One Step Forward
The Massachusetts legislature voted today, 151 to 45, to defeat a proposed amendment to the state constitution that would ban same-sex marriage. A 2003 state court decision had forced the state to allow same-sex couples to marry, and supports of the legislation failed to get the 50 votes in favor that they needed to send the amendment to the 2008 ballot.
One truly remarkable aspect of this decision is how it illustrates that political preferences change over time: the 151 votes to kill the amendment have not always been there: a parallel vote in the last legislative session garnered 62 votes in favor, and the legislative votes in the months after the original court decision showed bare majorities in favor of gay and lesbian rights. Politicians, pundits, and consultants who speak of triangulation and moderation miss the point—on issues, even deeply emotional ones, voters and legislators can and often are persuaded to change their opinions on issues.
Another remarkable aspect of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts has been the widespread realization among the electorate that same-sex marriage is something that does not harm those in traditional marriages—yes, there will be those who dress their homophobia in terms of "protecting traditional marriage," but for many straight voters, expanding the definition of marriage was something with no negative consequences. And politicians have noticed—despite a great deal of fuming by the right wing in Massachusetts in the last two years, not one opponent of the proposed amendment lost his or her legislative seat on 2006.
And that brings me to one of the disappointing aspects of the amendment process. A number of the proponents of the amendment were Democrats (several opponents, even early in the process, were Republicans who took civil liberties seriously). Take this profile in courage: Representative Donato from Medford. Donato claims that the people "have a right to vote" but somehow managed not to take that same line on a universal health care amendment that the legislature killed in January. Donato has already attracted one Democratic opponent for the 2008 primary, but there are 24 other Democratic representatives and 3 Democratic senators who voted to approve the amendment. In a sane world, the Green-Rainbow party would have as its primary 2008 campaign objective to get serious challengers to each of these 27 bad apples. In the real world, of course, the Greens are not much of a grassroots party at all: simply running in 27 races (out of 200) would be a manifold increase from what it has done in any recent election.
Labels: gay marriage, Green-Rainbow Party, victory
