Gay marriage ballot measure essentially killed in Massachusetts

[Riley259]

The Massachusetts legislature voted to recess a vote on whether to move forward a potential ballot measure (for 2008) to decide whether gay marriage should be banned or not. By recessing to the final day of the legislative session for the year (1/2/07), it was clear that this strategy was a bald-faced attempt to kill the measure before the people of Mass. had a chance to vote on it. As a result, it’s likely that gay marriage will continue in this craziest of states. I feel like I’m in the belly of the beast…I guess it’s a toss-up between us and San Fran.

 

[gam197]

I read in the newspaper that they collected 170,000 signatures from voters to push it forth. I believe they only needed 66 thousand but I am sure they collected extras in case some names were thrown out.

One day left to vote.

 

[Riley259]

I read in the newspaper that they collected 170,000 signatures from voters to push it forth. I believe they only needed 66 thousand but I am sure they collected extras in case some names were thrown out.

One day left to vote.

You are correct - 170,000 signatures were collected to put this on the ballot and the overwhelmingly Catholic (but extremely liberal) legislature voted for a recess which even supporters of this ballot measure are saying is a virtual deathknell to this amendment question.

 

[Annunciata]

You are correct - 170,000 signatures were collected to put this on the ballot and the overwhelmingly Catholic (but extremely liberal) legislature voted for a recess which even supporters of this ballot measure are saying is a virtual deathknell to this amendment question.

I’m one of those 170,000 signatures … I’m so upset w/ this whole thing that sometimes I consider moving to another state…

 

[Riley259]

I’m one of those 170,000 signatures … I’m so upset w/ this whole thing that sometimes I consider moving to another state…

Me, too - I feel your pain and frustration.

 

[HoppityRedux]

Folks complained bitterly when a court took it upon itself to make ga marriage legal. They said it should be left to the legislature rather than a handul of unelected judges. Now the Massachusetts legislature has acted on the matter I’d say it is at least a step in the right direction.

 

[EDB]

I’m one of those 170,000 signatures … I’m so upset w/ this whole thing that sometimes I consider moving to another state…

DH and I are starting the work on where we will relocate!

 

[gam197]

I posted this under new Episcopal female bishop(head of church) but unsure if you saw. Many are fed up in MA

ATTLEBORO, MASS: All Saints, Attleboro, Leaves Episcopal Church, Joins AMiA

By David Virtue
www.virtueonline.org
10/10/2006

ATTLEBORO, MA: All Saints Episcopal Church, a 500-member orthodox congregation in the ultra-liberal diocese of Massachusetts, has voted through its rector and vestry to leave The Episcopal Church and affiliate with the evangelical Anglican Mission in America. This is the second parish following St. Paul’s, Brockton that has left the TEC for the AMIA with its rector the Rev. Dr. Jim Hiles.

“It’s been coming for some time,” said The Rev. Dr. Lance Guiffrida, 54, parish rector, citing the Episcopal Church’s moral and theological stances that have significantly departed from Holy Scripture.

“Our case is before the Diocesan Standing Committee. We have had no comment from the bishop’s office,” Guiffrida told VOL.

“We are hopeful; we are looking to negotiate the acquisition of our property. They have agreed to meet with us and that is a positive sign,” he said.

Asked if he would fight for the property in court, Guiffrida said, “We won’t go to court; we are prepared to walk away.”

“The vote by myself and the vestry was unanimous,” he said. Guiffrida told parishioners in an Oct. 1 letter that the leadership was seeking negotiations with the Bishop of Massachusetts, the Rt. Rev. M. Thomas Shaw, III SSJE.

 

[Riley259]

Folks complained bitterly when a court took it upon itself to make ga marriage legal. They said it should be left to the legislature rather than a handul of unelected judges. Now the Massachusetts legislature has acted on the matter I’d say it is at least a step in the right direction.

No, that’s the problem - the Massachusetts legislature **didn’t **allow a vote like it’s supposed to do. The recess to the last day of the legislative session essentially kills this ballot measure from proceeding further. Even Scot Lehigh, a staunch liberal and strong supporter of gay marriage, thought that the legislature circumvented the democratic process by recessing instead of voting. See his column about this issue below in today’s Boston Globe.

boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/11/14/gay_marriage_and_legislative_politics/

 

[HoppityRedux]

No, that’s the problem - the Massachusetts legislature **didn’t **allow a vote like it’s supposed to do. The recess to the last day of the legislative session essentially kills this ballot measure from proceeding further. Even Scot Lehigh, a staunch liberal and strong supporter of gay marriage, thought that the legislature circumvented the democratic process by recessing instead of voting. See his column about this issue below in today’s Boston Globe.

boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/11/14/gay_marriage_and_legislative_politics/

I agree the legislature did not allow the vote. But note it was the elected legislature acting, not the unelected court.

 

[rpp]

I agree the legislature did not allow the vote. But note it was the elected legislature acting, not the unelected court.

Has the Legislature acted improperly or illegally? If so, then I hope someone can file some kind of lawsuit to compell them to comply with the law / state constitution. Put this to the vote of the people. Massachusetts residents (what do you call them anyway? ) are not stupid and I suspect they are just like the residents everywhere else.

Let’s hope some people get moving in New Jersey as well.

Isn’t Democracy basically majority, not minority, rule?

 

[Riley259]

I agree the legislature did not allow the vote. But note it was the elected legislature acting, not the unelected court.

IMHO, both the court and legislature overstepped their bounds, forcing an agenda upon the people of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

 

[HoppityRedux]

IMHO, both the court and legislature overstepped their bounds, forcing an agenda upon the people of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

That may be. I would have loved to see a vote. However, after the action of the legislature, the whole situation can no longer be laid at the feet of the unelected judges. It is now open to the voters. They can easily vote the offending legislators out of office. Let’s see what they do.

 

[Riley259]

That may be. I would have loved to see a vote. However, after the action of the legislature, the whole situation can no longer be laid at the feet of the unelected judges. It is now open to the voters. They can easily vote the offending legislators out of office. Let’s see what they do.

Apparently there’s not enough outrage in this most liberal of states. The pro gay marriage camp actually gained legislatures during the last two election cycles. Jeff Jacoby makes some excellent points in his latest column in the Boston Globe. I disagree with him on one thing, though. He says that same-sex marriage will never be a civil right until the people have a chance to vote on it - I’ll go one step further and say that it’s impossible for gay marriage to ever be a civil right regardless of whether the people of Massachusetts ever get a chance to vote on it and the reason for that is because it is impossible to truly ever have gay marriage!

boston.com/news/specials/gay_marriage/articles/2006/11/15/democracy_and_same_sex_marriage/

 

[HoppityRedux]

Apparently there’s not enough outrage in this most liberal of states. The pro gay marriage camp actually gained legislatures during the last two election cycles. Jeff Jacoby makes some excellent points in his latest column in the Boston Globe. I disagree with him on one thing, though. He says that same-sex marriage will never be a civil right until the people have a chance to vote on it - I’ll go one step further and say that it’s impossible for gay marriage to ever be a civil right regardless of whether the people of Massachusetts ever get a chance to vote on it and the reason for that is because it is impossible to truly ever have gay marriage!

boston.com/news/specials/gay_marriage/articles/2006/11/15/democracy_and_same_sex_marriage/

We shouldn’t forget the word “civil” in civil right. That makes it a function of the legislature. The set of civil rights is a special creation of the law. That set may intersect with other sets of rights, but it is not necessary for it to be the same set or a subset of those other sets.