Mass. Lawmakers Agree on Gay Marriage Ban
 

(I'm disappointed, but I pretty much expected it. At least they're throwing us the civil union crumb... which I guess I really shouldn't look at so cynically, because that's still a huge victory in and of itself.)

Mass. Lawmakers Agree on Gay Marriage Ban
By JENNIFER PETER, Associated Press Writer

BOSTON - The Massachusetts Legislature adopted a new version of a state constitutional amendment Monday that would ban gay marriage and legalize civil unions, eliminating consideration of any other proposed changes.

The vote came at the opening of the third round of a constitutional convention on the contentious issue, as competing cries of "Jesus Christ" and "Equal Rights" shook the Statehouse outside the legislative chamber.

Lawmakers had voted earlier this month in favor of a similar amendment. The revised version adopted Monday would ask voters to simultaneously ban gay marriage and legalize civil unions — rather than taking those steps separately. It clarifies that civil unions would not grant federal benefits to gay couples.

By adopting the new language, lawmakers blocked consideration of several other amendments — including ones that would have weakened the civil union provision and one that would have split the question in two, allowing voters to weigh in separately on gay marriage and civil unions.

The Legislature must still take two more votes before the amendment is considered approved. If that happens, it will go to the 2005-2006 Legislature for further consideration before going to the voters in the fall of 2006.

Under a state high court ruling issued in November, the nation's first state-sanctioned gay marriage will take place in Massachusetts on May 17. The constitutional amendment would have no effect on this deadline, but Gov. Mitt Romney has said he might seek a way to delay the marriages if a constitutional amendment were adopted this year.

The version adopted Monday is the best possible solution, said Senate Minority Leader Brian Lees.

"There is no single clear solution to this issue," said Lees, who sponsored the measure with Senate President Robert Travaglini. "If there was such a solution, we wouldn't be here today. But this amendment attempts to strike a balance between those citizens who want to be heard in defining marriage yet never taking away the rights and benefits of gay and lesbian couples."

Gay-rights supporters wanted lawmakers to uphold the full marriage rights accorded by the state's highest court, the Supreme Judicial Court, in November. Conservatives wanted an amendment that defines marriage as between a man and a woman but without creating civil unions.

While gay marriage supporters dominated the halls of the Statehouse on the three previous days of the constitutional convention, in mid-February and mid-March, hundreds of religious opponents of gay marriage mixed into the crowd on Monday.

Police tried to ensure that the close quarters and high emotions did not lead to physical conflicts.

"This is a very crowded situation, and it could be one in which some little thing might set something off," said State Police Lt. Paul Maloney. "It's a much more intermingled group than we've seen in the past."

After each intonation of "Jesus" by gay rights opponents, gay rights advocates tacked on "loves us." The two opposing sides then shouted "Jesus Christ" and "Equal Rights" simultaneously, blending into a single, indistinguishable chant.

"I'm just here to support Christ," said Olivia Long, 32, of Boston, a parishioner at New Covenant Christian Church. "We love all people, but we want to keep it like it was in the beginning."

Next to her, Eric Carreno, 26, of Somerville, held a sign that read: "Christ does not discriminate. Why do Christians?"

"I think my Christian brothers and sisters need to understand tolerance," Carreno said. "They need to understand that Jesus never said anything bad against a homosexual."

San Francisco officials have performed more than 3,400 same-sex marriages and some other counties and cities have challenged laws barring such unions. President Bush has endorsed a movement to amend the U.S. Constitution to ban the practice.

"I'm just here to support Christ," said Olivia Long, 32, of Boston, a parishioner at New Covenant Christian Church. "We love all people, but we want to keep it like it was in the beginning."

Then this ignorant unlearned sow is for polygamy and the use of concubines - to wit:

http://carper.freeservers.com/patria...olygamists.htm

:rolleyes:

An ignorant hypocritical bigot is an ugly thing. :mad:

What an emabarassment. That's all I can muster up right now. What a freakin' emabarassment. MA is becoming a Republican state, more and more, with each passing day.

It's not a huge victory...it's codifying our "second-class citizen" status in the state constitution. If I lived in Massachusetts, the state wouldn't get one more tax dollar out of me.

I'm seriously considering leaving the country if Bush manages to get an amendment to the U.S. Constitution passed.

The plot thickens - this most assuredly will go before the Supremes now, as if there was ever any doubt!!!! :cool:
_________________________________________________
BOSTON — Massachusetts' attorney general said a 91-year-old state law prevents the state from issuing marriage licenses to couples whose marriage would be illegal in their home state, an interpretation that could block gay couples from 38 states from tying the knot here.


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115713,00.html

and

http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/met.../31leggay.html

Interestingly, although the measure probably will pass, it is a clear indication that the tide is changing on this issue. Outside of Atlanta and in certain parts of Atlanta, Georgia is so conservative a fundamentalist Chrisians' dream state. So, that the vote is this close is pretty shocking IMO.

This ban still needs to be supported by the citizens, so it can't go into effect until at least November of '06. Gay marriage will still be legal as of May 17th, although they won't be able to actually marry until the 20th because of the three day waiting period for all marriage licenses. That f*ck Romney said that he was going to explore options with the state AG in order to get a stay for the May 17th date. However, late last night, the state AG said that there is no legal action to grant any kind of stay. So, expect them to try everything in their power to stop it, but they won't. :)

Yea, but the Mass. AG said the gov. could not force him to ask the Mass Sup. Ct. to issue a stay on the 5/17/04 eff. date while the Amendment was churning on. The AG was like, the court has spoken twice and the Legis. has ignored its Order. No reasonable basis exists, which is the standard, to think the court will issue a stay.

:nod: Which is why I think that wet fart of a human turd Romeny will try everything, but won't succeed in anything. :laugh: I pray someone runs agaisnt him in the next election; if so, he'll be GONE. Everyone here despises him. He's trying to turn MA into a Republican state and no one will buy it. Why oh why didn't O'Brien win the race?!

I wonder what he can do. It seems no lower court can stay the Mass. Sup. Ct's Order. A Fed. Ct. could, but Mass. would have to prove immediate harm. Plus, I do not see a Fed. Ct. wanting to get into this quagmire, esp. considering the Mass. Sup. Ct. has ruled twice and emphatically. So, I am unsure exactly what the Gov. can do. I guess he could order the state agency in charge of issuing marriage licenses not to give them to ss couples. But, then the Gov. would be in contempt of the Mass. Sup. Ct Order. :shrug:

Here an editorial from Cynthia Tucker.

This makes me hearken back to the saying "If you want to fill your church, preach hate" - Sad, very sad.

Food for thought!


http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/o...ker/index.html

He can't do a thing and won't be successful in any of his attempts. The tide has turned on that bastard and his day will come soon. He had a press conference on Thursday and even his fellow state politicians snickered at him, along with the press. And hopefully his ousting in a couple of years with put the kabosh on his presidential aspirations. I shudder at the the thought of Romeny in the Oval Office. :rolleyes: I will certainly cross the border into Canada if it ever happens. :nod: