Gay marriage in Mass. here to stay

[Gentle Giant]

Thursday, June 14, 2007
Legislators vote to defeat same-sex marriage ban
By Frank Phillips, Globe Staff

A proposed constitutional ban on same-sex marriage was swiftly defeated today by a joint session of the Legislature by a vote of 45 to 151, eliminating any chance of getting it on the ballot in November 2008. The measure needed at least 50 votes to advance.

The vote came without debate after House Speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi, Senate President Therese Murray, and Governor Deval Patrick conferred this morning and concluded that they have the votes to kill the proposal. Cheers echoed in the State House when the vote was tallied.

"In Massachusetts today, the freedom to marry is secure," Patrick told reporters after the results were official.

The three leaders - along with gay rights activists - spent the last several days intensely lobbying a dozen or more state representatives and state senators who had previously supported the amendment but signaled that they were open to changing their positions.

Because fewer than 50 of the state's 200 lawmakers supported the amendment, it will not appear on the 2008 ballot, giving gay marriage advocates a major victory in their battle with social conservatives to keep same-sex marriage legal in Massachusetts.

Opponents of gay marriage face an increasingly tough battle to win legislative approval of any future petitions to appear on a statewide ballot. The next election available to them is 2012.

The Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, the group that spearheaded the court case that led to the Supreme Judicial Court's 2003 decision to legalize same-sex marriage, issued a statement praising the vote.

"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 Advocates & Defenders. "The vote today was the triumph of time, experience, and understanding over fear and prejudice."

Kris Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute that backed the amendment, 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," Mineau told the Associated Press. "This will not go away until the citizens have their opportunity to decide what the definition of marriage is."

The proposal needed the votes of 50 legislators in two consecutive sessions to make it on the 2008 ballot as a referendum. In January, the measure passed its first convention with 62 votes, but it fell short today by 5 votes.

Joyce Durst, an opponent of same-sex marriage from Mattapan, had come the State House today to pray that the measure passed. When the amendment failed, she pulled a crumpled tissue from her pocket and began to sob.

"I'm sick," said Durst, 60. "I'm sick."

Claire Alloy-Relihan, 22, from Newton, had the opposite reaction. "I could not be happier right now," she said.


Reaction to the defeat of the proposed same-sex marriage ban

Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts
"The nation's eyes were on Massachusetts today, and they saw a triumph for civil rights and fundamental fairness. Today's historic vote will have a national impact on civil rights for years to come. Massachusetts has led the nation in education, in health care and in biotechnology, and today Massachusetts renewed its commitment as a proud leader in civil rights."

Mitt Romney, former Massachusetts governor and Republican presidential candidate
"Today's vote by the State Legislature is a regrettable setback in our efforts to defend traditional marriage. Unfortunately, our elected representatives decided that the voice of the people did not need to be heard in this debate. It is now even more important that we pass a Constitutional amendment protecting traditional marriage. Marriage is an institution that goes to the heart of our society, and our leaders can no longer abdicate their responsibility."

State Senator Gale Candaras, a Democrat from Wilbraham, who changed positions 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."

[jesus marion joseph]

"Defending traditional marriage". As if someone were trying to outlaw it, which is exactly what the backers of the amendment were trying to to to gay people, BTW.

[Gary Sisco]

You want to have traditional marriage, you have to go back to the days when women pledged obedience and all that shit. No thanks.

[Gary Sisco]

We could go back to really traditional marriage and have the wives as chattel.

[Gentle Giant]

I wish the antis could open their eyes and ears to these personal testimonies. It ain't about what you think your Bible says, it's about what's real.

Personal stories changed minds
By Lisa Wangsness and Andrea Estes, Globe Staff | June 15, 2007

Representative Richard J. Ross, a Republican from Wrentham, had a revelation Wednesday afternoon after meeting with a gay Republican who presented him with this challenge: As director of his family's funeral home, Ross had surely treated every family the same, no matter what their race, religion, or sexual orientation. So why would he do anything else in his other job, as a lawmaker?

