Massachusetts amendment would re-classify gay marriage as "unions"

[patriotvoice]

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2004/02/11/amendment_would_turn_gay_marriages_into_unions

Funny how fast legislation is proposed on some subjects, but not others, isn't it?

[WillParkinson]

1. Backstabbing bastards...

I swear.

[Bill McBlueState]

2. bastards

The legislature takes a few days to cobble this together, while it takes them months and months to find the money to fund the collectively-bargained contracts of state employees.

Apparently the list of priorities goes
1. Codify homophobia
...
...
...
...
363 or so. Honor your obligations to state workers


Finneran and his goons need to go home.

[skippysmom]

3. sing on wmass astronomer!

from a state worker who MAY get her back pay this week.

[WarNoMore]

4. NECN (new england cable news)

is televising the Constitutional Convention and the marriage amendment has been moved to the top of the agenda>

[Kathy in Cambridge]

5. Thanks for the heads up-turning on the TV now!

:hi:

[KamaAina]

6. Uh, didn't the SJC just tell them that wouldn't be acceptable?

How embarrassing to see Democrats behaving like this.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

7. Finneran is a conservative Dem

well, conservative for Mass. He is a demagogue from hell.

[pinto]

10. unacceptable, per SJC, unless there was a constitutional amendment....

the SJC's argument was justly based on the Mass constitution as it stands now, prohibiting a "second class" citizenry through state actions.

[David__77]

8. Being debated right now...

actually this is an amendment to the amendment banning same-sex marriages. It would mandate civil unions. An earlier amendment to the amendment that was designed to broaden its appeal through lies about allowing for civil unions at some undefined point in the future has been defeated! I'm glad about that--it was supported by Romney.

If the civil unions amendment fails, there's a real chance the whole thing will not be moved on. People won't vote for an amendment that bans civil unions--no way. Well, at least that's what I think is the case... I could be suprised. Opinion on marriage is closely divided in MA.

[pinto]

9. D_77, how do you feel about a civil union "compromise" ? also, do you

think the initial amendment will stall without the civil union addendum?

[David__77]

11. Well...

I think that it's certainly possible that the original amendment without the civil unions clause could win. But I think that--if I had to bet--the civil unions language will be included. That's being debated as we write this. But I'm unsure if pro-marriage equality people are supporting it "just in case." From a strategic perspective, voting for it may be a mistake if the original amendment can be defeated without it.

I don't like the civil unions amendment. Many people are being very courageous in that legislature and are supporting lesbian and gay people on this issue. I would like to legally marry my spouse also.

It's so hard to know what's going to happen. But I take it as a very, very positive sign that the speaker's amendment (which was to say that civil unions COULD be instituted through stature) failed 98-100. That was the amendment supported by the governor and other anti-gay forces. If we could replicate that vote on the final vote--then that's victory, and the people's representatives have spoken.

[pinto]

14. looks like we go all or nothing, so to speak, see post 13

[mondo joe]

12. I'd take civil unions. For now.

If Mass. will provide full marriage benefits to civil unions, I think it would be an okay compromise for now, especially in light of the coming election.

[shawmut]

13. compromise rejected

this is a surprise.

the vote was 104-94 on this one.


http://www.boston.com/news/daily/11/samesex_marriage.htm