September 11, 2005
A fragile coalition of lawmakers cobbled together to support an anti-gay marriage amendment is falling apart, virtually assuring that same-sex marriage will for now remain legal in Massachusetts, according to an Associated Press poll.The survey, conducted between Sept. 6-9, found at least 104 lawmakers who plan to vote against the proposed constitutional amendment, which would ban gay marriage but create civil unions.
The amendment, which is scheduled for a vote on Wednesday, needs the support of at least 101 of the state's 200 lawmakers to get on the 2006 ballot.
I'd like to remind members of the Massachusetts Legislature of the following words from the Declaration of Independence.
. . . Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it. . .
I urge members of the Massachusetts legislature to permit the people of massachusetts the opportunity to alter the Massachusetts Constitution, as is their fundamental right as a free people.
UPDATE: Jefferson weeps in the Great beyond -- people of Massachusetts denied the right to alter their state Constitution.
Will this usurpation by the Massachusetts legislature result in the denial of the right of the citizens of all 49 other states to determine what constitutes marriage in their states?
Posted by: Greg at
11:22 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 262 words, total size 2 kb.
Why are the opinions of a legislature important? It is because a majority of Massachusetts citizens chose Democrats to represent them. Current polls show a majority of Massachusetts citizens support gay marriage.
As to the other 49 states - shouldn't Massachusetts be able to exercise a power granted to it by the Constitution? For all the Republican squealing about the Tenth Amendement in issue after issue, this is a power that is specifically granted to the states individually. This means Mass can do as it would.
In case you are really so homophobic, take comfort in the fact that so far the Defense of Marriage Act has not been ruled unconstitutional.
Yet.
-RS
Posted by: Rahul Sinha at Wed Sep 14 17:01:11 2005 (Uov/D)
And, as a matter ofprinciple, I believe that the people of every state should have teh power of initiative and referendum -- as well as the power to directly propose a Constitutional amendment to the state Constitution. The failure of a legislature to permit the people to vote on a matter of Constitutional Amendment is, in my humble opinion, a violation of the right of the people to alter or abolish their form of government. Were I a legislator, I would support the placing of any proposed amendment before the people -- regardless of whether or not I supported that amendment.
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Thu Sep 15 15:45:38 2005 (A4oSL)
The Constitutional Amendment process in Massachusetts requires two consecutive legislatures to pass the amendment (before it is submitted to a referendum) precisely so that voters will have a chance to reward or punish legislators for their votes the first time around.
In this case, after the legislature (narrowly) passed the amendment the first time, the legislators who voted for the amendment disproportionately lost their seats in the election. This message from the People was not lost on the other legislators, and the second vote wasn't even close (157-39).
This is exactly how the process was designed to work. The will of the People has been done in Massachusetts (even if the initial step was undemocratic) regardless of whether it's your will.
Posted by: Clint at Mon Sep 19 05:26:10 2005 (v9PD0)
DOMA isn't going to be ruled unconstitutional (though someday it will be repealed).
In the decades leading up to Loving v Virginia there were a number of cases laying out the conditions under which states do and do not have to recognize marriages contracted in other states, where one of the states does not recognize interracial marriages. The legal standards were quite reasonable. Essentially, if you move from Mass. to Virginia, your marriage is no longer valid (if you're an interracial, or today same-sex, couple) -- but if you're there on vacation, the doctor in the hospital must recognize you as the next of kin.
This regime was finally overturned for interracial marriages in Loving -- but racial distinctions in the law are subject to a much higher standard of scrutiny than sexual-orientation distinction (or even gender distinction). No similar Supreme Court ruling will be forthcoming against DOMA, for at least a generation.
Posted by: Clint at Mon Sep 19 05:49:15 2005 (v9PD0)
21 queries taking 0.0102 seconds, 33 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.