Good and Bad in Massachusetts

Lost in the news tidal wave of hurricane Katrina was the vote by the Massachusetts state legislature to kill the ban on gay marriage that was proposed for the ballet in 2006.

If you remember right, last year when gays won the right to marry in Massachusetts by a court decree, lawmakers voted 105-92 (53%)to put the question of gay marriage in the hands of the voters in the form of a Constitutional amendment. But in Massachusetts, such a referendum may only go to the people if it is approved by two successive legislative votes. This year, legislatures rejected the ban by a vote of 157-39 (80%). What a difference a year makes.

Why the change? People saw that gay marriage had no effect on heterosexual marriage. They say all the doomsday prophecies declared by the Religious Right were driven by hot air, lies, and anti-gay bigotry.

Senate Republican leader, Brian Lees said, "Gay marriage has begun, and life has not changed for the citizens of the commonwealth, with the exception of those who can now marry." As so many gay leaders have said in the past, the only people who will be effected by gay marriage will be those gay couples that gain the sanction, protections and benefits of the government for their commitment. I am glad to see that even Republican officials can see the truth in that now.

Yet bigotry still tries to raise its ugly head all over this country, including in Massachusetts. Attorney General Tom Reilly this month certified an initiative question for the 2008 ballot that seeks to ban future same-sex marriages.

The state constitution stipulates that ballot measures cannot deal with certain topics, such as religion, and that they cannot be an effort to reverse a judicial decision. The initiative approved by Reilly was proposed by the Massachusetts Family Institute which said it was responding to "an activist court." (Is there any other kind of court that declares anti-gay laws to be unconstitutional?) "The ballot measure," said Reilly, "is not an effort to reverse the court's decision but, rather, to amend the state constitution. Amending the words of the constitution does not require the people to say that a court's decision was wrong and should be ignored," said the memo. "Instead, it changes the rules to be applied by the court so that future cases will turn out differently."

By entering this ballot measure through the back door with Reilly's approval rather than by legislative motion, the initative needs only to garner approval by a mere 25% of the legislature, which means the bigots need to pick up only 11 more votes when the bill comes to the floor of the legislature. Hopefully, justice will once again prevail and it will be voted away ~ once and for all.

| +Save/Share | |