Mass. Lawmakers Reject Gay Marriage Ban

[brooklynite]

BOSTON - A year after the nation's first state-sanctioned same-sex marriages, the Massachusetts Legislature on Wednesday rejected a proposed constitutional amendment that sought to ban gay marriage but legalize civil unions.

It was the second time the Legislature had confronted the measure, which was designed to be put before voters on a statewide ballot in 2006. Under state law, lawmakers were required to approve the measure in two consecutive sessions before it could move forward.

After less than two hours of debate, a joint session of the House and Senate voted 157-39 against the measure.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050914/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage

[meegbear]

1. Great!!!!

Stand firm against hate!!

[jim3775]

2. self delete

Stupid me, i should have read the article.

[brooklynite]

3. The irony is that this is due in large part to the anti-GM groups...

who aren't willing to accept a partial victory, and insist on a total ban (e.g. no civil unions either) or nothing at all.

[Arkana]

4. Looks like the EEEEVIL liberals back home held their ground.

[Judi Lynn]

5. Massachusetts Legislature rejects proposed amendment banning gay marriage

Massachusetts Legislature rejects proposed amendment banning gay marriage

By Steve Leblanc
ASSOCIATED PRESS

12:27 p.m. September 14, 2005

BOSTON – A year after the nation's first state-sanctioned same-sex marriages, the Massachusetts Legislature on Wednesday rejected a proposed constitutional amendment that sought to ban gay marriage but legalize civil unions.

It was the second time the Legislature had confronted the measure, which was designed to be put before voters on a statewide ballot in 2006. Under state law, lawmakers were required to approve the measure in two consecutive sessions before it could move forward.

After less than two hours of debate, a joint session of the House and Senate voted 157-39 against the measure.

It was a striking departure from a year earlier, when hundreds of protesters converged on Beacon Hill and sharply divided legislators spent long hours debating the issue.
(snip/...)

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/nation/20050914-1227-gaymarriage.html

[David__77]

6. This is good news, but fights lie ahead.

Not only some progressives but also right-wingers abandoned this measure because they want an even worse one to go on the ballot in 2008. The key is to block that one if possible, and if not, we will have had marriage in MA for five whole years by late 2008, and I think that we can certainly defeat an amendment such as the one being circulated by the right-wing. The one defeated today would be harder to defeat--that's for certain.

[Ms. Toad]

12. Naah....

By 2008, as you point out, MA will have had marriage for five years. Hell will not have frozen over, and the vast middle ground will no longer care.

[Kber]

7. Call me a starry eyed optimist but

I believe that the longer marriage rights (and rites) are available to every citizen, and we see that the sky does not, in fact fall, the less likely proposals banning gay marriage are to succeed.

It's the change that is scary to most people, but once gay marriage becomes an established fact, and once people can see for themselves that it will probably encourage rather that discourage strong and stable family life, fewer people will get all bent out of shape over this issue.

Am I crazy?

[geniph]

9. I agree with you, Kber

It's the same thing that happened with "interracial" marriages back in the 1950s. People predicted the same kind of societal catastrophes from that they're now trying to attribute to the spectre of gay marriage. When those catastrophes were not evident, eventually all but the true knuckledraggers came to more or less accept that, maybe, just maybe, the world will not end in flames if Seal marries Heidi Klum. Eventually, the same will be true for Melissa Etheridge and her partner.

The clock only very rarely can be forced to turn backwards, and you risk breaking the whole damn thing by trying to. The sooner the reactionaries stop trying to build that bridge to the 19th century, the better we'll all be.

[ithacan]

8. that's great news!

one more strike against the forces of hatred and bigotry!

[northzax]

10. damn activist legislatures

voting on stuff and making decisions, don't they know this is the business of the courts?

[VADem11]

11. Good

There's no point in banning it anyway and this is another step to equality.