Thursday, July 13, 2006
Profiles In Courage.
Record numbers of Massachusetts voters signed a petition asking for a vote on the following amendment to the state Constitution:
My distain for this particular ruling is probably not surprising.
But why you ask am I dragging-up this unpleasant recent history?
Well, it's because in spite of the fact that over 170,000 people signed a petition asking for a vote on this amendment, said amendment must receive the votes of at least 50 legislators during two successive Constitutional Conventions before we mere unelected mortals (opposed to the unelected judicial overlords, of course) can actually vote it's merits. That is proven, I'll be charitable, problematic since 2004.
Still, having punted on the matter last year when a similar amendment was before the Convention, supporters of traditional marriage had high hopes that we would, finally, take a small step forward on this issue. Surely our elected representatives wouldn't ignore the will of a record number of petition-signers during the constitutional convention that was convened this week, would they?
Based on the title of this entry, you can probably figure just how well that went.
Sadly, most of these gutless wonders have little to fear from us knuckle-dragging troglodites who wish nothing more than to vote on this issue - in other words, to let the people decide what is and is not a marriage. You see, Democrats control roughly 6 out of every 7 seats in the Massachusetts General Court (that would be legislature) and, well, because of the pitiful condition of the state GOP, most of them have precisely no opponent come November and for the few that have a challenger, many of them are frankly not serious competition.
It's another glorious day for representative government in the People's Republic of Massachusetts.
When recognizing marriage entered after the adoption of this amendment by the people, the Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall define marriage as only the union of one man and one woman.This is, of course, the so-called Protection of Marriage Amendment - made necessary by the 4-3 opinion of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court that a never-before discovered right to homosexual marriage existed in our Constitution, and further that the SJC - and neither the executive nor the legislative branches of the state government - were the final arbiters on what is and is not a marriage.
My distain for this particular ruling is probably not surprising.
But why you ask am I dragging-up this unpleasant recent history?
Well, it's because in spite of the fact that over 170,000 people signed a petition asking for a vote on this amendment, said amendment must receive the votes of at least 50 legislators during two successive Constitutional Conventions before we mere unelected mortals (opposed to the unelected judicial overlords, of course) can actually vote it's merits. That is proven, I'll be charitable, problematic since 2004.
Still, having punted on the matter last year when a similar amendment was before the Convention, supporters of traditional marriage had high hopes that we would, finally, take a small step forward on this issue. Surely our elected representatives wouldn't ignore the will of a record number of petition-signers during the constitutional convention that was convened this week, would they?
Based on the title of this entry, you can probably figure just how well that went.
State lawmakers ducked the gay marriage issue again yesterday, delaying until after the November elections a vote on a constitutional amendment that would restrict civil marriages to heterosexual couples.Oh read on, it get's much better...
The early evening, 100-91 decision to put off the vote until Nov. 9 came after hundreds of demonstrators on both sides of the contentious issue argued their cases - often loudly.But wait! There's more...
“Democracy lost today,” said state Rep. Marie Parente (D-Milford), speaking outside the House chamber. “It doesn’t matter where you are on the issue . . . I’m a supporter of the people’s right to vote.”
State Rep. Thomas Sannicandro (D-Ashland), who supports same-sex marriage, said he voted for the delay so fellow lawmakers could vote without the pressure of having to face voters soon thereafter.Words fail me.
“They will absolutely vote their conscience because there’s no campaign issue or no election in front of them,” he said.
Sadly, most of these gutless wonders have little to fear from us knuckle-dragging troglodites who wish nothing more than to vote on this issue - in other words, to let the people decide what is and is not a marriage. You see, Democrats control roughly 6 out of every 7 seats in the Massachusetts General Court (that would be legislature) and, well, because of the pitiful condition of the state GOP, most of them have precisely no opponent come November and for the few that have a challenger, many of them are frankly not serious competition.
It's another glorious day for representative government in the People's Republic of Massachusetts.
