Disappointed in Massachusetts

Posted on January 3, 2007
| buzz-it! | Huff it!

Revised 4 Jan. for clarity.

It is a blow to hear that Massachusetts will advance their anti-gay marriage amendment to the next stage in the process. An aspect of the disappointment is a feeling that some powerful allies who in the past took some courageous stands have now folded — the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, who once correctly ruled to allow same-sex marriage and have since been chastised by every conservative in the country who wanted to score points on the backs of gays and lesbians; and more recently, the legislature, once knowing that doing the right thing should sometimes trump doing things right.

Andrew Sullivan, whom I respect immensely for his intellect and writing style wrote the book that brought the issue of marriage equality to life for me, Virtually Normal. Sullivan, the most agreeable of conservatives, writes today “Let them Vote.” I presume that he is allowing that the amendment will cross it’s second hurdle, a second vote in the legislature, and he’s saying let all the people of Massachusetts vote. That should not happen.

Massachusetts sets the bar so low for the passage of an amendment when initiated by signed petitions that it only takes a 25 percent vote in the legislature in 2 consecutive years to advance the initiative to the ballot. My hope is that in the second year the amendment can be killed by the super majority requirement of 75%-plus. Having set the bar so low, if the amendment is defeated in this way it should be put to rest. Should is the operative word, because in direct democracy, unless there is some prohibition against bringing the same initiative repeatedly, there’s no reason to believe the issue once defeated will go away.

Why there should be another state-wide show-down in the popular vote is beyond me. Yes, it would be wonderful vindication to win such a popular vote. Massachusetts would seem to be the most likely of states to make that happen, given that there are gays and lesbians currently legally married by the state, and given the overall makeup of the electorate there. I fear that sometimes we expect too much of our tolerant neighbors — not of what they should do, but of what they will do.

Sullivan says, “The national gay groups, whose record on marriage has been spotty at best, need to make this the first priority of the national movement.” On this, I heartily agree.