A 2004 court ruling led Massachusetts to become the first state to recognize legal marriage for same-sex couples. In many other states, less sweeping court rulings (requiring spousal rights through civil unions, but not marriage) provoked backlashes leading to passage of anti-gay marriage amendments to state constitutions. But the Massachusetts state legislature has now voted down an attempt to place an anti-gay marriage ballot initiative before the voters in November.
On Reason magazine's Hit & Run blog, David Weigel shares former Massachusetts Gov. (and current GOP presidential candidate) Mitt Romney's response:
Today's vote by the State Legislature is a regrettable setback in our efforts to defend traditional marriage. Unfortunately, our elected representatives decided that the voice of the people did not need to be heard in this debate. It is now even more important that we pass a Constitutional amendment protecting traditional marriage. Marriage is an institution that goes to the heart of our society, and our leaders can no longer abdicate their responsibility.
Does Romney actually think it's the legislature's duty to allow any proposed referendum to go on the ballot? As Weigel writes, "Seven months ago Massachusetts voters had the chance to elect a legislature and governor who would have opposed gay marriage or supported a vote on the ban. They chose to elect a bunch of pro-gay marriage Democrats."
In any event, the legislature's action should weaken arguments that same-sex marriage is just a plot between gays and overreaching judges. It also shows that once people have time to adjust to the idea of same-sex marriage and even live with it for awhile (or with civil unions, as an introductory step), popular opposition evaporates.
27 Comments for “Marriage Lives in Massachusetts”
posted by dalea on
Interesting comment: They chose to elect a bunch of pro-gay marriage Democrats.”
Why interesting? Because this comment admits there are no pro-gay marriage Republicans.
posted by Casey on
*sigh* There are no pro-gay marriage Republicans? I submit for your approval Bradford Hill, Bradley Jones, Paul Loscocco, Richard Ross, Michael Knapik, Bruce Tarr, and Richard Tisei, all of whom voted NOT to put the amendment on the ballot.
Now, I know seven people doesn’t seem like much, but remember, this is Massachusetts we’re talking about, where Republicans are practically an endangered species, and secondly, had these seven Republicans voted along with a fair number of Democrats, marriage in MA would still be in jeopardy. (45 + 7 = 52, 52>50).
Now, can we quit with the stupid partisan attacks, and celebrate a victory? As of today, about 8,500 families that can breathe a little easier, and in one little corner of the country, marriage equality is a reality. It’s a good day.
posted by Brian Miller on
there are no pro-gay marriage Republicans.
Actually, in Massachusetts’ legislative elections, there were (and are) quite a few of them.
Years ago, I lived in Walpole, Massachusetts, and the local Republican candidate there was staunchly pro-marriage-equality. It was her Democratic rival who opposed marriage in that instance.
And the highest-profile incumbent in favor of the anti-gay amendment in Massachusetts was none other than John Kerry.
I’m not one to defend Republicans (blech), but if anything, this vote underscores the true *lack* of difference between the two old parties more than any real difference.
posted by Brian Miller on
Here’s the final vote.
You’ll see that quite a few Republicans (including my former Senator Jo Ann Sprague) voted no. Quite a few also voted yes — but so did lots of Democrats who also represented socially conservative areas.
The distribution of “No” votes and “Yes” votes is more reflective of social conservatism (including heavily religious Catholic areas) more than by political party. As expected.
http://www.masslive.com/news/gay_marriage/index.ssf?finalvotes032904.html
posted by Brian Miller on
Oops, that’s from the prior vote. Sorry.
Anyway, you can see the distribution remains quite similar.
I cannot find the most recent vote’s tally.
posted by Timothy on
No: 151 – Reps 7; Dems 144
Yes: 45 – Rep 16; Dem 29
Not voting: Dem 3
Empty Seat: 1
(I did the calculation yesterday and I’m going by memory so my count may be off slightly)
posted by Fitz on
“evaporates”?
posted by Brian Miller on
Yep, evaporates.
Soon you’ll be as marginalized as your fellow travelers over in the KKK, Fitz.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
“A 2004 court ruling led Massachusetts to become the first state to recognize legal marriage for same-sex couples”
I thought it was a 2003 ruling?
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
83% of Democrats voted against the measure as compared to 30% of Republicans who voted against the measure. Republicans are far more anti-gay then Democrats.
posted by Casey on
Randi – duh. We’re aware. However, having 30% of Republicans going against the national party line to vote with us is progress. Perfection? No, but progress is what we’re looking for.
posted by Big Bob on
And the highest-profile incumbent in favor of the anti-gay amendment in Massachusetts was none other than John Kerry.
Kerry has now issued a statement opposing the amendment, and praising those who voted it down.
He was for it before he was against it, just like Iraq…
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Yes, it was a 2003 court ruling, not 2004.
posted by Brian Miller on
Kerry has now issued a statement opposing the amendment, and praising those who voted it down.
He was for it before he was against it, just like Iraq…
He’s so brave!
Reminds me of the Missouri anti-gay amendment in 2004, which is campaigned for in Missouri. Later, when he was confronted about it, he claimed he couldn’t support it “anymore” after discovering it also banned “all other forms of recognition.”
And the Dems wonder why their man couldn’t beat a dullard like Bush!
posted by Brian Miller on
83% of Democrats voted against the measure as compared to 30% of Republicans who voted against the measure.
Frankly, I’d tone down the Republican-bashing efforts at bolstering the Tweedledee Party over the Tweedledum Party. Had all the Republicans voted for the measure, along with the Democrats who voted for it, it would have passed by more than a nose.
Democrats are always lecturing me on being “pragmatic” and supporting cowardly Democrats not out of a sense of principal, but rather, “pragmatism.” It’s about time they took their own advice for once and stopped trying to make this into partisan hay when over 1 in 10 of their members STILL voted for bigotry despite the MASSIVE arm-twisting being done behind closed doors.
Pragmatically, without the Massachusetts Republicans who voted “no,” we’d be looking at a referendum campaign rather than a dead initiative. And in that situation, it’s far from certain that the “courageous Democrats” would have invested many resources in fighting for LGBTQ people.
posted by Craig2 on
I agree. In New Zealand, we took the step of introducing civil unions, and full same-sex marriage lies some years in the future. When one conservative Catholic minor party MP tried to amend our Bill of Rights to pre-emptively ban same-sex marriage in December 2005, he was decisively voted down. Civil unions has majority support in polls down here. Even SSM has, in terms of younger cohorts, which raises some interesting generational turnover and mortality questions. Especially given the age of the local Christian Right…
Craig2
Wellington, New Zealand
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Yesterday’s result in the Massachusetts State House was a bipartisan victory for gay equality. Those who refuse to acknowledge this simple mathematical fact should stop kidding themselves. Casey and Brian are right. Here is one Democrat who’s delighted that there are some Republicans to thank.
posted by Carl on
While I will praise some of the MA Republican legislators who voted against this amendment, I don’t think we should forget that in 2004, HUGE amounts of money were spent by the MA Republican Party to try to elect anti-gay Republicans to a slew of seats in the state legislature. This amendment was used as a weapon on their behalf, with Mitt Romney leading the charge. Only because those efforts failed resoundingly (the Republicans actually managed to LOSE seats that year) did the Republicans in the legislature have the freedom to vote this way.
posted by arthur on
With all the jabbering from the right, I guess we have come to the real point of the current Republican Party, to eliminate representative democracy.
posted by Randy on
Man, I was posting at a libertarian blog, and there are some really angry people there. Apparently, democracy has been replaced with tyranny and fascism because Mass didn’t allow the citizens to vote on the issue of SSM. So therefore, the vote is invalid, a political stunt, illegitimate. Gays only care about outcomes, not democracy, and so are willing to trample on the constitution and blah blah blah.
No amount of reasoning would placate them. Their hatred of gay people is so strong that no victory for us is ever going to be legitimate.
posted by Rob Power on
Randy,
Which libertarian blog was that?
My guess is that it was more of a constitutionalist blog than a libertarian one. Constitutionalists are the folks who have no problem with defining 3/5 of a human being, as long as it’s ratified properly. 🙁
If the founders of Massachusetts (who were, by the way, founders of the United States) wanted the legislature to rubber-stamp every ballot initiative, they would not have included this convoluted process that requires two affirmative votes of the legislature. It’s a brilliant display of the genius of a constitutional republic, and its superiority over a pure democracy. They intended for the legislature to act as a check and balance on the “mob rule” of democratic ballot initiatives, and the system worked just as they intended. Imagine if every single court decision (like Goodridge in 2003) could be overturned by a simple majority of voters. We’d still have racial segregation of public facilities and accommodations.
But then, again, I don’t think most Constitutionalists would have a problem with that, either.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
The ConCon followed the prescribed process. Funny how that gets portrayed as tyranny by people who lost, especially given that they were the ones eager to take away the rights of fellow citizens.
posted by Stephen Driscoll on
it’s terrific that a handfull of Republicans voted against the marriage amendment. But with a few exceptions, Massachusetts Republicans are unlike the species in the rest of the country, of which Romney is more typical, Massachusetts Republicans have historically been more liberal and libertarian (Leverett Saltonstall, Edward Brooke, Bill Weld, Jane Swift. But let’s face it, almost every piece of anti-gay legislation everywhere else is either authored by or propelled by Republicans. Not one of the current crop of Republican presidential hopefulls thought htat firing gay translators was stupid or even unfair and every one of them supports the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. Every Democrat hopefull supports its repeal. There is a huge difference between Repubublicans and Democrats on gay issues. We spent the past 6 years fighting anti-gay federal legislation. None of that crap has come up since the Dems regained the majorites in Congress. The damage done by the spate of horrific Bush appointments to the federal bench will haunt us for years. So yeah, applaud the ‘brave’ Republicans in Massachusetts, but don’t disparage partisanship. Partisan is NOT a dirty word. Partisanship is pursuit of a greater good is a very high calling indeed.
posted by Brian Miller on
Every Democrat hopefull supports its repeal.
Their talk is cheap. So far the only one of them who is a sitting legislator who has actually co-sponsored a bill to repeal DADT is Dennis Kucinich. Clinton, Obama, Biden and Dodd have all repeatedly refused to support or introduce a companion bill in the Senate, and Edwards consistently refused to support such a bill during his term as a Senator too.
Verbal “support” means nothing when actual action is required. In this vein, only Dennis Kucinich has any credibility in the Democratic Party camp.
The Republicans have zero credible candidates here, but since most of the loud, bullying Democrats aren’t planning on supporting Kucinich, their bully pulpit on the issue is questionable at best!
posted by Casey on
Stephen,
I have no problem with partisanship… in the proper time and place. The simple point I was making is that on a day when we have won a victory, and done so with the help of members of both parties, the proper thing to do is be happy about it, and thank those who stood with us. There’s always tomorrow for politics and tearing down your opponents, but we don’t win big everyday. To everything there is a season.
posted by Randy on
The blog is question is the Volokh Conspiracy. It’s actually pretty good. Prof. Dale Carpenter, who is openly gay, often posts there, and supposedly the blog itself it influential in legal circles. Prof. Volokh is a law prof. who favors gay rights and gay marriage.
So whenever there is an issue, such as DADT or SSM, there is sure to be a blog, and it often gets the most number of responses (and more vitriol) than any other issue.
Usually, there are just a few anti-gays posting, but with a little prodding, they will eventually admit they hate gays and think we are deviants, immoral, etc. Doesn’t take much to expose them.
posted by mike on
mass is run by special interest which is why patrick kennedy kerry went along with this, most people i mass never even knew about the petition about gay marriage or the vote what happened before they had heard it.
Democracy is dead what did patrick say, ah yes we should not let the citizens vote on civil rights of people. Er well patrick guess what who let the balcks vote? Who let the women vote?
Democracy was taken away and another thing and remember this, nah course you wont.
We went to war in the revolution because why? Ah that’s right no taxation without repersentation, so now I pay taxes and I’m not allowed to vote and some fo you celerbrate this. Well done for bring ing democracy down still most people in mass don’t accpet this sham marriage so dream on.
Maybe I should start another revolution remember no taxation without repersentation , where do we start throwing gays into the boston harbor.