From Southcoast Today:
With the vote too close to call, Gov. Deval Patrick and national Democratic leaders were pressuring lawmakers to defeat a proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage when the state Legislature meets in Constitutional Convention today.
U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and U.S. Sen. Edward Kennedy called wavering legislators in the past several days. And former Gov. William F. Weld asked state House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi for a list of lawmakers he could call to urge them to oppose the amendment.
Evelyn Reilly of the Massachusetts Family Institute complained of “unprecedented pressure” from the governor and national political leaders. But she was confident the amendment would pass today and go to the statewide ballot in November 2008.
Both Speaker DiMasi and Senate President Therese Murray, who presides over the convention, oppose the amendment.
Political insiders openly speculated that Sen. Murray would postpone the vote if there were not enough votes to defeat the amendment. Gov. Patrick said last week the convention could be put off if there are not enough votes to defeat it.
Opponents of gay marriage were undaunted.
“I think there is a very strong likelihood that there will be a vote, and that our votes will hold,” Ms. Reilly said outside the House chamber. “These legislators have already withstood tremendous pressure. We don’t think that they are going to fade.”
Arline Isaacson, the co-chairwoman of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus, said gay marriage supporters had to pick up at least four to five votes to defeat the amendment. She planned to work through the evening.
“We’re not there yet,” she said, ducking into a side entrance of the Statehouse.
If the legislature doesn’t trust the voters of Massachusetts, they should kick ’em out and choose a new electorate.
Civil rights should never be put to the vote.
This isn’t about civil rights. This is about extra, special rights awarded only to a minority, and dealing with a fundamental change in a social institution that pre-dates concepts like civil rights.
“Civil rights shouldn’t be put to a vote”, rather they should be put to the Bible.Rights not granted in scripture should not be supported.
The chance to give the voters a voice in this matter has died. The legislature has just killed it. I know how far Mass is to the left and I know that making this an issue of civil rights is pc balderdash, but I alsoi think that refusing to allow the voters to speak will have real repercussions in subsequent elections, for now the Other Side is really furious and what is patently supression of democratic process. Civil rights for one side, the supression of the came for the other: Many will see it precisely this way.
But Mass is a bellwether, and this will set off ripples strongly encourage those who hunger and thirst for homosexual marriage. For people like myself, this may be the Judas Kiss for any hope that the country will see the manifest undesirability of homosexual marriage. The Left says again and again that Mass.’s marriage law has done no harm but such patent nonsense – who knows it better that we, of the harm being done! – will effect no one’s better judgment nor change anyone’s mind.
I cannot tell you how the potential success for Schori and all her minions sticks in my craw. We talk here, but at last we are helpless. TEC may wither and die, but the damage will be done. American will survive this smallpox, but the scarring is permanent. LM
The corrupt Democrat liberal legislature has spoken–the people were told to take a hike. The thing is so totally corrupt that leaders of liberal organizations here in Ma. are whining on local media about how hard it was to keep switched votes bought. As the head of the teacher’s union (also a Gay Activist) complained–everytime they bought someone off, the legislator upped the ante. And our governor was openly offering jobs for legislators who switched to the gay marriage side. Usually corrupt lobbyists and politicians at least have the decency to somewhat hide their lack of integrity. But-hey -this is Mass. and creates sewage which smells and looks like sewage even if the liberals here call it ice cream.
Civil rights should never be put to the vote.
Sooo, where do you think they came from in the first place? Are you not aware that the Bill of Rights was put to the vote by elected representatives? Should not changes in the meaning of those rights also be put to the same vote?
“Civil rights should never be put to a vote.” That is absurd. Nothing is a civil right until it is voted upon. That’s why by very definition it is a “civil” right! Marriage is not and has never been a civil right, (nor an God given right for that matter.) From a legal standpoint, marriage is and has always been regulated by the state (i.e., civil licenses granted by state and/or municipality, the regulation of ages of consent, whi might officiate at a marriage, etc.) So while one might want to argue for the civil recognition of same sex relationship on the basis of equal protection, it is ridiculous to claim it a civil right. This kind of empty-headed emotional appeal, along with serious money, lobbyists from outside the Commonwealth like Nancy Pelosi, and a lot of political promises by Gov. Deval Patrick defeated the proposal to let the citizens of Massachusetts define marriage. It is a sad day and the the action of the the state legislators is despicable, not for those who uphold the traditional view of marriage, but for the fundamental ideal of American law that the citizens be allowed to give their consent to the laws which govern them. Once more, behold the fascism of the liberal!
I love it when liberals “preach” “Civil rights should never be put to the vote.” as #2 does. It only goes to show their ignorance of US history. #8 has only listed some of the rights. I give you the following “rights” that came into being and only came into being by VOTING: Women’s right to vote, American Indians becoming US Citizens, The Afro-American Civil Rights issues of the 1960’s.(no poll tax, etc.) the right of 18 year-olds to vote. And I’m sure there are others.
Many claim that the US Supreme Court RULING concerning abortions is a right. Look at the great controversy that has existed since that fateful day. Isn’t it interesting that no VOTED right has ever created such a societal mess?
Marriage is NOT a right as defined by the Constitution. Marriage in any US state requires a license. You do not need a license to exercise any rights.
Marriage is a right given only by God, with explicit conditions (one man and one woman).
Today, the MA legislature has decided it is God. May GOD have mercy on us all.
