Gay marriage WON'T be voted on in Massachusetts

Linzyhop · 06-14-2007, 03:54 PM

Thursday, June 14, 2007

Legislators vote to defeat same-sex marriage ban

By Frank Phillips, Globe Staff
A proposed constitutional ban on same-sex marriage was defeated today by a joint session of the Legislature by a vote of 151 to 45, eliminating any chance of getting it on the ballot in November 2008. The measure needed at least 50 votes to advance.
The vote came after House Speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi, Senate President Therese Murray, and Governor Deval Patrick conferred this morning and concluded that they have the votes to kill the proposal. Cheers echoed in the State House when the vote was tallied.
"In Massachusetts today, the freedom to marry is secure," Patrick told reporters after the results were official.
The three leaders - along with gay rights activists - spent the last several days intensely lobbying a dozen or more state representatives and state senators who had previously supported the amendment but signaled that they were open to changing their positions.
Because fewer than 50 of the state's 200 lawmakers supported the amendment, it will not appear on the 2008 ballot, giving gay marriage advocates a major victory in their battle with social conservatives to keep same-sex marriage legal in Massachusetts.
Opponents of gay marriage face an increasingly tough battle to win legislative approval of any future petitions to appear on a statewide ballot. The next election available to them is 2012.
The Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, the group that spearheaded the court case that led to the Supreme Judicial Court's 2003 decision to legalize same-sex marriage, issued a statement praising the vote.
"We’re proud of our state today, and we applaud the legislature for showing that Massachusetts is strongly behind fairness," said Lee Swislow, executive director Advocates & Defenders. "The vote today was the triumph of time, experience, and understanding over fear and prejudice."
Kris Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute that backed the amendment, pledged to continue fighting, but wouldn't commit to presenting another proposed amendment.
"I don't believe it's dead because the people have not had the opportunity to have their vote," Mineau told the Associated Press. "This will not go away until the citizens have their opportunity to decide what the definition of marriage is."
The proposal needed the votes of 50 legislators in two consecutive sessions to make it on the 2008 ballot as a referendum. In January, the measure passed its first convention with 62 votes, but it fell short today by 5 votes.
Joyce Durst, an opponent of same-sex marriage from Mattapan, had come the State House today to pray that the measure passed. When the amendment failed, she pulled a crumpled tissue from her pocket and began to sob.
"I'm sick," said Durst, 60. "I'm sick."
Claire Alloy-Relihan, 22, from Newton, had the opposite reaction. "I could not be happier right now," she said.
Globe Correspondent April Yee contributed to this report.
Posted by the Boston Globe City & Region Desk at 01:23 PM

thank god.

I think it's ridiculous for people to get so worked up about letting two people who love eachother commit to eachother formally and legally in our state. who cares if two gay guys or girls get married. how does it effect you???? it doesn't.

and it spreads around happiness and promotes equal rights. good for them.

Diesel66 · 06-14-2007, 04:15 PM

Originally Posted by Linzyhop

thank god.

I think it's ridiculous for people to get so worked up about letting two people who love eachother commit to eachother formally and legally in our state. who cares if two gay guys or girls get married. how does it effect you???? it doesn't.

and it spreads around happiness and promotes equal rights. good for them.

You are asking how state recognized marriage affects others ?

Linzyhop · 06-14-2007, 04:28 PM

Originally Posted by Diesel66

You are asking how state recognized marriage affects others ?

yes. enlighten me. why would two gay guys who love eachother and want to marry effect anyone else who doesn't know them? why do people have such blatant hatred inside their hearts that they think it is sooooo wrong to let them marry?

Scrum · 06-14-2007, 04:30 PM

Originally Posted by Linzyhop

yes. enlighten me. why would two gay guys who love eachother and want to marry effect anyone else who doesn't know them? why do people have such blatant hatred inside their hearts that they think it is sooooo wrong to let them marry?

Get ready for the "people will marry their cat" defense.

edit - the state needs to either recognize all unions or none. Anything else is government sanctioned bigotry.

Roonie · 06-14-2007, 04:34 PM

Originally Posted by Scrum

edit - the state needs to either recognize all unions or none. Anything else is government sanctioned bigotry.

Agreed.

Linzyhop · 06-14-2007, 04:37 PM

Originally Posted by Scrum

Get ready for the "people will marry their cat" defense.

edit - the state needs to either recognize all unions or none. Anything else is government sanctioned bigotry.

AVengeance · 06-14-2007, 05:24 PM

Originally Posted by Linzyhop

I'm eagerly awaiting the day that both my wives have equal claim under law.

Of course, that's not going to happen. Just like the anti-gays out there, there are those that think I'm committing some sort of evil by having two women in my home that I love and care for.

The best solution is for the government to not recognize marriage at all, since it's a religious institution. What are they going to do next, start giving tax breaks to people that get baptised? Now you'll have the gays saying they need baptism too, instead of just recognizing that the government has NO DAMN BUSINESS defining religious terms for the sake of social manipulation.

Linzyhop · 06-14-2007, 06:14 PM

Originally Posted by AVengeance

I'm eagerly awaiting the day that both my wives have equal claim under law.

