No gay marriage vote for Massachusetts »
Posted by: david_nwpa 1 year, 2 months ago190 Comments Report this Story
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. "In Massachusetts today, the freedom to marry is secure," said a victorious Gov. Deval Patrick, who had lobbied lawmakers up until the final hours Thursday to kill th
Read Full Story at news.yahoo.com
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 190
-
-
-
91%
invest071 year, 2 months ago
So giving the citizens of a state a direct say in this matter is bad because?
This is a power grab by a Democrat controlled state government designed to cram an edict down the throats of the governed.
Celebrate all you want right now but things like this come back to haunt the perpetrators. Let's not forget that abortion was crammed down the throats of the American Public, without debate. And the right to abortion hangs by a thread in the Supreme Court, waiting for Buzzy or another Lib ro die.
I am d*mn glad I don't live in this state.
And I am not speaking out of homophobia. I am speaking as one who believes the governemnt that governs least governs best. And the best government is one that is responsive to the needs of all citizens, not just a vocal PC few.
Reply-
57%
torrent291 year, 2 months ago
If we all lived by the rule of the people, and the will of the mob.
We would have gotten into the Iraq war, but we'd also be out of it by now.
Al Gore would be president, after all he did win the majority of the vote.
Slavery may or may not have been abolished.
Some murderers could go free.
Civil rights might have had a tougher time.
Interracial marriages may not be allowed in some states.
No, clearly there are instances where the Constitution is set above what the people want.
This is a victory for constitutional law and it is something that republicans claim to uphold above all.
Reply
-
-
-
100%
jordan111 year, 2 months ago
Finally, lawmakers who protect and defend our Constitution, and recognize this is NOT for any 'majority' to decide on.
I rean across this letter to a VT newspaper today. It should be required reading for bigots.
http://www.gfcbaltimore.org/GFC_VT_Mom.htm
Reply-
100%
gamahuche1 year, 2 months ago
Its a very fine letter.
Unfortunately nevertheless unlikely to open closed minds.
There is a significant percentage of anti-gay energy which is fear based and there are plenty of people who live a straight life because they are too terrified to admit their other desires to themselves or others.
That I believe is the driving force of the worst kinds of homophobic orientation.
Reply
-
-
-
-
100%
ZippySpincycle1 year, 2 months ago
Yeah, because teaching kids about crap like compassion and human dignity will probably turn them gay.
I'll assume you didn't bother reading the link; please go back, read it, and explain why the editorial would be inappropriate for classroom use.
(For what it's worth, I'm teaching a college class on persuasive writing this summer--I'll likely be using the editorial in class myself as an example of argument from the writer's personal experience.)
Reply
-
50%
younomark1 year, 2 months ago
I'll bet that you also teach the respect for human life and dignity is the choice to kill the most innocent form of human rights through abortion. Face it you are just teaching human convienience. Gays have the "right" to do any of the things heterosexual couples can do. All this "movement" is about is to make traditional reproducing humans except unnatural behavior. Even if if takes adulterating traditional beliefs like marrrage. Come up with your own word it for already. Lets be creative here. You educators are good at that.
Reply-
40%
lvrofwolves1 year, 2 months ago
younomark-That's just dumb! why make up a new word for something that means exactly the same thing??? and it means the same because they expect equal rights, not special, if it was special then, there could be a new name for it.
And this thread is not about abortion either.
And the majority of people don't marry so they can reproduce.
Reply -
63%
david_nwpa1 year, 2 months ago
Clearly no one taught you grammar or manners. First, the word is "accepting." Second, reproducing humans? I have three children, none through adoption. So you can stop with that nonsensical line of reasoning. As for adultery, it seems to me that more heterosexual couples commit that every day. Come up with our own word? Why should we when marriage is the right word we need?
Reply
-
-
-
0%
RedStateQueer1 year, 2 months ago
Until same-sex marriage it is a federally mandated right, there will always be state challenges no matter what gains we make. Every time some religious or right-wing zealot gets a wide hair, then there we go again. People need to COME OUT to their legislators, particularly in red states. Gain job perfections which is not a "religious issue" so more people can come out and join the fight for FULL equality included Marriage.
Reply-
100%
hamy1 year, 2 months ago
The good news is that it isn't constitutional to deny rights to any American citizen. Therefore all constitutional bans will be challenged and overturned.
I am so glad that we have one state who sees the writing on the wall and doesn't bow down to threats and silliness.
Reply
-
-
100%
dandt16121 year, 2 months ago
Bravo Sharon Underwood Bravo!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Thank goodness there are still people who believe in FREEDOM for ALL.
Thanks jordan11 for the link. I wish everyone in this nation could/would read this letter.
Peace
Reply -
-
0%
lvrofwolves1 year, 2 months ago
If only you could get the anti-gay people to understand this is an equal rights issue and they should be happy that rights are being protected, they may need or want one of their own rights/freedoms defended some day. This is what Americans do!
Reply
-
-
-
0%
lvrofwolves1 year, 2 months ago
Not just dinner, but any conversation except maybe at a KKK meeting.
Reply -
100%
jordan111 year, 2 months ago
I find it compelling to keep coming out so that my friends and coworkers realize it is not ok to ridicule people for being gay.>>>>>
That's why my son 'comes out' when the subject presents itself negatively. People are better off to take it from his 'gentle' nudge, than from his mama who gets rather hostile over bigotry. But I'm working on it.
Reply
-
-
83%
hamy1 year, 2 months ago
I just heard the good news! Hooray!! Human decency and compassion have superceded a few bad apples' need to control the masses.
Reply -
-
100%
scott42611 year, 2 months ago
Great news! For the life of me, I cannot understand why my rights are considered less valuable than the rights of anyone else. Good on the state of Massachusetts.
Reply -
0%
david_nwpa1 year, 2 months ago
What I wonder is, will the surrounding states like Rhode Island and New York carry on the work begun in Massachusetts? Will Connecticut's Governor Rell sign a law allowing gay marriage? How will that affect the chances for Mitt Romney? Frankly, I hope it hurts his chances in the presidential election. The last thing we need is a slippery homophobe in the White House. We have one already.
Reply-
100%
earthlingerer1 year, 2 months ago
If he were told it would help him enough, Mitt would probably start a gay affair just to get the votes.
Reply
-
-
100%
amazed1 year, 2 months ago
David-- congratulations on your victory -- at the expense of representative democracy. CT has a civil union law that I have no problem with. I will also have no problem if my LEGISLATURE passes a gay marriage bill.
However, in Massachusetts, it is gov't by fiat. The voters did not get a say. Part of the deal with a representative democracy is that the PEOPLE are supposed to have a say in the community in which they live. First the Mass. courts and then the Mass. legilature by blocking the vote have denied the citizens their right to speak.
Even the civil rights amendments to the US constitution had to be voted upon. Why should gay rights get more of a pass than racial equality?
The left claims to be the big champion of the people, but will never trust them to do what is right.
Reply-
60%
jordan111 year, 2 months ago
The voters did not get a say. >>>>>
Their Constitution had a say. The Constitution that grants them THEIR freedoms. We are NOT a pure democracy where the majority rules. We are a Constitutional Republic, and the Constitution rules. This is a Constitutional issue.
"The left claims to be the big champion of the people, but will never trust them to do what is right.">>>>
Then you'll have to count our founders as 'the left', and NO, they didn't 'trust' that the majority would always do what is right. The unique thing about our Republic, is the protection of ONE MAN from the whims of the majority. Again, we are NOT a pure democracy.
Reply -
78%
lvrofwolves1 year, 2 months ago
Amazed-Why should people be allowed to vote on equal rights??? if everyone was treated equal in the first place, there would be no need to even consider things like this, it would be a non issue. And as far as racial equality- this is 2007 thankfully things have progressed. you can still speak and say you think this or that is wrong, just like people in the past thought it was wrong about interacial marriage, or for woman to vote etc....go down the line.
Also this is not a personal victory for David,or any other homosexual it's a victory for ALL American citizens that expect equal rights. Some who already have all the rights they want, don't understand, what it is like not to have all those 'equal' rights..
Reply -
0%
mcgrievysr1 year, 2 months ago
amazed----You would do well to read Sharon Underwood's letter that can be found from the link that Jordan 11 provided in a very early post here. It is truly an enlightening appeal to the general populace to understand homosexuality and to treat gays as all people should be treated. It's a wondefrul read.
Reply-
0%
amazed1 year, 2 months ago
I have no problem with gays or gay marriage. I have a problem with government by fiat.
Most of the "great strides" that the left point to as enlightenment of our society are not changes that our society, in general, agreed upon. They have been thrust upon us by a judiciary.
If we are to let the judiciary decide what is the best course for our society -- with no acknowledgement or consideration of what that same society wants itself to be -- then we might as well get rid of the other two branches and let the justices have at it as the dictators they are setting themselves up to be.
The function of the judiciary is supposed to be to decide whether laws that are passed are constitutional or not. It is not to make up whole new law. And once a handful of justtices decide what they think the law of the land should be, there is little or no recourse.
This is not a gay/straight issue to me. It is a constitutional issue concerning the manner in which we are governed.
Reply
-
-
45%
earthlingerer1 year, 2 months ago
In the past, voters in massachusetts haven't had their say in a lot of things:
Lifetime car registrations - a one-time eternal registration for your car, until you get another, insteasd of every year...no hassle, no problems. Except that the legislature decided to cancel it after they found out that the DMV was a cash cow - oops.
Seat belt laws.
Prohibitions on "Happy Hour"
Drinking age of 21.
A toll road where tolls were to completely expire.
Gay marriage ISN'T that big of a deal in Massachusetts. No one cares... We're next door to New York, Connecticut, Vermont and Rhode Island. We see all kinds of people. We even have Provincetown at the end of Cape Cod, where several "gay" people might be seen on any summer day, or any day with a "y" in it.
Reply-
100%
amazed1 year, 2 months ago
I agree-- it probably would have passed either in the legislature or a referendum, but hey, why should you have a say? It's only your state.
Oh yeah -- and P-town -- for any of you midwesterners or people from around here who live under a rock -- P-town was a gay haven even BEFORE San Francisco, Fire Island and Key West!
Hmmm...Provincetown (tip of Cape Cod), Fire Island, Key West and San Francisco.. now that I put these "gay havens" together, it occurs to me that THIS might be a large source of the resentment towards the gay community -- you guys grabbed all the best spots! (relax, that's a joke...sortof...lol)
Reply
-
-
100%
hamy1 year, 2 months ago
Because they voted to discriminate. Even if it is the will of the people, it is unconstitutional to discriminate.
Reply
-
-
65%
mcgrievysr1 year, 2 months ago
I just got home from being gone all day and was greeted with this joyful news. Republican Rep. Richard Ross (yes, a Republican!) said, "Nine thousand of them have married, who have blended into society, who have hurt no one". Atta boy, Rich! Baptist churchgoer (yes, Baptist!), Jean Chandler, 62, (yes, 62!) supports gay marriage. Making some progress, it appears. :-) Great, great news.
Reply -
-
100%
david_nwpa1 year, 2 months ago
You are right. Marriage is not about privilege. All should be allowed to enter into it meeting the criteria, that two people are in love and not directly related. What difference should gender make?
I read with interest an article by Charles Krauthammer which argued that if that is the definition of marriage as chosen by the people, then it should be true that we can change the definition of how many people are involved in a valid marriage. In other words, he wanted to open the door to polygamy. His reasoning is flawed in that ultimately in a legal sense, marriage is a contract entered into by two parties, and not more. That number is not arbitrary, rather designed to pair people together not group them.
Reply -
-
100%
Tuishimi1 year, 2 months ago
True, I suppose. :) But what I meant was privileges afforded married couples by the gov't and other agencies.
Marriage is a union of two people. I might not agree with it, because of my religion, but I don't believe I, or the gov't, should have any say in who marries who.
I also think that it is a bit unfair that I might get tax breaks, preferential treatment, etc. just because of my marital status.
Reply
-
-
-
-
100%
amazed1 year, 2 months ago
Ir WOULD be good news if this had been passed by its legislature or by referendum (like CT).
Reply-
0%
lvrofwolves1 year, 2 months ago
WHY should there be any voting or any laws against any kind of rights that should be equal in the first place??? why do you seem to have a problem with that concept?
Reply
-
-
