Posted on 09/14/2005 10:20:33 AM PDT by SmithL
BOSTON - Gay-marriage supporters flooded into the Statehouse on Wednesday, countered by a smaller group of opponents, for a vote by lawmakers against a proposed constitutional amendment that would limit marriage to between a man and a woman.
Early arrivals lined Beacon Street holding signs and banners. Hundreds more signs leaned against the Statehouse fence, and flats of bottled water were stacked in preparation for a long day of rallying and lobbying.
People gathered in front the Statehouse and in front of the House chamber, where debate was to begin later Wednesday. The turnout was significantly lower than during last year's debate on the amendment, which drew hundreds of people on both sides of the issue.
Charlotte Craig, 49, arrived at the locked Statehouse doors at dawn to be first in line to get into the House chamber. When the building opened, she took a position with dozens of others behind velvet ropes outside the chamber.
Even though the ban on gay marriage was expected to fail, she said she came early so that she could see how lawmakers voted and which ones changed their minds during the past year, when more than 6,100 gay and lesbian couples married.
"A lot of us want to see the change happen, and be a part of that, and just show our support," she said.
Last year, after the state's Supreme Judicial Court ruling in 2003 that same-sex marriage was legal, the amendment passed the Legislature 105-92. It must pass a second vote to get on next year's ballot. The first marriages took place May 17, 2004.
Unlike last year, when roughly comparable numbers of people on both sides of the issue were on hand, the vast majority of the people in the Statehouse on Wednesday were gay-marriage supporters.
About six opponents, including retired school teacher Al Sunderland, 76, gathered upstairs from the House chamber. They have asked lawmakers to support an alternative proposal that would ban gay marriage but make no provision for civil unions. Backers must gather signatures before it reaches the Legislature; the soonest it could be on a ballot is 2008.
Gee, I wonder what will happen?
Kind of the backwards way to do this - they should be trying make a constitutional amendment for gay marriage - but it never was about the will of the people...
Homosexual Agenda Ping.
Sigh. FYI.
Freepmail me AND DirtyHarryY2K if you want on/off this pinglist.
Someone needs to remind Massachusetts that just because their legislature and supreme court declare 2+2 to equal 7, doesn't make it so. They may as well pass a law decreeing a baboon to be human or stating that the color of the sky shall henceforth be green.
Which side do you think AP is on? In my observations, those who would change marriage draw volunteers from the local colleges and other liberals from Boston-Cambridge. We shouldn't be afraid of the word reactionary. The activism to oppose the redefinition of marriage is reactionary activism and I think naturally has a different dynamic to it. The movement to keep marriage the same wouldn't exist if not for radical progressive activists getting the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court to decide their way.
Massachusetts Attorney General Approves Ballot for Gay “Marriage” Constitutional Amendment Vote
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.