Marriage Survives in MA
For those who have not heard the news — I heard only one brief mention today on the radio station that I listen to — marriage equality in Massachusetts has survived a constitutional convention.
Recall: three years ago the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruled, in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, that the institution of marriage could not be denied to same-sex couples. Not long thereafter men married men and women married women. Not surprisingly, some people were so exercised by this that they wrung their hands, gnashed their teeth, and introduced a constitutional amendment to outlaw such egregious transgressions towards equality.
In Massachusetts the law is that such amendments, before they can appear on plebiscite ballots, must be approved by the legislature (technically, in a constitutional convention) with a vote of 50 or more, for two successive years. Last year's vote easily garnered its 50 votes. But then, it didn't matter so much, so many legislators voted their politics rather than their conscience.
Today, at about 1:30 pm EDT, the amendment gathered only 45 votes. That process is terminated and marriage equality is, for the time being, safe in Massachusetts. Bay Windows, the prominent gay & lesbian newspaper in New England, live-blogged the constitutional convention; it's an interesting record of events.
I am quite happy about that outcome. One notes in passing that, in the time since men have married men and women have married women in Massachusetts, civilization as we know it has not come to an end.
[Update15 June 2007:] I've made the correction of turning "men" into "women" above, as Chris pointed out in comments that I might like to do. I also wanted to make a note of this article — representative of many — that summarizes events, from which I also wanted to quote this little vignette:
Senator Gale D. Candaras, a Democrat, voted against the amendment Thursday, although she had supported it as a state representative in January [for the previous vote]. Ms. Candaras said her vote reflected constituent views in her larger, more progressive Senate district and her fear of a vicious referendum campaign.
Most moving, she said, were older constituents who had changed their views after meeting gay men and lesbians. One woman had “asked me to put it on the ballot for a vote, but since then a lovely couple moved in,” Ms. Candaras said. “She said, ‘They help me with my lawn, and if there can’t be marriage in Massachusetts, they’ll leave and they can’t help me with my lawn.”
thus underscoring that progress is made one friend at a time and that living out is indeed persuasive.
How important is "protecting traditional marriage" to this woman? Less pressing, evidently, than keeping her lawn mowed. There's a riveting revelation.
7 Responses
Subscribe to comments via RSS
Subscribe to comments via RSS
Leave a Reply
To thwart spam, comments by new people are held for moderation; give me a bit of time and your comment will show up.
I welcome comments -- even dissent -- but I will delete without notice irrelevant, rude, psychotic, or incomprehensible comments, particularly those that I deem homophobic, unless they are amusing. The same goes for commercial comments and trackbacks. Sorry, but it's my blog and my decisions are final.
on Friday, 15 June 2007 at 00.06
Permalink
Yes, good for the Bay State. But hasn't American civilization's safety from this purported threat already been established By New Hampshire folks?
on Friday, 15 June 2007 at 00.12
Permalink
Oh shoot. I went and looked it up. New Hampshire and Vermont both have laws allowing civil unions, but not same-sex marriage per se. Maybe they and others will be emboldened to follow Massachusetts' lead.
on Friday, 15 June 2007 at 08.08
Permalink
come to canada, where we've had same-sex civil marriage from coast to coast to coast for several years (starting almost exactly 4 years ago from a court decision in ontario, but it's in the statute law now).
um, jeff, you might want to check the second paragraph, where you have both men and women marrying men. all true, but only half apposite to your thesis.
on Friday, 15 June 2007 at 15.18
Permalink
Chris, thanks for the note (I've made the correction) and the implied invitation; it's just one of the reasons many of us envy Canada so very much sometimes. We've had friends who visited to get married, but we're holding out to do it first in Maryland — although we might give in.
SW: Well, civil unions in those other states were, of course, also predicted to end civilization as we know it, but maybe not to kill it quite so dead as marriage equality. Who knows? Gaging the end of civilization as we know it is not done according to any rules that I can recognize certainly.
There are a few states now with some sort of domestic-partnership arrangement (but only MA has same-sex "marriage", in name and in deed), a scattering of DP benefits like hospital visitation and medical power-of-attorney; in other states, moves continue to try to ban adoption by same-sex couples, etc. The teeth-gnashing continues, so it's evidently a time of transition, to put it gently.
There are a few other countries, too, and some people like to claim that civilization as we know it, e.g., in Norway, has ended, but they tend to be people who never recognized that Norway had civilization as we know it to begin with.
on Friday, 15 June 2007 at 16.33
Permalink
Norge not civilized? Aw, c'mon. Even my Swedish forebears wouldn't put that knock on their neighbors.
on Friday, 15 June 2007 at 16.54
Permalink
Oh, I certainly believe that Norway (and Sweden, and Denmark, and Holland, etc., if proximity threatens their reputation) are civilized– I merely point out that some others who think there is no recognizable civilization there anymore, due to same-sex marriage infractions, didn't really think they were civilized to begin with.
on Wednesday, 20 June 2007 at 02.04
Permalink
I thought the following about the Empire State might be of interest: Assembly OKs gay marriage legislation
"Albany — Legislation to legalize same-sex marriage in New York, sponsored by the openly gay brother of entertainer Rosie O'Donnell and supported by Gov. Eliot Spitzer, was approved 85-61 by the state Assembly yesterday after an often emotional three-hour debate.
"Despite the victory for supporters of the legislation, the bill is not expected to be acted on any time soon in the Republican-led state Senate."