Of course, that's not going to happen. Just like the anti-gays out there, there are those that think I'm committing some sort of evil by having two women in my home that I love and care for.

The best solution is for the government to not recognize marriage at all, since it's a religious institution. What are they going to do next, start giving tax breaks to people that get baptised? Now you'll have the gays saying they need baptism too, instead of just recognizing that the government has NO DAMN BUSINESS defining religious terms for the sake of social manipulation.

fine. then make it equal across the board.

if and when i get married i won't be doing it in a christian/islamic/jewish manner. I will be doing a handfast (if my husband is cool with that) but once "married" I would expect to have all the rights that any other marriage would have, tax breaks, insurance coverage and whatnot.

btw, i just got my certificate to marry people (Universal Life Church Newsletter) so if anyone wants a non-secular wedding in the northeast, let me know!

JaJae · 06-14-2007, 06:16 PM

Mass. is starting to do a good job on this. They're beginning to move out of the illegal activist stage and starting to handle the issue within the constructs of the law, which is good. They're beginning to set a good example for the rest of the nation on how to change the laws and allow gay marriage/unions, legally.

Their success here shows that they don't have to resort to activism and illegal means to pass ethical laws.

Diesel66 · 06-14-2007, 09:26 PM

Originally Posted by Linzyhop

yes. enlighten me. why would two gay guys who love eachother and want to marry effect anyone else who doesn't know them? why do people have such blatant hatred inside their hearts that they think it is sooooo wrong to let them marry?

Because a govt sanctioned marriage has public benefits including tax breaks, contracts etc....

Originally Posted by Scrum

Get ready for the "people will marry their cat" defense.

oh look a bigot.

Dumpy Dooby · 06-14-2007, 09:52 PM

Originally Posted by Scrum

Get ready for the "people will marry their cat" defense.

edit - the state needs to either recognize all unions or none. Anything else is government sanctioned bigotry.

They need to recognize none. Circular marriages alone would require a devoted government agency to monitor and organize. Fuck that. It should just be none, period.

Scrum · 06-14-2007, 09:53 PM

Originally Posted by Diesel66

oh look a bigot.

Excuse me?

I'm a bigot because people try and turn every gay marriage argument into something silly like marrying their cat?

6SpeedTA95 · 06-14-2007, 11:29 PM

Good job Mass...

How do you think that polygamy should be handled?

Linzy if you want this in another thread I'd be happy to make one, I do not want to derail yours but it seems to flow with the topic.

Diesel66 · 06-15-2007, 12:19 AM

Originally Posted by Scrum

Excuse me?

I'm a bigot because people try and turn every gay marriage argument into something silly like marrying their cat?

"people" ?

So nobody could possibly have a reason against gay marriage that is non silly ?

Scrum · 06-15-2007, 01:06 AM

Originally Posted by Diesel66

So nobody could possibly have a reason against gay marriage that is non silly ?

Correct.

Diesel66 · 06-15-2007, 01:46 AM

Originally Posted by Scrum

Correct.

hold on everyone, the great and powerful oz just spoke.

Simius · 06-15-2007, 01:53 AM

Originally Posted by Diesel66

hold on everyone, the great and powerful oz just spoke.

So far you've called Scrum a bigot because he thinks there aren't any sensible arguments for why the state should recognize straight marriages but not gay ones... And now you are mocking him for saying there aren't any.

Perhaps you should just present a sensible argument instead of name calling.

Linzyhop · 06-15-2007, 10:12 AM

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

Good job Mass...

How do you think that polygamy should be handled?

Linzy if you want this in another thread I'd be happy to make one, I do not want to derail yours but it seems to flow with the topic.

honestly, i've never thought about polygamy. that isn't legal now either, and frankly I've never taken it seriously enough. i wouldnt' do it and I don't think it's "wrong" per say, but I don't know if I would agree to a polygamist with two wifes adopting children. but as i write this, this view I have towards polygamy would indeed be the same view plenty of folks have towards gay marriage, so catch22 I suppose.

I haven't seen anyone try to argue that in comparison to gay marriage yet. I think it's just a numbers thing. like 2 people can wed, guy/girl, guy/guy, girl/girl, but not guy/girl/girl.... and if gay marriage is allowed throughout the country, then polygamy is allowed, then we'd have the guy/guy/guy and the girl/girl/girl then it gets REALLY wacky. guy/girl/sheep??? :P only in wales i suppose.

but seriously i think it's a numbers issue right now. Considering Polygamy isn't allowed in the country in ANY state, it's a non-issue.

Linzyhop · 06-15-2007, 10:15 AM

Originally Posted by Scrum
Excuse me?

I'm a bigot because people try and turn every gay marriage argument into something silly like marrying their cat?

Originally Posted by Diesel66

"people" ?

So nobody could possibly have a reason against gay marriage that is non silly ?

I see exactly what Scrum is trying to say. the anti-gay marriage people (those who aren't the brightest bulbs on the tree) are trying to use the argument that if two guys or girls can marry eachother that people marrying their pets is next. It's a retarded and rather stupid "defense" to their view in my opinion, but that was he was saying. some pople -HAVE- been saying that, and he was only pointing that out.