Posted on 08/24/2005 6:17:51 PM PDT by DBeers
BOSTON --State legislators voted Wednesday to meet next month for a Constitutional Convention aimed at debating for the second time a proposed amendment replacing gay marriage in Massachusetts with Vermont-style civil unions.
Members of the House and Senate have already given initial approval to the amendment, but the state constitution requires them to approve identical language in two successive sessions before the amendment can be put before state voters. That would occur in 2006.
Legislative approval has been thrown into doubt after some supporters in the initial vote announced they had changed their mind. The most recent is Rep. Anthony Petruccelli, D-Boston, who was quoted this week as saying he will not vote for the proposal despite supporting it last year.
Then the measure would have to follow a route similar to the legislative proposal: It must be approved by two consecutive Constitutional Conventions, before being put to the voters in 2008.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
ping.
I thought this "gay marriage thing" was eventually suppose to come up for vote by the people of MA?
Civil unions are just as bad. Straight couples will rightly demand them too, as a lame and easy alternative to marriage.
WHEN WILL WE EVER GET TO VOTE ON THIS!!!!
I am not sure of what is going on...
From a national perspective it appears that the conservative legislators are either wimps or the very silent minority... It also appears that the majority liberal legislators as a whole are avoiding letting the people have at it -maybe they can then feign deniability and point to the justices that want to make Massachusetts the homosexual Niagara falls...
I was thinking the same thing.
Just let the people vote on it.
Agreed -Barney Frank with lipstick on is still Barney Frank...
How intolerant of you -you homophobe! You must submit to the homosexual agenda...
LOL
/sarcasm off
We were told that we were going to get a vote on this. If gay marriages are so great let us vote on it then.
do they still have the votes?
or is opposition now because they want to ban civil unions too?
I wonder if the legislature will try to table it again, in violation of the state constitution, like they did the last time a similar initiative was proposed. It might be different this time, because Romney will have his eye on them. If the legislators neglect their duty, and he says nothing in protest, he can kiss his presidential aspirations goodbye.
Homosexual Agenda Ping.
Funny thing - TPTB never want us little folks having our say about "gay" marriage. And if by chance a referendum squeaks through, it's ignored or stomped on, as in CA. Come on, if it's so good, let people have their say.
Note: Scripter and I are both going to be running this ping list for a while, so if you see any relevant articles please ping BOTH of us, and freepmail BOTH of us if you want on/off this pinglist.
Another initiative (sigh) is starting up in September to gather voter signatures. Why this wasn't done eariler is beyond me. This one will only require 25% of the hacks in the MA legislature to approve it..
Here is some info from its FAQ page....
Why is the Massachusetts Protection of Marriage Amendment necessary? .
What is the text of the Protection of Marriage Amendment? .
Why is the amendment language not as simple as previous amendments or those crafted in other states?
How many signatures must be collected in order for this amendment to go to the Constitutional Convention next year?
Who is allowed to sign the amendment petition?
If the signature drive is successful, what has to happen for the amendment to appear on the ballot?
Why not support the current Travaglini-Less Amendment that was already approved once by the Constitutional Convention?
Why are the homosexual marriages that have already taken place not nullified by this amendment?
Why does this amendment not ban homosexual civil unions?
Does not this amendment therefore just protect the word marriage and nothing more?
Is the definition of marriage an appropriate topic for the constitution?
What are the history of marriage protection efforts in Massachusetts?
Can the Legislature change the wording of a citizens petition like they did with the Travis Amendment in 2004?
What is this about reciprocal benefits for homosexual couples?
Does this not recognize their relationships as legitimate and accetable?
Why would the Senate President not do the same procedural blocking maneuver as in 2002?
Don't forget, the Dems made 'gay marriage' a part of their platform this summer at the state-wide Dem convention. Will that hurt them or help them, only time will tell...
In order to vote on it, the Legislature has to approve it at 3 consecutive conventions. They did not do that in 2000, instead they did a sort of filibuster tactic. IF they get enough votes this time, it will g to the people in 2006. Yes it creates civil unions, but the only alternative is to have them vote on the new proposed one, that grandfathers in the existing marriages, while banning any new. THAT will never fly with the court.
What has yet to be addressed is removal of the judges who imposed it. That is the only way to get rid of all this, completely.
They only have to approve it at 2 consecutive conventions. The convention in 2002 was fast-gaveled by then-Senate President Birmingham (stupid asshat) so nothing happened at that one.
I agree that Article 8 (getting rid of the judges) is very important!
I know, the 3 was a typo! Need to cut my fingernails, lol then maybe I can type!
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.