Mass. lawmakers block gay marriage vote

[Odin]

I live in Mass, and being the only state in the union that allows gay marriage let me say that the sky hasnt fallen.

So do you think i should have been able to vote on this?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Mass. lawmakers block gay marriage vote By STEVE LeBLANC, Associated Press Writer
1 minute ago

Massachusetts lawmakers blocked a proposed constitutional amendment Thursday that would have let voters decide whether to ban gay marriage in the only state that allows it.

The narrow vote was a victory for gay marriage advocates and a blow to efforts to reverse the historic court ruling that legalized same-sex marriage in the state. More than 8,500 gay couples have married in Massachusetts since it became legal in May 2004.

To get the proposed ban on the 2008 statewide ballot would have required 50 votes. It got 45, with 151 lawmakers opposed. There was no debate.

As the tally was announced, the halls of the Statehouse erupted in applause.

"We're proud of our state today, and we applaud the Legislature for showing that Massachusetts is strongly behind fairness," said Lee Swislow, executive director of Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders.

Opponents of gay marriage vowed to press on, but Thursday's defeat after more than three years of sometimes wrenching debate could prove insurmountable. Any effort to mount a new ballot question would take years at a time political support in Massachusetts is swinging firmly behind gay marriage.

For gay couples, the vote marked what could be the end of a struggle that began in 2001, when seven same-sex couples, denied marriage licenses, sued in Suffolk Superior Court.

Outside the Statehouse, hundreds of people rallied on both sides of the issue.

"We believe it's unconstitutional not to allow people to vote on this," said Rebekah Beliveau, 24, of Lawrence, a student at Gordon Conwell Theological Seminary who stood with fellow college-age amendment supporters across the street from the Statehouse.

Advocates of the amendment said they gathered 170,000 signatures supporting the amendment, although the secretary of state's office accepted only 123,000. "We're standing up not necessarily on the issue of same-sex marriage, but our right to vote," Beliveau said.

Across the road, gay marriage advocates stood on the front steps of the capital waving signs that read, "Wrong to Vote on Rights" and "All Families Are Equal."

Jean Chandler, 62, of Cambridge, came with fellow members of her Baptist church in an effort to rebuff the image that strict followers of the Bible are opposed to gay marriage.

"I think being gay is like being left-handed," Chandler said. "If we decided left-handed people couldn't marry, what kind of society would we be?"

In contrast to previous joint sessions, there was no debate Thursday. Senate President Therese Murray opened the constitutional convention by calling for a vote, and the session was gaveled to a close immediately afterward.

___

Associated Press writers Glen Johnson and Ken Maguire contributed to this report.

Link

I think I should have been able too. However i concede legislatures are my representatives. This whole thing has left me with the sense that crucial social issues should be up for referendum questions on both state and federal level.

[Strike For The South]

Gay Rights like abortion is a state issue and should be put up to popular vote in all 50

[Whacker]

No, it's not a state issue, it's a national issue, and it's also discrimination. I dunno Odin, I am pretty opposed to letting people vote on issues that could legalize discrimination.

I have yet to see one minor shred of real evidence that 'teh gays' make horrible parents and are damaging the minds of our children and their own. People voting to ban gay marriage smacks of the highest levels of ignorance to me.

[Strike For The South]

No, it's not a state issue, it's a national issue, and it's also discrimination. I dunno Odin, I am pretty opposed to letting people vote on issues that could legalize discrimination.

Why is it up to you to qualify discrimanation? This is exactly why it should be up to the states. I want to be able to only have to persuade my people to let gays marry not the one in New York or California or anywhere else. Each state is different and different issuses need to be adressed in diffrent manners. The feds can just keep out

[Odin]

No, it's not a state issue, it's a national issue, and it's also discrimination. I dunno Odin, I am pretty opposed to letting people vote on issues that could legalize discrimination.
I have yet to see one minor shread of real evidence that 'teh gays' make horrible parents and are damaging the minds of our children and their own. People voting to ban gay marriage smacks of the highest levels of ignorance to me.

