Saturday, June 16, 2007

Bitches? We Don't Need No Stinking Bitches.

The Massachusetts General Court ensured that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts would remain the paragon of punchlines (supplanting even New Jersey), voting to ignore the will of at least 170,000 voters.

The Supreme Judicial Court created a right to homosexual marriage in February of 2004, by a 4-3 vote, and ever since then, opponents have sought the right to have a vote on the issue. Unfortunately, the proponents have cajoled, threatened, and outright bribed legislators to ensure that the will of the people would not be heard.

Last Thursday, legislators voted 151-to-45 to deep-six the efforts to place the issue on the 2008 ballot. At least nine members of the General Court, who were thought to support the right of the people to vote, changed their votes at the last minute. His Excellency, the Governor of Massachusetts, Deval Patrick, made some back-room deals to ensure that the Gang of Nine voted their consciences, and not their constituencies.

And, truth be told, the opponents of same-sex marriage got (their pole) smoked by the supporters, for failing to define their opposition, for failing to ensure that they didn't sound like a bunch of bigoted freaks.

Now, frankly, I would think that the supporters would want a vote, to show how many citizens support homosexual marriage. But, they are afraid--deathly afraid--that the citizenry will take away their illegitimate right. The one created out of the constitutional ether.

My opposition to same-sex marriage is this: Marriage is a union--traditionally, Biblically, empirically--between one man and one woman. Not a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, or a man and eight women (hence the fact that bigamy is a crime, and polygamy is outlawed). Marriage is also a word. One word that describes the aforementioned union.

If I can not use "gay" (to describe my feelings when I am happy) or "fag" (to talk about cigs, when I am in the UK) without going to a rehab, then the homosexual community can not have "marriage."

Civil unions, maybe. Marriage, no.

Not to mention the fact that, with some planning, a same-sex couple has all of the rights as a heterosexual couple (save for the Marriage Tax that the Democrat party wants to bring back). All they have to do is make their wishes known, through a lawyer, and they will be able to ensure financial stability for their mate, to ensure care, maintenance and support for their adopted children, and to pass wealth along to their partner. They don't need marriage. They don't even need civil unions, for that matter.

They do need to have a vote, and to let the chips fall where they may.

And, for those of you idiots who think that this is like holding a referendum on slavery, it is not. 600,000 Americans are not dying anytime soon to preserve (or eliminate) this so-called right. Same sex marriage is not a civil rights issue, it is a lifestyle issue, and to try to make it a civil rights matter is to denigrate those that fought to eliminate discrimination based upon race and colour.

The bottom line is that there is only one way that this should have gone down (sorry--poor choice of phrases): The General Court should have allowed the matter to go to the ballot in November of 2008. They should have voted unanimously to let it go to the ballot, because they ultimately represent everyone in their district, not just four or five percent of the populous. Instead, they showed their hubris, their absolute disregard for the legislative process. They have taken a massive dump on the Constitution of the Commonwealth, and of the American way. In so doing, they have shown their contempt for the proponents and opponents alike.

Same-sex marriage remains legal, but tainted. A right crafted by four appointed justices, immune from any vote on their fitness for their office, supported by a legislature secure in the knowledge that the idiots in Massachusetts will continue to send them back to Beacon Hill and, a governor who has two hands and can not find his ass.

Had the matter gone to the ballot, and same-sex marriage been affirmed, I would have accepted it as the will of the people. I would have at least had a vote, a chance to be heard. (Unfortunately, the other side would not have expressed the same grace had they lost.)

In the meantime, I am going out to smoke a fag, and have a gay old time this glorious day. Hell, if they can have "marriage", I want all of my words back.

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

i disagree with you admiral...

Rob said...

Of course you do. That is not the point.

What I am getting at is that the General Court should have had some sack, and let it go to a vote. This is a matter for the referendum process, not a group of pointy-headed intellectual types (SJC) who want to join Justice Blackmun and the Supreme Court of Florida in the Bad Decisions Crafted in the Penumbras Hall of Fame.

The problem is that had the homo marriage crowd lost, they would have kicked and screamed and held their breath like so many petulant little three year olds.

This is Massachusetts, for Christ sake. Homo marriage and late-term abortion are just two of the things that are viewed as constitutional rights by the population. More important, even, than free speech, trans-fat, and gun ownership.

Let us all vote, that is my point.

Rob said...

And, you have to admit, the title is pretty damned funny.

