Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

MA Legislature Gives Preliminary Approval to State Constitutional Amendment Banning Gay Marriage
FNC

Posted on 03/11/2004 3:01:24 PM PST by William McKinley

Another Fox News alert.


TOPICS: Breaking News; US: Massachusetts
KEYWORDS: civilunion; cults; homosexualagenda; marriage; marriageamendment; perverts
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-54 last
To: WOSG
I am convinced this is a defeat for conservatives.

Absolutely.

When Howard Dean gave Vermonters "civil unions" a few years ago, it was considered a radical idea.

Now gay unions are approved by most Americans in recent polls, although using the term gay "marriage" is still considered unpopular.

After a few years of Massachusetts gay marriages, I don't know if the American people will consider the concept as radical as today.

41 posted on 03/12/2004 3:36:01 PM PST by george wythe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: WOSG
The simple amendment, simply defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman, was defeated soundly in the joint session of the Legislature.

Yeas 44 - Nays 153

42 posted on 03/12/2004 3:44:04 PM PST by george wythe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: george wythe
"After a few years of Massachusetts gay marriages, I don't know if the American people will consider the concept as radical as today."

of course not. This is a slippery slope.
43 posted on 03/12/2004 3:44:47 PM PST by WOSG (http://freedomstruth.blogspot.com - Disturb, manipulate, demonstrate for the right thing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: george wythe
That's just sad!

I am sure the 'compromise' just let all the RINOs and 'pro-family' Dems to be 'against gay marriage' but for 95% of its effect.
44 posted on 03/12/2004 3:46:03 PM PST by WOSG (http://freedomstruth.blogspot.com - Disturb, manipulate, demonstrate for the right thing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: WOSG
What did we learn from this huge defeat?

The lesson I take is this. Unless we elect politicians who will appoint strict constructionists to the courts, we will be stuck with judges making new laws from the bench, even handing down de facto constitutional amendments.

If we think that Kerry's nominees and Bush's nominees to the US Supreme Court will be so similar, we will be rudely awaken.

45 posted on 03/12/2004 3:50:18 PM PST by george wythe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: george wythe
Indeed.

It takes *huge* political effort just to undo 1/2 of what 4 activist judges did.

46 posted on 03/12/2004 3:55:06 PM PST by WOSG (http://freedomstruth.blogspot.com - Disturb, manipulate, demonstrate for the right thing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: george wythe; WOSG
That was not a vote on the amendment proposal. From the link: "During consideration, Mr. Kelly of Dalton moved to adjourn the Joint Session, and the question on adjourning the Joint Session was determined by a call of the yeas and nays at a quarter before one o'clock P.M., as follows to wit (Yeas 44 - Nays 153)"

Back in February, the vote on a very similar amendment (no gay marriages, but neutral on the issue of civil unions) was rejected only by two votes.

47 posted on 03/12/2004 4:50:29 PM PST by inquest (The only problem with partisanship is that it leads to bipartisanship)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: WOSG
It takes *huge* political effort just to undo 1/2 of what 4 activist judges did.

All we need is one town - just one town - to refuse to carry out the court's illegal orders on May 17. Then just sit back and watch the fireworks.

48 posted on 03/12/2004 4:57:59 PM PST by inquest (The only problem with partisanship is that it leads to bipartisanship)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: inquest
"Back in February, the vote on a very similar amendment (no gay marriages, but neutral on the issue of civil unions) was rejected only by two votes."

Ah, a bit more encouraging, but a bit disappointing they couldnt make it with another 2 votes... But that makes some sense. The gay activists are now in a position where maybe 25% are for gay marriage and about 25% are for civil unions, and 50% for neither. ... so with the courts on their side they can get to at least civil unions.

49 posted on 03/12/2004 6:33:50 PM PST by WOSG (http://freedomstruth.blogspot.com - Disturb, manipulate, demonstrate for the right thing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: WOSG
I agree with you post 36. MA should not enshrine civil unions into their constitution. Very bad move.
50 posted on 03/12/2004 8:45:10 PM PST by King Black Robe (With freedom of religion and speech now abridged, it is time to go after the press.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: inquest
"All we need is one town - just one town - to refuse to carry out the court's illegal orders on May 17. Then just sit back and watch the fireworks."

Uh, that doesnt make sense, all it takes is one town in the state to marry homosexuals and they will flock there. so a town doesnt marry same-sex couples. 99 towns dont marry them. that wont stop them ... rest assured Providencetown *will* marry gays, so they all go out there and do it, and have a 'gay old time'.
51 posted on 03/12/2004 10:44:46 PM PST by WOSG (http://freedomstruth.blogspot.com - Disturb, manipulate, demonstrate for the right thing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: WOSG
Still, it'll drive them nuts, believe me. They don't care if they win only in places where they already congregate. That's not their goal. Their goal is to be in everybody's face everywhere.
52 posted on 03/12/2004 11:27:06 PM PST by inquest (The only problem with partisanship is that it leads to bipartisanship)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: inquest
Oh, I agree with that.

Stand for what you believe in, anywhere and anyplace.

But realize a few things. The Gay activists chose the battleground of MA for a reason: Because it was hard to change the constitution there.

They are fighting in Cali because they know they can get at least civil unions and they want to undo what was done in 2000 on this.

They have a very deep, persistent campaign out there.
100,000 gay couples 'raising kids' and demanding tax breaks and every goody we once gave to real married folks.

53 posted on 03/13/2004 10:24:59 AM PST by WOSG (http://freedomstruth.blogspot.com - Disturb, manipulate, demonstrate for the right thing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: inquest
You're right.

Thanks for your research.

54 posted on 03/15/2004 5:23:16 AM PST by george wythe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-54 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson