Challenge to Same-Sex Marriage in Mass. Defeated

From the Boston Globe:

A proposed constitutional ban on same-sex marriage was defeated today by a joint session of the Legislature by a vote of 45 to 151, eliminating any chance of getting it on the ballot in November 2008. The measure needed at least 50 votes to advance.

The Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, the group that spearheaded the court case that led to the Supreme Judicial Court's 2003 decision to legalize same-sex marriage, issued a statement praising the vote.

"We’re proud of our state today, and we applaud the legislature for showing that Massachusetts is strongly behind fairness," said Lee Swislow, executive director Advocates & Defenders. "The vote today was the triumph of time, experience, and understanding over fear and prejudice."

Kris Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute that backed the amendment, pledged to continue fighting, but wouldn't commit to presenting another proposed amendment.

"I don't believe it's dead because the people have not had the opportunity to have their vote," Mineau told the Associated Press. "This will not go away until the citizens have their opportunity to decide what the definition of marriage is."

Here's an excerpt of an editorial from the Globe:

Legislators deserve to be proud of their votes, and residents can be proud of Massachusetts.
After three years of experience with gay marriage that has harmed exactly no one, the state's gay and lesbian couples can now get back to their ordinary lives, enduring the mundane tasks and rituals of daily life alongside their neighbors and co-workers. But now they do so secure in the knowledge that they are full citizens in a Commonwealth of inclusion.

Here is a link to some reactions gathered by the Globe:

Senator Edward Kennedy: "The nation’s eyes were on Massachusetts today, and they saw a triumph for civil rights and fundamental fairness. Today's historic vote will have a national impact on civil rights for years to come. Massachusetts has led the nation in education, in health care and in biotechnology, and today Massachusetts renewed its commitment as a proud leader in civil rights."

Former Mass. Governor Mitt Romney: "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."

Of course, I disagree with every single thing Romney said, but none more so than that last statement. Marc Solomon, campaign director for MassEquality, said, "This is about individual courage and leadership."

I completely agree with Solomon. The results in Massachusetts were all about courage and leadership. Legislators were willing to take a stand for what they felt was right, an increasingly rare occurrence in America's political system on both sides of the isle.

Politicians like Romney fall back on "the voice of the people" line because they think the voice of the people will support their agenda. That is abdicating leadership, not demonstrating it.

The right-wing likes to talk about "our founding fathers" a lot, so let me share something I learned about them in school that I believe a lot of people, including many current office holders, have forgotten (or choose to ignore).

The United States was not established as a direct democracy, where people voted on everything. It is a representative democracy, where the people elect representatives to govern for them. These representative are not supposed to serve the best interests of their constituents as determined by the latest poll. Their responsibility is to serve the greater good of society, even if it goes against the will of the majority. Simply put, it is to do what is right, not what is popular. Unfortunately, many legislators are much more concerned with losing financial support and votes in the next election than serving the greater good.

Just imagine if the abolition of slavery was left up to "the will of of the people" in the South. How long would it have taken public opinion to swing against slavery? At least a couple of generations, perhaps?

How many people would ever vote in favor of a tax increase? Probably just the same ones who reminded the teacher in school that she forgot to assign some homework. What if people voted in favor of a tax decrease that left the nation unable to properly equip its armed forces?

So please don't bore me with this "will of the people" crap. Is the civil right of marriage under the United States Constitution (not the beliefs of any particular religion) limited to one male and one female, or is it applicable to two men or two women? That's the core issue and the only truly important one that courts and legislative bodies need to consider.

The vast majority of legislators in Massachusetts voted today that marriage is a civil right open to any two adults regardless of gender. Their opponents will not go away, but at least on this day the political leaders of the Bay State stood strong for equality.

Congratulations.