NationStates Jolt Archive

Today state lawmakers rejected attempts to place a gay marriage ban in the Massachusetts constitution.

In 2003 a landmark case in Massachusetts ruled that gay marriage was a right in the state constitution. Since then conservative movements in MA have attempted to amend the state constitution to ban gay marriage.

In order for a ballot initiative to be placed to the voters, MA law requires that the legislature pass a vote approving the ballot initiative in two consecutive legislatures. At the very end of the former legislature, and the end of Republican Mitt Romney's governorship of MA, the legislature just managed to pass the first of the two required votes to put the ballot initiative to ban gay marriage in 2008.

however, during this legislature, with Democratic governor Deval Patrick, the legislature did not pass the second required vote. As such, the proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage in MA is dead in the water.

Source (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gaywed15jun15,1,2528614.story?coll=la-headlines-nation&track=crosspromo)

I'm becoming more enamoured of Mass. Congrats at not sliding backwards!

huzzah for them:)

:)

Good for them.

Yay Massachusettes!

I'm becoming more enamoured of Mass. Congrats at not sliding backwards!

In case you didn't notice, the notoriously glacial US Body Politic is slowly moving towards favoring civil unions of some sort, and reforms of existing marriage law are bound to follow in due time.

It would be faster if there were less of us...social evolution is far quicker (and more easily instituted from the top-down) when a country is far smaller.

Massachusetts, more proof conservatives only mean "Small Government" when it comes to government involvement in business. If they're in your bedroom government can be as big as they like!

Go Massachusetts.

Go Massachusetts.

I picture you waving a pennant, though not enthusiastically :D

The rest of New England isn't far off from MA. on this issue. ME, VT, NH, RI, and CT all have Civil Unions, and I think it's only a matter of time before they all allow marriage.

The best part of the vote was that proponents of putting the measure on the ballot only needed to get 50 yes votes out of 200 legislators, and they fell short. They lost 45-151. Fucking beautiful.

The best part of the vote was that proponents of putting the measure on the ballot only needed to get 50 yes votes out of 200 legislators, and they fell short. They lost 45-151. Fucking beautiful.

Good! they need to be shown that we do not accept this shit

It would be faster if there were less of us...social evolution is far quicker (and more easily instituted from the top-down) when a country is far smaller.

Or maybe if the Union were a bit looser.

Congrats to Mass for showing is that states' rights can be used for good.

Or maybe if the Union were a bit looser.

Congrats to Mass for showing is that states' rights can be used for good.

Hell, if we just had an intellectually honest SCOTUS, this wouldn't be an issue. there would have been a challenge to DOMA and they'd have found it unconstitutional. It's going to take decades to undo the damage done to the Supreme Court in the last couple of years.

Hell, if we just had an intellectually honest SCOTUS, this wouldn't be an issue. there would have been a challenge to DOMA and they'd have found it unconstitutional. It's going to take decades to undo the damage done to the Supreme Court in the last couple of years.

Agreed. Let's just hope that in the meantime more damage isn't done.

Agreed. Let's just hope that in the meantime more damage isn't done.

The damage they've done this term is plenty, and it won't improve over the next couple of years. Alito is a douchebag extraordinaire, and has proved it. I'm not a praying man, but I pray for the health of Ginsberg, Stevens, Breyer and Souter every day. And once in a while, I pray for Anthony Kennedy, when he isn't being an idiot.

I am proud of Massachusetts, today effectively killed the citizen initiative for at least 4 years, and by then it will be such a massive non-issue that the right wingers won't get the time of day in Mass.

Maybe by then the stench of Mitt Romney will have been Febrezed out of US Politics.

~S

As such, the proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage in MA is dead in the water.

Good.

The Popular Front for People Not Being Assholes approves.

What would happen, I wonder, to those already married legally under the law if something like this passed? Are those marriages forcibly annulled, or are there just a few married gay couples, but no more ever?

Massachusetts, more proof conservatives only mean "Small Government" when it comes to government involvement in business. If they're in your bedroom government can be as big as they like! So big it hurts!!!

...
...
Okay that was bad.

Today state lawmakers rejected attempts to place a gay marriage ban in the Massachusetts constitution.

In 2003 a landmark case in Massachusetts ruled that gay marriage was a right in the state constitution. Since then conservative movements in MA have attempted to amend the state constitution to ban gay marriage.

In order for a ballot initiative to be placed to the voters, MA law requires that the legislature pass a vote approving the ballot initiative in two consecutive legislatures. At the very end of the former legislature, and the end of Republican Mitt Romney's governorship of MA, the legislature just managed to pass the first of the two required votes to put the ballot initiative to ban gay marriage in 2008.

however, during this legislature, with Democratic governor Deval Patrick, the legislature did not pass the second required vote. As such, the proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage in MA is dead in the water.

Source (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gaywed15jun15,1,2528614.story?coll=la-headlines-nation&track=crosspromo)
This was the best news I've gotten all week. I am delighted to see that repulsive, discriminatory initiative get slapped down.

A large proportion of my fellow Americans need to wake up and get the hell over themselves. Gender discrimination is on the way out, folks, and you ain't turning back the clock.

Excellent. Good on the Mass. General Court.

What would happen, I wonder, to those already married legally under the law if something like this passed? Are those marriages forcibly annulled, or are there just a few married gay couples, but no more ever?


When the Canadian federal government decided to revisit the issue after same sex marriage was legalised, we faced the same question. Fortunately, we had the same outcome as in Massachusetts, so it was a moot point.

Having said that, the answer the Conservative government gave was that since marriage is a contract, and contracts are specific to a time and a place, i.e. the laws governing when and where they were signed are the ones used for judging the contract, the contract would still be valid even if the law were changed. Consequently, the marriages would still be legal and valid, though new same sex marriages would not have been.

Today state lawmakers rejected attempts to place a gay marriage ban in the Massachusetts constitution.

In 2003 a landmark case in Massachusetts ruled that gay marriage was a right in the state constitution. Since then conservative movements in MA have attempted to amend the state constitution to ban gay marriage.

In order for a ballot initiative to be placed to the voters, MA law requires that the legislature pass a vote approving the ballot initiative in two consecutive legislatures. At the very end of the former legislature, and the end of Republican Mitt Romney's governorship of MA, the legislature just managed to pass the first of the two required votes to put the ballot initiative to ban gay marriage in 2008.

however, during this legislature, with Democratic governor Deval Patrick, the legislature did not pass the second required vote. As such, the proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage in MA is dead in the water.

Source (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gaywed15jun15,1,2528614.story?coll=la-headlines-nation&track=crosspromo)

good! at least somebody's still got some kind of decent sense.

why in the hell would anybody with half a brain want the government, any government, telling everyone who and what they could marry, other then the usual bunch of fanatical loonies?

=^^=
.../\...

As a patriot and representative of Massachusetts, and raise the flag of our state, and declare the destruction of this initiative to be wicked awesome.

*Plays Dropkick Murphys at volume 11*

I'm becoming more enamoured of Mass. Congrats at not sliding backwards!

You realize they killed it because it would probably pass, if put before the voters.

You realize they killed it because it would probably pass, if put before the voters.

umm...given that it takes a majority of voters to pass a ballot initiative in MA and gay marriage has the support of about...65% of people in MA, can we say "not fucking likely"?

umm...given that it takes a majority of voters to pass a ballot initiative in MA and gay marriage has the support of about...65% of people in MA, can we say "not fucking likely"?

I doubt that. People who answer polls are not always the ones who vote.

I think the legislators didn't want to take the chance.

You realize they killed it because it would probably pass, if put before the voters.

Of course they did. Because the last time this came up--and it had to come up before the legislature two years ago to get to this point--it passed with 65 votes. It lost votes in part this time because some of those supporters of the ban lost their re-election bids, and this was part of the campaign.

Yay for Mass. :)

When it comes to gay marraige itself, I'm ambivalent, and always have been. But let's consider the social trends from Massachusetts. They've allowed gay marraige, and have been the first state to mandate universal healthcare. First, is Massachusetts the new California in terms of political wackiness? Secondly, why are Republicans seriously considering Mitt Romney, who goes against all of our core beliefs?

When it comes to gay marraige itself, I'm ambivalent, and always have been. But let's consider the social trends from Massachusetts. They've allowed gay marraige, and have been the first state to mandate universal healthcare.

Ok. I see nothing wrong so far...

First, is Massachusetts the new California in terms of political wackiness?

What's wacky about providing equal protection under the law to all citizens or recognizing that all citizens require at least basic healthcare?

Secondly, why are Republicans seriously considering Mitt Romney, who goes against all of our core beliefs?

What are the "core beliefs" of Republicans?

Secondly, why are Republicans seriously considering Mitt Romney, who goes against all of our core beliefs?
If you look at the polls, Romney's not being seriously considered by Republicans. He's in third behind Giuliani and a guy who hasn't officially announced, and tied with a floundering John McCain.

