Tuesday, January 02, 2007

Massachusetts moves ban on gay marriage ahead

Today Massachusetts does the right thing and moves ahead a proposed amendment to ban gay marriage.

I want to be clear that, in general, I support, at the very least, gay civil unions that should be equivalent to the tangible effects of marriage. It is not 'separate but equal', but if marriage is considered to be inherently religious, it is up to each religion to decide for itself to define what is marriage. So, I leave it at that.

That said, it was entirely reprehensible that duly elected officials refuse to vote on a matter legally brought to their consideration. I am glad that the Legislature came to its senses and voted. Though the result is surely disappointing to gay marriage supporters, I feel that they will ultimately realize a lasting victory when the amendment is voted down by the public at large, as I think it will be. This will silence (hopefully) critics that claim that the democratic process was being co-opted.

I am also extremely disappointed by Governor-elect Deval Patrick's efforts to quash democracy
Democratic Gov.-elect Deval Patrick on Tuesday had met with leading lawmakers and urged them to skip the vote, calling it a "question of conscience" and saying the amendment process was being used "to consider reinserting discrimination into the constitution."

Since Tuesday was the final day of the session, skipping the vote would have effectively killed the amendment effort.

Just another reason why Deval Patrick was a bad choice for governor.

Although I generally supported the gay-rights advocates central position, their 'have-their-cake-and-eat-it-too' attitude towards the democratic process is downright hypocritical.

It's a shame that so many people these days have lost faith in democracy. I believe in the system. I believe that our system of government, for all its flaws, ultimately moves towards the good.

3 Comments:

At 12:52 PM, Blogger Aaron Weber said...

So, what about the health-care amendment that they neglected? How was it not a violation of duty to fail to vote on that?

 
At 2:10 PM, Blogger Craptacular said...

I never posted on that. If what you say is true, then I agree that they should have voted on it had it reached the floor.

Like I said, the system works. Massachusetts is an interesting place in that you need a majority vote with at least 30% of people who voted in the election voting on the amendment. This may make gay marriage advocates' position a little tenuous, but, as always, constitutional amendments are the people's most difficult, and yet most powerful means to make their voice heard.

 
At 2:21 PM, Blogger Craptacular said...

Ah, Aaron Weber, you are right. The legislature did fail to vote on that. SSM makes better news, however.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home