And the fight continues...

Well another page has been written in the history of the gay marriage saga. Yesterday, June 10, 2006, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) unanimously voted to certify the ballot initiative that will be voted on at tomorrow's Constitional Convention (ConCon).

Some people might not like what I'm about to say, and I find myself in the weird position of being supportive of something I don't particularly like. Personally I feel that the SJC made the right decision in certifying the ballot. That doesn't mean I like the ballot, or that I don't think that there are plenty of other things wrong with it.

For those that don't know what I'm talking about, the ballot initiative in question is one that seeks to amend the MA Constitution to state that Marriage will be defined as being between one man and one woman. I'll skip over the drama and scandal of the process that led to getting the signatures and get to the part of the issue that was taken to the SJC.

This whole issue revolves around the certification of the ballot question. All voter ballot initiatives need to be certified by the Attourney General in order to get put on the ballot. GLAD tried to block this certifcation citing that the MA Constitution states that you cannot seek to overturn a judicial judgement by a ballot initiative. The rationale for this is so you can't run to the voters every time you don't like a decision handed down by the courts. All well and good, right? Sounds like a fairly reasonable argument to block the initiative. Well, Thomas Reilly (MA AG) certified it saying that the rule cited by GLAD didn't apply in this case. GLAD then sued Reilly and the decision was brought to the SJC. As you see now the SJC supported the certification of the ballot.

I want to see this ballot be defeated just as much as anyone but I really don't think it was wise to try to attack it in this way. The key difference that makes this ballot certifiable is that it seeks to ammend the constitution. It seeks to change the fundamental law and basis for the SJC decision. If the ballot was simply "Vote yes to overturn the SJC decision", I'd agree with GLAD 100%, but that's not the case. If this case had been decided against the ballot, there would have been far reaching implications any time the court made a ruling based on the existing code of laws and someone didn't want the laws changed for future rulings. I feel that every time we get to close to the "win at any costs" mentality where we are willing to find any loophole and exploit any opportunity to our advantage we become just a little bit more like the people we say we are opposing. It only gives the other side rational arguments against us.

I'm hoping for a miracle tomorrow so that we somehow get 151 people to vote no on the ballot and it gets wiped out for good. Personally, I think the mantra of some representatives to "let the people vote" is cowardly and naively simplistic. The point of the ConCon is not to simply rubberstamp any ballot and send it to the voters. If its simply a matter of "let the people vote" then voter initiatives would simply be done by signature drives. The ConCon is there as a check and balance to the voter initiative process. The legislaters should vote their hearts and the concience and vote an initiative through on its merits. If they feel that its a good law or at least one they agree is worthwhile, then pass it on to the voters. If they feel it is bad law or that it is not in the best interest of the commenwealth they should vote it down and doing so does not deny the voters their rights. It simply proves that there is not enough support for the measure that they are trying to pass.

I truly doubt that the measure will be blocked tomorrow and it will at least go to the 2007 ConCon. Maybe by that time we'll have the votes to kill it, maybe not. I just hope that by 2008, with 4 years of same-sex marriages that haven't caused the destruction of civilization, that maybe we'll have enough voter support to kill this measure, once and for all. Part of me wants this to go to the voters just for the strength that would come from winning on a voter ballot question. It would cement the fact that its a minority that has the largest problem with same-sex marriage and take the wind out of the sails of further attempts to recind the existing right of same-sex couples to marry.