Q. What’s the difference between a typical Klansman and a typical opponent of gay marriage?
A. One burns crosses while the other misuses them to prop up his/her hatred.
Make no mistake – yesterday was an absolutely huge day in Massachusetts, and the future may prove it to be the start of something significant nationwide. By a vote of 151 to 45, the Massachusetts legislature killed a proposed amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution that would, in effect, ban gay marriage.
For those of you not familiar with Massachusetts, it became the first state to legalize gay marriage in 2004 when the state Supreme Court declared that banning gay marriage would be in violation of the state constitution. In the time since, those who would seek to deny civil rights have aggressively (and according to some reports – illegally) gone on the warpath. According to the Massachusetts Constitution (the oldest in America), if enough people sign off on their desire to vote on a proposed amendment, session(s) of the Constitutional Convention are used to determine whether or not the issue should be added to the general election ballot. 1/4 of the the legislature must approve of putting the amendment on the ballot on two separate occasions. On one previous occasion, the legislature had approved of placing the amendment question on ballots, but yesterday, they made a firm stand against the specter of politics driven by misguided hate and misinterpreted Bible passages. As a result, gay marriage is pretty much guaranteed to be legal in Massachusetts until 2012 at the earliest. Of course, you could have read that in any respectable news source. Instead of merely summarizing facts, I plan on offering cogent and honest analysis of the issues. There are several points to be covered here:
I. Concisely, the actual effects of yesterday’s political decision are that people who are truly in love can get married in this state, regardless of their sexual preference. Anyone who is married will receive full legal recognition and the benefits associated with such legislation. It is really that simple – love wins.
II. Of course, in any conflict, there is a side that wins, and a side full of losers. In the internet of covering both sides of the story, we must speak of Kris Mineau and some of his followers:

They have made several arguments against both the concept of gay marriage and the way in which the politicking regarding the issue was conducted. All the arguments are about as solid as a Nerf ball. In no particular order:
A. Gay marriage somehow harms all other marriages.
For this one, I’m going to let the readers do the talking. Simply add a comment to this entry that reflects how your marriage fell apart once the gays began marrying. Be sure to demonstrate the connection between the ability of gays to marry and your own failed relationship(s). I’ll make a deal with my entire readership: if one person writes in with a convincing, compelling story of how gay marriage has destroyed his/her own marriage, then I will not only switch my beliefs on this issue, I will become a Yankees fan. (Yes, I am so certain that no one will pass the challenge that I am offering my soul as the reward.)
B. Gays getting married doesn’t gibe with my religious beliefs.
Too bad, buttercup. The United States was intentionally founded with a separation of church and state so that religious doctrine didn’t determine political policy. I wonder why that might be? Oh, riiiiiight, because the Pilgrims were fleeing a country where religion had become overly intertwined with politics and the results were disastrous. Many falsely claim that the Founding Fathers were religious zealots and wanted the U.S. to be a Christian nation. This quote might defeat that argument:
“As the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion…”
So who said it? Some liberal like Noam Chomsky looking to write revisionist history? Someone who didn’t trust religion? Well…1 out of 2, as it turns out. Joel Barlow made that claim as part of the Treaty of Tripoli, a document he wrote. The Treaty of Tripoli was unanimously approved by the Senate and approved by the President. In1797. You’ll never guess who was serving in the Senate at that time – many of the Founding Fathers. The President’s name? Some guy named John Adams. D’oh! I guess actual U.S. history doesn’t support the idea that religion should be interwined with politics. If you are sufficiently against the idea of gay marriage for religious reasons, just spend your entire life in a Catholic or Mormon church, and you won’t have to see any gay weddings. Of course, you won’t see much of anything else, either, but hey, sometimes you gotta make sacrifices for your beliefs, right?
C. Not allowing the people to vote was a perversion of American democracy.
Actually, that argument demonstrates a woeful understanding of United States civics. In a true, or direct democracy, everyone is allowed to vote on the important issues. This system works well in small town meetings and in family decisions about where to go for dinner. Unfortunately, such freedoms are rather impossible to guarantee in a nation of almost 300 million. Taking a roll call vote about whether to eat at Papa Gino’s or The Chateau would take a little longer than is practical. Recognizing that, those who created America (back to them, again) made America not a democracy, but a democratic republic.
As such, everyone over the age of 18 is allowed to participate in the political process; either by running for political office or by voting for those who do run for office. (It is true that it is nearly impossible to run for higher office in this country unless you are straight, white, Christian, and filthy rich, but that is a complex issue and deserves a different post). Once an election has concluded, those who have assumed office are then given the task of representing their constituents’ beliefs.
In this case, about 170,000 people (assuming that many of the charges of misconduct by those collecting signatures are shown to be false) demonstrated that they wished to vote on the proposed amendment by signing a petition. After doing a little simple math with the numbers provided by the U.S. Census Bureau, the estimated voting-age population of Massachusetts in 2006 was 4,969,513. Doing a little more math:
170,000 / 4,969,513 = 0.0342085
Wow, 3 percent. I’m sure about 3 percent of Americans believe that we would be better off eating a diet consisting solely of puppies, but that doesn’t mean that it’s a good idea, or that the government should enact legislation that forces people to eat Fido for breakfast. For those conservative readers of mine who are whining about how a true democracy would have prevented this catastrophe, a couple of things:
1. Actually, it seems likely that in this most liberal of states, gay marriage would be upheld by the citizenry, even though repugnant Republicans from all around the country would open their checkbooks to lobby against it.
2. Consider how well you’ve made out from a system that deemphasizes direct democracy. I could go on forever about how different and better the country would be, but 3 things immediately stand out:
a. Al Gore, who received more votes, would have won the 2000 election.
b. The Iraq War would have ended months (if not years) ago.
c. The Patriot Act would not have passed.
I am not an inherent supporter of the democratic republic model, but it is the form of government in the U.S. Until that changes, we must all learn to live with it. If any of you want to change it, go out there and get some signatures calling for Constitutional amendments – I hear that tactic works real well. Before you do so, you might want to take a step back and consider how ridiculously indefensible the logic you employ really is; so poor as to be laughed at. Take it away, Stephen...
P.S. Congratulations to all of those couples, both gay and straight, whose marriages are now legal, or whose marriages carry added significance now that the right to wed has been made universal by the Massachusetts legislature. I know that if I am ever fortunate enough to marry the woman I love, the marriage will mean more because I know that I am not entering into an exclusionary contract. Lastly, to the Massachusetts legislature, thank you:

