Perhaps the biggest sticking point for folks who had no strong feelings one way or the other on the gay marriage issue was how it was “legalized” in Massachusetts by the state’s Supreme Judicial Court, not by a vote of the people or their elected legislators.
Of course, it was argued that gay marriage was a civil right and, therefore, couldn’t be taken away by a vote of the people or their elected representatives, but that argument went nowhere fast with a majority of people. Rightly or wrongly, the decision was perceived as an example of judicial activism and overreach at its worst.
It’s important to note, however, that the court only weighed in on this issue after the state Legislature refused to address it. Nature abhors a vacuum, and so does politics.
In any event, the ruling from almost four years ago hasn’t sat well, to say the least, with the most ardent and vociferous opponents of anything queer. So an effort to undo the court’s ruling by using the legislative process was initiated.
A bill to put the issue before voters as a ballot referendum was introduced earlier this year. But the bill was killed last week by the people’s elected representatives. “The amendment, which would have given voters a direct say in whether to prolong the state’s experiment in court-ordered gay marriage, needed 50 votes to advance,” reports Christian Sahner of Political Diary, “but fell short by just five.”
Those who had a problem with gay marriages being imposed by court decree now can feel a little more at ease knowing the legislative process was afforded the opportunity to intervene. Opponents, of course, will be none too happy about the outcome of said vote, but the process DID take place.
Opponents of gay marriage in Massachusetts now have to either elect new legislators who will vote the way they want on the referendum, or work to change the state’s laws to allow the people to put issues on the ballot directly via the petitioning process instead of relying solely on the Legislature to do so for them.
Regardless of how you feel about the issue itself, the fact is that the Massachusetts Legislature is now on the hot seat and the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, for all intents and purposes, is off the hook. The fight overall is far from over, but opponents now are probably only postponing the inevitable. Like it or not, gay marriage is eventually coming to a neighborhood near you.
Posted on June 27th, 2007 by Chuck Muth
Filed under: National
We currently have a similar issue in Nevada, albeit on a much smaller scale.
Last week, the Nevada System of Higher Education asked the board of the Public Employees Benefits Program to extend state benefits “spouse-like relationships.” These spouse-like relationships would include opposite sex and same sex arrangements.
The board, which is appointed and not elected, opted to refer the matter to the state attorney general’s office for an opinion before making a decision.
Benefits board member Ron Swirczek’s remarks on the issue were very appropriate. He said, “I think the issues are certainly legitimate, but is this the proper forum? We’re an appointed board, and this issue is a little more far reaching than just the system of higher education. My question is why wasn’t this brought before the Legislature.” Good question, and very questionable timing on the request given that the legislature went into session in February, and I’m sure that this didn’t just suddenly become an issue for the NSHE in the past couple of weeks.
Whether you agree with this proposal or not (and the proponents seemed to have some compelling arguments about competitive disadvantage to support their position), an appointed body shouldn’t be deciding these issues.