Governor (Romney) vows to pursue amendment after Mass. court ruling

[NewYorkerfromMass]

"Lawmakers in Massachusetts have considered several civil union bills but also have spent more than two years debating a constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex unions in the state.

After Tuesday's ruling, Republican Gov. Mitt Romney and other state lawmakers vowed to push for the constitutional amendment.

Following similar court rulings, Hawaii and Alaska "made these kind of constitutional amendments, and I think we have to do the same thing to preserve the institution," Romney said Wednesday on NBC's "Today" show.

An amendment could go before voters in Massachusetts as early as 2006 if it won approval by the end of the 2003-2004 legislative session. It also would require approval during the 2005-2006 session. A joint session of the House and Senate, which rejected the amendment last year, is scheduled to meet to debate the measure in February."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2003/11/19/national0923EST0532.DTL

I hate this asshole ROmney sooooooooooooo much.

[Some Moran]

1. What the fuck?

That's not the same tune he was singing during the campaign.

[La_Serpiente]

2. Just when Homosexuals finally get the chance

it is taken away. However, I feel confident that the upcoming generation will be more tolerant of these issues.

[tsipple]

3. A Lot of Carping, And Then...

...Full civil rights come to Massachusetts, I predict.

Two states down, forty-eight to go.

What exciting times we live in, eh? The fact that other people are happier makes me happier. How psychotic that the added joy among some people makes others upset.

[David__77]

7. anything less than marriage is less than equal.

Civil unions are an acceptable step for the moment, but make no mistake: lesbian and gay civil rights will not be respected until there are equal marriage rights.

[tsipple]

9. I'm Not Too Hung Up on That

What you're talking about -- the label -- is really determined by mindset, not by law. You have to change minds (and hearts) to win that vestigal battle, and that's going to take a generation or two.

I mean, you can call it "marriage," but then it'll get the word "gay" in front, and it won't be the same label anyway -- it'll get stuck in a linguistic ghetto. You'll have terms like these in common use:

same-sex marriage
gay marriage
homosexual marriage
lesbian marriage
transgender marriage
GLBT marriage
heterosexual marriage
child-bearing marriage
procreative marriage
traditional marriage
non-traditional marriage
Christian marriage
Judeo-Christian marriage
straight marriage
holy marriage
blessed marriage
sodomite marriage

You see, I'm not a big fan of the adjective-noun labels like these. Usually the adjectives are negative. They certainly are for the existing names:

common-law marriage ("shacking up," basically)
loveless marriage
sexless marriage
broken marriage
marriage of convenience
arranged marriage
open marriage
shotgun marriage

See what I mean?

The (very rough) equivalent, in my mind, is with gender and equal rights for women. There's absolutely no denying the fact that men and women are different -- Mars versus Venus and all that. Women live longer -- a fact which pains us men. :-) (That's one possible reason why the ERA failed. There were pro-ERA forces who insisted on going beyond changing policy.) But while acknowledging that fact, we (should) confer on both sexes the same rights and obligations, including employment opportunities, child custody, and military service, among others. The language is starting to follow, but that's a slower (and natural) process of evolution. It's already starting. "Housewife" became "homemaker," for example. (You rarely hear "housewife" any more.) Or, in another context, "Negroes" (and the slang version of same) became "African-Americans," passing through "blacks" on the way.

[ninkasi]

4. This stuff makes me crazy...

what the hell is wrong with people? Why can't people marry when they want, same sex or not? I'm married, I'm a woman, my husband is a man. Fine, that's our business. I have gay friends, one couple has been together for almost 20 years, they are a wonderful, loving couple, will be together regardless of laws.

If they want to marry, why not? These sick people who think they have to impose their views on everybody else are disgusting. There's just so much going on in the world that's wrong, why can't we try to fix those things...poverty, lack of medical availability, war; we've got a lot to direct our resourses to. Instead, you get these hypocrits who would rather meddle in other people's personal lives.

[leighjen]

5. sigh

It just makes me sad that people are so full of hate that they can't give others the rights that they enjoy.

And that they are blind to the fact that this isn't about their religious beliefs (Right, Mitt? Right, Tom? You would never force you religious beliefs on the people of this state, would you, Mitt? Would you, Tom?).

It is worth the time to read the decision. The SJC really cut through all of the arguments to the heart of the issue.

[newyawker99]

13. Hi leighjen!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[AP]

6. This is why it's so important for Repulbicans to win these Governorships.

Romney is going to make sure gay marriage is contentious issue next fall.

In the same way that unions and balck voters are Democrat's base, religious right voters are the Republicans base. However, unlike union members and black voters, the last time the religious right voted out of proportion to their representation in the electorate was in 94.

The Republicans reallly need to get them out to vote, and civil unions will be the way they try to do it.

[Tracer]

8. Quite the Flip-Flop from the Mittster.

He had previously said that he'd accept whatever the verdict was in this case.

Hmmmm. I guess Gov. Goodhair was counting on the SJC to come out with an opposition to gay marriage.

[LynneSin]

10. Barney Frank for Massachusetts Governor

Get a real man in the statehouse there instead of pretty boy homophobe Mitt Rommey

[Kusala]

11. what is this institution crap

Marriage by nature is a religious/spiritual thing. It's only law that gives it a legal meaning.

You can't hypocritically claim that equal rights are protected under the law, if you give benefits of a law to only one group of people.

But once again hate and fear trump common sense and equality. It's sad really.

Hopefully Mass. voters will speak out in 2 years if the amendment gets that far.

[Betty]

12. One of the dissenting judges wrote

that there is no discrimination towards gays as things stand now because everyone has the right to marry, as long as it's to someone of the opposite sex. Her (I think it was a woman judge) argument was that since heterosexual marriage is open to gays as well, there's no problem, all are treated equally under the law. Incredible, huh? You are free to marry anyone you want, as long as it's from a state sanctioned sub-set of the human race.