As you’ve heard by now, Tuesday’s election passed gay-marriage bans in seven states. Now, lawmakers in Massachusetts are convening to decide whether or not to ban gay-nups in the homo promised land.
While many of us may have thought the legislative nightmare ended back in 2004, when same-sex marriage got the legal okay, it seems that a conservative group has gone out of their way to collect over 120,000 signatures urging lawmakers to reconsider. Thus, a joint session has been called at which the pols will mull it over.
But, never fear readers, the so-called Constitutional Convention may not be as virile as you’d think. As 365 Gay reports, opponents have three ways to block the Convention from addressing homo-bliss:
The first would be for a motion to adjourn until after the new legislature is sworn in in January. If a majority of members approve it would kill the amendment which has a December expiration date. It would mean supporters of the amendment would have to begin collecting signatures all over again.
The second proposal would be a boycott of the session by enough members to ensure there would not be a quorum. The Convention needs 101 members to proceed.
The third possibility would be to simply tie up the session. The proposed amendment is not the only item on the agenda. A majority of lawmakers could push the issue down on the agenda and then tie up business on the other measures until the clock runs out on Thursday’s meeting.
We tend to think that it’s just the conservative’s last gasp. Although, we’re sure Mitt Romney‘s praying for the homo-hating best. The soon-to-be ex-governor’s an obnoxiously vocal opponent of gay-marriage and, in fact, gays in general. Considering that his gubernatorial candidate, Kelly Healey totally got her ass kicked by Demmie Deval Patrick – 55.6 v. 32.5 – we don’t have high hopes for Romney’s distasteful agenda.
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
Also, we never underestimate the power of surly, procrastinating politicians.
tlk
I’m proud to be a gay Democrat who loves Massachusetts. Especially now that we’ve elected our first Democrat governor in 16 looooooong years.
I’m not a Masshole.
Ryan
I’m hoping you got her name wrong on purpose. It’s actually Kerry Healey, but there’s some irony in there… after all, she only got 35% of the vote.
mr. magoo
this is the third time theyve propsed this bill, and if im correct, it cant be brought up ever again if it gets voted down again. so thats some potential good news.
Jeff Jones
Actually, it will be nearly impossible to vote down. They need only 25% of the legislature to approve. In other words, 75% of our elected representatives can vote this down in two successive sessions, and it will still go to the voters! All they need then is a simple majority. Makes for a pretty weak constitution, doesn’t it?
So if the initiative goes to a vote a the con-con, it will almost certainly go to a plebescite. Chances for a rejection at the ballot box look okay in MA-especially after AZ showed us that it can be done.
If the initiative goes down in legislature or at the ballot, it will be four years until it can be brought up again.
Boo hoo
Come on, what the HELL do you want marriage for? A handful of you will be married for 50 years, the rest of you will be throwing pumps at each other in court, deciding who gets what, I mean come on it is just not worth it, and if all this is just to prove you can, go fuck yourselves. Only lawyers will benefit, and you will end up being more miserable than us str8s.
Enjoy the freedoms you have to leave at will!! And you know some people will “pressure” their partners into marriage etc.
This is just a bad idea folks. You can solve things like property transfers with simple wills, hospitals can be gay friendly, and let you stay over, but really if your partner is THAT sick, let them sleep! My dad was recently in and my mom went home to get HER rest. So there really is just no justification for it, pass a law instead that says if a couple adopts, then both must provide in case of a break up, that covers it all really.
Drop this, it makes you look bad.
WTF? STR8s here?
Ya just don’t get it, do you Boo Hoo? We want the choice just like the rest of you. So far our divorce rate is almost nil, so our track record for long-term relationships is a lot better than yours.
Maybe stop spouting crap in a place you don’t understand? It makes you look an uneducated and pretentious git.