Lawmakers Keep Gay Marriage Ban Proposal Alive

[jackster]

http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/10652467/detail.html?treets=bos&tml=bos_break&ts=T&tmi=bos_break_1_01360301022007

a sad day but it's not over

although it's a shame this may ever come to a vote by the voters, I doubt it would pass anyway thank goodness!

still we must be vigiliant.

edited to correct subject line

[MissMillie]

1. Anyone know how the voters would vote on this?

(In light of the fact that gay marriage has been legal for a while now, are people STILL that much against it here?)

[Tesha]

3. It's unpredictable.

> Anyone know how the voters would vote on this?

It's unpredictable.

Polling seems to suggest that most people in the state support
Gay marriage, but it's not at all clear how *VOTERS* would
handle the question. If the Catholic Church sticks to their
current position, they'll threaten the electorate (which is
probably majority-Catholic) with Hellfire for voting the
"wrong" way.

I doubt you could get an accurate poll, even of "likely
voters".

Tesha

[GoddessOfGuinness]

4. I don't understand the idiocy of people...even purported "liberals"

Yes, there are liberals who don't believe that same sex couples should be allowed to unite in marriage. They'll say it's fine for them to have "same-sex unions" that offer the same benefits of marriage. But they still think marriage should be verboten. There is no logic to their argument. More often than not, when pressed to explain their thoughts on this matter, they won't offer any details beyond, "I don't know...It just doesn't seem right."

It makes me want to scream. :grr:

[Ian David]

15. There is ONE solution, and ONE solution ONLY

1) Marriage is a sacred establishment of religion, therefore, The State may make no law respecting it.

2) The State shall record, regulate, and license Civil Unions ONLY-- for everyone, gay and straight-- and have NOTHING to do with marriage.

3) Change the wording of all the laws to state clearly that what the state performs (for EVERYONE) are "CIVIL UNIONS." What religious organizations perform are marriages with ABSOLUTELY NO LEGAL WEIGHT.

Let's get The State out of the marriage business, and what The State has always done will just be called "Civil Unions" for EVERYONE.

[GoddessOfGuinness]

28. From what I've read here and elsewhere, marriage was "civil" before it was a sacred rite

Though I agree, the only grounds for objecting to the marriage of same sex couples are religious; and therefore should not influence the decision to allow these marriages.

If changing the wording makes a difference, than I'm all for it. I don't care whether the government recognizes my heterosexual marriage as a sacred union, as long as they give us the benefits entitled to us by the law.

[Ian David]

29. Find someone who works at the Registry of Motor Vehicles and doesn't need their job...

and ask them to refuse to give drivers licenses to Jews because they drive on Sundays.

It's the same thing as denying marriage equality to same-sex couples.

It's just a damn license.

It's commerce.

It has NOTHING to do with "god."

[GoddessOfGuinness]

30. Excellent point...

:thumbsup:

[svpadgham]

31. I'd been thinking that for a long time.

That way people can marry who or what they want and as many as their hearts desire.

[maddezmom]

2. jackster, please edit your subject line to reflect actual title of article

thanks in advance :)

[-..__...]

5. Mass. lawmakers advance proposed constitutional gay marriage ban

BOSTON --Lawmakers in Massachusetts, the only state where gay marriage is legal, on Tuesday voted to advance a proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, a critical step toward putting the measure the 2008 ballot.

The proposed amendment, which would define marriage as between one man and one woman but ban future gay marriages, still needs approval of the next legislative session before it can go onto the ballot.

The vote Tuesday in the constitutional convention came without debate, immediately after Senate President Robert Travaglini officially opened the joint session.

Earlier in the day, Gov-elect Deval Patrick had met with Travaglini and House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi to urge against a vote, calling it a "question of conscience." He said the proposed amendment was the first time the amendment process was being used "to consider reinserting discrimination into the constitution."

More...

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2007/01/02/patrick_urges_lawmakers_to_recess_without_vote_on_gay_marriage/

[sniffa]

6. oh fucking A

x(

[Mikey929]

7. ARGH

Can't we just let people live their lives and stop F--KING around with them all the time???

