MA: Legislators Set on Banning Gay Marriage

[memphis]

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.

Should they have held a vote over ending school segregation, allowing interracial marraiges, and a thousand other civil rights decisions decided by the courts? Gay marriage is fundamentally a civil rights issue.

[Colin]

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.

I have to agree completely with Alcon. Though there is nothing wrong with holding a public referenda I believe that same-sex marriage should not be given any special exception to the normal legislative method.

I do hope though that the people of Massachusetts show that gay marriage can have majority support and to give authority and credence to gay marriage legalization.

[GOP = Terrorists]

While they are at it they should Ban Republican Marriage.  I mean the two groups are roughly the same size in Mass (~12% GOP? ~9% Homosexual?).

If you are going to try to save the family the first place to start is by stopping the Ted Haggart's of the world from getting married in the first place.

[bullmoose88]

While they are at it they should Ban Republican Marriage.  I mean the two groups are roughly the same size in Mass (~12% GOP? ~9% Homosexual?).

If you are going to try to save the family the first place to start is by stopping the Ted Haggart's of the world from getting married in the first place.

Whoa whoa there Progress...a little uncalled for...besides, i think what you're gonna have to accept here is that this is not a Republican move at all...its a democratic one.

So your real target are conservatives, and not Republicans.

[GOP = Terrorists]

Whoa whoa there Progress...a little uncalled for...besides, i think what you're gonna have to accept here is that this is not a Republican move at all...its a democratic one.

So your real target are conservatives, and not Republicans.

No.  61 votes for the amendment?  How many of those are GOP?  How many GOPers voted no?

[Joe Republic]

Whoa whoa there Progress...a little uncalled for...besides, i think what you're gonna have to accept here is that this is not a Republican move at all...its a democratic one.

So your real target are conservatives, and not Republicans.

No.  61 votes for the amendment?  How many of those are GOP?  How many GOPers voted no?

If we are to assume for a minute that every Republican in the MA legislature voted for the amendment, do you know exactly how many of those 61 votes they constituted?  24.  Which means, by my calculations, that 37 Democrats also voted for it.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Same-Sex Marriage Setback in Massachusetts

“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.”

Another quote proving conservative action organizations the dumbest bunch of assholes on the face of the Earth.  Only these people would call promotion of inequality, "democracy in action".  They make me sick. 

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

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?

This is an issue about rights and equality.  This is WHAT THE COURTS ARE FOR.       

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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.

Should they have held a vote over ending school segregation, allowing interracial marraiges, and a thousand other civil rights decisions decided by the courts? Gay marriage is fundamentally a civil rights issue.

Gay marriage is fundamentally a definition decision.  If you define marriage as an institution designed to provide for the care and nurture of the biological children of a pair of adults, then gay marriage is an oxymoron.  If you define it as a civil union between two adults for their mutual interests then it is a civil rights issue. That marriage has largely become seen as an expression of self rather than of a means of caring for the next generation is a measure of the decline of Western civilization. A civilization is only as good as what it does to make things better for the next generation.

The difficulty is caused by the fact that a number of the legal features desirable in a marriage overlap with those that constitute a civil union.  There are other features such as tax breaks, etc., that are inessential to a civil union and which society gains no benefit from extending to all civil unions instead of just the subset that are marriages.  Limiting those features to just traditional marriages makes perfect sense.

[© tweed]

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.

Catholics

[Conan]

It'd actually fail in referendum.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Wow, this will accomplish so much when it fails, and Massachusetts Democrats  have some legislators to defeat in the primary.

[Sam Spade]

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.

^^^

^^^^^^

[Smash255]

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.

I think many people see this as a Civil Rights issue (myself included) and when it comes down to something like Civil Rights it really should not come down to the voters because sometimes pure prejudice interferes with civil rights.  An example is what texasindy brought up with the Loving case.  The courts overturned the ban on inter-racial marriage which from a civil rights prospective was obviously the right thing to do.  If it came down to a voe, at that time it would have failed and probably failed badly, and prejudice would have won out over what was right and civil rights.

  Not saying you have to agree with it being a Civil Rights issue, but many people do, and something as important as Civil Rights is what the courts are supposed to protect and its not something that should be subject to a vote.  With that being said, considering the state I highly doubt the ban is going to pass, it will probably fail and fail badly.  Most supporters of gay marriage realize the ban is unlikely to pass, they are just upset because they see a Civil Rights issue being left up to the voters when Civil Rights issues should be protected by the courts.

[GOP = Terrorists]

If we are to assume for a minute that every Republican in the MA legislature voted for the amendment, do you know exactly how many of those 61 votes they constituted?  24.  Which means, by my calculations, that 37 Democrats also voted for it.

So you're saying that the vast majority of Democrats voted against it? =)

[True Democrat]

The majority of the MA legislature didn't actually vote in favor of this.

The vote was 61-132, but only 50 were needed to advance to a public poll.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

It'd actually fail in referendum.

It might well do; IIRC the last poll (done a year ago I think) had about 51% against or something like that.

Not the point though IMO. In theory this is a win-win situation (of sorts) for both sides; those against Gay Marriage get a chance to beat it at the ballot box, while those in favour of it, get a chance to see the people, not the courts, agree with their position.

and Massachusetts Democrats  have some legislators to defeat in the primary.

Check what their districts are like. Wouldn't be easy.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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?

This is an issue about rights and equality.  This is WHAT THE COURTS ARE FOR.       

The problem is that not everyone agrees with judicial activism.

Well, some people, like Governor Schwarzenegger, don't like activist legislators to legislate from the legislature.