Mass. Senate votes to let out-of-state gays marry »
Posted by: TechnologyExpert 1 month, 2 weeks ago174 Comments Report this Story
Out-of-state gay couples got one step closer to a Massachusetts wedding Tuesday when the state Senate voted to repeal a 1913 law that has been used to bar them from marrying here.
Read Full Story at news.yahoo.com
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 174
-
0%
ningyo1 month, 2 weeks ago
why let the voters pretend to vote on anything anymore--you can just take the results to your pet judge and have them thrown out
Reply-
0%
DropkickaLib1 month, 2 weeks ago
If you noticed, this was a vote in the State Soviet, I mean Legislature, not a public ballot issue. Wouldn't want too much democracy to cloud the issue.
Reply-
0%
Tangent0011 month, 2 weeks ago
"Forty-four state legislatures have passed Defense of Marriage laws..."
http://pewforum.org/events/?EventID=121
I imagine in these cases, it just the government working the way it is supposed to.
Know what I think? I think all this hollering about 'activist judges' or 'legislatures not listening to the will of the people' is a smoke screen. Y'all simply think gay marriage is wrong and what you really want is a federal ban on gay marriage so even states won't be able to decide for themselves.
Reply -
0%
Tangent0011 month, 2 weeks ago
You are assuming as well that the Legislature is acting AGAINST the will of the people. Polls say different:
"# A statewide poll by Mass Equality in May 2005 found that 62% of those Massachusetts residents polled support marriage equality for gays and lesbians.
# Fully 84% of voters believe marriage equality has either had a positive impact or no impact on the quality of life in Massachusetts.
# 82% of those surveyed said allowing gays and lesbians to marry has either had a positive impact or no impact at all on traditional marriages, contradicting one of the core arguments of opponents."
http://lesbianlife.about.com/od/wedding/a/MassO...
Reply
-
-
0%
tkyrchncs1 month, 2 weeks ago
Part of the function of our governments, state and Federal, is to carry out the wishes of the majority. The other part is to protect everyone from the tyranny of the majority.
Reply
-
0%
Poulenc1 month, 2 weeks ago
Oh, stop it, ningyo! Give it up! The issue is one of institutionalized discrimination under the law.
It's rightly recognized that no plebiscite supporting that discrimination can be allowed to stand, as none could that barred blacks from opportunities other races enjoyed.
Now, as for the MA decision: apart from the reasonableness of the decision, the state recognized the economic advantages of allowing out-of-state gays to get married there.
All-in-all, a good thing!
Reply -
-
0%
Global_Warmer1 month, 2 weeks ago
If you were a serial killer and some bonehead judge dismissed your case, you'd applaud that decision too. However, OJ, you still woulndn't be accepted back into mainstream society
Reply
-
-
0%
Poulenc1 month, 2 weeks ago
What is your point, Global? That because a judge can make a wrong decision, gays should be prohibited from getting married?
That "the people" should be given the right to uphold discrimination because a judge may be fallible or make a decision with which someone disagrees?
Reply -
0%
ghengisghan1 month, 2 weeks ago
Exactly why alot of states did marriage protection laws and Amendments.....despite the critics saying they werent needed.
Reply-
0%
DropkickaLib1 month, 2 weeks ago
Voted on by public ballot issues and reflecting the mores of the states in which they were passed.
Reply-
0%
Tangent0011 month, 2 weeks ago
"Voted on by public ballot issues..."
Not always. The Vermont state legislature passed their Defense of Marriage act without a ballot initiative. So did Michigan. So did South Carolina. So did Washington. There are likely others as well.
I didn't see you hollering about those, nor did I expect to. Folks like you and ningyo simply don't want gays getting married. Everything else is a smoke screen.
Reply
-
-
