as long as we all shall live

[topaz]

The 2004 election cycle included referenda on 11 state amendments that would prohibit those states from recognizing same-sex marriage. All 11 amendments passed.

It's depressing, but I find myself not that bothered by this result as I might otherwise be. I'll try to explain why here. Those of you who have already heard me ramble about this in your journals, I beg your patience.

The entire same-sex marriage issue hinges on the principle that each state is obligated to recognize marriages performed in other states (the "full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution). Were it not for this, same-sex marriage would be barely a blip on the radar. A marriage performed in Massachusetts, or Vermont, or Idaho, would not necessarily be recognized elsewhere. It would still stir up conservative alarm, but not nearly so much as it currently does. The full faith and credit clause makes a very strong case that same-sex marriage, once performed in one state, would have to be recognized by the rest of the union.

There are roadblocks to this, of course -- the federal Defense of Marriage Act, the individual state marriage bans, and now the state amendments. The validity of these acts are guaranteed to be heard, eventually, by the Supreme Court. But in the meantime:

So there is enormous significance on the first state to perform same-sex marriage. It becomes the wedge state. Once same-sex marriages start happening somewhere, it's conceivable that it might happen anywhere.

We had thought that state would be Hawaii. Then we thought it would be Vermont. It has turned out to be Massachusetts (and man, just imagine my civic pride). The conservative element that wants to stop same-sex marriage now faces a choice: find a way to block it from being recognized in the other 49 states of the country, or put a cork in the bottle by killing it in Massachusetts before it can get any farther. If Massachusetts' state constitution can be amended to prohibit same-sex marriage, that's almost as good as banning it in all the other 49 states combined.

That is why the most immediately important of the marriage races is here in Massachusetts. The anti-marriage constitutional amendment passed the legislature in the last Constitutional Convention. It has to pass again this winter, and then be passed by referendum in 2006, in order to be ratified. If they succeed in amending Massachusetts' constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage, it's game over. We have to start all over again, from scratch, somewhere else.

The good news, therefore, is that the anti-marriage crowd in Massachusetts suffered bitter setbacks this election season. Every single incumbent supporter of same-sex marriage was re-elected. Every single one. Moreover, there were eight open races in which one of the candidates opposed same-sex marriage. We won six of them. The marriage opponents faced an uphill battle in the statehouse last year; this year, with a new speaker of the house who opposes amending the constitution, it is all but finished. Same-sex marriage has survived the most immediate threat.

This will not be very comforting to those who live in Ohio, or Michigan, or Oregon, or any of the other states that have amended their constitutions. I can't give you any words of consolation. It sucks, badly, and it's going to suck worse before it gets better. But I am confident that it is a desperate backlash, a cynical ploy by the GOP to get out the conservative vote, and little more than that. We are still closer today to achieving nationwide marriage equality than we were on Monday.

Comments

[qwrrty.livejournal.com]

I'm still encouraged. See this article from the Boston Glob, when DiMasi inherited the speaker's seat from Finneran: (http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2004/09/28/prospects_shift_as_dimasi_takes_over_for_finneran/)

A key legislative backer of the proposed amendment to ban same-sex marriage and establish civil unions yesterday all but declared defeat, saying that Finneran's exit from Beacon Hill was the final straw in an effort that already was in trouble because the state has legalized same-sex marriage with little of the uproar predicted by opponents.

"It is pretty much over," said Senate minority leader Brian P. Lees, a Springfield Republican who cosponsored the amendment with Finneran and Senate President Robert E. Travaglini. The House and Senate, sitting in a constitutional convention, must vote a second time in the next session before it could go to the voters on the 2006 ballot.

"In fact, there will be a question as to whether the issue will come up at all," Lees said. He said the issue has faded to the "back burners of Massachusetts politics," because few problems have surfaced with the implementation of the Supreme Judicial Court's decision to legalize gay marriage.

"With the fact the law has been in effect for a number of months and with the change in the House leadership, it would appear any change in the constitution to ban marriage is quickly fading," Lees said.

And that was before the election cycle, when they held more supporters in the statehouse. It's just not going to happen.

[vito-excalibur.livejournal.com]

Ah, this is good to hear. Thanks for a bit of a bright spot.

[ckd]

I agree that it's hopeful, and I also don't expect it to get through. I just don't want to get so certain that it won't, that I don't notice when the antis pull some stunt.

[qwrrty.livejournal.com]

You're right not to get complacent. Eternal vigilance, etc. etc. etc. And certainly there's lots of work still to do.