Same Old Song

Both the Globe and Herald covered the anti-same-sex-marriage testimony yesterday. They put the stories inside (B3 and 5 respectively), which is no surprise as the anti guys gave a predictable and pretty lame performance.

Apparently all that's left of this suit and appeal is awaiting its denial by the Supreme Judicial Court and to see whether they bother to comment. They probably won't and shouldn't, because the appeal was solely on whether Justice Roderick Ireland erred in November when he rejected the petition to stop same-sex marriages.

The Darling/Doyle (good name for a pub singer, eh?) appeal strained for argument yesterday. "It's the equivalent of going to the town hall to vote for whether or not we will have a new gymnasium or not, and all of a sudden, you drive by a brand new gymnasium before you've voted," said Chester Darling. Of course, that's not an apt analogy at all. Same-sex marriage was not taking tax-payer funds locally, something that would require a plebiscite.

The legislature, executive branch, independent agencies so empowered, local governments and the courts can create laws and regulations with the effect of law. What the anti folk want is to roll back one of those. It's going to have to work harder and have a much better basis in law and reason to do so.

Everyone seems to assume that this is the end of this particular geste. Perhaps the focus goes back on whether the anti people can gather enough votes in the joint legislative constitutional conference to pass that same amendment again and put it on the 2006 ballot.