Hey, there! Log in / Register
Marriage equality is here to stay!
By eeka on Thu, 06/14/2007 - 1:25pm
Thank you, legislators! I'm so proud to live in a state where equal rights are valued.
Photo by Sushiesque. See her other photos from outside the State House.
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Bravo!
And it was done in a procedurally correct manner -- by defeating it fair and square in the Legislature, without any parliamentary tricks.
Yep!
They done good.
http://1smootshort.blogspot.com
But the PEEEEEPUL didn't get
But the PEEEEEPUL didn't get to vote on whether complete strangers get to marry! Therefore it was wrong!
Kris Mineau (Mass Family Institute head) said that he's requesting an investigation as to whether any illegal tactics were used to change votes.
Somehow, I suspect if the vote had been 151-44 the other way, he wouldn't be so eager to look too closely.
ARE there illegal tactics?
I mean, doesn't pretty much most legislative activity involve bribery and schmoozing up the wazoo? Is there anything that ISN'T allowed in convincing lawmakers to vote a certain way?
http://1smootshort.blogspot.com
Well, there's a difference
Well, there's a difference between "allowed" and "generally accepted as long as everyone's looking the other way."
I'd prefer to think that a bunch of legislators just suddenly came to their collective senses.
Don't knock the tricks
Had they not used the tricks earlier, they would have been able to block the vote formally today. I'm glad they were able to do it this way, but I don't mind one bit that they used the options available to them to put off the vote. I suspect the voters might have rejected it anyway, but there is no cause for putting the civil rights of people up to a vote. It'd be a circus which just disrespects the humanity of the men and women whose rights are at stake.
I would also suggest that a good amendment to our Constitution might be raising the absurdly low requirements for ballot access for amendments by ballot initiative. 3% of voters and 25% of legislators just seems to set the bar way too low. I'm not a fan of ballot initatives in the first place, but if we have to have them then the standard to show popular interest should be something north of 3% of votes plus 50 politicians.
Have You Ever Attempted To Get People To Sign A Petition?
It is amazingly hard to collect enough valid signatures to equal 3% of the voting populace. Unless you have the money to hire paid petitioners, you have to have a very strong grass roots organization to begin with in order to do so. One or two cranks with an extremely unpopular cause can't get it done.
The process of ballot initiatives is probably my favorite part of the governmental process in the Commonwealth. Whether I agree or disagree with what is being put onto the ballot, I much prefer having the option to by-pass the legislature in place.
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
Oh, they had paid petitioners all right...
...who were from out of state, and some of whom signed affidavits indicating they'd tricked people into signing it.
http://1smootshort.blogspot.com
petition fraud
A number of people found that they had signed the anti-marriage petition when they thought they were signing the petition to allow more beer and wine licenses for grocery stores.
Yes, I Recall Those Reports
I do remember those incidents. That was shameful stuff.
In order to save the petitioning process - which seems to come under fire rather often - I'd be willing to go for an amendment disallowing paid and/or out-of-state petitioners. I'd prefer that it stay as is, but I'd take that compromise.
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
Or...
What if it required people to send a handwritten letter to their legislators rather than just signing something? For people who have physical disabilities or don't write, they could substitute a letter physically written by someone else with an explanation of who wrote it and why, but a person would still need to be able to articulate the issue in a couple of sentences in order to be counted.
Most people don't understand the petitioning process, and most of them read the fact that a petition exists as an endorsement that the issue has already been taken seriously by the government, and don't realize that the government permits citizens to circulate petitions on any issue. Remember that the majority of the population aren't the people who understand this process and are debating it on the internet.
Requiring people to actually take action if they think something is important, rather than just signing something shoved at them at the grocery store, would be a better way of reflecting what's actually important to the people. I doubt anyone's going to say they were tricked into writing original text explaining why civil rights should be denied to some people.
http://1smootshort.blogspot.com
That's Not A Bad Idea
Not a bad idea, Eeka. I'm sure a reasonable threshhold of support could be established that would make most of us happy.
As it now stands, I fear that too many people have (reasonable) fears concerning the legitimacy of the process. I definitely want to see the process kept alive, but I'm certainly open to intelligent compromise, such as you've suggested. I hope the legislature might also be.
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
Yes and...
...48,000 of the 170,000 signatures Vote on Marriage has been bragging about were disallowed by the Secretary of State exactly for those deceptive practices.
Marriage equality enemies weren't very noble from start to finish, were they? They started with faked/fraudalent signatures and ended with a sore loser threat to 'investigate' the vote.
Just give up already, haters!
All the people griping about
All the people griping about how Nancy Pelosi had no business interfering because she's not from here? They don't seem to have a gripe that petition signers and protestors were brought in from out of state.
Representative Democracy
If its really hard to get just 3%, maybe the petition is the problem. 3% of voters, not even registered voters but actual voters in the last governor's race, is just a very low hurdle to cross. If that is prohibitively difficult, then perhaps the problem is in the petition.
Our system of government is representative democracy for a reason. Referendums aren't true democracy. They are a very bad imitation of it. I'll stick with elected representatives who's job it is to serve the voters than mass-media campaigns funded by out-of-state millionares with an ax to grind.
Whuh?
"Referendums aren't true democracy. They are a very bad imitation of it."
In what way are referendums a worse imitation of democracy than the election of the representatives themselves? The same pool of eligible voters decides whether to vote or stay home.
And I fail to see how a difficult hurdle (the 3%) can be seen as a problem with the petition itself. If it's a difficult hurdle, it's a difficult hurdle - not an excuse to trash the system. You and I may disagree on whether that actually IS a difficult hurdle, but your reasoning eludes me.
By the way, I've petitioned for signatures many times, for various candidates and causes. I ask again: Have you? If you haven't, then you don't know what you're talking about concerning the difficulty.
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
See California...
... where fads regularly get voted into place in referenda, often overruling the legislature.
I vastly prefer the way we do it.
I Second That!
I agree wholeheartedly--this is a great day to live in Massachusetts! Woohoo, and thanks to everyone for all their hard work!
WOOHOO!
If this had passed, I was going to start a ballot initiative to vote on whether Southern Baptists* could marry.
*Southern Baptists chosen at random; I know there are plenty of Baptists who believe in equality.
Make it Even Funnier...
... and make it so left-handed people can't marry! There are lots of insane religous arguments (Muslims consider the left-hand to be 'dirty', on judgement day Jesus will put the damned to his left) as well as other pseudo-scientific crazy reasons (left-handers are more likely to die from accidents, they die earlier than right-handers, etc).
It would make for more accurate satire, as well.
But, in the spirit of hte day, let's just say we'll keep the idea in reserve until the day that the haters try another petition initiative...
Actually, I was going to
Actually, I was going to propose a ballot initiative to vote on revoking the marriages of anyone married by a church or other religious institution found complicit in pedophilia cases, and to revoke those churchs' authority to officiate marriages.
After all, think of the children.
And don't forget...
...the petition to make divorce illegal in Massachusetts (and to prevent Massachusetts from recognizing divorces performed out-of-state). Gotta preserve the sanctity of the institution, don't ya know.
But considering that most of
But considering that most of those found complicit in pediphelia cases were molesting those of the same sex well I think we can give'em a pass.
Nothing like spouting off an opinion without the facts
Sex abuse cases, not pedophilia cases. The media doesn't generally tell you whether someone convicted of sexual assault was diagnosed with pedophilia. (Most offenders aren't pedophiles. Pedophiles are sexually attracted to children and may or may not act on this. There are considerably fewer pedophiles than sex offenders.)
If you read even very basic literature about sexual offending, nearly all offenders are men who identify as straight and are not pedophiles. They aren't sexually attracted to their victims and don't become sexually aroused by molesting children.
Besides, what the FUCK does this have to do with same-sex marriage? If there was any conclusion you could draw from this, wouldn't it be that straight men shouldn't be able to marry, since most sex offenders are straight men? Obviously that's ridiculous, and anyone should be able to marry anyone they want. No one's marriage should be denied because of actions or opinions of someone not connected to the marriage.
