No Crystal Ball
I can’t predict the future. Now that the Massachusetts legislature has voted to advance a ballot initiative banning same-sex marriage, it is not clear (at least not to me anyway) what will be the future of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts. The initiative still needs to survive another round of voting on Beacon Hill before it can be placed on the 2008 ballot.
I don’t share the optimism of some who believe that in spite of yesterday’s setback, those defending marriage equality will prevail in the end. At the same time, I was somewhat bolstered by Jon Keller’s analysis of yesterday’s vote as the end of the “rogue court” argument against same-sex marriage.
While Keller’s assessment might be true, the court’s December 27 ruling that legislators have a constitutional duty to vote on initiative petitions also means that during the next constitutional convention, legislators will be much more reluctant to kill the initiative by a parliamentary maneuver (such as adjournment), which seems to be the only way this thing will be prevented from going before the voters. Even with Deval Patrick in the governor’s seat and some new GLBT-friendly legislators being sworn in, marriage equality does not seem to have gained enough support on Beacon Hill to survive another vote like yesterday’s.
Certainly, some of the newly elected legislators to be sworn in tomorrow—seven of them, I believe—favor marriage equality. Yesterday’s final vote—there were two votes—was 62 to 134. Only 50 yeas were needed to advance the ballot question. Seven more marriage equality votes would make that 55 to 141, but I’m not sure where the four legislators who didn’t cast their vote yesterday stand on the issue (For a list of how the legislators voted, click here). Over the course of the next six months, there will be lots of lobbying on both sides, but whether or not the balance on Beacon Hill will tip in favor of marriage equality before the next constitutional convention is difficult to say with certainty. It’s too close to call at this point.
More importantly, if same-sex marriage is put to a popular vote in 2008, I honestly don’t know what the end result will be. I would like to believe that there are enough fair-minded and progressive citizens in Massachusetts to uphold the validity of the Goodridge decision. However, as a gay man, I know firsthand what a powerful force bigotry is. Anti-gay sentiment may not be as strong here as in other places, but I can’t really say with any certainty how comfortable my fellow citizens are with gay marriage. It certainly doesn’t help that 2008 will be a presidential election year and is likely to see higher than normal voter turnout at the polls.
With so many other pressing needs, it is truly a shame that we need to spend more time and energy on this issue. However, I reserve that criticism for those who have lead the crusade against same-sex marriage. For those of us committed to GLBT equality, we have no choice but to fight on.
I don’t share the optimism of some who believe that in spite of yesterday’s setback, those defending marriage equality will prevail in the end. At the same time, I was somewhat bolstered by Jon Keller’s analysis of yesterday’s vote as the end of the “rogue court” argument against same-sex marriage.
While Keller’s assessment might be true, the court’s December 27 ruling that legislators have a constitutional duty to vote on initiative petitions also means that during the next constitutional convention, legislators will be much more reluctant to kill the initiative by a parliamentary maneuver (such as adjournment), which seems to be the only way this thing will be prevented from going before the voters. Even with Deval Patrick in the governor’s seat and some new GLBT-friendly legislators being sworn in, marriage equality does not seem to have gained enough support on Beacon Hill to survive another vote like yesterday’s.
Certainly, some of the newly elected legislators to be sworn in tomorrow—seven of them, I believe—favor marriage equality. Yesterday’s final vote—there were two votes—was 62 to 134. Only 50 yeas were needed to advance the ballot question. Seven more marriage equality votes would make that 55 to 141, but I’m not sure where the four legislators who didn’t cast their vote yesterday stand on the issue (For a list of how the legislators voted, click here). Over the course of the next six months, there will be lots of lobbying on both sides, but whether or not the balance on Beacon Hill will tip in favor of marriage equality before the next constitutional convention is difficult to say with certainty. It’s too close to call at this point.
More importantly, if same-sex marriage is put to a popular vote in 2008, I honestly don’t know what the end result will be. I would like to believe that there are enough fair-minded and progressive citizens in Massachusetts to uphold the validity of the Goodridge decision. However, as a gay man, I know firsthand what a powerful force bigotry is. Anti-gay sentiment may not be as strong here as in other places, but I can’t really say with any certainty how comfortable my fellow citizens are with gay marriage. It certainly doesn’t help that 2008 will be a presidential election year and is likely to see higher than normal voter turnout at the polls.
With so many other pressing needs, it is truly a shame that we need to spend more time and energy on this issue. However, I reserve that criticism for those who have lead the crusade against same-sex marriage. For those of us committed to GLBT equality, we have no choice but to fight on.
Labels: gay marriage, Massachusetts
posted by Sandouri Dean Bey at 1:02 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home