Massachussetts gay marriage ban heads to voters

Looks like the gay marriage ban--Mitt Romney's way of showing his party he's a conservative by screwing over the citizens he used to represent--is heading to voters in '08.

So I guess we'll be allowed to vote on a civil right issue. Certainly we'd not be allowed to vote on whether Catholics are allowed to marry. But leaving that aside I think the ban will fail. Sure, there's immense anger built up against the legislature and the courts that might make the vote very, very close. And yes, voting to support civil rights by a "no" vote might confuse some voters and when it's close, confusion is bad.

However, the rhetorical argument is on the side of gay marriage. All the faux fear the other side wants to instill in voters will have had up to 4 years to prove itself simply hateful lies. Has there been a mass migration of homosexuals from around the world to Massachussetts? No. Have heterosexual marriage rates declined--or divorces increased--as a result? No. etc., etc.

Basically all the arguments can be countered with: it's been four years, and have you noticed anything bad happening as a result of gay marriage? No! On the other hand, it's been four years, and have your gay friends and neighbors been able to enjoy some fundamental civil rights? Yes!

Moreover, when the ban fails it'll be a clear message to the rest of the country that this was not a case of "activist" judges forcing us to accept something we don't want. Rather, the people will have knowingly accepted the rights of others to live without intrusive government interference.