For Senator Gale Candaras, it was the 6,800 phone calls, letters, e-mails, even faxes, from her district that left no question in her mind what her constituents wanted her to do. One letter came from an 82-year-old woman who worried that one of her young grandchildren might grow up to be gay and might not be able to marry the person he loved.

Senator Michael W. Morrissey, a Democrat from Quincy, said he ignored the lobbyists and the power brokers who wanted to talk to him and sought counsel from his wife, his family, his oldest friends, and a few constituents. He made up his mind moments before walking into the House chamber yesterday.

"People's ability to be happy is fundamental," he said. "To pass judgment on that, in the end, I found hard to do."

The nine lawmakers who switched sides on gay marriage yesterday came from both parties, different parts of the state, and they traveled different ideological paths to their decision s . But in interviews yesterday, they seemed to share something in common: a desire to listen to all sides and a concern about hurting gay couples and families who they believed in many cases had experienced discrimination. The lawmakers spent hours, even days at a time during the last five months, meeting gay couples and their friends and relatives. Their personal stories made the difference more than anything else , the lawmakers said.

"I listened and I listened and I listened," said Representative Robert J. Nyman, a Democrat from Hanover who switched his vote after spending all day Tuesday meeting with constituents on the issue. "I just felt at this point, I was not comfortable putting people's human rights on the ballot."

Arline Isaacson, cochairwoman of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Caucus, said gay rights advocates working to defeat the amendment had put out urgent calls asking the gay community across the state to communicate directly with their lawmakers, and they did.

"It made a big difference," she said. "They were telling the story of their own lives, a story that a lot of these legislators didn't really know."

Amendment opponents also benefited from a new freshman class that proved far more receptive to gay marriage than the lawmakers they replaced. Retirements, defeats, and resignations eliminated nine of 62 lawmakers who supported the amendment in January. At least four of the newcomers were thought to be supporters of the amendment, but only two of them voted for it yesterday.

Representative Geraldo Alicea, a Democrat from Charlton, is a freshman who once promised to vote in favor of the amendment. But after he was elected, he said, "I thought it was best to be open-minded."

He spent many nights over the past five months meeting with gay and straight constituents. They included a couple who had been together for 28 years, and who, before they were married, had not been able to see each other at the hospital when one of them was seriously ill.

He also spoke to a young lesbian couple who had adopted 4-year-old twins, and he said he found it difficult to imagine casting a vote that could hurt that growing family.

Representative Paul Kujawski, a Catholic Polish-American who represents a conservative district in southern Worcester County, switched his vote after months of soul-searching.

What changed his mind, he said, was meeting a lesbian couple from his district who helped him understand what it meant to them to get married after more than two decades together.

"It was nothing more than that -- wanting people to live happily," he said.

The couple came to the State House yesterday for the vote and found Kujawski in the crowd after it was over.

"There were really no words," Kujawski said. "Just hugs and tears."

Candaras had voted for the amendment when she was a House member representing a relatively conservative district with a large number of elderly people in Hampden County; now that she is a senator, she said, her new, much larger constituency made its sentiment clear to her.

Some constituents wrote saying that they had changed their minds, like the elderly woman who said she previously asked Candaras to support the ban.

"But since then, Gale," the woman wrote, as Candaras told it, "this lovely couple, these two men, moved in next door to me, and they have a couple of children and they're married, and they help me with my lawn. And if they can't be married in Massachusetts, they're going to leave -- and then who would help me with my lawn?"

Candaras said that after living with gay marriage for three years, many Massachusetts residents have grown accustomed to it, even those who once had reservations.

"It's a cultural change, and for older people, it is a difficult cultural change," she said. "But I think people are coming to understand the issue and coming to appreciate the fact that the world is changing -- and that these people deserve to enjoy . . . the same rights of marriage."

[walto]

Let me ask you too, Jason. Do you think the process in Mass. was poor?--and, if so, what would you have considered fairer to all parties?

[jesus marion joseph]

Originally Posted by Gentle Giant

"But since then, Gale," the woman wrote, as Candaras told it, "this lovely couple, these two men, moved in next door to me, and they have a couple of children and they're married, and they help me with my lawn. And if they can't be married in Massachusetts, they're going to leave -- and then who would help me with my lawn?"

Ha ha! What an altruist!

[jesus marion joseph]

Giving credence to arguments such as this is why I wish the process had been "cleaner":

Solons’ decision was done deal
By Howie Carr
Boston Herald Columnist

If there’s one thing Beacon Hill Democrats can’t stand, it’s democracy.

What happened to all their phony polls on the gay marriage question? I thought the gays were going to win, and that, as one story put it right, “political support in Massachusetts is swinging firmly behind gay marriage.”

So why did the homosexuals spend more than a million bucks making sure they wouldn’t have to win that fight at the ballot box in November 2008? A few years ago this same crowd was hissing that government had no right to say who could get hitched to whom. Now that they’re calling the shots, they love having the government push everybody else around.

So now 17,000 homosexuals won’t have their “marriages” invalidated - not that anyone was planning to do that anyway, but never mind the facts. But what about the 170,000 people who signed the petitions to give the people the right to make the decision to . . . change, shall we say, the traditional meaning of marriage?

I guess those 170,000 just aren’t Beautiful People.

The people used to put referendum questions on the ballot, and if the measures passed, the Legislature enforced the new laws.

Then, about 10 years ago, the solons got high-handed - the referendum questions were still allowed on the ballot, but once they were passed, the General Court felt free to ignore the people’s mandate.

Now, after yesterday’s Flag Day fiasco, it appears we are no longer allowed to vote on questions that might offend the Politically Correct.

Not that yesterday’s events were a big surprise. Two key events indicated which way the wind was blowing - No. 1, the leadership allowed no debate. If the vote had really been as close as the homosexuals were spinning it, they’d have wanted the opportunity to change a few minds.

The second indication it was a done deal: Mitt Romney was nowhere to be seen. Don’t you think he would have returned to take a victory lap if there was even the slightest possibility the measure was going to pass?

Plus, you always know the fix is in on a game when there’s only one way you can win and the other team, “the house,” in gambling parlance, can win two ways. Yesterday, the pro-family side could prevail only by getting the 50 votes. Meanwhile, the house was holding a pair of aces - they either had the votes, or if they didn’t, they’d have postponed the fight.

Not that they had to. They had the Gang of Nine, the vote switchers, or should I say, the buyouts. Explained Kris Mineau of the Massachusetts Family Institute of the buyouts: “They all told us they were with us.” They were lying.

Did someone say “quid pro quo”? Yesterday was the quid, now come the quos - am I right, Rep. Brian Wallace of Southie?

My hunch is that Rep. Paul Kujawski’s brother Jan now will get even more OT at the ABCC, and do you suppose the tosspot solon’s son is now in line for a permanent job as a toll collector at the Mass Pike?

Of course we all wish Rep. Tony Verga a speedy recovery after his tumble at the State House Wednesday. The pro-family solon was speaking to former Rep. Bob Coughlin, who recently quit the Legislature to become a $135,000-a-year coatholder for Deval. I do not know if Coughlin was wearing a sandwich board saying YOU CAN MAKE BIG BUCKS TOO as he spoke to Verga. But when Verga fell, he was immediately attended to by Rep. Christine Canavan of Brockton.

Did I mention she, too, flipped yesterday?

After the fix was in, and everyone had congratulated themselves on their “courage,” they all went home to enjoy the long Bunker Hill weekend. They do owe it to themselves, don’t they?

[Gentle Giant]

Originally Posted by jesus marion joseph

Giving credence to arguments such as this is why I wish the process had been "cleaner":

Solons’ decision was done deal
By Howie Carr
Boston Herald Columnist

Howie Carr has ever put forth a credible argument?

If there’s one thing Beacon Hill Democrats can’t stand, it’s democracy.

What happened to all their phony polls on the gay marriage question? I thought the gays were going to win, and that, as one story put it right, “political support in Massachusetts is swinging firmly behind gay marriage.”

So why did the homosexuals spend more than a million bucks making sure they wouldn’t have to win that fight at the ballot box in November 2008? A few years ago this same crowd was hissing that government had no right to say who could get hitched to whom. Now that they’re calling the shots, they love having the government push everybody else around.

How racist is this? This is like saying the Negroes spent a lot of money getting the Civil Rights Act passed. Perhaps Howie's never seen the bumper sticker that says, "I'm straight, but not narrow."

So now 17,000 homosexuals won’t have their “marriages” invalidated - not that anyone was planning to do that anyway, but never mind the facts. But what about the 170,000 people who signed the petitions to give the people the right to make the decision to . . . change, shall we say, the traditional meaning of marriage?

I guess those 170,000 just aren’t Beautiful People.

No need to put "marriages" in quotes. That's what they are, as legal and official last week as his marriage and mine. Is it possible Howie wasn't aware that gay marriage was legal in Massachusetts before this vote was taken?

And why skip over the issue of invalidation? There's no guarantee that they wouldn't be invalidated. And even if they weren't, they'd be on the path to extinction until divorce or death ended the "gay marriage experiment" in Massachusetts.

The people used to put referendum questions on the ballot, and if the measures passed, the Legislature enforced the new laws.

Then, about 10 years ago, the solons got high-handed - the referendum questions were still allowed on the ballot, but once they were passed, the General Court felt free to ignore the people’s mandate.

The people have never directly been allowed to make laws, only to appeal to their elected representatives.

Now, after yesterday’s Flag Day fiasco, it appears we are no longer allowed to vote on questions that might offend the Politically Correct.

Actually, it offends the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Not that yesterday’s events were a big surprise. Two key events indicated which way the wind was blowing - No. 1, the leadership allowed no debate. If the vote had really been as close as the homosexuals were spinning it, they’d have wanted the opportunity to change a few minds.

The second indication it was a done deal: Mitt Romney was nowhere to be seen. Don’t you think he would have returned to take a victory lap if there was even the slightest possibility the measure was going to pass?

Plus, you always know the fix is in on a game when there’s only one way you can win and the other team, “the house,” in gambling parlance, can win two ways. Yesterday, the pro-family side could prevail only by getting the 50 votes. Meanwhile, the house was holding a pair of aces - they either had the votes, or if they didn’t, they’d have postponed the fight.

This is legitimate, but Howie can't pretend that political majorities don't play this game everywhere. Maybe if Republicans hadn't been such douche bags they wouldn't have gotten trounced so bady and they'd have more influence.

Not that they had to. They had the Gang of Nine, the vote switchers, or should I say, the buyouts. Explained Kris Mineau of the Massachusetts Family Institute of the buyouts: “They all told us they were with us.” They were lying.

Did someone say “quid pro quo”? Yesterday was the quid, now come the quos - am I right, Rep. Brian Wallace of Southie?

My hunch is that Rep. Paul Kujawski’s brother Jan now will get even more OT at the ABCC, and do you suppose the tosspot solon’s son is now in line for a permanent job as a toll collector at the Mass Pike?

Of course we all wish Rep. Tony Verga a speedy recovery after his tumble at the State House Wednesday. The pro-family solon was speaking to former Rep. Bob Coughlin, who recently quit the Legislature to become a $135,000-a-year coatholder for Deval. I do not know if Coughlin was wearing a sandwich board saying YOU CAN MAKE BIG BUCKS TOO as he spoke to Verga. But when Verga fell, he was immediately attended to by Rep. Christine Canavan of Brockton.

Did I mention she, too, flipped yesterday?

After the fix was in, and everyone had congratulated themselves on their “courage,” they all went home to enjoy the long Bunker Hill weekend. They do owe it to themselves, don’t they?

Typical Howie Carr hot air and B.S.