It’s good that same-sex marriage happened in Massachusetts first, because the Massachusetts constitutional amendment process is designed to move slowly, encouraging deliberation and second thoughts. In Massachusetts, ballot measures amending the state constitution can’t be sent to the voters until after a quarter of the legislature votes in favor of the amendment, in two sessions in a row. So if the SSM1 ban passes the Massachusetts legislature tomorrow, then it has to pass it again in 2007, and only if it does that do the voters get a crack at it – in 2008.
This has put anti-equality activists, who have no rational arguments on their side but who excel at harnessing bigotry and fearmongering, at a disadvantage in Massachusetts. It wasn’t possible for them to pass a SSM ban were unable to take advantage of the initial shock following the Massachusett Supreme Court’s Goodridge decision.2 And now that Massachusetts voters have seen firsthand that the sky doesn’t fall when lesbian and gays legally marry, it seems unlikely that an SSM ban could pass there. From the Boston Herald:
State House News Poll results released Sunday show 56 percent of respondents say that when the Massachusetts Legislature meets in Thursday’s Constitutional Convention, members should advance a ban on gay marriage. However, if the ban reaches the ballot, 63 percent of poll respondents would vote against it and 31 percent would vote for it.
It’s sad that SSM bans are passing in so much of the country – but in the long run, these bans won’t stop equal marriage rights. Marriage equality wasn’t really on the table in Tennessee or Georgia or even Oregon anyway (although I expect we’ll have civil unions in Oregon soon). I don’t ignore the real harm those bans do, but I don’t think they’re the whole story, either. Massachusetts is the front line, and it’s where marriage equality will be won. Massachusetts is where reality defeats fearmongering.
Every night, anti-equality activists go to their beds praying for catastrophe in Massachusetts; praying for divorce rates to skyrocket, for children to be in pain, for families to collapse, for disaster and horror to swoop down on every family in Massachusetts. They clutch their little hands and screw shut their eyes and fervently beg God to make Massachusetts families suffer, suffer, suffer. Because they know that if this doesn’t happen, they’ve lost. Married queers in Massachusetts are winning the fight for marriage equality, just by leading ordinary lives, rather than being harbingers of the Apocalypse.
Over the coming decades, as each new generation is less homophobic than the last, and as the Massachusetts sky stubbornly continues to unfall, the fearmongering arguments against marriage equality will become more and more embarrassing. The anti-SSM votes we’ve seen – all of them – will be undone. The 63% who oppose banning SSM in Massachusetts today are the mainstream of America by 2050.
(Curtsy: Marriage Debate.)
[Crossposted at Creative Destruction. If your comments aren’t being approved here, try there.]
Pingback: The Republic of T.
I agree with all of this post except this passage:
Every night, anti-equality activists go to their beds praying for catastrophe in Massachusetts; praying for divorce rates to skyrocket, for children to be in pain, for families to collapse, for disaster and horror to swoop down on every family in Massachusetts. They clutch their little hands and screw shut their eyes and fervently beg God to make Massachusetts families suffer, suffer, suffer. Because they know that if this doesn’t happen, they’ve lost. Married queers in Massachusetts are winning the fight for marriage equality, just by leading ordinary lives, rather than being harbingers of the Apocalypse.
My problem here is that this paragraph reminds me too much of warmonger claims that those who oppose the Iraq war are hoping for carnage and defeat. Rather than accusing those of oppose a certain policy of hoping for failure, lets get out of our opponent’s heads and stick to the empirical evidence: The sky is not falling in Massachutes, it has fallen in Iraq.
I said back when the court decision came down that once we had actual gays getting actually married in Massachusetts, the battle was won. We keep throwing out anti-equality state legislators and electing pro-equality ones. The court wasn’t ignoring public opinion; it was just leading it a teeny tiny bit.
Every night, anti-equality activists go to their beds praying for catastrophe in Massachusetts;
Like Decnavda, this is problematic for me. I’m an “anti-equality activist” to some mild degree, and I don’t go to bed at night praying for Massachusetts to slide into the sea. (Just the part with Ted Kennedy on it.)
If the population of Massachusetts democratically votes for same sex marriage, then good for them. That’s the way it ought to be done.
If the population of Massachusetts democratically votes against randomly shooting people, then good for them. That’s the way it ought to be done.
My, this is fun! It’s almost as if it weren’t a matter of rights at all!
Ledasmom, let’s say that tomorrow the Supreme Court issues a ruling. Fetuses, it is determined, are completely human and have a Constitutional right to life. Abortion is herewith banned under all circumstances and henceforth classed as exactly equal to murder.
The next day, you get a call from NARAL saying that the pro-choice movement disagrees with the rights-based decision reached by the Supremes. They are sponsoring a Constitutional amendment to codify a right to an abortion and to privilege adult women’s rights over fetal rights. They want you to help them work in your state to get it passed – to override the Court via the democratic process.
Do you tell them to go away, that rights questions are to be handled by the courts, and not the will of the people?
The sky is not falling in Massachutes, it has fallen in Iraq.
At the risk of hijacking the thread (but then, you’re the one that brought up the war), if you think the sky has fallen in Iraq now, wait to see what happens if the new Congress forces American troops to be brought home before an Iraqi force is stood up that can withstand the insurgents and terrorists. It’ll make what’s going on now look like a Boy Scout camporee.
I like the cartoon that appeared in the Boston Globe that shows a heterosexual
married couple in bed and the wife says “is it me, honey” and the husband says
“no, its those married gays”.
