A New Challenge to Same-Sex Marriages

NY Times ^ | June 17, 2005 | PAM BELLUCK

[neverdem]

BOSTON, June 16 - More than a year after gay marriage became legal in Massachusetts, Gov. Mitt Romney said Thursday that he would support a newly proposed amendment to the state Constitution that would overturn that right.

"My view is that marriage should be defined as a relationship between a man and a woman," Mr. Romney said at a news conference, adding, "I hope that this amendment will ultimately be the one which the citizens have an opportunity to vote on."

Mr. Romney's endorsement of the amendment is likely to inject new vigor into the efforts of gay marriage opponents, who failed to block a court decision that allowed the marriages to begin in May 2004.

At that time, most opponents of same-sex marriage supported a two-pronged amendment that would ban gay marriage but create civil unions for same-sex couples. That amendment passed its first-round vote in the Massachusetts Legislature in March 2004 and is scheduled for the second required vote this fall. If passed, it would go before voters in November 2006.

But because some new legislative leaders now favor gay marriage, the compromise amendment has been given slim chance of passing its second round.

As a result, gay marriage opponents have proposed the new amendment, which, because it was not initiated by the Legislature, would require a lower threshold of legislative support to get on the ballot. The new amendment needs to get signatures from 65,825 residents on petitions, and then the support of only 50 of the Legislature's 200 members, in each of two consecutive sessions, before it can be brought before the voters in 2008. Proponents of the measure say they have 60 votes.

The new amendment, drafted by a coalition of conservative groups led by the Massachusetts Family Institute, would generate some unusual consequences.

[neverdem]

Chitose Suzuki/Associated Press
Gov. Mitt Romney, at a news conference Thursday, said that "marriage should be defined as a relationship between a man and a woman."
Chitose Suzuki/Associated Press
Kris Mineau, right, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute, speaking with supporters Thursday at the Massachusetts Statehouse.

[little jeremiah]

later pingout.

[WOSG]

This is VERY GOOD NEWS ... the way I see it, this more conservative Amendment may force the wafflers to accept the 'compromise' as the less bad version in the fall. It may cause Mass. to at least go to that middle route ...

"Still, Arlene Isaacson, co-chairwoman of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus, said she was concerned that some legislators who had planned not to support the compromise amendment this fall might support it now on the theory that establishing civil unions would be better than losing out on both marriage and civil unions."


... so overnight, the ballgame changes in Massachusetts.

Well done Gov Romney!!

[marsh_of_mists]

It's really amazing that Massachusetts happens to have a sturdy conservative governor like Romney. Liberal Mass. could very easily have gotten a Pataki type or even a Gray Davis type. The fact that they have Romney as governor during this same-sex marriage fiasco is so fortunate.

[highlander_UW]

They could view this as a challenge to judicial activism and fiat from the bench.

[NutCrackerBoy]

It's really amazing that Massachusetts happens to have a sturdy conservative governor like Romney.

Heh, well. Mitt is a good leader, likable, electable, a good candidate. A President Romney will appoint conservative judges; you can take that to the bank. But he's only reasonably conservative, running to the right at the moment just enough to be viable for GOP primaries. Should he win the nomination, he'll run back to the center. Just warning you.

[goldstategop]

I endorse putting a stronger intiative on the Massachusetts ballot. The Democrats are out of step with the state's inhabitants on marriage. Governor Mitt Romney speaks for most Bay State residents on the subject.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[goldstategop]

The measure doesn't dissolve already contracted same sex marriage but it forbids new ones. People shouldn't be penalized for a bad judicial decision so there's no reason to turn their lives upside down. But at the same time, the proposed amendment will ban future gay marriages and civil unions. One shouldn't vote for George Bush and John Kerry on the same ballot!

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[sure_fine]

there would be some activass judge overturn it, and write a law saying it can't be brought up for vote again

we know who is ruling this country now..... /sarc

[little jeremiah]

Homosexual Agenda Ping.

A little late, eh, Governor Romney? Well, I really don't know anything about the man, and it must be vicious living in Massachusetts (motto: Welcome to Massachusetts, home of "gay" marriage, a weapon of MASS destruction!)

I'd like to see a referendum, every other state that has had one has slammed same sex "marriage" to the ground.

Freepmail me if you want on/off this pinglist.

[gidget7]

The ball game changes, yes, but that new amendment would allow already performed homosexual "marriage"s to stay, and it's gotta pass the legislature 2 times, just like the one that came before. And it wouldn't be on the ballot till 2008.

Don't get me wrong, I would sign any petition that would end this insanity. I just wish Romney would put for a special election or referendum or whatever they call it NOW, and let us vote. The Governor and his council have the only legal say over marriage, so I don't understand what the problem is. Plus, he isn't in favor of removing the Judges which would end it now anyway. Then we could hold them off until the vote. But noooooooo Romney won't do it.

[gidget7]

make that "3 times" sorry........typo