But Gay marriage has social implications, like it or not thats where our society is at. Allowing the state to govern it is just as scary IMHO. less then 200 people decided the course of a major social policy that has national implications.

I cant just set that aside.

I dont advocate discrimination, I dont give two monkeys if homosexuals want to marry or not. I believe two parents are better then one, and given our society structure the legal benefits of marriage should be extended to homosexuals as well.

That said, i'd like to have my say on it, and while i dont want constitutions amended, id rather have the will of people represented through a popular vote then by a delegates.

[Don Corleone]

No, it's not a state issue, it's a national issue, and it's also discrimination. I dunno Odin, I am pretty opposed to letting people vote on issues that could legalize discrimination.

I have yet to see one minor shread of real evidence that 'teh gays' make horrible parents and are damaging the minds of our children and their own. People voting to ban gay marriage smacks of the highest levels of ignorance to me.

Let me get this straight, Whacker (and I actually am pro Civil Unions, btw). The Massachusetts State Constitution says nothing about gay marriage. The State Supreme Court said in their minds, it should have allowed for it, so they were granting the right. The citizens try to enact an ammendment so that it explicitly says "no, we don't want it" and you say you're opposed to that?

I agree that one of the biggest dangers of a Democracy is the rights of the minorities. Democracy has been described as 3 wolves and a sheep having a debate about what's for dinner. Even so, we cannot create special rights out of thin air. And we cannot cede all authority of the legislative and executive branch over to the judicial branch. Too much of that, and we become an aristocracy.

[Whacker]

Why is it up to you to qualify discrimanation? This is exactly why it should be up to the states. I want to be able to only have to persuade my people to let gays marry not the one in New York or California or anywhere else. Each state is different and different issuses need to be adressed in diffrent manners. The feds can just keep out

Awesome. Maybe you texans should vote to have 'colored drinking fountains' again.

As for qualifying this as discrimination... Are you serious or just being facetious? This is a poster child for discrimination. http://www.webster.com/dictionary/discriminating

And no, this isn't a state's issue, period, this is a problem affecting the whole nation. Civil rights wasn't limited to Alabama, this is the exact same thing. Certainly there are some things that are individual state issues, this is not one of them. Texas and Texans needs to remember that it's a state and they are US citizens, not a separate country subject to separate rules.

[Whacker]

But Gay marriage has social implications, like it or not thats where our society is at. Allowing the state to govern it is just as scary IMHO. less then 200 people decided the course of a major social policy that has national implications.

So did civil rights back in the 60's. I'd be willing to bet you a case of beer I know how the population of Alabama would have voted if they'd put the question to the people on how to handle that. Does that make it OK if they'd voted to keep segregation? It would have been a democratic vote... As much as it seriously pains me to admit this, there are times (though rare) when the people do NOT know what's best.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I agree that one of the biggest dangers of a Democracy is the rights of the minorities. Democracy has been described as 3 wolves and a sheep having a debate about what's for dinner. Even so, we cannot create special rights out of thin air. And we cannot cede all authority of the legislative and executive branch over to the judicial branch. Too much of that, and we become an aristocracy.

You know better than that, Don...

Also, didn't the legislative branch essentially just rule in favor of gay marriage? So it's not just the judiciary.

[Whacker]

Let me get this straight, Whacker (and I actually am pro Civil Unions, btw). The Massachusetts State Constitution says nothing about gay marriage. The State Supreme Court said in their minds, it should have allowed for it, so they were granting the right. The citizens try to enact an ammendment so that it explicitly says "no, we don't want it" and you say you're opposed to that?

Yes I'm opposed to it, please see my response to Odin above. Sometimes the people don't know what's best, and they would vote in complete contradition to the intent and spirit of the US constitution and human rights (in my view). A very bad a rough analogy would be letting a city that the majority population are skinheads vote on whether to allow minorities to live in city limits. It'd be blatantly illegal (yes I know gay rights hasn't been well defined yet) given anti-discrimination laws, but it would have been a fair 'democratic' vote.

[Odin]

So did civil rights back in the 60's. I'd be willing to bet you a case of beer I know how the population of Alabama would have voted if they'd put the question to the people on how to handle that. Does that make it OK if they'd voted to keep segregation? It would have been a democratic vote... As much as it seriously pains me to admit this, there are times (though rare) when the people do NOT know what's best.

You may be right, good example to support your view Whacker, cant argue it other then to say that the civil rights issue in alabama had progressed into national legislation at that point in time.

But point taken.

[Strike For The South]

Its a states rights issue for all states not just Texas and dont even try to compare the civil rights movement of the 60s to the "movement" we have today. Blacks were treated like aniamls and were denied basic human rights. I dont think gays live in constant fear of getting killed or having there churches burned down. Some people have different veiwpoints than you. Why is your veiwpoint whats best for the country? Why? Why should the goverment tell us what to do?

[Odin]

You know better than that, Don...

Also, didn't the legislative branch essentially just rule in favor of gay marriage? So it's not just the judiciary.

They voted to oppose a general vote that would allow a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

So technically its not a vote in favor of gay marriage.

[Whacker]

Its a states rights issue for all states not just Texas and dont even try to compare the civil rights movement of the 60s to the "movement" we have today. Blacks were treated like aniamls and were denied basic human rights. I dont think gays live in constant fear of getting killed or having there churches burned down. Some people have different veiwpoints than you. Why is your veiwpoint whats best for the country? Why? Why should the goverment tell us what to do?

I'm not trying to be rude, but you have a seriously skewed and/or sheltered view. This is in the exact same vein as civil rights. Do you have any gay friends? I have several. Listening to them talk about the problems and day to day hurdles they have to jump is mindboggling and extremely depressing. You really want me to get into it? Yes, they are often treated like animals, esp. in the good ol' bible belt. They do often live in fear of being beaten up, having their houses and residences vandalized, being denied jobs, seating at restauraunts, entrances to venues, services in general. Having religious nutcases screaming at them that they're going to burn in hell. Not being invited to certain family events, or being told they can't bring their significant other. Being rejected by family members. I'm not talking about 'flamers' either that flaunt their sexual preferences, I'm talking about normal men and women here. Yes, they are quite often treated subhuman, far more than you seem to believe.

Edit - I'll also throw this last bit out here. You can tell me to go jump in a lake if you want, but "you'll see." I think the fact that you are still a teenager probably contributes largely to your views on this. As you and your friends get older, graduate from high school/college, you end up seeing life quite a bit differently and start to see other aspects of it. I probably would have agreed with you completely when I was 17-18ish.

[Don Corleone]

You know better than that, Don...

Also, didn't the legislative branch essentially just rule in favor of gay marriage? So it's not just the judiciary.

No, actually I don't know better than that. I agree with granting civil unions to gay couples, but frankly, there's no legal requirement that we do so. We are creating a new class of legal identity, and we are creating new rights for this identity. Even if we 'should' do this, we are creating them. Gay rights was unheard of 50 years ago, let alone at the time the US or Massachussets Constitutions were written and ratified.

As to your 2nd point, you actually have a very good point here. The legislature represents the will of the people. If Massachusetts citizens elect representatives that say the people they represent cannot be trusted to make intelligent decisions, then all's fair.

[Strike For The South]

I'm not trying to be rude, but you have a seriously skewed and/or sheltered view. This is in the exact same vein as civil rights. Do you have any gay friends? I have several. Listening to them talk about the problems and day to day hurdles they have to jump is mindboggling and extremely depressing. You really want me to get into it? Yes, they are often treated like animals, esp. in the good ol' bible belt. They do often live in fear of being beaten up, having their houses and residences vandalized, being denied jobs, seating at restauraunts, entrances to venues, services in general. Having religious nutcases screaming at them that they're going to burn in hell. Not being invited to certain family events, or being told they can't bring their significant other. Being rejected by family members. I'm not talking about 'flamers' either that flaunt their sexual preferences, I'm talking about normal men and women here. Yes, they are quite often treated subhuman, far more than you seem to believe.

