I’ll give this guy credit for chutzpah, if not integrity:
Lawmakers in Massachusetts, the only state where same-sex marriage is legal, dealt what appeared to be a fatal blow Thursday to a proposed constitutional amendment to ban it.
Kris Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute, which sponsored the amendment, called the recess vote a “travesty,” and, waving a copy of the State Constitution, said the legislators had “just said that it’s irrelevant.”
I’m not sure Mr. Mineau understands the absurdity of him saying that legislators believe the State Constitution is irrelevant. Maybe he should sit down and have a think on that for a bit.
A few other instructive points:
The measure had been expected by both sides to gain easily the 50 votes required from the 200 legislators as the first step toward making same-sex marriages illegal.
As Kip pointed out, 50 votes out of 200 are required for a constitutional amendment to end up on the ballot because a citizens’ group proposed it? Huh? THAT is the form of democracy people want me to respect? No.
Gov. Mitt Romney, a Republican who opposes same-sex marriage, said the vote was a “triumph of arrogance over democracy.” He said that he would “explore any alternatives” to try to force a vote, but that “my options are limited.”
I’m sure exploring any alternatives couldn’t be considered activist. Gov. Romney is a conservative, after all. Only the liberals do that. Oh, wait while I smack my forehead. Activist depends on the outcome, not the action.
But the fact that the amendment had enough supporters to pass the first 50-vote round indicated that the issue of same-sex marriage remains divisive three years after the state’s highest court ruled that such marriages were constitutional in Massachusetts. More than 8,000 same-sex couples have since married.
Having enough votes to meet a 25% requirement does not, of itself, indicate that the issue remains divisive.
Polls have generally found that just more than half of the citizens surveyed supported same-sex marriage, but about the same number wanted the constitutional amendment to come before voters.
Big deal. The test should be more stringent than whether or not citizens want it. Reducing rights should never be put to a vote.