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.
Posted 3:03 PM EST by Andy Towle 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.
Please, if this makes it to the voters you all in Mass can kiss your nuptials goodbye. You're honestly going to count on the straights to come to your rescue? The people who are going to come out and vote on the issue are those 170,000 who signed the petition, and the 20,000 folks who already married gayly.
Posted by: Jersey | Jan 2, 2007 8:15:30 PM
Stephen = fucking moron. 'Nuff said.
Posted by: stephenisadouche | Jan 2, 2007 8:24:05 PM
I'm for an amendment banning trolls. Sorry Stephen, majority rules.
Posted by: mark m | Jan 2, 2007 9:28:28 PM
Thanks for posting this Andy. We just got home from attending the Convention and rally all day with our local marriage equality group based on the south coast of Massachusetts. Something of a splinter group of Mass Equality. We're proud our group worked hard to change three of our legislators votes. Obviously, not enough work done all around the state. What amazed us about today's goings-on at the State House wasn't what was going on inside but rather outside. There were probably ONLY 300 supporters there faced by as many or more ant-gay marriage schmucks.
Where are the nearly 10,000 couple who married in Massachusetts over the past two years.
Where are all the other queens who have no idea how important an issue this really is.
Sorry to stand on my soap box, but people need to get involved. Not just in Massachusetts but all around the country. What happens here is going to change the lives of people everywhere. If you live in MA, call your legislators, have your parents and friends call their legislators. Give financial support to groups like Mass Equality and the Freedom To Marry Coalition. Hold signs for legislators who support our cause. Write letters to the editors of your local paper.
DO SOMETHING. Time is running out in Massachusetts. Take some time to understand how the Constitutional Convention process works. They have one more vote and if that passes, this will go to the people. And while we could be incredibly surprised, I am not hopeful.
It's been a long day. I'm going to bed.
Thanks Andy.
Posted by: Chris | Jan 2, 2007 10:04:15 PM
Being a Mass resident, I am deeply disappointed with this outcome. While there is still another vote to be had before it goes on a ballot, I think things look grim with that slimey, snake oil salesman, Romney, making his national bid and using "the protection of traditional values" as a platform. The only way I think to beat this ban in Mass is to play up to just how progressive we New Englanders think we are compared to the rest of the nation. Honestly, I think more citizens would voice opposition if they felt they were fighting for their reputation than actually fighting for homosexual couples.
Posted by: Toto | Jan 2, 2007 11:38:30 PM
Romney is not going to be gov. for much longer.
Posted by: Anon | Jan 3, 2007 12:06:06 AM
A number of folks here seem unclear about just what's going on, so let me run it down quickly:
This is a move to amend the MA constitution by citizen initiative. First, the requisite number of signatures on petitions must be gathered. Second, at least 1/4 of the state Legislature must approve. Third, at least 1/4 the next year's session of the Legislature must again approve the measure. Fourth, it goes on the ballot the next year.
In this case, Tuesday's vote was step two. Last month, the joint session adjourned without voting on the measure; the hope was it would do the same Tuesday, the last day of the session. But a ruling by the Supreme Judicial Court of MA declared that while the Court could not order the legislators to vote, they did have a constitutional duty to do so. The legislators buckled and Tuesday's vote was the result.
With that in mind, a repeat vote in 2007 and a ballot question on the amendment in 2008 look likely.
But for reasons I've argued elsewhere and so won't repeat here, I remain very hopeful that the amendment will ultimately fail. Getting it on the ballot is one thing, getting it passed is quite another.
I pledge that MA will not write bigotry into its constitution.
Posted by: LarryE | Jan 3, 2007 2:18:23 AM
By the way, the "elsewhere" referred to above is, if anyone cares:
http://www.thecore4.com/?p=2384
Posted by: LarryE | Jan 3, 2007 2:20:28 AM
Oh how I wish my home country, the United States, would grow-up and take a tip from my adopted home, Canada. Marriage equality is the law of the land, and even many of those who were against same-sex marriage, now admit that their lives have not been changed, challenged or threatened in any way whatsoever. The kinda wonder what all the shouting was about in the first place. Only the most virulently bigoted right-winger, religious fanatics are griping about their so-called "loss." But they are in a tiny minority. I know my home country has the ability to work through this issue if only they could discuss this matter in a rational and sane manner without kissing the asses of the religious right.
Posted by: Michael D. Fein | Jan 3, 2007 2:30:59 AM
Eventually, we'll be able to marry anyone we so choose. It may not be today, tomorrow, or ten years from now, but it will happen eventually. To borrow a phrase, "Our day is gonna come".
Posted by: Dex | Jan 3, 2007 3:28:56 AM
Three cheers for you and your fellow activists, Chris, and for your words of caution. Our limited explicit rights will continue to be lost in more places than they are won until gays, collectively, are as motivated as the American Taliban. You can count on one hand the number of instances in our history when that has been true—and still have fingers left. Sadly, I see that in our future for a long time to come, too. Witness the lack of mass public response to Bush's call to ban gay marriage in ALL states at once by amending the US Constitution. He's been saying that for at least two years, but more gays [counting locals alone] show up for the annual 4th of July fireworks on the Mall, trek to Rehobeth any summer Saturday, showed up to watch the Human Rights Champagne fund canonize Lance and Reichen, saw "Dreamgirls" over the holidays, or are in DC bars every weekend ad infinitum than have protested outside the White House. In fact, to the best of my knowledge no demonstration has even been called for. One can say, as I often have myself, that such demonstrations no longer have any concrete effect. But I erroneously said that before members of ACT UP, et al., made the federal and local governments stop virtually ignoring AIDS when they stopped attending circle jerks [read HRC/GLAAD/Fill In the Blank dinners] and went public in ways that disrupted the status quo. As they say about contests and Life itself: "Must be present to win."
Posted by: Leland | Jan 3, 2007 4:41:31 AM
Stephen = Not a moron.
Call it something else, but marriage it isn't. The same-sex relationship does not, in and of itself, have the ABILITY to pro-create. This is somewhat of a major DIFFERENCE from heterosexual counterparts. I support civil unions which convey virtually the same privileges. Intrinsic to the heterosexual relationship is pro-creation. That makes the two couplings (same-sex vs. hetero) different.
Posted by: Stephen | Jan 3, 2007 7:06:18 AM
The roll call breakdown:
Republicans voted to move the amendment initiative forward at a much higher rate than Democrats. Democrats made the move forward possible, although 6 of 27 (22.2%) of Republicans, along with 126 Democrats (76%), voted No.
HOUSE
54 Yes, 100 No
Yes: 35 D, 19 R
No: 98 D, 2 R
Republican Yes: 90.5% (19 of 21)
Democrat Yes: 26.3% (35 of 133)
SENATE
7 Yes, 32 No
Yes: 5 D, 2 R
No: 28 D, 4 R
Republican Yes: 33.3% (2 of 6)
Democrat Yes: 15.1% (5 of 33)
HOUSE AND SENATE
Republican Yes: 77.7%
Democrat Yes: 24.0%
Posted by: sean | Jan 3, 2007 8:55:39 AM
This just in: Today, Stephen [last name withheld] was elected President of the Flat Earth Society. Arriving at the ceremony on his pet dinosaur, Stephen tearfully thanked everyone who voted for him, and promised to never stop regurgitating Medieval nonsense no matter how much evidence was presented to the contrary. This was followed by the reading of a congratulatory message from His Homoness, Pope Benedicked: "Dot dot dash dot dash dash dot...." etc. Stephen reminded the faithful in attendance that a barren woman cannot enter Heaven and, quickly removing his hand from his pocket, that masturbation is wrong, wrong, wrong. The meeting ended with a huge bonfire of condoms during which Stephen took the opportunity to explain the origin of the term "burning rubber."
Posted by: Leland | Jan 3, 2007 9:56:49 AM
Ok Stephen, I'll bite.
Gay couples can and do adopt in many states (though not all due to the law). So in a sense, their coupling can produce children.
Not in a strictly biological sense (though lesbians can come closest with insemination).
So your distinction between hetero marriage and gay coupling includes merely a biological factor as the difference.
Someone else already challenged you with the following argument, which you dodged (wisely, since I suspect you don't have a reasonable counterpoint) that barren str8 couples lack the "inherent" biological distinction you speak of.
So according to your argument, these couples should be in civil unions, not marriage, since marriage is reserved for couples who can biologically procreate with one another.
And lastly, I wish to know who you name as an authority on your viewpoint. Is it the Bible (which no where says that marriage is between one woman and one man - partly because men often had several wives in those days). Is it the government? Society? There has been absolutely no proof that allowing gays to marry in other countries has hurt those societies. In fact, they have adjusted quite nicely. So any concerns "Society" might have are unfounded.
I guess that leaves strident bigots and religious nutjobs as your authority on the distinction of marriage.
Which one are you?
Posted by: mark m | Jan 3, 2007 10:08:01 AM
Note that I siad, "...have the ABILITY to procreate." That doesn't mean a heterosexual marriage where the husband & wife choose not to have children is invalid.
As for being a religious nutjob or ...bigot, I am neither. But whatever you want to tag me, do the same to Bill Clinton and John Edwards, et al.
Posted by: Stephen | Jan 3, 2007 12:08:03 PM
Ok Stephen, what about hetero couples that DO NOT have the ability to procreate? Let's say that the man or the woman or both happen to be infertile? Then what?
Oh, and you response is so lame - *That doesn't mean a heterosexual marriage where the husband & wife choose not to have children is invalid.* Ok, so marriage even though it is MEANT to create life and all, is still valid even to heteros who choose NOT to creat life anyway. But homos can't marry, because you say so. Wow.
Btw, you're still a moron.
Posted by: stephenisadouche | Jan 3, 2007 1:34:29 PM
A man and a woman who don't have the ability to pro-create due to infertility, illness, etc. doesn't negate the fact that intrinsically they are otherwise a special union, a union - unlike any other - that would bear them new life if they were both healthy and desirous of children. This doesn't negate any heterosexual marriage whereby the couple hasn't given birth, because the nature of the union (male/female) intrinsically still allows it. The ability to pro-create can never exist in and of itself amongst 2 people of the same sex. It cannot be done without outside influence. So call it something (civil union?), but don't call it marriage, because there does exist a magnificent difference.
Posted by: Stephen | Jan 3, 2007 3:10:15 PM
I have nothing better to do, so....
Stephen are you a heterosexual? Just curious because most gay men would probably not characterize the difference in gay vs. straight marriages as "a magnificent difference." That sounds like a hetero assumption that there is something blessed and special about their experience and gays don't measure up.
Aside from that, you are still skirting around the question of infertility and marriage. To you, as long as there is a uterus and semen, regardless of whether they work or not, the marriage is valid. On whose authority? Where exactly are you getting this rule book from? If procreation makes marriage special, then you MUST PROCREATE to validate your marriage. And if the possibility alone is enough, then please share with us your SOURCE for this assumption.
Your arguments to the contrary are so circular, it sounds as if you are stuck in a feedback loop.
I love debating with people who are obviously unable to back up their position with sound logic. It shows me just how sad and desperate they must feel since their side is losing this battle.
Posted by: mark m | Jan 3, 2007 6:07:55 PM
Mark M,
Marriage is defined as a legal agreement between one man and one woman. Any dictionary will reveal to you my SOURCE.
The homosexual and lesbian agenda is seeking to make marriage something it isn't: A legal union between two people of the same sex. (A boat isn't a car if you put wheels on it. It's no longer a boat, but neither is it a car!)
An intrinsic part of a marriage is the sexual union which ultimately brings forth new life. That does not mean if a man and a woman choose not to, or are unable to have children, their marriage is null and void.
Same sex unions do not carry this intrinsic criteria. Hence, there is a DIFFERENCE in the unions, i.e., a differnce in how they are defined. Future dictionairies -- it is my hope -- will include a defintion for civil union: Legal agreement between same sex couple (sic.).
- END -
Posted by: Stephen | Jan 3, 2007 7:27:09 PM
"A boat isn't a car if you put wheels on it. It's no longer a boat, but neither is it a car!"
And a moron who compares cars and boats with basic human rights is still... well, a moron.
And it's funny that you didn't answer Mark M's first question - are you a heterosexual? Hmmm, since you avoided that question I'm guessing you're a big fat self-loathing closet case. Typical. -END-
Posted by: stephenisadouche | Jan 3, 2007 9:58:58 PM
Doucheman:
My sexual preference is irrelevant. What you're saying is ANYONE who lives with a system of beliefs and values not in line with those that you and others here are espousing, well, just dismiss them as dolts.
Funny thing is, I thought acceptance was a stalwart of those supporting and promoting the 'gay' agenda. You know, "Live and let live."
Moron? Not me.
Posted by: Stephen | Jan 4, 2007 2:33:35 AM
Stephen, You are not only a moron but a bigoted idiot. Your so-called "system of beliefs" is unsupported by any factual or ethical basis that you have cited. A dictionary may define a word but does not encompass the attendant rights and privileges. That is for society to ascribe, as we have done in our Constitution. The Constitution enumerates rights as an expansive doctrine not as a delimiting concept. Why is such a self-loathing closet case trolling on this site? We are fully supportive of intelligent discussion but have no patience for cretins spouting bile.
Posted by: rudy | Jan 4, 2007 7:01:04 AM
"Marriage is defined as a legal agreement between one man and one woman. Any dictionary will reveal to you my SOURCE."
Then you add...
"An intrinsic part of a marriage is the sexual union which ultimately brings forth new life. "
So you essentially jump from a legal argument to a more spiritual argument. No where in law is it stated that marriage between men and women serves the purpose of bringing forth life.
You just took a car (marriage is law) and tried to characterize it as a boat (marriage is about bringing forth life).
Your second attempt to distinguish marriage between straights from marriages between gays has failed. Yet again.
I find myself amused at your frequent use of the word "intrinsic". You find intrinsic difference in the pure biological factor of a penis and a vagina in straight marriages. What a brilliant distinction. Funny I never noticed that men are built different than women!
And yet you ignore some of the most important intrinsic aspects of any marriage which are essential and common to BOTH straight and gay unions.
These include but are not limited to:
Love
Trust
Communication
Shared Interests
Companionship
Tax Benefits
Sexual bonding
Financial security
respect
Your pathetic attempts to belittle gay marriage with terms like "The gay and lesbian agenda" illustrates your self pious agenda, sir.
I respect your right to feel the way you do. I do not respect your opinion and I will continue to call you out on your bigotry as long as you continue to troll on this web site.
It's good practice for you.... learning to deal with defeat. Any help I can give is time well spent.
Posted by: mark m | Jan 4, 2007 9:55:08 AM
Rudy, I must respectfully disagree with your (and other's) characterization of Stephen as a Moron.
A moron is a baffoon, an imbecile, a dullard who doesn't know any better.
Stephen is not a moron. Stephen is an otherwise intelligent person who has chosen his views based on a sense of superiority and a desire to keep gays and lesbians marginalized because in his view, they are not equal to straights. They are not human.
Masked behind his calm rebuttles lies the voice of a self righteous Christian. Having been raised a born again Christian, I know their type very well.
No, he's no moron. He's far worse. The people who operated the gas chambers in Germany were not Morons. They knew EXACTLY what they were doing.
Posted by: mark m | Jan 4, 2007 10:02:27 AM