01/03/2007
Gay Marriage in Massachusetts: The Next Step
Massachusetts Governor-Elect Deval Patrick says he was surprised by the quick vote on the proposed amendment to ban gay marriage and hadn't heard about the Supreme Judicial Court's advice to the legislature that they should vote on the measure:
"I learned about the SJC's decision the day before I came up here, because I had been out of the country until then. There was a strategy in place when I left the country. That strategy changed while I was away, and I did what I could before I had any power to influence these outcomes. That changes tomorrow....This fight isn't over."
Governor Mitt Romney called the vote a "huge victory for the people of Massachusetts" (except for, of course, the 8,000 same-sex couples who have married): "In a democracy, the voice of the people is sovereign. I congratulate the Legislature and its leadership for upholding the Constitution and the rule of law."
Massachusetts lawmakers will be asked to vote again in the next session, but the body of the legislature will have changed: "A total of 17 lawmakers who voted Tuesday won't be returning in the new session, including some of the most vocal opponents of same-sex marriage. Gay marriage supporters say the new members will give them a net gain of seven opponents to the proposed amendment in the upcoming session."
You may have missed...
Massachusetts Lawmakers Advance Gay Marriage Ban Proposal [tr]
Posted 3:05 PM EST by Andy in Deval Patrick, Gay Marriage, Massachusetts, Mitt Romney, News | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Andy, where can I find a timeline for all of this... It seems like the same story every 6 mos... whats goin on. Is there a state in the US that allows anything close to a marriage...
I know this is not yahoo answers.
Posted by: m | Jan 3, 2007 3:16:51 PM
M.
This has been dragging on in MA forever thats why it seems like its every 6 Months. In a nutshell.
The SJC ruled that gays could marry in MA. And they have been.
The Catholic Church ralied with some Rightwingnut organizations (ie Focus on Familf, MASS Resistance, ect.) to get a petition signed that would change the language in the MA consitution to marraige = 1 man + woman AFTER the SJC ruled because they weren't satisfied with it. They claim they recieved 170,000 sigbitures. (Which were more than needed but some turned out to be phoney and the paid professional signiture gathers they used were accused and proved of fraud in some instances.)
Despite the problems with the petitions and the fact that the SJC ruled in favor of ga marriage. Thomas (I want to be Govenor so i won't offend th Chistians and besides I don't believe in gay marriage myself) Rielly verified the petition and allowed to send it to the MA legislature for a vote. (btw The LOSER Reilly lost the primary and didn't even make it close to becoming Govenor)
At the LAST Legislature Convention they passed on voting on it. if they didn't do it yesterday it would have been dead. but in the intirm. the wingnuts and Romney went to the SJC to try to FORCE the legislators to vote on it. While th SJC said they didn't have power and couldn't force them to vote in the OPINION of th court they should vote. So they are using that as the reson why it came to vote yesterday basically. But ALSO in the intim the WINGNUTS files a monetary lawsuit against the Legislators who the first time turned down a vote on it. And the wingnuts also said that if they voted on it yesterday they would drop the lawsuit. (I'm sure that had NOTHING to do on why they voted yesterday *cough*
In MA it has to be voted on 2x's in the Legislature and approved before it can go on the voters ballot. The supporters are HOPING that since the next time it can be voted on is after the NEW TERM begins there will be more support because many who oppose it LOST in the last election.
And so it drags on and on and on.
Hope this helps a bit.
Posted by: Wolf | Jan 3, 2007 3:49:15 PM
well we've already had our first murder of the year in Boston but dadblangit this homo marriage business is far more important to the state lege.
I'm keeping a list, you Dem assholes who voted Y.
Posted by: 42 | Jan 3, 2007 5:55:35 PM
Re: that gentleman in the picture - best sign ever.
Re: Commenter above me (42) - class act all the way. God forbid a minority receive equal rights, huh? It wasn't the pro-marriage contingency that forced the legislature to force this issue.
Posted by: jeff | Jan 3, 2007 6:19:23 PM
Dear Man in Picture,
I'm not a christian! Never was, never will be!
David
P.S. Some of my friends are *C*hristians - that's their business!
Posted by: dave | Jan 3, 2007 8:44:17 PM
Man, that picture is depressing! These people, my fellow MA citizens, are living in the 16th century.
Posted by: dave | Jan 3, 2007 9:36:49 PM
has anyone considered that the sign is directed towards the bigots who claim to be christians but whose actions say otherwise?
Posted by: mark m | Jan 4, 2007 9:16:14 AM
For the record, the man in the picture is PRO gay marriage. He is holding his sign up to the "Christians" across the street who are against gay marriage asking them to start ACTING like Christians instead of just claiming to be Christians.
As for 42: It's clear to me that his first statement was sarcastic since he is keeping a list of the "Dem assholes who voted Y" (a "Y" vote was FOR the amendment and MANY more Democrats voted FOR the amendment than Republicans, a number of which voted N).
If you want a depressing look at how many Mass. Democrats threw us under the bus go to BayWindows.com and click “Blogging the Constitutional Convention. The breakdown of who voted how will shock most people here. I would have linked it but the URL is about five lines long.
Posted by: Zeke | Jan 4, 2007 9:25:17 AM
Mark M, you beat me to it.
Posted by: Zeke | Jan 4, 2007 9:26:10 AM
And here I was about to make fun of "Dave" for misintepreting that sign in the picture when I was misconstruing what "42" meant. Touche!
Posted by: jeff | Jan 4, 2007 9:59:08 AM