Ugh this isnt about gay rights its about gay marrige! Simply giving gays the right to marry will not change peoples veiws about them! It sucks but apprently many people aernt ready to accept gays yet and thats there perogative there wrong but they can think what they like. So the feds can come out tommorow and says gays can have the right to marry and you know what will happen? Riots beatings murders good ol Pat RObertson will have a field day and gay rights will be pushed back 50 years. Simply allowing the feds to come in and tell us what to do on this issue is the worst idea

[Whacker]

No, actually I don't know better than that. I agree with granting civil unions to gay couples, but frankly, there's no legal requirement that we do so. We are creating a new class of legal identity, and we are creating new rights for this identity. Even if we 'should' do this, we are creating them. Gay rights was unheard of 50 years ago, let alone at the time the US or Massachussets Constitutions were written and ratified.

As to your 2nd point, you actually have a very good point here. The legislature represents the will of the people. If Massachusetts citizens elect representatives that say the people they represent cannot be trusted to make intelligent decisions, then all's fair.

Let me ask you this another way. Why do we have to make laws specifically allowing or preventing this? Homosexuality has been a part of mankind since we started walking upright, and it's been well accepted in numerous other cultures (even some of our own) now and throughout history. If you think about it, we (American and the western EU) only made this an issue over the past several hundred years, witness the Puritains and conservative christian types.

I agree with your sentiment that we shouldn't make a special case, but from a different perspective. This shouldn't be a case at all, it should just be... in my view.

[Csargo]

I loathe you.

[Whacker]

I loathe you.

Best friends forever!??!

[Devastatin Dave]

To quote the legendary Orga MRD would say...
This thread's so.

I think it has national implications (if gays got married in one state their marriage would not be recognized in a different state if they moved) but I've changed my mind on this issue. Its no the job of the government to legislate marriage anyway. So why not allow the state to recognize gay "unions". I don't have to personally accept their life choice. But I think they should be able to visit their little buddy while he's dieing of some sort of horrible disease. We need to respect these people and they should have the same rights as anyone else. So I'm all for civil unions and I believe that there is no need to have a popular vote on this topic. I wish everyone could be as open minded as me when it comes to these folks.

[Csargo]

Best friends forever!??!

Sure why not.

[Whacker]

Sure why not.

This thread has way too much mantension in it now.

And Dave is still one of my favorite posters.

[Csargo]

This thread has way too much mantension in it now.

And Dave is still one of my favorite posters.

It just got a lot worse.

[Devastatin Dave]

This thread has way too much mantension in it now.

And Dave is still one of my favorite posters.

Is there still a waiting period for amphibious trebuchets?

[Whacker]

Is there still a waiting period for amphibious trebuchets?

Dammit Dave (DD!) I TOLD you to use that discount coupon before the end of last week. Fine. Go to the merchant and give em the discount code "DD1SQSQUID" and you'll get your discount. Also, re: your earlier question, my technicians tell me that it is NOT a good idea to use this to 'expedite' the kids to get them to school faster. Results have been rather messy.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

No, actually I don't know better than that. I agree with granting civil unions to gay couples, but frankly, there's no legal requirement that we do so. We are creating a new class of legal identity, and we are creating new rights for this identity. Even if we 'should' do this, we are creating them. Gay rights was unheard of 50 years ago, let alone at the time the US or Massachussets Constitutions were written and ratified.

But we aren't granting civil unions to gay couples, they are for everybody.

[Xiahou]

No, actually I don't know better than that. I agree with granting civil unions to gay couples, but frankly, there's no legal requirement that we do so. We are creating a new class of legal identity, and we are creating new rights for this identity. Even if we 'should' do this, we are creating them. Gay rights was unheard of 50 years ago, let alone at the time the US or Massachussets Constitutions were written and ratified.

I agree with this. Don thinks we should have civil unions, I don't see the need. Either way, something like this should be decided on a state-by-state basis in the most democratic way possible. If a majority of the voting populace in a state thinks gay marriage is something they should have, then they should have it. However, having judges manufacture rights that don't previously exist and forcing them on the people of the state is the wrong way to go about it.

