Massachusetts Set to Vote on Gay Marriage in 2008
Thursday January 4, 2007
Full Coverage: Gay Marriage in Massachusetts
Yesterday, the Massachusetts legislature voted to put the state's equal marriage laws on the line in November 2008. Well, 62 members of the state legislature did, anyway--the other 134 voted against the proposal. Assuming this happens again next year (and it almost certainly will), gay marriage will be on the Massachusetts ballot in November 2008.
Astonishingly, it only takes 50 legislative votes in two consecutive legislative sessions, and 69,000 petition signatures, to put a constitutional amendment referendum on the ballot in Massachusetts. This is very useful information to have, because I can think of other constitutional amendments that could benefit from such a flexible process--starting with a state Equal Rights Amendment. But that's neither here nor there.
The crucial thing is Mitt Romney's 2008 presidential campaign. No, I haven't lost my mind; stay with me for a minute. When gay marriage was legalized in May 2004, then-governor Romney was sitting right there, presiding over the process. He had made it very clear that he was very much opposed to gay marriage, and gay everything else for that matter, but this didn't matter much. Elected as a blue-state Republican moderate in 2003, Romney was already held in some suspicion by social conservatives. Playing a role in the legislative enactment of the United States' first gay marriage laws, however reluctant he might have been, didn't help. It is absolutely crucial for Romney, if he is to win the Republican primary, that he be seen as part of Massachusetts' "faithful remnant"--state residents who have not gone along with gay marriage, and who are still working to do away with it.
Enter the anti-gay marriage amendment. It stands little chance of actually passing--it's already polling at 30%, before opponents of the amendment have even had a chance to begin their campaign, and a similar amendment has already been defeated in the far more conservative state of Arizona. But it's probably coming to a vote on November 4th, 2008, which happens to be the exact day that Mitt Romney himself will come to a vote, if he wins the Republican presidential primary and becomes the party nominee. After November 4th, it will not matter as much whether or not there is a "faithful remnant" because the presidential election will be over and Mitt Romney's legacy, for better or for worse, will not be that of the Massachusetts governor who presided over the legalization of gay marriage.
So that's the gist of it. Massachusetts' legislators voted against the anti-gay marriage referendum by a 2:1 margin, it's polling at 30%, and it's almost certainly coming up for a vote anyway. Massachusetts' progressive and civil libertarian activist communities will, I'm sure, be more than ready to fight the amendment and further erode its support. I don't believe that it stands any reasonable chance of passing, but it could. Bad and oppressive laws, once proposed, always stand some chance of passing. That has been the right-wing social agenda for many years--on abortion, on gay marriage, on flag burning, and any number of other topics--and it will probably remain the right-wing social agenda for many years to come. What we must do, as civil libertarians, is resist the urge to allow right-wing aggressiveness to create in us a fear-based, anger-based movement. We have ample opportunity to propose aggressive new policies of our own. We should take full advantage of it.
See also:
|
Astonishingly, it only takes 50 legislative votes in two consecutive legislative sessions, and 69,000 petition signatures, to put a constitutional amendment referendum on the ballot in Massachusetts. This is very useful information to have, because I can think of other constitutional amendments that could benefit from such a flexible process--starting with a state Equal Rights Amendment. But that's neither here nor there.
The crucial thing is Mitt Romney's 2008 presidential campaign. No, I haven't lost my mind; stay with me for a minute. When gay marriage was legalized in May 2004, then-governor Romney was sitting right there, presiding over the process. He had made it very clear that he was very much opposed to gay marriage, and gay everything else for that matter, but this didn't matter much. Elected as a blue-state Republican moderate in 2003, Romney was already held in some suspicion by social conservatives. Playing a role in the legislative enactment of the United States' first gay marriage laws, however reluctant he might have been, didn't help. It is absolutely crucial for Romney, if he is to win the Republican primary, that he be seen as part of Massachusetts' "faithful remnant"--state residents who have not gone along with gay marriage, and who are still working to do away with it.
Enter the anti-gay marriage amendment. It stands little chance of actually passing--it's already polling at 30%, before opponents of the amendment have even had a chance to begin their campaign, and a similar amendment has already been defeated in the far more conservative state of Arizona. But it's probably coming to a vote on November 4th, 2008, which happens to be the exact day that Mitt Romney himself will come to a vote, if he wins the Republican presidential primary and becomes the party nominee. After November 4th, it will not matter as much whether or not there is a "faithful remnant" because the presidential election will be over and Mitt Romney's legacy, for better or for worse, will not be that of the Massachusetts governor who presided over the legalization of gay marriage.
So that's the gist of it. Massachusetts' legislators voted against the anti-gay marriage referendum by a 2:1 margin, it's polling at 30%, and it's almost certainly coming up for a vote anyway. Massachusetts' progressive and civil libertarian activist communities will, I'm sure, be more than ready to fight the amendment and further erode its support. I don't believe that it stands any reasonable chance of passing, but it could. Bad and oppressive laws, once proposed, always stand some chance of passing. That has been the right-wing social agenda for many years--on abortion, on gay marriage, on flag burning, and any number of other topics--and it will probably remain the right-wing social agenda for many years to come. What we must do, as civil libertarians, is resist the urge to allow right-wing aggressiveness to create in us a fear-based, anger-based movement. We have ample opportunity to propose aggressive new policies of our own. We should take full advantage of it.
See also:
Comments
No comments yet. Leave a Comment