NationStates Jolt Archive

Chalk another one up for the gay rights movement:

Mass. rejects proposed amendment banning gay marriage

BOSTON (AP) — 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.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-09-14-gay-marriage_x.htm

AARRRRGGGHHHHH! It is the end of the world!

Well, what else can one say? ;)

Well, that's one step toward "fair and equal treatment before the law". Good for them.

Good for them!

Living in Massachusetts, I have to say that I am proud that our legislature refused to deny to people the rights that others enjoy. My wife and I were married in Europe; we had a civil marriage (the only legal one) before Lent and a church wedding after Lent. I think the USA should introduce the civil ceremony for all and let the churches bless the 'chosen' in a wedding ceremony. If the churches feel that they want to discriminate against part of God's creation, then they should be designated a private club (and taxed accordingly). I do not remember one of the 10 commandments against 'gaiety' nor do I remember the New Testament gospels even mentioning it. Since Christians believe that the New Testament supercedes the Old Testament, this whole argument should be put to rest. Let the 'religious right' among us get a life!

Living in Massachusetts, I have to say that I am proud that our legislature refused to deny to people the rights that others enjoy. My wife and I were married in Europe; we had a civil marriage (the only legal one) before Lent and a church wedding after Lent. I think the USA should introduce the civil ceremony for all and let the churches bless the 'chosen' in a wedding ceremony. If the churches feel that they want to discriminate against part of God's creation, then they should be designated a private club (and taxed accordingly). I do not remember one of the 10 commandments against 'gaiety' nor do I remember the New Testament gospels even mentioning it. Since Christians believe that the New Testament supercedes the Old Testament, this whole argument should be put to rest. Let the 'religious right' among us get a life! Just like to clarify… they may be able to get past the "discrimination" thing. After all, they are private institutions and not governmental agencies, and discrimination wouldn't count with their "blessing", just as it wouldn't with an individual refusing.

I wonder what the people bitching about California's gay marriage debate are going to say about "The Will of the People" here?

:D

Hopefully this will be the end of religious fundamentalists trying to get rid of marriage equality in Massaschusetts.. but I'm not very optimistic.

However, this is great news... this assault on the civil rights of gay couples has been rejected wholeheartedly by the Legislature.

Anyways, if I ever do decide to get married I think I will go to Spain for that one. :fluffle: I have found my love... but marriage is not really in the question.. heheh... he's still in the closet.

And...

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

That's one hell of a resounding NO and a kick in the @r$e for those christian fundies.

I wonder what the people bitching about California's gay marriage debate are going to say about "The Will of the People" here?

:D

In California it's about the will of the people. In Massachusettes it's about the sanctity of marriage. In Canada...no-one cares! :D

Hopefully this will be the end of religious fundamentalists trying to get rid of marriage equality in Massaschusetts.. but I'm not very optimistic.

However, this is great news... this assault on the civil rights of gay couples has been rejected wholeheartedly by the Legislature.

Anyways, if I ever do decide to get married I think I will go to Spain for that one. :fluffle: I have found my love... but marriage is not really in the question.. heheh... he's still in the closet.

And...

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

That's one hell of a resounding NO and a kick in the @r$e for those christian fundies.
Some of those noes may be from fundies attempting to ban even civil unions(!), hopefully nothing close to a majority, and hopefully some sane anti-gay marriage representatives will even think that trying to ban civil unions is going too far.

Hopefully this will be the end of religious fundamentalists trying to get rid of marriage equality in Massaschusetts.. but I'm not very optimistic.
.
.
.
That's one hell of a resounding NO and a kick in the @r$e for those christian fundies.

Well unfortunatly it's not over. A more than a few of the people who voted against this amendment did because it created civil unions. They're supporting another one (that could be on the ballot in 2008, and only needs 25% of the legistalure) that's you're standard one man/one woman one.

Well unfortunatly it's not over. A more than a few of the people who voted against this amendment did because it created civil unions. They're supporting another one (that could be on the ballot in 2008, and only needs 25% of the legistalure) that's you're standard one man/one woman one.
No, any amendment requires two consecutive legislatures to give a 50% vote for it to be put on the ballot.

Well unfortunatly it's not over. A more than a few of the people who voted against this amendment did because it created civil unions. They're supporting another one (that could be on the ballot in 2008, and only needs 25% of the legistalure) that's you're standard one man/one woman one.

They don't ever give up... it really pisses me off.. and 6,000+ couples have already got married.. what are those assholes (pardon my language) going to do? Strip their marriage rights away like that?

They don't ever give up... it really pisses me off.. and 6,000+ couples have already got married.. what are those assholes (pardon my language) going to do? Strip their marriage rights away like that?
Yes. They're only gays :rolleyes:

Yes. They're only gays :rolleyes:

I know. And I have a bit of a personal interest in this too you know.. so you don't have to be rude. I happen to be gay.

They don't ever give up... it really pisses me off.. and 6,000+ couples have already got married.. what are those assholes (pardon my language) going to do? Strip their marriage rights away like that?

The theory is that if you oppress them enough, homosexuality will disappear.

It's not as great news as it may seem. This amendment was originally proposed as stop-gap measure when the courts allowed gay marriage originally. When it became apparent that it wouldn't be nearly in time, it lost almost all of its support. It was really only half-heartedly supported by the anti-gay marriage crowd here, because it did give civil unions with broad, marriage-like rights. There's a proposed referendum to amend our constitution to make marriage man-woman exclusively, that should make its way to legislature by 2008. If it passes there (which it's currently very doubtful, but that's still 3 years away), then it would be put forward to the people of the Commonwealth to vote on.

Either way, this amendment was destined to fail about 16 months ago, but hooray anyway. I'm proud to live in this state.

I know. And I have a bit of a personal interest in this too you know.. so you don't have to be rude. I happen to be gay.
No really? I thought you just had a boyfriend who was in the closet for show :D


It's my personality. I hate those asshats, and to expose them for what they are I have to use their rhetoric, stripped away of all the niceties of their hateful language.

Chalk another one up for the gay rights movement:

Mass. rejects proposed amendment banning gay marriage

BOSTON (AP) — 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.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-09-14-gay-marriage_x.htm

Yeah, I've read alot into this and am happy that our legislature has knocked down this ammendment.

And this is why I'm proud to be a Massachusetts citizen! :D

Yeah, I've read alot into this and am happy that our legislature has knocked down this ammendment.

And this is why I'm proud to be a Massachusetts citizen! :D

Where in Mass, buddy?

No really? I thought you just had a boyfriend who was in the closet for show :D

Heheheh... like that t-shirt i have that says "I'm not gay, but my boyfriend is".. and "Shhh.. nobody knows I'm gay".. novelty shirts lol

My boyfriend is such a cutie tho.. he's so shy in public with me.. heheheh.


It's my personality. I hate those asshats, and to expose them for what they are I have to use their rhetoric, stripped away of all the niceties of their hateful language.

I see... and I appreciate that you hold that position because those people need to be exposed for who they are.

Where in Mass, buddy?

Don't wanna get too specific, but I'll say near da' Cape, about an hour outside Boston.

Try an' guess! :p

YES!!!!!
NEW RESPECT FOR HUMANITY


GOOO EQUAL RIGHTS


:sniper: take that you bias, prejudice, pieces of !$@!$!@$!@
MUAHHAHA

YES!!!!!
NEW RESPECT FOR HUMANITY


GOOO EQUAL RIGHTS


:sniper: take that you bias, prejudice, pieces of !$@!$!@$!@
MUAHHAHA

Okay, calm down.

here, have a muffin.

(Hands Karaska a muffin)

Good, banning gay marriage would kind of put a crimp on the

"All men are created equal" thing now would'nt it?

Okay, calm down.

here, have a muffin.

(Hands Karaska a muffin)

OOOO *grabs muffin and wags tail* :D

Good on them!

Good, but not really a surprise. This is Massachusetts we're talking about here, the most liberal state there is. When it comes to states like Wyoming, we still have a long way to go before there's equality.

No, any amendment requires two consecutive legislatures to give a 50% vote for it to be put on the ballot.

Only if it starts in the legislature. If it's done by citizen's initiative (they still need 65,000+ signatures), then it takes 25% in two consecutive legislatures.

The fact that a group just had one certified by the attorney general is why some legislators and Mitt Romney pulled their support from the 'compromise' amendment that was voted on today.

http://massequality.com/news/news_story.php?id=118

At the very least, I don't have to move up my 2007 wedding :-D

Only if it starts in the legislature. If it's done by citizen's initiative (they still need 65,000+ signatures), then it takes 25% in two consecutive legislatures.

The fact that a group just had one certified by the attorney general is why some legislators and Mitt Romney pulled their support from the 'compromise' amendment that was voted on today.

http://massequality.com/news/news_story.php?id=118

At the very least, I don't have to move up my 2007 wedding :-D
Really? Just peachy.

Some of those noes may be from fundies attempting to ban even civil unions(!), hopefully nothing close to a majority, and hopefully some sane anti-gay marriage representatives will even think that trying to ban civil unions is going too far.
The word--from the diary over at Kos where I first read this--is that a citizens group is trying to get an even more restrictive amendment onto the ballot, so no, it isn't over, but it is a good ways toward being over.

Good, but not really a surprise. This is Massachusetts we're talking about here, the most liberal state there is. When it comes to states like Wyoming, we still have a long way to go before there's equality.

I'm not entirely certain that it will ultimately matter what happens in Wyoming. Under the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution, a marriage ratified in Massachusetts is required to also be valid in Wyoming, which means that under the Constitution, what happens in Boston will quickly emigrate to Cody.

Granted that currently this is illegal by virtue of the Defense of Marriage Act, which legislates that no state is required to accept as valid a homosexual marriage from another state. Unfortunately, the Constitution gives Congress no power to regulate what is and what is not covered under the Full Faith and Credit clause, which puts conservatives in the awkward spot of having to choose between whether they want to uphold the principle of judicial interpretivism and originalism, or whether they want to stop gay marriages from spreading around the U.S. Put simply, DoMA is blatantly unconstitutional, and in about ten years or so will likely be declared as such by the SCOTUS.

I'm not entirely certain that it will ultimately matter what happens in Wyoming. Under the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution, a marriage ratified in Massachusetts is required to also be valid in Wyoming, which means that under the Constitution, what happens in Boston will quickly emigrate to Cody.

Granted that currently this is illegal by virtue of the Defense of Marriage Act, which legislates that no state is required to accept as valid a homosexual marriage from another state. Unfortunately, the Constitution gives Congress no power to regulate what is and what is not covered under the Full Faith and Credit clause, which puts conservatives in the awkward spot of having to choose between whether they want to uphold the principle of judicial interpretivism and originalism, or whether they want to stop gay marriages from spreading around the U.S. Put simply, DoMA is blatantly unconstitutional, and in about ten years or so will likely be declared as such by the SCOTUS.Don't be so sure. I mean, it would be toast if you or I were on the Court, but we aren't--Scalia, Thomas, and soon enough, Roberts will be. Factor in whoever replaces O'Connor, and you're probably only one vote away. Kennedy went with O'Connor and the other side in Lawrence, but don't be so certain he'd go the full monty into same sex marriage.