Mass. Lawmakers Reject Gay Marriage Ban

[undeRliRcs]

Mass. Lawmakers Reject Gay Marriage Ban

By STEVE LeBLANC, Associated Press Writer

Wednesday, September 14, 2005

The Massachusetts Legislature rejected a proposed change to the state constitution Wednesday aimed at banning gay marriage, a striking reversal that preserves the state's status as the only place in the nation where same-sex couples can wed.

A year after Massachusetts politicians appeared destined to undo a court order that has allowed thousands of same-sex couples to marry since May 17, 2004, the Legislature voted 157-39 against the proposed constitutional amendment.

It was the second time the Legislature had confronted the measure. Lawmakers were required to approve it in two consecutive sessions before the proposal could move to the statewide ballot in 2006 for a final decision by voters.

The measure, which would have allowed Vermont-style civil unions, won passage by a 105-92 last year. But the political and social landscape had changed dramatically since then.

Gone was the intensity, the seemingly endless debate and, in some quarters, the taste for stripping away the right to marry for gay and lesbian couples.

"Gay marriage has begun, and life has not changed for the citizens of the commonwealth, with the exception of those who can now marry," said state Sen. Brian Lees, a Republican who had been a co-sponsor of the amendment. "This amendment which was an appropriate measure or compromise a year ago, is no longer, I feel, a compromise today."

The proposal also was opposed by critics of gay marriage, who want to push for a more restrictive measure.

"The union of two women and two men can never consummate a marriage. It's physically impossible," said state Rep. Phil Travis, a Democrat. "The other 49 states are right and we are wrong."

Lawmakers already are preparing for a battle over another proposed amendment that would ban both gay marriage and civil unions. The earliest that initiative could end up on the ballot is 2008.

"We're excited. We're pumped. This is great. This is exactly what we wanted," said Kris Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute.

The state's highest court ruled in November 2003 that same-sex couples had a right under the state constitution to marry. Now, more than 6,100 couples gay and lesbian couples have been wed in Massachusetts, though officials have barred out-of-state couples from getting married here, citing a 1913 law that prohibits couples from marrying in Massachusetts if their union would be illegal in their home states. A lawsuit challenging the legality of that law is pending.

Within a year of the first Massachusetts marriages, 11 states pushed through constitutional amendments banning gay marriage, joining six others that had done so earlier.

The Connecticut Legislature approved civil unions in April, joining Vermont in creating the designation that creates the same legal rights as marriage without calling it such. Earlier this month, California lawmakers passed a measure legalizing same-sex marriage, though Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has promised to veto it.

Article source: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?.../a121444D21.DTL

[xxpor]

sweet (Y)

[MonkeyClaw Veteran]

good for them, a state that isnt run by bigots, now we need more of them

[Starcom826]

As a resident from Massachusetts, I must apologize for the actions of my state. I realize that often we are the minority, and thus often we like imposing the will of the small minority on everyone else.

[efishta]

As a resident from Massachusetts, I must apologize for the actions of my state.? I realize that often we are the minority, and thus often we like imposing the will of the small minority on everyone else.

586527421[/snapback]

This country's government system was built upon the idea that the majority should not oppress the minority. If this was indeed the case, we would all be having mandatory praying in schools, pay taxes to support churches as well as no affirmative action, no rights for blacks, women and homosexuals etc... to name a few. All of the above were at one time oppressed minorities whose rights were eventually constitutionally protected by new laws and judicial decisions.

Just because the majority feels that same sex partnerships should not be given the same rights as traditional partnerships in marriage does not make it right. Massachuts has progressive, forward thinking, equal rights embracing legislative members and should be applauded for their decision.

[Starcom826]

This country's government system was built upon the idea that the majority should not oppress the minority. If this was indeed the case, we would all be having mandatory praying in schools, pay taxes to support churches as well as no affirmative action, no rights for blacks, women and homosexuals etc... to name a few. All of the above were at one time oppressed minorities whose rights were eventually constitutionally protected by new laws and judicial decisions.

Just because the majority feels that same sex partnerships should not be given the same rights as traditional partnerships in marriage does not make it right. Massachuts has progressive, forward thinking, equal rights embracing legislative members and should be applauded for their decision.

586527489[/snapback]

This has nothing to do with the majority oppressing the minority. Many here in MA, like me, feel that homesexuals do deserve equal rights. I, like many in the country, acknowledge the homosexuality is definately different, and as such should be differentiated just like people wearing glasses and people of different skin color. They clearly have different natures, why pretend that the difference doesn't exist?