Cartooniste said...

oh, rob. ever the neanderthal.
to take on your give-lawyers-more-work position, we could say that straight people don't "need" marriage either. but a lot of gay people want it for cultural reasons. just like straight people.
the bible has long held many things that we no longer "long hold" today. stoning for adulterers, to pick one totally random example. what a relief that we've moved on from that, huh? isn't it great how we can value our past but still look ahead to a more egalitarian future?
frankly, if "marriage" is just for the hets and "civil union" gets to be for everyone, then i'll happily trade in my bigoted "marriage" and call myself "civilly united" from here on out.
what i don't understand is why this is even an issue. if you don't want to marry someone of your own gender, then don't. where do you get off butting in to other people's affairs? where to the voters get off? this "let the people vote" business is just a faux-populist mask for bigotry, plain and simple. and it's on the wrong side of history.

Anonymous said...

thank you cartooniste.

amen.

Kate said...

sigh. i'm sorry i hollered at you, rob. you are of course entitled to your opinions and feelings.
though it is worth noting that just because there was a vote doesn't mean the lawmakers are overlooking their constituency. i had been in touch with my representative via the human rights watch "write your reps" website several times over the past few months. and they even wrote me back.

Rob said...

My only point, which everyone seemed to miss, was that there should have been a fucking vote on the issue. That, and the fact that the SJC shouldn't have "found" the right for homosexuals to marry in the Massachusetts Constitution.

I am, and have always been, a strict constructionist when it comes to my constitutions.

As for not stoning adulterers, and the like, we are living according to our constitution, not the law of the Bible. As such, no adultery, no slavery, no sacrifice.

Finally, if you want to make the distinction, then let marriage be between a man and a woman in a church. Let anyone else, either hetero or homo, married by a judge, JP, or person authorised to administer oaths, be called a civil union.

And, by the way, my rep responded to my concerns, and voted to place the issue on the ballot. My senator was ignoring calls, and she voted to not let the matter go to a vote. Go figure.

Rob said...

And as a final, and Neanderthal, point: I don't give a flying fuck whether homosexuals marry. I think it would win if put to a referendum. And, I would be fine with that.

My point, again, is that 170,000 people signed a petition to put the matter on the ballot. The votes to do so, were there. Then, 11 brave legislators got a fit of conscience.

Vote, what's the big deal.

I don't care what Bob and Neal do in their bedroom. Keep it there. If I want to fuck someone, you can guaranGoddamntee that I will keep it quiet. Hell, we should all keep our sex lives quiet, because it...they...are no one's business but ours.

And, as one last aside, why is it that when someone disagrees with the lib position, they are "Neanderthals"? I didn't pass a moral judgment on the supporters of homosexual marriage, just on the legislators who dropped the ball.

Always with the name-calling.

Rob said...

"Idiots" in reference to the gay-marriage-is-civil-right crowd.

"Neanderthals" in reference to the everyone-should-have-a-say crowd.

Who is the egalitarian now?

Cartooniste said...

Aren't Neaderthals big fuzzy dudes with prominent brain casings? Are you suggesting that you are *not* a big fuzzy dude with a prominent brain casing? You're the same Rob I sail with, right...?
Look at us, assuming "Neanderthal" is an insult. What a sapiensist position. Sheesh!
I think there is a lot to be said for letting each church decide the marriage question for them... it...selves. UCC and UU churches have been marrying gay people since gay people were invented. Catholics aren't now and probably never will. The question is, in our culture the term "marriage" conflates the solemnization with the bestowing of equal rights under the law. Tricky.
Perhaps it is time that that conflation be re-evaluated.
And matters of the interpretation of the law, it seems, are rarely voted upon, but decided by the legal and judicial system. It doesn't strike me as an appropriate issue for the voters. Instead the voters choose the reps, and the reps make the law, and the judges decide what the law really means. And the voters ring up the reps and tell them what they want them to do. Under that conception, legal gay marriage is right where is should be here in the cradle of American freedom.

We can always settle this with an arm-wrestling match. I'll have Eric me my ringer.

Rob said...

Usually when someone resorts to an ad hominem attack, I say, "Game, set and match."

And, while Neanderthals are indeed cute and fuzzy (like me), I don't think that it was intended in any way other than a jab.

But, hey, what do I know? It's sort of a simple analysis. And you know, when it is simple, a caveman can do it.

Urk, the Caveman said...

Urgh! Gunga lunga bunga.