Legislators again delay gay marriage vote

[Ian David]

Updated


Thursday, November 9, 2006
Legislators again delay gay marriage vote
Posted by the Boston Globe City & Region Desk at 05:43 PM

By Scott Helman and Andrea Estes, Globe Staff

State lawmakers today again delayed a contentious vote on a proposed gay-marriage ban geared for the 2008 ballot, a move that could kill its chances of ever going to the voters.

The House and Senate, meeting in a special joint session, recessed before taking up a proposed amendment to the state constitution that would have limited the legal definition of marriage to the union between one man and one woman. Lawmakers voted to adjourn the session until Jan. 2, the last official day of the legislative session.

The 109-87 vote to recess could deal a crushing blow to opponents of same-sex marriage looking to override the landmark court decision three years ago that put Massachusetts on the vanguard of gay rights.

<snip>

"You don't have to live next to us. You don't have to like us," state Senator Jarrett T. Barrios, an openly gay Cambridge Democrat, said in an emotional speech. "We are only asking you today to end the debate so that we can sleep easily knowing ... that we will at least have the right to enjoy the same rights the rest of you have enjoyed for time immemorial."

<snip>

More:

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/city_region/breaking_news/2006/11/legislators_aga_1.html



See also:

Gay marriage vote put off in Mass.
Staff and agencies
09 November, 2006


By JAY LINDSAY, Associated Press Writer 5 minutes ago

BOSTON - Massachusetts lawmakers on Thursday again avoided taking a formal stand on a proposed constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage, recessing a constitutional convention instead of taking up the thorny issue.

Lawmakers voted 196-0 to reject a proposed amendment that would invalidate thousands of same-sex marriages already conducted, but decided to recess without voting on another measure that would only bar such marriages after the law was enacted.

More:
http://www.localnewsleader.com/brocktown/stories/index.php?action=fullnews&id=24862




Just announced on New England Cable News.

Link pending.

For now, see here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=158x11070

[EFerrari]

1. Awesome.

:)

[Caution]

2. Not quite true according to BMG

The joint session has voted 109-87 to adjourn until January 2, 2007, at 2 pm. In theory, I suppose, there's no reason they couldn't still vote to advance the marriage question to the next session at that point, since the session doesn't expire until the new members are sworn in (which will be the following day, January 3). So I'm not exactly sure what the point of this is, other than to drag the issue out yet again.

I could understand doing it after January 3rd... but other than that, it makes no sense. They should have just gotten it over with one way or the other today, or killed it dead through parliamentary procedure. This was pretty much the worst thing they could do.

http://www.bluemassgroup.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=5206

[Ian David]

5. I'll adjust headline accordingly. THANKS!

NECN wasn't as clear about it.

[Ian David]

9. NECN says that this means it can't be on the 2008 ballot.

I suppose, if it passes in 2007, it can be on the 2009 ballot.

But then, we picked up five more pro-equality seats on Tuesday.

And probably flipped a few votes in the meantime.

[LeftCoast]

3. Yay! More good news!

:woohoo:

[TechBear_Seattle]

4. Thanks for the update, Ian! Much appreciated.

That's one less worry. As long as equal marriage is a reality somewhere in this country, there is hope for the rest of us.

[newscott]

6. Ha! A big screw you to the fundamentalists!

[Warpy]

7. YES!!

Expect the good Christians in the burbs to keep trying to overturn it and keep expecting state, corporate and Federal death benefits to be withheld, instead of automatic, but the really important parts of promoting a beloved stranger to first class relative status are intact.

Someone earlier posted a beautiful photo of a married couple outside the State House (I think) with a sign, "51 years together, 2 years married."

This is an idea whose time has come. People now know that the sky isn't falling and family men aren't deserting the wife and kiddies to "pursue the gay lifestyle" and marry other men.

In other words, extending the benefits of civil marriage to gay and lesbian couples has changed nothing and threatened no one. It's about bloody time it's happening.

[Ian David]

8. Gay marriage vote put off in Mass.

Gay marriage vote put off in Mass.
Staff and agencies
09 November, 2006


By JAY LINDSAY, Associated Press Writer 5 minutes ago

BOSTON - Massachusetts lawmakers on Thursday again avoided taking a formal stand on a proposed constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage, recessing a constitutional convention instead of taking up the thorny issue.

Lawmakers voted 196-0 to reject a proposed amendment that would invalidate thousands of same-sex marriages already conducted, but decided to recess without voting on another measure that would only bar such marriages after the law was enacted.

More:
http://www.localnewsleader.com/brocktown/stories/index.php?action=fullnews&id=24862

[Ian David]

10. MassMarrier has a report from the scene

SSM Foes Looking Weak in Boston


The motion to shift item 20 to the top of the agenda failed in Boston today. That means the jaw fest continues while the crowds on the sidewalk chant.

That item is the initiative amendment to halt future same-sex marriages in Massachusetts. The reconvened Constitutional Convention (ConCon) officially started around 1 p.m. The joint legislative session may or may not wade down to this one today, or ever.

If they adjourn without voting on it, there will be weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth. Our governor has the power to call the houses back into session, but not the power to force them to vote on an amendment proposal.

<snip>

Back on Beacon Street, the good guys -- pro-marriage equality -- have more passion, better chants, and crappier signs. Across the street, the anti-SSM people are far fewer (maybe a third the group). Yet, they were bused in and given professional printed signs. Nearly everyone has the same white on green. Some hold them high. Others seem to need the sign's stick to remain standing.

They did bring their JESUS IS THE LORD balloon again. It's a nice orange and looks like a printed marshmallow. We rather doubt that loving, forgiving Jesus would have much good to say about being linked to highly selective Old Testament verses as the basis for hatred and discrimination. Perhaps they'll next turn to such winners as Deuteronomy 22:13-21 about stoning the non-virgin bride and leaving her dead on the father's doorstep. That Old Testament God was such a martinet.

We naively believed we might get in the gallery for the ConCon. We got there well before lunchtime, but far too late for that. The Mass Equality people said they were lined up by 6 a.m. The better news is that they estimated that they had 70% of the seats inside.

We held a placard -- PROTECT ALL FAMILIES -- and chanted. After a bit, we headed to CVS for some cashews to sustain the body. A lawyerly looking middle aged fellow stopped us in the aisle and looked at the pro-equality sign on my shirt. He asked how things were progressing. He had taken a break because he got into a shouting match and near to blows with one of the anti folk.

More:
http://www.massmarrier.blogspot.com/

[Ian David]

11. Victory for Equality

From: Freedom to Marry Coalition of Massachusetts <[e-mail]>
Date: Nov 9, 2006
Subject: Victory for Equality




Today the Commonwealth can celebrate a great victory for equality. The legislature met today in a Constitutional Convention and defeated two anti-family, anti-GLBT amendments.

Our legislators took a principled stand for equality and protected the civil rights of all citizens of the Commonwealth. Two amendments were addressed and defeated safeguarding marriage equality.

The first anti-gay amendment was easily voted down 196 – 0 after a serious and thoughtful debate. The debate was then ended when they recessed until Jan 2nd, 2007 effectively derailing efforts to place an amendment attacking equal marriage on the ballot in 2008. The vote was 109 to 87.

We want to thank the solid majority of legislators who worked to defeat these amendments and applaud them for their efforts. We would also like to give special thanks to Speaker Sal DiMasi for his efforts in ensuring our victory.

Finally, we would like to thank all of you for your tireless efforts over the years the led to our victory today. Without your energy and dedication marriage equality would not be where it is today.

Best regards,

Rob Henry & Chris Shorrock
Co-Chairs, EqualMarriage.org – The Freedom to Marry Coalition of Massachusetts

[Hissyspit]

12. AP: Gay Marriage Vote Put Off In Massachusetts

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/G/GAY_MARRIAGE?SITE=FLTAM&SECTION=US

Gay Marriage Vote Put Off in Mass.

