Massachusetts Bans Vote on Gay Marriage
Massachusetts lawmakers voted today NOT to allow their citizens to vote on an amendment that would prohibit gay marriage. It died just 5 votes short of the 50 needed for it to make the ballot in the 2008 elections."We're proud of our state today, and we applaud the Legislature for showing that Massachusetts is strongly behind fairness," stated Lee Swislow, the executive director of the Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders. Now, that statement doesn't make much sense, does it? She is proud that her state is strong on "fairness" by not allowing the citizens to vote on the measure.
For those of you who don't remember or never heard, Massachusetts is currently the ONLY state in the union where homosexual marriage is allowed. On the other end of the spectrum, 25 states have turned the issue over to the people for a vote and had it banned...7 states in the last election alone.
How did Massachusetts become the first and only then? Why, the ACLU stepped in back in 2004 and sued the state, claiming they HAD to allow gay marriages because the state Constitution did not specify that marriage was between a man and a women (using that reasoning, then technically marriage in MA could be between a man and a lamp if they wanted). Back when the Massachusetts Constitution was written, it was simply assumed. As a result, states began allowing their people to decide how to specify it...the results seen in the previous paragraph.
So why are legislators in "The Bay State" so against allowing the people to choose? Isn't that the way it is supposed to be? Legislation was not intended to be forced down our throats by lawyers and their technicalities (thank you ACLU), but to be decided by the people.
Whether your are for or against gay marriage, isn't allowing the people of Massachusetts to vote on it rather than have it forced upon them just the right thing to do? If they want to keep it legal, then they will vote for it.
posted by Carl Soderberg at
2:32 PM
10 Comments:
The voters have already had their say, because we live in a representative democracy, not a direct one.
i.e., if the voters of MA wanted to ensure that gays didn't have the right to marry, they should have elected fewer equal marriage rights supporting legislators.
Instead, over the years this process has dragged on, they've elected more of them (not to mention an unambiguously pro-equal marriage rights Governor). Anti-equal marriage rights campaigners warned that legislators who supported gay rights would be punished in the polls. It completely failed to happen.
40 years after Loving vs Virginia, the idea of laws preventing people of different races from marrying seem ludicrously bigoted and outdated. Yet the rhetoric used at the time by those strongly in opposition to interracial marriage was (amusingly/appallingly/ironically/predictably) very similar. References to tradition, references to supposed religious proof, dire warnings of the negative consequences, seemingly high minded defenses of the will of the majority/states' rights, etc.
My suspicion is that some people are going to be pretty sheepish in a few decades.
The Founding Fathers didn't establish this country as a direct democracy. We have a representative democracy. And the people's representatives have already spoken: they support same-sex couples' rights to marry.
Using your logic, shouldn't we have general vote on EVERYTHING? Shouldn't slavery be put to a general vote? Shouldn't Jim Crow laws be put to a general vote? How well do you think that would've turned out in the South?
40 years ago, the Supreme Court struck down anti-miscegenation laws, at a time when 70% of the population thought mixed-race marriage was "wrong and immoral." I guess you also think that Supreme Court ruling was wrong and the rights for mixed-race couples to marry should've been subjected to a general vote. In that case, mixed-race marriage would probably still be a crime in Virginia today. But you'd be happy that "traditional marriage" was saved.
Your both missing the point...
The representatives didn't vote to allow gay marriage, they voted to NOT vote on it...period. They voted to let the legal technicality stand.
Yes, we live in a Republic, but people still have a right to voice themselves...thats what ballot initiatives are for. Its the wrong move to avoid the vote altogether and let the law bypass the elected officials in the first place. If those who are advocates for gay marriage are really worried about a public vote, then maybe the people have truly been bypassed.
BTW, youre also forgetting that 25 states have banned homosexual marriage...one has it legalized. Although we are a Representative Republic, the will of the people is still supposed to prevail
Civil Unions still stand, and many states have adopted them instead of gay marriage. Why isn't this being brought up?
To comment on the above, maybe the representatives have lost touch with those they are supposed to represent. This political system, especially in the more liberal states, has gone quite awry in recent years. People are voting for Democrats purely because they hold that title.
A vote to the people would let the politicians know what their people are calling for once again. No, direct democracy would not work for all issues, but when lawyers and judges step in and legislate for us, then the people need to be allowed to speak against it...especially when our reps will not. Just give us the chance.
I'm actually quite interested at how it would come out.
-Massachusetts Resident
Matt,
You are missing the point. The legislators voted not to vote on it months ago. Then, shortly after, they took a vote...and it passed. It needed to pass twice. It failed to pass today, the second time around. In case you don't understand how it works: the legislators were not asked to vote on whether the general public should have the chance to vote. The question presented to them is the same question that would have been placed put to voters which is, in a nutshell: should the state's constitution be amended to define marriage as between only one man and one woman. Seventy seven percent of the legislature said "NO". That's it. There was no shirking of responsibility. No trampling of democracy. The process is designed so that the legislature is the gateway to constitutional amendments being placed on the ballot. The petition that led to all of this was only signed by 3% of the state's population. This is the way it's supposed to work!
Whether is how the system is supposed to work or not, people can still show their disagreement for the decision, correct? I think people like the above resident feel rather upset about the fact they have been overlooked by the legal system.
They haven't been overlooked by the legal system, the machinery of the legal system has been working (normally and properly) on this issue for several years. They simply didn't get the result they wanted.
I'm sure folks who disliked interracial relationships felt overlooked by Loving v Virginia, and folks who where against school desegregation felt overlooked by Brown v Board of Education.
Major legal or political battles always have a losing side, or at least a side that perceives itself to have lost (I still fail to see how gay marriage actually harms those who object to it), that doesn't make the process itself invalid.
Its about the redrawing of the line. When many states are banning gay marriage (which could be seen as an infringement on the church) yet allowing gay civil unions, I think the people are simply trying to protect an institution that is held sacred by a vast majority of this country while preserving and respecting the bond of homosexual couples.
We are not an intolerant country, but we do value many of our institutions. To say that those opposed to gay marriage are somehow intolerant or simply sore losers is not correct. I oppose gay marriage simply because there is an alternative that provides the same benefits and I support the institution that was formed in the religious arena.
Like the comment above, why are Civil Unions being ignored? On top of that, to put this simply, if I disagree with my elected officials, I am more than welcome to let them know of my disapproval.
Huh? Gay marriage "can be seen as an infringement on the Church"?! Are you THAT delusional? Find me one case where a church is being forced by the government to marry a gay couple. If a church doesn't believe in gay marriage, then don't marry gay couples! Simple as that. What you are trying to do is to force your personal religious belief down the throat of everyone else. Just because your religion doesn't believe in gay marriage doesn't give you a right to force everyone else to adhere to that same belief. Yes you are being intolerant. There's no other way to spin it.
As a reminder, we have this thing called religious freedom in this country. You are free to believe whatever you want but you don't have a right to force others to believe the same way you do.
And no Civil unions was NOT ignored. The state supreme court specifically pointed out that Civil Union was unacceptable in its ruling. Why? Because "as history has shown repeatedly, separate but equal is never equal." (paraphrasing)
To those who think Civil Union is acceptable, do you also think it's acceptable to keep banning interracial marriage but let mixed race couples to have civil unions? A white man wants to marry a white woman? No problem. A white man wants to marry a black woman? Sorry. That's just "wrong". Church doesn't like that. However, you're allowed to have a "civil union". Happy?
I think we should send em all to an island.... say maybe Australia?
Post a Comment
<< Home