Mass. bans gay marriages, OKs civil unions

[Freddie Stubbs]

If endorsed, measure would define marriage
as a heterosexual union, legalize civil unions

The Associated Press

Updated: 12:34 p.m. ET

March 29, 2004BOSTON - The Massachusetts Legislature adopted a new version of a state constitutional amendment Monday that would ban gay marriage and legalize civil unions, eliminating consideration of any other proposed changes.

The vote came at the opening of the third round of a constitutional convention on the contentious issue, as competing cries of “Jesus Christ” and “Equal Rights” shook the Statehouse outside the legislative chamber.

Lawmakers had voted earlier this month in favor of a similar amendment. The revised version adopted Monday would ask voters to simultaneously ban gay marriage and legalize civil unions — rather than taking those steps separately. It clarifies that civil unions would not grant federal benefits to gay couples.

By adopting the new language, lawmakers blocked consideration of several other amendments — including ones that would have weakened the civil union provision and one that would have split the question in two, allowing voters to weigh in separately on gay marriage and civil unions.

more: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4624659/

[Kathy in Cambridge]

1. Very sad day for Massachusetts

the fascists transplants to my state really hammered the legislature hard. All those family activist groups are full of Repuke outsiders from other parts of the country. To think they'll blemish the country's oldest constitution by writing in bigotry. It's a travesty.

[dolstein]

13. Oh PLEASE

Before you start talking about fascism, how about all the other states that haven't even bothered to recognize civil unions? The fact is, the Massachusetts legislature has just gone further on the issue of gay rights than any other legislature with (to my knowledge) the exception of Vermont and California, which also have civil union statutes. I don't recall anybody around here talking about what a fascist state Vermont is, even though it too doesn't allow gay marriage.

[dsc]

15. Please show me Vermont's constitutional amendment which bans it

I would like the article sited. If you can find it the text would be nice too.

[dolstein]

20. DSC -- you know as well as I do

that unlike the Massachusetts Supreme Court, the Vermont Supreme Court accepted civil unions as a solution to the equal protection challenge brought in state court. Does that make the judges on the Vermont supreme court fascists?

You also know as I do that had the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that gay marriage was the ONLY acceptable solution under the Vermont constitution, the constitution would have been amended. So please, spare me your crocodile tears.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

30. I NEVER Said My State (MA) was Fascist. PUH-LEEZE Yourself!

:eyes: I said that some of the transplants here campaigning to amend the Constitution ARE TRANSPLANTS WITH A FAUX PRO-FAMILY AGENDA. Ron Crews, Director of the Massachusetts Family Institute, is just one of these right-wing warriors imported from Georgia-where he was a state rep-to push their evangelical agenda on the largely tolerant population of Massachusetts.

Do you know ANYTHING about my state's Constitution? I didn't think so. There is nothing specifically in our state constitution that ALLOWS DISCRIMINATION. Our Constitution has never been amended and this is a first. So from a legal standpoint, it's a very sad day for a state that has always been at the forefront of civil rights.

Tell me, how do you feel about interracial or interfaith marriage? My husband is Italian and I'm Irish. Fifty years ago, marrying outside your nationality was considered scandalous. What other 19th-century beliefs do you ascribe to? :crazy:

[sniffa]

31. so disgusting

we've got the roLL caLL, Let's move and get the bigots removed from office. most of my reps & the senator run unopposed (and they aLL voted for the ban save 1, who i beLieve voted against because it aLLows for civiL unions).

i'm sick of hearing too, about 'mass chaos and confusion' if we aLLow gay marriage and then succeed in taking it away. if they weren't trying to ban it, there wouLdn't be any confusion.

thank god at Least a.g. reiLLy toLd mitt to go f' himseLf when asked to approach the supreme court for a stay on the may 17 deadLine.

[Spider Jerusalem]

34. It's ALREADY "blemished by bigotry", or didn't you know?

The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts requires that anyone elected to public office be Christian, and there's a provision requiring an oath to that effect. Those seventeenth century Puritans weren't exactly the most broadminded people you could meet.

(Note that this provision was rendered null by the US Constitution, which states that a religious test shall not be requirement for public office; but it's still there.)

[CO Liberal]

2. Mass. Was Once The Cradle of Feeedom

Now it's the grave.

[-..__...]

4. Thank Tom Finneran that.

He doesn't like gays, gun owners or anyone else who doesn't fit into his opinion of a model society.

[papau]

27. nope - thank the GOP and our GOP gov who got the GOP to vote in favor

providing the votes that the Catholic Church could not find amongst the Dems.

[Freddie Stubbs]

35. Isn't the Massachusettes legislature overwealmingly Democratic?

If they really wanted to block the bill, they could.

[papau]

36. Going against ones Bishop was the choice - not a Dem vs GOP

issue - except the GOP were 100% against anything for gays - until yesterday when they went 100% in favor of civil unions! (the 100% is only a bit of an exaggeration)

[dolstein]

14. What about all the states that don't even recognize civil unions?

Personally, I prefer to look at this as a glass half full situation. The fact is, the proposed amendment would extent more rights to gay couples that exist in any other state with the possible exception of Vermont and California.

[dsc]

16. No it wouldn't

we have the right to marry in MA per the Supreme Court. The Legislature took it away. That is backtracking no matter what color you try to paint it.

