Reply
Thu 9 Nov, 2006 06:01 pm
By Michael McDonald
Nov. 9 (Bloomberg) -- Massachusetts lawmakers today derailed an effort to send a proposal to voters that would ban same-sex marriages in the state.
The state Legislature voted to end a special session before debating the proposed state constitutional amendment that would appear on the 2008 statewide ballot.
``This amendment is about the past,'' said State Senator Edward Augustine, a Democrat who opposed the measure. ``It's about fear and intolerance.''
Massachusetts is the only state in the U.S. that recognizes marriages between people of the same sex. The state inspired activists to seek similar treatment in other states and led opponents, including President George W. Bush, to advocate a U.S. constitutional amendment banning it.
The same-sex marriage ban was one measure the state House of Representatives and Senate in Massachusetts debated today at a joint session on constitutional amendments.
State lawmakers voted in 2004 to amend the constitution to ban the marriages but rejected the measure the next year. It had to be passed by lawmakers this year and next to get it on a ballot in 2008. Instead, they voted to recess until Jan. 2.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled in 2003 that the state constitution guarantees equal marriage rights for same-sex couples. There have been as many as 9,000 such unions in the state since town clerks started issuing licenses to gay and lesbian couples more than two year ago, according to the legislators who spoke today.
Republican Governor Mitt Romney, who is considering a run for U.S. President in 2008, supports the state proposal to ban the marriages.
Voters in Idaho, Colorado, South Dakota, South Carolina, Tennessee and Wisconsin voted this week in favor of restricting marriage to a man and woman. Arizona voters rejected such a proposal.
The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled on Oct. 25 that gay couples are entitled to the same rights under the state constitution as married couples of opposite sexes, leaving to the Legislature the decision on whether to call it marriage or civil unions.
There were so many negatives it took me a while to figure out whether it was good or bad -- seems good! Yay.
There is a part of me that wants to have an election on this.
It would be nice to see bigotry lose decisively and shut these idiots up once and for all.
I am pretty sure Marriage is safe in Massachusetts now that people have seen the world hasn't ended.
... but then again I understand the point that it isn't worth the risk when Marriage is now a right.
Actually when I went to the polls on Tuesday, there were a couple of people collecting signatures to support gay marriage and asking your representatives to vote against this proposed ban. I signed it of course. To me it is more a positive thing, encouraging people to make a commitment to each other. Is banning gay marriage going to stop gays from having a relationship any way?
Must have been enough signatures as it seemed to work.
The courts are not the place to establish social norms.
A legislature cannot decide independant of the people, what those norms should be.
The PEOPLE must be in a position to decide the social norms in their community.
Why won't this legislature allow the people to decide this issue?
woiyo wrote:The courts are not the place to establish social norms.
A legislature cannot decide independant of the people, what those norms should be.
The PEOPLE must be in a position to decide the social norms in their community.
Why won't this legislature allow the people to decide this issue?
If we'd followed that exact same reasoning, I might have had to sit at the back of the bus for another couple decades.
snood wrote:woiyo wrote:The courts are not the place to establish social norms.
A legislature cannot decide independant of the people, what those norms should be.
The PEOPLE must be in a position to decide the social norms in their community.
Why won't this legislature allow the people to decide this issue?
If we'd followed that exact same reasoning, I might have had to sit at the back of the bus for another couple decades.
Funny how the 15th Amendment of the Constitution solved that problem.
Why is this legislature afraid to go forward is the question.
woiyo wrote:snood wrote:woiyo wrote:The courts are not the place to establish social norms.
A legislature cannot decide independant of the people, what those norms should be.
The PEOPLE must be in a position to decide the social norms in their community.
Why won't this legislature allow the people to decide this issue?
If we'd followed that exact same reasoning, I might have had to sit at the back of the bus for another couple decades.
Funny how the 15th Amendment of the Constitution solved that problem.
Why is this legislature afraid to go forward is the question.
Your lack of knowledge of American history is appalling.
Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
You need to open your little mind to see my point apparently.
The 13th and 15th amendments changed the social structure of this nation.
Why are you afraid to have a State send to the voters to decide if a social norm should be changed?
woiyo wrote:You need to open your little mind to see my point apparently.
The 13th and 15th amendments changed the social structure of this nation.
Why are you afraid to have a State send to the voters to decide if a social norm should be changed?
Because they know that they won't win if it is put to a vote. They have to have such things done in the courts. As much as they say our govt is for the people by the people, they don't want the people to deceide for themselves. It is a continuation of the nanny state. The courts will more often then not deceide to over throw the will of the people no matter what the vote said.
Baldimo wrote:woiyo wrote:You need to open your little mind to see my point apparently.
The 13th and 15th amendments changed the social structure of this nation.
Why are you afraid to have a State send to the voters to decide if a social norm should be changed?
Because they know that they won't win if it is put to a vote. They have to have such things done in the courts. As much as they say our govt is for the people by the people, they don't want the people to deceide for themselves. It is a continuation of the nanny state. The courts will more often then not deceide to over throw the will of the people no matter what the vote said.
The argument ends if the People Vote. does not matter HOW they vote, but the people would respect the decision if they know it was voted on by the people.
woiyo wrote:The argument ends if the People Vote. does not matter HOW they vote, but the people would respect the decision if they know it was voted on by the people.
Sure it does. Arizona voted, and if the failure holds up, wanna bet that it won't be back in a slightly less aggressive form?
Quote:Prop. 107, the constitutional amendment that defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman, was failing by the slimmest of margins early this morning. Marriage already is defined by state statute, making this amendment unnecessary. But the intense campaign and the close vote casts a socially conservative tone for the state.
Star
Colorado just had an amendment and a referendum about marriage. The amendment passed to define marriage between a man and a woman. The referendum failed to give legal rights to gay couples. The people spoke and lets hope that it stays that way, and some court doesn't over turn them.
woiyo wrote:You need to open your little mind to see my point apparently.
The 13th and 15th amendments changed the social structure of this nation.
Why are you afraid to have a State send to the voters to decide if a social norm should be changed?
Marriage is a social issue?
littlek wrote:woiyo wrote:You need to open your little mind to see my point apparently.
The 13th and 15th amendments changed the social structure of this nation.
Why are you afraid to have a State send to the voters to decide if a social norm should be changed?
Marriage is a social issue?
What else would it be. Its not a rights issue, gay people can already marry someone just like anyone else.
Baldimo wrote:What else would it be. Its not a rights issue, gay people can already marry someone just like anyone else.
Yes, yes, Baldy. And in during the days that interracial marriage was illegal, white people could marry white people etc.
mesquite wrote:Baldimo wrote:What else would it be. Its not a rights issue, gay people can already marry someone just like anyone else.
Yes, yes, Baldy. And in during the days that interracial marriage was illegal, white people could marry white people etc.
You can't compair race and homosexuality. One is chosen and the other is not. You can't chose to be black but you can chose to be with the same sex.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace