| Author |
Message |
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
 Wed Sep 14, 2005 10:32 pm Mass. Gay Nups Change Rejected |
|
| Quote: |
Mass. Gay Nups Change Rejected
Wednesday, September 14, 2005
BOSTON � The Massachusetts Legislature on Wednesday rejected a proposed constitutional amendment that sought to ban gay marriage (search) but legalize civil unions, a year after the state performed the nation's first government-sanctioned same-sex weddings.
It was the second time the Legislature had confronted the measure, which was intended to be put before voters on a statewide ballot in 2006. Under state law, lawmakers were required to approve it in two consecutive sessions before it could move forward.
After less than two hours of debate Wednesday, a joint session of the House and Senate voted 157-39 against the measure.
It was a striking departure from a year earlier, when hundreds of protesters converged on Beacon Hill (search) and sharply divided legislators spent long hours debating the issue. In that session, in March 2004, lawmakers voted 105-92 in favor of the amendment.
This year, the crowds were tamer and some legislators who had initially supported the proposed change to the state constitution said they no longer felt right about denying the right of marriage to thousands of same-sex 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 (search), 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.
The state's highest court ruled in November 2003 that same-sex couples had a right under the state constitution to marry. The first weddings took place on May 17, 2004 � two months after lawmakers began the process of trying to change the constitution to reverse the court's ruling.
Since then, more than 6,100 couples have married.
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 legislation legalizing same-sex marriage, though Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has promised to veto it.
Although more than 6,100 same-sex couples were married in Massachusetts, the state 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 before the SJC.
SEARCH
Click here for FOX News RSS Feeds
Advertise on FOX News Channel, FOXNews.com and FOX News Radio
Jobs at FOX News Channel.
Internships at FOX News Channel (Accepting Fall Applications Now).
Terms of use. Privacy Statement. For FOXNews.com comments write to
[email protected]; For FOX News Channel comments write to
[email protected]
� Associated Press. All rights reserved.
Copyright � 2005 ComStock, Inc.
This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Copyright 2005 FOX News Network, LLC. All rights reserved.
All market data delayed 20 minutes.
|
|
|
|
CJ Cregg
Commodore
Joined: 05 Oct 2002
Posts: 1254
|
| Thu Sep 15, 2005 1:14 pm |
|
Excellent news, MA is THE place to live in america. 
|
|
|
TrekkieMage
Office Junkie
Joined: 17 Oct 2004
Posts: 5335
Location: Hiding
|
| Thu Sep 15, 2005 2:12 pm |
|
I saw this in the paper this afternoon, and personally I am very glad to see it!
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Thu Sep 15, 2005 5:08 pm |
|
Personally I'm not glad to see this. I think that's not good.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
robbiewebster
Rear Admiral
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
Posts: 2594
Location: Rochester, New York
|
| Sun Sep 18, 2005 5:29 pm |
|
^I agree with you, no offense to those who are happy with the ruling.
-------signature-------
|
|
|
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
| Sun Sep 18, 2005 9:41 pm |
|
Why does it matter? I mean seriously.... I am not trying to pick a fight, but I just don't really see why people are so concerned about getting involved in other peoples private life. I mean, does allowing a same sex couple to marry affect you at all? I really don't see how it could, but feel free to correct me.
Last edited by Puck on Mon Sep 19, 2005 7:24 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York
|
| Sun Sep 18, 2005 9:49 pm |
|
The morality of America! I mean, what next, man on pumpkin sex?!
(  )
I don't understand why it matters (or should) to anybody, either.
-------signature-------
"Nelly, I am Heathcliff! He's always, always in my mind: not as a pleasure, any more than I am always a pleasure to myself, but as my own being."
-Wuthering Heights
|
|
|
lex
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 23 Dec 2004
Posts: 226
|
| Sun Sep 18, 2005 10:20 pm |
|
Well, I know a good many pumpkins who might have something to say about that!
LOL.
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Star Trek �, in all its various forms, are trademarks & copyrights of Paramount Pictures
This site has no official connection with Star Trek or Paramount Pictures
Site content/Site design elements owned by Morphy and is meant to only be an archive/Tribute to STV.com
|
Search
FAQ
Log in
