According to an AP report that came out this afternoon, Gov. Mitt Romney has announced he will back a gay marriage ban to the Massachusetts constitution written by the Coalition for Marriage and Family Initiative.
This new proposed amendment will be brought forward as a citizen’s initiative petition. That means the attorney general will have to sign off on the language. (What do we know about the MA AG? Would Tom Reilly sign off on ridiculous language if the courts of Massachusetts have already ruled on the subject?) Then volunteers (who do not have to be residents of the state) have to collect 65,825 voters’ signatures (3% of the citizens who voted in the last gubernatorial election) within 64 days of receiving approval from the AG’s office. Finally, 25% of the legislators have to vote for the amendment in consecutive sessions before the amendment can be placed on a general ballot. Apparently if enough lawmakers fail to vote in favor of it, citizens can get around them by collecting more signatures (an additional .5% of the citizens who voted in the last gubernatorial election) to put it on the ballot themselves. No more than 1/4 of the signatures may come from any one county. (As an aside, a 1998 Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling dictates that any extraneous markings on a petition sheet (such as an address if it is not requested, a personal statement, or page numbers) would invalidate the entire sheet. I wonder how that will affect this effort.)
The Boston Archbishop and several other Massachusetts bishops have already pledged their assistance in reaching the required number of signatures.
Romney had previously supported a legislative amendment that would have legalized civil unions while making marriage illegal. He has withdrawn his support from that bill because he believes that the civil union issue muddies the water. (I.e., he doesn’t like the idea of giving gay people rights.)
In his press conference he talked about how “individuals in our society should be able to make the choices they want in their lives and that we have respect for people’s choices. We have a high degree of respect and tolerance for people whose lifestyle and choices and orientation is as they may choose.” Note the repeated use of “choices” and “lifestyle.” Romney would like citizens to remember that gay people choose to live a lifestyle that he considers abhorrent and undeserving of state recognition or benefits. Remember, they could choose to live a lifestyle that he would find more palatable.
The fact that a Mormon Republican governor (did I just hear Howard Dean snickering into his sleeve?) doesn’t like gay marriage is not particularly surprising to me.
But what I find most galling is the Romney quote in the final paragraph of the news wire story:
“If the question is, ‘Do you support gay marriage or civil unions?’ I’d say neither. . . . If they said you have to have one or the other, that Massachusetts is going to have one or the other, then I’d rather have civil unions than gay marriage. But I’d rather have neither.”
Let’s hope the Massachusetts citizenry would rather not re-elect such a close-minded person to their highest state seat. And let’s hope he isn’t the Great White Hope of the GOP for 2008.
In a way I think that this might be good news. If this had come to a vote in 2006, it’s possible that the state might have banned gay marriage in favor of civil unions. (Romney who is clearly running for president doesn’t want either on his watch.)
By the time 2008 rolls around people will be so used to equal marriage that the citizenry will reject a ban.
Comment by Abby 06.17.05 @ 12:58 amI can only hope you’re right, Abby, but in a state where someone like Romney can get elected at the same time we have Kennedy and Kerry as our Senators, I fear the worst. The horrifically bigoted Catholic Church isn’t doing civil rights any favors, either, by offering their help in the matter, and with the hate mandate coming from on-high, you’ll be hard-pressed to find a free-thinking Catholic to vote against the measure.
I’m really embarrassed to live in MA right now, and even more embarrassed that I first heard about this on this blog – the local news isn’t picking it up, which, to me, says that (a) the news channels think people will probably support it, and (b) that basic civil rights are extremely vulnerable here in the home of the Freedom Trail.
For the life of me, I can’t understand how a rational person could support legislation like this. Would it be okay to amend the constitution denying marriage to naturalized American citizens? Is it okay to not allow blacks hospital visitation rights? What about quadriplegics – should we not give quadriplegics who marry the same benefits as healthy people? Then why not gays? People are people, and deserve the same treatment no matter what they’re like.
I’ve said this for a looooooong time – the problem here is not what the right-wing religious nutjobs label “a lifestyle choice,” it’s the right-wing religious nutjob language in our government’s laws. Remove “marriage” from all the laws on the books and replace it with “civil unions.” Everyone who is partnered is part of a civil union. If you want to get married, go to a church – it’s an idea rooted in religion, and it should stay within a religious context. If gays want to get married, they’ll have to take it up with their pastor, but without religion in goverment to cloud the issue anymore, I think it’ll be impossible to view this as anything other than an attempt to deny American citizens their civil rights.
Comment by forepac 06.17.05 @ 9:53 am