Mass. Takes Step Toward Banning Gay Marriage

[Professor]

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/02/us/02cnd-gay.html?hp&ex=1167800400&en=b391e32bcf96a04b&ei=5094&partner=homepage

January 2, 2007
Mass. Takes Step Toward Banning Gay Marriage
By PAM BELLUCK

BOSTON, Jan. 2 — Massachusetts, the only state where same-sex marriage is legal, took a first step toward banning it today when legislators voted to advance a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union between a man and a woman.

The amendment still needs to be approved by at least 50 legislators in another vote in the 2007-2008 session. Then it would be placed on the November 2008 ballot as a popular referendum. If it passed, the amendment would not do away with the more than 8,000 same-sex marriages that have taken place since they became legal in May 2004. But it would prevent future marriages of gay men and lesbians.

The swiftness of the vote today surprised people on both sides of the issue, taking place without any prior debate, just minutes after the constitutional convention had been gaveled into session. Proponents of the amendment needed just 50 of the legislature’s 200 lawmakers to support it; the final vote was 61 in favor of the amendment and 132 opposed.

“It’s quite amazing to us that they moved so quickly to vote on the merits of this issue, and that after all the time that this issue has been around and the thousands of lives affected by it, they would move to vote on the issue without even debating,” said Arline Isaacson, co-chairwoman of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus.

The situation remained fluid for much of this afternoon. After a recess, the Massachusetts legislature voted 117 to 75 to approve a motion to reconsider the amendment question. Later in the day, lawmakers voted 62 to 134 to reaffirm the initial results.

Just two months ago, at an earlier constitutional convention, the legislature appeared to have essentially killed the proposal. During that November session, legislators recessed without voting on the amendment, tabling it until the last possible moment, Jan. 2, the last day of the legislative session. Both sides said they expected that lawmakers would then vote to end the session without taking up the measure, which would stop the amendment from proceeding further.

But last week, the state’s Supreme Judicial Court, which three years ago ruled that same-sex marriage should be legal, threw a wrench into things.

The court issued a new ruling chiding lawmakers for their maneuvers to avoid a vote on the amendment in November and saying that the legislature had demonstrated "indifference to, or defiance of, its constitutional duties.”

The court said that it was not empowered to order the legislature to vote on the amendment, which petitioners, including Gov. Mitt Romney, had asked it to do. But the court’s criticism of the legislature appeared to be enough to make some lawmakers decide to allow a vote today, even legislators who support same-sex marriage and hope the amendment will ultimately be defeated.

“Certainly, the court ruling changed the atmosphere this week, in that legislators took a second look at their job description, at their oath of office, at a higher obligation actually, to uphold the constitution," said Kris Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute, which sponsored the amendment.

Ms. Isaacson said the court’s decision “really tipped the scales against us.”

Today’s in initial vote was considered a victory for Governor Romney, a Republican who has used his opposition to same-sex marriage as a conservative rallying point over the last two years as he has laid the groundwork for an expected run for the presidency. Mr. Romney’s last day as governor is Wednesday, and on that day he is expected to file papers to form a presidential exploratory committee.

The incoming governor, Deval L. Patrick, is a same-sex marriage supporter, the first African-American governor of Massachusetts and the first Democrat to occupy the governor’s office in 16 years. Today, before the constitutional convention, Mr. Patrick had met with the state House and Senate leaders, both Democrats, to urge them to find a way to defeat the amendment, even it meant adjourning without voting on it.

Mr. Patrick said in a statement that he objected to using the constitutional amendment process “to give a minority fewer freedoms than the majority,” and he urged the legislature to close the book on the issue because there are “far more pressing issues before the legislature and the commonwealth.”

He told reporters before the convention, that "I hope by whatever means appropriate, the constitutional convention today ends this debate. I think a vote on adjournment is a vote on the merits."

[NortheastCynic]

If Massachusetts is willing to give homosexuals the same rights as heterosexuals then I have no problem with a vote defining marriage. To me, this is an issue about civil rights, not a word. If gays are allowed to unionize via civil unions and are subject to the same rights/benefits of heterosexuals then it is not illegal to call their union something other than "marriage". In this way it is perfectly legitimate to let the people of Massachusetts define marriage. If, however, this vote is being used to deny homosexuals equal rights, then it should not occur, period.

