Mass. Lawmakers Reject Gay Marriage Ban

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
By STEVE LeBLANC, Associated Press Writer
12:45pm PST 14 September 2005

BOSTON - The Massachusetts Legislature on Wednesday rejected a proposed constitutional amendment that sought to ban gay marriage 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 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, 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.

rogermexico (rogermexico), Wednesday, 14 September 2005 19:13 (twenty years ago)

PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE

Jordan (Jordan), Wednesday, 14 September 2005 19:27 (twenty years ago)

The union of two women and two men

Curt1s St3ph3ns, Wednesday, 14 September 2005 20:15 (twenty years ago)

"The union of two women and two men"

Sounds like a swingin party to me, man.

CUSTOS PASSANTINO (dr g), Wednesday, 14 September 2005 20:17 (twenty years ago)

Phil Travis has no imagination.

tokyo nursery school: afternoon session (rosemary), Wednesday, 14 September 2005 21:01 (twenty years ago)

GOP in backing off from divisize election-year tactics SHO... Wait, I AM shocked.

"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, a Republican who had been a co-sponsor of the amendment.

Sweet lord a'mighty these guys are good!

rogermexico (rogermexico), Wednesday, 14 September 2005 21:21 (twenty years ago)

Don't let them marry, just prosecute the hatas.

don weiner (don weiner), Wednesday, 14 September 2005 23:06 (twenty years ago)

The union of two women and two men can never consummate a marriage. It's physically impossible

Its nice to know even conservative jesus freaks thing marriage is All About the Sex Sex Sex!

Trayce (trayce), Thursday, 15 September 2005 00:34 (twenty years ago)

thing=think. Gah.

Trayce (trayce), Thursday, 15 September 2005 00:34 (twenty years ago)

Its nice to know even conservative jesus freaks thing marriage is All About the Sex Sex Sex!

trayce, as we've mentioned before, marriage legitimizes sex for many people.

and since the same people are repulsed by "dudes kissin'," they can't have them marryin' now, can they? That'd be unseemly!

kingfish superman ice cream (kingfish 2.0), Thursday, 15 September 2005 01:22 (twenty years ago)

"God in his wisdom has provided man with natural forks - his fingers. Therefore it is an insult to Him to substitute artificial metallic forks for them when eating."[Giblin]

Leeeeeeeee (Leee), Saturday, 17 September 2005 18:42 (twenty years ago)

I'm actually sort of impressed by the Lees quote. I did not actually expect anyone to have the recognition that the sky didn't fall when gays started marrying so it might as well stay legal.

Maria (Maria), Saturday, 17 September 2005 18:54 (twenty years ago)

FWIW, that quote came from the 11th century when an Italian Doge married a Byzantine princess who brought over the barbaric custom of using tableware.

Leeeeeeeee (Leee), Saturday, 17 September 2005 19:33 (twenty years ago)

one year passes...
quoted just for this line:

And so the mentality of the mentally-ill-radical-gay-mafia amongst us finally reveals its ugly head.

talking about the Washington State marriage/kids initiative

kingfishy (kingfish 2.0), Tuesday, 6 February 2007 18:24 (eighteen years ago)

How to join mafia pls?

Abbott (Abbott), Tuesday, 6 February 2007 21:09 (eighteen years ago)

more wisdom on the subject, included the stretched metaphor at the end:

...The goal of same-sex marriage proponents is to elevate homosexuality to the same moral level as heterosexuality. If children are not the sole purpose of marriage, they say, any marriage is merely a grouping of two people who love each other. This is absurd. Marriage is implicitly about the relationship between man and woman. Marriage is codification of the idea that a man and a woman in a committed and sexual union make each other and the surrounding society better.

Women and men are inherently different. They are not interchangeable parts. Men have different strengths and weaknesses than women. A marital relationship between a man and a woman provides spiritual enrichment for each. The union between a single man and a single woman is, as the liturgy says, blessed.

That this blessed union produces the blessing of children demonstrates the Divine origin of such unions. Children are not merely the product of traditional marriage and the beneficiaries of it; they are Divine confirmation that the union of man and woman is special and good. The fact that certain traditional marriages do not produce children does not invalidate the general point that men and women belong together, just as the fact that broken cars exist does not demonstrate that ignition keys ought generally to be put in exhaust pipes...

http://media2.salemwebnetwork.com/Townhall//ColPics/columnistsShapiro.gif

kingfishy (kingfish 2.0), Wednesday, 7 February 2007 20:16 (eighteen years ago)

What comes first, the ignition key or the exhaust pipe?

Laurel (Laurel), Wednesday, 7 February 2007 20:20 (eighteen years ago)

omg @ exhaust pipe

Curt1s St3ph3ns, Thursday, 8 February 2007 03:37 (eighteen years ago)

In one sense, Washington's same-sex advocates do us a favor: They make clear that in order to deny homosexual marriage, we must uphold the beautiful and natural distinctions between men and women.

Oh I can't wait.

Curt1s St3ph3ns, Thursday, 8 February 2007 03:40 (eighteen years ago)

I am married, straight, childless, and a resident of Washington State. I seriously want to find out how to sign this petition.

joygoat (joygoat), Thursday, 8 February 2007 03:57 (eighteen years ago)

note that the author of that piece is a 23 year old unmarried virgin, so he's balls-deep in knowledge of exhaust pipes and how these differences between men and women work

kingfishy (kingfish 2.0), Thursday, 8 February 2007 04:39 (eighteen years ago)


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.