Posted on 05/17/2007 5:35:35 AM PDT by pabianice
MARLBOROUGH, MA - Marlborough residents Donna Scalcione and Beverly Waring have been married for nearly three years, and, Scalcione noted, "the world has not fallen apart."
Rather, the pair's union has given them the strength and authority to refer to the other as a "spouse," to receive benefits previously given only to heterosexual couples, and to formalize the commitment they made to each other 25 years ago.
If legislators vote next month for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, voters will decide next year whether couples like Scalcione and Waring should be able to wed.
"The idea of the public voting on a civil rights issue is absolutely, totally against what we stand for in Massachusetts and this country the equality of all citizens," Scalcione said.
Today, on the third anniversary gay marriages have taken place, organizations on opposite sides of the issue are gearing up for the June 14 constitutional convention.
If the amendment secures 50 votes, a question on the November 2008 ballot will let voters decide whether to keep gay marriage legal. The amendment previously received the support of 62 representatives and senators in the closing moments of the previous legislative session.
If the amendment passes, gay couples who are already married will stay married, but new couples will not be able to wed.
MassEquality is launching a television campaign that features three same-sex couples.
The campaign challenges the basic premise of the ballot measure that would prohibit same-sex couples from marrying.
"This is about two consenting adults choosing who they spend their life with," said Marc Solomon, MassEquality's campaign director. "We use our constitution to expand rights, not take them away."
As Solomon's organization speaks out against the ballot question, VoteOnMarriage.org will be encouraging legislators to preserve the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman.
Legislators will receive a blank, white paper "reminding (them) of the historical, linguistic and timeless truth about marriage."
"Marriage is not just about adults. It's about children," said Kris Mineau, the organization's spokesman and president of the Newton-based Massachusetts Family Institute. "You can't have multiple standards when it comes to raising children, and we want to uphold that standard."
Kate Watson of Mendon married her partner of nearly 40 years soon after gay marriage was legalized.
Watson's wife, Joanne Goodnow, died in February of pancreatic cancer at the age of 70. Watson said she was happy they were able to solidify their commitment to each other.
Among other things, Watson said marriage made obtaining each other's medical information easier.
"I don't see why people have to vote on what we do," said Watson. "Why in the world do we need their permission?"
Watson said she knew as a child that she was "different."
"I didn't know there was anyone in the world like me," she said. "This isn't a choice. If I was on an island, all by myself, I'd still be gay."
Brian Camenker, president of the Waltham-based MassResistance, said his organization opposes gay marriage because it lends support to the belief that homosexuality is normal.
"You can put your public relations spin on it, but at the end of the day, these are very dysfunctional relationships," Camenker said. "John Adams didn't make a mistake in 1780 and forget to throw in gay marriage."
Hearing such opinions about his relationship disappoints Framingham resident William LaBarge, who married his longtime boyfriend, Gerald Ferrazza, three years ago.
"I'll do whatever I can to diffuse prejudice against any group," LaBarge said. "I do hope this amendment will get defeated, one way or another."
Kirk Carter of Hudson hopes the amendment never reaches voters.
Carter and his husband, Price, have been together for nearly 23 years and married for three.
"If it does get to that point, I have confidence that the voters and the people that know me and my husband ... know that our marriage is no more a threat to them than is any other marriage."
(Danielle Williamson can be reached at 508-490-7475 or dwilliam@cnc.com.)
The homosexual agenda is incompatible with Democracy. This is merely the latest proof of that.
"The idea of the public voting on a civil rights issue is absolutely, totally against what we stand for in Massachusetts and this country the equality of all citizens," Scalcione said.
Marriage is a religious rite, not a civil right...
Every doctor's office that I have been to has given me a form to sign that identifies who they can release information to. Is that form is only available to heterosexuals? The 'flamboyant' crowd is being overly dramatic. Not surprised.
That’s the reason they’ve been sandbagging all this time. If you want to know where a politician actually stands on an issue see how fast they move to change it.Like the other night at the GOP debate where Duncan Hunter pointed out the Bush Admin has only built 2 miles of fence on the southern border even though the money’s been appropriated !!!
It’ll never get on the ballot because the freaks of this state...and their supporters...know that the voters,if given the chance,will outlaw it.
