Thursday, October 19, 2006

Kerry No Friend of Rights

The Herald editors have been parsimonious in revealing their candidate interviews. When they do set out a snack, it's been a good one.

Kimberly Atkins put a big batch of Kerry cookies out. Among them are her comments on the post-election same-sex marriage hooha in the making. Healey said:
I support traditional marriage so I would like to see a vote here in Massachusetts. I think that any time someone goes through this ballot initiative process, and collects the requisite number of signatures it is, again, a requirement of our democracy that that be put on the ballot for a vote.

Now I know the legislature has the ability to upend that process and block that process. But I think that they would be making a mistake. In this case a very controversial court decision instituted gay marriage here, and we would have the opportunity to put this issue to rest one way or another by allowing a vote. And I think that is what we should do. I think we should have that vote.

(As a voter) I would vote for the amendment, but then I would also (as governor) introduce legislation that would institute civil unions. I think it is very important that we have legal protection for same sex couples. And I was very disappointed that the compromise legislation that was before the legislature previously that simultaneously put into place a ban on gay marriage and also instituted civil unions was not acted on. I think that was a more appropriate solution.
So, consider that Healey:
  • Wants to strip a group of citizens -- homosexuals in this case -- of existing rights and protections.
  • Believes that civil rights of a minority are a fit ballot initiative subject for a vote by the majority -- Deval Patrick firmly opposes this.
  • Would propose to have the legislature begin a process of an undefined form of civil unions to "have legal protection for same sex couples." She might look up long enough to see that we currently have legal protection for same-sex couples, that which she would remove.
Mini-Grovel: I was at a conference and not posting. It will take me a bit to catch up.

Tags: , , , , ,


Ryan said...

As if we'd trust Kerry Healey to institute Civil Unions - or think that an adequate compromise. It's live free or die, Kerry, and I pick living free.

Aaron said...

Good post, but can I make a special request--that posts with headlines such as this one specify "Healey" rather than "Kerry" b/c the spelling is the same as John Kerry. Just a thought. Maybe it's just me, but when I see "Kerry" I think John, not Healey.

massmarrier said...

Excellent point, blunder. I won't change this because it would cause duplicate posting in places like LeftyBlogs if I change the title.

I'll remember as surely as we can discern the Force and the Dark Side.

Anonymous said...

i always ask earnest hetero supporters of civil unions (also d.p.s and reciprocal beneficiaries) to get divorced and go get themselves a civil union instead. only then do they realize "gee, it's not good enough for me", and so maybe not such a hot idea for gay people either to step back from bona fide marriage. i also like to point out that if they tried civil unionizing, they'd be denied. As far as i know, hetero couples are forbidden by law from getting civil unions. if that doesn't prove the ghetto status of the newfangled institution, i don't know what does.

massmarrier said...

I've never been much for "as good as" for almost anything. In this particular case, it's also an effort to muddle the civil contract v. religious ceremony difference.

If people want a church wedding (most don't), that's between them and their cleric.

Great points, Laurel.