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

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 previous 1-2021-4041-6061-64 next last
To: longtermmemmory
In a word, no.
41 posted on 03/29/2004 3:13:12 PM PST by HostileTerritory
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

Comment #42 Removed by Moderator

Comment #43 Removed by Moderator

To: seamole
This is coming down just about as we thought it would, we have to split the question, is this still possible?
44 posted on 03/29/2004 3:59:30 PM PST by Little Bill (John F'n Kerry is Swine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: HostileTerritory
Unless Christianity is all just a fabrication, Christ certainly did believe in the Torah as God's Law, and thus also Leviticus 18:22 and repetitions thereof.
45 posted on 03/29/2004 4:12:24 PM PST by thoughtomator (Voting Bush because there is no reasonable alternative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

Comment #46 Removed by Moderator

To: seamole
Sorry, I wasn't thinking about the election...
47 posted on 03/29/2004 4:35:53 PM PST by HostileTerritory
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
This is precisely why an amendment is necessary. And the reason stated should not ideological but rather to avoid ridiculous confusion, lawsuits etc.
48 posted on 03/29/2004 4:36:01 PM PST by plain talk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: plain talk
The FMA would leave Mass civil unions intact and only in Mass. Unfortunatly Mr. "Plain Talk Express" has tried to bash it because Bush supports the FMA.
49 posted on 03/29/2004 4:40:39 PM PST by longtermmemmory (Vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: HostileTerritory
Every democrat who voted against marriage handed their opposition a silver bullet.
50 posted on 03/29/2004 4:42:04 PM PST by longtermmemmory (Vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: HostileTerritory
We're going to have same-sex couples marrying for two and a half years before any amendment could come into effect, is the problem.

This will be the interesting part. What do you think the practical consequences of this will be?
51 posted on 03/29/2004 4:44:58 PM PST by BikerNYC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: thoughtomator
Unless Christianity is all just a fabrication, Christ certainly did believe in the Torah as God's Law, and thus also Leviticus 18:22 and repetitions thereof.

Actually, I think Christ pretty explicitly brought a new understanding of the Leviticus code. You could use your line of argument to claim that Christ opposed eating shrimp and we all know that is not a valid criticism.

The Bible is pretty clear about homosexuality. All I'm saying is that you get into trouble if you try to link it explicitly to Jesus Christ and not the Leviticus code or the writings of Paul.
52 posted on 03/29/2004 4:46:57 PM PST by HostileTerritory
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
We should be so lucky... unfortunately I do not see more than a few seats switching hands over this issue. The Democrats who represent conservative districts mostly voted for the amendment.
53 posted on 03/29/2004 4:48:28 PM PST by HostileTerritory
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: BikerNYC
It's terra incognita for us all.
54 posted on 03/29/2004 4:49:12 PM PST by HostileTerritory
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: seamole
This is true, but frankly I'd be surprised if there are four justices who feel so strongly about this issue that they would overrule an actual amendment to the constitution. It is always possible, but I think it extremely unlikely.
55 posted on 03/29/2004 4:50:38 PM PST by HostileTerritory
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

Comment #56 Removed by Moderator

To: seamole
I don't think a stay is in the cards. The SJC isn't going to slap itself on the wrist. I'm already mentally counting that out.

As for impeaching the judges, I wish you good luck. I don't pretend to know about the prospects for that.
57 posted on 03/29/2004 5:46:33 PM PST by HostileTerritory
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: aimhigh
Has anyone noticed how society just got blackmailed? Give the gays "civil unions" or they will get married. They shouldn't have either.

You noticed. What public good is promoted by "civil unions," or "civil" sodomy, as it should be called.

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!

58 posted on 03/29/2004 5:52:36 PM PST by Aquinasfan (Isaiah 22:22, Rev 3:7, Mat 16:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: HostileTerritory
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.

Christ is the Word incarnate. He spoke through Moses and Paul.

59 posted on 03/29/2004 5:56:04 PM PST by Aquinasfan (Isaiah 22:22, Rev 3:7, Mat 16:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: HostileTerritory
I've never seen a quote from Christ calling homosexuality an abomination or even making reference to it.

He never called arson or drunk driving an abomination either. It these now OK?

60 posted on 03/29/2004 6:05:41 PM PST by aimhigh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-64 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.

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