Per the, NYT: Bid to Ban Gay Marriage Fails in Massachusetts:
Some choice quotes:
Those silly conservatives. Always running to the courts when they don't like their legislature's activities.
"In Massachusetts today, the freedom to marry is secure," Gov. Deval Patrick said after the legislature voted 151 to 45 against the amendment, which needed 50 favorable votes in order to come before voters in a referendum in November 2008.
[...]
Kris Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute, did not indicate whether opponents would start a new petition drive, but said, "We're not going away."
He added, "We want to find out why votes switched and see what avenues are available to challenge those votes, perhaps in court."
More from the article:
Senator Gale Candaras also voted against the amendment today, although she had supported it as a state representative in January. She said her vote reflected constituent views in her larger, more progressive state Senate district; her fear of a vicious referendum campaign; and the 6,800 anti-amendment e-mails, phone calls and faxes she received, one call every three minutes.This is why small things matter. Honestly, this is part of the reason I tip well. What we do, as citizens, matters. The repercussions of small acts of kindness and courtesy are significant and can resonate much wider than our own immediate space.
Most moving, she said, were older constituents who first supported the amendment, but changed after meeting with 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.' "
So yeah, the MFI is not going away, which is fine. They've got the right to try their petition again, but given that they couldn't even get one quarter of the legislature to support them, I can't imagine they'll do any better, given that there has been none of that predicted damage to marriage. Divorce, in fact, is at a lower rate in Massachusetts than any other state in the union.
Hmm. Maybe same sex marriage is good for marriage.
1 comment:
"They've got the right to try their petition again, but given that they couldn't even get one quarter of the legislature to support them, I can't imagine they'll do any better, given that there has been none of that predicted damage to marriage."
That's been the case in Canada. In July 2005, the Civil Marriages Act - federal law defining marriage as a union between two people - passed 158 to 133, under a Liberal government. (Same-sex marriage had, prior to that point, been legalised in most provinces and territories as a result of provincial court rulings).
In December 2006, the new Conservative government (the Conservative party had been opposed to the Civil Marriage Act) failed to pass a motion allowing Parliament to reconsider the previous law, with only 123 voting to reopen the issue and 175 saying it should not be brought before the House again.
Even the conservatives are beginning to see that same-sex marriages do not cause the sky to fall, or whatever it was that they were so worried about.
Even in our most conservative province, Alberta (often referred to as Texas North because of its conservative, cattle ranching history and oil industry), opponents are mostly reduced to fulminating about how vital it is that marriage commissioners who are personally opposed to same-sex marriage should not be forced to perform such marriages.
I'm not saying the fight is over for good, just that the longer same-sex marriage is a fact, the harder it is to argue that it will cause the end of civilisation.
Post a Comment