Must. Ping. Out. Later.
Durable Power of Attorney and Living Will make this assertion the lie it is.
Don't ever let a homoleftist get away with posing the specious argument that it only has to do with "how we want to live our lives." The smallest amount of rational thought will reveal that it has everything to do with imposing on others their disordered views and what they want to do. It's an imposition on OTHERS, not a purely private decision. If you doubt this, try not renting to such a couple as a private landlord in Massachusetts because of moral convictions and see what happens.
It seems to me that neither the federal nor the state Constitution is in the business of creating rights, but of recognizing, acknowledging, and guaranteeing the rights that human beings already have by virtue of their creation by God. This seems to be the sense of the relevant passages of the Declaration of Independence. Rights not expressly stated in the Bill of Rights are referred to the Tenth Amendment, which reserves such questions to the states and the people. Which is what we are trying to do in Massachusetts on the socially divisive question of gay marriage.
I do not see how it is reasonable to suppose that "consenting adults" who consent to act together in novel ways automatically sets up a situation whereby new rights must be conferred on them. The fact that a person chooses to identify as "gay" does not mean they lose equal rights with other people: their life, liberty, and property are not at risk. If violated, these rights will be defended in the courts of equal justice. Moreoever, they have a perfect right to marry. They just choose not to do so, for the definition of marriage does not contemplate same sex relations.
Again, it seems to me the Constitution cannot establish new rights, particularly rights that pertain to a single class of well-defined individuals. Governments do not create rights; they can only grant privileges. But such a thing is antithetical to a rule of law predicated on the equality of the people.
They have made a choice. Choices have consequences. To use the Constitution to eliminate the consequences can only be done by conferring a special set of unequal rights on a particular class of people. This is not only unconstitutional, but also un-American.
Reminds me of Orwell's Animal Farm: Some people are "more equal" than others....
EXACTLY RIGHT!
The perceived separation of church and State LAW <<-there is no law like that.. derails the legal train on a lot issues.. Even base obvious issues like MARRAIGE.. polygamy, bestiality, cheating, same sex attraction disorder, when does life begin(abortion), divorce, even gender identification.. Marriage (by the way) "IS" contract law..
Can't have your lying eyes telling you the obvious.. We seem to need lawyers parsing the obvious into "obscure rights" which are not rights but privileges..
hosepipe, your post made no sense.
Betty Boop . . . great post. You can’t grant a right that doesn’t exist.
I didn't post to you.. Whether you personally have any sense is a non sequiter..
I wrote: "I do not see how it is reasonable to suppose that 'consenting adults' who consent to act together in novel ways automatically sets up a situation whereby new rights must be conferred on them." I'll stand by it, too:
"The fundamental rights and freedoms are not a suicide pact. There is no license for being so pluralistic that the divisive issues destroy the [social] consensus."Of course, people on the sharp edge of this issue will argue all day long that this is a clear-cut case of the "tyranny of the majority." In the first place, it is no such thing. The proposed ballot question on Gay Marriage in Massachusetts is simply the Constitution in action as it was designed to act (e.g., separation and balance of powers vis-a-vis the federal government, the states, and the people respectively). No one's unalienable rights as enumerated in the Bill of Rights are affected here.-- Eric Voegelin, "Man in Political Institutions," in: The Collected Works of Eric Voegelin, Volume 33: The Drama of Humanity and Other Miscellaneous Papers, 1939-1985, p. 171.
In the second place, it seems to me the problem most overlooked these days is the reverse, the "tyranny of a minority" that uses compliant, sympathetic news media and ideologically-committed academics as their enabling "megaphone" in arguing for spurious "rights" that have no basis in the federal Constitution.
Well, FWIW, that's my two cents.... Thank you ever so much for writing!
In the second place, it seems to me the problem most overlooked these days is the reverse, the “tyranny of a minority” that uses compliant, sympathetic news media and ideologically-committed academics as their enabling “megaphone” in arguing for spurious “rights” that have no basis in the federal Constitution.
So very true - and the Judiciary which invents and confers “rights” seemingly out of thin air to satisfy a political need.
= = = =
INDEED. For sure.
Thank you for your encouragements!
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.