To paraphrase one of our great patriots, Tom Paine (and a pretty cool guy, even for a DWM!), even in the darkest of hours, the flame of liberty can never be completely extinguished. Today, the Massachusetts state legislature has
rejected a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage but allow civil unions:
A year after the nation's first state-sanctioned same-sex marriages began taking place, the Massachusetts Legislature on Wednesday rejected a proposed constitutional amendment that sought to ban gay marriage but legalize civil unions.
It was the second time the Legislature had confronted the measure, which was designed to be put before voters on a statewide ballot in 2006. Under state law, lawmakers were required to approve the measure in two consecutive sessions before it could move forward.
After less than two hours of debate, a joint session of the House and Senate voted 157-39 against the measure.
This doesn't end the fight to protect gay marriage in Massachusetts, but in many ways, its more than halfway there.
More on the lavender flip of the wrist:
As the justified hosannas begin - Oh Lord, let freedom ring! Let your blessings fall on those who strive for justice in the name of love! - there is some...politics to the lopsided victory:
Still, the battle is far from over.
Now, lawmakers are girding for a battle over a more-restrictive proposed constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage but not allow for civil unions. The earliest that initiative could end up on the ballot is 2008.
*
But the remaining proposed amendment -- driven by a citizen petition that requires support from fewer lawmakers to make its way onto a statewide ballot in 2008 -- also was a factor.
Some reluctant supporters of the first proposed amendment -- including Gov. Mitt Romney -- have abandoned it in favor of the stricter measure.
Supporters of the new plan must gather about 65,000 signatures, then submit it to the Legislature for two votes in the constitutional convention before it would go to voters in 2008.
Because citizens must go out and collect signatures first, the legislative bar is far lower: The proposed amendment needs the support of only 50 lawmakers -- 25 percent of the House and Senate -- in two constitutional conventions for it to be put to a vote.
Now, this may sound somewhat dire - that the amendment only failed in order to get a more stricter amendment passed. But, fortunately, this is Massachusetts. (My former home state - Go Pats! Ahem.) There are essentially three, relatively equal sized camps in the state with respect to same-sex nuptials. The group that supports equality under the law, the group that supports bigotry under the law, and a wishy, swishy middle that supports civil unions but opposes gay marriage. The last group - pro civil union, anti-gay marriage - does so for various reasons, some political, some personal, some religious. And its a group that can change:
"Gay marriage has begun, and life has not changed for the citizens of the commonwealth, with the exception of those who can now marry," said state Sen. Brian Lees, an East Longmeadow Republican who had been a co-sponsor of the amendment. "This amendment which was an appropriate measure or compromise a year ago, is no longer, I feel, a compromise today."
*
Some lawmakers say they no longer oppose gay marriage after observing a year of weddings in the state. Others say they couldn't stomach the dilemma that would come with creating two classes of gay and lesbians: one group with full marriage rights, and one without.
Apparently, people can...change. Let's not forget that, when we sit in judgment of our fellows, castigating them as "sheeple", as duped, as fools and ignorants. People can...change. It is a principle that liberalism is founded on - the capacity to change, to grow, to improve. And when people change in fair Liberty's favor, then the sun shines just that brighter, the wind blows that much sweeter, and hope springs...well, you know the rest.
Hosanna! Hosanna! Hosanna!