In a startling demonstration of the power of the blogosphere, the Massachusetts state legislature dropped its defiance of that state's constitution mere hours after their behavior was criticized by South Dakota Politics! Well, I have to admit that it might not have been my post that did the trick. It probably had more to do with the scolding they got from their own State Supreme Court. But back down they did. From USAToday:
BOSTON (AP) — Lawmakers in Massachusetts, the only state where gay marriage is legal, voted Tuesday to allow a proposed constitutional amendment to move forward that would effectively ban the practice.
As in many states, the Massachusetts state constitution includes a procedure for citizens to place initiatives on the ballot, including constitutional amendments. All they have to do is come up with enough valid signatures. Opponents of gay marriage met this goal.
The amendment's backers had collected 170,000 signatures to get a question on the 2008 ballot asking voters to declare marriage to only be between a man and a woman, but they still needed the approval of legislators in two consecutive sessions.
As I understand it, the above paragraph is a bit misleading. Before a citizen-generated initiative can be placed on the ballot, to be voted on by the public at large, it must be voted on by the state legislature in two consecutive sessions. But it only needs one quarter of the legislators to approve it. This is apparently a fail-safe measure, allowing the legislature to block a particularly harmful but popular measure, though of course at the cost of public ire. I have to say that I approve of this procedure. If you are going to allow the initiative process, this is the way to do it.
On Tuesday, 61 lawmakers voted in favor of moving the measure forward, compared to 132 opposed. The amendment need 50 votes of support to advance.
If it makes it on the ballot and residents approve it, the constitutional amendment would leave Massachusetts' existing same-sex marriages intact but ban any new ones.
So the measure has now passed by the necessary margin. If this procedure is repeated in the next session, it will go on the ballot and the voters of Massachusetts will decided whether or not gay marriage will be legal in that state.
What I and others objected to was that opponents of the gay-marriage ban clearly attempted to circumvent the state constitution and prevent a legally valid initiative from going forward. This displayed contempt for the people of Massachusetts and for their fundamental law. It is encouraging that the scofflaws did not prevail.
Democratic Gov.-elect Deval Patrick on Tuesday had met with leading lawmakers and urged them to skip the vote, calling it a "question of conscience" and saying the amendment process was being used "to consider reinserting discrimination into the constitution."
Since Tuesday was the final day of the session, skipping the vote would have effectively killed the amendment effort.
Instead, the Senate president called for a vote shortly after opening the constitutional convention, though he left open a chance for parliamentary maneuvers by gay marriage supporters to try to reverse the vote.
My guess is that the amendment will find its way onto the ballot. Whether it will pass or not I don't know and frankly, I don't care. This is a matter for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. I am not opposed to gay marriage, though I do not believe that the Constitution or fundamental principles of equity require it. I think that democracy and constitutionalism are more important.
Recent Comments