January 03, 2006

Let the Citizens decide? NO, they won't vote the way WE want!

No matter how you feel about gay marriage, don't you think that it's up to the people of a state to determine whether or not to allow it?

Not according to the Gay and Lesbian Advocates & Defenders(GLAD) in Mass.

Gay marriage was "legalized" by a landmark court known as Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health in 2003. It ended "discrimination" in marriage by judicial fiat.

A number of citizens were incensed at this ruling and decided to request a ballot initiative be placed on the ballot calling for an amendment to the Mass. state constitution banning same sex marriage. Sounds like the American way, doesn't it? Letting the citizenry of a state decide what they will and will not allow in their state? Not according to GLAD. They contend that the citizens of the state can not constitutionally initiate any sort of plebacite to reverse a judicial ruling, that it can only originate from within the legislature. The REAL horror here is that they may be legally correct...Mass.'s constitution does seem to contain such a stricture. In other words, the people of the state have no voice in public policy question other than that which can be induced by one of their elected representatives. That seems to be reasonable on it's face...after all , that's why we elect representatives, to ensure that the will of the people is carried out in an orderly. measured manner, but it's discounting the fact that in todays PC world, it's the loudest minority that seems to get the most attention from the political class, and that class can be cowardly when faced with accusations of not being PC by an ultravocal minority, with the possible subsequent loss of their seats if they don't buckle to the pressure.

Seems to me that the good people of Mass. need to have TWO Constitutional reform referendums placed on the ballot in 2008. When enough people are dissatisfied with the current trend of major issues, it seems to me that it would be within their basic rights to attempt to redress those grievences with a public referendum. If they lose, fine, the people have made their voice known. But that isn't what GLAD believes. They KNOW that their position would be a hard fought one,and one where they could very possibly lose, and so would rather rely on the decision of one man in a black robe to press their agenda forward, no matter what the people may believe, and they're perfectly willing to stack the deck to ensure that the people will have no real voice in the matter.

That is could even be "legally" possible to do so points out to a flaw in the state constitution. But what else would you expect from a state that would continually re-elect an alcoholic manslaughterer to it's senior Senate seat position?

Posted by Delftsman3 at January 3, 2006 05:15 PM | TrackBack

They've got just what they deserve in that state, let's be Frank (Barney) about it and say they've got Ted Kennedy and Jean Fraud Kerry too. All Socialists.

Posted by: Jack at January 3, 2006 09:10 PM

"No matter how you feel about gay marriage, don't you think that it's up to the people of a state to determine whether or not to allow it?"

I couldn't agree with you more on this one.

Posted by: wanda at January 4, 2006 04:43 PM

actually the 14th amendment which privides for equal opportunity under the law for all has already decided it.

Posted by: GUYK at January 4, 2006 05:28 PM

I don't like this "once the gays can marry who knows where it'll stop" thing. Thats a slippery slope fallacy. letting two men get married is HUGELY different than letting a woman marry a car. If my sister wants to marry her girlfriend, than I'm not going to stand in her way. I may not like it, but I love her and would do anything to see her happy. *shrug*

Posted by: Alli at January 4, 2006 06:46 PM

It's not the joining of two people that bothers me, it's the false equivilence to marriage wherin the slippery slope resides.

Should a same sex couple have the same legal rights of inheritence and ownership ? ABSOLUTELY! Should a long term partner have a say in the medical treatment of an incapacitated loved one? ABSOLUTLEY! Should they have the right to live where they will? ABSOLUTELY!

Should they be considered "married"? ABSOLUTLY NOT! The word carries connotations that simply don't and CAN NOT apply to a same sex couple. We need to have some sort of legal recoginition of the bond of a same sex couple, but marriage isn't it.

My brother has had two such long term relationships Alli, and as you say, who am I to stand in the way of the happiness of two deserving people? But I just couldn't ever refer to them as "married"...they were lovers, best friends, life partners...but not married.

Posted by: delftsman3 at January 4, 2006 07:43 PM

I don't like the term "marriage" either, but what is marriage other than a complete merging of two lives? 2 become 1 in the eyes of G-d, the state and the world. I dunno. I don't have the answers.

Posted by: Alli at January 5, 2006 01:08 PM

you know, an easy fix for this would be to drop the term "marriage" out of any legal context entirely. I, for one, wouldn't think any less of my wife and I if we were only considered a "legal union."

Posted by: cappy at January 8, 2006 11:47 PM

Why not just call Gay joinings "legal unions", that way, they have the legal rights of marriage, and marriage itself isn't diluted.

It shows that the agenda here is NOT "equal rights" that that isn't acceptable to the gay community, it shows that they just want to blur traditional mores.

Posted by: delftsman3 at January 9, 2006 07:59 AM
Post a comment

Remember personal info?