Massachusetts Will Not Allow a Vote on Gay Marriage Ban
Stunning Victory for Gay Marriage Advocates
The proposal to bring the amendment to a vote by Massachusetts residents needed to receive at least 50 votes out of 200 in two consecutive sessions of the legislature. It received 62 votes last year, but received only 45 votes this year.
After the vote was announced, there were cheers and applause from supporters of gay marriage. AP quoted Lee Swislow, the executive director of Gay & Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, "We're proud of our state today, and we applaud the Legislature for showing Massachusetts is strongly behind fairness. The vote today was the triumph of time, experience, and understanding over fear and prejudice."
Opponents of gay marriage, while they intend to continue the battle for an amendment, may find it out of reach. They had already spent more than three years just getting to the vote this year. It will take years more of work to try to bring the question to the ballot. In the meantime, support for gay marriage in the state has increased.
From seven same-sex couples filing a suit in Boston in 2001 to challenge the state's ban on gay marriage to the decisive vote on June 14, 2007, it has been a long journey for gay marriage advocates. Now the battle may be permanently over. AP reports that more than 8,500 same sex marriages have been performed in Massachusetts since gay unions were legalized in May 2004.
The state's Democratic leaders also can claim victory. Massachusetts Democratic Governor Deval Patrick was a strong supporter of gay marriage and active in urging the Legislature to block the vote on the amendment. According to AP, there were signs that the mood of the Legislature was changing, as several people who had voted for the amendment last year were reconsidering their vote.
Some who were not necessarily in favor of the amendment thought that the people should still have the right to vote on it. "We believe it's unconstitutional not to allow people to vote on this," Rebekah Beliveau, a student at Gordon Conwell Theological Seminary told AP. She added, "We're standing up not necessarily on the issue of same-sex marriage, but our right to vote."
Sources:
news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070614/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage_6;_ylt=AsMVtHQEX6QBJa.V6CuS2KkE1vAI
www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1850226/posts
Published by Bible Doc
I am a (mostly) retired minister. I spent a few years teaching Bible courses in a Christian school. One of my goals is to write. I see Associated Content as a step toward fulfilling that goal. View profile
- Gay Marriage: Right or Wrong?Gay marriage is something of a new idea, yet gay love has been taboo for centuries. Just recently has it become a legal issue, even as homosexual behavior has become commonplace in our society.
Rudolph Giuliani: To Support Gay Marriage or Not to Support Gay Marriage?Only recently Rudolph Giuliani supported gay marriage, but now, to get the Republican vote, he fully opposes it.- California Gay Marriage Issue + McCain, Clinton, Obama?Check here to see my views about the California Gay Marriage decision as it might relate to McCain, Clinton, and Obama.
Cindy McCain Defends Gay Marriage and Joins the NOH8 CampaignCindy McCain defends gay marriage, along with her daughter Meghan McCain, and has joined the NOH8 campaign.- It's Inevitable: Gay Marriage Will Be Legal in All 50 States Within 20 YearsChanging demographics in shifts in public attitudes towards same-sex relationships lead to the conclusion that gay marriage will be legal in all 50 states within 20 years, perhaps sooner.
- Constitutional Divide: McCain and Palin Split Over Constitutional Amendment Bannin...
- November Vote May Sidetrack California Gay Weddings
- Dump (or Modify) the Class Size Amendment
- Congress Fails to Pass Apple Pie Amendment
- California Supreme Court Overturns Ban on Gay Marriage
- The Pros and Cons of Gay Marriage
- 6 Arguments Against Gay Marriage that Don't Work
9 Comments
Post a CommentGod loves us so much that He gave us laws on sexual purity to protect us from HIV. t God created HIV to punish those who disobey His laws on sexual purity.
Massachusetts and Calif. have the right idea......Gays do not take marriage lightly.........Remember Britney Spears..
Here is a thought; how about the State grants Civil Unions to all people, regardless of gender. If you want a marriage, you do that in a church, after you sign your Civil Union papers at city hall? Government should stay out of religious matters as much as possible, and this would be another way to get out of the business of legislating morality.
I'll be glad when they ban marriage for everyone. There is enough miserable people on this planet. Marriage is an entirely religious matter, they should push the state to recognize no marriages at all of either sexuality..thereby placing it in the hands of religious institutions...thusly no church less a gay advocating church could marry gays, and the state would not be bombarded with trying to appease all sides. Course people like those 1,138 automatic rights that come with marriage. And no state can force a church to marry gay people...good ol separation. But even the most devout religious folks don't want to give up those state and federal entitlements under marriage...just to prove their point about it being sacred to their faith.
Some good comments, and I agree, basic civil rights shouldn't be subject to a "vote." I would add that what needs to be looked at is the tax-exempt status of the christian hate factories that pass themselves off as churches and push hate agendas against gays, liberals, and most recently...immigrants.
Makes me want to move to Massachusetts. What a ridiculous bunch the opponents are - how would they feel if a vote was demanded to determine whether short people could marry? White people? Black people? Christian people?
The government didn't "block" anything.... Our chosen representatives made the wise, constitutional choice to protect the weakest members of our society from the cross-waving, blood thirtsty Christian majority. Good for you, Mass!
Exactly - civil rights equality should NEVER be put to a vote.
Interesting that a victory for gay rights is summed up as a slap in the face to democracy.