What's wacky about providing equal protection under the law to all citizens or recognizing that all citizens require at least basic healthcare?
Recognizing that healthcare is free. It's not, and everyone looses if it is.
What are the "core beliefs" of Republicans?
Low taxes, low government intervention, and to a very influential segment of the party, social conservatism. I'm socially ambivalent myself, but I'll be damned if we engage in the social engineering that Romney did.

Recognizing that healthcare is free. It's not, and everyone looses if it is.

Why is that? It seems to me that everyone wins if they are guaranteed basic healthcare.

Low taxes, low government intervention, and to a very influential segment of the party, social conservatism.

Based on the way the party has been going, it would appear that the first two have little to no influence in the party, while the third has a great deal.

Why is that? It seems to me that everyone wins if they are guaranteed basic healthcare.
I don't see it that way. But this is off topic. Want to start a separate thread on the issue?


Based on the way the party has been going, it would appear that the first two have little to no influence in the party, while the third has a great deal.
Again off topic, but I'll answer it because it's shorter. The slate of Republican candidates for '08 seems more pre-Reaganesque than we've seen in years. Even a few years ago, if you suggested that an ex-drag queen would run for president as a Republican, you'd be laughed out of the room. Not anymore.

I doubt that. People who answer polls are not always the ones who vote.

I think the legislators didn't want to take the chance.

True but that is all accounted for in your CL's

For most population between 2.5-5 percent margin of error

So not enough to make a difference in this case unless you have a speciffic reason to disbelieve the results of the poll

Again off topic, but I'll answer it because it's shorter. The slate of Republican candidates for '08 seems more pre-Reaganesque than we've seen in years. Even a few years ago, if you suggested that an ex-drag queen would run for president as a Republican, you'd be laughed out of the room. Not anymore.

Who, other than the good Dr. Paul, is anything remotely close to pre-Reaganesque? The other candidates (at least the ones that get any votes in the polls) all seem to be of the "big government conservative" variety and wanting to conduct their own social engineering.

Who, other than the good Dr. Paul, is anything remotely close to pre-Reaganesque? The other candidates (at least the ones that get any votes in the polls) all seem to be of the "big government conservative" variety and wanting to conduct their own social engineering.

McCain and Giuliani, though McCain doesn't stand a chance. Bloomberg may run, too, but not as a Republican.

McCain and Giuliani, though McCain doesn't stand a chance. Bloomberg may run, too, but not as a Republican.

Apparently your definition of pre-Reaganesque differs greatly from mine. Mine includes noninterventionism, which neither McCain or Giuliani seem to care about.

Were either of them to be elected I wouldn't be surprised at all if their presidencies very closely resembled that of Bush.

The rest of New England isn't far off from MA. on this issue. ME, VT, NH, RI, and CT all have Civil Unions, and I think it's only a matter of time before they all allow marriage.
I don't think RI has any yet, but it is good to look at the civil union laws that are in place...CT, VT, and NH all have complete (state) rights of marriage, and change the name. Of them, CT is currently considering full marriage.

And people wonder why I love New England
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/2f/US_SSM_Laws.png/800px-US_SSM_Laws.png

As a patriot and representative of Massachusetts, and raise the flag of our state, and declare the destruction of this initiative to be wicked awesome.

*Plays Dropkick Murphys at volume 11*
:p

Nothing like some good ol' dirty water.

You realize they killed it because it would probably pass, if put before the voters.
No, they killed it because it is assinine.
Since the legalization of gay marriage in the state of MA, the population has rapidly and strongly moved away from objecting to it. The majority of the state now considers it "ok" or "good", many are ambivalent, and very few consider it "bad". 65% approval is hard to defeat, even if people who answer polls "aren't the people who vote"
When it comes to gay marraige itself, I'm ambivalent, and always have been. But let's consider the social trends from Massachusetts. They've allowed gay marraige, and have been the first state to mandate universal healthcare. First, is Massachusetts the new California in terms of political wackiness? Secondly, why are Republicans seriously considering Mitt Romney, who goes against all of our core beliefs?
Why is it liberal to mandate that every citizen has insurance? We demand it for cars, ffs. It is impossible to get health insurance at a price that is affordable unless you are a business (and usually, a large business). MA finally took steps to ensure that every citizen can get healthcare. I fail to see why this is bad.

