Anti-gay marriage clause advances

[BenL]

Sixty-two Massachusetts legislators, convened in constitutional convention, voted to advance a proposed amendment to the state constitution that would limit marriage to a man and a woman. The measure must pass a second constitutional convention in the current legislative session to be put on the ballot in 2008. Here is a link to the story on boston.com that explains all the ins and outs better than I can:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2007/01/03/same_sex_marriage_ban_advances/

The GLBT community has worked hard to preserve the historic Supreme Judicial Court ruling that allowed same-sex marriages. We will work even harder during the legislative session that begins today.

BenL

[Zerbie]

Excellent editorial. Follow the link to the editorial from the article.

[Daniel]

Grrrrrrr.. Read this news yersterday.

How about we even the playing field? How about we put everyone's rights up for a vote, huh?

Either that or a Solomon should step in (where art thou?) and declare: "Fine...you want those gay people to not have marriage? You don't get it either!"

Rip! Everyone's license gets rent in two.

I'm not feeling charitable today. :mad:

[novaseeker]

While it does set a very bad precedent of putting rights up for a vote, it's also an opportunity. Polls seem to indicate that there is good support for gay marriage in Massachusetts today. We can expect the religious right to pour massive dollars into Massachusetts in the next two years before the vote would take place in an effort to sway opinion, but we also have a great opportunity to make our own case in that period as well. And if we win the vote, that would be huge for the gay marriage cause.

Romney is simply using this as a football to cover his exposure to the Republican right-wing for the dubious distinction of being the Republican governor of the only state that has allowed gay marriage to date and statements he made earlier in his career that suggested he might have been in favor of some rights for LGBT people. It's a cynical strategy, but he's a politician after all. The bigger worry politically is that this becomes a bigger national political football in 2008, which the Republican Party's right wing uses to its advantage in the Presidential Derby. Undoubtedly, there are many right-wing Republicans who are not displeased at all at the prospect of a vote in Massachusetts in 2008 about gay marriage.

[Daniel]

My perception is that conservatives in MA want to go the route that NJ has gone: civil unions!

Separate and unequal.

It is a simple matter of heterosexual entitlement and privilege. They want to be the gatekeepers- holding the keys to Marriage as well as the Kingdom.

[Zerbie]

Grrrrrrr.. How about we even the playing field? How about we put everyone's rights up for a vote, huh?

Either that or a Solomon should step in (where art thou?) and declare: "Fine...you want those gay people to not have marriage? You don't get it either!"

Rip! Everyone's license gets rent in two.

:mad:

Would serve them right.
But since we're being selective: Howzabout, only in states with marriage inequality amendments, and only then for those who voted for 'em? Then again, two wrongs. . . .:( :disagree:

I have totally shared such thoughts, Daniel. It makes much less sense to grant benefits to some couples and not others:confused: than not to grant them at all. I thought about refusing to get married for that reason, celebrating an unmarried partnership instead, until all couples had their legal rights (what some of the celebs have now been doing.) Tho as you know I decided against it.

Anyhow, growl away as much as ya like. But don't stay discouraged, we'll get there. :pray: :love: We really will. :agree: If Arizona can defeat this stuff at the polls, you know Mass can, especially given that residents there have seen that the sky hasn't fallen since marriage equality was granted to their neighbors. :agree: :good:

[Daniel]

Anyhow, growl away as much as ya like. But don't stay discouraged, we'll get there. :pray: :love: We really will. :agree: If Arizona can defeat this stuff at the polls, you know Mass can, especially given that residents there have seen that the sky hasn't fallen since marriage equality was granted to their neighbors. :agree: :good:

I would like very much to be optimistic about this: but either my headcold or the January darkness is getting in the way! :rolleyes: To have conservatives push it this far is like a knife in the heart. As it is, the vote, if it passes again, will put gay rights up for popular vote during the election of '08, when the anti-gay bandwagon will roll out of the barn once again. If we're lucky the rails will come off the wheels. But I'm not holding my breath. Every conservative organization is now giving money to make sure the damn thing gets pushed through. Our side will need more money than God to fight this thing.

[tdogg]

Daniel, you said it - you know every one of them is right now putting together their battle plan and they are smelling victory. Overturning the same-sex marriage institution would be a huge victory for them and they will not rest until they have secured it. So, it's up to us to fight back with everything we have. Not sure what we can do, but I'm thinking calls, emails and letters are a good start. Send them to every MA legislator for starters. I get the feeling it wasn't a popular discussion item but was forced to a vote. Unfortunately, it only took a minimum of voters to get it through.

Anyway, disheartening but I think we have a chance to fight it if we DO something.

[Zerbie]

I would like very much to be optimistic about this: but either my headcold or the January darkness is getting in the way! :rolleyes: To have conservatives push it this far is like a knife in the heart.

Our side will need more money than God to fight this thing.

((((( Daniel ))))) :love: :love: :love: :love: :love:

We can win this one. :agree: So let's figure out what needs to happen so that we do, and then DO it. :love: :shield: :love: :shield:

Z

PS: I'm as offended as you are that citizen's rights are put up for a popular vote. :mad: That is sickening. *If* they do push the thing through, then it goes for that vote, and the best thing that can happen then is it get solidly trounced - a message that the people of Mass. won't stand for that sort of thing.
:dove: :earth:

[Zerbie]

Daniel, you said it - you know every one of them is right now putting together their battle plan and they are smelling victory. Overturning the same-sex marriage institution would be a huge victory for them and they will not rest until they have secured it. So, it's up to us to fight back with everything we have. Not sure what we can do, but I'm thinking calls, emails and letters are a good start. Send them to every MA legislator for starters. I get the feeling it wasn't a popular discussion item but was forced to a vote. Unfortunately, it only took a minimum of voters to get it through.

Anyway, disheartening but I think we have a chance to fight it if we DO something.

Yep - Tdogg!!!! :love: :D :love: :D Ya got it! We CAN win this one. :) :rainbow: I am sure sure sure there's a way.
And I am quite sure we will be hearing a lot from the national organizations about this, should the legislature actually move it on for a vote. First things first, let's make sure that all of OUR personal friends know about this, and what is at stake. IF it comes up for a vote, we've got nearly two YEARs to get out our voting base in MA. It can CERTAINLY be done. :agree:

[Daniel]

We can win this one. :agree: So let's figure out what needs to happen so that we do, and then DO it. :love: :shield: :love: :shield:


Yes, we can win this one! (he said sniveling- a box of kleenex at his side) :'(

I have a sister who lives in Boston. :rolleyes: Besides letters to politico's and donations to organizations, that's a good place to start.

You know, what pisses me off it that the legislature, in point of fact, was not mandated by the judge to put our rights up for a vote, it was a suggestion, nothing more. And the right is always yakking about activist judges. The legislature caved in to pressure from the Right- having previously not let this come up for a vote. And even the new Governor tried to stop it- to no avail. These conservatives want blood this time- and they won't stop until they get it. This is going to be one heck of a fight.

[novaseeker]

The main risks, it seems to me, are two.

The first is in MA itself, because I think we can be fairly certain that the religious right, which is not short of funds at all, will pour a blizzard of money into MA in terms of ads and the like in order to swing the vote. I don't believe there is an easy way for the LGBT cause to counter that directly, because while ads can certainly be run for our side, the christian right can outspend us easily. I suspect that the best counteraction to the spending side of this will be done in terms of direct contact in MA between people who are married and gay and everyone else. In addition, it's probable that a strategy a la Karl Rove in 2004 will be used to mobilize each and every single conservative christian who lives in MA to vote to overturn Goodridge through the churches themselves, as was done in 2004. The obvious counter to that is to get out the "positive" vote as well, which ... unfortunately is generally a harder thing to do than getting out a "negative" vote, again as we saw in 2004. Nothing like having gay rights up for a vote that gets every single conservative christian out of bed and voting, even if they haven't voted in years. So on these two fronts (ads and getting out the vote), we will have our work cut out.

The second risk is that this becomes a platform for a bigger national framing of the gay rights issue for the 2008 campaign, and mobilizes the religious right more generally in 2008 for the Presidential and Congressional votes. It's a bit trickier to predict this, I think. A lot will depend on who the Republicans nominate, and how close that person is to the religious right ideologically (it's hard to imagine someone as closely aligned to the religious right as GWB, however, so trying to replicate 2000 and 2004 may be difficult for the GOP). If the candidate generates significantly less enthusiasm from religious conservatives nationally, it may be easier for them to stay home, and instead view the MA issue as a local vote there (which, of course it is), whereas a candidate who really excites the religious right could galvanize people into a wider sense of "taking back America from the gay people like MA is doing" and invite them to join a wider fight against "moral entropy", etc. (Note that I'm discussing the GOP here not because I think that the Democrats are particularly pro-gay-marriage either, but generally their position on gay marriage is pragmatically-based rather than ideologically based and therefore, in my view, is less threatening to us.)

