Mass. Lawmakers Agree on Gay Marriage Ban

AP | 3/29/04 | JENNIFER PETER

[HostileTerritory]

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.

[thoughtomator]

Christ doesn't like homosexuality, either... something about an abomination.

[onedoug]

...would ban gay marriage and legalize it....

How very Kerryesque.

[B Knotts]

What's the difference? Only the name has been changed.

"A 'gay marriage' by any other name would smell as foul."

[aimhigh]

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

[jimt]

Apparently they've forgotten "Go and sin no more."

[Blood of Tyrants]

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.

[OXENinFLA]

"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."

[jwalburg]

No. You are wrong. The new, improved GLT translations says, Go and JUDGE no more:)

[jwalburg]

translations=translation

[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.

[mtbopfuyn]

The only thing holding Kerry back from joining the ranks of Rosie is John Heinz's millions.

[cwb]

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!

[OpusatFR]

"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.

[Guillermo]

Ain't that the truth...

"Go and judge no more, and if you do judge, you will be judged by us."

[Unam Sanctam]

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.

[plain talk]

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.

[DameAutour]

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

[TakeitBack]

"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.