Barring a new petition drive by supporters of traditional marriage, the battle over same-sex wedlock may be finished in Massachusetts. But today's vote on Beacon Hill is a political grenade waiting to detonate elsewhere. It is only a matter of time before a same-sex couple married in Massachusetts finds a federal judge prepared to rule that under the US Constitution, their marriage license must be granted ''full faith and credit'' by every other state. Same-sex marriage will be the law of the land.
Only a federal marriage amendment can keep that from happening. Today's vote may have settled the issue in Massachusetts. It has unsettled it everywhere else.
For once, Jeff Jacoby is right. It is inevitable. We are eventually going to have marriage equality throughout this entire country. When it happens, the sky won't fall - and Team Homophobia still won't have the votes for a federal marriage amendment. We're going to win, the writing is on the wall. We're going to win, whether Jeff Jacoby types like it or not. The future is a better America, where equality is an absolute reality.
At this point, I'm reminded of Governor Patrick's call to join with people on the other side... and let this issue be over. He told us to essentially mend fences, and he's right. That's why I'm only allowing myself to gloat for 12 more minutes (till midnight) before following his advice. After today, we have more work to do.
Posts
9 comments:
Lol, great post. It was good to see you again, especially on such an important day.
I want take a moment to personally thank Peter Porcupine, gary, MCRD/wavemaker, demolisher, EaBo, gopnews, and the rest of the "patriots" over at RedMassGroup for finally dropping the "we just want an up and down vote" crap and coming out as the mean-spirited homophobic weasels they truly are.
Sorry Deval, there is no fence mending with the morally bankrupt.
I do have to thank D.R. Tucker for having the decency to admit he may be wrong on gay marriage. Also the Republicans who voted "no" and are now being targeted as RINOs by the RMG bottom feeders.
http://www.redmassgroup.com/showComment.do?commentId=2162
As an addendum, will someone with a modicum of personal integrity please challenge Cynthia Stead and every other Republican State Committee member who voted to support this amendment?
Are you kidding? Oh, yes, challenge the perfect representatives of MA Republicans, slimy, disingenuous, dishonest operators with no class whatsoever. They'll be challenged for not being slimy or dishonest enough.
On a side notee, why the hell would anyone even bothering posting at RMG? BMG gets 14 million times the traffic, and it's not like they don't get the run of the place, even the state's 4 elected Republicans get to front page diaries. Seriously you guys, don't waste your time at RMG, it's not like you have to pretend to be nice or pro-equality at BMG, go nuts.
On the other hand, RMG is frequently a hilarious read -- almost as good as MassNews in their heyday.
Today, Ms. Porcupine is busily trying to spin her way out of her party's failure on this issue, simultaneously declaring gay marriage not to be a partisan issue and crowing about the people calling in to the Howie Carr show to say they were switching to the GOP. Nice try, but when you have to result to citing Howie, you're in deep doo doo.
At the same time, you have the rest of the homophobic hordes bragging on being bigots and insisting that marriage exists only for procreation. "Renee" appears to be trying to out whacko John Howard:
Blue Mass residents complain about population loss in our state, then insult them saying "they miss the boat" for their responsible procreative behavior.
Welcome to the Mass GOP where "Breeding is Fundamental."
I really don't like your use of the term 'Team Homophobia.' Not everyone who believed this should have gone to a ballot is a homophobe. It might make for good political rhetoric, but its intellectually dishonest. I expect more from you and am disappointed every time I see you use the term.
Oh, please. That is a completely disingenous argument. Well, you're right, some are more hypocritical than homophobic. I hear there's a petition drive going on to shut down all the churches and prohibit any type of religious worship. Even though I'm completely in favor of religious freedom and love religious people and the Constitution, I believe deep in my heart that we all deserve to vote on whether or not our fellow citizens are allowed to exercise their basic rights, whether or not the Legislature agrees, there is a transcendetal right for this to be on teh ballot. It's all about the process, and on the off chance that anyone insanely thinks that me supporting a bunch of people who want to shut down other people's churches and grossly violate their rights makes me an anti-religious bigot (not that that would happen), I want you on my side. Sure, the constitution prohibits citizen sponsored petitions that interfere with religious freedom, but well, it also prohibits citizen sponsored iniatives that overturn judivcial decisons, so what does it matter? It's The Process! The Intellectually Honest, Single Standard, Process! Oh damn, wait the process was followed. The Legislature gets to vote, they voted, I can't use that argument anymore. Wait, I got another one. it should have gone on the ballot, even though it didn't pass the threshold and there's no actualy reason why it should have--for, um, many good reasons! That have nothing to do with bigotry! There's um, and well, there's also, and there's so there you go, three good reason right there. All those great reasons that it "should" have gone on the ballot that have nothing to do with bigotry, right there. neener neener. And the people whose rights are on the line have a moral obligation to spend every moment supporting those who seek to persecute them, it goes without saying.
You can lie to yourself, but you can't expect anyone else to swallow. At least the VOM people have the honesty to say, "constitution schmonstitution, this violates my religious beliefs, which I think should be forced on everyone else by law because I'm a theocrat and bigot."
boostonph, c'mon, damn, if we've lost howie carr's audience, we're screwed! PP gets a fat check to spin her heart out, but honestly I don't think she's just playing dumb to fit it.
Anon 4:58,
I discussed this very thing on my latest podcast, at leftahead.com, but I'll briefly encapsulate what I mean:
Indeed, everyone who does support a ban on marriage to same-sex couples IS homophobic. However, like racism, there are two kinds of homophobia: the really blatant, disgusting kind... and the quieter, non-violent kind.
If you seek to limit someone else's rights, when those rights have no bearing on your life, it's still taking away rights. Taking away marriage equality is based on their sexuality. It's based on some kind of (irrational) fear of what will happen as a result of their sexuality. That's homophobia.
Like any team, there are the diehards and there are the people who are there just to play and have fun. Not everyone who supports marriage bans are "diehards," but certainly all of them are on the "team" nonetheless.
I really wish people [read: Jacoby] would drop the argument about "exporting" marriage to other states by allowing their residents to marry here.
That's not where the test cases / challenges will happen. They will happen because a married couple from Mass gets into an accident and one spouse is denied access to the other for medical decision-making, or something along those lines.
That's what the hubby and I are most concerned about whenever we travel out of state.
Well, to be fair, only about 90% of meglomaniacs are also homophobic, while 100% of those self centered enough to think that other people aren't allowed to exist without their own personal approval are meglomaniacs.
So, there are that 10% who are just motivated by pathological self-love--of course, maybe that type of mad passion for themselve makes them uncomfortable, as it is sor of by definition same sex, so we're back again to 100% Homophobia.
Sorry, no benefit of the doubt for bigots.
Post a Comment