[foreigncorrespondent]

22. dsc, don't panic my friend...

...read my post #21.

[David__77]

3. Shame on most of the Democratic legislators.

Especially shame on the House Democratic leadership, which counts among the most reactionary Democratic legislative leadership in the nation.

Shame on those who opted for "separate but equal."

History won't remember this fondly.

[skippysmom]

5. Sigh

And both my senator and rep voted for it.

Romney on TV now calling for a stay of issuing marriage licenses on May 17.

[candy]

8. Gay marriages

I thought the marriage licenses had to be issued anyway,starting May 17,but then after 2006,if the gay marriage plan is voted out,would then be useless.

[dsc]

6. Can I be pissed at Kerry now?

2 days before Kerry endorsed an amendment doing just this it went down by 2 votes. Now it has passed overwhelmingly. It is hard not to make the connection.

[leQ]

7. now if they would only use microsoft's word

and that handy dandy 'replace' feature and replaces the term marriage with the term 'civil union' out of every law, we'd be in business.

like, let the straights have the same privileges too ya know.

[Maat]

9. Be O.K. with me. Then things would equalize quickly.

n/t

[Maat]

10. I don't know if I'd blame Kerry on this one though...

Very sad the people of the state have to tolerate Republican shills coming in on the buses from out of state. We had that problem recently in California -- and those out-of-staters got the same-sex marriages in San-Fran stopped. Make me so.... mad!

[pacifictiger]

11. take heart you sad people

Look at it as an important first step.
"Marriage" was always more about property rights and family alliance than love. Most people in europe did not get married in the church, unless they were wealthy or politically powerful, but committed to each other among friends and family in a ceremony known as handfasting (the term "tie the knot" comes from this) until the church run government decided to outlaw the practice.
I'm sure there will be more info coming out about the real history of marriage, including historical gay ceremonies within the roman catholic church, in years to come that will change minds in the future.

[foreigncorrespondent]

24. Why don't you try using the term...

...civil MARRIAGES, because that is exactly what it is. It isn't civil unions, it is an actual marriage.

[Onlooker]

12. It's not banned yet

The legislators simply approved wording for an amendment to be voted on by the citizens of Massachusetts. That vote will not come until 2006, meaning that gays will be allowed to marry (per the State Supreme Court ruling) starting on May 17, and that right will only end if the voters of Massachusetts approve the amendment. The struggle for equal rights isn't over yet.

[Blasphemer]

19. Have there been any polls of MA voters?

I hope the citizens of MA see this ammendment for what it is and vote against it. Also, does anyone know what would become of the marriages that take place between May 17th and 2006 if the voters back this ammendment?

[Rockholm]

25. Look at Boston.com for a poll.....

Right now, it is at 85%V in favor of gay marriage. I just got back form the State House where I sang and chanted from 8am. Wild day. Don't be discouraged. We will prevail. Round One to hate.....

[zebrathirtythree]

17. WTF? I thought MA had some Liberal Brass?!?!?

How can such a shining bastion of liberalism as MA let us down like this? This really, really sucks big time.

[Iceburg]

18. I'm cancelling my annual pilgrimage to Cape Code & Boston

[sniffa]

32. because

they're cowards.

[foreigncorrespondent]

21. This isn't the end of the battle, folks...

...just the first setback in what will most likely be a long process in Mass.

In short, the marriages scheduled to begin May 17th will still go ahead. All todays move has done is opened the door for the state legislator to take another look at this next year.

By that time they people of Mass may prefer not to discriminate against those already married, and pressure the legislator to drop the anti gay marriage amendment.

[dsc]

26. I find it very hard to believe it isn't over

The only hope I see at this point is that Kerry wins the election and releases people who he got to vote for this. Maybe the people will rebel but somehow I doubt it.

On edit I really think we can't win this with a 'reasonable' option on the table. Just look at the reaction here. I don't think gay marriage has a majority here is the alternative is civil unions. This is an ultra liberal web site. If we can't have a majority here I fail to see any real life electorate where we are going to get a majority.

[foreigncorrespondent]

28. I agree with you, my friend.

I despise Kerry for what he is saying and doing. As far as I am concerned his actions speak louder than his words. And his words didn't impress me the other day when he stated that he believed we are born gay, but still don't deserve the right to marry. If he truly believes we are born gay, then he wouldn't hesitate for a moment to begin standing by and supporting our right to marry.

I am fed up with people thinking Kerry is the God of the democratic party, because he is far from that. But then people won't see that, because it isn't their lives he is playing politics with, it is ours.

At least nothing will happen until next year, so there is time for plenty of marriages to take place. Having the marriages happen, and working, may just help in the long run.

[dsc]

29. That is only if the Supreme Court there doesn't grant a stay

Arguably they should given that the state is making an effort to amend its constitution. I hope the put their foot down but I am afraid they may not.

[sniffa]

33. they won't

they've aLready said forcefuLLy that may 17 is d-day. be happy for that. i have faith that mass. voters wiLL vote this down if it ever gets to that point (hopefuLLy it won't). the onLy thing i fear is an infLux of cnuts moving here just so they can vote.

[Walt Starr]

37. Isn't *ALMOST* good enough?

/sarcasm

Sorry about the takeoff on the Boondocks strip from last week, but that's what the Democrats seem to be saying here.

It sort of makes being gay equivalent to being 3/5 of a human being.