Hey, there! Log in / Register
House votes to repeal old laws used to bar out-of-state gay couples from marrying here
By adamg on Tue, 07/29/2008 - 4:00pm
Bay Windows has the scoop on the overwhelming vote. With the state Senate also having voted to repeal, the measure now goes to Gov. Patrick.
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Its nice to see that we
Its nice to see that we finally decided to get rid of racist law that was being used in a homophobic way. It sure made us look advanced and cultured when we pulled that one out of our hat , huh Mr Romney!
Tactics.
On the other hand, by limiting the impact of allowing gay marriage to Massachusetts only, at least at first, the limitation meant that the political lobbying from the religious right wound up being blunted. People from Kansas and Mississippi didn't have to worry about gay people going to Massachusetts, getting married, and coming back and expecting their marriages to be recognized.
In the long run, I'm all for allowing any two people who want to to get married. But I think the current wrangle in California will be illustrative: since anyone from anywhere can get married there, the backlash, supported by out-of-state interests, might be enough to get their state constitution amended. By contrast, the out-of-state interests couldn't raise enough ire to get the Massachusetts constitution amended, and now that this law is repealed *after* the amendment process has failed, it's unlikely to ever succeed.
So I think Romney did the tactically correct thing, entirely by accident, even though he was trying to do the morally wrong thing.
Speaking of tactics
I like what the CA attorney general's office did. They changed the wording of Proposition 8, essentially from "this bill will define marriage" to "this bill will strip away peoples' rights". Which might make some people think twice at the ballot box.
Of course, anti-gay-marriage types are suing, saying that this new wording makes them look like bigoted killjoys instead of...well, whatever it is they think they look like.
I dont agree with wording a
I dont agree with wording a ballot petition so that your side comes across as stronger. They should have left it as "redefining." Playing the game like that is only good when your winning. I dont like setting precedents like that while your winning because tomorrow (or in Kansas) you may be losing and who knows what they will say in their petition and then point to the CA one as evidence that its ok to do phrase it so your side has an advantage.
The actual wording
Based on my (admittedly biased) summation, you're right. The actual change, though, would change it from
"to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California"
to
"to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry."
Since the CA Supreme Court has ruled that the right exists, I don't think the second is misleading. Certainly no more misleading that "Defense of Marriage" acts which are all the rage.
With the new wording I can
With the new wording I can see how it would work. They just need to be careful because its a slippery thin line you walk on these things.
I agree with your sentiment of the Defense of Marriage Acts. Even if you dont agree with gay marriage how is not allowing it to happen defending your own marriage? Thats what I never got. Like all sorts of straight people are gonna go divorce their spouses and go marry people of the same sex for no reason what so ever.
Plain and simple 99 percent of marriage is whats happening between the two people, half a percent is their religions take on it if they practice, and half a percent is the government. If your marriage fails because two gay guys down the street married, well what does that say about your marriage?
118-35
There are 35 Reps out there that need a sound thumping.