… but there’s no reason to prevent gay people from getting married too. (And there’s every reason why preventing them from getting married is just cruel, discriminatory, and wrong.)
That’s my new appeal to fence-sitters. Do the right thing today, everyone. Vote for more marriage. Here we go …
Wayne Woodlief writes a must-read on the lobbying going on today, and it’s a feel-good story, from my perspective:
The attempt to change their minds has been extraordinary. “I’ve never seen anything like it,” said a rep from a district undergoing significant gentrification, who voted for the ban last year. “I’ve gotten 600 e-mails and more than 700 postcards since last Friday. They’re running about 7-1 in favor of same-sex marriage.”
He was visited by Sue Tracy, an openly gay former legislator who brought photos of the two children adopted by her and her partner. “She talked to me about my family, her family, said we both want our kids to do well, showed me those pictures. That’s strong stuff.
“Liz Malia (the gay rep from Jamaica Plain) came by. She’s great. How do you say no to Liz Malia?”
Yet, the rep said, “Some people I’ve known all my life tell me they’ll never speak to me again if I switch my vote. I don’t know yet what I’m going to do. And there are five or six other reps just like me.”
Big-name pols also are weighing in.
Sen. Edward M. Kennedy has telephoned several persuadables with this message, as summed up by aide Melissa Wagoner: “Massachusetts is used to leading the nation in education, health care and biotechnology. Civil rights should be no different.”
This effort on behalf of something so manifestly positive really does our side proud. But we’re not content with moral victories — we gotta win today.
And fence sitters should ask themselves how the vote they take today will look 10 years from now.
<
p>
Which side of history do they want to be on?
in 10 years, when their daughter or son says “Dad, why did you vote my rights away?” Those are parting words.
AMEN!
Ha!
I was hoping folks weren’t going to be offended … passed the first test.
“Marriage is between a man and a woman, and a man and a man, and a woman and a woman!”, but it wouldn’t fit!
When I revisited the amendment, I couldn’t help thinking that it would be great if the ConCon used the 75% rule to change its wording from:
<
p>
When recognizing marriages entered into after the adoption of this amendment by the people, the Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall define marriage only as the union of one man and one woman.
<
p>
to:
<
p>
When recognizing marriages entered into after the adoption of this amendment by the people, the Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall define marriage as the union of one man and one woman, one man and one man, or one woman and one woman.
<
p>
That would spit in the face of the polygamy paranoid (even though that is specifically forbidden here anyway). It would reinforce what the legislature should have done right after or even before Goodridge.
<
p>
Of course, as an amended initiative, it would no longer pass in the same form twice, so it would be dead. Hmm.
As I noted over on Ryan’s Take, the fine folks at RedMassGroup are complaining about how weary they are of being called bigots.
<
p>
From where I sit, they can talk about weary after they’ve:
<
p>
– been spit on and been called “faggot” for the crime of standing outside a gay bar
– had a job go away after the CEO meets their partner
– been told they can’t visit their partner in the hospital, since only immediate family is allowed
– been told they can’t attend a friend’s funeral because the family weren’t happy he was gay and they don’t want a reminder…
<
p>
You can gussy up the bigotry with BS arguments like gary’s “what if this SSM thing is just a mistake and results in messed up families and kids.” It’s still bigotry. Trying to claim that YOU’RE the victim, or worse, a HERO fighting for people’s rights is just pathetic.
If they don’t want to be called bigots, then wouldn’t the best thing to do be to stop being bigots?
<
p>
Oh wait, too simple…..
welcome back – you’ve been missed!
I’m not planning on needing a lawyer after getting arrested.
I’m not planning on getting an abortion.
I’m not planning on requesting euthanasia.
I’m not planning on marrying another man.
<
p>
But I want to have those rights, should they ever come up — though how would the third I’m not quite sure. None of these are rights for a small select group of people — they’re rights that every person has, whether used or not.
<
p>
Marriage can be between a man and a woman, or between two men or two women. As long as anyone belongs to one of those categories, equal marriage is a right for all of us.
<
p>
All of these are rights worth fighting for. Let’s fight the good fight today.