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 Jan. 2,2007 at 3:03 PM EST by Andy Towle in Gay Marriage, Massachusetts, Mitt Romney, News | Permalink
Stephen, generally I try to avoid the temptation to attempt an informed discussion with a fool but in this case I take personal offense to you're ignorance and feel it necessary to weigh in.
My husband and I are the parents of a 13 year old son. We are the ONLY parents that he has ever known. He was conceived in the very SAME fashion that has brought parenthood to tens of thousands of heterosexual married couples across the country. It may not have been "natural" by YOUR standards, but it didn't make my child any less natural and didn't make me any less his father AND didn't make my husband any less his father than any heterosexual father of a child that was the result of donated sperm (due to his infertility).
Though I was legally married to my husband in Canada years ago, he has ABSOLUTELY NO legal rights or relation to his son since we live in Florida where gay adoption is illegal.
Explain to me again why my family is less than a heterosexually headed family that shares our history. Explain to me why my neighbor's THIRD marriage (which, by the way, is graciously childless) is of greater value than my 16 year committed relationship to my soulmate and our lifelong commitment to each other and to our child. Explain to me why my 74 year old, barren aunt's recent marriage is valid because once upon a time she was fertile but my lesbian cousin’s 20 year committed relationship to her partner and their family with three children is not. Explain to me why the mass murderer serving three consecutive life sentences (or is on death row) in the state penitentiary for killing his wife and kids has every legal right to marry some brainless pen pal that he's never met but the marriage of myself and my husband, two tax paying, law abiding, community minded fathers of a teenage son is a threat to society.
And one last thing: We’ve all heard your lame, “your intolerance of my right to discriminate makes you just as intolerant as those who discriminate” meme is a tired and terribly flawed argument that no intelligent person would ever repeat.
I for one will NEVER tolerate ANYONE who tells my kid that his family isn’t real or that his family is “less than” any other family. LOVE, COMMITMENT, RESPONIBILTY and MUTUAL RESPECT are what makes and MAINTAINS a family NOT the ability to breed. Contrary to popular belief, marriage does not make ANY relationship, gay or straight, sacred and the absence of marriage does not negate the validity of a truly sacred relationship. If you don’t have LOVE, COMMITMENT, RESPONSIBILTY and MUTUAL RESPECT for your partner and kids, NO legal document of religious incantations will sanctify it. If you don’t believe me ask any one of the 50+% of your straight divorced friends about why their “sacred” marriages broke up. I’ll give you $100 for every person you can find whose heterosexual marriage broke up because of the possibility that gay people might be allowed to marry somewhere in the country.
And, just for the record, I want marriage for the legal protection of my family; NOT because I for one moment NEED or WANT the approval of my government, any church or MOST ESPECIALLY an ignorant, arrogant blowhard such as yourself.
Here’s a suggestion for you Steve: Instead of spending your time trolling around gay sites spewing ignorance, why don’t you focus at least half as much attention on your own marriage and the failing marriages of 50+% of you straight friends as you do trying to scapegoat gay people for the total degradation of the institution that straight people should take 100% credit for. THAT, my friend, would be the first step in admitting that STRAIGHT people have a marriage problem and THAT would be the first step in a REAL defense of marriage.
Peace.
Posted by: Zeke | Jan 4, 2007 11:37:10 AM
Sorry for the errors. Didn't proof read before posting.
Yes I know the difference between "you're" and "your". I type faster than I think.
Posted by: Zeke | Jan 4, 2007 11:39:46 AM
Why does anyone here care what this particular Stephen thinks? There is no room in his world view for things beyond the simple measures of his mind.
Posted by: anon | Jan 4, 2007 12:29:36 PM
As you know, this is a divisive and controversial issue for Americans.
I have not invoked a religious aspect to my argument because the bottom virtually falls out for same-sex marriage supporters.
I have based my thoughtful viewpoint -- as millions of others Americans have -- on the unique relationship that a man and a woman possess: The ABILITY (barring health issues or ther personal choice) to pro-create. That cannot be done in a same sex union. Hence, and I state it here again (!) therein lies THE major difference between the two unions.
Civil unions for same sex couples; marriage for heterosexual couples. Because there IS a difference. I don't relent from my position, nor have millions of others in this country (many of them our elected leaders, including many Democrats).
I conclude here, as anymore becomes redundant.
Posted by: Stephen | Jan 4, 2007 12:56:47 PM
Yes, you are redundant but yet you skillfully manage to avoid actually answering any questions asked of you.
Being from Mississippi, I've heard the same arguments that Stephen makes against marriage equality made to justify segregation and anti-miscegenation (race mixing) laws.
It's the same old, "since they're different they can't possibly expect to be treated the same or expect to fall under the same laws that protect the majority" argument. It's also the SAME argument that spawned the "separate but equal" doctrines that dominated the old South prior to the Supreme Court ruling that declared separate but equal simply means ALWAYS separate but NEVER equal.
I've also quite familiar with his "most other people agree with me, therefore I MUST be right" argument. I heard THAT little bit of simpleminded wisdom in Mississippi too.
One day, Stephen will be looked back upon in the very same way that we look back on segregationists now. The anti-gay marriage politicians that are so popular today and that Stephen lauds will be tomorrow's George Wallace who people look back upon as a disgraced bigot who stood proudly and defiantly blocking the doorway of progress to cheers of his constituents.
People told racist and segregationist then that they would be looked back upon as ignorant and hateful bigots but when they looked around and saw that they were in the majority they couldn’t imagine that these admonitions might ever come to fruition. Frankly, at the time, I didn’t think it would happen in my lifetime either. But how many segregationists are looked back upon in a positive light now?
Of course, by the time marriage equality opponents become pariahs, he, like my former segregationist parents do today, will act as if he ALWAYS believed in equality.
Honestly we should pity the poor soul.
Posted by: Zeke | Jan 4, 2007 1:52:44 PM
Zeke, Good to have you back! We missed your passion, wisdom, and willingness to take on the egregiously stupid and the bigoted. I will not waste my pity on the Stephens of the world. If someone wants to proclaim their ignorance, so be it. They only make the case for their opponents, the rational and intelligent. I will however, take on any who attempt to denigrate my family or those of my gay brethren. Battle them, yes; pity them, no.
Posted by: rudy | Jan 4, 2007 2:15:50 PM
Agreed! it's good to have you back Zeke. But Stephen The Troll has posted his viewpoint ad naseum without directly addressing any counterpoint raised by myself and others here.
The sign of an intellectual coward, and I would agree with him that his argument is getting redundant. Bigotry IS often redundant.
Posted by: mark m | Jan 4, 2007 3:02:52 PM
Three other quick things re: Stephen's ill-begotten attempt to find some way, any way, to value straight relationships above same-sex ones.
- Not so long ago, certainly within my lifetime, marriages performed by clergy were considered somehow "better," truer, more exalted than ones performed by, say, a judge or a J.P. Nowadays, I doubt there could be more than a tiny handful to who it makes any difference at all. Raising up procreation is just another way some are trying to maintain a sense of superiority over others.
- What's more, the argument is absurd on its face because procreation and marriage are not related as Stephen would have it: Procreation can occur outside marriage and need not occur within it. There is an overlap, yes, but there is no inherent connection.
- In fact, tellingly, the institution of marriage was not developed in response concerns about procreation and certainly not with the intention of promoting it. Marriage was developed over concerns about property and its distribution.
In my own wedding, it was said that "true marriage arises out of the heart, the soul, the spirit, not out of ceremonies." And, I would add here, neither does it arise out of "ability to procreate."
Posted by: LarryE | Jan 4, 2007 5:05:34 PM
LarryE:
(EPILOGUE)
Of course, procreation can occur outside of marriage. Isn't that just what this society needs more of: Unwed mothers, irresponsible fathers and the children therein who suffer the consequences.
The family, i.e., mother and father has always been (though by no means perfect) the best environment to raise children.
Research & data abound about this.
As for others saying I've not answered their questions, those questions are not immediate to the topic (What does it matter if I am hetero-, homo- or bisexual? ...if I am Christian, Mormon, atheist, etc.? -- Note that I have not invoked a religious aspect to my argument --- the bottom falls out for same sex supporters -- there I go being redundant!)
I have stated my case based on the physiological, biological and anatomical FACTS of what a man and woman produce in a sexual union versus what two people of the same sex cannot produce --- new life. A magnificent difference. I have never said that same sex couples unions/long-term relationships are inferior or less than their heterosexual married counterparts. Never.
Here is the basis of my argument (it is simple and direct):
Do male/male or female/female sexual unions bring about new life? No. Do male/female unions bring about new life? Yes. Are these answers the same? Why is it so difficult for same sex "marriage" supporters to say, "Yes, these are facts.
Give us all the rights that apply to our unique and special relationship, we realize we are different from the majority, we take pride in it. Give us civil uinions so that we have virtually all of the equal rights of those men and women who choose to marry."
It is a fair. It is equitable as it could possibly be.
- END -
Posted by: Stephen | Jan 5, 2007 7:17:52 AM
Stephen please answer this one question. Would you want the government to deny an infertile heterosexual couple the right to marry?
Posted by: Ben | Jan 6, 2007 7:27:58 PM