Robert, you really can’t see the difference between a Constitutional amendment – a process allowed for in the Constitution – and deciding whether or not to allow people their rights by a will-he, nill-he up-or-down vote?
Up or down votes are also part of the Constitution, Ledasmom. I understand the difference between an amendment and a vote, but they both represent a democratic resolution of a question, rather than a judicial resolution.
So does your question indicate that it would be OK (procedurally, obviously you would disagree with the outcome) to have a Constitutional amendment to bar same sex marriage?
In Colorado, we had an initiative that would have put civil unions in place. (I voted for it.) That’s “rights” being established by an up-or-down vote. Would you object to that initiative if it had been successful?
Or is this going to be one of those dreary conversations where it turns out that only the outcome you desire is relevant, and any argument you make concerning the legitimacy of a particular decision-making mechanism is going to be purely in bad faith?
Robert,
I’ll bite: I support governments that permit people to amend their constitutions through relatively slow and difficult processes. (I like the fact the US Constitution requires super majorities in both houses followed by 3/4 of the states passing the thing.)
I hope the people of Mass. do not amend their constitution to bar same sex marriage.
I also hope Americans never again enact prohibition or pass constitutinal amendments for a number of other things I consider either silly, pesky or just don’t like. (I’d be all for a properly drafted constitutional amendment to overthrow the Kelo decisision.)
Robert:
If one’s premise is that the Constitution, through its guarantee of equal protection of the law, gives same-sex couples a the right to civil unions or marriage, then outcomes make a difference to whether or not something is Constitutional.
A ballot measure banning same-sex marriage or civil unions would, in this light, be unconstitutional, and judges would be obliged to overturn it. In contrast, a ballot measure allowing civil unions would be Constitutional.
In short, under the Constitution, up-or-down votes denying people their Constitutional rights are illegitimate, but up-or-down votes which don’t deny people their Constitutional rights are legitimate.
To describe this view as being “in bad faith” is pretty clueless – your argument only makes sense if the legitimacy of each up-or-down vote has no relationship to what is being voted on. But that’s nonsense. If a Court overturns an up-or-down vote denying Jews the equal right to vote, but does not overturn an up-or-down vote guaranteeing Jews an equal right to vote, would you say that’s an example of the Court acting in bad faith?
I suppose I’m clueless. I see this as a question of appealing to a principle of justice in support of one’s own position, but then disavowing that principle when it would be harmful elsewhere in the agenda.
Does this sound like a cause that has confidence in its purpose and message?
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/city_region/breaking_news/2006/11/legislators_aga_1.html
Which principle of justice do you think someone is supporting and then disavowing?
The idea that a question of rights should be decided by courts instead of more direct democratic processes.
But of course, nobody has expressed that view. People have said that allowing same-sex marriage is morally right. They’ve also said called a vote against it morally wrong. The court system serves as one means to guarantee rights for everyone, but it exists for the sake of our rights (life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness) rather than the other way around.
And yes, procedurally I’d have no problem with an anti-gay Constitutional amendment. I’d see it as a blot on our nation’s history, it would shame you in the eyes of your great-grandchildren, and it might open the door to absolute tyranny, but procedurally it seems fine.
The Massachusetts Constitution is clear: the legislature, meeting in Constitutional Convention, MUST vote up or down on a legal petition. They are refusing to do so, in clear violation of the law, the Constitution, and their oaths. That is unacceptable.
I am an outspoken advocate of gay marriage, but I do NOT support it at the price of shredding the Massachusetts Constitution.
J.
Robert:
Who said the right should be in court instead of the regular democratic process?
Our regular democratic process includes
a) Legislatures who pass bills to enact laws. This process is relatively easy in the sense that it generally requires simple majorities in two houses. (Other paths are possible– some states permit referenda.)
b) the courts evaluating ordinary law to determine if it violates constitutional provisions.
c) Methods to modify the constitutions to change constitutinal provisions. These processes are relatively difficult, in the sense that they require super-majorities, long time spans, redundant votes etc. (The process will vary by state, but it’s always more difficult than simply passing a bill.)
This has been “our regular democratic process” for a long time. Who here has suggested we set this aside?
The fact that Massachusetts allows gay marriage is not the issue. What the issue really should be is a seperation between church ad state.
If there is a church that will join 2 people of the same sex in a union under a god of their belief they should be married.
I do not agree with gay marriage, and would not support gay marriage in Massachusetts … but it is really none of my business who does what in the privacy of their own home.
That does not necessarily mean that the state should have to recognize gay marriage, nor should the state necessarily recognize heterosexual marriage. State, and Federal Governments should back out of providing benefits to people based on the way they live their lives.
The state and federal government should tax each individual based on their contribution to society as a whole, the more you contribute, the less you are taxed.
Just because we are married and have children does not mean we should get special tax breaks, however, if someone volnteers at a nursing home 10 hours a week and coaches a kids soccer team another 4 hours a week also volunteers at the school as a teachers helper… to me these are the things that constitute contribution to society and deserve special recognition from State and Federal tax laws.
The gay community is looking for “equality” other than tax/insurance benefits from a marriage, I see nothing that legal marriage is going to provide them that they do not already have available. They may not be receiving it because of a bigoted attitude, but that will not change with the legality of gay marriage.
The state and federal government should tax each individual based on their contribution to society as a whole, the more you contribute, the less you are taxed.
Can you explain this in more detail? I’m not sure what you mean or how you would measure this.
Sorry but it does not matter what the voters think it is a constitutional concern
I think I contribute immensely to society by keeping my irritable self mostly out of it, and I think I ought to be entirely excused taxes on that basis.