Mass. Lawmakers Reject Gay Marriage Ban
POSTED BY: Geezer
UPDATED: Monday, September 19, 2005 02:17
VIEWED: 7009
PAGE 1 of 5
Now that's more like it.
Quote:
Mass. Lawmakers Reject Gay Marriage Ban
Updated: Wednesday, Sep. 14, 2005 - 6:03 PM
By STEVE LeBLANC
Associated Press Writer
BOSTON (AP) - The Massachusetts Legislature rejected a proposed change to the state constitution Wednesday aimed at banning gay marriage, a striking reversal that preserves the state's status as the only place in the nation where same-sex couples can wed.
A year after Massachusetts politicians appeared destined to undo a court order that has allowed thousands of same-sex couples to marry since May 17, 2004, the Legislature voted 157-39 against the proposed constitutional amendment.
It was the second time the Legislature had confronted the measure. Lawmakers were required to approve it in two consecutive sessions before the proposal could move to the statewide ballot in 2006 for a final decision by voters.
http://www.wtop.com/index.php?nid=104&sid=9636
Now if only other states would wise up and let folks be with who they want.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
A little ray of sanity in a troubled world. Thank you for the news, Geezer.
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
A little ray of sanity in a troubled world. Thank you for the news, Geezer.
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
This topic goes in the psychic thread. I could have predicted this one too.
Those New Englanders like the alternative...lumberjocks, liberals, commies, artists, intellectuals, and baby killers. All living down the street from Ted Kennedy while the Boston poor make the poor of Cleveland or the late New Orleans look downright affluent.
I'll take Ohio and my mid-western red-state values.
For the record. Gay marriage wrong, Civil Unions ok.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ya know, as far as I'm concerned, it could be called just about anything. Gay marriage (which, I suppose, would have to be church related), civil unions (which is the legal part of "marriage" for anyone) liscensed cohabitation, whatever. As long as a segment of the population is kept from signing a legal contract with (I believe) state government, they are a persecuted minority.
It'd be just like refusing a gay or lesbian person the right to get a drivers liscense. And what a stir that would create.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Lofwyrr:
Ya know, as far as I'm concerned, it could be called just about anything. Gay marriage (which, I suppose, would have to be church related), civil unions (which is the legal part of "marriage" for anyone) liscensed cohabitation, whatever. As long as a segment of the population is kept from signing a legal contract with (I believe) state government, they are a persecuted minority.
It'd be just like refusing a gay or lesbian person the right to get a drivers liscense. And what a stir that would create.
Unlike drivers licenses, marriage is a legal and social institution that predates our nation and has been firmly settled in Common Law for hundreds of years and even longer in tradition.
I have no issue with reserving the sanctity of marriage to a man and woman upholding the established definition.
Civil Unions are another matter. As an attorney I am a firm believer in the right to contract. Two persons, perhaps more and regardless of sexual orientation (could be siblings, cousins, life long friends, etc), joining their legal interests in a mutually beneficial arrangment is good for everyone.
Also, for the record Drivers Licenses are not a right. They are a privilage heavily regulated by the State and often denied to many persons including homosexuals, women, latinos, immigrants, white males, and anyone else who fails to meet requirements that apply to everyone. Things like age, knowledge, and residency.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
For the record. Gay marriage wrong, Civil Unions ok.
Why so?
Slavery was the "law of the land" for centuries. Denying women the right to vote or own property was established law also. Maybe it's time to make another change.
Civil Unions don't provide the same legal protections and rights as marriage, at least on the state level. The Defense of Marriage act pretty much keeps same-sex couples from obtaining any of the Federal rights that a conventional Male-female marriage would provide anyway (not that I agree with that either).
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
I'll tell you what I think.
Governments shouldn't endorse any kind of marraige, nor reject them either.
Marraige should be either a religious choice, for those that feel that way, or a legal contract between partners, such as in a business.
There should be no tax break for marraige, and no government involvement in the concept whatsoever.
Child support, I say keep, because children will always need to be supported.
But marraige? Discard it as an institution of the state. It belongs entirely to the people.
If people feel religious, and they want to marry, they should be allowed to do so under the precepts of their religion, and whatever it means to them, it means to them.
If people feel the need to arrange a financial contract or services contract with each other, they should be allowed to do so. If people want to jointly own property, then they should go ahead.
Why the devil do we need governments getting involved in people's choice to marry or not?
I just don't get it.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I’m happy to see that the anti-democratic legislation imposed on Massachusetts has been somewhat validated by an elected legislative body. I would be happier to see a popular referendum, but at least Massachusetts is moving in a more democratic direction with regards to marriage law concerning homosexuals. However, I'm not a resident of Massachusetts so what I think they should or shouldn't do is fairly meaningless.
Originally posted by Geezer:
Now if only other states would wise up and let folks be with who they want.
-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
For the record. Gay marriage wrong, Civil Unions ok.
I don't normally post in the Real World threads, but I had to speak up here.
Marriage is NOT solely a Christian institution. Marriage has been an idea in nearly every culture for as far back as recorded history, and probably further. I'm a Christian myself, but I don't try to force my beliefs on others, and I certainly don't try to enforce laws that only apply to those of my religion.
Gays are already sinners, right? What does it matter if they get married? How on Earth can you justify that? Why don't we just start punishing people for having "Other gods before Him"? Ridiculous!
"Invader's blood marches through my veins like giant radioactive rubber pants. The pants command me! Do not ignore my veins!"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Marriage is a legal and social institution that predates our nation and has been firmly settled in Common Law for hundreds of years and even longer in tradition.
I do not see how you could possibly be a success as an attorney with such terrible argumentative skills. The reason gays shouldn't be allowed to marry is because of tradition? Yeah, because we should always dictate the actions of today by the actions of yesterday.
Alright, ladies, you heard Hero. I guess you have to get back in the kitchen and start pumping out babies. Oh, also, African-Americans? Uh, yeah, you guys get back in the fields. You're slaves again. Picking cotton is a tradition, after all.
------------------
"Remember, there's a big difference between kneeling down and bending over."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME