There was no vote on the constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage today and the next opportunity for the legislators to vote will be November 9.
This is good for our side because it buys us some time--and we need it badly. From my observations of the rally at the State House, I have come to believe that the message of the pro-same-sex marriage side needs a complete overhaul.
The slogan, "let the people vote," regardless of how disingenuous and cynical it is, is actually powerful and, at least according to several people on our side, is swaying many legislators. Politicians, always ready to find a mushy-middle instead of actually growing a backbone and taking a stand, are hiding behind sentiments like, "Well, I support same-sex marriage, but I think we should let the people vote..." We have to convince legislators that the more democratic thing to do is to defeat this amendment by any parliamentary means necessary. This will require that our side take out this "let the people vote" foolishness head on, point out how hypocritical it is, and continue to condemn the abominable idea that people's civil rights should be subject to a vote (and "voting" does NOT, I repeat NOT, equal democracy--especially in America).
Isn't it strange that we live in a country where the popular vote doesn't even decide who the President of the United States is and then, all of a sudden, when it comes same-sex marriage, people are tripping over themselves to "let the people vote?"
5 comments:
i agree - it's a toughie. i've head the vom people say the legislature would be denying the democratic rights of 170,000 (or whatever number they can fudge) petition signers if the amendment is killed at the concon.
We could answer with: "Over 6 million Bay Staters already 'voted' NOT to vote on marriage by NOT signing the petition." It could be more cleanly stated, but you get the drift. The majority do NOT see the need to vote on this.
A simpler rejoinder on a different theme could be: "No Jim Crow."
I can't stop myself from adding that the flag waving, star spangled banner and Christian song singing, is a turn off for many of the protestors/rally-ers. At times it felt more like a fourth of july picnic than a queer pride rally. I know of several people who just flat out left. I'm sorry but I can't wave american flags and sing the star spangled banner when hundreds of thousands of people are dying around the world becaues of this country's policies and an immoral war.
I do not think that this rally was one where we should have been confrontational or caused fights, but yelling "bigots" across the street is not going to change a vote up in the state house, so I would suggest to the organizers that they let the queer youth protestors figure out what is best for them to say on their own instead of trying desperately to police all of the messaging from the rally.
Other than those minor gripes, I have to say it was obvious everyone worked really hard and will continue to work really hard to keep marriage legal in MA.
Congrats to QueerToday blogger, Jesse who works his ass off for this cause.
Yes, I totally agree that the message for this current issue needs to be less about whether or not to allow same-sex marriage, and more about protecting a minority's rights from a majority's opinion. I know its been said, but I think it needs more emphasis: what would have happenned if we put Brown V. Board of Ed up for a popular vote instead of letting those "activist" judges handle it?
Betteratfl350, how true! Didn't I read in the GLobe recently that when the topic was legalizing abortion in MA, the conservatives were all too happy to have parliamentary maneuvers used to kill it? Do I have the facts right on that? If so, it should be pointed out that they really mean "let the people vote only when we'll win".
Yes, they're perfectly capable of remembering we're a Republic when it comes to issues they care about (like abortion).
How about "no tryanny of the majority"
"no mob rule"
or "what if your rights were up for the religious right to decide"
Post a Comment