-NC

[Stoner]

Hopefully they'll succeed in their efforts.

[AlonzoMourning23]

The supporters of same sex marriage gained seats, and gained a vocal proponent of same sex marriage in the new governor. Out of 200 legislators only 62 votes to move the proposed ban forward. Given the removal of some oppononents of same sex marriage, to be replaced with incoming supporters, it's probably going to be very close as to whether or not 25% of the legislator will vote to allow the ban to get on the ballot.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

Well, we can only hope that the people get their say.

[AlonzoMourning23]

Well, we can only hope that the people get their say.


Oh, if only we could have corrected past wrongs inflicted on the people. The evils of Brown vs the board of education and Loving vs Virginia must not be repeated!

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

Oh, if only we could have corrected past wrongs inflicted on the people. The evils of Brown vs the board of education and Loving vs Virginia must not be repeated!


Or Plessy v. Ferguson? You proud of that one?

The people know best, legislators (Democrat ones) passed the Jim Crow laws, a legislative vote, and with the exception of schools, they passed Scotus muster.

[micfranklin]

Banning same sex marriage is just another type of discrimination.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

Banning same sex marriage is just another type of discrimination.


So is banning human/animal marriage.

[AlonzoMourning23]

[quote=alonzomourning23]

Or Plessy v. Ferguson? You proud of that one?

The people know best, legislators (Democrat ones) passed the Jim Crow laws, a legislative vote, and with the exception of schools, they passed Scotus muster.


All those had the backing of the population. The legislators and the courts reversed those decisions well before the voting public would have.

You want to put interracial marriage to a vote in virginia during the time of loving vs virginia?

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

All those had the backing of the population.


Prove it.

[AlonzoMourning23]

And in 1967 these laws were not mere leftover scraps from an extinct era. Two years before, at the crest of the civil-rights revolution, a Gallup poll found that 72 per cent of Southern whites and 42 per cent of Northern whites still wanted to ban interracial marriage.


http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n13_v49/ai_19617224

1958: The first Gallup poll conducted on the subject of interracial marriage revealed that 94% of whites opposed them.

http://www.kqed.org/w/baywindow/othercolors/changingtimes/index.html

In a statewide poll that was conducted in 1955 showed that 85% of the respondents said that they were against school integration (Stetson). In response to the results of the poll Governor Faubus announced, “I cannot be a party to any attempt to force acceptance of a change to which the people are so overwhelmingly opposed. If complete integration ever comes to Arkansas, it will be a slow process. No one can predict with accuracy whether it will ever be accomplished or how soon.”

http://www.eotu.uiuc.edu/pedagogy/grogers/P4/Q10/Billy_Kras.htm

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

The polls themselves please, including the methodology report, margin of error, etc....

Also how many polled were registered, likely voters.

[AlonzoMourning23]

I'm not spending hours of my time digging through stuff just to find 40 and 50 year old polls which, even if I do manage to find, you'll just ignore anyway. You're not worth the effort.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

I'm not spending hours of my time digging through stuff just to find 40 and 50 year old polls



Well second hand reports of 50 year old polls in partisan articles are not proof.

[micfranklin]

Banning same sex marriage is just another type of discrimination.


So is banning human/animal marriage.


Well I guess we can cut "equal protection under the law" out of our Constitution then.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

Baker v. Nelson found the 14th didn't apply to gay marriage, it was reviewed by the scotus who let it stand.

The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)—in which the Court ruled that a statute probiting interracial marriages was unconstitutional—was not applicable to the Baker case. The Minnesota Supreme Court acknowledged the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits some state restrictions upon the right to marry, but that "in commonsense and in a constitutional sense, there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex".

[micfranklin]

Unfortunately, just because they find it like that doesn't make it right, for one. Also, I believe the government has absolutely no place in marriage.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

Unfortunately, just because they find it like that doesn't make it right


Doesn't make it wrong either. I think the 14th should apply to unborn persons as well, but just because I think that doesn't make it law.

[Thirdparty]

Well, we can only hope that the people get their say.


Oh, if only we could have corrected past wrongs inflicted on the people. The evils of Brown vs the board of education and Loving vs Virginia must not be repeated!


That is a foolish analogy and it offends me as an African American, Alonzo. Quit equating gays with blacks. It doesn't wash in our community, and never will.

