Hey, there! Log in / Register
Same-sex marriage preserved again
By adamg on Thu, 11/09/2006 - 5:44pm
Bay Windows: Victory!
6:04 p.m. A huge, noisy celebratory rally is taking place in Nurses Hall. MassEquality campaign director Marc Solomon is introducing lawmakers who supported marriage equality to the crowd.
Since legislators voted to recess rather than adjourn, Mitt Romney cannot call them back into session.
Domenico Bettinelli: Unaccountable Massachusetts Legis-weasels adjourn without vote on marriage:
... And rather than having the courage, fortitude, and just plain stand-up-guts to put their name on the line and vote one way or another--and thus be held accountable--they weasel their way out. They’re a pack of weasels. Disgusting. ...
Soxfan: I know some antigay activists will now complain that the will of the people wasn't heard:
Which seems funny to me, because as far as I know the will of the people shouldn't rely on fraudulent signature-collecting methods and out-of-state protestors.
David Weinberger is optimistic:
It may take a decade or two or even three, but I do believe in my heart that eventually the rest of the country will catch up to Massachusetts.
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Bettinelli/Gay Marriage Comprimise
A.) I wonder how gay lifestyle expert Bettinelli would like it if this ammendment allowed us to vote on the legitimacy of his marriage? I also wonder how Bettinelli and his ilk would have voted on the 1915 Mass ballot initiative that denied women the right to vote? [HT:BMG]
B.) I have a comprimise between the "let the people vote" crowd and the "the majority shouldn't vote on the rights of a minority" crowd. Let's allow only those who openly practice homosexuality to vote on the rights of fellow homsexuals. This is not a move to exclude people like Bettinelli from voting on gay marriage, rather it is a test - if he feels so strongly in his convictions and still feels the need to vote against gay marriage, he need only to cruise craigslist casual encounters or the back of the Pheonix for a night to find some one who will qualify him as a voter.
PFFT
Well, the issue is more that this country has a tradition of not voting on civil rights issues. You don't see people discussing voting on whether Catholics have the right to marry; they just do, because that's what's fair.
I really don't like the language/idea of people "practicing homosexuality." The right to physically express sexuality isn't being debated. The right to have a committed family and have all the rights that other families have is what we're discussing. For your idea to be consistent, you'd need to say that only people who outwardly and consistently identify as GLBT would be allowed to vote. Someone who identifies as straight and periodically has casual sex with someone of the same gender isn't likely looking for marriage rights (but should have them if s/he chooses to marry someone of the same gender at some point). Also, while I realize you're being facetious, I don't like the idea of "just go pick up a guy and that will make you gay," because it kind of reinforces the fundies' idea that people can just "go choose to live a straight lifestyle." Regardless of whether this is possible, people should have the rights to do anything they want that doesn't affect anyone else. It's ridiculous that anyone would even question this right.
http://1smootshort.blogspot.com
You're right, eeka
As usual [(and I mean that in the sincere way :) ]. I meant everything in my post in the most absurd sense possible. I don't think anyone should vote on this issue and I really don't believe most things I said in my comment. I was trying to write in the same ridiculous way that Bettinelli writes when he claims that gay couples who adopt children subject them to a lifestyle of things that I won't repeat here. And I chose "practicing homosexual" as a direct jab at the Pat Robertson types.
Basically, I wanted people to assign the same value to Bettinelli's post as the ideas in my coment, both are worthless and absurd.
Word.
Just weighing in because a lot of people don't know sarcasm/absurdity when they see it.
http://1smootshort.blogspot.com
We need a snark font...
... to indicate to the humor-impaired what the appropriate interpretation is.