Romney said he would file a legal action this week asking a justice of the Supreme Judicial Court to direct the secretary of state to place the question on the ballot if lawmakers don't vote directly on the question Jan. 2, the final day of the session.
Romney, an opponent of gay marriage who decided not to seek re-election as he considers running for president, made his announcement to the cheers of hundreds of gay marriage opponents at a rally on the Statehouse steps.
I’m constantly amazed at the gaggle of “gay marriage opponents” that rally oh-so often. Don’t they have something, anything better to worry about?
"One of the tenets of the Constitution is that you do not put the rights of a minority up for a popularity contest," said Mark Solomon, campaign director of Mass Equality, a pro-gay marriage group. "It is one of the very principles this country was founded upon."
- Mass. governor wants gay wedding vote
Indeed.
Since change is allllwwwaaaayssss bad, I think it clearly falls on the conservatives to protest Romney’s radial decision to redefine the current definition of marriage in the state of Massachusetts.
4 comments:
"One of the tenets of the Constitution is that you do not put the rights of a minority up for a popularity contest," said Mark Solomon, campaign director of Mass Equality, a pro-gay marriage group. "It is one of the very principles this country was founded upon."
On what is the 'right' of gay people to marry others of the same sex based? There is no right. Gay men can certainly marry women, and gay women can certainly marry men, just as straight men and women can. But straight men are currently restricted from marrying other men (and straight women from marrying other women) in the same way as gay men and women are. Homoactivists are asking for the creation of a new right, namely for someone of one sex to marry another of the same sex. That's a different story, and it should be acknowledged as such.
I'm strongly in favor of gay marriage, but not on the basis of some fictional notion of 'equality'. I think that many of the arguments advanced by proponents are fundamentally miguided. Gay marriage advocates need to ensure that their arguments are coherent. It's hard to take them seriously otherwise.
Hello David! Thanks for stopping by…
David wrote: On what is the 'right' of gay people to marry others of the same sex based? There is no right. Gay men can certainly marry women, and gay women can certainly marry men, just as straight men and women can. But straight men are currently restricted from marrying other men (and straight women from marrying other women) in the same way as gay men and women are.
Okay, so their right to marry someone isn’t being violated. However, their right to marry the consenting adult of their choice IS being violated. Were I told that I had the “right” to marry, but that I could only marry Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell (shudders), my “right” to marry might be protected, by my right to marry the partner of my choice wouldn’t be.
Or, for a more historically accurate, less ridiculous example, we could look at the US before interracial marriage was legally accepted. One could argue that no rights were being denied: black men could marry black women, white men could marry white women. I would still argue that their right to marry the consenting adult of their choice was being violated.
Homoactivists are asking for the creation of a new right, namely for someone of one sex to marry another of the same sex. That's a different story, and it should be acknowledged as such.
They are asking for the right to marry the consenting adult of their choosing. Not a new right- just an extension of a right already offered to those who wish to marry someone of the opposite sex.
I'm strongly in favor of gay marriage, but not on the basis of some fictional notion of 'equality'.
Well, we’re just arguing semantics then. ;)
Thanks for the response, Aviaa.
A lot of the debate is semantics, but the words count. I'd be perfectly happy with civil unions, for example, while others demand nothing short of 'gay marriage' whatever that means. I've never quite understood why some gay men and women so desperately crave to fit into the heterosexual paradigm. Gays fought for years to escape the binding constructs of the State. Now they're fighting to be reclaimed.
On your other point, I'd qustion where the basis is for this right to marry a 'cosnenting person of your choosing'. Not in law. And not in religion (not that I'm religious). So where? Do I have the right to marry my dog if I desire it greatly enough? He's entirely adorable, I assure you. I'm obviously not being serious, but you get my point.
Cheers,
David
Hello again, David!
David wrote:A lot of the debate is semantics, but the words count. I'd be perfectly happy with civil unions, for example, while others demand nothing short of 'gay marriage' whatever that means.
I also think semantics count, which is why I push for full fledged same-sex marriage. The difference between “civil union” and “marriage” is just in semantics. However, separate but equal rarely works out so well, and I think the government should recognize and marry same-sex couples in the exact same way (including the same wording) as they do different-sex couples. Religious organizations can then differentiate as they chose.
On your other point, I'd qustion where the basis is for this right to marry a 'cosnenting person of your choosing'. Not in law. And not in religion (not that I'm religious). So where?
Where do you believe any rights come from? What gives a person the right to anything, from the right to not be enslaved to the right to the right to freedom of speech (within reason)? I would question the idea that rights are created by law. If these rights weren’t (as they currently are in most countries, but weren’t always) currently defined by laws, would you accept that they were still rights? Before slavery, did people not have the right to not be enslaved?
My conception of rights rests in “oughts.” I don’t think rights come from law or religion; I think they are constructed by humans based on an evolved moral sense and a desire to shape a more ideal, fair society. To clarify, I suppose when I use the phrase, “right”, I mean it as “privilege that ought to be granted because it’s unfair not to.” However, I’m not sure how you could have any sense of secular rights without such a definition. How do you define rights?
Do I have the right to marry my dog if I desire it greatly enough? He's entirely adorable, I assure you. I'm obviously not being serious, but you get my point.
Your dog isn’t human and isn’t capable of consenting. Tail wagging doesn’t count. :P
The slippery slope argument of homosexual marriage sliding into animal marriage is used frequently… and was actually also used to defend why interracial couples shouldn’t be allowed to marry. I think same-sex marriage is much more analogous to different-sex marriage than it is to human-animal marriage. Allowing people to choose their own different-sex partners hasn’t led to animal marriage. Same-sex marriage wouldn’t send us down that slippery slope either.
Post a Comment