Gay Marriage Amendment defeated in Mass.

[jesus marion joseph]

You needed a program to keep up with how this amendment was making its way through the system. While I agree with keeping it off the ballot, I can't say that I'm entirely thrilled with the way it was defeated.


Lawmakers defeat gay marriage ban amendment by five votes
By Casey Ross
Boston Herald Reporter

Thursday, June 14, 2007 - Updated: 02:26 PM EST

The state Legislature has defeated a proposed constitutional ban on gay marriage, ending a three-year campaign to overturn its legalization after several lawmakers switched their votes in the final hours of a dramatic legislative battle.

The proposed constitutional ban was defeated in a roll-call vote of both houses of the Legislature shortly after 1 p.m. today, triggering a thunderous ovation by gay couples in the State House. The final tally was 151-45, giving supporters of gay marriage a victory by 5 votes.

The vote means the ban will be blocked from reaching the 2008 ballot, and that gay marriage has survived its final challenge, barring an unlikely effort to resurrect the ban at a later date.

Today’s constitutional convention followed weeks of intense lobbying to turn the tide in favor of gay marriage, with Gov. Deval Patrick and top legislative leaders orchestrating a highly organized effort to defeat the ban.

The ban’s defeat brought a suspenseful and surprising end to a battle that kept lawmakers guessing until the final moments. Partisans on both sides watched the vote tally on a light board that indicated how each lawmaker voted, a process that kept them on edge until the very end.

House Speaker Sal DiMasi (D-Boston) and Senate President Therese Murray (D-Plymouth) both appeared to be successful in persuading lawmakers to switch their positions in the final hours.

Among lawmakers who switched from previous support of the ban were state Reps. James Vallee (D-Franklin), Brian Wallace (D-South Boston), Richard Ross (R-Wrentham), Robert Nyman (D-Hanover) and Paul Loscocco (R-Holliston), among others. Senators who switched included Gale Candaras (D-Wilbraham)and state Sen. Michael Morrissey (D-Quincy).

Another anti-gay marriage lawmaker, Anthony Verga (D-Gloucester), did not appear for the vote today after slipping on the stairs in the State House yesterday and being carried out on a stretcher. He was hospitalized at Massachusetts General Hospital last night and his condition was unknown today.

The State House was buzzing with debate and rallies by advocates until minutes before lawmakers gathered for a vote. Opponents and supporters of gay marriage waved signs on opposite sides of Beacon Street, chanting slogans that lawmakers have been hearing for years.

Lawmakers who switched sides to vote against the ban appeared to do so for different reasons, with some saying they were affected by the stories of gay families and others indicating they were persuaded it is wrong to subject minority rights to a popular vote.

Opponents of gay marriage have said previously that they did not expect to continue to push the proposed ban if the Legislature defeated it, but there has been no final word from them today.

[Scott Dolan]

At least Juliet & Juliet are still safe.

[bostontricky]

Darn tootin'. Along with John, not exactly thrilled with the process, but what are you gonna do? Slavery would still be legal in Mississippi if it were up for a vote.

Good thing RBS hasn't made the move up here yet, I guess. Besides, I think his whole Mets schtick would cause anyone channelling 1986 to keg him in the forehead with a blunt object.

[Scott Dolan]

I'm not so sure rB.S. is interested in marriage. He has the perfect situation already. A beard at home and he gets to make out with all the men he wants.

[tippy]

Scott, I am so *so* sorry!

[Scott Dolan]

Awwww, thanks Tip.

Sorry for what?

[tippy]

Well if you don't know - then I guess I'm not sorry.

[Scott Dolan]

Oh, I get it now.

Very funny.

[tippy]

thanks, red bird. I came up with it all be myself.

where the hell is everyone? I wish there was a joke thread filled with good jokes.

[Dr Dave]

Originally Posted by tippy

where the hell is everyone? I wish there was a joke thread filled with good jokes.

"During last night's Democratic debate, all the candidates said that if they were elected, they would get rid of the military's 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy for gay soldiers. 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' will be replaced by the new policy, 'Don't Tell Me You're Wearing Those Boots With That Gun.'" --Conan O'Brien

[Dr Dave]

"Scooter Libby has been sentenced to 30 months in prison, even though he is a good friend of Vice President Dick Cheney.

Hey, he got off easy. Cheney's other friends got shot in the face." --Jay Leno

[Dr Dave]

[tippy]

tee hee hee.

[Brian Olewnick]

[tippy]

heehee. Okay, let's say "gay" means funny from now on, okay? Brian you are so gay. Dave, you too!

[Gentle Giant]

oops, started a thread in Politics, where this probably fits better.

Best quote came from little-known State Senator Gale Candaras, a Democrat who changed her previous position and voted against the ban:

"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."

[tippy]

it's not weighty enough to be in Politics, gg. It's far too gay.

[jesus marion joseph]

It probably *should* be in politics. My bad.

[walto]

Originally Posted by JMJ

While I agree with keeping it off the ballot, I can't say that I'm entirely thrilled with the way it was defeated.

Originally Posted by BT

Darn tootin'. Along with John, not exactly thrilled with the process, but what are you gonna do?

Just curious: what sort of process would you folks have liked to see?

[Gentle Giant]

I live here. I used to ride the subway with my fellow citizens. I wouldn't want them voting on my human rights.

[walto]

Would you want them voting on them if the vote could expand them?

[Gentle Giant]

I don't think basic human rights should be up to public referendum. The question here is whether the state Constitution can be interpreted to provide for equal rights in marriage. Joe Public shouldn't have a direct vote into changing John Adams' words.

[walto]

Amendments to John Adams words have been voted on a number of times, if I'm not mistaken. Did you not want to see women given the vote?

[jesus marion joseph]

Originally Posted by walto

Just curious: what sort of process would you folks have liked to see?

A straightforward process: debate, followed by a vote scheduled in advance. Instead, the constitutional convention was adjourned when it became apparent that the "nay" votes were not sufficient, then yesterday the bill was suddenly brought to the floor for a vote with no debate or, apparently, very little advance warning, obviously becaue votes were being "traded" or whatever behind the scenes. I'm not a prude: I realize this sort of thing goes on all the time, I jusy wish that it could have been done in a straightforward manner. I guess it bothers me to think that my fellow citizens would buy into those facile "protecting marriage" and "let the people vote" campaigns.

There was even talk that the governor was offering patronage jobs in return for votes. He strenuously denied it, but I'm guessing there's some truth to it. If I were the governor (you know, in never-never land), I'd say "Hell yes I offered hack jobs. And the next time someone tries to amend the state constitution to deny *you* of *your* rights, I'll do the same thing if I have to."

Theoretically, anyway.

[Gentle Giant]

Parts of the Mass. Constitution. Note that in the section about public initiatives and public referenda, there are several areas that are excluded from the popular process. That marriage is not specifically mentioned does not mean that it is fair game. The basic rights outlined in Article I can clearly be interpreted to include marriage, and these basic rights cannot be tampered with.


PART THE FIRST
A Declaration of the Rights of the Inhabitants
of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Article I. All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness. (later annulled and replaced with language changing "men" to "people")


Article XLVIII.

I. Definition.

Legislative power shall continue to be vested in the general court; but the people reserve to themselves the popular initiative, which is the power of a specified number of voters to submit constitutional amendments and laws to the people for approval or rejection; and the popular referendum, which is the power of a specified number of voters to submit laws, enacted by the general court, to the people for their ratification or rejection.

The Initiative.
II. Initiative Petitions.

Section 1. Contents. - An initiative petition shall set forth the full text of the constitutional amendment or law, hereinafter designated as the measure, which is proposed by the petition.

Section 2. Excluded Matters. - No measure that relates to religion, religious practices or religious institutions; or to the appointment, qualification, tenure, removal, recall or compensation of judges; or to the reversal of a judicial decision; or to the powers, creation or abolition of courts; or the operation of which is restricted to a particular town, city or other political division or to particular districts or localities of the commonwealth; or that makes a specific appropriation of money from the treasury of the commonwealth, shall be proposed by an initiative petition; but if a law approved by the people is not repealed, the general court shall raise by taxation or otherwise and shall appropriate such money as may be necessary to carry such law into effect.

Neither the eighteenth amendment of the constitution, as approved and ratified to take effect on the first day of October in the year nineteen hundred and eighteen, nor this provision for its protection, shall be the subject of an initiative amendment.

No proposition inconsistent with any one of the following rights of the individual, as at present declared in the declaration of rights, shall be the subject of an initiative or referendum petition: The right to receive compensation for private property appropriated to public use; the right of access to and protection in courts of justice; the right of trial by jury; protection from unreasonable search, unreasonable bail and the law martial; freedom of the press; freedom of speech; freedom of elections; and the right of peaceable assembly.

No part of the constitution specifically excluding any matter from the operation of the popular initiative and referendum shall be the subject of an initiative petition; nor shall this section be the subject of such a petition.

The limitations on the legislative power of the general court in the constitution shall extend to the legislative power of the people as exercised hereunder.

[walto]

Originally Posted by GG

these basic rights cannot be tampered with.

Article I. All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness. (later annulled and replaced with language changing "men" to "people")

[Jimmy Cantiello]

I hate people.

[Gentle Giant]

Originally Posted by walto

Article I. All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness. (later annulled and replaced with language changing "men" to "people")

Better they used language than a scalpel.