So it's definitely an unfortunate development. Luckily, MA is one of the most tolerant states in the country on issues like this one, and that factoid may indeed be the saving grace for us in the end. But clearly we have our work cut out for us, both in terms of the need for the community in MA to be activeely building bridges in their communities, as well as pragmatic strategies for countering scare ads and getting out the positive vote. Lots of work for political types in the next couple of years in MA, it seems to me.

[BenL]

Thanks for everyone's ideas on how to help us here in MA. And you're right, if this reaches the 2008 ballot, it will have ramifications nationally even if the constitutional amendment is rejected here. More than a few of you mentioned the money that will flow into MA from conservative organizations. Somehow we have to match that from supporters of GLBT rights.

MassEqaulity is lead organization in this fight. Their Web page is at http://www.massequality.org/. Sign up for email notifications. Give them some money, if you can.

Most of you concentrated on conservative religionists such as Fundamentalists and Evangelicals. No doubt they will be contributing resources. But the principal religious powerhouse in Massachusetts is the Roman Catholic Church and its bishops, who, to my mind, have been downright hateful towards gays in this political struggle.

The strategy now is to defeat the question in the second constitutional convention. We have seven new allies in the current Legislature. That means convincing five or six others to vote against it, and it will fail. Then we will be safe. No doubt national strategists will use the issue in 2008 anyway, but it wouldn't have the legs it would have had if the people were voting at the polls.

Again, thanks for your support. We will be calling on you for more as 2007 unfolds. There may even be an occasion for Soulforce to have a voice.

BenL :rainbow:

[Zerbie]

Anyone know the exact wording of the amendment they are trying to put on the ballot? It's conceivable that the precise wording may give us additional ammo for defeating it, say, if it's a comprehensive ban on legal recognition altogether. Does it provide for civil unions or DPs? Or does it sweep them away?

Nova and Ben, you guys nail it. Anyone else think the timing of this might be about Mitt Romney jockeying for the presidential nomination? In any event it's clear that this will be bandied about the entire country. I WILL sign up for email alerts from Mass Equality, thank you. Keep letting us know what we can do from the other end of the country, Ben.

[BenL]

Anyone know the exact wording of the amendment they are trying to put on the ballot?

The agenda of the constitutional convention is at http://www.mass.gov/legis/senate/jtcalendar.htm. To see the text of the initiative petition on marriage scroll down to Item No. 20.

BenL

[Zerbie]

Okay gotcha. It's a very specific amendment. Mass. can still win on this one, especially with 2 more years on our side.

[Daniel]

Eliot Spitzer looks like he's going to make good on his promise to introduce gay marriage legislation. After last summer's negative court decision- it's something to look forward too. Getting it passed? That's another matter!

http://www.365gay.com/Newscon07/01/010607spitzer.htm

Spitzer 'Staying The Course' On Gay Marriage
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff

Posted: January 6, 2007 - 11:00 am ET

(New York City) New York Gov. Elliott Spitzer will propose same-sex legislation in the new session of the legislature according to his press spokesperson.

----

In October Spitzer was the keynote speaker at Empire State Pride Agenda's annual dinner.

"No New Yorker should be deprived of the right to marry the person of their choice, regardless of gender," he said to thunderous applause.

"This is not about forcing any religion to perform or recognize gay marriage. It's simply about permitting gay and lesbian couples the right to live in stable, long-term married relationships."

A month later he handily defeated Republican John Faso an opponent of same-sex marriage.

[Emproph]

We should monitor the letters to the editors too and continually frame the arguments around the intentional dishonesty of their junk science tactics. I think that exposure is way under utilized.

Massachusetts Family Institute, which is spearheading the drive for the proposal defining marriage as between only a man and a woman.The MFI runs voteonmarriage.org which is may as well be FOF – no less than 5 articles by Glen Stanton that link right to FOF. All still “predicting” that slippery slope of horrors that awaits us if gays can legally wed...

And to what end? We are still waiting to hear of the first heterosexual couple whose marriage has been damaged by the more than 8,500 same-sex marriages performed here since 2004Yeah, oops.

Now this was interesting from last election here in FL:
If approved by voters, Amendment #3 would increase the number of votes needed to approve ballot initiatives from 50% +1 to 60% of those voting on the measure.We passed this in November and we have a marriage amendment slated for ‘08 too. I wasn’t even aware of it until I voted but I thought it was a great outside the box idea. It wasn’t a pro-gay initiative, but the anti-gay marriage people are listed as against it. Does MA have anything like this?

More info on it here:
http://www.votesmartflorida.org/mx/hm.asp?id=amendment3