The first step in getting gay marriage was to force it on the people through the courts.
The second step is preventing the people from having their say on the matter.
And that is exactly what has happened in Massachusetts, where a parliamentary tactic was used to prevent the people from having a say on the issue.
In a flurry of strategic maneuvering, supporters of same-sex marriage managed to persuade enough legislators to vote to recess a constitutional convention until the afternoon of Jan. 2, the last day of the legislative session.On that day, lawmakers and advocates on both sides said, it appeared likely that the legislature would adjourn without voting on the measure, killing it.
“For all intents and purposes, the debate has ended,” said Representative Byron Rushing, a Boston Democrat and the assistant majority leader. “What members are expecting is that the majority of constituents are going to say, ‘Thank you, we’re glad it’s over, we think it has been discussed enough.’ ”
The measure had been expected by both sides to gain easily the 50 votes required from the 200 legislators as the first step toward making same-sex marriages illegal.
If Mr. Rushing really believed that a majority want this matter to be over, he and his colleagues would have sent the measure on to the people, where they could have voted it down. Could it be that they left-leaning legislators know that the people will vote to uphold tradition and what to prevent that at any cost? Given that poll numbers show that a gay marriage ban would likely be adopted by teh electorate even in liberal massachusetts, i think the answer is obvious.
 |
Trackback Information for Let The People Vote
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://blog2.mu.nu/cgi/trackback.cgi/193267Listed below are links to weblogs that reference 'Let The People Vote'.
Comments on Let The People Vote
I don't have enough experience reading your blogs to know yet whether you are for or against same sex marriages, and while I can't quite tell from your post which side you're on- the safe bet would likely be that you're against it.
I'm just curious... (if you are in fact, in opposition of allowing a gay couple the right to wed) ...why would you have an opinion about something that doesn't affect you?
"tradition" seems like an odd excuse to stick one's nose where it doesn't belong. How about a compromise to prove that conservatives actually give a damn about 'the sanctity of marriage' ?
....gays agree to not have any right to wed, and anyone whom gets married relinquishes any right to divorce or annulment.
Surely divorce is a graver defilement of the sanctity of marriage, than the sex of those involved (after all, gender can be changed with a simple operation.)
So is that not a fair compromise? People who desperately need to defend the word "marriage" preserve it's arbitrary 'traditions" get to do so... what do you think?
|| Posted by Rachel, November 15, 2006 07:02 PM ||Hey, I'm all for tightening up the laws on divorce in this country. No fault divorce laws have been an absolute disaster, and have hurt omen and children. But then again, since i am not a woman and don't have kids, why chould i have an opinion on that, since it doesn't effect me.
And as for the silly argument that gay marriage does not effect me, realize that the creation of gay marriage does impact me in a number of ways -- in terms of imposing potential increased tax burdens for benefits to the couples now permitted to marry, legal obligations towards them in terms of being required to recognize said marriages as a business or property owner, etc. It also impacts what i would be required to affirmatively teach as a public school teacher. And given certain court rulings on tax exemption, the next step would be a likely move to revoke tax-exempt status for churches that do not marry homosexuals for their opposition to public policy. So you see, there are a number of ways in which I am impacted -- not to mention that as an American citizen, I have a right to have an opinion on any matter of public policy and to express it as part of the process of forming such policies.
|| Posted by Rhymes With Right, November 16, 2006 05:36 AM ||Post a comment