Hooray!
Me too! Thank goodness for Massachusetts!
hooray! :D this is wonderful
hooray! :D this is wonderful news.
Congratulations
To everyone who worked hard, and spoke out, and believed in this. I love this state.
w00t!
Hooray for Massachusetts! This makes me so proud to live here:)
We're amazing
Thanks to Judge Margaret Marshall!
Equal Rights? Hardly.
I'm so proud to live in a state where equal rights are valued.
The politically-correct ones? Sure.
The day a poor, black, single mom in Dorchester can exercise and enjoy the same right to self defense as a rich, politically-connected denizen of Beacon Hill is the day I'll lend some credence to your words.
Until then, they're but hollow platitudes of the Massachusetts Leftist persuasion.
Can someone explain to me
Can someone explain to me how voting on the right of same sex individuals to marry is any different from the voting on the Bill of Rights or the 14th Amendment?
Let's see...
Regarding the U.S. Constitution, there is a process outlined therein for adding or repealing amendments.
At the state level, this is what the anti-gay marriage folks were trying to do - amend the State Constitution per the methods prescribed by law.
The legislature cast their votes, as called for by law, and the measure failed.
So, in this summation, there is little difference, outside the state level vs. federal level angle.
The issue gets more confusing when you throw in the "What is a 'right'?" question.
Is marriage (straight or gay) a "right"? I would argue it isn't, seeing as its a man-made construct brought about through the passage of laws, with numerous restrictions on the exercise thereof.
"Traditional" marriages can only take place when all the requirements of the State are met. Even those requirements are subject to change, with the changes in public opinion and political climate.
My solution: Divorce the government from the marriage industry.
Why should married people pay less in taxes than two people living together, or two siblings who happen to share a home?
The more the .gov gets its hands on something, the more f-ed up that something will become. Guaranteed. See Hillarycare.
Then again, I'm of the opinion that Congressman and Senator should be part-time positions that pay only a modest travel stipend to those who hold those seats. And, the IRS should be completely dismantled and rebuilt with 1/10,000th the operating budget.
In Massachusetts, though,
In Massachusetts, though, marriage has always been a civil institution, not a religious one.
If marriage isn't a right, then it's a privilege, and why should that privilege be extended to only certain people? (I think this is basically what you're arguing).
Basically...
It's not that it's necessarily a right or a privilege, per se. It's basically, in the eyes of the State, a contract between two individuals, seeking the socio-economic benefits afforded them by the contract and the State, the grantor of said benefits.
Civil marriage has nothing to do with procreation, religion, family, or even love, when you get down to it.
Heck, some people see it as merely a convenient living arrangement resulting in lower taxes.
But, I'd have a hard time believing that Marriage in 17th century Massachusetts was not a religious institution, first and foremost. I could be wrong, but those Puritans kinda dug all that church stuff.
The Puritans were all about
The Puritans were all about religious morality, yes.
I understand, however, that clergy were not allowed to perform marriages and that's why it has always been a civil contract here. The reference escapes me at the moment, but that fact is at the top of massmarrier.blogspot.com, and he usually seems to have his references in order.
The Church WAS the state
In Puritan times, the church was the state, at least for most purposes of governance.
We don't have to do it that way, however.
Civil rights don't come with conditionals save age of majority. The state has an interest in keeping 2 year olds from voting. The state has no interest in demanding that widows marry so a 2 year old has an "ideal" family again. The state has no interest in which TWO adults form a contract called "marriage", so long as they are adults and they are capable of consenting to that contract.
If you don't want gay marriage, don't have one! Otherwise, MYOB. If these people spent even 1/3 of the effort they have spent in being nosy busybodies on such issues as healthcare, early childhood education, and disparities, there would be vastly more social impact than if they prevent people who already live together from legal protections of marriage.
Maybe we should have a petition to vote on whether homophobes should be allowed to form business partnerships? No? Why not?
Marriage is not a privilege. Being straight does not make you super extra special in the eyes of the law. Deal with it.