16 Comments

• 1. D. R. Tucker  |  June 16th, 2007 at 5:17 am

  I think there were plenty of people who voted for Patrick precisely because he would work to forestall a vote on marriage. If Romney had still been in office, he would have lobbied to allow a public vote to go forward. Those who feel that gay marriage is a civil right that should not be voted upon obviously realized that the only way to stop a marriage vote was to have a pro-gay-marriage governor who would fight hard to prevent the question from making it to the ballot.

  Thursday’s action will irreversibly change politics in this state. I think it’s fair to say that all vestiges of social conservatism in Massachusetts are gone, and that there are now only two philosophical strands in this state–libertarianism and liberalism. The “vote on marriage” movement simply didn’t have the power (however one wishes to define power) of the “you can’t vote on civil rights” movement. As a result, you’re going to have plenty of people reading the tea leaves in politics and the media–meaning that it’s a guarantee that the GOP challenger to Patrick in 2010 will be pro-gay-marriage, that WRKO and WTKK will be more likely to hire social libertarians as hosts instead of social conservatives, etc. One can disagree with the tactics of the gay-marriage movement, but it’s hard to dispute the results.

• 2. Mr. X  |  June 16th, 2007 at 8:35 am

  D.R. Who are you referring to as social conservatives on the talk showes? Howie or Jay? Please…Couldn’t you tell that Jay was weazaling all week? And Howie? One force drives him $$$$, which comes from ratings…he’s basically an anarchist.

• 3. simple truth for the day  |  June 16th, 2007 at 9:00 am

  there is no ‘right’ to vote on the rights of others arbitrarily. otherwise, any group X would be able to dominate group Y if X>Y.

  any true conservative would know this intuitively.

• 4. Greg  |  June 16th, 2007 at 10:04 am

  There is no ‘right’ for the courts to force ‘rights’ on people that aren’t layed out in the state or federal Constitutions. There are stop gaps to prevent the majority from trampling the right of the minority but there are also supposed to be stop gaps to prevent tyranny by the minority. Obviously that doesn’t work here in this state.

• 5. Andy  |  June 16th, 2007 at 11:26 am

  Quit playing games with the law. The state Constitution requires that before the people vote there must be 25% of the Legislature that agrees with them. No one was “denied a right to vote” because the right to vote was incumbent on a condition precedent. That condition was not met therefore no vote was entitled to anyone.

  Secondly, Patrick denied no one the right to do anything as Patrick doesn’t have a vote in the Legislature. You don’t have to like Patrick, I know I didn’t like Romney, but there is at least some modicum of honesty that is required for you to have any credibility.

  Lastly, I was under the impression that conservatives stood for freedom and lack of government intrustion. Where is the freedom and lack of government intrusion on this issue? Conservatives want the government patrolling bedrooms.

• 6. Andy (a different one)  |  June 16th, 2007 at 12:15 pm

  Wow Andy, do you really believe what you just wrote?

  Patrick, DiMasi, and Murray played games with the law. So did the SJC. They abused their authority to create a law that didn’t exist, and Deval Patrick did what he could to prevent us, from having a say.

  We’ve had gay marriage forced upon us by activist judges, and a radical left governor who bribed legislators to switch their votes.

  The only person who has no credibility here is you, because you’re talking nonsense.

  The government did trample on our freedom, don’t you understand? They denied us the right to vote.

• 7. John K  |  June 16th, 2007 at 1:11 pm

  http://www.cultureandmediainstitute.org/articles/2007/20070615164143.aspx

  Networks Ignore Crushing of Marriage Vote in Massachusetts
  The media elite don’t want the American people to know that liberals refuse to let the people vote on this crucial issue.

  By Robert Knight
  Culture and Media Institute
  June 15, 2007

• 8. Mr. X  |  June 16th, 2007 at 1:22 pm

  John K’s got it right, welcome to the best blog in Beantown!

• 9. simple truth for the day  |  June 16th, 2007 at 1:29 pm

  There is no ‘right’ for the courts to force ‘rights’ on people that aren’t layed out in the state or federal Constitutions.

  what ‘rights’ are being forced on non-gay people?

  are they being forced to divorce their spouses?

  are they being forced to marry new spouses of the same sex?

  are they even being forced to associate with gays against their will?

  this all started when the court interpreted the state constitution as not allowing any ban on gay marriage.

  i’m not gay, and the effect this marriage legalization has had on my life over the past few years is absolutely ZERO.

  the energy which people have put into oppressing a group of people that’s had nil real effect on their lives is frankly kind of… creepy.

