Those following the gay marriage debate going on currently in the Massachusetts Constitutional Convention will undoubtedly be reading the news coverage. But I’d encourage everyone to take a look at some of the thorough coverage of the proceedings - this really is a fascinating read.
For drama, the Rick Klein’s (Boston Globe) rundown of the legislative maneuverings can’t be beat. House Speaker Thomas Finneran is living up to his guileless best, only this time it seems to have backfired.
David Bernstein of the Boston Phoenix rates the speakers during the convention debate, summarizing their positions and effectiveness - from an admittedly pro-gay-marriage vantage. My favorite bit:
Finneran tried to rebut the charge by claiming that the state legislature has made “steady, sustainable, indeed astounding progress on gay and lesbian issues.” For example, he proudly said, the state has never passed a Defense of Marriage Act (DoMA).
Try to follow his logic: We have not passed a hetero-only marriage law; this means that the SJC is wrong in claiming that hetero-only marriage laws are discriminatory; and this means we must reverse the SJC by passing a hetero-only marriage law
The Phoenix provided the best regular updates yesterday and I imagine they’ll continue today. They’ve done an excellent job reporting - and have been great editorially as well.
Among the local blogs, Andrew Bayer has been providing updates and reactions. Gene offers a transcript of convention procedings. And Angela has an excellent blog devoted entirely to Massachusetts’ civil marriage prospects.
I will say that if the Convention passes this amendment, I don’t know that I’ll be able to take another two years of debate and political maneuvering. I’m already exhausted emotionally.
ADDENDUM: After perusing the major national lefty blogs, I’m wondering why Massachusetts’ convention hasn’t gotten more attention. You see an occasional mention of the proposed national consitutional amendment, and you see some analysis of what MA gay marriage issue means for John Kerry. But no real excitement or engagement with the issue, no sense that something momentous and historical is going on.
What gives? Is my perspective clouded by being in Boston, working a block from the Statehouse, knowing people who are going to get married come May? Is what crazy, liberal Massachusetts does so marginal to the country? Or is there something amiss with liberal blogosphere relative to gay issues? I’m not saying that the major figures (Josh Marshall, Eric Alterman, Joe Conason, Kevin Drum, Atrios, Matthew Yglesias, Max Sawicky, the list goes on) don’t support gay rights, but they definitely seem excited more about election horseraces and policy details than the cultural life of gays and lesbians. I suspect that the commentators are mostly straight men, though clearly I don’t have real knowledge of most. Between the Democratic nomination race and the unfolding story of Bush’s military record, there are a lot of other developments to be concerned about, but I find the oversight of the gay marriage battle odd, if not troubling.
No comments have been added to this post yet.