[Thirdparty]

Well, I am glad to see all the DF'ers agree with me that this analogy was foolish. I sure wish people would stop using the black community as fodder for gay rights.

[Elrathin]

Well, I am glad to see all the DF'ers agree with me that this analogy was foolish. I sure wish people would stop using the black community as fodder for gay rights.


What an interesting assumption, a false one, but interesting. Sounds like you have one big EGO is all in thinking that just because someone doesn't respond to one of your rants that they agree with you.

I just didn't respond, because I feel there is no reason to. You won't change your mind about it and neither will I, so what's the point? I feel there is and always will be similiarities.

[Cobra]

Looks kind of like a similar situation to me.

[AlonzoMourning23]

Well, we can only hope that the people get their say.


Oh, if only we could have corrected past wrongs inflicted on the people. The evils of Brown vs the board of education and Loving vs Virginia must not be repeated!


That is a foolish analogy and it offends me as an African American, Alonzo. Quit equating gays with blacks. It doesn't wash in our community, and never will.


I don't really care if you're offended. Loving vs virginia dealt with the issue of interracial marriage, one aspect of the civil rights movement. If my comparing interracial marriage with same sex marriage offends you then don't read my future posts, since you'll be offended again.

Besides you don't speak for all african americans. I can find african americans who are offended by it and I can find those who aren't, just as there are heterosexual whites and christians offended with the comparison between homosexual and heterosexual rights. It seems whether or not they're offended goes right along with whether or not they think same sex marriage is a good thing or not, and whether or not they think homosexuality is an acceptable practice.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

I don't really care if you're offended.


How racially insensitive! I always care that the people I offend are offended!


Baker v. Nelson dealt with gay marriage bans, and the scotus let it stand.

[AlonzoMourning23]

How racially insensitive!

Why? Because I compared too persecuted minorities with regards to the same issue?

I always care that the people I offend are offended!

Well, I did find it amusing.


Baker v. Nelson dealt with gay marriage bans, and the scotus let it stand.


Yes, 35 years ago.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

Why? Because I compared too persecuted minorities with regards to the same issue?


Nope, because you equated the real persecution blacks faced with the very trivial by comparison gay marriage issue.



Yes, 35 years ago.


LOL, and when was Loving vs virginia?

[AlonzoMourning23]

Nope, because you equated the real persecution blacks faced with the very trivial by comparison gay marriage issue.

Of course, similar comments e would have been made by many opponents of interracial marriage.


Yes, 35 years ago.


LOL, and when was Loving vs virginia?
[/quote]

One of which changed existing laws, one didn't. One ruling which has lost opposition since made, another which has gained.

Modern understanding of civil rights has changed. The change does not affect the loving vs virginia ruling, but it does affect the decision not to take up the other one.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

Of course, similar comments e would have been made by many opponents of interracial marriage.


How so?



Modern understanding of civil rights has changed.


Not significantly, we are where we were 35 years ago. The gay agenda has not fooled that many people.

[Thirdparty]

Looks kind of like a similar situation to me.


Cobra, how can you and Alonzo in all sincerity sit there and equate what blacks went through with gay rights or gay marriage movement?

The only similarity I have ever seen is if a gay person has been physically or verbally abused for being gay. That is wrong, and should not happen. Yes, it does happen.

However, gays have NEVER:

1. Been denied the right to vote in this nation
2. Been denied the right to sit down at a restaurant
3. Had separate bathrooms used or drinking fountains for "straights only"
4. Been sold into slavery
5. Been denied the right to play in major league sports until Jackie Robinson.


Now, you can sit there and type on your keyboard all you want that it is the same, it is not, and any thinking person of any color or sexual preference who is educated at all knows that. So get your facts straight.

Does prejudice exist against gays? Absolutely. Is it sometimes violent and abusive? Yes. Has it ever precluded them from basic civil rights . NO!

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

If you think gays have not been treated just as bad as blacks then you don't know what it means to be gay.

As part of my switch to being a liberal, I have now chosen homosexuality as well, and immediately I felt the accusing stares and change in attitude. And that is just from my dogs! I'm actually afraid to go meet my co-workers tomorrow!

If you haven't felt it then you have no idea!

[micfranklin]

If you think gays have not been treated just as bad as blacks then you don't know what it means to be gay.