By STEVE LeBLANC
Associated Press Writer

BOSTON (AP) -- Massachusetts lawmakers on Thursday again avoided taking a formal stand on a proposed constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage, recessing a constitutional convention instead of taking up the thorny issue.

If lawmakers do not vote on the measure before the next Legislature takes office, the measure will not appear on the November 2008 ballot. A vote appeared unlikely because they recessed until Jan. 2, the last day this Legislature is in session.

Lawmakers voted 196-0 to reject a proposed amendment that would invalidate thousands of same-sex marriages already conducted, but decided to recess without voting on another measure that would bar such marriages only after the amendment was enacted.

Supporters of the less restrictive measure, the subject of a petition drive, accused supporters of same-sex marriage of using the more punitive question to detract attention from their own. They said voters deserved a chance to decide whether same-sex marriage - imposed on the state by its highest court - should remain legal, especially since 170,000 of them signed petitions calling for the measure.

"I'm probably 3,000 feet to the right of Attila the Hun. But the gracious people, the socially conscious people, the liberal people, you're the ones who always want everyone to be heard. What about these 170,000 people?" said Democratic Rep. Marie Parente.

MORE

[NOLADEM]

13. I see ole Mitt is reading the tea leaves

Still ain't goin for ya, mr contradiction.

Still don't get how in the hell Massachussetts ever elected this bozo...who in the hell ran against him?

You will see more of this moderation of policies across the country as officials everywhere digest the new direction of the wind.

[cboy4]

14. Good. They just need to let this go.....it's not hurting anyone.

196-0!

Isn't that something?

That's a good sign.

[TaleWgnDg]

15. The Boston Globe has a more expansive report on this . . .

.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/city_region/breaking_news/2006/11/legislators_aga.html

[Xipe Totec]

16. Reuters: Battle over gay marriage heats up in Massachusetts

BOSTON (Reuters) - Massachusetts' lawmakers on Thursday took a giant step toward killing a proposal to ban gay marriage in the only U.S. state where it is legal.

With protesters on both sides of the debate rallying outside the gold-domed statehouse, lawmakers voted 109 to 87 to delay a decision on whether to back a constitutional amendment that would have given voters a chance to ban gay marriage.

Gay rights advocates cheered the move, seen as a crushing blow to opponents of gay marriage who had gathered 170,000 signatures in a petition that asked lawmakers to put the culturally divisive issue before voters in 2008.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061110/ts_nm/rights_gays_dc_2

[MannyGoldstein]

17. All Bullshit

Very few here in Mass want to reverse gay marriage - just a few vocal pinheads. It's really a non-issue, except with the scum-bums on fringe-right radio.

[Xipe Totec]

18. You're right,

but those pinheads just got their asses handed back to them by the Massachusetts legislature.

and that's a good thing.

The headline is very misleading but LBN rules require an exact quote.

[Boston Critic]

19. Heating up? It's dead in the water

There are people hiding behind the false claim of "let the people vote" as if we have a referendum on every single issue being debated. (Most of the examples given are usually things that were NOT voted on except by Congress and/or state legislatures.)

Personally I'd like to see someone get up and make this statement:

"There's a proposal to neuter Mitt Romney and everyone in his family so that the human gene pool will never be contaminated by their likes again. Now, personally, I would oppose such an idea as a terrible infringement on human rights. But why should I impose my morality on everyone else? let the PEOPLE decide. We'll put it to a vote, and I'm confident the people of Massachusetts will do the right thing. And if they don't, well, that's democracy, which is what our brave soldiers fought to defend. So in this debate there are only two sides. Those who want to have a free and robust debate over the genetic future of the Romneys, and those people who hate America and its freedoms, including the sacred right of the public to decide things at the ballot box. Which are you?"