How does it affect my wife and I if two guys want to marry and share a bed? It doesn't.

[sniffa]

8. wait, reading this

is confusing. they voted to recess for one hour? then voted?

:shrug:

[bicentennial_baby]

9. i think the other way around...

i think :shrug:

[-..__...]

10. "possibility of parliamentary maneuvers"

Any opponent of the amendment could have chosen not to return to the floor after the recess (and a quorum call is made), either that, or the recess was called for behind the scenes last minute negotiations.

[BR_Parkway]

11. Bay Windows is live blogging it - here's the link, some behind the

scenes arm twisting is happening it looks like

http://www.baywindows.com/ME2/Audiences/dirmod.asp?sid=&nm=&type=Publishing&mod=Publications%3A%3AArticle&mid=8F3A7027421841978F18BE895F87F791&AudID=0813BC739F2044E5A03DCF2DE3FDF7C9&tier=4&id=8A0D3DE5CF574F66A46191FF5C36CB9E

[JerseygirlCT]

12. While it sounds good and fair and "why not"

to put the question up for a vote, the truth is in this quote:

"The rights of minority groups should never be voted on by a majority of people"

That's the thing: civil rights aren't up for winner-takes-all votes. I don't have a right to strip the next person of their rights.

I hope they contain this nonsense, and soon!

[Caution]

13. Not so fast...The motion to reconsider has passed!

If they adjourn now the amendment is dead. The initiative cannot go forward without another vote.

[Ian David]

16. You're kidding! That's brilliant!

So then they can kill this thing with a simple majority vote, instead of the 1/3 minority they needed to put it on the ballot?

[Caution]

17. And unfortunately it looks like it passed the second vote.

Dammit they should have just adjourned after the reconsideration vote.

Looks like it will make the ballot and it looks like Travaglini shoved it through.

[Ian David]

23. The ConCon isn't over until it's over-- as late as midnight.

They could bring up ANOTHER Motion to Reconsider...

and another...

and another...

right up until midnight.

[-..__...]

27. That would have been a mockery of the legislative system

Dammit they should have just adjourned after the reconsideration vote.

Let them vote one way or another (and then answer for it in the next election)), but to pull a stunt like that isn't what they're there for or paid to do.

[Ian David]

14. Sen. Bob Creedon's staffer is clueless.

When I call, he never knows ANYTHING about what his boss is doing (or much about what he HAS done in the past).

"Duh... I don't know how he voted, the TV is in the other room."

And he refuses to pass along communications from the senators constituents, just because those constituents use words like "Nazi." His job isn't to keep his boss in a bubble. If his constituents call him a Nazi, then Creedon should be made aware of that.

[Strathos]

18. Well, I guess they'll win again

Nothing will stop these people from denying us our right to marriage.

Fuck 'em and if you're reading this and you call yourself a Christian, you should be doing everything in your power, even leaving the churches that label gays as less than human. You should fight with us, but it's easier to be complacent.

[dddem]

32. "You should fight with us, but it's easier to be complacent"

That's my concern. Although most people I talk to don't have a problem with gay marriage (or as I like to refer to it, "civil rights for all Americans"), the fact is that most people don't vote. Those that do, often have an agenda. If it comes down to it, what we need is to get people to vote. I think it can be done.
If it's any consolation. I'm on your side, and I'm vocal about it. More straight people need to open our mouths and fight for your rights. Next it might be my rights, or those of my children. We're in this together.
Peace.

[Strathos]

36. Thank you dddem, you're right

and I appreciate that. I try to do as much as possible to get the word out and be seen with my partner of 14 years so people can see we're not eating babies and sodomizing camels. lol

It's not easy, but with people like you it's gonna be easier.

[Zenlitened]

19. Here's the roll call:

A "yes" vote indicates, "Sure, let's recognize civil rights based on mob rule!" :grr:

Roll call vote on ballot question proposing gay marriage ban
By The Associated Press | January 2, 2007

Here's how members of the Legislature voted on a proposed 2008 ballot question that would ban gay marriage. The vote was 61-132 in favor of advancing the proposed constitutional amendment, but only 50 votes were needed to move it to a second constitutional convention this year. A "yes" vote was in favor of the ballot question; a "no" vote was against it.

HOUSE:

Cory Atkins, D-Concord - N

Demetrius J. Atsalis, D-Hyannis - N

Bruce J. Ayers, D-Quincy - Y

Ruth B. Balser, D-Newton - N

John J. Binienda, D-Worcester - Y

Daniel E. Bosley, D-North Adams - X

Garrett J. Bradley, D-Hingham - N

Arthur J. Broadhurst, D-Methuen - N

Antonio F. D. Cabral, D-New Bedford - N

Jennifer M. Callahan, D-Sutton - N

Christine E. Canavan, D-Brockton - Y

Gale D. Candaras, D-Wilbraham - Y

Stephen R. Canessa, D-New Bedford - N

Mark J. Carron, D-Southbridge - Y

Paul C. Casey, D-Winchester - Y

Cheryl A. Coakley-Rivera, D-Springfield - N

Virginia Coppola, R-Foxborough - Y

Robert Correia, D-Fall River - Y

Michael A. Costello, D-Newburyport - N

Robert K. Coughlin, D-Dedham - N

Geraldine Creedon, D-Brockton - Y

Sean Curran, D-Springfield - Y

Robert A. DeLeo, D-Winthrop - N

Viriato Manuel deMacedo, R-Plymouth - Y

Brian S. Dempsey, D-Haverhill - N

Salvatore F. DiMasi, D-Boston - N

Paul J. Donato, D-Medford - Y

Christopher J. Donelan, D-Orange - N

Joseph R. Driscoll, D-Braintree - N

James B. Eldridge, D-Acton - N

Lewis G. Evangelidis, R-Holden - Y

James H. Fagan, D-Taunton - Y

Christopher G. Fallon, D-Malden - N

Mark V. Falzone, D-Saugus - N

Robert F. Fennell, D-Lynn - N

Michael E. Festa, D-Melrose - N

Barry R. Finegold, D-Andover - N

Jennifer Flanagan, D-Leominster - N

David L. Flynn, D-Bridgewater - Y

Linda Dorcena Forry, D-Boston - N

Gloria L. Fox, D-Boston - N

John P. Fresolo, D-Worcester - Y

Paul K. Frost, R-Auburn - Y

William C. Galvin, D-Canton - N

Colleen M. Garry, D-Dracut - Y

Susan W. Gifford, R-Wareham - Y

Anne M. Gobi, D-Spencer - N

Emile J. Goguen, D-Fitchburg - Y

Thomas A. Golden Jr., D-Lowell - N

Shirley Gomes, R-South Harwich - Y

Mary E. Grant, D-Beverly - N

William G. Greene Jr., D-Billerica - Y

Dennis Guyer, D-Dalton - N

Patricia A. Haddad, D-Somerset - N

Geoffrey D. Hall, D-Westford - N

Robert S. Hargraves, R-Groton - Y

Lida E. Harkins, D-Needham - N

Bradford Hill, R-Ipswich - N

Kevin G. Honan, D-Boston - N

Donald F. Humason Jr., R-Westfield - Y

Frank M. Hynes, D-Marshfield - Y

Bradley H. Jones Jr., R-North Reading - N

Louis L. Kafka, D-Sharon - N

Michael F. Kane, D-Holyoke - Y

Rachel Kaprielian, D-Watertown - N

Jay R. Kaufman, D-Lexington - N

John Keenan, D-Salem - N

Thomas P. Kennedy, D-Brockton - N

Kay Khan, D-Newton - N

Peter V. Kocot, D-Florence - N

Robert M. Koczera, D-New Bedford - N

Peter J. Koutoujian, D-Waltham - N

Paul Kujawski, D-Webster - Y

Stephen Kulik, D-Worthington - N

William Lantigua, D-Lawrence - Y

James Brendan Leary, D-Worcester - N

Stephen P. LeDuc, D-Marlboro - N

John A. Lepper, R-Attleboro - Y

David P. Linsky, D-Natick - N

Barbara A. L'Italien, D-Andover - N

Paul J. Loscocco, R-Holliston - Y

Elizabeth A. Malia, D-Boston - N

Ronald Mariano, D-Quincy - N

James J. Marzilli Jr., D-Arlington - N

James R. Miceli, D-Wilmington - Y

Michael J. Moran, D-Boston - N

Charles A. Murphy, D-Burlington - N

James M. Murphy, D-Weymouth - Y

Kevin J. Murphy, D-Lowell - N

David M. Nangle, D-Lowell - Y

