So far on day one of the Massachusetts Constitutional Convention (a joint session of the legislature), the ConCon has rejected two proposed amendments.
By 94-104, they rejected a text from the Senate Dem and Rep (!) leaders that would ban same-sex “marriage” but require the establishment of “civil unions”; and by 98-100, they rejected a compromise by the House Speaker that would ban same-sex marriage and allow the option of civil unions if the legislature so chose. The original text, which would ban both gay marriage and civil unions, will be on the agenda Thursday afternoon.
My guess is that the anti-family forces have done their part to stack the deck by bringing the Speaker’s compromise proposal up for a vote first: if the strongest version had been debated first or second and failed, the compromise text — restoring the legal status quo before Goodridge — would have remained an option acceptable to pro-family folks. Now Thursday’s vote will be for all or nothing, and if it’s defeated, the anti-family forces will have what they want — excepting a possible legislative end-run — and the nationwide legal battles will be on.
Correction: I previously stated here that the Senate text had been proposed by my State Senator. That was incorrect; however, he did vote for it, sad to say.
14 comments
Comments are closed.
Is it impossible for them to bring the compromise up for a vote a second time in the same seesion?
You know, it rather seems that the pro-family groups in Mass. have shot themselves in the foot on this one (by not voting for the compromise). Isn’t it better to get the status quo back than to have total defeat trying to get everything?
The 1996 DOMA should protect the rest of the Union.
Can 2/3 of the States require another State to leave the Union?
Steve,
The 1996 DOMA will do nothing if the Court rules that the Full Faith and Credit clause requires other states to recognize gay marriage. Federal law does not trump the constitution, which makes the DOMA less than exactly useful. Which is one reason why Bill Clinton signed it.
Thank God these amendments failed! It would be a terrible day for the advancement of justice if discrimination were enshrined in the Commonwealth’s Constitution by institutionalizing discrimination against gay men and women. Hopefully, legisltors will hear the voices of the majority of citizens and uphold equal rights for all. By the way, I’m so glad that most priests of the Archdiocese of Boston chose to ignore the request from the Archbishop for the past four Sundays that they preach against gay marriage. Fortunately, most priests were faithful to their role and preached the Gospel instead!
Tim, the State has a duty to “discriminate”: that is, to make proper distinctions, and to foster authentic marriage.
The fact that it does so very weakly at present, by allowing for easy divorce, does not justify that it veer even further away from the ideal by giving the name and the benefits of marriage to other relationships which — although they are understandable human relationships and have some good qualities — are not the same as marriage.
But thank you anyway for dropping by.
RC, thank you so much for the kind words of welcome. Thank you also for recognizing that the relationships of gay men and women are both understandable and have good qualities. There are, unfortunately, many who not only believe that gay men and women do not have the right to marry, but also give voice to hateful words that seek to demonize such individuals and their intimate relationships. I am glad that you are not among these.
Certainly it is important to make proper distinctions, to “discriminate” or distinguish one thing from another. In the civil context, however, I’m not sure we would find unanimity about what “authentic marriage” is, especially given the many faces of marriage across time and cultures. For example, it is common practice in some parts of the world for marriages of children to be arranged by their parents, betrothing them in marriage at very young ages; Catholic canon law, however, requires that the parties to marriage choose their spouses in freedom, giving their full consent to one another. Which practice, do you think, should the state support in its duty to foster “authentic marriage”?
I haven’t seen anyone trying to deny gay men and women the right to marry. If a gay man wishes to marry a woman, nothing in this debate will stand in his way.
What many refuse to do is to play pretend. If my daughter wants to dress up her cat and call it the queen of Denmark, that’s cute, but it doesn’t make it so. If I decide to nod my head politely rather than argue the point, the cat still isn’t royalty. And no matter what the courts of the Bay State decide, two men still aren’t going to be man and wife.
Well said, Keith. Everyone has been debating ‘gay marriage’ but there really is no such thing. ‘Defect in matter,’ pretty much sums it up.
Keith, perhaps you should pose your scenario to your local pastor: “Father, would you officiate at the wedding of a gay man and a woman?”
Any priest with any pastoral or canonical sense would certainly refuse such a union, knowing that sexual orientation is not something one chooses, but rather is God given. Such a union would not only raise serious questions of consummation and fidelity, but would also provide, a priori, the basis for a future annulment.
And as to Alexandra’s comment about “defect in matter,’ she, like so many in this debate, is confusing “civil marriage” with “sacramental marriage.” The two are not the same.
God given? Therefore, I would assume, God blessed? As in God wants those so blessed to have gay sex? Givest thou me a break.
When, before our time, has marriage not been understood to be between a man and a woman? Some people are trying to redefine the term after a couple of thousand years of agreement. Thus, two men can decide to spend their lives together, but it ain’t marriage by definition. We should not be trying to redefine accepted institutions because they are exclusive; such an exercise is disingenuous.
Tim,
I knew someone would say I was confusing the Civil with the Sacramental. In the end, it really doesn’t matter. Just because someone doesn’t beleive in the Sacramental nature of marriage and chooses to see it only as a Civil contract, doesn’t mean that they are exempt from the fact that marriage can only occur between a (properly disposed) man and woman. You can’t find a loophole by ‘taking it out of the church.’
I should have, however, said that in my first comment, reactionary daughter of Trent that I am.
Tim, there are people out there who are sexually oriented towards children or animals… is this something that God has given them or is it a behaviour that those people act on?
I know a man who was in love with two women… a lady and her daughter. They lived and loved together for quite a number of years. If marriage is based on love, those three should have been allowed to marry.
I just want the right to vote on this issue – and the issue should be separated into two issues: 1. The definition of marriage and 2. The creation of civil unions.
Colleen,
Defining civil marriage as between a man and a woman and then creating civil unions for gays would be a Pyrrhic victory. It would still be the government saying that “gay is good”, therefore buying into the basis for “gay marriage” and the whole gay agenda. How long do you think the oppositions arguments about “separate but equal is inherently unjust and unequal” would go unheeded; by giving this much of the argument away to them, you ensure their victory.