That’s it. That’s all of the rubbing in that I’m going to do. After 18 times that our state legislature has addressed\u00a0same-sex marriage…numerous times even voting against previous incarnations of constiutional amendments…it gets rather exhausting. This time, it was actually…and finally…defeated by a vote (versus other procedural tactics that have taken place in the past). I must admit that I’m very surprised. I expected that the issue would lose by one or two votes. I never expected it to win by this many votes. Here’s all I have to say:<\/p>\n
People upset over the results, claiming people had the right to vote on this issue, would be singing a whole different tune if the issue was reversed (meaning putting things to a vote would have guaranted that same-sex marriage could continue). If that was the case, they’d have done everything to PREVENT “letting the people vote.” Similarly under that scenario, same-sex proponents would have\u00a0switched tunes and demanded that this issue SHOULD go to the public for a vote. We’re both guilty of wanting it both ways. Besides, the way our system is set up, citizens do not necessarily have the right to vote. They have the right to elect officials to decide whether an issue goes on the ballot for the citizens to vote. In this case, their elected officials did what they were supposed to do and voted how they felt (in this case, to defeat the measure). Gay rights proponents were just fortunate it worked in their favor this time.<\/p>\n
Going forward, I question the logic behind citizen initiatives only requiring 25% of the votes\u00a0in the legislature to go on to the ballot. No matter what the issue, 50% seems more reasonable. Granted, in this case my side would have won with 25% or 50% of the vote (we had\u00a0nearly 76%), but I still don’t think a minority of elected officials should be able to choose what the citizens should vote on – especially when you consider how different people feel about various issues in various parts of the state. When an issue does get to the public to vote, it’s always the majority that rules. Why isn’t it that way in the legislature?<\/p>\n
Romney\u00a0is an idiot. I’m sick of hearing him (and the Catholic Church) say that it’s most unfair to the “children” who are going to have two same-sex parents. Now think about it: the parents of these kids are gay. Whether same-sex marriage is legal or not, these children would still have gay parents. This constitutional amendment wouldn’t have changed that at all. What it DOES change is that the children now have more legal protections since their parents are legally wed. This is an improvement for the children’s well-being, not a “detriment.”<\/p>\n
Please stop. Kris Mineau\u00a0and all of his “let the people vote” cronies should just stop this hoo-hah. We’ve been dealing with this for nearly half a decade now. Its been brought up with the state legislature 18 times. The majority of the residents of the Commonwealth could care less about this issue. True, probably half the citizens wouldn’t “want” same-sex marriage to be legal if they had their druthers, but the issue doesn’t really bother them enough to warrant constant media attention. They’d probably rather people just shut up and move on.<\/p>\n
And move on is what I’ll do.<\/p>\n
I wish I had more to report…but I don’t. Randy and I will be hanging out locally this weekend (well, Saturday only) before he heads down to Virginia. We’re going to have lots of catching up to cram into such a short time period. Kayak? Bike? Catch up on Tivo?<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
That’s it. That’s all of the rubbing in that I’m going to do. After 18 times that our state legislature has addressed\u00a0same-sex marriage…numerous times even voting against previous incarnations of constiutional amendments…it gets rather exhausting. This time, it was actually…and finally…defeated by a vote (versus other procedural tactics that have taken place in the past). […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":74,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1288","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/snarl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1288","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/snarl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/snarl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/snarl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/74"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/snarl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1288"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/snarl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1288\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/snarl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1288"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/snarl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1288"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/snarl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1288"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}