Skip to comments.
Mass. Lawmakers Agree on Gay Marriage Ban
AP
| 3/29/04
| JENNIFER PETER
Posted on 03/29/2004 12:12:36 PM PST by kattracks
BOSTON - The Massachusetts Legislature adopted a new version of a state constitutional amendment Monday that would ban gay marriage and legalize civil unions, eliminating consideration of any other proposed changes. The vote came at the opening of the third round of a constitutional convention on the contentious issue, as competing cries of "Jesus Christ" and "Equal Rights" shook the Statehouse outside the legislative chamber.
Lawmakers had voted earlier this month in favor of a similar amendment. The revised version adopted Monday would ask voters to simultaneously ban gay marriage and legalize civil unions rather than taking those steps separately. It clarifies that civil unions would not grant federal benefits to gay couples.
By adopting the new language, lawmakers blocked consideration of several other amendments including ones that would have weakened the civil union provision and one that would have split the question in two, allowing voters to weigh in separately on gay marriage and civil unions.
The Legislature must still take two more votes before the amendment is considered approved. If that happens, it will go to the 2005-2006 Legislature for further consideration before going to the voters in the fall of 2006.
Under a state high court ruling issued in November, the nation's first state-sanctioned gay marriage will take place in Massachusetts on May 17. The constitutional amendment would have no effect on this deadline, but Gov. Mitt Romney has said he might seek a way to delay the marriages if a constitutional amendment were adopted this year.
The version adopted Monday is the best possible solution, said Senate Minority Leader Brian Lees.
"There is no single clear solution to this issue," said Lees, who sponsored the measure with Senate President Robert Travaglini. "If there was such a solution, we wouldn't be here today. But this amendment attempts to strike a balance between those citizens who want to be heard in defining marriage yet never taking away the rights and benefits of gay and lesbian couples."
Gay-rights supporters wanted lawmakers to uphold the full marriage rights accorded by the state's highest court, the Supreme Judicial Court, in November. Conservatives wanted an amendment that defines marriage as between a man and a woman but without creating civil unions.
While gay marriage supporters dominated the halls of the Statehouse on the three previous days of the constitutional convention, in mid-February and mid-March, hundreds of religious opponents of gay marriage mixed into the crowd on Monday.
Police tried to ensure that the close quarters and high emotions did not lead to physical conflicts.
"This is a very crowded situation, and it could be one in which some little thing might set something off," said State Police Lt. Paul Maloney. "It's a much more intermingled group than we've seen in the past."
After each intonation of "Jesus" by gay rights opponents, gay rights advocates tacked on "loves us." The two opposing sides then shouted "Jesus Christ" and "Equal Rights" simultaneously, blending into a single, indistinguishable chant.
"I'm just here to support Christ," said Olivia Long, 32, of Boston, a parishioner at New Covenant Christian Church. "We love all people, but we want to keep it like it was in the beginning."
Next to her, Eric Carreno, 26, of Somerville, held a sign that read: "Christ does not discriminate. Why do Christians?"
"I think my Christian brothers and sisters need to understand tolerance," Carreno said. "They need to understand that Jesus never said anything bad against a homosexual."
San Francisco officials have performed more than 3,400 same-sex marriages and some other counties and cities have challenged laws barring such unions. President Bush (news - web sites) has endorsed a movement to amend the U.S. Constitution to ban the practice.
TOPICS: Culture/Society; Front Page News; News/Current Events; US: Massachusetts
KEYWORDS: civilunion; civilunions; homosexualagenda; marriage; marriageamendment; prisoners; samesexmarriage
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-64 next last
1
posted on
03/29/2004 12:12:37 PM PST
by
kattracks
To: kattracks
These headlines are misleading, but we are getting closer to this Civil Unions amendment.
Still one more vote ahead. That's the one that counts. Every success up to this point has included the support of people opposed to the amendment that voted for it as a parliamentary maneuver.
I predict it will pass, but we do not know yet.
To: kattracks
Christ doesn't like homosexuality, either... something about an abomination.
3
posted on
03/29/2004 12:16:42 PM PST
by
thoughtomator
(Voting Bush because there is no reasonable alternative)
To: kattracks
...would ban gay marriage and legalize it....How very Kerryesque.
4
posted on
03/29/2004 12:17:04 PM PST
by
onedoug
To: kattracks
What's the difference? Only the name has been changed.
"A 'gay marriage' by any other name would smell as foul."
5
posted on
03/29/2004 12:19:32 PM PST
by
B Knotts
(Salve!)
To: kattracks
Has anyone noticed how society just got blackmailed? Give the gays "civil unions" or they will get married. They shouldn't have either.
6
posted on
03/29/2004 12:20:03 PM PST
by
aimhigh
To: kattracks
Apparently they've forgotten "Go and sin no more."
7
posted on
03/29/2004 12:20:25 PM PST
by
jimt
To: kattracks
The revised version adopted Monday would ask voters to simultaneously ban gay marriage and legalize civil unions rather than taking those steps separately.So much for allowing the people to decide on what they want.
8
posted on
03/29/2004 12:23:53 PM PST
by
Blood of Tyrants
(Even if the government took all your earnings, you wouldn't be, in its eyes, a slave.)
To: kattracks
"I don't know what the Massachusetts Legislature thinks it's doing by trying to amend the State's Constitution, don't they know I'm trying to run for President."
9
posted on
03/29/2004 12:26:17 PM PST
by
OXENinFLA
(http://www.johnkerry.com/onlinehq/bbn.html -----JFK links you to DU.----- RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!!!!)
To: jimt
No. You are wrong. The new, improved GLT translations says, Go and JUDGE no more:)
10
posted on
03/29/2004 12:27:13 PM PST
by
jwalburg
(No Condi under oath until Kerry releases own med records)
To: jwalburg
translations=translation
11
posted on
03/29/2004 12:27:42 PM PST
by
jwalburg
(No Condi under oath until Kerry releases own med records)
To: thoughtomator
I've never seen a quote from Christ calling homosexuality an abomination or even making reference to it.
Leviticus and Paul had a lot to say about it, though.
To: kattracks
The only thing holding Kerry back from joining the ranks of Rosie is John Heinz's millions.
To: HostileTerritory
I think the Gay movement is getting more than they ever dreamed of in civil unions. They've played this masterfully. While they would've loved full marriage rights, I think even they knew this was too much to ask. But as a good salesman, they asked for it a lot, knowing they'd be offered a little less, but still getting what they wanted without a real fight. Heck, most people were against civil unions...but now were "giving" it to them because Gay marriage is just too much. Bravo!
14
posted on
03/29/2004 12:32:58 PM PST
by
cwb
(Kerry: The only person who could make Bill Clinton look like a moderate.)
To: kattracks
"I think my Christian brothers and sisters need to understand tolerance," Carreno said. "They need to understand that Jesus never said anything bad against a homosexual."
He didn't say anything about sex with beasts either.
15
posted on
03/29/2004 12:42:41 PM PST
by
OpusatFR
(Sure they want to tone down the rhetoric. We are winning.)
To: jwalburg
Ain't that the truth...
"Go and judge no more, and if you do judge, you will be judged by us."
16
posted on
03/29/2004 12:42:48 PM PST
by
Guillermo
(Your own personal Konservative Klick-Guerilla)
To: kattracks
Christ does not discriminate. Christ did NOT say that any behavior whatsover is moral and acceptable. He taught the woman caught in adultery to go and sin no more.
To: B Knotts
One big difference is the issue of federal benefits. How would these couples file tax returns - as married or single? I believe, if I'm reading this right, they would still file as single. If so, that would be somewhat of a victory for marriage. Although I'm opposed to civil unions as well they will happen in certain liberal areas.
To: kattracks
Jesus Christ condemned ALL fornication, which is every kind of unlawful intercourse. He didn't explictly mention bestiality or incest either. But he did condemn fornication,
"19 For example, out of the heart come wicked reasonings, murders, adulteries, fornications, thieveries, false testimonies, blasphemies. 20 These are the things defiling a man; but to take a meal with unwashed hands does not defile a man." Matthew 15:19,20
also see Mark 7:21
19
posted on
03/29/2004 1:01:50 PM PST
by
DameAutour
(It's not Bush, it's the Congress.)
To: kattracks
"Gay-rights supporters wanted lawmakers to uphold the full marriage rights accorded by the state's highest court, the Supreme Judicial Court, in November. Conservatives wanted an amendment that defines marriage as between a man and a woman but without creating civil unions."
A typical example of liberal media bias (probably not even realized by the author): Gay-rights supporters vs. conservatives. MA has about a 30% registered Republican population, yet put to a referendum, and this would never come close to passing. How could this be? Of course, this is exactly why the ultra-liberal, elitist judges have legislated from the Bench.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-64 next 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson