I wonder what kind of post I would have written on the vote yesterday in the Massachusetts legislature to prevent a vote on a constitutional amendment “that would have let voters decide whether to ban gay marriage” had I received the e-mail from Peter Hughes’ alerting me to Yahoo!’ news item on the decision before I received the press releases from HRC and Log Cabin.
I’m actually more ambivalent on the vote that my previous post might suggest.
What stunned me in the two releases was reading (yet again) the same lame discourse on this, perhaps the most important socio-political issue facing our community, especially that Log Cabin’s release, like much of that ostensibly Republican’s group rhetoric, seemed to mimic that of HRC. They weren’t even trying to stake out a conservative position. My astonishment was reflected in the title of the post.
I’m ambivalent on the issue because I believe that legislatures (rather than courts) are the appropriate institution to decide a state’s policy on marriage. And here, an elected legislature (though under special circumstances) did vote on the policy. So, I should favor the decision. But, it troubles me that they only acted because the state Supreme Judicial Court (the highest court in the Bay State) had mandated marriage, taking it out of the legislature’s hands, leaving only the state’s complicated constitutional amendment process as a means of recourse.
Two things struck me about the reaction of the gay organizations, first the zeal with which the gay groups lobbied to prevent the people from voting on this issue. I think it’s silly to call this a “Vote on Rights” because the issue here is not about protecting people’s freedom, but about determining which couples the state recognizes (and privileges) as married.
The second issue which struck me, which is a point I have been making for as long as I have been blogging, is the inability (or refusal) of the gay organizations to talk about this all-important issue except as one of rights. As I was working on my prior post, The Malcontent‘s Robbie alerted me to Jonathan’s Rauch’s thoughtful review of David Blankenhorn’s The Future of Marriage. In noting that gay-marriage foe David Blankenhorn “succeeds” in making a serious case against gay marriage, Rauch (yet again) makes a strong case for gay marriage.
I wonder why it is that so few advocates of gay marriage take the time to make arguments as Jonathan does, pointing out the merits of this ancient institution, how it benefits gay people — and society. And to address the points raised by opponents of gay marriage.
Dale Carpenter, another one of the few advocates of gay marriage who makes serious arguments in favor of the institution, was quite enthusiastic about the decision, titling his e-mail alerting his friends to his post on the topic “Woohoo!,” offers an opinion only slightly different from my own. He notes that the vote shows “how dramatically support for SSM [Same-Sex Marriage] has grown in the legislature,” but agrees that “a successful referendum vote in November 2008” would have represented an “even bigger win.”
Given the prospect of such a successful referendum, I wonder (yet again) at why gay groups so delighted in blocking it. Such a victory would have done much to undercut the argument of gay marriage opponents that gay activists seek to “impose” gay marriage on an unwilling public.
Perhaps, had I first learned of this vote from the Yahoo! news piece, I might have written a post that differed from Dale’s only in my ambivalence as to the outcome.
But, as it was, I first saw the posts of the gay organizations and responded to their pabulum. I get so annoyed of their posturing on the issue, labeling marriage as a right rather than understanding it a social institution which states privilege by recognizing.
All that said, I remain ambivalent about the vote yesterday in the Bay State. It is a good thing that the elected representatives of the people had the chance to vote on this. It’s unfortunate that gay groups are unable to distinguish a right from a benefit — and remain reluctant to discuss the meaning of marriage.
Perhaps, as the Bay State’s resolution of this issue shows, they may not need to discuss that meaning in order to gain state recognition of same-sex marriage. So, as same-sex marriage becomes a reality, it will be up to others, people like Jonathan Rauch, Dale Carpenter and perhaps even yours truly, to remind people of the significance of this development, that this institution has a social importance which transcends the privileges granted by the state. And which transcend the benefits it grants to individuals who elect to enter into such sacred unions.
I wonder why it is that so few advocates of gay marriage take the time to make arguments as Jonathan does, pointing out the merits of this ancient institution, how it benefits gay people — and society.
Given the aforementioned behavior, no one will believe it.
Furthermore, most of what Rauch and Carpenter push is the idea that marriage will somehow “civilize” and settle down gays — a theory that can be exploded in two words: “Britney Spears”.
Personally, GPW, I think you and your firm commitment to avoid promiscuity and to prioritize personal relationships first, even in the absence of marriage, are the strongest argument yet that gays recognize what marriage is about and means.
But you are a distinct minority. Gays don’t have the highest HIV infection rates, higher than even the rates of those infected by heterosexual contact among males and females BOTH, because we think like you. We have it because we practice the highest risk behavior for spreading HIV — having sex with multiple concurrent partners.
