MA: Legislators Set on Banning Gay Marriage

[Frodo]

Same-Sex Marriage Setback in Massachusetts

By PAM BELLUCK
Published: January 3, 2007

BOSTON, Jan. 2 — Massachusetts, the only state where same-sex marriage is legal, took a first step toward possibly banning it Tuesday when legislators voted to advance a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union between a man and a woman.

The amendment now requires the approval of at least 50 legislators in another vote in the 2007-8 session. Then it would be placed on the November 2008 ballot as a referendum question.

If it passed, the amendment would not invalidate the more than 8,000 same-sex marriages that have taken place since they became legal in May 2004. But it would prevent future marriages of gay men and lesbians.

“This is democracy in action,” said Kris Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute, which sponsored the amendment. “It’s giving people the opportunity to vote on the most essential institution in human existence — marriage.”

Arline Isaacson, co-chairwoman of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus, choked back tears.

“The price that our children and families will pay is so severe that we simply have to recommit ourselves to fight this some more,” she said.

[bullmoose88]

I wonder what sort of backlash this will have...more liberal democrats mounting primary challenges? Or some sort of Republican resurgence (however small) where the candidates actually position themselves as more liberal than the democrats voting for a ban?

[TheresNoMoney]

I feel confident that the voters of Massachusetts would strike down the amendment by a fairly comfortable margin.

Gay marriage has been allowed in Massachusetts for over 2 years now with no ill effects. People are generally fine with it.

[Gabu]

I had hoped that gay marriage being legal in Massachusetts would make people realize that gay marriage does not cause the downfall of families and civilization at large, but apparently some people are too stupid to let opposing evidence get in the way of their opinions.

[bullmoose88]

I had hoped that gay marriage being legal in Massachusetts would make people realize that gay marriage does not cause the downfall of families and civilization at large, but apparently some people are too stupid to let opposing evidence get in the way of their opinions.

BUT JESUS SAID GAYS MARRYING WOULD BE THE DOWNFALL OF SOCIETY...

Strike Jesus...replace with man made church(es)...correct verb pluralization as necessary.

[TheresNoMoney]

but apparently some people are too stupid to let opposing evidence get in the way of their opinions.

I actually do hope it goes to a vote in 2008, because it will show the rest of the country that gay marriage can gain majority support.

And hell, there are quite a few states that would allow civil unions as well. I'm pretty sure that my home state of New Hampshire would support civil unions.

[bullmoose88]

but apparently some people are too stupid to let opposing evidence get in the way of their opinions.

I actually do hope it goes to a vote in 2008, because it will show the rest of the country that gay marriage can gain majority support.

And hell, there are quite a few states that would allow civil unions as well. I'm pretty sure that my home state of New Hampshire would support civil unions.

I'm surprised its not legal there already...you guys, republican and democratic alike are pretty anti gubment.

[TheresNoMoney]

I'm surprised its not legal there already...you guys, republican and democratic alike are pretty anti gubment.

There's a pretty good chance that we wil pass civil unions here sometime in the next 2 years.

[Gabu]

but apparently some people are too stupid to let opposing evidence get in the way of their opinions.

I actually do hope it goes to a vote in 2008, because it will show the rest of the country that gay marriage can gain majority support.

And hell, there are quite a few states that would allow civil unions as well. I'm pretty sure that my home state of New Hampshire would support civil unions.

I do recall seeing a poll a while ago that had something like 51% of Massachusetts residents in support of gay marriage, though obviously that number will likely have changed since then.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Civil unions on a nationwide basis are 10-20 years away. Gay Marriage could take longer.

[TheresNoMoney]

Civil unions on a nationwide basis are 10-20 years away. Gay Marriage could take longer.

I think you're right.

[KEmperor]

Nothing i love better then arguing about gay marriage all day.

You need a hobby.

[KEmperor]

No you weren't.

[Ebowed]

What's the point of having the Massachusetts legislature so heavily controlled by Democrats if it passes shit like this?

This is Massachusetts, for God's sake.  Members of the legislature voting in favor should be expelled from the party for homophobia.

[Mr. Paleoconservative]

Beyond my personal views on the subject, I am pleased to see that the people might FINALLY get a chance to decide on the issue.  It is a shame that it has taken this long to even get the possibility of a vote so that the people can decide.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

What's the point of having the Massachusetts legislature so heavily controlled by Democrats if it passes stuff like this?

Perhaps because they feel that judges shouldn't be making law?

[Ebowed]

What's the point of having the Massachusetts legislature so heavily controlled by Democrats if it passes stuff like this?

Perhaps because they feel that judges shouldn't be making law?

The same people would all vote for an amendment that bypassed a public vote.  No one in public office actually, consistently cares about judicial activism.  It's all about "protecting marriage."

[memphis]

This is such crap. Other people's rights shouldn't be up for the public's vote. Also, I fail to see any harm caused to hetero marriage in Massachusetts, the state with the lowest divorce rate in the country.

[Alcon]

As much as I empathise with the anti-activism stand from a legal perspective, I can't help but feel that conservatives are demanding "special treatment" for an issue when they go as far as to say that even legislatures shouldn't be able to decide the issue á la Schwarzenegger.  It seems that a body elected solely to legislate should, err, have that authority.

I genuinely hope that the voters of Massachusetts do the right thing and weigh the damages of having gay marriage (none apparent to me thus far) against the revocation of the rights and security given to those who have married.

[MasterJedi]

Hopefully the people will get to vote on this eventually but they'll vote for gay marriage and then try to force the rest of the country to go along with them.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I don't see anything wrong with holding a vote.  I think the court overstepped its bounds when it ordered the legalization of gay marriage, and the people should decide whether they want to continue it or not.

If gay marriage is as popular in Massachusetts as some people say it is, then those who support it should have nothing to worry about.  It would actually be to their benefit to see it get majority support somewhere.

Gay marriage supporters are making the same mistakes that abortion supporters made, and if they continue, they'll still be fighting about it in 30 years, and sweating over every court appointment.

^^^

[Filuwaúrdjan]

What's the point of having the Massachusetts legislature so heavily controlled by Democrats if it passes shit like this?

Do you know how the Democrats took control of the Massachusetts legislature in the first place?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Massachusetts isn't really the sort of place that people think it is.

[Alcon]

Al, could you expand on that a bit?  Even if it was meant rhetorically, I'm curious - I have no idea how the Democrats came how to control the legislature.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Al, could you expand on that a bit?  Even if it was meant rhetorically, I'm curious - I have no idea how the Democrats came how to control the legislature.

They took the State House in '48 (the State Senate fell at a later date IIRC; not entirely sure when) because of open co-operation with the Catholic Church over what Tip O'Neill always called an anti-abortion measure (it was a bit more than just that IIRC; something to do with married couples I think. Can't recall the exact details) that was on the ballot that year; something that sent Catholic turnout through the roof, especially in working class areas.
Until they faded away into insignificance, the Massachusetts Republicans tended to be significantly more socially liberal than the Massachusetts Democrats (in fact I'll take a guess that a significant percentage of the Democratic legislators opposed to putting this issue to a vote would have been Republicans a few decades ago).

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

BUT JESUS SAID GAYS MARRYING WOULD BE THE DOWNFALL OF SOCIETY...

Strike Jesus...replace with man made church(es)...correct verb pluralization as necessary.

Care to quote how Jesus defined marriage in order to set the record straight?  Here let me help you...

Mat 19:4-6 "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one."

So, regardless what the man-made religions say, Jesus himself upheld the Genesis definition of marriage as being between a male and a female.