I think the Massachusetts legislature effectively ducked the issue. If, as they claim, there is strong and growing support for gay marriage in the state, where is the harm in having a direct vote of the people to validate it? It would certainly have a lot more validity than a decision made by judges that the legislature is too scared to address one way or the other.

[Whacker]

I agree with this. Don thinks we should have civil unions, I don't see the need. Either way, something like this should be decided on a state-by-state basis in the most democratic way possible. If a majority of the voting populace in a state thinks gay marriage is something they should have, then they should have it.

So again by this logic, it's a pretty safe bet that some of the southern states would go back to Segregation and redact civil rights for minorities, given the chance to vote on it. Some states would probably also vote bring prayer back into school and favor certain christian sects publically. Is this right? Not even remotely. Like I said, sometimes the people do NOT know what is right.

However, having judges manufacture rights that don't previously exist and forcing them on the people of the state is the wrong way to go about it.

And having the ignorant, prejudiced masses vote to discriminate against others is the right way to do it? It's a slippery slope to be sure and there's no one right answer, but I do firmly believe that in certain cases people need to have tolerance forced down their throats.

I think the Massachusetts legislature effectively ducked the issue. If, as they claim, there is strong and growing support for gay marriage in the state, where is the harm in having a direct vote of the people to validate it? It would certainly have a lot more validity than a decision made by judges that the legislature is too scared to address one way or the other.

Because there are certain things governing equal rights and you can't count on 'the people' to do the right thing. See my examples earlier in this thread. This nation isn't founded and does not stand on bigotry, prejudice, or hatred, no matter how much some people want it to be so. I keep harping on and using civil rights as an example because it's the best one I can come up with, but the premises are the exact same here, no matter what some people want to believe. Having that issue forced was one of the better moments our government has show in the past several decades.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

No, it's not a state issue, it's a national issue, and it's also discrimination.

Are you an american? Its clearly a state issue. marriage laws are made by the state. Even conservatives oppose an amendment banning gay marriage because its a state issue.

So again by this logic, it's a pretty safe bet that some of the southern states would go back to Segregation and redact civil rights for minorities

Sexual persuasion does not qualify one as a minority. Its not how our system works.

And having the ignorant, prejudiced masses vote to discriminate against others is the right way to do it? It's a slippery slope to be sure and there's no one right answer, but I do firmly believe that in certain cases people need to have tolerance forced down their throats.

It leaves a bitter taste that usually results in regurgitation.

By the way in case you never noticed all laws are discriminatory by their very nature. Otherwise everyone could marry everyone. But im sure you have your own sets of people who you would discriminate against here.

Because there are certain things governing equal rights and you can't count on 'the people' to do the right thing.

Gays have equal rights. Besides you cant count on the government either. We the people are supposed to be the final voice.

Trying to compare this to civil rights is an affront to all those who died and sacrificed in that movement.

[Xiahou]

Gays have equal rights. Besides you cant count on the government either. We the people are supposed to be the final voice.

Trying to compare this to civil rights is an affront to all those who died and sacrificed in that movement.

I'm not a racial minority, but I do think it could be a tad offensive to draw a parallel between gay marriage and the civil rights movement. I hate to go down this tiresome road again, but Gawain is right- gays already have equal rights under the law.

So again by this logic, it's a pretty safe bet that some of the southern states would go back to Segregation and redact civil rights for minorities, given the chance to vote on it. Some states would probably also vote bring prayer back into school and favor certain christian sects publically. Is this right? Not even remotely. Like I said, sometimes the people do NOT know what is right.

Quite a different matter. Blacks were treated differently and by different standards, which should not be permitted under our Constitution- the civil rights movement was about equal treatment under law regardless of race. Gay marriage, on the other hand, is specifically asking for different standards to be applied because they are gay. If the people of Mass. want to expand marriage to allow for same sex marriages, that's their business- but lets see it happen in an open, democratic fashion.