Thursday, June 14, 2007

Massachusetts Legislature Seeks to Block Voters' Rights

Don't you just love democracy in the most liberal state in the land, where unelected judges foisted gay marriage upon the public without even allowing the voters the right to have their say? Now the state legislature is attempting to allow the citizens to have their say and are desperately being thwarted every step of the way as proponents of this sham know it will go down to resounding defeat.

Tight vote looms on same-sex marriage
With the Constitutional Convention just hours away, a proposal to allow voters to decide the future of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts was hanging by a thread in the Legislature last night.

By all accounts, House Speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi, Senate President Therese Murray, and Governor Deval Patrick, all strong supporters of gay marriage, were within one or two votes of blocking the proposal from reaching the 2008 ballot.

The three have spent the last few days prodding, cajoling, and lobbying wavering lawmakers who previously supported the measure. The razor-thin margin will heighten the drama of what is expected to be an emotional and tense showdown at today's session, scheduled to begin at 1 p.m.
What is so emotional and tense about allowing the people to have a vote? After all, Democrats overwhelmingly dominate the population, so it would be a sure thing to pass if the people were allowed to vote, no?
At stake is the fate of same-sex marriage in the only state where it is legal. The voter-initiated constitutional amendment, which would define marriage as a union between one man and one woman, must win the support of at least 50 of the state's 200 lawmakers in two consecutive legislative sessions to win a place on the 2008 ballot. The measure won its first round of approval, with 62 votes, in January, at the tail end of the last legislative session. Through turnover and resignations, support dwindled to just 57 votes by this spring, even before the intense lobbying began.
So only 25% of the legislative votes are needed.

What are they afraid of?

Now dig the spin applied here.
A defeat for the amendment would deliver a major blow to social conservatives seeking to overturn the Supreme Judicial Court's 2003 ruling legalizing same-sex unions. A victory for the ban is unlikely today, with political leaders saying they will delay a vote until later this session if they do not believe they have the votes to defeat the amendment. The measure will die if no vote is taken by the end of the 2007-2008 legislative session.
How exactly would garnering 25% of the votes be a major blow for social conservatives? By the same token, would that represent a major blow to the unelected judges who rammed this absurd ruling down the throats of the people? Would it not be a major blow to the Democrats and their strong-arm tactics?

No, the dirty little secret is they know the people do not support gay marriage, no matter what proponents and the liberal media tell you, and they want to suppress the vote in 2008. Let's assume for a minute gay marriage hadn't been decreed by the unelected judges and the legislature was attempting to allow voters the chance to vote for it. We'd be hearing endless caterwauling about how the people were being denied their constitutional right to vote by a small majority.

The double standard is sickening.

What it boils down to is this: Democrats in Massachusetts don't really believe in fairness. It's one-party rule, always has been, always will be, the people be damned.

If you don't agree with them, they call you bigots and homophobes and harass you into voting their way. They're the bigots, sneering at those who know marriage is between a man and a woman.

Isn't democracy wonderful?

UPDATE: The fix was in all along. Just disgraceful.
BOSTON -- Massachusetts lawmakers on Thursday blocked a proposed constitutional amendment banning gay marriage from reaching voters, a stunning victory for gay marriage advocates and a devastating blow to efforts to reverse a historic 2003 court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage.
A stunning victory? Please. It was fixed by strongarm tactics. Who they hell are they kidding?
"We're proud of our state today, and we applaud the Legislature for showing that Massachusetts is strongly behind fairness," said Lee Swislow, executive director of Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders.
Fairness? Not allowing the people to vote is fair? Who do they think they're kidding?
Kris Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute that backed the amendment, pledged to continue fighting, but wouldn't commit to presenting another proposed amendment.

"I don't believe it's dead because the people have not had the opportunity to have their vote," he said. "This will not go away until the citizens have their opportunity to decide what the definition of marriage is."

Republican presidential candidate and former Gov. Mitt Romney called the vote "a regrettable setback" and said it makes it more important now to pass a national amendment banning gay marriage.

"Marriage is an institution that goes to the heart of our society, and our leaders can no longer abdicate their responsibility," he said.

No comments: