What are the chances of gay marriage being repealed? (crime, house)

[brightdoglover]

I don't think issues of civil rights should be up to a vote. Now, I suppose the definition of a civil right is the question. Is the right to vote a civil right? Color of one's marriage partner? Reproductive choice?
I personally think that single-sex marriage, marriage being a civil right (literally- a civil marriage entails state-defined responsbilities and benefits, and is enforced by law) so single-sex marriage is a civil right.
What if the majority of voters in some state thought that women shouldn't vote, or black people shouldn't be allowed to register? (Gee, could that really happen in the U.S.?) These are not things that should be up for referendum votes. What if the majority decided to vote that it was OK to beat one's wife? Etc.
Civil marriage is a mutual contract with the state. Equal protection under the law. It's one reason I haven't been overly eager to marry (as a straight woman) because I'm not so sure I want the state involved in my personal life. But I do recognize that civil legal marriage is a contract with the state under the law. You can have all the "commitment ceremonies" you want, they have no standing under the law.
I personally think one answer is to have two lines at City Hall- "Marriage licenses" and "Civil Unions for Same Sex Couples." When couples sign on their respective dotted lines, they have exactly the same rights and responsibilities under the law. Call it whatever you want.

[tangodoodles]

Originally Posted by pjscdn

While I understand your sentiments, do understand the situation in MA also may not be to your liking. Irrespective of your leanings on gay marriage, the gay marriage decision went straight to the MA courts, because the proponents knew they could not win via ballot or in the legislature. And as seen in other posts, it is very difficult here to get referendums by ballot to be accepted, especially in a one-party state, so you may feel like your voice is not heard. The legislature in the past has routinely, with the blessing of the courts, dismissed ballot questions passed by popular vote.

Here's a thought to ponder. When John Kerry ran for president in 2004, he would have to vacate his Senate seat if elected. In MA, the governor appoints a successor. However, at that time, the governor was Mitt Romney, a Republican. The legislature quickly passed a measure to create a special election instead, to eliminate the assurance of a Republican senator. Now, our governor, Deval Patrick, is a Democrat. John Kerry is on the short list for Secretary of State with the Obama admonistration. Given that, it'll be interesting to see if the legislature keeps their commitment to a special election, or reverses itself with another special measure to assure a Democratic replacement.

Myself, I respect the vote of the people, whether it's gay marriage or anything else that affects our lives. I support democracy, and the power of the ballot. What you may find different here, unlike many other places, is the perception that the people serve the government, rather than the government serve the people.

Frankly, if it is a one-party system that doesn't bother me, especially since that party is Democrat. I personally don't think that just because some whacko can get a bunch of signatures he should be able to put anything up for a vote. As for the vote of the people, after what happened in California I'm really sick of mob rule and I'd much rather see someone else in control of things like minority rights. But thank you, that's why I'm considering going to law school in Massachusetts because I think that in three years I'll be able to get a feeling about whether or not I actually enjoy living there and whether or not I would want to stay.

[Geography Freak]

Originally Posted by tangodoodles

Frankly, if it is a one-party system that doesn't bother me, especially since that party is Democrat. I personally don't think that just because some whacko can get a bunch of signatures he should be able to put anything up for a vote. As for the vote of the people, after what happened in California I'm really sick of mob rule and I'd much rather see someone else in control of things like minority rights. But thank you, that's why I'm considering going to law school in Massachusetts because I think that in three years I'll be able to get a feeling about whether or not I actually enjoy living there and whether or not I would want to stay.

Would that be the same mob rule that got Obama elected, per chance?

[tangodoodles]

Originally Posted by Geography Freak

Would that be the same mob rule that got Obama elected, per chance?

Hello, there's a Politics forum located just slightly further down the page. If you'd like, I could link it for you. However, in this thread, we are discussing gay marriage in Massachusetts.

As for your assertion that mob rule got Obama elected, I don't quite follow. The President is always elected based on the votes by the electoral college. Obama won both the popular vote and the overwhelming vote of the electoral college. Choosing a President is much, much different than deciding whether or not certain people should have certain rights. If we left any decisions about equal rights for minorities up to the majority then we would be a very sad country indeed. Where would women be if the majority of people had decided they shouldn't have the right to vote? Where would African Americans be if the majority of people had decided they shouldn't be allowed to attend the same schools and drink out of the same water fountains as the rest of us? That is why these decisions can't be left up to the majority. I'm glad that this country is civilized enough to realize that we can not and should not leave decisions about rights up to the white, Christian majority.

[1979]

Originally Posted by tangodoodles

Hello, there's a Politics forum located just slightly further down the page. If you'd like, I could link it for you. However, in this thread, we are discussing gay marriage in Massachusetts.

As for your assertion that mob rule got Obama elected, I don't quite follow. The President is always elected based on the votes by the electoral college. Obama won both the popular vote and the overwhelming vote of the electoral college. Choosing a President is much, much different than deciding whether or not certain people should have certain rights. If we left any decisions about equal rights for minorities up to the majority then we would be a very sad country indeed. Where would women be if the majority of people had decided they shouldn't have the right to vote? Where would African Americans be if the majority of people had decided they shouldn't be allowed to attend the same schools and drink out of the same water fountains as the rest of us? That is why these decisions can't be left up to the majority. I'm glad that this country is civilized enough to realize that we can not and should not leave decisions about rights up to the white, Christian majority.

But, this country is NOT civilized enough to realize that we cannot and should not leave decisions about "rights" up to the white, Christian majority. Propostion 8 is the example of that. When has a right; in this case a simple "civil right" been put up for a vote? Never mind the fact that this was a "civil right" taken away! Allowing same-sex marriage does not affect the heterosexual population at all. It is unfortunate that people can't see how irrational this decision was. It was a referendum born from hate and the spread of missinformation about what would happen if same-sex marriage is allowed. I think part of the problem is people look at affirmative action as a special right that was never voted on. This causes people to get angry and lash out at another minority group the homosexuals, which have been discriminated against since the beginning of civilization.

[CaseyB]

Originally Posted by tangodoodles

Hello, there's a Politics forum located just slightly further down the page. If you'd like, I could link it for you. However, in this thread, we are discussing gay marriage in Massachusetts.

Yes, except that the last several posts have drifted away from the topic as a local issue.

Any more discussion of the general subject needs to be in the Politics or maybe even the Great Debates forums.

[tangodoodles]

Originally Posted by 1979

But, this country is NOT civilized enough to realize that we cannot and should not leave decisions about "rights" up to the white, Christian majority. Propostion 8 is the example of that. When has a right; in this case a simple "civil right" been put up for a vote? Never mind the fact that this was a "civil right" taken away! Allowing same-sex marriage does not affect the heterosexual population at all. It is unfortunate that people can't see how irrational this decision was. It was a referendum born from hate and the spread of missinformation about what would happen if same-sex marriage is allowed. I think part of the problem is people look at affirmative action as a special right that was never voted on. This causes people to get angry and lash out at another minority group the homosexuals, which have been discriminated against since the beginning of civilization.

Exactly. Segregation and womens' voting rights were not put up to a popular vote. There have been gay marriage bans enacted in a majority of states and this should not be possible. Why are we leaving it up to the white, Christian majority? I hope the California ban gets challenged up to the U.S. Supreme Court and bans on gay marriage are declared federally unconstitutional. This will eventually being taken out of the hands of the voters as well it should be.

[tangodoodles]

Originally Posted by CaseyB

Yes, except that the last several posts have drifted away from the topic as a local issue.

Any more discussion of the general subject needs to be in the Politics or maybe even the Great Debates forums.

Okay, I'll try to stay on the topic of gay marriage as it applies to Massachusetts.

[vivabigpapi]

Originally Posted by pjscdn

While I understand your sentiments, do understand the situation in MA also may not be to your liking. Irrespective of your leanings on gay marriage, the gay marriage decision went straight to the MA courts, because the proponents knew they could not win via ballot or in the legislature. And as seen in other posts, it is very difficult here to get referendums by ballot to be accepted, especially in a one-party state, so you may feel like your voice is not heard. The legislature in the past has routinely, with the blessing of the courts, dismissed ballot questions passed by popular vote.

Here's a thought to ponder. When John Kerry ran for president in 2004, he would have to vacate his Senate seat if elected. In MA, the governor appoints a successor. However, at that time, the governor was Mitt Romney, a Republican. The legislature quickly passed a measure to create a special election instead, to eliminate the assurance of a Republican senator. Now, our governor, Deval Patrick, is a Democrat. John Kerry is on the short list for Secretary of State with the Obama admonistration. Given that, it'll be interesting to see if the legislature keeps their commitment to a special election, or reverses itself with another special measure to assure a Democratic replacement.

Myself, I respect the vote of the people, whether it's gay marriage or anything else that affects our lives. I support democracy, and the power of the ballot. What you may find different here, unlike many other places, is the perception that the people serve the government, rather than the government serve the people.

Isn't that how gay marriage got allowed in Connecticut too? It went straight to the Connecticut courts?

[pjscdn]

Originally Posted by vivabigpapi

Isn't that how gay marriage got allowed in Connecticut too? It went straight to the Connecticut courts?

You're getting my point. I think this is what bothers me most. The courts are being used to bypass the ballot box, and gain a favorable ruling for their cause. No question special interests were involved with the ballot initiative in CA, and no question special interests invested heavily in the SJC decision here in MA as well. I am concerned with this shift in the balance of the democratic and judicial processes.