Warning: include(/home/queerty/public_html/commented.php) [function.include]: failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /home/queerty/public_html/queer/news/massachusetts-votes-to-forward-gay-nup-ban-20070102.php on line 105
Warning: include() [function.include]: Failed opening '/home/queerty/public_html/commented.php' for inclusion (include_path='.:/usr/lib/php:/usr/local/lib/php') in /home/queerty/public_html/queer/news/massachusetts-votes-to-forward-gay-nup-ban-20070102.php on line 105
Editorial Director
David Hauslaib | Email
Editor
Andrew Belonsky | Email
Publisher
Jossip Initiatives
Hell and damnation! Despite Governor Elect Deval Patrick's request that lawmaker's again avoid voting on revisiting the gay-nup debate, Massachusett's lawmakers have voted to advance a proposed constitutional amendment that will ban future gay marriages and define the allegedly sacred institution as being between a man and a woman. The Boston Globe elaborates:
The supporters of the amendment collected signatures from 170,000 people in an effort to get the question on the ballot.The vote comes just days after outgoing Governor Mitt Romney threatened to withhold legislative pay increases lest a vote be taken. Last month, lawmakers called a recess, thus putting the vote off until after the holiday. Had they not voted today, the measure would have died. In light of their actions, the state Supreme Court wagged their finger, insisting the elected officials had done their constituents an injustice by refusing to vote. Of the controversial measure, Deval said:The amendment would need to be approved by 50 member of the current Legislature and 50 members of the new Legislature before going to voters on the 2008 ballot. On Tuesday, 61 lawmakers backed moving the measure forward, compared to 132 opposed.
This is not just another question for popular decision. This is a question, under the equal protection clause, about what freedoms the minority is entitled to... This is the first time that the petition process has ever been used to consider reinserting discrimination into the constitution.Although, we hate to admit it, but we suppose the Supreme Court's right in their decision: if 170,000 people feel so strongly about the issue, it's certainly the lawmaker's responsibility to uphold democratic measures etc etc. Still, we're none-too-pleased.
For his part, Mitt Romney said, "Thank Jesus in Heaven, maybe now I have a chance for that presidential nomination," before rubbing his hands together, cackling and disappearing in a puff of fire, brimstone and cheap cologne.
Never fear, kiddies - the vote must still go through another round of legalities before it can be put on the 2008. All is not lost...
holla@queerty.com
Gay Cruises
Funny Shit
Warning: include(/home/queerty/public_html/ad_network_370.php) [function.include]: failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /home/queerty/public_html/assets/sidebar_footer_pages.php on line 70
Warning: include() [function.include]: Failed opening '/home/queerty/public_html/ad_network_370.php' for inclusion (include_path='.:/usr/lib/php:/usr/local/lib/php') in /home/queerty/public_html/assets/sidebar_footer_pages.php on line 70
Put your ad here
what you expoused in your piece:
"Although, we hate to admit it, but we suppose the Supreme Court's right in their decision: if 170,000 people feel so strongly about the issue, it's certainly the lawmaker's responsibility to uphold democratic measures etc etc.'
Almost amounts to rule of the majority. We live in a liberal democracy. Minorities are protected from the rule of the majority, or as the founders called it protecting us from the tyranny of the majority.
I keep seeing arguments slowly slip bit by bit into to the popular rather than factual view of how our government works. I would have hoped some of us gays would know enough to understand why such arguments are flawed.
i was there yesterday. the vote on marriage people brought in the nuns and all the blue hairs stood there and prayed the rosary. they all want your seat on the bus, but they can stand for hours when it's time to pray.
i never thought 70 year olds would taunt anyone, but aprantly, they missed their senior citizen discount dinner to stand and taunt the gays. they want your respect, but they won't give it to you.
i can't believe that 2/3 of the votes were against the amendment, yet it still goes through. there's a majority speaking for the minorty, but it's still not enough.
hopefully with the new folks in and the old out, we'll be able to swing the vote.
if this does make it to the ballot, maybe there will be a few less blue hairs to cast their vote.
We are so disgusted and stunned here in Massachusetts after all the effort, protest, money, time, and passion that went in to prevent this from happening. Mitt Romney is an asshole who is doing this simply to pander to the homophobes in middle America. The GLBT people of Mass and their supporters are a tough bunch and we will not back down!
How the hell does a constitutional amendment pass with only 25% of the vote? shouldn't 50% (AT LEAST!) be required!?
So let's say it DOES pass, what's to stop the gays (that's us) from proposing one to counter it, changing it back with the existing 132 votes on our side? I'm from Massachusetts, and this really really doesn't make any sense to me.
We should also remember things: people are becoming more, not less, accepting of gays. And the new legislature will be more, not less, liberal.
Also, what chance does this have of passing a popular vote? What percentage of people currently support it, and what percentage is required to pass? Anyone have this info?
Dear Folk!
How you have met Christmas?
You have brought a smile to my face all year long. ... I never would have met such a fun, interesting group of people.
Mark [url=http://cheap-oem-software.lavaeasy.info]Oem[/url]