The adolescent behavior of the gay community, coupled with its inability to avoid promiscuous and irresponsible sex even when doing so is a death sentence, is what makes most logical the arguments against us.
And until that is changed….they are right.
Dan, good points all around, and I agree with much of what you say. If it had gone to a vote of all the people of Massachusetts, and a majority voted yes, that would have been a great victory for gay rights. But, like it or not, the process was followed, and a huge majority of legislators are in favor of gay marriage. If the voters really wanted to vote on it, they could have elected legislators that would have supported their right. But would that made a difference, especially if one believes that Democrats are as anti-gay as Republicans? If true, the vote would have gone the same way. If not, and if it is the case that a majority of the citizens in Massachusetts are against gay marriage, then maybe it’s just not that important enough to strip others of rights, and gasp, life can still go on. So anyway you look at it, it’s a clear victory.
I also agree it would have been better if the process was initiated by the legislature instead of the courts, like it was in Connecticut. But I am not too troubled by that. First of all, agree with the judicial philosophy or not, but the justices in the Massachusetts and New Jersey courts saw a clear inequity in the constitution, and decided that it had to be remedied. But the legislators in both states basically upheld the decisions in both courts, as we saw. Even in New Jersey, the legislators approved civil unions. The majority agreed that it was the way to go. When the one nutcase assemblyman initiated impeachment proceedings for all the justices, of course, it went nowhere.
As for your other point about the reasons for having gay marriage. First, I do believe the argument that it should be a right is fair. We should ask ourselves are same sex relationships valid or should we still have laws prohibiting them. Finally, in 2004, that question was answered. And then we have to ask, should they be regarded as something less than equal and only worthy of second or third class status. If so, then fine, we shouldn’t have our relationships legalized in any way, they should be inferior to the rights that straight people have, or that we should have to jump through numerous hoops and go through miles of red tape to get some of the same rights. If not, then we should have the same exact rights as straight persons do regarding marriage. If we need to call it something else while people can ease into it, then fine. I am glad that when you said that gay persons already have the right to marry, you didn’t mean that gay persons have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. But the question is should they have the same rights that straight persons do.
As for other justification, I think that matter is simple. Dan, do you believe that the institution of marriage is good for straight persons? Do you believe that to be the case even if the couple has no intentions of procreating, or are unable to procreate? If the answer is yes to both questions, then the answer should be yes to same sex marriage. The point has been made that even with the existing rights given to gay persons, that only a small percentage has taken advantage of it. I’m fine with that. Any persons, gay or straight, who continue to engage in promiscuous, concurrent sex or whatever, and have no intention of stopping, then I would suggest that marriage is not for these persons. I contend that if same sex marriage was legalized, that eventually the percentages of gay promiscuity would decline. If I’m wrong, so be it. But at least the opportunity will be there for gay people who really want to be married.
I don’t believe we should have litmus behavior tests for a group of people, to determine if a person in that member of group is worthy of marriage. If we should, then we need to look at all groups. Such as people from ALL ethnic groups, age groups, socioeconomic groups, couples of great age difference, couples from different ethnic, racial, or socioeconomic groups. Then do studies to see if these subpopulations are promiscuous or not, or since they already have marriage, check to see if there is a higher rate of divorce or adultery. Then determine which of these subpopulations should still have the right to marry.
If marriage shouldn’t be about a “piece of paper.” That’s fine too. Then leave ALL marriages to religious or other private institutions. And then anyone who wants the benefits of marriage that straight persons currently have to have the wonderful experience of jumping through hoops and red tape to get them.
The last two paragraphs were a little snarky, but in my view, still something to think about.
GPW, no no no.
The legislature didn’t vote on MA’s gay marriage policy. Rather, they voted that there should be no vote. That’s not the same thing. It works out to support gay marriage, but in a back-handed and shameful way. I don’t want to win with such “victories”.
They voted on whether there should be democracy. And they voted against it. As a result, 24-year old chicks are out saying stuff like “We believe it’s unconstitutional not to allow people to vote on this” (Yahoo article). The legislature has turned it into a voting-rights issue now – one where gays are on the wrong side.
Gay rights vs. voting rights? Bad, bad strategy. Simply awful. One that will give new impetus to the FMA backlash (that none of us want).
Another point that bears clarifying, I think, is that a State marriage license really is a privilege, not a right. Just like a State driver’s license.
It only takes 2 people to make a binding commitment. Any 2 people have a right to do that. No one can ever take that away from them.
But state-sponsored marriage is something more, or different. It’s something other people are expected and often required to support. No one has the “right” to demand, or compel, the support and recognition of others… except by legislative / democratic process, at best.
That’s what this is about. Certain people (gays, liberals, whatever) want to compel social support and recognition for something – it happens to be gay marriages. I’m afraid I used to be one of those people, but my thinking has changed. We gays, of all people, shouldn’t be trying to compel anybody.
Or to put it another way: The only excuse for such compulsion (which happens all the time – laws against murder, tax laws, driving laws, etc.) is that it be set through a democratic / legislative process.
Our forbears called this, “No Taxation Without Representation”.
#2 – Pat – The key question is not whether marriage is good for the people entering it. Obviously it is, or it should be, or else they would not enter it. The key question is whether gay marriage is good for society.
Is gay marriage going to be good for society? Why? What’s in it for society? Why does society need it? I mean, really need it? That’s the point to argue. That’s what will bring the skeptics around.
3: “They voted on whether there should be democracy. And they voted against it. As a result, 24-year old chicks are out saying stuff like “We believe it’s unconstitutional not to allow people to vote on this” (Yahoo article).”
And they are certainly free to try to spin the issue that way. The fact remains that Massachusetts legislators are not supposed to send any amendment proposal before the voters indiscriminately. The constitution of the commonwealth clearly stipulates that an amendment put forward by petition needs to receive the support of 25% of the legislative body at two constitutional conventions before moving on to a public referendum. The marriage amendment has simply failed to do so.
I’m also ambivalent on this whole thing. I agree with Dan that the issue here is not about protecting people’s freedom, but about determining which couples the state recognizes (and privileges) as married.
And fundamentally, we live in a REPRESENTATIVE democracy…. not a direct one.
That being said however, I completely agree with Dale Carpenter’s wise assessment: “An even bigger win for SSM, in my view, would have been a successful referendum vote in November 2008.”
What are we afraid of to have a full and honest debate with the voters and allow at least an attempt at “pure” democracy on same-sex marriage?
Sorry ILC, but I’m going to have to disagree with you here. Like Bruce said, we live in a REPRESENTATIVE democracy, not a direct one (hence the electoral college). Someone must have been looking out the window during civics class. The people HAD their chance to vote on this: through their elected representatives. Instead, none of the people who voted for gay marriage got defeated. None. Zip. Zilch. Nada. You can piss & moan all you want, but that’s the system of government we have. Yes (as you can probably tell) I’m tickled pink about this. Think about it: opponents couldn’t even get a freakin’ 25% of the ELECTED legislators to go their way. THIS is the way to win marriage rights, people. Not through the courts (& UNELECTED judges), but through the representative democratic process.
ILC, I’ll try to answer your question. I do believe that homosexuals are as productive and positive members of society, in general. And as such I believe it benefits society that any such member should have equal benefits. Barring someone from rights that others have seems to me hurtful to society. Does society really, really need it? I don’t know. Does society really need any marriage, whether it’s civil or religious? If the answer is that it benefits society in terms of procreating and/or raising children, but it is really not needed for couples who don’t raise children, then why does marriage still exist for childless couples, or why shouldn’t it dissolve as soon as the last child reachess adulthood? Or there are many gay couples, including those on this board, who are not married, but seem to be doing a fine job. So maybe marriage isn’t really needed for the purposes of children either.
Okay, so I’m still throwing in the “well they have it, I want it argument.” I still see it as a benefit to society, although I have a hard time qualifying it. So maybe what will help Dan (and me) out is why is any marriage beneficial to society, whether it’s a couple who intend on raising children, or a couple with no intention. Or what about interracial couples? Is that really necessary, especially since the percentages of interracial marriage are low? Or do we have them, simply because the Constitution says we must have it? I would like to think it’s the former.
Sometimes we take things for granted without really understanding why they are a good thing, and maybe we do need to step back and see why ANY marriage is beneficial to society.
The legislature didn’t vote on MA’s gay marriage policy. Rather, they voted that there should be no vote. That’s not the same thing. It works out to support gay marriage, but in a back-handed and shameful way. I don’t want to win with such “victories”.
ILC, I agree it’s not the same thing. But right now, same sex marriage is allowed in Massachusetts. But less than 25% of the legislators voted to have the issue going to the voters, meaning the law stands. I would think that any legislator who is against SSM would have voted to have it go to the voters so there would at least be a chance for the law to be overturned. And perhaps there were some legislators who are for SSM, but still would like the voters to decide the issue. If it was a real vote on the marriage policy, it seems to me the vote would be more overwhelmingly for SSM.
Pat, with great respect, (1) that’s a lot of inference, and (2) if it’s true, then why wouldn’t you want to see the MA legislature allow a gay marriage vote? I mean, why not get the real victory, the right way – if we are that likely to win it?
ILC,
(1) What am I missing here? If a legislator did not want SSM, why would he or she vote NOT to have the issue go the voters?
(2) I agree. Had the voters got a chance to vote on the issue, and SSM passed it would be a better victory. And there may be some backlash, as you suggest. But the political process was followed. And it appears that the SSM opponents had a fair chance.
Well, count me in as a knuckle-dragging homophobe theocrat Reichwinger if you must, but I certainly don’t see this as anything to cheer about, especially the repeated refrain here and on another thread that not even 25% of the legislators could muster anti-SSM votes.
Since I’m on this thread – Pat, it sounds as though you don’t live in Massachusetts. Far from a sober tally of votes with the result that “less than 25%” of the Legislature favored putting SSM on the ballot, the bullies here in MA were so afraid the measure would pass that they actively bribed wavering votes, with a bushel-load of out of state soft money and our empty suit of a governor gloating in the pages of the “Boston Globe” that he had a number of plum judicial and legislative posts which needed to be filled – and gosh, wouldn’t it be convenient if a certain wise solon who happens to be an SSM swing vote would see the light of the rainbow and join the forces of goodness and archangels?
As well, we were treated, all last week, to “human interest” stories of anti-SSM and wavering legislators barely able to make it into their offices through the hordes of weeping infants and apple-cheeked schoolchildren wailing “pwease don’t huwt my mommies and daddies, mister homophobe!”
So fine. Bribery and “feeeeeeeeeeeelings.” Bullying and screams of “bigot!” That’s the way the game is played in Massachusetts. But to imagine that the votes against letting the people of MA have a say on SSM were the outcome of sober, intelligent consideration and not the sniveling surrender of a pack of bribed, bullied, feckless, flatulent clowns is to grossly underestimate the corrupt toilet that is the Massachusetts Legislature.
Christopher, fair enough. So you explained how a legislator who is against SSM (or at least really wanted it to go the people) could have voted against the issue going to the voters. But you even suggested that this was done because the 25% was marginal. So it still says to me that at least 70% would have voted against it anyway. And if it was political games that caused to vote to go over 75%, well, that’s politics unfortunately. If enough voters are against SSM and against all the wonderful corruption in MA, then perhaps they will vote all the legislators out and try again.
And no, I don’t live in MA. I live in NJ, and we have a nice smattering of Republican and Democratic corruption here. I do my best by voting against the machine in elections here.
…the sniveling surrender of a pack of bribed, bullied, feckless, flatulent clowns is to grossly underestimate the corrupt toilet that is the Massachusetts Legislature.
I love it! I grew up in NJ and now live in Chicago, so believe me I get what you’re saying Christopher. However, I think that’s just politics as usual. Regardless of the influencing, shall we call them persuasive, factors in play, it appears that the standard process for disallowing an amendment going to the public was followed. While I agree with a number of the posters here (as well as Bruce and Dan) that a vote by the populace would have been a bigger win, I can’t say it upsets me that the outcome of the normal review process was what it was. And even taking into account the bullying, bribery, and rolling over that goes with all politics, 1 out of 4 doesn’t seem like a very high hurdle. If the people disagree with this decision by their elected representation , they need to make their voices heard the next time they visit the ballot box.
Pat – exactly.
THIS is the way to win marriage rights, people. Not through the courts (& UNELECTED judges), but through the representative democratic process.
Pardon me, but wasn’t it the court which directed MA that they better come up with some legislation and fast?
Perceptive. And as long as politicians/activists scream “homophobe! bigot! rights!” instead of listen respectfully to and talk with opponents of SSM, they will continue to lose at the ballot box. You don’t get votes by spewing BS, much less insulting voters.
Yes, which is where the Supreme Judicial Tribunal overstepped its authority. Instead of behaving as an equal branch of government and declining the Massachusetts Legislature caved and did as they were told. It’s not the best way to get same-sex marriage, nonetheless that is what the Legislature chose to do, and by extension the People since they voted these people into power over 2 elections. Messy and foolish way for the system to work, but it nevertheless did. If the Tribunal and the Legislature are not in step with the will of the People they have a method of expressing their displeasure, though to date they have not.
I have enough of a flippant streak to ask: why the hell not? This is precisely the methods chosen by opponents of SSM in state after state.