This country's entire history has been one of compromise. I have no respect for people who disregard the opinions of a whole group in society and grant special status for another. That's exactly what it is. Homosexuals are different, and there is no excuse to pretend like they aren't. You can walk into a store and see a Hispanic guy filling out his race on a job application. What's he going to write? White/caucasian? They're not the same, no use pretending. Marriage has been between a man and woman for time eternal. In terms of legalese, the State shouldn't get involved with that. If a man and a woman want to get a marriage, well fine. Leave something like a Civil Union for everyone in terms of law. For those who have no willingness to compromise with me, I have no willingness to compromise with them. And that's exactly what happened here.

Edit: And to see where MA's "progressive and forward thinking" attitude gets it...we've got a massive budget disaster reaking of corruption that is the big dig. Budget problems with the state. We can't afford to give enough money to our state school UMass. We're losing businesses left and right for other states. Local areas are getting tax hikes because they're messing around with money. Yeah, so much for progressive progress.

Edited September 15, 2005 by Starcom826

[undeRliRcs]

This has nothing to do with the majority oppressing the minority.  Many here in MA, like me, feel that homesexuals do deserve equal rights.  I, like many in the country, acknowledge the homosexuality is definately different, and as such should be differentiated just like people wearing glasses and people of different skin color.  They clearly have different natures, why pretend that the difference doesn't exist?

This country's entire history has been one of compromise.  I have no respect for people who disregard the opinions of a whole group in society and grant special status for another.  That's exactly what it is.  Homosexuals are different, and there is no excuse to pretend like they aren't.  You can walk into a store and see a Hispanic guy filling out his race on a job application.  What's he going to write?  White/caucasian?  They're not the same, no use pretending.  Marriage has been between a man and woman for time eternal.  In terms of legalese, the State shouldn't get involved with that.  If a man and a woman want to get a marriage, well fine.  Leave something like a Civil Union for everyone in terms of law.  For those who have no willingness to compromise with me, I have no willingness to compromise with them.  And that's exactly what happened here.

Edit:  And to see where MA's "progressive and forward thinking" attitude gets it...we've got a massive budget disaster reaking of corruption that is the big dig.  Budget problems with the state.  We can't afford to give enough money to our state school UMass.  We're losing businesses left and right for other states.  Local areas are getting tax hikes because they're messing around with money.  Yeah, so much for progressive progress.

586527525[/snapback]

Yet throughout history, changes still happen. One of the things which drives people to "lable" one another is the fact that people view each other as different. People such as you doesn't seem to be able to view others just plainly as fellow human beings. You are not gay, you will never be gay. And that fact means that you will never know how much sh*t me and my lover have to deal with everyday simply by walking down the street holding hands. So please don't brush aside these laws that protect minority rights just because you think we're not discriminated against; because I have never once tried to take away any of yours.

Edited September 15, 2005 by liferay

[Starcom826]

Yet throughout history, changes still happen.  One of the things which drives people to "lable" one another is the fact that people view each other as different.  People such as you doesn't seem to be able to view others just plainly as fellow human beings.  You are not gay, you will never be gay.  And that fact means that you will never know how much sh*t me and my lover have to deal with everyday simply by walking down the street holding hands.  So please don't brush aside these laws that protect minority rights just because you think we're not discriminated against; because I have never once tried to take away any of yours.

586529419[/snapback]

What in the...when did I say I couldn't view people as fellow human beings? This is exactly what I mean. You don't even try to view this the way that I see it. Humans are different. That's what makes individuals. What you seem to be confusing here is "different" vs. "inferior different." I don't care if you and your lover walk down the street holding hands, I don't mind. Whatever, its up to your discretion, it does no harm. I have already outlined that I do not think the law should apply differently due to sexual orientation, but I believe the differentiation is still there. As I have stated previously on Neowin, I think homosexuality is a natural disability (something that prevents your body from functioning the way it is intended to). It's not something you should be discriminated against for, but its not something to IGNORE. That's ALL I'M SAYING. It's nothing like "screw the gays." People all the time identify their differences. Drivers licenses identifying who needs correctional lenses. Applications to jobs and schools asking for race. Don't try to turn me into someone out to screw the gays. I've tried to look at things from their perspective, and I would expect them to try to look at things from mine.

You want to know why gay rights is getting a backlash and having trouble? You're alienating the people who would want to help you make progress such as myself. You don't recognize that people who could help you actually aren't out to get you.

[undeRliRcs]

What in the...when did I say I couldn't view people as fellow human beings?  This is exactly what I mean.  You don't even try to view this the way that I see it.  Humans are different.  That's what makes individuals.  What you seem to be confusing here is "different" vs. "inferior different."  I don't care if you and your lover walk down the street holding hands, I don't mind.  Whatever, its up to your discretion, it does no harm.  I have already outlined that I do not think the law should apply differently due to sexual orientation, but I believe the differentiation is still there.  As I have stated previously on Neowin, I think homosexuality is a natural disability (something that prevents your body from functioning the way it is intended to).  It's not something you should be discriminated against for, but its not something to IGNORE.  That's ALL I'M SAYING.  It's nothing like "screw the gays."  People all the time identify their differences.  Drivers licenses identifying who needs correctional lenses.  Applications to jobs and schools asking for race.  Don't try to turn me into someone out to screw the gays.  I've tried to look at things from their perspective, and I would expect them to try to look at things from mine.

You want to know why gay rights is getting a backlash and having trouble?  You're alienating the people who would want to help you make progress such as myself.  You don't recognize that people who could help you actually aren't out to get you.

586529776[/snapback]

As I've said before, I respect your opinions. And from what you're saying, you're alienating me just as I've alienating you. "I think homosexuality is a natural disability (something that prevents your body from functioning the way it is intended to)." - functioning the way it's intended to? My body seems to be functioning just fine the way it is. What you're suggesting is that simply because gay people aren't going to have sex with the opposite sex, they must not be functioning "normally". If I'm wrong tell me so, because that's what I'm getting from you. "It's not something you should be discriminated against for, but its not something to IGNORE." - do we make an effort to differentiate people every time they don't seem to be the norm? You're saying we shouldn't ignore the fact that people are gay, why not? Is it dangerous to be gay? I'm just trying to get to the reason why people can't just ignore the fact that people are gay just like people ignore the fact that someone's hair color is different. I mean is it something that you must call great attention to for some reason? I might have sounded confrontational but that's because that's how your statement came across to me, if that wasn't your intent I apologize. But as far as the backlash goes? There're many factors other than me "alienating" you.

[Boffa Jones Veteran]

Allright. I agree with gay marriages 100%. As long as a church isn't forced to perform the marriage then you can't really complain. I do agree with some of the things that starcom is saying though. I think you are being a bit to defensive about it though Liferay. Although I would never refer to homosexuality as a disability if you look at life, the key instinct is to reproduce. You were born attracted to people who you have no hope in reproducing with so if you look at it that way then I guess you aren't functioning the way it is intended. But really it comes across quite harsh.

[Pliskin]

WTF...

[dreamz Veteran]

there is a difference between being different and being unequal. i think difference is great. we should celebrate diversity, but it shouldn't allow certain groups to diminish others on the basis of that difference. we can still be different, but equal.

Allright. I agree with gay marriages 100%. As long as a church isn't forced to perform the marriage then you can't really complain.

but people do complain, for a variety of reasons, many of them poor.

I do agree with some of the things that starcom is saying though. I think you are being a bit to defensive about it though Liferay. Although I would never refer to homosexuality as a disability if you look at life, the key instinct is to reproduce. You were born attracted to people who you have no hope in reproducing with so if you look at it that way then I guess you aren't functioning the way it is intended. But really it comes across quite harsh.

586530054[/snapback]

well that assumes the purpose of life is to reproduce, which need not be true. naturalistic law isn't necessary true. it just represents what is, not what ought to be.

we can certainly transcend nature, and we do. it's like saying diseases are meant to kill people. well, if we practice medicine in order to save people's lives, then we're going against the "natural" purpose. hence, medicine isn't functioning the way nature intended. this is egregious. nature doesn't always define our rule.

[undeRliRcs]

Allright. I agree with gay marriages 100%. As long as a church isn't forced to perform the marriage then you can't really complain. I do agree with some of the things that starcom is saying though. I think you are being a bit to defensive about it though Liferay. Although I would never refer to homosexuality as a disability if you look at life, the key instinct is to reproduce. You were born attracted to people who you have no hope in reproducing with so if you look at it that way then I guess you aren't functioning the way it is intended. But really it comes across quite harsh.

586530054[/snapback]

The reason why I get defensive is because I'm tired of people coming up with ideas of how to deal with this homosexuals trying to get straight people's marriage rights. Call it a disability or whatever they will, it's still people trying to say, "You are gay, you will always be different no matter what you try to do. We don't like gays because they don't do/act the same way we do." And when gays do try to become part of "normal" society, they'll say, "Oh look, the queers/fags are trying to be like us, well too bad. I don't want them to be part of my society, my culture, my history because...well they're different and they don't do/act the same way we do."

Yes, I have built up anger. And not just from the other day or the week before that. I hear antigay slurs, jokes, grafitti, and etc. day in and day out; on the television to the Internet...every single fu*king day. So yes I will be defensive at times, but at other times I'll just have to look the other way because there's absolutely nothing I can do to stop it. What ****es me off the most are the "scientific reports" done by right-wing religious groups stating yeah we got all these evidence showing that gay people aren't right. Yet when objective, scientific research are done by organizations that is not affiliated with a political party or religious organization they'll just screaming about how false the information are.

Anyhow and again, everyone's got their opinions and I will have mine. But since these laws that some people want to create have to do with my LIFE, I think I should be able to get defensive.

[Master Shake]

Good to hear. :)

[Starcom826]

As I've said before, I respect your opinions.  And from what you're saying, you're alienating me just as I've alienating you.  "I think homosexuality is a natural disability (something that prevents your body from functioning the way it is intended to)." - functioning the way it's intended to?  My body seems to be functioning just fine the way it is.  What you're suggesting is that simply because gay people aren't going to have sex with the opposite sex, they must not be functioning "normally".  If I'm wrong tell me so, because that's what I'm getting from you.  "It's not something you should be discriminated against for, but its not something to IGNORE." - do we make an effort to differentiate people every time they don't seem to be the norm?  You're saying we shouldn't ignore the fact that people are gay, why not?  Is it dangerous to be gay?  I'm just trying to get to the reason why people can't just ignore the fact that people are gay just like people ignore the fact that someone's hair color is different.  I mean is it something that you must call great attention to for some reason?  I might have sounded confrontational but that's because that's how your statement came across to me, if that wasn't your intent I apologize.  But as far as the backlash goes?  There're many factors other than me "alienating" you.

586530002[/snapback]

My whole point is that we don't ignore the fact that people have different colored hair. It gets written down in some documents and you can see it plain as day. Like I already said it doesn't concern the state. Why not just let some kind of universal thing such as "civil union" or whatever you want to call it for everyone with a little note on the marriage license saying "marriage" for straight unions and something else for homosexuals. What seems to be bothering you is the social outlook on homosexuality, and that is something that can't be fixed with legislation. It is not calling to great attention. It's just noting the difference. Its taking time for people to accept differences in race, skin color, hair color, etc. etc. Let society work its way out because that's the only way it'll ever solve the problem. Having the government try to cover up the difference will not lead to a solution. Government's role, like race of the past century, has been telling people "Different race does not mean they are inferior to you. It does not mean you can deny the jobs or treat them harshly." I don't think its appropriate to say "You're exactly the same" because it isn't true but rather it is better to teach people to understand the differences and to realize it doesn't affect anything else like judgement, compassion, capability, etc. etc. I understand that we are all humans, but our differences is what makes us individuals.

[R-Flex]

Good for the state. :D

Imagine back in the day, when being black was a disability (to the whites above them) and considering them equal was unheard of, except for a few nuts who talked about 'equality.' Those who had liberal ideas that seem normal today. In fifty years, Canadians (and hopefully Americans) will be shocked to realize that same-sex marriage was once opposed so bitterly, as they will think it normal, just like equality of race and gender.

[undeRliRcs]

My whole point is that we don't ignore the fact that people have different colored hair.  It gets written down in some documents and you can see it plain as day.  Like I already said it doesn't concern the state.  Why not just let some kind of universal thing such as "civil union" or whatever you want to call it for everyone with a little note on the marriage license saying "marriage" for straight unions and something else for homosexuals.  What seems to be bothering you is the social outlook on homosexuality, and that is something that can't be fixed with legislation.  It is not calling to great attention.  It's just noting the difference.  Its taking time for people to accept differences in race, skin color, hair color, etc. etc.  Let society work its way out because that's the only way it'll ever solve the problem.  Having the government try to cover up the difference will not lead to a solution.  Government's role, like race of the past century, has been telling people "Different race does not mean they are inferior to you.  It does not mean you can deny the jobs or treat them harshly."  I don't think its appropriate to say "You're exactly the same" because it isn't true but rather it is better to teach people to understand the differences and to realize it doesn't affect anything else like judgement, compassion, capability, etc. etc.  I understand that we are all humans, but our differences is what makes us individuals.

