![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
The Massachusetts legislature voted for a state (commonwealth, actually) constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages. The fact that the same amendment would, if ever enacted, also mandate civil unions with all the commonwealth-granted benefits of marriage, would provide some people more consolation than others. But regardless of how one feels about civil unions, this outcome was a major tactical victory in the fight to establish gay marriage itself.
The bigots* are painted into a corner here. Some in-staters may campaign vigorously for the amendment, despite the fact that explicitly calls for civil unions. Others won’t be able to bring themselves to make that fight, despite the fact that by that time same-sex marriages will be taking place in the Commonwealth. Many will even vote against it in the referendum that will occur next year if it gets that far. And, perhaps more importantly, it will be much more difficult for the national bigot* organizations to raise money to campaign for such a referendum. National and local Marriage Freedom advocates, on the other hand, will campaign against it as hard as they can.
Despite the optimism of some here, it was a near-certainty that the legislature would pass some amendment attempting to nullify the court’s decision. This version not only limits the potential damage, it seems a masterwork of poisoning an obnoxious bill with a provision that will lead to its eventual defeat. I don’t know to what degree the current proposed amendment came to the fore as a natural political result of trying to find the middle, and to what degree (if any) it happened because someone with a conscious was well-placed and was thinking ahead. If the latter was much of a factor, there’s someone in the halls of whatever Massachusetts calls its statehouse to whom we owe a big thank you.
*I don’t think that all who oppose same-sex marriage are bigots. But I’ve never encountered an anti-marriage activist who wasn’t.
The bigots* are painted into a corner here. Some in-staters may campaign vigorously for the amendment, despite the fact that explicitly calls for civil unions. Others won’t be able to bring themselves to make that fight, despite the fact that by that time same-sex marriages will be taking place in the Commonwealth. Many will even vote against it in the referendum that will occur next year if it gets that far. And, perhaps more importantly, it will be much more difficult for the national bigot* organizations to raise money to campaign for such a referendum. National and local Marriage Freedom advocates, on the other hand, will campaign against it as hard as they can.
Despite the optimism of some here, it was a near-certainty that the legislature would pass some amendment attempting to nullify the court’s decision. This version not only limits the potential damage, it seems a masterwork of poisoning an obnoxious bill with a provision that will lead to its eventual defeat. I don’t know to what degree the current proposed amendment came to the fore as a natural political result of trying to find the middle, and to what degree (if any) it happened because someone with a conscious was well-placed and was thinking ahead. If the latter was much of a factor, there’s someone in the halls of whatever Massachusetts calls its statehouse to whom we owe a big thank you.
*I don’t think that all who oppose same-sex marriage are bigots. But I’ve never encountered an anti-marriage activist who wasn’t.