Patrick Natale, D-Woburn - N

Harold P. Naughton Jr., D-Clinton - N

Robert J. Nyman, D-Hanover - Y

Thomas J. O'Brien, D-Kingston - N

Eugene L. O'Flaherty, D-Chelsea - N

Shirley Owens-Hicks, D-Boston - X

Marie J. Parente, D-Milford - Y

Matthew Patrick, D-Falmouth - N

Anne M. Paulsen, D-Belmont - N

Vincent A. Pedone, D-Worcester - N

Alice H. Peisch, D-Wellesley - N

Jeffrey D. Perry, R-Sandwich - Y

Douglas W. Petersen, D-Marblehead - N

George N. Peterson Jr., R-Grafton - Y

Thomas M. Petrolati, D-Ludlow - Y

Anthony Petruccelli, D-Boston - N

William "Smitty" Pignatelli, D-Lenox - X

Elizabeth A. Poirier, R-North Attleboro - Y

Karyn E. Polito, R-Shrewsbury - Y

Susan W. Pope, R-Wayland - Y

Denise Provost, D-Somerville - N

John F. Quinn, D-Dartmouth - N

Kathi-Anne Reinstein, D-Revere - N

Robert Rice, D-Gardner - N

Michael J. Rodrigues, D-Westport - N

Mary S. Rogeness, R-Longmeadow - Y

John H. Rogers, D-Norwood - N

Richard Ross, R-Wrentham - Y

Michael F. Rush, D-Boston - Y

Byron Rushing, D-Boston - N

Jeffrey Sanchez, D-Boston - N

Tom Sannicandro, D-Ashland - N

Angelo M. Scaccia, D-Boston - Y

John W. Scibak, D-South Hadley - N

Carl Sciortino, D-Somerville - N

Frank Israel Smizik, D-Brookline - N

Todd Smola, R-Palmer - Y

Theodore C. Speliotis, D-Danvers - N

Robert P. Spellane, D-Worcester - N

Christopher N. Speranzo - D-Springfield - N

Joyce A. Spiliotis, D-Peabody - Y

Harriett L. Stanley, D-West Newbury - N

Thomas M. Stanley, D-Waltham - N

Marie P. St.Fleur, D-Boston - N

Ellen Story, D-Amherst - N

William M. Straus, D-Mattapoisett - N

David B. Sullivan, D-Fall River - N

Benjamin Swan, D-Springfield - N

Kathleen M. Teahan, D-Whitman - N

Walter F. Timilty, D-Milton - Y

A. Stephen Tobin, D-Quincy - Y

Timothy J. Toomey Jr., D-Cambridge - N

David M. Torrisi, D-North Andover - N

Philip Travis, D-Rehoboth - Y

Eric Turkington, D-Falmouth - N

Cleon Turner, D-Dennis - N

James E. Vallee, D-Franklin - Y

Anthony J. Verga, D-Gloucester - Y

Joseph F. Wagner, D-Chicopee - N

Brian P. Wallace, D-Boston - Y

Patricia A. Walrath, D-Stow - N

Martin J. Walsh, D-Boston - N

Steven M. Walsh, D-Lynn - N

Marty Walz, D-Boston - N

Daniel K. Webster, R-Hanson - Y

James T. Welch, D-West Springfield - N

Alice K. Wolf, D-Cambridge - N

SENATE

Robert A. Antonioni, D-Leominster - N

Edward M. Augustus, D-Worcester - N

Steven A. Baddour, D-Methuen - N

Jarrett T. Barrios, D-Cambridge - N

Frederick E. Berry, D-Peabody - N

Stephen M. Brewer, D-Barre - N

Scott P. Brown, R-Wrentham - Y

Stephen J. Buoniconti, D-West Springfield - N

Harriette L. Chandler, D-Worcester - N

Robert S. Creedon, D-Brockton - Y

Cynthia Stone Creem, D-Newton - N

Susan C. Fargo, D-Lincoln - N

John A. Hart, D-Boston - N

Robert A. Havern, D-Arlington - N

Robert L. Hedlund, R-Weymouth - Y

Patricia Jehlen, D-Somerville - N

Brian A. Joyce, D-Milton - N

Michael R. Knapik, R-Westfield - N

Brian P. Lees, R-East Longmeadow - N

Thomas M McGee, D-Lynn - N

Joan M. Menard, D-Somerset - N

Mark C. Montigny, D-New Bedford - N

Richard T. Moore, D-Uxbridge - Y

