Massachusetts investigates anti-gay marriage signature forgery allegations

[TaleWgnDg]

.

(Massachusetts) state investigating gay marriage signature forgery allegations

by Steve LeBlanc, AP Writer | Boston Globe, February 28, 2006

BOSTON -- (State) prosecutors from (state) Attorney General Tom Reilly's office have launched a criminal investigation to determine whether workers gathering support for an anti-gay marriage amendment forged the signatures of some voters last year.

The investigation stems from allegations by some voters that their names were on signature lists despite the fact that they said they never signed the petition. It would not affect the outcome, since supporters had more than twice as many certified signatures as they needed to send the question for legislative approval for the 2008 ballot.

The question would amend the state constitution to ban gay marriage, overturning the state's historic court ruling. Massachusetts is the only state to allow gay marriage.

"Because some of these concerns raised allege the crime of forgery, these allegations were referred to our Criminal Bureau," Assistant Attorney General Stephanie Lovell said in a letter to Secretary of State William Galvin dated Tuesday.

. . . snip . . .

(Assistant Attorney General) Lovell was responding to a letter sent to (Attorney General) Reilly from (Secretary of State) Galvin late last week. Galvin said he wanted to report the allegations after receiving complaints from voters.


. . . snip . . .

Supporters of the anti-gay marriage initiative collected more than 170,000 signatures. Of those, 147,000 were certified. They needed only 65,825 certified signatures. Before it gets on the ballot, the (anti-gay marriage) question must win the backing of at least 50 members of the legislature in two successive sessions.

. . . more at . . . http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/02/28/state_investigating_gay_marriage_signature_forgery_allegations/

(bold-faced type emphasis added by TaleWgnDg)

.

So. Massachusetts Secretary of State Galvin apparently ascertained potential criminal fraud thus forwarded those findings to Attorney General Reilly's office who is the appropriate person in the Massachusetts executive branch to commence a criminal investigation and bring criminal charges. Galvin is not authorized to bring criminal charges. Let's see what happens next. My guess is that Reilly's office will commence criminal investigation(s) and file criminal charge(s) but the anti-gay marriage question will go forward unaffected.

.

[BattyDem]

1. They want to amend the constitution AFTER the court has ruled?

What happens to all those married couples? :shrug: :mad:

On edit: In theory, EVERY court decision could be overturned in this way. It would make it pointless to have courts.

[TaleWgnDg]

4. You've hit a nerve, BattyDem . . . very good question too.

.
You've hit a nerve, BattyDem . . . very good question too. What happens to all those same-sex couples who are legally married? What of their children? And, all else that such a state constitutional amendment would affect?

Well. First of all, the petition expressly states that it will be effective to only those same-sex couples from the date the constitutional amendment takes effect. From that date forward in time, same-sex couples may no longer be legally married in Massachusetts.

Okay. Now back to your question. If it passes, then there will be two distinct classes of same-sex couples in Massachusetts. Those legally married prior to the amendment taking effect. And, those same-sex couples in Massachusetts who cannot legally marry due to the passage of the new amendment to the Massachusetts state constitution prohibiting such marriages. And, of course, there are all those opposite-sex couples who could marry prior and who can continue to marry, amendment or no amendment.

And, from there it becomes a litigation nightmare for both the same-sex families who are legally married and for those who can no longer get married as well as their families including their children and their children's children. Frankly, I think that the amendment will fail on this very legally issue. There are some very strong constitutional arguments to support these issues. That is, if Massachusetts' highest court continues to interpret our state constitution as it should be interpreted.

On the other hand, if the petition amendment did not include that express wording to allow those legally married same-sex couples to remain legally married, then how could any amendment constitutionally revoke legitimate marriages? No, a state constitutional amendment cannot illegitimize prior valid marriages.

Uuummmmm, frankly, I believe it will not fly. That's my legal take on it.

All that being said, does not then mean that this hateful anti-gay marriage amendment should not be fought in every way legally possible. For it should be fought. It should be stopped ASAP at whatever crossroads it can be stopped, legally.

.

[BattyDem]

5. How can a constitutional amendment ...

declare that an act is illegal, yet ALSO declare that the act IS legal? :shrug: You're right ... it would create a HUGE mess and not only would same-sex couples go back to being second class citizens, they would be divided into two classes themselves! :wtf:

I hope the people of Massachusetts are intelligent enough to realize that gay marriage has not "damaged" their lives in any way and they'll defeat the amendment if it actually makes it to a vote.

On edit: You know, the more I think about it, opponents of the amendment should ask the voters this:

"Can you honestly say that during the nearly two years same-sex marriage has existed in our state, it has affected your life or your marriage in any way whatsoever? If not, then you have to acknowledge that the only reason you would be voting in favor of this amendment is hate. Is that what you want for our state and for our future? Is that what you want to teach your children? You're better than that! We're better than that! Let's all prove it by voting against this hateful amendment."

[TaleWgnDg]

6. Yup. Ignorance together w/ an inability to let go

of deeply felt religious beliefs. Sad. Very sad.

[Trillo]

2. Possible motive for identity theft. (n/t)

[TaleWgnDg]

3. For example, Boston's FoxNews, Channel 25 . . . caught em on video

For example, Boston's FoxNews, Channel 25 . . . caught em on video . . .

Here is the Fox News, Boston channel 25 video . . . http://knowthyneighbor.org/fraud.html

If anyone knows anything about:
(1.) Massachusetts anti-gay marriage petition signature-takers actively committing forgery or
(2.) if you were bamboozled into signing your name to the anti-gay marriage petition (look for your name here at http://knowthyneighbor.org/thelist.php . . . did you sign it unknowingly?) . . .
then telephone Massachusetts Attorney General Tom Reilly's office, ask for Massachusetts Assistant Attorney General Stephanie Lovell at 617-727-2200 x 2040 . . .
.

[W_HAMILTON]

7. Massachusetts is one of the few places that still give me hope...

You never know, but Massachusetts is probably the one state in America where I think same-sex marriage will hold up. Everything I've read makes it seem like the people in power -- and the majority of the people themselves -- have no problem with same-sex marriage being allowed in their state.

Good for them.