massachusetts law makers reject gay marriage ban! - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 09-14-2005, 03:38 PM   #1
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 05:18 AM
massachusetts law makers reject gay marriage ban!

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/...s/gay_marriage
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 09-14-2005, 03:46 PM   #2
pax
ONE
love, blood, life
 
pax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Ewen's new American home
Posts: 11,412
Local Time: 06:18 AM
__________________

__________________
and you hunger for the time
time to heal, desire, time


Join Amnesty.
pax is offline  
Old 09-14-2005, 04:26 PM   #3
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,974
Local Time: 05:18 AM
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 I didn't know they were talking about sex like that up at the good ol State House
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 09-14-2005, 04:56 PM   #4
Blue Crack Addict
 
U2democrat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: England by way of 'Murica.
Posts: 22,140
Local Time: 10:18 AM
See this is why i want to go into politics...it's all about sex!
__________________
U2democrat is offline  
Old 09-14-2005, 05:07 PM   #5
Blue Crack Addict
 
Doozer61's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Setting up house on Scooter's Star
Posts: 20,218
Local Time: 02:18 AM



who should i ask???
__________________
Doozer61 is offline  
Old 09-14-2005, 05:13 PM   #6
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,255
Local Time: 04:18 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2democrat
See this is why i want to go into politics...it's all about sex!
!

Anywho, very awesome news . 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
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is offline  
Old 09-14-2005, 05:18 PM   #7
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 05:18 AM
As much as I support Gay marriage.....

I disagree with this. The people deserve a chance to vote on this issue.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 09-14-2005, 05:22 PM   #8
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 05:18 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
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?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 09-14-2005, 05:33 PM   #9
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 05:18 AM
No, because I think it would pass....making it stand on much firmer ground.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 09-14-2005, 05:35 PM   #10
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 05:18 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
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.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 09-14-2005, 05:41 PM   #11
Blue Crack Addict
 
daygloeyes2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: No Emily's Allowed
Posts: 26,459
Local Time: 05:18 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Moonlit_Angel


!

Anywho, very awesome news . 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. 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. I haven't seen any good reasons as to why it should not be legalized. 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.
__________________
daygloeyes2 is offline  
Old 09-14-2005, 05:41 PM   #12
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 05:18 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511



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 is offline  
Old 09-14-2005, 05:53 PM   #13
The Fly
 
deep in HELL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: my own private Hell!
Posts: 75
Local Time: 03:18 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
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
__________________
deep in HELL is offline  
Old 09-14-2005, 06:29 PM   #14
Blue Crack Addict
 
phanan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: in the darkness on the edge of town
Posts: 25,060
Local Time: 05:18 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
No, because I think it would pass....making it stand on much firmer ground.
__________________
phanan is offline  
Old 09-14-2005, 06:48 PM   #15
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,255
Local Time: 04:18 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by daygloeyes2
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 .

Quote:
Originally posted by daygloeyes2
I haven't seen any good reasons as to why it should not be legalized. 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.

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

Angela
__________________

__________________
Moonlit_Angel is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:18 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com