Posted on 11/05/2004 6:06:53 PM PST by Ahriman
Opponents of a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage in Massachusetts picked up at least two seats in the Legislature in this week's election, diminishing the measure's chances in the Bay State, even as voters in 11 other states overwhelmingly approved similar proposals. A total of 105 lawmakers voted for the amendment earlier this year, four more than the 101 necessary for passage. The measure must be approved again in the coming session before it can go on the November 2006 statewide ballot. The amendment would ban same-sex marriage, but allow gay couples to enter civil unions. Senate President Robert E. Travaglini, who presides over the Legislature's joint constitutional sessions, said through a spokeswoman yesterday that he will convene a Constitutional Convention with the same-sex marriage measure on the agenda in 2005. The spokeswoman did not specify when it might be scheduled. A Globe analysis of Tuesday's elections found that two or perhaps three newly elected opponents of the proposed same-sex marriage ban are replacing lawmakers who voted in favor of the amendment in the spring. Two more opponents would lower the margin of support from 105 lawmakers to 103 if everyone else voted as they did earlier this year. However, activists and lawmakers caution that the vote totals are fluid, for several reasons. For example, a dozen legislators who voted against the amendment because they oppose both same-sex marriage and civil unions could back the measure this time, because they might view it as better than allowing same-sex marriage to remain legal. On the other hand, a handful of lawmakers who initially voted for the amendment have told reporters that they are likely to back off next time because thousands of gay couples have married here without significant disruption.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
Perhaps Massachusetts and California (at least, coastal California) could form a country of their own. There is precedent for it in Pakistan (at least, Pakistan as it was at its inception). The inhabitants of this new nation could devote themselves to cloning one another for purposes of medical research and/or recreational sex.
Not a surprise, even if the people vote for it the judges would throw it out
The more intelligent among them have figured out the way to get to the goal is incrementalism. Elect state officials sympathetic to the cause...get people used to the idea. Kind of like boiling a frog: put it in a pot of cold water and slowly turn up the heat until the frog is par-boiled.
Notice the Glob frames the argument in terms of legislature. Polls taken in MA indicate that gay marriage is NOT what the people want. Somewhere around 60/40. If the Dems overplay their hand in MA it could mark a downturn in their control of the state.
They may have a "marriage" in mass. but it won't be recognized outside of the state. By the end of next year, the President will have his bill passed and signed. Then what will the mass supr. court have to say?
.
What bill? The defense of marriage act was signed by Bill Clinton in 1996. If you're talking about a US constitutional amendment, the President has no role in that process.
"They may have a "marriage" in mass. but it won't be recognized outside of the state."
They might. The catch will be the courts. The Full Faith & Credit Clause of the Constitution says that any contract that's recognized by one state must be recognized by all other states too. A marriage contract definitely qualifies. If the libs can get one state to legalize gay marriage they will immediately try to get it recognized in states that have gay marriage bans. When they are rejected that will allow them to take it to the courts and argue the Full Faith & Credit Clause.
The bad part is that even if you're one to follow a strict and limited interpretation of the Constitution the libs would be in the right because marriage really is a contract and the Constitution really does make that binding everywhere. That's why an amendment to the U.S. Constitution banning gay marriage is the only way to insure it will never happen.
"...the end of next year, the President will have his bill passed and signed...."
- - -
Huh?
I think we should give Massachussettes to Al Quada as a peace offering. A good trade for the next hostages they take.
"Perhaps Massachusetts and California (at least, coastal California) could form a country of their own"
Well then, if you ever get sick, you'll need a passport in order to gain entrance to good medical care.
Ha-ha, but look I don't like being sarcastic. The coasts would gladly accept the support of conservatives, not your derision. It's not easy being red in a blue state. 45 out of 351 Massachusetts towns voted a majority for President Bush. It's a start.
well you are right about SF but California did vote to make marriage between man and woman quite awhile ago and it was upheld.......that is why mayor Gavin Newsome got the big reprimand after marrying all the gays.....the whole of Calif is not nearly as liberal and the whole of New England.....but hey, then they can deal with the thousands of gay lovers that move to Mass since they will be the only state to allow.......more power to them
Article IV
"Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof."
As I read this, Congress, by the second sentence, has the power to regulate what will be given full faith and credit - thus DOMA. However, I would feel much better if there was a constitutional ammendment to define marraige for all the states. DOMA may indeed be on shaky ground - depending on how the Supremes rule when a challenge reaches them.
Actually the bad part is that the court, if it uses the word, 'marriage' other than for its legal definition, will be guilty of destroying the rule of law.
The rule of law can only be applied if the courts and legal system, and especially contractual obligations, use language that is un-ambiguous and pre-defined. The judges cannot arbitrarilty change the meaning of a word that is already legally defined.
If it succeeds in expanding the definition of the word, 'marriage,' what is to prevent it from exanding, or contracting the definition of any other word???????
Nothing will prevent it, and that's my point. Without conformity to legal standards, the constitution will not be worth the paper that it is written on.
No amendments are necessary to define something that is already SHARPLY defined and un-ambiguous.
Without the rule of law, can anarchy and chaos be far behind? My guess is that is what the perp generation really wants. The destruction or conversion of our nation.
I'm not a lawyer, but isn't there the issue of "consideration"? That's is, something of value must accompany the "contract" in order for it to be a valid contract. Yes?
Of course there's the pre-nup, which is a kind of contract, but not in the same manner as a valid business contract (which is why pre-sup disputes are argued in divorce court, and not as contractual business disputes).
I don't see that getting a marriage certificate and having a wedding establishes the same "contractual" relationship as a signed document with consideration. Seems a competent attorney could make that case pretty easily.
The Glob is owned by the NYT, Pinch Sulzberger has been one of the catalysts behind this whole gay marriage activist agenda push. What Margaret Marshall (Our Chief Justice of the SJC) did NOT anticipate by crawling on the carpet with Mary Ann Glendenning (the GLADD Atty.) is that the liberals would opt to now villify her for Kerry's loss. I heard her name mentioned at least fiteen times before Kerry conceded at 11 AM. She is persona non grata #1 here in the Gay State, which is great! The libs and Ms. Marshall can simultaneously self explode. The Glob is desperate to cover her and ultimately their own A**.
This is lib propaganda at it's best. Conservatives and moderates are fired up and feel very much emboldened.
I feel confident that since the collective IQ of our legislature is about 65, we can get rid of alot of these clowns in 2 years and they know it.
I hope Bush doesn't steal Romney now. Although he was not successful with this last drive to get some repubs in there, it's because the idiot liberals weren't focused on the Gay thing. Now they are. Should be fun watching the implosion!
TO ALL:
I want to offer my apologies! I got my attorneys mixed up !! Mary Bonuato is the GLADD attorney and a friend of Margaret Marshall's Mary Ann Glendenning is one of the good guys!!! She's likely one of three conservative professors from Harvard and has done lots of good work for the Vatican!!
MY sincere apologies to Ms. Glendenning!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.