4th of 21


One more piece in the puzzle.

Main beats New Hamphsire to the marriage equality punch bowl! 

Want to thank Gov. Baldacci? Phone: 207-287-3531 Email: the contact form on this web page.

[It’s A month o’ photos at LD. Here for just words? Please check back in June 1.]

5 thoughts on “4th of 21”

  1. such an exciting day. although, it’s making me nervous for california’s announcement. hope you’ll interupt the radio silence for your take on that news.

    • I’ll definitely post something. Even if it’s a little puzzle piece of the state of California bobbing around in the cr@pper. Okay that’s so pessimistic. I’ll try to keep my thoughts positive. (And my photo concepts perhaps a bit less grodie.)

      I can say right now that if I were a betting man (and I’m neither!), I’d wager the court will be sentimental and release their statement on the 14th, just under a year from last year’s ruling, and also the closest release date to the five year anniversary of the Massachusetts decision.

      What they’ll decide? We’re all bracing for their upholding Prop 8 on narrowly defined grounds that it was indeed a fair proposition. Minority opinions would decry the implications for the court’s ability to uphold its commitment to protect minorities from majoritarian sentiment that would diminish inalienable rights, constitutionally protected. But alas they’d be in the minority. Those last two items — that the right to marry is inalienable, according to the CA supes, and that it’s protected by the constitution — weren’t contested by Prop 8, and by letting 8 stand the supes will be asking the state of CA to swallow a bitter pill about our zany proposition process (constitution has been amended/ changed up over 500 times since we gave ourselves this access to it).

      I do hope, as do others, that some justice will wake up in a sweat in the middle of the night and see his/her name written in history books as obstructionists along the lines of George Wallace (not a direct parallel, but an easily recognizable analogy). And then vote to strike down the Prop. A narrow interpretation of the case against 8 is one thing, the historical impact of rolling back constitutional protections and enabling minority rights to be swept away by a biased majority: that one is going to have long term consequences that (I should think) would keep all the justices awake every night from here to eternity.

    • Ah, well. As one living nearly as far away from NH as can be (at least in the continental US), I can only rely on the insight I get from reading the stuff available on the internet.

      So (she says, hesitating not a bit!), based on all that reading, I think it’s equally likely that he will (a) let it pass into law w/ out signing, it, citing his previous positions on leaving the legislature to its own devices, thereby evading the bullet he might feel an outright signing would mean, at least concerning the anti-gay marriage vote, (b) veto it, citing his past statements that he was opposed to marriage and support of just civil unions, thereby jeopardizing his re-election with an increasing plurality of democrats (he is one, after all) and potentially an easy majority of his statespeople, given the direction things are going, or (c) grow some huevos overnight, perhaps in a fit of envy over his neighboring Governor’s brave move (sure, he doesn’t get to run again, but still, it was classy for Baldacci to sign it so quick), and actually sign it in. Thereby being both bold and forward-thinking. Baldacci has given him a path in his eloquent statement synopsizing his rethinking his previous “civil unions are fine enough” position.

      All of which to say, it looks in my far-away vantage point that there’s a 2/3 chance it’ll fly? With or without his signature? That’s my fingers-crossed-behind-my-back guess.

      Anyone with more insight & info is most welcome to weigh in!

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.