On to November 9th — and 7th
by Fr. Roger J. Landry - July 21, 2006
There was justifiable outrage last week when Massachusetts legislators, by a vote of 100-91, pusillanimously adjourned the Constitutional Convention. The original vote on the Marriage Protection Amendment (MPA) was supposed to occur on May 10th, but legislative leaders delayed it until July12th. Now they have postponed action until November 9th.
All sides agree that had a May 10th or a July 12th vote been taken on the Marriage Protection Amendment, it would have safely surpassed the fifty of 200 votes necessary to send it to the 2007 legislative session and closer to the 2008 ballot. This new four-month delay, like the original three month postponement, was agreed upon not because legislators have no time in the next 120 days to take up what remained on the Convention agenda, but because it was pushed by MPA opponents in the hope that it will change the outcome.
Same-sex marriage activists were delighted with the delay, declaring that it would give them time to try to change the votes of legislators presently in favor of giving Massachusetts citizens the final say on the meaning of marriage. They have stated that they believe that their commitment to defeating the MPA will prove greater than the resolve of MPA supporters. In a game of perseverance in the day-to-day grind of lobbying politicians and the public, they are convinced they will triumph. That's why the first challenge for MPA supporters after last week's Beacon Hill chicanery is to prove this supposition wrong, by recommitting themselves to the long-haul and to match and exceed the dogged day-to-day exertion of the gay lobby.
Also happy with the delay were the hundred Machiavellian legislators who thought, in adjourning until two days after legislative elections in November, that they would thereby insulate themselves from the electoral consequences of a controversial and potentially politically-damaging vote. If they're going to cast a vote displeasing to the majority within their districts, so the misanthropic logic says, better to do it two days after an election — when voters will have almost two years to forget it — than in the months immediately leading up to an election. But this cynical strategy will succeed only if voters permit it. They can make the scheme backfire on the legislators by turning the November 7th election into what these legislators are afraid of: a referendum on their position on the MPA.
If that occurs, then these two delays may prove very beneficial. For decades, supporters of traditional morality in the Bay State have relied almost exclusively on a lobbying strategy to defeat harmful measures. When Billy Bulger was Senate President and Thomas Finneran was Speaker of the House, these tactics generally succeeded, as these leaders were able, sometimes almost single-handedly, to derail noxious legislation. But with Robert Travaglini and Sal DiMasi at the helm, that approach is no longer viable. If supporters of traditional morality in the Commonwealth want to prevent future disgraces like May 10th and July 12th, they need to develop an electoral strategy to replace or at least complement the lobbying one of yesteryear. That strategy should begin this year.
By their actions in May and July, state legislative leaders in support of same-sex marriage have shown that they fear that a vote against the MPA before the election would come back to haunt them in November. Moreover, by trying to derail the MPA before it can ever get to the people in 2008, they have also shown that they believe the majority of their fellow citizens will vote to eliminate same-sex marriage, like citizens of nineteen other states have, if given the chance. If November 7th is made a referendum on the MPA, then these indications imply that in most districts of the commonwealth candidates who support it will have the upper hand.
Father Roger J. Landry is pastor of St. Anthony of Padua in New Bedford, MA and Executive Editor of The Anchor, the weekly newspaper of the Diocese of Fall River.
