Bell Curve The Law Talking Guy Raised by Republicans U.S. West
Well, he's kind of had it in for me ever since I accidentally ran over his dog. Actually, replace "accidentally" with "repeatedly," and replace "dog" with "son."

Wednesday, September 14, 2005

Two More Years

Gay spouses and prospective gay couples today got a two-year reprieve from the Massachusetts legislature. If you recall, last year the Mass. legislature approved a bitterly contested constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage but create civil unions. Under Mass. law, however, it was necessary for the legislature to reaffirm this in the next session, but this time, the joint session of the Mass. House and Senate rejected the measure, 157-39.

This kills the bill... but there's a key footnote: opponents of gay marriage opposed the bill this time, along with the proponents of gay marriage, who had pretty much always opposed it. Opponents of gay marriage are proposing an even more restrictive amendment against gay marriage.

Even if the more anti-gay measure were to pass the Mass. legislature twice, however, it could not go before the voters until 2008. Had the Mass. legislature reaffirmed the amendment they approved last year, it would gone before Mass. voters in 2006. So no matter how you slice it, gay rights advocates have bought two more years to show that civil society will not be harmed by same-sex marriage--to show that the sky does not fall.

Time is on our side. And with the votes in Spain, Canada, and California--perhaps history will be on our side too.


Anonymous said...

I suspect that the 2008 time frame had a lot to do with this. The Republicans (and let's be honest about which party is mostly on which side) want a homophobic measure on the ballot when the White House is at stake.  

// posted by Raised By Republicans

Dr. Strangelove said...

NY Times added a fascinating note about Mass. State Senator Brian P. Lees, Republican Minority Leader of the Mass. State Senate and original co-sponsor of the amendment to ban gay marriage. This time around, Lees voted against the amendment, abandoning his own bill. Listen to his remarkable words:

"Today, gay marriage is the law of the land." He added that voting against it would be, "taking action against our friends and neighbors who today are currently enjoying the benefits of marriage... Gay marriage has begun and life has not changed for the citizens of the commonwealth, with the exception of those who can now marry who could not before."

Anonymous said...

Americans are loath to change the status quo, always.

As Jefferson put it 230 years ago,
"Prudence indeed will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes, and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."

And that, I humbly suggest, is also the sum of Judge Roberts comments on Roe v. Wade.

P.S. Jefferson's next sentence reads: "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security."

That may soon have to be the manifesto for the Democratic party. 

// posted by LTG

Anonymous said...


// posted by Raised By Republicans