One-sided Argument for Same Sex Marriage

One-sided Argument for Same Sex Marriage

The Dig reports the usual pabulum on same sex marriage. (Julia Reischel +
Paul McMorrow, "Gay Marriage Scorecard," June 20, 2007) We know "members of the
legislature [...] are not opposed to gay marriage." The only thing politicians
oppose is losing their job, having "shifted gayward [...] to protect their
seats."
The authors quote a political reporter and two politicians and declare that
"Beacon Hill doesn't care." The Due Process Rights of 100,000 citizens, none of
whom were quoted by these authors remain voided. US Rep. Barney Frank shares
the elitist view that legislators should speak for the voter. Does the Dig
think journalists should speak for the voter too? Are voters incapable of
knowing how to vote? If they stupid what does that say about their votes
for the legislators?
Gay activists protect a flawed Court decision. The SJC does not have
jurisdiction on marriage issues according to the state constitution. [Chapter
III.
JUDICIARY POWER.
Article V. All causes of marriage, divorce, and alimony, and all appeals from
the judges of probate shall be heard and determined by the governor and council,
until the legislature shall, by law, make other provision.]
Until same sex marriage is codified the court case will remain vulnerable.
This battle may be a Pyrrhic victory. Gay elitists believe that they know better
than voters and laws.
[PART THE FIRST
A Declaration of the Rights of the Inhabitants
of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Article V. All power residing originally in the people, and being derived from
them, the several magistrates and officers of government, vested with authority,
whether legislative, executive, or judicial, are their substitutes and agents,
and are at all times accountable to them.]
--
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM

Gay Marriage Scorecard
The ConCon changes everything

by Julia Reischel + Paul McMorrow
Issue 9.25
Wed, June 20, 2007
Unless you missed the enormous rainbow mushroom cloud blooming over the State
House dome last week, you know that on Thursday, to the surprise of pretty much
everyone, Massachusetts’s state legislators convened a Constitutional
Convention, killed the Protection of Marriage Amendment and enshrined gay
marriage until at least 2012.
Just six months ago, the legislature voted the opposite way by a
comfortable margin, giving the amendment a decent shot of landing on the 2008
ballot. Somehow, leadership on Beacon Hill engineered a semi-miraculous
turnaround in six months, cobbling together a pro-gay marriage coalition out of
thin air. And while the bloviators in the House and Senate say last week’s vote
is all about courage and rights, those aren’t the main reasons the gays
prevailed.
“Unlike a generation ago, and unlike most other states, most of the
members of the legislature, gay or straight, male or female, liberal or
conservative, are not opposed to gay marriage,” says Larry DiCara, a longtime
observer of local politics.
That’s been the case ever since 2004, when Carl Sciortino, an openly
gay representative from Somerville, beat out Vincent Ciampa, an entrenched and
virulently anti-gay incumbent. Sciortino’s long-shot victory, engineered by gay
rights advocates, sent tremors throughout the State House. Since then,
incumbents who’ve been faced with upstart progressive candidates (or the threat
thereof) have shifted gayward in election years in order to protect their seats
from opposition. And the ones who haven’t shifted have consistently lost
elections.
The change reflects Massachusetts’s population overall. “The
changing demographics of the state are significant,” says DiCara. “We think of
[state Rep.] Brian Wallace of South Boston, for example, of having a district
full of a bunch of Irish guys who wear scally caps and drink beer. Guess what? I
bet there are 3,000 or 4,000 gay people in Brian Wallace’s district.”
By showing up at the State House in person to lobby their
legislators in the weeks before the ConCon, many of those gay citizens tipped
the balance even more in their favor.
“I’m willing to suspend my cynicism and acknowledge that that did
work,” says Jon Keller, WBZ-TV’s chief political analyst. “Come on—with the
presence of your absolutely most respectable, solid-citizen constituents sitting
there in front of you, you’d have to be a real hater to not get it.”
Marriage-protection activists have been pushing constitutional
amendments since 2001, and legislators have ducked and dodged them as much as
possible, avoiding conclusive votes for years. Then Senate President Robert
Travaglini—with more than a gentle nudge from Mitt Romney and the Supreme
Judicial Court—forced the issue in early January, and the legislature had no
place left to hide.
“I think there was just a major-league ConCon fatigue,” Keller says.
[...]