posted on June 14, 2007 01:05:19 PM
Yep, typical liberal state....now refusing to allow the people who ARE "we the people" to decide, via their votes, IF they want their own state to allow gay marriages to continue.
Obviously their liberals don't believe the PEOPLE of 'we the people' should decide. THEY will decide FOR them.
Wonder what they'll be imposing on the voters next? And here I thought what the people wanted was SOoooo important to them.
Nope....not when it doesn't agree with the way THEY want things done. Then...SCREW the voters.
=============================
No Gay Marriage Vote for Massachusetts
Jun 14 02:38 PM US/Eastern
By STEVE LeBLANC
Associated Press Writer
View larger image
BOSTON (AP) - Massachusetts lawmakers blocked a proposed constitutional amendment Thursday that would have let voters decide whether to ban gay marriage in the only state that allows it.
"In Massachusetts today, the freedom to marry is secure," said a victorious Gov. Deval Patrick, who had lobbied lawmakers up until the final hours Thursday to kill the measure.
The narrow vote was a blow to efforts to reverse the historic court ruling that legalized same-sex marriage in the state. More than 8,500 gay couples have married there since it became legal in May 2004.
As the tally was announced, the halls of the Statehouse erupted in applause. The ban needed 50 votes to secure a place on the 2008 statewide ballot. It got 45, with 151 lawmakers opposed.
"We're proud of our state today, and we applaud the Legislature for showing that Massachusetts is strongly behind fairness," said Lee Swislow, executive director of Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders.
Opponents of gay marriage vowed to press on, but Thursday's defeat after more than three years of sometimes wrenching debate could prove insurmountable. Any effort to mount a new ballot question would take years at a time political support in Massachusetts is swinging firmly behind gay marriage.
Former Gov. Mitt Romney, now running for president, called the vote "a regrettable setback" and said it makes it more important now to pass a national amendment banning gay marriage.
"Marriage is an institution that goes to the heart of our society, and our leaders can no longer abdicate their responsibility," he said.
Raymond Flynn, the former Boston mayor and former U.S. ambassador to the Vatican who was the lead sponsor of the proposed amendment, said the 170,000 Massachusetts residents who signed the petition for the ban "had their vote stolen from them."
The legal fight over gay marriage began in 2001 when seven same-sex couples who had been denied marriage licenses sued in Suffolk Superior Court.
The case reached the state's highest court, which ruled in 2003 that it was unconstitutional to bar gay couples from marriage. It gave the Legislature 180 days to come up with a solution to allow gays to wed. President Bush criticized the decision, but the court was adamant that only full, equal marriage rights would be constitutional.
Outside the Statehouse on Thursday, hundreds of people rallied on both sides of the issue. "We believe it's unconstitutional not to allow people to vote on this," said Rebekah Beliveau, a 24-year-old Gordon Conwell Theological Seminary student who stood with fellow college-age amendment supporters across the street from the Statehouse.
"We're standing up not necessarily on the issue of same-sex marriage, but our right to vote," she said. Advocates said they had gathered 170,000 signatures supporting the amendment; the secretary of state's office accepted 123,000 as valid.
Across the road, gay marriage advocates stood on the front steps of the capital waving signs that read, "Wrong to Vote on Rights" and "All Families Are Equal."
Jean Chandler, 62, of Cambridge, came with fellow members of her Baptist church in an effort to rebuff the image that strict followers of the Bible are opposed to gay marriage.
"I think being gay is like being left-handed," Chandler said. "If we decided left-handed people couldn't marry, what kind of society would we be?"
The measure needed 50 votes in two consecutive legislative sessions to advance to the ballot, and it had passed with 62 votes at the end of the last session in January.
On Thursday, in contrast to previous joint sessions, there was no debate. Senate President Therese Murray opened the constitutional convention by calling for a vote, and the session was gaveled to a close immediately afterward.
It was a victory for the state's Democratic leadership, including Patrick, a vocal supporter of gay marriage.
House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi, a Democrat from Boston, also worked on lawmakers to get them to oppose the measure, arguing that the rights of a minority group should not be put to a popular vote. Before the session, a handful of lawmakers who had voted in favor of the amendment previously said they were reconsidering their vote.
One lawmakers who previously voted in favor of the amendment, Democratic Rep. Anthony Verga of Gloucester, missed the joint session after injuring himself in a fall the day before.
Kris Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute that backed the amendment, said his group was vastly outspent by gay marriage supporters. "It certainly does appear that money speaks in this building," he said.
Mineau pledged to continue fighting but wouldn't commit to presenting another proposed amendment.
"I don't believe it's dead because the people have not had the opportunity to have their vote," he said. "This will not go away until the citizens have their opportunity to decide what the definition of marriage is."
___
Associated Press writers Glen Johnson and Ken Maguire contributed to this report.
posted on June 14, 2007 03:23:16 PM
Good for the lawmakers in Mass. I applaud them for sticking for the minority. Gay marriage has been legal in Mass for 3 years and no harm has come to that state despite all the fears and mass hysteria from the conservatives.
Lawmakers do not have to let the people vote on every single issue that comes before them. The US is a republic and not a 100% true democracy.
If Linda believes the people should decide in everything, I did not hear her complaining when the people elected Gore in 2000. That is right the people chose Gore to be their president. Funny how Linda believes the "we the people" should decide, but it is only when it is in her favor. As Linda said SCREW THE VOTERS. Linda_K the biggest hypocrite and bigot on this board.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on June 14, 2007 03:26:33 PM
By Globe Staff
In January at the end of the last legislative session, Representative Gale Candaras, a Democrat from Wilbraham, voted in favor of a constitutional amendment that would have banned same-sex marriage. Candaras returned to the Legislature as a senator and changed her position, voting today against the same-sex marriage ban.
Candaras issued a statement today after the Constitutional Convention to explain her vote. It appears below in its entirety.
"There are many compelling arguments on both sides of the same gender marriage debate. There are important issues of civil rights, the role of the judiciary, and of course, my role as a legislator and voter in the state constitutional convention, which I have had to consider. This is the highest responsibility of public office: one that transcends the swirl of the issues of the day and one that has to be in the best interest of the Commonwealth for a long time to come. We engage in any process to change our constitution with only the greatest care, and sober reflection.
“We have had an open and vigorous debate on this issue for several years now, and every possible argument on all sides has been made and has had a thorough hearing. No one can honestly say that they have not had the opportunity to be heard, and to participate in a wide ranging, public discussion. As difficult as it has sometimes been, I think we should be proud of how we have conducted ourselves to arrive at where we are today, and that we have done right by the generations that have come before in the hope of making a democratic and constitutional order work as well as humanly possible—just as we now seek to do right by those who will come after us.
“For me, what all this comes down to is this: Same gendered couples are taxpaying, law-abiding citizens, who are important community contributors, well-loved and well-respected by their families, friends, neighbors and employers. They deserve and are entitled to the same legal protections enjoyed by all others citizens of our state. This is the law of the Commonwealth, articulated by our Supreme Judicial Court in Goodrich v. The Department of Public Health, decided in November, 2003.
“Despite dire predictions, there has been no adverse societal impact from this decision and most people now express little concern about same gender marriage.
“Springfield and Western Massachusetts needs these families, and all our families, to help rebuild our neighborhoods and the peaceful and productive society to which I know, whatever our differences on some things, we all aspire. As a practical matter, I believe we simply cannot afford to marginalize our human resources. Most importantly, I feel strongly that no child should ever be made to feel "less than" or "second-best" nor should any of our children be exposed to a public campaign focused on adult matters of personal privacy. There is altogether too much unseemly information brought into our homes and schools already. It is in the best interests of our children that we accept fully these new families.
“I also want to address directly one of the more contentious issues in this debate: Same gender couples have been adopting children and building families here in the Commonwealth for about twenty years. In many instances, same gendered couples have adopted children with severe challenges, children no one else wanted, and they have worked miracles with them. These children would have lived lives of despair without these families. This underscores how we cannot afford to marginalize any of our people; make anyone second-class citizens. We are all precious resources to each other, and to generations yet to come.
“We have had a full and fair public discussion and debate, and today we must settle this matter so we can move on to other issues of equal and, perhaps, even greater import to our state. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once said that the finality of judgments is the concession we make to the shortness of life.
