massachusetts law makers reject gay marriage ban!

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Irvine511

Blue Crack Supplier
Joined
Dec 4, 2003
Messages
34,498
Location
the West Coast
Mass. Lawmakers Reject Gay Marriage Ban

By STEVE LeBLANC
Associated Press Writer
3 minutes ago



BOSTON - A year after the nation's first state-sanctioned same-sex marriages, the Massachusetts Legislature on Wednesday rejected a proposed constitutional amendment that sought to ban gay marriage but legalize civil unions.

It was the second time the Legislature had confronted the measure, which was designed to be put before voters on a statewide ballot in 2006. Under state law, lawmakers were required to approve the measure in two consecutive sessions before it could move forward.

After less than two hours of debate, a joint session of the House and Senate voted 157-39 against the measure.

It was a striking departure from a year earlier, when hundreds of protesters converged on Beacon Hill and sharply divided legislators spent long hours debating the issue.

This year, the crowds were tamer and some legislators who had initially supported the proposed change to the state constitution said they no longer felt right about denying the right of marriage to thousands of same-sex couples.

"Gay marriage has begun, and life has not changed for the citizens of the commonwealth, with the exception of those who can now marry," said state Sen. Brian Lees, a Republican who had been a co-sponsor of the amendment. "This amendment which was an appropriate measure or compromise a year ago, is no longer, I feel, a compromise today."

The proposal also was opposed by critics of gay marriage, who want to push for a more restrictive measure.

"The union of two women and two men can never consummate a marriage. It's physically impossible," said state Rep. Phil Travis, a Democrat. "The other 49 states are right and we are wrong."

Lawmakers already are preparing for a battle over another proposed amendment that would ban both gay marriage and civil unions. The earliest that initiative could end up on the ballot is 2008.

The state's highest court ruled in November 2003 that same-sex couples had a right under the state constitution to marry. The first weddings took place on May 17, 2004 — two months after lawmakers began the process of trying to change the constitution to reverse the court's ruling.

Since then, more than 6,100 couples have married.

Within a year of the first Massachusetts marriages, 11 states pushed through constitutional amendments banning gay marriage, joining six others that had done so earlier.

The Connecticut Legislature approved civil unions in April, joining Vermont in creating the designation that creates the same legal rights as marriage without calling it such. Earlier this month, California lawmakers passed legislation legalizing same-sex marriage, though Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has promised to veto it.

Although more than 6,100 same-sex couples were married in Massachusetts, the state barred out-of-state couples from getting married here, citing a 1913 law that prohibits couples from marrying in Massachusetts if their union would be illegal in their home states. A lawsuit challenging the legality of that law is pending before the SJC.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050914/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage
 
I hadn't heard that yet

"The union of two women and two men can never consummate a marriage. It's physically impossible," said state Rep. Phil Travis, a Democrat. "The other 49 states are right and we are wrong."


I've never heard of this guy, whatever :yawn: I didn't know they were talking about sex like that up at the good ol State House
 
U2democrat said:
See this is why i want to go into politics...it's all about sex! :wink:

:lol:!

Anywho, very awesome news :yes: :up:. Strongly disagree with that Democrat that MrsSpringsteen quoted from, too...yeah, whatever, buddy. I for one hope this catches on to the other 49 states (actually, technically, wouldn't it be, like, 47? 'Cause Vermont recognizes civil unions, and doesn't Hawaii do something similar?)

Angela
 
As much as I support Gay marriage.....

I disagree with this. The people deserve a chance to vote on this issue.
 
Dreadsox said:
As much as I support Gay marriage.....

I disagree with this. The people deserve a chance to vote on this issue.



why? should civil rights only be conferred onto a minority by the majority? if this were the case, should the citizens of, say, Alabama be able to vote on the legality of inter-racial marriage?
 
No, because I think it would pass....making it stand on much firmer ground.
 
Dreadsox said:
No, because I think it would pass....making it stand on much firmer ground.


oh, very interesting.

had not thought of that.

while i think that might work in much of new england and perhaps california, i don't think it's a good precedent to set for other states where you might never get a majority of voters to agree to giving 5% of the population full citizenship.

but i'm very encouraged that you think it would pass if put to the vote in MA. :)
 
Moonlit_Angel said:


:lol:!

Anywho, very awesome news :yes: :up:. Strongly disagree with that Democrat that MrsSpringsteen quoted from, too...yeah, whatever, buddy. I for one hope this catches on to the other 49 states (actually, technically, wouldn't it be, like, 47? 'Cause Vermont recognizes civil unions, and doesn't Hawaii do something similar?)

Angela

If I'm correct, I believe Connecticut does too.

Anyways, I'm happy to hear this. :yes: :up: I can only hope that one day the resr of the nation will follow Massachusetts' lead and legalize gay marriage. Obviously, with the mindsets of certain areas of the country it's a longshot. :sigh: I haven't seen any good reasons as to why it should not be legalized. :shrug: Not allowing people to marry based on their sexual orientation is discrimination, plain and simple.

If it should get on the ballot, I will be eligible to vote when it is put on. (I live in Massachusetts and I turn 18 in March) And I will definetly be voting for gay marriage. :yes:
 
Irvine511 said:



oh, very interesting.

had not thought of that.

while i think that might work in much of new england and perhaps california, i don't think it's a good precedent to set for other states where you might never get a majority of voters to agree to giving 5% of the population full citizenship.

but i'm very encouraged that you think it would pass if put to the vote in MA. :)

I absolutely 100% believe it would pass. One of my colleague's was married last year at a local church. She also felt this way too...much to my own surprise.
 
Dreadsox said:
As much as I support Gay marriage.....

I disagree with this. The people deserve a chance to vote on this issue.



it might pass in a couple of states, so what

that was the case with civil rights


states should not have the right to vote bigoted laws up or down
 
daygloeyes2 said:
If I'm correct, I believe Connecticut does too.

Oh, yeah-if that's the case, yes, let's add them to the list, too :).

Originally posted by daygloeyes2
I haven't seen any good reasons as to why it should not be legalized. :shrug: Not allowing people to marry based on their sexual orientation is discrimination, plain and simple.

No argument here. It really does tend to amaze me that there's still debate over this in many areas.

Originally posted by daygloeyes2
If it should get on the ballot, I will be eligible to vote when it is put on. (I live in Massachusetts and I turn 18 in March) And I will definetly be voting for gay marriage. :yes:

:up:. I'd do the same should anything like that ever come up here in Wyoming.

Angela
 
Dreadsox said:
No, because I think it would pass....making it stand on much firmer ground.

You may get your wish. There's still the issue of a petition that's was just certified to get started.

I have lost my optimism and faith in humanity, so I am no longer surprised at what lengths they will go to make others miserable.

Hoc natura est insitum, ut quem timueris, hunc semper oderis.

Melon
 
I still have faith in humanity...

If it is put on the ballot....and I am wrong...I will have to revisit this.
 
Irvine511 said:




should civil rights only be conferred onto a minority by the majority? if this were the case, should the citizens of, say, Alabama be able to vote on the legality of inter-racial marriage?

Good try, but we did vote on it in 2000, and the vote to repeal a vintage state Constitution law banning inter-racial marriage WON.

Republican Attorney General Bill Pryor, who is now a member of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, backed the repeal, lambasting the marriage ban as "obsolete, unenforceable and uncivilized." I agree with him. He's also the one who, as AG, led the State's legal battle against "Ten Commandments Judge" (and short-term Chief Justice) Roy Moore.

~U2Alabama
 
I still have faith in humanity too, if I give that notion up there's no point in going on

I understand though.. certainly I can't understand your pain melon and I never would presume to, but maybe I understand it in some tiny way. I sympathize w/ it, for whatever that's worth.
 
U2Bama said:


Good try, but we did vote on it in 2000, and the vote to repeal a vintage state Constitution law banning inter-racial marriage WON.

Republican Attorney General Bill Pryor, who is now a member of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, backed the repeal, lambasting the marriage ban as "obsolete, unenforceable and uncivilized." I agree with him. He's also the one who, as AG, led the State's legal battle against "Ten Commandments Judge" (and short-term Chief Justice) Roy Moore.



well, i just pulled Alabama out of my hat (given the state's history), but i'm very happy to see that it only took until the year 2000!

those are good words, though -- i think banning gay marriage is "obsolete, unenforceable and uncivilized."
 
Irvine511 said:

but i'm very happy to see that it only took until the year 2000!


I agree 2000 was way too long. We have a horrible state Constitution from 1901, reflective of the bitter post-Reconstructionists of the day. We've tried to get rid of it; so far we've only been able to mend it clause by clause.

~U2Alabama
 
Dreadsox said:
As much as I support Gay marriage.....

I disagree with this. The people deserve a chance to vote on this issue.

I agree. The people of Massachusetts should be able to vote on this. It would send a clear message to the other states.
 
Last edited:
verte76 said:


I agree. The people of Massachusetts should be able to vote on this. It would send a clear message to the other states.

and should the people of various states be able to vote on abortion?
 
Back
Top Bottom