• 10. Andy  |  June 16th, 2007 at 2:52 pm

  Andy how were the people “denied the right to vote.” Please, using actual facts not wild assertions, point to me in the MA Constitution where it says the people had a right to vote on this issue. The Constitution clearly states that the people have a right to vote on the issue AFTER 25% of the Legislature moves the issue to the ballot. The right didn’t exist b/c the requisite number of legislators didn’t approve.

  Secondly, I have to ask where the proof is that Patrick gave jobs away. That is a serious accusation and one for which no one has had any substantive evidence.

  As for the SJC playing games with the law I am resigned to the fact that that is what judges are there to do. While I don’t agree with the decision in Bush v. Gore I don’t think it is an illegitimate decision. Judges interpret the law. I don’t always agree with the interpretation but it is fundamentally the scope of their job. You may not like the SJC’s opinion but it was fundamentally their job to interpret the existing law the Commonwealth.

• 11. Greg  |  June 16th, 2007 at 7:45 pm

  We’ve already seen how it affects non-gay people with the Catholic Church getting out of the adoption business.

• 12. Andrew  |  June 18th, 2007 at 5:16 pm

  I would love to know where “Simple Truth” seems to think there is a “right” to marry those of the same sex. Perhaps where he finds the same right to marry his/her brother?

  Oh wait. Thats right. THERE ISN’T ONE. If the homosexuals can make up a right to marry who they want, why can those who support incest make up their own rights too. Take it to the MA SJC and we can have that bull IMPOSED on us too.

• 13. Steve  |  June 18th, 2007 at 9:23 pm

  You just don’t get it Andrew. You’re trying to make a leap from same-sex marriage to brother-sister marriage and it’s just not working. I guess Simple Truth could find a right to marry his brother if the law already allowed him to marry his sister. Since it doesn’t, it’s irrelevant to this discussion.

• 14. PleaseNeverCallMyHouseAgain  |  June 18th, 2007 at 10:45 pm

  You know what angers me most about this whole issue. Its the fact that the left does one thing and says the other. I signed the petition and my name was put on that website know they neighnor. I wouldn’t have cared but I recieved harrasing phone calls on a number of occasions. One time my 6 year old son picked up and was told how I was human scum and should be put in jail because according to them I am a Nazi. Real mature, I would loved for you guys to come to my house when me and the boys were there and try that crap infront of my son. You know what, grow the hell up. No one in this state is calling you names, putting you in camps, and threatening you. Most people could care if your gay, our concern is that many of us don’t feel that marriage should be between two people of the same sex. What would you say if some conservative mormons wanted to marry multiple wives. I bet you all would be out on the picket lines saying its bad. I admit, I am very dissapointed in my legislator. I fear most that the worst is yet to come for the rest of us. The left seems to operate under the idea that the ends justify the means and as a result they need to do what they have to in order to win. Well, you crossed the line and how dare you call my house and make accusations towards my son. You should be ashamed of yourself.

• 15. Andrew  |  June 19th, 2007 at 10:52 am

  Steve,

  You seem to miss my point completely. You DO NOT have a right to marry someone of the same sex. There is just no such thing and saying you do does not make it true. In 2003, when the SJC arbitrarily decided that gay marriage should be allowed–while legally allows such a thing to happen–still does not give you the right. As I have said before—civil rights come from the people. The people have not been heard on this issue and which is why your side lobbied so agressively against having the people heard–you would not have liked the outcome.

  Furthermore–why you can not see how this lead you don’t the road to legimizing incest and other such “alternative lifestyles” just means you either A) have little foresight or B) do not understand just how these decisions and laws have been framed. It is perfectly reasonable to assume using the same manuevers as the gay lobby, why incest and underage marriage would not be next. I would be interested to hear why you think these are just so unrelated that there is no merit to think this would happen.

• 16. Steve  |  June 19th, 2007 at 3:26 pm

  Where do you get the idea that rights are only validated when they come from a popular vote? That may be your opinion, but saying it doesn’t make it true. You do not have a right to vote on something just because 3% of the population signed a petition. You might like to think you do, but you don’t. You just can’t admit that your argument can’t hold water. If it could, you wouldn’t feel the need to make the ridiculous argument that giving two consenting adults the right to marry opens the door to getting rid of age of consent restrictions and incest. I understand how the decision has been framed. Read Goodridge. The decision is based on the fact that the state does not have a rational basis for denying marriage RIGHTS to same-sex couples. You’d be hard pressed to convince the court that the state had no rational basis for denying marriage rights to children or to siblings. Suggesting that Goodridge automatically opens the door to the latter examples shows that you either lack some basic reasoning skills or you are willing to ignore logic in order to construct what you think is a convincing argument against same-sex marriage.

Twitter Updates