As part of my switch to being a liberal, I have now chosen homosexuality as well, and immediately I felt the accusing stares and change in attitude. And that is just from my dogs! I'm actually afraid to go meet my co-workers tomorrow!

If you haven't felt it then you have no idea!


Hold on there, I didn't say that gays are treated just as bad as blacks were, in fact I happen to be black myself. I have some friends who are gay and black and have lost out on job offers simply because of them being gay.

[AlonzoMourning23]

Looks kind of like a similar situation to me.


Cobra, how can you and Alonzo in all sincerity sit there and equate what blacks went through with gay rights or gay marriage movement?

The only similarity I have ever seen is if a gay person has been physically or verbally abused for being gay. That is wrong, and should not happen. Yes, it does happen.

However, gays have NEVER:

1. Been denied the right to vote in this nation
2. Been denied the right to sit down at a restaurant
3. Had separate bathrooms used or drinking fountains for "straights only"
4. Been sold into slavery
5. Been denied the right to play in major league sports until Jackie Robinson.


Now, you can sit there and type on your keyboard all you want that it is the same, it is not, and any thinking person of any color or sexual preference who is educated at all knows that. So get your facts straight.

Does prejudice exist against gays? Absolutely. Is it sometimes violent and abusive? Yes. Has it ever precluded them from basic civil rights . NO!


Wait, homosexuals have never been arrested for being homosexual? Never been kicked out of restaurants? They've never been denied jobs or fired? Or told they couldn't serve their country? Those all seem like civil rights violations. And, as the supreme court stated, marriage is a civil right.

In the loving vs virginia decision, citing the skinner vs oklahoma decision:

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. (Skinner v. Oklahoma) ...To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.


Now, the definition of marriage may be debated by them. But the concept that it's a civil right doesn't seem to be.

But, why you go on about slavery and such is beyond me. The issue is of marriage. Until you brought up other things, the comparison was interracial and same sex marriage, and the other issue discussed was unpopular court ruling.

[Thirdparty]

Looks kind of like a similar situation to me.


Cobra, how can you and Alonzo in all sincerity sit there and equate what blacks went through with gay rights or gay marriage movement?

The only similarity I have ever seen is if a gay person has been physically or verbally abused for being gay. That is wrong, and should not happen. Yes, it does happen.

However, gays have NEVER:

1. Been denied the right to vote in this nation
2. Been denied the right to sit down at a restaurant
3. Had separate bathrooms used or drinking fountains for "straights only"
4. Been sold into slavery
5. Been denied the right to play in major league sports until Jackie Robinson.


Now, you can sit there and type on your keyboard all you want that it is the same, it is not, and any thinking person of any color or sexual preference who is educated at all knows that. So get your facts straight.

Does prejudice exist against gays? Absolutely. Is it sometimes violent and abusive? Yes. Has it ever precluded them from basic civil rights . NO!


Wait, homosexuals have never been arrested for being homosexual? Never been kicked out of restaurants? They've never been denied jobs or fired? Or told they couldn't serve their country? Those all seem like civil rights violations. And, as the supreme court stated, marriage is a civil right.

In the loving vs virginia decision, citing the skinner vs oklahoma decision:

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. (Skinner v. Oklahoma) ...To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.


Now, the definition of marriage may be debated by them. But the concept that it's a civil right doesn't seem to be.

But, why you go on about slavery and such is beyond me. The issue is of marriage. Until you brought up other things, the comparison was interracial and same sex marriage, and the other issue discussed was unpopular court ruling.



No, the issue was that the gay rights coalition constantly is using the civil rights movement of African Americans in this nation as a reference, and it is a false analogy.

While certainly there is discrimination, it is two different eras and two different issues. Given you usually can't tell a person is gay by looking at them, it is also a race issue vis a vis a behavior issue.

[Thirdparty]

If you think gays have not been treated just as bad as blacks then you don't know what it means to be gay.

As part of my switch to being a liberal, I have now chosen homosexuality as well, and immediately I felt the accusing stares and change in attitude. And that is just from my dogs! I'm actually afraid to go meet my co-workers tomorrow!

If you haven't felt it then you have no idea!


Flea bit,

Read my post again, I never said gays were not treated badly or discriminated against, but simply said blacks were treated much worse in many ways.