H
#11–One of the interesting things about today’s vote in the Mass State Legislature is that it only passed because 10 people changed their votes. Eight of these people were elected specifically on their promise to bring the issue to the vote of the general public. They were strong-armed. Then, many other legislators (and let’s face it, most of the State House is democratic) who voted against the measure to bring the issue before the public were strongly pressured by the new democratic governor and the national party. And while I hate to be too cynical about it all, I do live in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and I suspect that today’s vote has less to do with the issue of same sex marriage than with how much change in next year’s budget will dribble down from Boston to the rest of the state.
Oops, I meant why the proposal to bring the question to the public failed, not passed.
#11/ Your inference that the vote, if general, would be the same as the legislature’s may well be true.
It is also true that the Globe has made much out of those who changed their position to vote against bringing the issue to referendum. This smells very bad indeed, even though the evidence is circumstantial.
However, the bitter lobbying (and, I suspect, the “buying” of votes in the form of promises) strongly suggests that the legislature so feared the outcome that they had to all that was possible to keep the issue from referendum. If this is so, the legislators may well have known what we cannot know, that there was opposition in the public that belied the lopsided vote in the legislature. It is a reasonable question: Unless the issue is in real doubt, why not put the issue to a referendum whose outcome will silence all future objection?
Such a vote would be final, and yet the Mass. Left dared not take it. Isn’t this suggestive,#11? LM
#3 Rolling Eyes, “This isn’t about civil rights. This is about extra, special rights awarded only to a minority, and dealing with a fundamental change in a social institution that pre-dates concepts like civil rights.” I suggest to you that heterosexual marriage rights are “special rights,” in that they are granted to a class and denied to another class.
No special rights are being asked for by the LGBT community, only access to the rights granted others.
Matt (#15) The changed votes would definitely have changed the outcome since blocking the measure to put the issue on the ballot requires 2/3 by the rules of the constitution ( rmember this was a constitutional convention). As for the Globe article: the Globe has been pretty much in the LGBT camp from the get-go in 2001. I have no doubt that any number of leglislators have gotten calls from people in their districts, but is it reall that likely that the people who had elected representatives on the premise that they would vote to put the same sex issue on the ballot, would themselves change their minds is such short order ( November to June?). I do not think so and I still believe that the pressure from the state’s democratic party, Gov Patrick, and the national democratic party (eg Pelosi and Howard Dean) coupled with promises (i.e., the state budget) moved the issue. It is intersting to note that former Gov Romney is rapidly rising in the polls (the polls of those who actually are likely to vote). He was silent and everyone in the Commonwealth knows how he flipped flopped while here, now championing himself as the guardian of all that is good and true and holy. However, imagine the fear among democrats both in Massachusets and nationally, if after the Commonwealth became the first state to approve same sex marriage, the legislature voted to put the issue on the general election’s ballot. It would certainly look like they are not the party reflecting the will of the people at all and it would lend support to Romney’s claims (largely implied) that he could have done more for the people of Massachusetts but he was constantly opposed by big bad and mean democrats. PadreWayne,#16, Marriage is not and has never been a “right” for anyone.
Matt, your argument is laughable on its face. If the people of Mass. really did want to keep gay marriage then its proponents would have wanted to put it to the vote to give it greater legitimacy. Keeping it out of the people’s hands can only mean that the legislators strongly suspected that the people might vote against gay marriage. Your quote about a supposed (I generally assume all stories such as this from politicians are pure lies) “grandmother” who “did not want any of her grandchildren to be denied the right to marry the person they love” is itself devoid of sense. Why would she fear her potential gay children not having that right if the majority of the people support it?
If you really don’t mean to be combative try using a little logic. But logic is generally absent from the pro-gay side. There is just emotion and manipulation.
Comes in really handy, though, to be able to KEEP IT FROM a public vote, doesn’t it? Avoids all that potential embarassment, and avoids all those homosexual activists from having to go public with explicit arguments before the electorate. Can’t tell what might happen then… maybe the right folks would win, but maybe not. Much better to sweep it under the rug with legislative action by our betters who know more about those things than we do.
Doesn’t a 25%-75% vote against a constitutional ban suggest that the people would be similarly inclined?
What do the polls say? Are the people really as inclined as their representatives? Do you honestly think that politicians always faithfully represent their consituents? Look at what the idiots in Washington are doing with immigration despite overwhelming opposition from the people.
And the 75/25 vote wasn’t againts the consitutional ban. It wasn’t against putting it on the ballot. Again, you fail to even try to explain why they would do that if they actually believed the people would be against the ban. Not so much laughable, I guess, as pathetic.
On the whole, Matt’s judgment is consistent and sound. And I must say, Matt, I am baffled to know what to make of this vote, what it really means.
Logic says that, if the supporters of killing the discussion were so sure of their strength, they would want the referendum. There isplenty of evidence that Mass. is behind homosexual marriage and that the voters really and truly think of it as a civil right. It isn’t a civil right, but this isn’t the issue. The issue is what the voters think. So I cannot imgine why it should not go to referendum – and yet, the legislators did what they did. I am still at a loss to understand the raison d’etre. I know one thing though, this is going to stir the pot more deeply. The homophile agenda people will be energized; they smell broad victories, and the traditionalmarriage people will be increasingly on the defensive. Maybe. But the slips between the cup and the lip in politics, well……. LM
Seems as though some pro-family folks in Mass. are energized by the legislature’s betrayal. Perhaps nothing will come of it, but perhaps we will find out as time goes on that the homosexualists have finally overreached themselves in that State.
Lord, visit your people in Massachussets and strengthen them to fight for your Word. Help them bring repentence to the homosexualists and give them your salvation. +