01/02/2007
Massachusetts Lawmakers Advance Gay Marriage Ban Proposal
This is not good news.
With 61 voting to move the measure forward and 132 voting against it, Massachusetts legislators today advanced a proposed gay marriage amendment ban to a second legislative session, in which it will require another vote to get on the ballot. By law, the measure needs to be approved by at least 50 members in two consecutive legislative sessions to get on the ballot. With this vote, they achieved eleven more votes than necessary to move the measure forward.
This is a defeat for supporters of same-sex marriage in that state, who were hoping that lawmakers would avoid a vote on the issue entirely. Before the vote, hundreds of supporters and opponents had gathered outside the state house to voice their opinions.
From AP: "The vote Tuesday in the constitutional convention came without debate, immediately after Senate President Robert Travaglini officially opened the joint session. Earlier in the day, Gov-elect Deval Patrick had met with Travaglini and House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi to urge against a vote, calling it a 'question of conscience.' He said the proposed amendment was the first time the amendment process was being used "to consider reinserting discrimination into the constitution."
Civil rights should not be up for popular vote.
Sphere: Related ContentPosted 3:03 PM EST by Andy in Gay Marriage, Massachusetts, Mitt Romney, News | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Is this really the only problem in Massachusetts worth tackling right now?
I still cannot fathom why banning gay marriage is the only thing so many state legislatures are focused on. So it's ok for kids to kill other kids, it's ok for drugs and poverty and unemployment to run rampant, it's okay for straight men to have children with as many women they want without providing any support, it's okay for parents to neglect their children and abuse them and even kill them, but it's not okay for two committed same-sex adults to get married.
Every time I think we make progress a setback like this comes. I think we should write a ban against adultery or divorce into the constitution as well, so these hypocrites who claim gay marriage undercuts the sanctity of "traditional" marriage could reap what they sow.
Wow, sorry for the mini-sermon.
Posted by: Larry | Jan 2, 2007 3:12:37 PM
Not a good way to start the year. BUT this tells us that the fight is never over.
Never give up hope. Do what is necessary so that America finally has full marriage equality. It will happen but it will take lots of work as we are seing in Mass.
My prayers go out to Mass. and the rest of the USofA.
Posted by: FunMe | Jan 2, 2007 3:20:31 PM
ANOTHER TERRORIST ATTACK IN ADA, OKLAHOMA!
PINK PANTHERS BLOG!
www.pinkpanthersblog.com
LESBIANS ATTACKED AGAIN BY TERRORIST HATE GROUP!
Posted by: cowboyneok | Jan 2, 2007 3:45:51 PM
Great. So the homophobes of Massachusetts vote to enshrine discrimination into their constitution. Then we petition the court to overturn it as unconstitutional -- with it of course is.
And the music goes round and round oh-oh-oh-oh and it comes out here.
Posted by: David Ehrenstein | Jan 2, 2007 3:47:18 PM
It's a weird process to be sure. 50 votes is a low threshold. Now they have to do it again, and then it goes to the voters. Maybe they should reconsider their amendment process.
Posted by: Anon | Jan 2, 2007 3:52:44 PM
Personally, I have had it with the country where my ancestors settled in 1733. My family has been in America continously since then, and my family fought in every war since the Revolutionary War, but my life as 1/2 of a gay couple is still not equal.
When the time comes, I will seriously consider moving to Canada or the UK, where this is no longer a real issue. I recently sat down and 'did the math' and the financial benefits of moving to Toronto or London are worth considering.
Just wish we hadn't wasted so much on lawyers in our attempts to be 'equal' in spite of the American 'code' of hatred against gays. I will send a check to support Equal Rights, but I plan to live somewhere where they don't hate me, thank you.
A mass Exodus to Vancouver and Toronto and Montreal by gay would throw the American economy into the biggest tailspin they ever knew -- maybe there's a case for all of us to leave.
Posted by: Mark Woods | Jan 2, 2007 3:52:49 PM
As for the amendment process: we here in Michigan have a dandy little referendum process. Get enough people to sign a petition and it goes to a statewide ballot. A majority is enough to amend the constitution. It's been done to outlaw gay civil unions, affirmative action and a host of other things. I have to say, MA seems pretty sane...in spite of this!
Posted by: JT | Jan 2, 2007 3:56:15 PM
It's actually still up in the air. The convention is still in session and the outcome is not fully determined yet as there are a lot of last minute procedural wranglings.
Posted by: Jason | Jan 2, 2007 3:59:14 PM
It was the damn activist judges, telling them that they had to vote on it. Damn activist judges...
Posted by: jimmy | Jan 2, 2007 4:06:44 PM
I don't believe the judges said they had to vote on it. It was the other way around, wasn't it?
Anyway...this isn't over today. I just saw it on the news (LIVE) The are going to do a re-consideration vote in a little while.
Posted by: Patrick | Jan 2, 2007 4:10:36 PM
Really, this issue should have been voted on. It was backhanded politics to not vote, and we don't need to sink to the level of the GOP.
Even if it gets 50 votes with the new DNC oriented congress, putting it to the people may be in the state's best interest. Although it's risky, I like to hope that the majority of people are not willing to take rights away that were previously granted. The vote will be five years after the fact, so society has had time to adjust. If the majority of people vote on in the 2008 election, this issue is over for good, because people can't play the activist judge card anymore.
