However, if anyone wants my vote, here's a great way to get it: go talk to every member of the state legislature who is known to have voted against marriage equality... and ask them to reconsider. Do it personally, so they know it matters.
I don't mind photo ops, stunts or whatever because it would be a great deed. Does Tom Reilly want to convince me he really is in favor of marriage equality? Then go and lobby for marriage protection - take actual time out of your day to do it. Because, the way I see it, it's not enough to just say "I'm for gay marriage," you've got to put your money where your mouth is.
Deval Patrick has made it an important part of every speech I've seen him talk in. He doesn't just say "oh, I favor it," but actually, really talks about it. In other words, it's not the sort of issue he supports but is too afraid it may politically hurt him to talk about. It's not like Joe Biden's support of Angry Lieberman.
The bottom line is I've been a supporter of Deval Patrick since I knew what he was all about - for months now. However, I'm a person who expects service in the right direction from my elected officials. If Tom Reilly wasn't willing to do everything in his power to stop a ConCon motion, then fine. He says he would vote against it - well, tell that in person to everyone who is known to actually feel that way. The motion only needs 50 votes to move on. If Tom Reilly could convince 10-15 people who otherwise would vote yes to change votes, then he just may get a second look by me. Heck, even if I would vote against him during the primary, I would be that much more enthusiastic about supporting him if he won anyway - which, despite today's poll that shows his trending down - is still a very real possibility.
In fact, a bold move like I suggested could just be the press he needs to gain lots of new support.
Update: I don't agree with everything Brian Rainey said, but here's a blurb I thought especially poignant:
Let's face it. "The people" cannot vote on things that have a far greater impact on their real life than same-sex marriage ever could. For example, "the people" cannot decide whether or not to bring the troops back from Iraq. "The people" can't even decide whether or not they want a Wal-Mart in their community because corporations supposedly have "rights." No one on the Christian Right ever suggests that people should have more control over important political decisions, except when they want to whip up bigotry to deny people their civil liberties.
So before anyone suggests that I'm against democracy because I feel civil rights shouldn't be up to the whims of a majority, I suggest you take a critical look at yourselves and ask just why *this* debate is so stirring, when no one is suggesting we vote on Iraq or whether or not Wal-Marts should be able to be built in community at an individual level. It just seems to me that people are being a whole lot less supportive over this issue than they would otherwise be - and it just so happens to be about The Gays! I'm not saying there's a link, I'm just putting that idea forward. It makes one think.
In any event, I maintain my opinion: if you're really for marriage equality and running for office, then be at the State House tommorow and Wednesday and talk to everyone who would ban a certain segment of society from their basic civil rights merely because they happen to have a less common preference. I'll be there. How about Tom Reilly, Deval Patrick, Chris Gabrieli, Silbert, Goldberg, Murray, Galvin, Bonifaz and any other candidate who has said they support marriage equality?