“I know from listening to my constituents, since I first became Senator this year that this vote, the vote I take today, is the right vote for the people I serve. I have been most impressed by the number of individuals who have called me and asked me to change my vote because they have changed their minds. One grandmother told me she had changed her mind and wanted me to change my vote in case one of her grandchildren grew up to be gay or lesbian. She did not want any of her grandchildren to be denied the right to marry the person they love. This is exactly the legacy we will leave to generations beyond us, and the example we can set for the nation and, I daresay the world, which is certainly paying attention to what we do and say here today.
“A great deal of energy and passion has been focused on this issue by both sides. It is my most ardent wish that, with the settlement of this matter, and as we all leave here today, all the energy and passion we have held on this issue be redirected towards solving the crises of child abuse, child neglect, domestic violence, homelessness, hunger, criminalization of the mentally ill and so many more social problems that require our urgent and thoughtful attention.
“I believe that we can do this. And that the tremendous knowledge, political and social skills we have developed in the course of this remarkable debate, can transform our political life together in ways that will help us be far better off as a state and as a nation than if we had never had this debate, and all that we have done to bring us here today.”
Posted by the Boston Globe
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on June 14, 2007 03:50:45 PM
8500 gay couples, holy crap that's almost 17,000 queers!! I'll bet the normal married heterosexuals in that pathetic state are feeling their own marriages crumble because of these perverts.
Or maybe there's some other reason...................................
posted on June 14, 2007 03:54:33 PM
Yea, probably not liking having their VOTES taken away by progressive liberals who obviously don't support 'we the people' deciding. lol
posted on June 14, 2007 05:56:49 PM
I know you right winged religious dimwits would love to regulate what goes on inside bedrooms. I know how much two guys kissing and holding hands bothers you, Linda. Yuo can not stand it that 8500 gay couples are still legally married in Mass. and there is nothing you can do about.
Maybe the gay couples should start a petition to regulate what str8 people can do in their bedrooms.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on June 14, 2007 05:58:24 PM8500 gay couples, holy crap that's almost 17,000 queers!! I'll bet the normal married heterosexuals in that pathetic state are feeling their own marriages crumble because of these perverts.
It is like that old Navy saying, 60 men go down in a sub and 30 couples come up
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on June 14, 2007 07:35:18 PM
Yep...just as I said.
The anti-voter progressives are SOOOOooooo afraid of allowing all those other liberals in the state to vote - afraid that if they DID allow them to vote...the decision might not come out the way they want it to.
VERY, VERY anti-American. Our votes are our voices....and again...progressive liberals make SURE that 'we the people' will NOT have our voices heard.
tsk tsk tsk
----
BOSTON (AP) - Massachusetts lawmakers blocked a proposed constitutional amendment Thursday that would have let voters decide whether to ban gay marriage in the only state that allows it.
------------------
How many more times will the progressives take away American's right to VOTE? Is this just the beginning of what they have in store for America? MORE turning away from the very things our nation was founded upon? Yep - You'll see more of this removal of purely American constitutional rights by those who WON'T LET the people vote. They've only just begun.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on June 15, 2007 07:01:35 AMVERY, VERY anti-American. Our votes are our voices..
Poor Linda. The voters do not get everything they wish for. How soon she forgets the AMERICAN VOTERS PICKED GORE TO BE PRESIDENT.
Maybe Linda would be happy if we had a vote by the American people right now to deicide whether or not Bush should be impeached, whether or not the American people want the troops out of Iraq.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on June 15, 2007 07:06:15 AM
This was no different than the civil rights movement back in the 60's. Do you honestly believe blacks would have been given equal protection under the law if was left up to the voters - who were white and also made up the majority? I don't think so.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on June 15, 2007 07:28:31 AM
Should the public be allowed to vote on inter-racial marriages?
What about inter-religion?
The voters chose their elected officials, the issue was put to a vote.
TWICE.
Legalized in 2004, upheld in 2007.
How many times can you beat this issue up?
Personally, I'm impressed with Candaras and her ability to see the facts and move on.
posted on June 15, 2007 08:23:58 AMHow many times can you beat this issue up?
If it is left up to the religous right as many times as it takes until they get their way.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on June 15, 2007 08:31:04 AM
“A great deal of energy and passion has been focused on this issue by both sides. It is my most ardent wish that, with the settlement of this matter, and as we all leave here today, all the energy and passion we have held on this issue be redirected towards solving the crises of child abuse, child neglect, domestic violence, homelessness, hunger, criminalization of the mentally ill and so many more social problems that require our urgent and thoughtful attention."
*hopefully this is from the heart and not from the hand of her writers*
“I also want to address directly one of the more contentious issues in this debate: Same gender couples have been adopting children and building families here in the Commonwealth for about twenty years. In many instances, same gendered couples have ***adopted children with severe challenges, children no one else wanted, and they have worked miracles with them. These children would have lived lives of despair without these families***. This underscores how we cannot afford to marginalize any of our people; make anyone second-class citizens. We are all precious resources to each other, and to generations yet to come"
Imagine how many lives could be improved if the ability for gay couples to adopt were accepted throughout the Country!!
I'm sure some of the more internet savvy could run some numbers on the HUGE opportunity this represents!
posted on June 15, 2007 01:34:11 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Today: June 15, 2007 at 12:30:9 PDT
Next Battle Ready for Mass. Gay Marriage
By KEN MAGUIRE
Associated Press Writer
BOSTON (AP) -
Fresh off the success of defending gay marriage from its latest attack, advocates say they have one more fight in Massachusetts: Repealing a 1913 law that bars same-sex couples in most other states from coming here to get married.
Some say the law - which says couples cannot be married here unless their unions would be legal in their home states - has its roots in the effort to block interracial marriage, and plan soon to strategize for its repeal.
Opponents of gay marriage, including the former governor and now Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, have said repealing the law would make Massachusetts the "Las Vegas of gay marriage."
"This radical social experiment will be exported to the other 49 states," Kris Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute, said Friday.
A day earlier, lawmakers killed an effort to let voters decide on a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. The defeat for gay marriage opponents - after more than three years of debate - makes the successful mounting of a future challenge even more unlikely.
Now attention turns to the state's 1913 law, which, if repealed, would mean gay couples from other states could legally marry in Massachusetts.
The possible impact of the marriages in other states is unknown. Most states prohibit gay marriage, but a Massachusetts certificate could provide the foundation for legal challenges. A court challenge was the basis of Massachusetts legalizing same-sex marriage, after gay couples were denied marriage licenses.
Opponents of the 1913 law say it was originally approved as part of a deal with states that barred interracial marriages and didn't want couples fleeing to Massachusetts to marry. Others say there's little evidence to support that claim.
After gay marriage became legal in May 2004, hundreds of couples from other states came to Massachusetts to wed. But then-Gov. Romney directed municipal clerks not to give licenses to out-of-state couples, citing the 1913 law.
So far, only Rhode Island allows its gay couples to wed in Massachusetts. More than 170 marriages of gay couples from New York who wed in Massachusetts before July 2006 have also been deemed valid, because New York had not explicitly banned same-sex marriages until then.
The courts might not be as helpful to those who want to strike down the 1913 law.
The Supreme Judicial Court, which legalized gay marriage, upheld the 1913 law last year, ruling that Massachusetts "has a significant interest in not meddling in matters in which another state, the one where a couple actually resides, has a paramount interest."
Mineau seconded that sentiment Friday.
"It will open the floodgates for Massachusetts to become the Mecca for same-sex marriage," he said. "Their goal is to strike down the marriage restrictions in every state. Their launching pad will be Massachusetts."
Arline Isaacson, co-chair of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus, said "no one is rushing" to push for the repeal but she's confident it will happen.
"In the short term, we want everyone to rest, breathe and appreciate the incredible victory that took place," she said.
Marc Solomon, campaign director of MassEquality, said he expects to set up meetings with legislative leaders and the governor sometime soon to discuss moving a bill to repeal the law.
The state's top three political leaders - Gov. Deval Patrick, House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi and Senate President Therese Murray - are all strong supporters of gay marriage who indicted they would support repeal of the law.
David Guarino, a spokesman for DiMasi said Friday: "As a strong supporter of gay marriage rights, the Speaker believes the so-called 1913 law is outdated and unfair. He believes it should be repealed."
Senate president believes it is "an antiquated law" and supports its repeal, said Murray spokeswoman Samantha Dallaire. The Senate voted to repeal the law in 2004, but it didn't get further, she said.
Patrick's office declined to comment Friday, but the governor in April said: "I know that the 1913 law has sort of smelly origins. I think it's outdated. If it passes the Legislature and comes to my desk, I'll sign it."