*map*

*hangs head in shame at his own state colored red*

Why is it liberal to mandate that every citizen has insurance? We demand it for cars, ffs. It is impossible to get health insurance at a price that is affordable unless you are a business (and usually, a large business). MA finally took steps to ensure that every citizen can get healthcare. I fail to see why this is bad.
Has anyone ever considered that the current restrictions on health care and HMOs drive prices up? Universalizing it, or even nationalizing it, wouldn't do anything to those costs but move them into taxes.
And we shouldn't mandate auto insurance either. In fact, that's even sillier, because it drives up the price of both car ownership and auto insurance itself.

Universalizing it, or even nationalizing it, wouldn't do anything to those costs but move them into taxes.

Then why do western European countries pay far less per person than we do on healthcare? It's not as though our healthcare is that much better, considering we're 29th in life expectancy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy

*hangs head in shame at his own state colored red*
Ha, if the Supreme Court did its job it wouldn't have to be red.

Has anyone ever considered that the current restrictions on health care and HMOs drive prices up? Universalizing it, or even nationalizing it, wouldn't do anything to those costs but move them into taxes.
And we shouldn't mandate auto insurance either. In fact, that's even sillier, because it drives up the price of both car ownership and auto insurance itself.
that is a debate for a whole different thread, and one that I don't have time for right now

You realize they killed it because it would probably pass, if put before the voters.
You mean the voters who elected the representatives who killed it?

Then why do western European countries pay far less per person than we do on healthcare?

Because, as said, taxes are much higher.

You mean the voters who elected the representatives who killed it?

yeah, only in RO world can a state simultaniously have a majority that does not support gay marriage and yet elect representatives that favor it 3:1

Today state lawmakers rejected attempts to place a gay marriage ban in the Massachusetts constitution.

In 2003 a landmark case in Massachusetts ruled that gay marriage was a right in the state constitution. Since then conservative movements in MA have attempted to amend the state constitution to ban gay marriage.

In order for a ballot initiative to be placed to the voters, MA law requires that the legislature pass a vote approving the ballot initiative in two consecutive legislatures. At the very end of the former legislature, and the end of Republican Mitt Romney's governorship of MA, the legislature just managed to pass the first of the two required votes to put the ballot initiative to ban gay marriage in 2008.

however, during this legislature, with Democratic governor Deval Patrick, the legislature did not pass the second required vote. As such, the proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage in MA is dead in the water.

Source (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gaywed15jun15,1,2528614.story?coll=la-headlines-nation&track=crosspromo)

Yeah! Massachusetts is still the intelligent state. Now I know why my parents moved here. :D

I'm becoming more enamoured of Mass. Congrats at not sliding backwards!

Thank you. :p

Oh and just for fun, I should point out something. The ruling that legalized gay marriage in Massachusetts was done by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. The Supreme Judicial Court is the highest court in Massachusetts, and has the final say on matters of the Massachusetts Constitution. No other authority in the nation may overrule the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court on matters of the Massachusetts Constitution.

The Court ruled that gay marriage is required under the Massachusetts Constitution. The only way that ruling can be altered is either:

1) the constitution is amended to reflect otherwise

2) the Court reverses its opinion in a later case.

the amendment process is dead, until at least 2012, and it should be noted that the approval rating of gay marriage in Massachusetts has gone up every single year since it was legalized in 2003. It currently is over 50%, at this rate, by 2012, getting a majority vote to amend the constitution banning gay marriage will likely be impossible.

The only other option, is if the court reverses its ruling. Justices on the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court are appointed by the Governor. However, the Governor must have the approval of the Massachusetts Executive Council on all judicial appointments.

the Massachusetts Executive Council is directly elected by the people of Massachusetts.

Thus in order to ban gay marriage in Massachusetts, it would require either the vote of the people of Massachusetts, or the vote of the council elected by the people of Massachusetts. And the people of Massachusetts are, in the majority, in favor of gay marriage, and that approval rate grows every year.

And, by the way, I should note, the current governor of Massachusetts, who will be governor for the next 4 years, is Deval Patrick, who believes in gay marriage, and is not about to appoint any judges who will do away with it.

So gay marriage, it seems, is here to stay in MA

Oh and just for fun, I should point out something. The ruling that legalized gay marriage in Massachusetts was done by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. The Supreme Judicial Court is the highest court in Massachusetts, and has the final say on matters of the Massachusetts Constitution. No other authority in the nation may overrule the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court on matters of the Massachusetts Constitution.

The Court ruled that gay marriage is required under the Massachusetts Constitution. The only way that ruling can be altered is either:

1) the constitution is amended to reflect otherwise

2) the Court reverses its opinion in a later case.

the amendment process is dead, until at least 2012, and it should be noted that the approval rating of gay marriage in Massachusetts has gone up every single year since it was legalized in 2003. It currently is over 50%, at this rate, by 2012, getting a majority vote to amend the constitution banning gay marriage will likely be impossible.

The only other option, is if the court reverses its ruling. Justices on the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court are appointed by the Governor. However, the Governor must have the approval of the Massachusetts Executive Council on all judicial appointments.

the Massachusetts Executive Council is directly elected by the people of Massachusetts.

Thus in order to ban gay marriage in Massachusetts, it would require either the vote of the people of Massachusetts, or the vote of the council elected by the people of Massachusetts. And the people of Massachusetts are, in the majority, in favor of gay marriage, and that approval rate grows every year.

And, by the way, I should note, the current governor of Massachusetts, who will be governor for the next 4 years, is Deval Patrick, who believes in gay marriage, and is not about to appoint any judges who will do away with it.

So gay marriage, it seems, is here to stay in MA

Yeah for Massachusetts! And Yeah for this post!

Now to seek to spread reason and equity throughout the rest of the U.S.

Because, as said, taxes are much higher.

Shall I assume you're Prumpa as well? Because you haven't seemed to have posted under this name in this thread.

And that doesn't make any sense. How exactly does having higher taxes lower healthcare costs? Perhaps you assumed I was talking about "out of pocket" costs, which I wasn't. I was talking about combined private/public spending. Check this link out for the numbers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare#Health_care_economics

The best part of the vote was that proponents of putting the measure on the ballot only needed to get 50 yes votes out of 200 legislators, and they fell short. They lost 45-151. Fucking beautiful.

Warms my heart. :)

It's nice to hear some good news from time to time.

y don't they just leave

y don't they just leave

Fail. For so many reasons, that I shan't list them all.

yeah, only in RO world can a state simultaniously have a majority that does not support gay marriage and yet elect representatives that favor it 3:1

Welcome to the mind of a Freeper.

I don't think RI has any yet, but it is good to look at the civil union laws that are in place...CT, VT, and NH all have complete (state) rights of marriage, and change the name. Of them, CT is currently considering full marriage.


Well, our governor has said she will veto any same-sex marriage bill.

You'll forgive my bragging, but...

The city where I live added gays to the list of people protected against discrimination in the early '70s (I think '71) and added gender identity people to it in '99.

I just like to brag about how my city is considerably ahead of the rest of the country.

You'll forgive my bragging, but...

The city where I live added gays to the list of people protected against discrimination in the early '70s (I think '71) and added gender identity people to it in '99.

I just like to brag about how my city is considerably ahead of the rest of the country.

DOEZ IT HAVE GAY MARRIAGE THOUGH?

I don't think RI has any yet, but it is good to look at the civil union laws that are in place...CT, VT, and NH all have complete (state) rights of marriage, and change the name. Of them, CT is currently considering full marriage.

RI doesn't. It does, however, recognize civil unions/marriages from outside the state. As it takes around thirty minutes at most to get from anywhere in RI to Massachusetts or Connecticut, it's all but a legalization of civil unions and marriages. I would guess that if a bill to legalize them was ever submitted, it'd pass.

Then why do western European countries pay far less per person than we do on healthcare? It's not as though our healthcare is that much better, considering we're 29th in life expectancy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy

There are several reasons. One is Western Europe's far looser and friendlier pharmaceutical environment (something the US should emulate), and their far superior diets. However, they don't necessarily pay less. Costs are merely transfered into taxes.

There are several reasons. One is Western Europe's far looser and friendlier pharmaceutical environment (something the US should emulate), and their far superior diets. However, they don't necessarily pay less. Costs are merely transfered into taxes.

Nope, they do pay less. In the U.S., you'll pay around 13000 dollars per year for health insurance. In, say, the UK, you'll pay the equivalent of 2000 dollars per year in taxes for health insurance of a better quality.

Ya to Massachusetts!!!! I hope one day LGBT's can get married or have a civil union in GA. Right now things don't look so good.


HRC Article:
Article on Mass (http://www.hrc.org/Template.cfm?Section=Home&CONTENTID=37081&TEMPLATE=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm)

You'll forgive my bragging, but...

The city where I live added gays to the list of people protected against discrimination in the early '70s (I think '71) and added gender identity people to it in '99.

I just like to brag about how my city is considerably ahead of the rest of the country.
What city do you live in?