Posted on 01/18/2005 10:13:20 AM PST by Cracker72
The slim majority that supported the proposed constitutional amendment banning gay marriage last year has been thrown into doubt with the recent resignations of three legislators who oppose gay marriage and a net increase of two gay-marriage supporters in the crop of newly elected legislators.
With the start of the new legislative session, a Globe analysis indicates that supporters of gay marriage appear to be gaining ground in their effort to defeat the proposed amendment to ban same-sex marriage. The Legislature voted 105 to 92 for the amendment in March, but it would have to pass one more roll call to reach the 2006 ballot for voter consideration.
One leading gay-marriage opponent said he sensed a shift against the constitutional ban.
"I will not be surprised if the Legislature defeats that amendment," said Ron Crews, former president of the Massachusetts Family Institute and a leader in the social conservative movement to ban same-sex marriages in Massachusetts. Some gay-marriage opponents are against the amendment because it would create civil unions for gay couples in addition to banning marriage.
Gay-marriage opponents who want to pass the ban need 101 votes in the 200-member Legislature. They cleared that hurdle by just four votes in March.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
This is just to keep the voters from having a say.
"This is just to keep the voters from having a say."
Does MA not have an initiative petition process? In OK we can circulate petitions and if enough valid signatures are gathered, have something voted on by the people as a "State Question." If the question passes it ammends the state's constitution.
Yes, we have a ballot initiative process here in MA. But our Politburo is more than willing to utterly disregard a referrendum outcome that they don't agree with.
Yes but since the State SC interpreted the State Constitution as allowing gay marriage (would have loved to see that run up the flag pole in 1700) the Amending the Constitution is needed requiring a mjaority of both houses in special session in consecutive years.
Yes, we do have an initiative petition process and this particular petition was delivered to the legislature with more than enough signatures at least 3 years ago. The legislature ignored it.
Yes, it is quite sad. This state is lost. This past November, my congressional district had a great Republican challenger for our State House seat. Family man, self-made small business owner, all-around great guy.
The demonrat incumbant, besides being an entrenched commie bureaucrat who knows nothing about actually working for a living, is also a homosexual.
The worthless homosexual commie bureaucrat was reelected.
*sigh*
This is the same old, same old. Whenever the RATS are on the wrong side of an issue, they claim they have won, it does not make any difference or that a poll shows the Pubbies will lose.
This has a much to do with a new speaker of the house. Finneran, while a slimey little Napolean, got the measure passed through the legislature last year. The new speaker is anti-ammendment. And the speaker controls the house in MA. He doles out committee assignments, which are worth up to $30K per. It's like a mafia don. you don't want to cross the speaker. He actually has more power than the governor.
What is wrong with the voters of Massachusetts????
Why didnt they vote to dump the pro-gay-marriage radicals when they had a chance??
They like Judicial tyranny, the media elites dictating their cultural future, and the legislature sitting on their hands?
Sad.
Heck, I wouldn't vote for that "ban." It doesn't ban gay marriage. It bans the use of the word "marriage" by gay couples who can then only marry under the term "civil union." It's worthless.
That's deceptive. The people were never given a say, and they have been told by their state's high court that they never will get a say. The issue never won a majority in the legislature, and it likely never would. But the legislative candidates could run from the issue during their campaigns, telling the people that the courts have ruled. Goodbye republican gov't. Hello judicial tyranny. Now the people are left needing a super majority to even get to vote on the matter. Then, they would only get to vote on the word "marriage."
It is very clever -- though very deceptive and anti-democratic/republican gov't -- to stage the issue as inevitable. Liberals control Massachusetts and the people only THINK they play a part in the process.
How depressing! The gay agenda just moves forward, getting government to promote homosexual activity, and nobody cares!
In Oklahoma an initiative petition goes up to the people for vote, the legislature cannot stop it. If approved, then it ammends the constitution. It appears that MA does not trust the people to ammend the document that governs them.
I'm waiting for the lightning from above. I just hope it misses our house.
The people of Oklahoma can override the legislature. An initiative petition that is put forward for a vote of the people (the legislature cannot stop it) and approved ammends the state's constitution. Your constitution apparently didn't trust the people.
"In 1997, the Legislative leaders concocted a scheme to "adjourn" the Legislature immediately after convening to consider an amendment; in other words allowing a majority of the Legislature to thwart the will of the requisite 25%. The Supreme Judicial Court okayed this move, and the Boston Globe ran cover for them."
Sounds like you good people of Mass. need to take the government back from your legislators and courts.
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.