Boston Herald: Pols shift sides to KO ban on gay marriage

[Mass_SkinsFan]

http://news.bostonherald.com/localPolitics/view.bg?articleid=1006569&format=&page=1

Pols shift sides to KO ban on gay marriage

By Casey Ross

Boston Herald Reporter

Friday, June 15, 2007 - Updated: 06:35 AM EST

Gay marriage survived its last major challenge yesterday after support collapsed for a ballot initiative to outlaw it, with an avalanche of lawmakers switching sides in one of the most suspenseful legislative battles in recent history.

With the outcome still in doubt, state lawmakers started a roll call vote at 1:10 p.m. and within minutes defeated the proposed ban on gay nuptials, 151-45. The tally left proponents of the ban five votes short of the 50-vote threshold needed to put it on a statewide ballot in 2008.

“In Massachusetts today, the freedom to marry is secure,” Gov. Deval Patrick said to roaring applause after the vote in the Constitutional Convention. “Today’s vote was not just a victory for marriage equality, it was a victory for equality itself.”

But Raymond L. Flynn, the former Boston mayor and former U.S. ambassador to the Vatican who was the lead sponsor of the proposed amendment, said the 170,000 Massachusetts residents who signed the petition to place the ban on the ballot “had their vote stolen from them.”

The ban’s defeat affirmed the status of gay marriage in the only state where it’s legal. The five-vote margin of victory brought a surprising and dramatic end to days of fierce lobbying by Patrick and legislative leaders. In total, 11 lawmakers switched sides to defeat the proposed ban, a sudden shift that shocked ban proponents who said they didn’t see it coming.

See link for the rest of the article.

I'm just hoping that those legislators who changed their votes get properly punished for it by their constituents at the ballot box. Regardless of whether you're in favor or against Homosexual Marriage, this legislature has shown a HUGE amount of Hubris by telling the citizens of the Communistwealth that THEY know what the policy should be better than the voters.

[EDIT]Folks, let's try to keep this discussion on the vote and the concept of whether the citizens of Massachusetts should have been allowed to vote on this issue; NOT on the issue of Homosexual Marriage itself. Thanks[/Edit]

[headexplode]

http://news.bostonherald.com/localPolitics/view.bg?articleid=1006569&format=&page=1

See link for the rest of the article.

I'm just hoping that those legislators who changed their votes get properly punished for it by their constituents at the ballot box. Regardless of whether you're in favor or against Homosexual Marriage, this legislature has shown a HUGE amount of Hubris by telling the citizens of the Communistwealth that THEY know what the policy should be better than the voters.

[EDIT]Folks, let's try to keep this discussion on the vote and the concept of whether the citizens of Massachusetts should have been allowed to vote on this issue; NOT on the issue of Homosexual Marriage itself. Thanks[/Edit]

Regardless of what the citizenry believes, there are certain things that shouldn't be allowed, one of them being the exclusion of people based on little more than bible-based morality. I'm generally in favor of listening to the people but I believe there are certain inherent rights that are not to be left to the whim of popular opinion.

[Larry]

I suspect my opinion on the subject is going to be different from everybody else on the board.

As far as I'm concerned, Gay Marriage is legal right now. In all 50 states. The US Constitution says so, right here:

Amendment 14 (1868)

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

What that says to me is that neither the federal government, nor any lesser jurisdiction, can pass any law who's sole purpose is to make the law treat one group of people differently.

Other than that, I think headexplode summed it up just fine. The reason the Constitution places limits on what the majority can do, is to prevent the majority from beating up the minority at the ballot box.

[rincewind]

170,000 now represents a majority in Mass? :whoknows:

151-45. Sounds like the cavemen got their asses whipped on this one. Good job people of the Commonwealth! :thumbsup:

[rincewind]

By the way, if I'm reading this correctly, if they had 'won' this move - all it would have done is put the option of a ban on a future ballot. This measure WOULD NOT have caused the ban to be put into place.

[ACW]

I think it would've been VERY interesting to see how the people would've voted.

[Larry]

BTW, the article names the folks who switched sides, but doesn't say they switched from what to what.

I'm assuming, from parts of the article, that they switched from "send it to the ballot" to "don't".

(Including the two Republicans?)

(They have Republicans in Mass?)

[rictus58]

I'm just hoping that those legislators who changed their votes get properly punished for it by their constituents at the ballot box.

Sadly, I don't think a vast majority of this country knows anything about what happens in their state legislature.

[twa]

I think it should be allowed to come to the voters (as is the law) and if the matter is unconstitutional the courts can address it openly and honestly.

I believe the action by the legislature is in direct opposition to the laws.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

170,000 now represents a majority in Mass? :whoknows:

I believe they needed 150K signatures to get the issue before a Constitutional Convention. They got 170K signatures. That's where that number comes from.

151-45. Sounds like the cavemen got their asses whipped on this one. Good job people of the Commonwealth! :thumbsup:

Actually, all they needed was FIFTY votes (25%) to get it onto the ballot in 2008, so it wasn't as much of a beating as that looks like. Especially when you consider that nearly a dozen gutless scumballs switched their votes between January and now.

By the way, if I'm reading this correctly, if they had 'won' this move - all it would have done is put the option of a ban on a future ballot. This measure WOULD NOT have caused the ban to be put into place.

Correct. If they had gotten the 50 votes they needed, the initiative would have been placed on the November ballot statewide in 2008. Then the citizenry would have had the opportunity to vote it up or down.

I think it would've been VERY interesting to see how the people would've voted.

Yes it would have. I get the feeling I know how it would have gone, and that's why the Democrats put the screws to a number of legislators to get them to change their votes.

BTW, the article names the folks who switched sides, but doesn't say they switched from what to what.

I'm assuming, from parts of the article, that they switched from "send it to the ballot" to "don't".

(Including the two Republicans?)

(They have Republicans in Mass?)

They all switched from the "YES" option, which would have sent the measure to the citizens for a vote to "NO" which tells the citizens that they know better than us how things should be. There are Republicans in Mass; what there aren't many of are CONSERVATIVES in this state.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

Sadly, I don't think a vast majority of this country knows anything about what happens in their state legislature.

True. Which is exactly why I believe that a voter should have to prove their knowledge and competency regarding the who's and what's on the ballot before being allowed to vote in an election.

[rincewind]

I would be interested to see if this thread would have even been made if the vote was about an measure to have tighter gun control and the vote went against liberals. Because, as Mass stated, the actual issue isn't important.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

I would be interested to see if this thread would have even been made if the vote was about an measure to have tighter gun control and the vote went against liberals. Because, as Mass stated, the actual issue isn't important.

Actually, yes it probably would have. In that case, I would have had some faith in the 2 MILLION gun owners here in the Commonwealth to do the right thing, and if they didn't it would probably have given me the push to move out of this cesspool.

[PeterMP]

Why should they get a chance to vote? Clearly, the Mass Constitution says you need to get 50 votes to put something on the ballot. They didn't get 50 votes. Why should this particular issue get put on the ballot vs. everyother thing the Mass legislature will approve (or not) this session?

[Mass_SkinsFan]

Why should they get a chance to vote? Clearly, the Mass Constitution says you need to get 50 votes to put something on the ballot. They didn't get 50 votes. Why should this particular issue get put on the ballot vs. everyother thing the Mass legislature will approve (or not) this session?

How about because this would be a Constitutional Amendment, not just some other piece of legislation?

Maybe a little history of this will help explain it more clearly for you, Peter. In 2003 the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that there was nothing in the Massachusetts Constitution that outlawed Homosexual Marriage and turned the issue over to the State Legislature for a decision. The legislature ruled that Homosesual Marriage was legal and acceptable in the Communistwealth.

Many of the citizens here in Massachusetts are not happy with that ruling. They got together, and using the appropriate format, got a measure to amend the Constitution to define marriage as between 1 Man and 1 woman before the Constitutional Convention. Over the last two years, there had been two or three previous votes on the issue, because it requires a 25% vote like four times in a two year period to get an amendment on the ballot.

Up until yesterday, every single one of those votes has gotten the 50 vote minimum it needed to pass. Suddenly, yesterday, after extensive "lobbying" by the Governor and other politicos, a number of those people suddenly lost their values and changed their votes. Hell, one faked an injury on Wednesday so he wouldn't have to be there to vote yesterday.

To paraphrase a famous quotation.... "Something doesn't smell right on Beacon Hill." If this measure had been squashed when it first came up, there wouldn't have been much complaining. However, when almost 20% of the people who have continuously voted FOR a measure suddenly change their votes just before the final vote, people are going to ask questions.

[RabidFan]

People can't change their minds or see the light?

[Mass_SkinsFan]

People can't change their minds or see the light?

LOL. Obviously you haven't read very many of my posts around here. Personally, I'm of the opinion that if you change your mind, you never really held that first opinion to begin with and I would question whether or not you truly believe in anything.

Additionally, in this particular case, I would be willing to bet "seeing the light" came a lot more in the manner of "If you want to see ANY party money in your next re-election campain or want any of your legislative issues have ANY chance of going anywhere, you're going to vote NO on the amendment." than of anyone having some sort of revelation on the issue.

[chomerics]

Ahhh, all is well in my home state, damn I'm proud to be from Massachusetts!!!

Well, just a few months ago, MSF was screaming that this was blocked from being put to a vote at the CC. It was not blocked, it was delayed until after the elections. During that time frame, he was screaming on how they would never let it come to a vote, and how it was undermining his right as a citizen of Mass.

Well, now the vote has come up, and his side was defeated in a VERY strong defeat. Come on now, 151-45 that is a complete joke. Our legislature decided correctly, I might add, that civil rights issues should never be voted on, and I tend to agree with them. What next, we get signatures stopping black people from marrying white people? How about eliminating the right for a sterile person to marry, I mean after all, it is about procreation right?

So here we stand, a day after the complete trouncing the bigots took at the CC. I am damn proud to live here, and I am damn proud of my legislature right now. We are ahead of the curve on this one, as we are on so many things in the country. So MSF, if indeed the people are against gay marriage, as you say they are, then obviously it won't be hard to remove those from office who voted against your side right? I mean 151-45 is not even 25% or the legislature, so you will obviously eliminate the 151 people who voted right?

If you actually think the people are behind you, then get the votes you need, but alas, as it has been seen, each year the approval for gay marriage goes up and you lose numbers from your side. You will always be the minority in this state because you just don't get how to treat people equally. I, OTOH, think everyone should be treated equally, and yes, that includes *gasp* the gays. . .oh the horror!!!

Three Cheers for my home state, and I have already made a very nice donation to my representative for his vote. I applaud their decision in thins issue, and I have complete faith in my state's government, something I do not have in my countries. . .but then again, it isn't about (d) or ® it is about doing the correct thing at the correct time. This was the correct thing to do at the correct time. . .and I love how the right is going ballistic over this, because it exposes hatred, one thing my state has come a long way to eliminate!

So tonight I am going to drink a fine bottle of Chianti in honor of my legislature. . .damn proud to be an American, and even prouder of my state!!!

[chomerics]

People can't change their minds or see the light?

not with a ® in front of their name. It is a fundamental character flaw exhibited by people of the ® sector of society.

We only need to look at Iraq as the glimmering example as to why this is such a major problem.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

So MSF, if indeed the people are against gay marriage, as you say they are, then obviously it won't be hard to remove those from office who voted against your side right? I mean 151-45 is not even 25% or the legislature, so you will obviously eliminate the 151 people who voted right?

Hello chom. I'm sure you and your friends were overjoyed at this yesterday. Did you personally assist in the strong-arming of those gutless ****ing worthless sacks of **** who changed their votes, or did you just sit there and smile as you heard and read that it was being done? Because both you and I know that's EXACTLY what happened.

The 140 or so bafoons who have repeatedly voted against allowing the citizenry to vote on this issue are not the ones I really care about. They didn't have a leg to stand on politically, so far as I'm concerned, since the first vote on the issue. It's the ten or so who CHANGED their votes who I would like to see done away with (at least from a political POV). We'll see if their constituents agree with them when they come up for re-election.

BTW - If you're so damn sure that the citizenry of the state would vote in droves to support Gay marriage, why not just let the vote happen? Then the people who disagree with it would have had their say, been voted down, and have to choose whether to continue to live here or to move. I would suggest that the strong-arming of those politicians is a sign that many on your side of the aisle WERE NOT so sure as to what the outcome would be.

[Popeman38]

I suspect my opinion on the subject is going to be different from everybody else on the board.

As far as I'm concerned, Gay Marriage is legal right now. In all 50 states. The US Constitution says so, right here:

What that says to me is that neither the federal government, nor any lesser jurisdiction, can pass any law who's sole purpose is to make the law treat one group of people differently.

Other than that, I think headexplode summed it up just fine. The reason the Constitution places limits on what the majority can do, is to prevent the majority from beating up the minority at the ballot box.

Now Larry, we have had Constitutional debates where you argue against the very argument you now present - gun control. Now, I am not trying to deflect from the debate at hand. I am against gay marriage, but the system took an initiative and sent it through our system. I can live with that. I would ultimately like to see the people vote on these things, but the system worked.

[Fergasun]

If it's such an important topic, like abortion, gay marriage, or even gun control. I think states should let the people vote. These types of huge decisions shouldn't be entrusted to 200 or so political elites who may or may not be influenced by whatever special interests exist. I feel the same way about federal immigration policy as well, and hell maybe even going to war.

We should have a competent and responsible citizenry that's able to look at the issues and make a good decision. If there were more votes in this country I think more people would either educate themselves enough to vote, or less people would vote... but still much more than 200 politicians easily influenced.

I think our political landscape is in for a major change in the next 20 years... I hope it is... because the Internet is a very empowering force on both sides.

[SkinsHokieFan]

We should have a competent and responsible citizenry that's able to look at the issues and make a good decision. If there were more votes in this country I think more people would either educate themselves enough to vote, or less people would vote... but still much more than 200 politicians easily influenced.

I think our political landscape is in for a major change in the next 20 years... I hope it is... because the Internet is a very empowering force on both sides.

I disagree. Look at whats happened in Cali. The legislature out there is too chicken**** and puts everything up for a refferndum, and now Cali has all sorts of ass backward laws

Clearly this movement was soundly defeated, even if it only needed 50 votes to be put on a ballot. I prefer that it stays in the legistlature if it is defeated this soundly, rather then go up for refferndum and a single group is able to get its vote out

[chomerics]

If it's such an important topic, like abortion, gay marriage, or even gun control. I think states should let the people vote. These types of huge decisions shouldn't be entrusted to 200 or so political elites who may or may not be influenced by whatever special interests exist. I feel the same way about federal immigration policy as well, and hell maybe even going to war.

We should have a competent and responsible citizenry that's able to look at the issues and make a good decision. If there were more votes in this country I think more people would either educate themselves enough to vote, or less people would vote... but still much more than 200 politicians easily influenced.

I think our political landscape is in for a major change in the next 20 years... I hope it is... because the Internet is a very empowering force on both sides.

There is a reason civil rights issues are not allowed to be voted on by the public. Think long and hard about it, and try to understand why.

[Popeman38]

There is a reason civil rights issues are not allowed to be voted on by the public. Think long and hard about it, and try to understand why.

Chom, marriage is not a civil right. Otherwise there would be no restrictions on it, and no govt guidelines to obtain legal status.