June 14, 2007
The Massachusetts constitutional convention has successfully prevented a bill enshrining traditional marriage in the state constitution from even reaching the voters... and the legislators are just busting with pride:
Massachusetts lawmakers on Thursday blocked a proposed constitutional amendment banning gay marriage from reaching voters, a stunning victory for gay marriage advocates and a devastating blow to efforts to reverse a historic 2003 court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage.
The 45-151 vote means Massachusetts remains the only state in the nation to allow same-sex couples to marry. The question needed the approval of 50 of 200 lawmakers in consecutive sessions to advance to the 2008 ballot. It got the first approval at the end of last session in January with 62 votes....
As the tally was announced, the halls of the Statehouse erupted in cheers and applause from supporters of gay marriage gathered outside the House chambers.
So upon sober reflection, the Massachusetts pols decided not to allow voters to confuse matters by participating in the discussion. Am I alone in concluding that the massive lobbying effort that "changed the minds" of 17 members indicates that internal polling showed that the bill would have passed, had they allowed a vote?
I reason that if polling showed the bill going down to defeat -- why try to desperately to prevent a vote? Why not allow Massachusetts to become the only state in the United States whose citizenry had voted for same-sex marriage?
The governor is leaping and capering about, clapping his elfin, little hands in glee:
The vote is also a victory for the state's Democratic leadership, including Gov. Deval Patrick, a vocal supporter of gay marriage, who pressed lawmakers up until the final moments to block the measure.
House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi, D-Boston and Murray, D-Plymouth, also support gay marriage and worked to change votes - arguing the rights of a minority group should not be put to a popular vote.
Arguing that the citizens of Massachusetts should not be allowed to determine what constitutes "marriage" in their state. That job properly belongs to four of the seven never-elected justices on the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.
"We killed the traditional-marriage act!"
If you live in the Bay State, now you know how highly your legislature values your input. Sleep tight.
Hatched by Dafydd on this day, June 14, 2007, at the time of 10:57 PM
TrackBack URL for this hissing: http://biglizards.net/mt3.36/earendiltrack.cgi/2174
The following hissed in response by: snochasr
You see the problem, don't you? A marriage license is now a "right" which cannot be restricted. Therefore, a man may marry his television set, which he "loves," and claim taxpayer-funded benefits for his "union." OK, that's not liable to be the first stop on the slippery slope-- that's likely to be polygamy, child brides, or incest. But the dogs and cats will come, eventually.
The following hissed in response by: Big D
Eh. Let gay people get married.
Like abortion, there is an easy simple solution to the problem that would satisfy 75% of the population. Unfortunately the extremists at both ends won't allow the solution to happen.
What bugs me most is the unwillingness to allow the people of Mass. to vote. Of course, next election cycle they do get to vote....for the very legislators who defenstrated them on this issue.
Hey Mass - this is what long one party domination gets you - a party that thinks you'll vote for them no matter what.
Post a comment
Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)
© 2005-2009 by Dafydd ab Hugh - All Rights Reserved