Michael W. Morrissey, D-Quincy - Y

Therese Murray, D-Plymouth - N

Andrea F. Nuciforo, D-Pittsfield - X

Robert D. O'Leary, D-Barnstable - N

Marc R. Pacheco, D-Taunton - N

Steven C. Panagiotakos, D-Lowell - Y

Pamela P. Resor, D-Acton - N

Stanley C. Rosenberg, D-Amherst - N

Karen E. Spilka, D-Ashland - N

Bruce E. Tarr, R-Gloucester - N

James E. Timilty, D-Walpole - N

Richard R. Tisei, R-Wakefield - N

Steve A. Tolman, D-Boston - N

Robert E. Travaglini, D-Boston - Y

Susan C. Tucker, D-Andover - N

Marian Walsh, D-West Roxbury - N

Dianne Wilkerson, D-Boston - N

------

N no

Y yes

X not voting

Source:
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2007/01/02/roll_call_vote_to_recess_the_constitutional_convention/

[Caution]

20. Cheers for my rep and jeers to Joyce Spiliotis, the only North Shore

Rep who voted for bigotry. I'll be giving a donation to the D that runs against her in the next election. I'll do some sign carrying too.

[closeupready]

35. Me. too.

:mad:

[Nutmegger]

21. Isn't the Mass House mostly Dem?

And if so, who the hell are the Dems voting for this?

(Admittedly I'm kind of shoddy on the details.)

[Caution]

22. There weren't many Dems who voted for it, but it only needed 50

votes. This thing barely got enough votes to pass. I'll be donating to some Dem challengers next election cycle though. Bigots or cowards, either way they lost my support.

[Ian David]

25. I'm pledging at least 20 hrs per week of my time to primary challengers

I want to drive the political stake through the heart of Canavan or either Creedon-creature.

[Ian David]

24. From a poster on BlueMassGroup

Quick Numbers (6.00 / 1)
OK, so now that this is going to the next session, it's time to take a quick look at the changes in membership to try to see how much support the amendment will have next session. Here's my quick count:

Looking at the 61 "yes" votes from the first vote (because I'm not sure who switched to make the second vote 62), it appears that gay marriage supporters have picked up a total of four or possibly five votes -- still short of getting the "yes" number below 50. Here's my list of pick-ups:

1) Peake (replaces Gomes)
2) Fernandes (replaces Parente)
3) D'Amico (replaces Travis)
4) DiNatale (replaces Goguen)
5) Conroy (replaces Pope)

The "yes" votes appear to have picked up one vote, as Candaras (anti-gay marriage) replaces the pro-marriage Lees in the Senate.

The question marks seem to be Geraldo Alicea replacing the anti-gay marriage Carron (I can't find his position on the issue anywhere) and Linda Dean Campbell replacing pro-marriage Broadhurst.

There were a few other pro-gay marriage pickups, but they will not affect the vote because none of the replaced Reps. voted today. They are:

1) Sandlin (replaces Keenan)
2) Smith (replaces Connelly)
3) Allen (replaces Owens-Hicks)

So, in short, the anti-gay marriage amendment will pass next session unless either a few members (probably about 6) actively switch their vote from "yes" to "no", or the Legislature fails to vote on the merits.

Hope this is helpful, and add to it if you have any other info.
by: Hoyapaul @ Tue Jan 02, 2007 at 17:48:29 PM EST

MORE:
http://www.bluemassgroup.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=5777

[Ian David]

26. They voted to adjourn without voting on the merits of the healthcare amendment?

A truly revolting display
by: David
Tue Jan 02, 2007 at 18:01:26 PM EST

The results are in: the legislature took a vote on the merits of the anti-marriage amendment, and advanced it to the 2007-08 session, but did not do so on the health care amendment, so it died on the vine. So they have -- no question -- violated their oaths of office. And they've made those of us who asked them to follow the law on the marriage amendment, even though we suspected the results would be disappointing, look pretty silly. Thanks guys.

Now they're giving themselves big rounds of applause, cheering heartily for their colleagues who are leaving the legislature (either voluntarily or otherwise).

Disgusting.

More:
http://www.bluemassgroup.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=5782


Also:



New ConCon thread: debate continues on other amendments
by: David
Tue Jan 02, 2007 at 17:34:14 PM EST

Let's move to this thread, since the size of the previous live-blog thread is slowing down BMG.

They have now started debate on a motion to discharge the health care amendment from committee, which is a necessary precursor to voting on it. A 2/3 vote will be required to do this. It'll be a short debate. Tolman has argued in favor of discharge. Here comes Sen. Moore arguing against discharge.

Rep. Wallrath also argued against discharge. Sen. Jehlen is up now to argue for discharge, and she reminds the convention that a vote is constitutionally required under the SJC's decision. Now Montigny is up arguing for discharge. He's done, and Tolman is adding the constitutional argument again, saying that the SJC has required a vote on the merits, so discharge is required.

UPDATE: Debate is over, and they're voting on the discharge. From the Senate vote, it sounds pretty even, which means they won't get the 2/3 they need to get it out of committee. What a horror show that would be.

Overheard on the open mike: as the Senate clerk records Sen. Spilka's "no" vote to keep the amendment buried in committee, Trav said "good girl." Nice, on so many levels.

UPDATE: the vote is in: 92-101, not close to the 2/3 needed to discharge the amendment from committee. So there will be no vote on the merits of the health care amendment.

What a disgrace.

More:
http://www.bluemassgroup.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=5779

[seaglass]

33. I think the problem began when this initiative petitition was

approved. According to the MA constitution:

The Initiative.
II. Initiative Petitions.

...


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.

My point is 1.) how can it be said that this measure does not relate to religion? and 2.) gay marriage rights were a MA Supreme Court decision, why is this initiative allowed to reverse a judicial decision?

Am I reading this wrong? I'm not a lawyer (obviously) but it seems that those points could have been argued to knock this petition down. It is maybe the last sentence that is the loophole, it seems to be saying if a petition is passed even though it should have been excluded it must be upheld?

In any case, this is a real disappointment. I think a 25% vote of the legislature is too low a threshold to change the constitution.

[suston96]

34. It's an initiative amendment to the Constitution...

That Article 48 is very long and intricate. Read the part on intiative amendments to the constitution.

I am a veteran of the term limits battles in Massachusetts. In the early 1990s I, and many allies, lobbied the legislature when such an initiative amendment creating term limits was NOT voted on by the constitutional convention and it died.

The proponents came back with an initiative petition to place limits on the qualifications of constitutional officers per initiative legislation. In 1994 that petition was passed by the voters but was found to be unconstitutional by both the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, and in other states, similar statutes passed by initiative petition were also set aside by their courts and eventually by the USSC. Statutes cannot change constitutional qualifications.

I will be contacting the involved parties regarding this set-back. The Massachusetts legislators must be impressed with the following:

"Article XXX. In the government of this commonwealth, the legislative department shall never exercise the executive and judicial powers, or either of them: the executive shall never exercise the legislative and judicial powers, or either of them: the judicial shall never exercise the legislative and executive powers, or either of them: to the end it may be a government of laws and not of men."

That is from the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. The Supreme Judicial Court cannot pressure the legislature to do anything. The Court can become involved AFTER a law is passed and only upon a complaint of a citizen or a group of citizens.

Before and during the legislative process, whether by the elected legislature or by the people petitioning, the Court cannot interfere or pressure or anything.