Disclaimer: Content on the YP4 blog does not necessarily reflect the views of Young People For or People For the American Way Foundation. The views, ideas, statements or claims posted on this site by members of the public cannot in any way be attributed to either Young People For or People For the American Way Foundation.
Will Gay Marriage Survive in Massachusetts?
Citizens of Massachusetts are fiercely lobbying their legislators, trying to swing their votes in favor/against a ballot measure allowing Massachusetts voters to decide whether or not gay marriage will survive in the Bay State.
I've been getting emails from my friends in Holyoke (a wonderful city in Western Mass), who met with their local representative, Tim Kane, to ask him to vote against a ballot measure, and I write to you to say: I'm torn, friends. Help me out.
For those of you who haven't been following the gay marriage story in MA, I'll do a brief run-down:
In 2004, Massachusetts citizens were given the right to have a same-sex marriage. This was a result of a court ruling in favor of a few awesome couples who wanted to get married and took it to court. Barring gays from marriage was deemed unconstitutional and Massachusetts became a leader in the gay rights movement.
Now, three years later and thousands of couples married, Massachusetts citizens (mostly gay rights opponents), are demanding the right to vote whether or not the state should continue to allow gay marriage.
ARGUMENT 1.
Claiming that this is their right as citizens of a democratic republic, they feel as though they should have a say on the policies in their state and, fearing top-down power, are concerned that if rights like this are decided on by the legislature - what could be next? What else could the court order or allow them to do?
ARGUMENT 2.
If the people had voted on policies like desegregation of schools, or the emancipation of slaves, it wouldn't have happened. Sometimes legislatures need to force people to overcome their bigotry and make rulings regarding civil rights that are unfavorable. Should people's civil (arguably, human) rights be put to a vote?
If the legislators would vote today, we expect that they would vote to place the issue on the ballot.
Governor Deval Patrick wants to delay the vote until he is sure that enough legislators will vote against the question being placed on the ballot. This, he says, is protection of gay rights - but is he standing in the way of democracy?
As an ally of gay youth and adults in Holyoke, and a member of several groups and task forces for LGBTQQI rights in Massachusetts, I want to make sure that their marriages are honored and that their rights are protected.
I want the people to vote. The catch is: I want the people to vote MY WAY. I want the people to vote to allow gay marriage. And I'm not sure that will happen. So, out of fear, should I stand in the way of a vote?
- Caroline R's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Stand Proud
I say be afraid. Be very Afraid. I don't trust most people as far as I can throw them, especially if my leap of faith dictates whether or not I get to visit my partner in the hospital.
It's my belief that it's easier (not easy) to change laws than public opinion. Then organizations can put their energies into making people change their minds.
I'd rather be a woman able to make a legal and safe choice than a person still working on trying to make people like the idea of abortions.
Then again, there's still that mob of protesters outside the Planned Parenthood and people dedicated to eroding my ability to choose.... so, is that really the right mindset? Should we worked on changing minds first? How long would that take? How many unsafe abortions (and other side effects) would happen in the meantime?
the plot thickens
interesting dilemma,
in reference to argument 1, "...if rights like this are decided on by the legislature - what could be next? What else could the court order or allow them to do?" Key words here, (as you may be able to deduce from the bold) first, "rights". If the legislature is granting equal rights to gays, i'm all in support of it; aren't we a nation that loudly proclaims its "equal rights" rhetoric. Now granted, i understand that many people apparently can not get passed their racism and bigotry and so do not support equal rights for all; though they would probably never say it, it would reflect in their vote given the chance. Is this a good thing? No.
Second key word of the aforementioned, "what else could the court order or allow them to do?". Allow. Allow. Now the court is not going to allow gays to start killing people, but allowing them to get married and "be as miserable as the rest of us" (as is a common joke on the issue); well personally, that doesn't really affect me, but i completely support the right of others to do so. Just because a court allows you to have a gay marriage doesn't mean you have to take the court up on that offer; if it doesn't concern you, then carry on with your day. Now bigots are going to say, "oh, but it does concern me; it's around me and my kids, and society, blah blah blah." Well sorry bub, that's antiquated and bigoted thinking. As you noted, girl who sits across from me, people said the same thing during the Civil Rights movement; but you know what, for acknowledging the rights of Blacks and minorities our country is better for it; no worthwhile person could deny that today. The bottom line is people still have their hate, and as you acknowledged above, "Sometimes legislatures need to force people to overcome their bigotry and make rulings regarding civil rights that are unfavorable."
personal politics
What I was trying to say before was this:
This ruling is monumental because it makes a decision about the personal lives of Massachusetts citizens. It does affects legal issues, as Cory mentioned, like visiting a partner in the hospital or sharing his or her assets,but it also makes a statement about what "Massachusetts" (put in quotes because, for now Massachusetts is just a judge intepreting the law, but it could be the citizens) approve of as far as personal conduct. This is what makes most opponents uncomfortable. The, "my children have to see that" in their schools - we're approving of this "lifestyle" (UGH! HATE THAT WORD) to be supported by the state. It's the personal politics that gets people. This is why, I was saying, that people are afraid. If the state "allows" gays to marry and "approves" of their sexual/emotional union - what else would the state "allow" someone to do, if brought to court? People are very afraid that the court could make such a ruling that is so deeply personal -and I believe many people are afraid of many more personal rulings. This is neither my fear nor belief - so as far as I'm concerned, it doesn't make a difference. The court makes rulings on individual cases, not by what was favorable and unfavorable in the past. Thank goodness.
I think the fact that this is still an issue after three years, is really incredible. I did not expect this. But it needs to be put to rest, somehow, because Bostonians, in particular, have hard time accepting rulings about their personal lives - even years after the fact (flashback to the Boston bussing crisis, anyone?). I'm pretty sure that this issue will continue until people feel as though they've put in their two cents by casting their ballot. The bottom line is that some citizens feel as though their voices are not being heard - and we need to find a way to fix that. They feel as though they're being squashed by a panel of judges with whom they have no connection. People are self-centered. They think that everyone cares what they think. And I don't see that changing.
so...
what do we do next?
Decision
To paraphrase the words of former Supreme Court Justice Jackson, there are some rights that should not be subject to a vote.
The inherent rights of free expression, liberty, due process, and equal protection under the law are some of the most essential guarentees under our federal and state constitutions, and any revocation of these liberties - be it legislative, executive or judicial - is an encroachment on our natural rights.
They don't call it a "tyranny of the majority" for nothing.
the verdict
The question will not appear on the ballot.
One lawmaker, in her own words, who changed her mind:
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/city_region/breaking_news/2007/06/one_lawmaker_in.html