« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »
06/15/2007
So wait, did the judges elect the lawmakers too?
Matt Barber weighs in on the Massachusetts victory:
“After the Massachusetts Supreme Court — through judicial fiat — miraculously divined that the framers of the state constitution really intended that Patrick Henry could marry Henry Patrick, many in Massachusetts — embarrassed by the court’s unprecedented leftist extremism — felt that their state had become a laughingstock and initiated the constitutional process in an effort to undo this insanity. Although this ballot initiative wasn’t perfect in that it would have grandfathered existing ‘same-sex marriages’ in the state, the citizens of Massachusetts should have at least been allowed to speak. But instead, Massachusetts lawmakers have arrogantly and disdainfully told their own constituents to shut up and go home. This just underscores the need for a federal constitutional amendment which would protect the true definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman”
Well, Matt -- do you really want to see how the constituents voiced their opinion? Well, here is but a small sample:
Mass. State Senate Races, 11/06
Benjamin Downing (Dem) 71%
Matthew Kinnaman (GOP) 25%
Dion Robbins-Zust (Grn) 4%
James Timilty (Dem) 60%
Michael Atwill (GOP) 40%
Mark Montigny (Dem) 82%
Raimundo Delgado (Ind) 18%
Robert O'Leary (Dem) 63%
Ricardo Barros (GOP) 37%
and so on and so on...
Mass. State House Races, 11/06
Cleon Turner (Dem) 52%
Richard Neitz (GOP) 48%
Sarah Peake (Dem) 56%
Aaron Maloy (GOP) 44%
and so on and so on...
All of the above were among the 151 who supported fairness. And who chose the legislators? THE PEOPLE!
By a certain group of people, the legislature was handed a matter on which they had to weigh in. Those lawmakers voted in the manner that they felt best. If those Massachusetts citizens who are SO OUTRAGED that other citizens of the Commonwealth will be treated equally feel that the lawmakers acted inappropriately, then fortunately for them, they will have the chance to oust all 151 of them in the not-too-distant future. But it is duplicitous to act as if the people were not given a chance to speak!
In a way, Matt and company are actually getting a taste of their own medicine with this. We gays have felt what it's like to have elected representatives use their power to put forth marriage ban after marriage ban. It's sucks to feel like your ideas are out of step with the leaders that your fellows have elected! However, did we, by and large, act as if the lawmakers were acting inappropriately by giving credence to these discriminatory measures? No. Biased and mean-spirited? Yes. Inappropriate or unlawful? Absolutely not. We instead have vowed to do everything in our power to change hearts and minds, and to help those who share our ideals elected into office. We've worked to rally the apathetic members of our team who could change the course of American politics if only they would turn out in the that the social conservatives tend to get out their vote. We've worked diligently to expose the lies and misinformation that have been used to propagate gay bias. And we've challenged these marriage bans in court, to see if they truly can hold up to constitutional scrutiny. If our opposition wish to see change in places like Massachusetts, then they are going to have to change what they find to be broken, which in this case is the legislature.
The truth for Matt & Co., while they'll never admit it, is that yesterday's decision is a CRUSHING blow for their side. It is yet another indication that the tide is turning in our favor. Despite their non-stop campaigns and pushes (or maybe because of them), people are starting to more readily understand and accept the true nature of this gay marriage debate. One of the most divisive, hurtful, vitrolic games to be played in recent American politics seems to have crashed and burned. And that, my friends, if a beautiful thought.
Massachusetts Lawmakers Betray Constituents on "Same-Sex Marriage" [CWA]
Technorati Tags: gay marriage, Massachusetts, Matt Barber
Your thoughts
Yeah, that 'representative democracy' thing can be so inconvenient when you're counting on uninformed mob rule.
Posted by: Famous Author Rob Byrnes | Jun 15, 2007 4:03:00 PM
Those opposed to equality were not allowed to speak? Oh, they've been speaking plenty; as a resident of Massachuesetts, I can vouch for that. They just didn't get their way, that's all.
I've been reading articles focused on the specific legislators who changed their positions between January and now, and every one who has been interviewed has said that it was meeting the real people, the families, the partners committed to each other and to their communities, that swayed them. They met with gays and lesbians across the state and learned something important: THEY ARE ALL PEOPLE.
I'll say it again: no U.S. citizen should be allowed to vote on the civil and/or human rights of another citizen. That's unconstitutional. So, Mr. Barber, speak all you like; it's a free country. But don't expect everyone to believe what you say.
Posted by: Robin Reardon | Jun 15, 2007 4:58:50 PM
Matty and that cabal of extremist wingnut organizations could care less about the voice of the people. Must one remind the half-alive brain cells of the Right that it was one of their pet legal firms, the Alliance Defense Fund, which went shopping for their own version of an "activist" judge when they wanted to challenge the voice of the people in Cleveland Heights, Ohio a couple of years ago. You see, the PEOPLE voted for a domestic partner registry. . .and the wingnuts couldn't stand the result, so they tried to get some courts to intervene.
Their utter contempt for the democratic process is matched only by their real contempt to anyone's freedom to marry - after all, one need only to remember the activist judge-shopping spree they went on in an effort to force Florida to arbitrarily dissolve the marriage of Terri Schiavo.
Meanwhile, Matt. . .instead of focusing so much on our families, why don't you start talking about your own marriage? Perhaps we might decide that needs to be voted on as well.
Posted by: Kevin | Jun 15, 2007 7:37:35 PM
They will never get a federal marriage ban. it takes 67 votes to pass an amendment and everyone knows no party has ever had that many seats in the senate, and the fact that they can't even manage the votes to end debate means that the debate is over. They lost the culture war, its time for them to hang up the sword and welcome gays into the church before denominations like the southern baptists and assemblies of god go the way of the puritans who just like their predecessors are managing to offend every decent member of society.
Posted by: adam kautz | Jun 18, 2007 12:28:52 AM
comments powered by Disqus
