Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Banned in Boston? Gay Marriage...
Same-sex marriage would be banned but civil unions permitted in Massachusetts under a proposed constitutional amendment approved by the legislature Monday night.
Banned In Boston!
by Michael J. Meade
365Gay.com Newscenter
Boston Bureau
Posted: March 29, 2004 11:14 am. ET
Updated: March 29, 2004 2:02 p.m. ET
Updated: March 29, 2004 5:06 p.m. ET
Updated: March 29, 2004 6:53 p.m. ET
(Boston, Massachusetts) Same-sex marriage would be banned but civil unions permitted in Massachusetts under a proposed constitutional amendment approved by the legislature Monday night.
The measure must be approved a second time in the next session of the legislature before being put to voters. The earliest this could be done would be in 2006.
By that time thousands of gay and lesbian couples may already have married. Under last November's state Supreme Court ruling, same-sex couples will be legally able to wed this spring. (story) Following tonight's vote, Republican Gov Mitt Romney said he will go to the state Supreme Court to see a stay of the court order on implementing gay marriage.
The proposed amendment passed by a vote of 105-92.
During debate Sen. Marian Walsh (D-Boston) told the convention that her deliberations on the question of same-sex marriage has been "one of the most important and significant experiences of my life," saying she understands the criticism of her decision. But she believes, she said, that gays and lesbians "are owed the hope and promise of America ... it is not always easy or quick to be true to our destiny. But it is my duty to try, and try I will."
Thousands of people on both sides of the issue demonstrated throughout the day at the State House.
Crowds were not as large as they were at the last attempt to reach a consensus on amending the state constitution, but, police say they are having a hard time keeping the two sides separated.
Conservative Christian groups mounted a massive campaign warning lawmakers that if they approve any measure that allows for recognition of same-sex couples they face defeat in November. (story) And, on the weekend, gay activists fanned out across the city knocking on doors to sell gay marriage to voters. (story)
Neither side was happy with the outcome.
"I believe many of them are going to feel very ashamed of what they've just done today," said Arline Isaacson, co-leader of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus, who called the vote a "terrible mistake."
Ronald Crews, leader of the Massachusetts Family Institute, called the vote "a blackmail for the citizens." Crews said his group will do all it can to have the civil unions provision removed.
"To vote 'yes' on marriage, they will have to vote 'yes' on civil unions," he said. "But there is a long time between now and 2006."
Activists also vow the fight is not over.
"This fight is not over, it's just beginning," said Matt Foreman, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Executive Director.
"We pledge our continued commitment to this struggle and to the Massachusetts lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community. With them, we'll do everything possible in the coming months to make sure this measure does not pass when it comes before the Legislature again next year. Failing that, we will defeat it at the polls in November 2006. Based on 31 years of fighting anti-gay extremists and bigotry, the Task Force is confident that equal rights will prevail."
©365Gay.com® 2004
by Michael J. Meade
365Gay.com Newscenter
Boston Bureau
Posted: March 29, 2004 11:14 am. ET
Updated: March 29, 2004 2:02 p.m. ET
Updated: March 29, 2004 5:06 p.m. ET
Updated: March 29, 2004 6:53 p.m. ET
(Boston, Massachusetts) Same-sex marriage would be banned but civil unions permitted in Massachusetts under a proposed constitutional amendment approved by the legislature Monday night.
The measure must be approved a second time in the next session of the legislature before being put to voters. The earliest this could be done would be in 2006.
By that time thousands of gay and lesbian couples may already have married. Under last November's state Supreme Court ruling, same-sex couples will be legally able to wed this spring. (story) Following tonight's vote, Republican Gov Mitt Romney said he will go to the state Supreme Court to see a stay of the court order on implementing gay marriage.
The proposed amendment passed by a vote of 105-92.
During debate Sen. Marian Walsh (D-Boston) told the convention that her deliberations on the question of same-sex marriage has been "one of the most important and significant experiences of my life," saying she understands the criticism of her decision. But she believes, she said, that gays and lesbians "are owed the hope and promise of America ... it is not always easy or quick to be true to our destiny. But it is my duty to try, and try I will."
Thousands of people on both sides of the issue demonstrated throughout the day at the State House.
Crowds were not as large as they were at the last attempt to reach a consensus on amending the state constitution, but, police say they are having a hard time keeping the two sides separated.
Conservative Christian groups mounted a massive campaign warning lawmakers that if they approve any measure that allows for recognition of same-sex couples they face defeat in November. (story) And, on the weekend, gay activists fanned out across the city knocking on doors to sell gay marriage to voters. (story)
Neither side was happy with the outcome.
"I believe many of them are going to feel very ashamed of what they've just done today," said Arline Isaacson, co-leader of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus, who called the vote a "terrible mistake."
Ronald Crews, leader of the Massachusetts Family Institute, called the vote "a blackmail for the citizens." Crews said his group will do all it can to have the civil unions provision removed.
"To vote 'yes' on marriage, they will have to vote 'yes' on civil unions," he said. "But there is a long time between now and 2006."
Activists also vow the fight is not over.
"This fight is not over, it's just beginning," said Matt Foreman, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Executive Director.
"We pledge our continued commitment to this struggle and to the Massachusetts lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community. With them, we'll do everything possible in the coming months to make sure this measure does not pass when it comes before the Legislature again next year. Failing that, we will defeat it at the polls in November 2006. Based on 31 years of fighting anti-gay extremists and bigotry, the Task Force is confident that equal rights will prevail."
©365Gay.com® 2004
For more information:
http://www.365gay.com/newscon04/03/032904m...
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
Not "a long time till 2006" but if you suceed in changing it, the clock starts over (THAT has to pass again in the following session befor e the plebicite) so it's then 2008.
That's the way the Mass Constitution woks with regard to ammendments. The proposed ammendment must pass (unchanged, obviously) in TWO sessions and then it goes before the voters. This is simply a different method of making ammending the commonwealth constitution difficult. Rather than requiring 2/3 at any one time (like the US Constitution does) it only requires a majority, but a majority that remains in place over a 5-6 year "cooling off" period.
I understand your wish here, Mr Crews. You may indeed be correct that if put to a vote "by the people of the state as a whole" a majority might wish to strip the gays of rights but no majority for giving them compensatory rights in exchange. BUT (a very big but) the Massachusetts Constitution is NOT ammended JUST by plebicite. You need not only a majority of the people but also a majority of the districts.
<< for those who don't understand what I have just said and WHY that might be a good idea, imagine.........
1) There are ten (roughly equal population distircts)
2) ONE of these is overwhelmimgly in favor of something, say 80-20 in favor.
3) NINE of the districts are against this porposal by a much closer but still clear majority 47-53
Notice that this measure has a majority in favor but is in disfavor almost everywhere. Maybe NOT a good idea to adopt. Essentially, to ammend the Mass Consitution the ammendment must be desired by a majority of the whole population AND a majority of the places AND over some elapsed time >>
That's the way the Mass Constitution woks with regard to ammendments. The proposed ammendment must pass (unchanged, obviously) in TWO sessions and then it goes before the voters. This is simply a different method of making ammending the commonwealth constitution difficult. Rather than requiring 2/3 at any one time (like the US Constitution does) it only requires a majority, but a majority that remains in place over a 5-6 year "cooling off" period.
I understand your wish here, Mr Crews. You may indeed be correct that if put to a vote "by the people of the state as a whole" a majority might wish to strip the gays of rights but no majority for giving them compensatory rights in exchange. BUT (a very big but) the Massachusetts Constitution is NOT ammended JUST by plebicite. You need not only a majority of the people but also a majority of the districts.
<< for those who don't understand what I have just said and WHY that might be a good idea, imagine.........
1) There are ten (roughly equal population distircts)
2) ONE of these is overwhelmimgly in favor of something, say 80-20 in favor.
3) NINE of the districts are against this porposal by a much closer but still clear majority 47-53
Notice that this measure has a majority in favor but is in disfavor almost everywhere. Maybe NOT a good idea to adopt. Essentially, to ammend the Mass Consitution the ammendment must be desired by a majority of the whole population AND a majority of the places AND over some elapsed time >>
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$170.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network