586530600[/snapback]

I agree with some of your points. Only time will tell whether or not people will start to see past people's outer differences.

But as far as the term marriage is being used solely to describe heterosexual unions; I ask the question why? Marriage's original meaning wasn't what we understand it to be today. The meaning of marriage has changed throughout history. From what I read, the term marriage doesn't mean a union to create children, but rather was about the binding of two soles that loved and care about one another? Are heterosexual unions superior in some form because they can procreate? And let's not forget that some heterosexual unions won't result in children either without the help of science, so should we say their union isn't a marriage? Homosexual unions can still have children by forms of artificial inseminations, surrogate mother, and adoption. So why be hard bent on a term that is ever changing? Why the exclusivity for heterosexual unions?

We can argue the point to no end. Sometimes I wish we could use another term for our unions but the fact is as far as the law is concerned. The term marriage brings 1000+ federal laws protecting heterosexual unions. A complete different new term for homosexual unions does not; and yes we can always create new laws based on the marriage laws so that they are parallel. But when you consider how much money government will have to spend during these "terminologies wars", I think most will agree that the money that will used in the future to both create and challenge new laws can be better spent elsewhere on more important issues other than just to satisfy some of our minds.

From everything I've read up till now, majority of people doesn't even support giving civil union status to gay couples. Instead in some states, they're currently working on banning both same-sex marriages and civil unions. Take California for example, two pending initiatives that will ban already enacted domestic partner registry, same-sex marriage, and civil unions. And when the AG stated exactly what those initiatives will do on their signature collection forms, saying that these initiatives will strip away domestic partnership rights given to same-sex couples in California. Those that are campaigning for the initiatives are all up and arms saying, "No! No! No! This isn't about taking away some people's rights, this is about protecting traditional families." From my perspective, what kind of message do you think they're sending me and everyone else who isn't straight or considered to be the "norm"? I get up in the morning, go to work, and at the end of the day try to spend time with my lover and dog. What exactly is so evil about my life that I'm "undermining" traditional families?

[Boffa Jones Veteran]

Thank god in Canada the main people against it are mainly in Alberta. I agree with your reasoning with the word marraige as well. I mean it is just a word I don't see why people get so worked up about it.

[NTUsEr Veteran]

this doesn't mean that gay marriage is going to stay legal, in 2008(i think) this is going to the voters, sooooo its going to be made illegal.

[Master Shake]

Can it be illegal if they find that making it illegal is unconstitutional?

[nexx]

My whole point is that we don't ignore the fact that people have different colored hair.

586530600[/snapback]

People with any coloured hair are allowed to get married.

Civil unions for brunettes?

[Boffa Jones Veteran]

this doesn't mean that gay marriage is going to stay legal, in 2008(i think) this is going to the voters, sooooo its going to be made illegal.

586535325[/snapback]

Wow, its crazy how you know what is going to happen before it does... I love it when people make assumptions.

[NTUsEr Veteran]

Wow, its crazy how you know what is going to happen before it does... I love it when people make assumptions.

586537792[/snapback]

There was a poll put out when the ruling came out, 70% would vote to ban gay marriage and add an it to the state constitution. Plus Mass has a very big large of catholic population so, yes it is going to be banned.

[Boffa Jones Veteran]

I seem to remember many poll's saying bush would lose. Didn't see that happen either. Polls are useless.

[efishta]

There was a poll put out when the ruling came out, 70% would vote to ban gay marriage and add an it to the state constitution. Plus Mass has a very big large of catholic population so, yes it is going to be banned.

586538637[/snapback]

It's irrelevant what the polls say - ultimately it will end up on the Supreme Court, where many such difficult and controversial cases have been decided. I have faith that the Supreme Court, just as it went against the opinion of the majority of the population when it ruled anti-choice laws unconstitutional, and women's non-equal rights to be unconstitutional and let's not forget ruling that slavery and unequal rights for blacks were also unconstitutional, will also prevail and rule same sex unions to have the same protection as marriage currently does by the government.

The Supreme Court, like the nation's other high courts, are not there to interpret the will of the majority (that's the representative's job) but rather interpret the constitution as well as decide the constitutionality of laws passed by the Executive and Legislative branch. (Yes, the Executive branch does have legislative powers)