Friday, August 19, 2005

Lawmaker Doesn't Know the Definition of "Legal"

Bay Windows recently reported on East Boston State Rep. Anthony Petruccelli's announcement that he will oppose any amendment which will take away the "right" to homosexual "marriage". What is striking in his "thinking" is that it is all based on emotions.

As a "lawmaker", he should realize that since the Legislature has failed to act on this issue of "marriage" (as required by the state constitution), homosexual "marriages" are without statutory basis so are still not legal. Yet he says he doesn't want to take away "something that they cherish". But where do "rights" come from -- the Supreme Judicial Court, or God? We may write constitutions to protect rights, but no human institution creates rights.

Would Rep. Petruccelli please define "marriage" and its role in society, and not just think about it on an emotional level?

From Bay Windows (August 18, 2005):

While he says he has always believed that same-sex couples should be treated equally to heterosexual couples, Petruccelli said his vote for the so-called compromise amendment resulted in part from his belief that the convention was destined to pass some version of an amendment and that supporting the least drastic of those was the right thing to do. What led him to change his mind, ultimately, was the reality that as of May 17, 2004, same-sex couples in Massachusetts entered into legal marriages and it would be wrong to now roll back their rights.

"I think that has changed things dramatically," said Petruccelli. "And it makes it easy for me to look at this issue and say, who am I to take away something from someone that they cherish, that they already have? I think that is probably the strongest aspect of why I feel strongly about voting no in the [next] convention." Petrucelli noted that he and his wife will celebrate their three-year anniversary in September and while their lives have not changed since May 17, 2004, it has impacted the lives of same-sex couples positively. "Its made stronger unions among people who have not had the opportunity up until that time to get married," he observes. Civil unions, he has concluded, would obviously be "a major step backwards in equality." The lawmaker also said he is opposed to the initiative petition drive recently launched by same-sex marriage opponents to put a marriage ban on the 2008 ballot.