Posted by: Brill | Jan 2, 2007 4:16:38 PM
So what's the vote going to look like? I read an article which quoted a poll saying 60% of Mass voters were not in favor of a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.
Posted by: Dan | Jan 2, 2007 4:20:38 PM
Gay marriage might be safe. There has been a motion to reconsider that passed. Best place to follow is on Bay Windows or Blue Mass Group
Posted by: jason | Jan 2, 2007 4:31:30 PM
Not good news...but let's be honest...it has not chance of passing.
Posted by: Karim | Jan 2, 2007 4:38:45 PM
I do agree that petition amendments should require super-majority voting 2/3+1 at least. Simple majorities makes it seem like the passing of a regular proposition or law.
Posted by: Anon | Jan 2, 2007 5:03:05 PM
Next the conservatives in MA should reconsider women's suffrage and slavery.
Posted by: homer | Jan 2, 2007 5:08:41 PM
I plan on introducing a bill to hang all witches in Massachusetts' next legislative session. Then perhaps, a bill proclaiming the world flat and Rush Limbaugh as the new King of the state.
Posted by: Marco | Jan 2, 2007 5:43:16 PM
MASS LEGISLATURE = A BUNCH OF PUSSIES
DiMassi couldn't let it die. After all it is a just a job. theres absolutely no obligation for him as Speaker of the House to make decisions about what is right or wrong to send through the Legislature.
What a bunch of fuckin MASSHOLES.
This is the reason that i left that god forsaken state.
If I ran a gay group in MA I would start collecting signitures for a petition to strip the Catholic Church os any CIVIL LEGAL power when preforming a marriage ceremony.
Posted by: Wolfie | Jan 2, 2007 6:14:31 PM
Anyone well informed about Mass. politics know what the new legislature looks like? Seems like you could make a fairly accurate prediction based on who's leaving and who's replacing them. Here's how they voted (this might be the first vote of the day, not the final one): http://www1.whdh.com/news/articles/local/BO38814/
Posted by: scott | Jan 2, 2007 6:22:23 PM
clarification to my above post... a prediction on how the next vote (the one the could send it to the ballot) will turn out.
Posted by: Scott | Jan 2, 2007 6:25:03 PM
The legislature did their job. The MA state constitution mandated the petition be voted on. It was. Now the chips will fall where they may with a vote next year and (if passed again) a vote by MA registered voters.
Same-sex "marriage" supporters shout about inequality, how they should be treated as equally as heterosexual couples. Those same supporters refuse to acknowledge a difference (read: not equal)from their heterosexual counterparts: That a male/male or female/female sexual relationship (in itself) cannot bring forth a new life. Whereas, the male/female sexual relationship intrinsically includes it.
Those who suport marriage as between one man and one woman are only voicing their deepest, heartfelt belief on this topic.
Civil uinions: Yes Marriage: One man and one woman. If you are honest with yourself, you cannot conclude otherwise.
Posted by: Stephen | Jan 2, 2007 7:14:06 PM
The legislature did their job. The MA state constitution mandated the petition be voted on. It was. Now the chips will fall where they may with a vote next year and (if passed again) a vote by MA registered voters.
Same-sex "marriage" supporters shout about inequality, how they should be treated as equally as heterosexual couples. Those same supporters refuse to acknowledge a difference (read: not equal)from their heterosexual counterparts: That a male/male or female/female sexual relationship (in itself) cannot bring forth a new life. Whereas, the male/female sexual relationship intrinsically includes it.
Those who suport marriage as between one man and one woman are only voicing their deepest, heartfelt belief on this topic.
Civil uinions: Yes Marriage: One man and one woman. If you are honest with yourself, you cannot conclude otherwise.
Posted by: Stephen | Jan 2, 2007 7:14:21 PM
The legislature did their job. The MA state constitution mandated the petition be voted on. It was. Now the chips will fall where they may with a vote next year and (if passed again) a vote by MA registered voters.
Same-sex "marriage" supporters shout about inequality, how they should be treated as equally as heterosexual couples. Those same supporters refuse to acknowledge a difference (read: not equal)from their heterosexual counterparts: That a male/male or female/female sexual relationship (in itself) cannot bring forth a new life. Whereas, the male/female sexual relationship intrinsically includes it.
Those who suport marriage as between one man and one woman are only voicing their deepest, heartfelt belief on this topic.
Civil uinions: Yes Marriage: One man and one woman. If you are honest with yourself, you cannot conclude otherwise.
Posted by: Stephen | Jan 2, 2007 7:14:21 PM
Please Stephen,
Are hetero childless marriages invalid or less worthy than hetero marriages with kids?
And fuck anyone who believes that I am not voicing my "deepest, heartfelt belief on this topic." I am, and banning gays and lesbians from marrying is wrong.
Posted by: Marco | Jan 2, 2007 7:31:41 PM
To be fare to the legislatures, only 1/4 of them are "pussies". So a supermajority of them stood up against bigotry.
Posted by: RDM | Jan 2, 2007 7:43:59 PM