As stated, when you see someone is black, you immediately form a value judgment positive, negative, or indifferent. Unless someone is a feminine flamer or drag queen, you usually can't tell a person is gay by looking at them .

So, the reality is that the discrimination is not the same, yet similar in some ways. I think being denied the right to vote, eat, stay in hotels, and being in chains is far worse than what most gays have experienced.

[AlonzoMourning23]

Looks kind of like a similar situation to me.


Cobra, how can you and Alonzo in all sincerity sit there and equate what blacks went through with gay rights or gay marriage movement?

The only similarity I have ever seen is if a gay person has been physically or verbally abused for being gay. That is wrong, and should not happen. Yes, it does happen.

However, gays have NEVER:

1. Been denied the right to vote in this nation
2. Been denied the right to sit down at a restaurant
3. Had separate bathrooms used or drinking fountains for "straights only"
4. Been sold into slavery
5. Been denied the right to play in major league sports until Jackie Robinson.


Now, you can sit there and type on your keyboard all you want that it is the same, it is not, and any thinking person of any color or sexual preference who is educated at all knows that. So get your facts straight.

Does prejudice exist against gays? Absolutely. Is it sometimes violent and abusive? Yes. Has it ever precluded them from basic civil rights . NO!


Wait, homosexuals have never been arrested for being homosexual? Never been kicked out of restaurants? They've never been denied jobs or fired? Or told they couldn't serve their country? Those all seem like civil rights violations. And, as the supreme court stated, marriage is a civil right.

In the loving vs virginia decision, citing the skinner vs oklahoma decision:

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. (Skinner v. Oklahoma) ...To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.


Now, the definition of marriage may be debated by them. But the concept that it's a civil right doesn't seem to be.

But, why you go on about slavery and such is beyond me. The issue is of marriage. Until you brought up other things, the comparison was interracial and same sex marriage, and the other issue discussed was unpopular court ruling.



No, the issue was that the gay rights coalition constantly is using the civil rights movement of African Americans in this nation as a reference, and it is a false analogy.

While certainly there is discrimination, it is two different eras and two different issues. Given you usually can't tell a person is gay by looking at them, it is also a race issue vis a vis a behavior issue.


Being homosexual is not about behavior. Having sex with 50 men doesn't make me homosexual, just as having sex with 50 women doesn't make me heterosexual. Whether I enjoyed it, whether I could form a sexual and psychological connection with them does.

But, the issue here is marriage. The comparisons being made are within the realm of marriage, or in the realm of unpopular court decisions which are later widely viewed as correct.

No ones comparing blacks civil rights, as a whole, with homosexual civil rights. They are comparing certain issues within those struggles.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

Flea bit,

Read my post again, I never said gays were not treated badly or discriminated against, but simply said blacks were treated much worse in many ways.



Tell it to Matthew Shepard!

[Thirdparty]

Looks kind of like a similar situation to me.



Alonzo wrote:
No ones comparing blacks civil rights, as a whole, with homosexual civil rights. They are comparing certain issues within those struggles.


Alonzo, cobra sure was.

[Thirdparty]

Flea bit,

Read my post again, I never said gays were not treated badly or discriminated against, but simply said blacks were treated much worse in many ways.



Tell it to Matthew Shepard!


Had you read my posts and the whole thread, I did note that in some cases gays were verbally and physically abused. As a whole, you cannot equate the two groups. It simply doesn't wash.

[AlonzoMourning23]

Cobra's response was in response to your statement about the analogy being foolish. The analogy you were attacking was mine, where I discussed court decisions that went against the people will, such as loving vs virginia, and compared them to efforts to promote same sex right (marriage in this case), whether or not the general population supported it.

I don't see where she compared the entire history of black civil rights with the full history of same sex civil rights.

Though, to be fair, homosexuals would have been killed during certain periods of history simply for being homosexual.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

As a whole, you cannot equate the two groups. It simply doesn't wash.


Your right, cause blacks can marry and gays can't!

It's worse for gays!

[Thirdparty]

As a whole, you cannot equate the two groups. It simply doesn't wash.


Your right, cause blacks can marry and gays can't!

It's worse for gays!


Flea bit,

when you have a cross burned on your lawn come talk to me.

[NortheastCynic]

Third Party, Flea_Bit_Monkey is attempting to satirize a liberal...Yeah, I know, it isn't funny to any of us either.:)

-NC