Wedding crashers
Anti-gay campaigners in Massachusetts are close to getting a proposal to repeal same-sex marriage qualified for the 2008 ballot. The proposal still has some obstacles to overcome, including a court challenge and a rubber-stamp approval by 1/4 of the legislature, but it is likely to be on the 2008 ballot. While it is always depressing to see basic civil rights subject to a popular vote, I think that same-sex marriage will win a decisive victory at the ballot box in Massachusetts, which will ironically end up granting equal marriage rights a democratic "legitimacy" that was previously absent.
There are four reasons I am optimistic about victory in Massachusetts:
1. It's not going to be voted on until 2008 -- Gay marriage is legal now in Massachusetts, and trends, both in that state and nationally, are becoming more liberal as time passes. After four years of being legal, same-sex marriage will be something unremarkable, and, well, boring. It's already part of the social and legal fabric of that state, and it is only 2005.
2. Massachusetts is one of the most liberal states in the country -- There's not a bluer state in the union. Unlike California, which has large conservative pockets and is much more evenly balanced then you might think, Massachusetts is solidly liberal almost across the board, with very little influence by the religious right. The Catholic Church is about the only organized anti-gay force in that state, and it is not terribly strong any more.
3. The proposed amendment is quite draconian -- The amendment which will be voted on not only bans same-sex marriage, but it also prohibits civil unions and domestic partnerships: a quite draconian position and out of the mainstream. An amendment allowing civil unions might have had a shot, but an outright ban on any recognition of gay couples will be seen as punative and rejected.
4. It takes away existing rights -- Every state which has voted on an anti-gay amendment never had same-sex marriage or civil unions to begin with, so the votes were basically theoretical...banning something which didn't exist. In Massachusetts, there are actual real-life married same-sex couples who will have their rights taken away and their marriages dissolved if this passes. People are much less likely to vote for something which takes away existing rights.*
* California will vote on a similar amendment in June 2006, which repeal away existing domestic partnership rights. The outcome of that will probably be very close and hopefully voters' reluctance to take away existing rights might help defeat the proposal.
Anti-gay campaigners in Massachusetts are close to getting a proposal to repeal same-sex marriage qualified for the 2008 ballot. The proposal still has some obstacles to overcome, including a court challenge and a rubber-stamp approval by 1/4 of the legislature, but it is likely to be on the 2008 ballot. While it is always depressing to see basic civil rights subject to a popular vote, I think that same-sex marriage will win a decisive victory at the ballot box in Massachusetts, which will ironically end up granting equal marriage rights a democratic "legitimacy" that was previously absent.
There are four reasons I am optimistic about victory in Massachusetts:
1. It's not going to be voted on until 2008 -- Gay marriage is legal now in Massachusetts, and trends, both in that state and nationally, are becoming more liberal as time passes. After four years of being legal, same-sex marriage will be something unremarkable, and, well, boring. It's already part of the social and legal fabric of that state, and it is only 2005.
2. Massachusetts is one of the most liberal states in the country -- There's not a bluer state in the union. Unlike California, which has large conservative pockets and is much more evenly balanced then you might think, Massachusetts is solidly liberal almost across the board, with very little influence by the religious right. The Catholic Church is about the only organized anti-gay force in that state, and it is not terribly strong any more.
3. The proposed amendment is quite draconian -- The amendment which will be voted on not only bans same-sex marriage, but it also prohibits civil unions and domestic partnerships: a quite draconian position and out of the mainstream. An amendment allowing civil unions might have had a shot, but an outright ban on any recognition of gay couples will be seen as punative and rejected.
4. It takes away existing rights -- Every state which has voted on an anti-gay amendment never had same-sex marriage or civil unions to begin with, so the votes were basically theoretical...banning something which didn't exist. In Massachusetts, there are actual real-life married same-sex couples who will have their rights taken away and their marriages dissolved if this passes. People are much less likely to vote for something which takes away existing rights.*
* California will vote on a similar amendment in June 2006, which repeal away existing domestic partnership rights. The outcome of that will probably be very close and hopefully voters' reluctance to take away existing rights might help defeat the proposal.
posted by Mike at
1:25 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home