar. But not in MA.
…if you were to ask Braude if he would require a vote in every state on whether inter-racial marriage should be allowed there, he would recoil in horror.
<
p>
Same thing with same-sex marriage. “Process liberals” aren’t really comfortable with gays. They’ve made that perfectly clear. They have chosen to hide their bigotry behind “process,” and so, I have no use for them. Give me my tax cuts.
EaBoClipper @ Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 08:21:02 AM EDT
Rather than scour the web for “Definitions” of marriage and what ever other words you want to dissect.
<
p>
Why don’t we get down to the heart of the issue – How will people vote if they get the chance.
<
p>
I don’t see the Mass state legislature squashing this….It’s too high profile now, and you can’t deny the tens of thousands of people who signed the petition to get this put on the 2008 ballot.
<
p>
So how are you going to convince the people to vote for or against this????
<
p>
If you want my opinion . . . I think once it is put to a vote the people will shut down gay marriage. 10 states voted on it and voted against it in 2004. I think the same will happen in here.
<
p>
I’m sure my church will have HUGE voter turn out as will all the other churches in the state (or at least the Catholic Churches).
<
p>
…as much of a chance of being given control of the framing of the debate in this forum as I do of being invited to tea with the Pope. The point is that people who are passionate about marriage equality will fight this every inch of the way and waving around a petition matters not. In 2006 the vote did not make it in Arizona and squeaked by in Colorado. MA makes those states look like Crawford TX on the politcal thermometer. YOur rhetoric doesn’t work here. Off with you before someone drops a house on you.
…before anyone starts rushing to judgment about the house dropping comment, its a Wizard of Oz reference so lighten up.
“The point is that people who are passionate about marriage equality will fight this every inch of the way”
<
p>
Of course they will…no argument here….I’m just saying they are few in numbers
<
p>
as compared to the masses of religious folks who are at church EVERY Sunday morning while most people are still asleep. These folks I know will show up and vote.
<
p>
And You have to admit……you are nervous though aren’t you???
<
p>
Don’t worry about the house comment. I know it was a figure of speech.
…they are not few in number and here in MA they are a majority.
….the majority to which I refer consists of the citizens of the Commonwealth who are 1)supportive of full marriage equality and 2) not supportive of using a constitutional amendment to restrict the rights of a particular class of people. There is certainly a lot of overlap in those two factions, but I believe that their combined numbers will easily represent a majority of voters. Even though I believe this I still maintain that to even allow a vote on this amendment is an insult to representational democracy.
You say you got more people . . . . I say I got more people . . . . Let’s just agree to disagree
<
p>
But you have to admit this NEWS is great!!!! This is democracy!
<
p>
this is HUGE…. and I’m feeling confident..
<
p>
My opposition does not want to see this come to a vote by the people . . . . And people on my side of the isle know it
<
p>
I’m feeling good. And looking forward to the vote in 2008 : )
We will always have extremists on both sides no matter how forcefully we seek arete. If this amendment fails, there will be a second one, or the haters will have something else up their sleeves. What we have to learn as a society is how to look past the vitriol of boths sides and see what is best for all of us. Can anyone show me where elevating a minority group to the level of equal has ever harmed society in the past? If people want to say that gay marriage causes social harm, then let them prove it in a court a law. Then we can move forward with an act meant to correct that harm found. Until we start looking at this logically and less emotionally all sense is lost. This amendment is putting the cart before the horse when proof is not there.