Posted on 06/14/2007 12:03:09 PM PDT by PajamaTruthMafia
The state Legislature has defeated a proposed constitutional ban on gay marriage, ending a three-year campaign to overturn its legalization after several lawmakers switched their votes in the final hours of a dramatic legislative battle. The proposed constitutional ban was defeated in a roll-call vote of both houses of the Legislature shortly after 1 p.m. today, triggering a thunderous ovation by gay couples in the State House. The final tally was 151-45, giving supporters of gay marriage a victory by 5 votes. The vote means the ban will be blocked from reaching the 2008 ballot, and that gay marriage has survived its final challenge, barring an unlikely effort to resurrect the ban at a later date. Today’s constitutional convention followed weeks of intense lobbying to turn the tide in favor of gay marriage, with Gov. Deval Patrick and top legislative leaders orchestrating a highly organized effort to defeat the ban. The ban’s defeat brought a suspenseful and surprising end to a battle that kept lawmakers guessing until the final moments. Partisans on both sides watched the vote tally on a light board that indicated how each lawmaker voted, a process that kept them on edge until the very end. House Speaker Sal DiMasi (D-Boston) and Senate President Therese Murray (D-Plymouth) both appeared to be successful in persuading lawmakers to switch their positions in the final hours. Among lawmakers who switched from previous support of the ban were state Reps. James Vallee (D-Franklin), Brian Wallace (D-South Boston), Richard Ross (R-Wrentham), Robert Nyman (D-Hanover) and Paul Loscocco (R-Holliston), among others. Senators who switched included Gale Candaras (D-Wilbraham)and state Sen. Michael Morrissey (D-Quincy). Another anti-gay marriage lawmaker, Anthony Verga (D-Gloucester), did not appear for the vote today after slipping on the stairs in the State House yesterday and being carried out on a stretcher. He was hospitalized at Massachusetts General Hospital last night and his condition was unknown today. The State House was buzzing with debate and rallies by advocates until minutes before lawmakers gathered for a vote. Opponents and supporters of gay marriage waved signs on opposite sides of Beacon Street, chanting slogans that lawmakers have been hearing for years. Lawmakers who switched sides to vote against the ban appeared to do so for different reasons, with some saying they were affected by the stories of gay families and others indicating they were persuaded it is wrong to subject minority rights to a popular vote. Opponents of gay marriage have said previously that they did not expect to continue to push the proposed ban if the Legislature defeated it, but there has been no final word from them today.
Just a matter of time as to when the homosexuals will push for special rights.
Be interested to see what the payoff is to the 2 Republicans reps.
Yeah, imagine letting the citizens exercise their right to vote — might end up like Virginia, where a constitutional amendment was voted on and passed last year. The amendment states that only marriages between a man and a woman are valid and recognized in the Commonwealth, and it went into effect January 1st.
They clearly don’t understand the institution of marriage.
Did they cross church and state?
Is not marriage an institution of the religious? Sanctified by vows before God?
What they want is same recognition this is a state matter.
Give them what they need as a couple under civil unions.
Sorry even if the Gov. Declares state marriages....HE IS OUTVOTED....GOD IS THE DECLARIE OF WHO IS MARRIED NOT DEVAL PATRICK. CLUELESS MAN WHO DOES NOT KNOW THAT MARRIAGE IS A SYMBOL HELD HIGHLY BY THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH AS THE
MARRIAGE OF CHRIST COMING FOR HIS CHURCH BLAMELESS AND SPOTTLESS. IT MEANS MORE THAN YOU THINK DEVAL CLUELESS PATRICK. MARRIAGE IS SYMBOLIC FOR A PURE BRIDE OF CHRIST.
IT WILL NEVER BE BETWEEN TWO MEN OR TWO WOMEN. WHY BECAUSE YOU NEED THE UNION OF THE TWO BRING LIFE. ONLY A MAN AND WOMAN CAN DO THIS. AND IT IS ALSO THE SYMBOL OF THE CHURCH
YOU MORON CLUELESS DEVAL PATRICK!!!!!!!!!!
SANTICTIFIED BY GOD FOR THE MARRIAGE OF CHRIST TO HIS BRIDE, WHICH IS THE CHURCH!!!!!!!!
Thats right I posted this before, but this needs to be heard.
And they wonder why mass. has a population leak.
Population leak? Tell that to all the illegal immigrants flooding in here ;)
we wage war not against flesh, but against pricipalities and darkness..
Only the truth will set them free. keep speaking the truth.
THE STATE OF MASS. CAN NEVER OUT SPEAK THE WORD OF GOD!!!
CAN ANYBODY HEAR ME!!!!!!
MARRIAGE IS A SYMBOLIC PICTURE OF CHRIST AND HIS CHURCH.
THEY ARE IN UNION TO GLORIFY THE FATHER. THE CHURCH SPOTLESS AND PURE. THIS IS WHY THEY WEAR WHITE (THE BRIDE)
PRESENTED TO THE GROOM. IN UNION TO CREATE. WHAT ARE THEY CREATING? LIFE !!!!!!
HENCE, CHRIST AND THE BRIDE OF CHRIST (THE UNIVERSAL CHURCH) EQUALS LIFE......LIFE EVERLASTING, IMPREGNATED..THE WORD A SEED.....ONLY THE ENLIGHTENED (OF THE HOLY GHOST ) WILL GET THIS. LORD HELP US
Another example of how the left controls the conversation by defining the terms. It’s not a “gay marriage ban” - it’s a “traditional marriage preservation” amendment. You can’t ban what’s never existed anywhere at any time. You can preserve something that’s been around for thousands of years in all human societies.
This is what happens when a single party takes over a state.
Is not marriage an institution of the religious? Sanctified by vows before God?
What they want is same recognition this is a state matter.
This is a state matter
Originally, marriage was an institution of the Church. But they abdicated their responsibilities, handing them over to the state.
Who approves, performed, authorizes and certifies marriages? It isn't any church, except as far as the state allows them to.
States issue marriage licenses, and states perform the ceremonies. A marriage does not have to be performed by clergy to be legal, but it does have to be performed by someone authorized by the state. So long as the state is in charge of marriages, it can define them any way it pleases.
Personally, I think it's time to remove this from the province of the state - one more area of our lives that the government rightly ought stay out of.
Long time residents are leaving and I don’t blame them.
My days of being a mass. resident are looking numbered too.
The MA Legislature just violated the 1st Amendment by usurping the religious institution of marriage from the church.
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires; and will turn away their ears from the truth, and will trun aside to myths.
But you, be sober in all things, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry. 2Timothy chap4.
Or they will give good jobs to people who will vote the way they want. not biblical but true also.
“Marriage” is a civil union which may, but does not require, religious recognition. For example, the state can recognize a marriage that involves a divorced person, not withstanding the Catholic church’s prohibition of such a union. Marriages do not require the approval of a religious institution, just compliance with state laws. As such, the state is free to define or regulate marriage as it chooses, within the limits of the Constitution, without regard to particular religious beliefs. This is as it should be.
Let’s see if the State stays out of the church.
Or will it become a HATECRIME?
Do you see what is happening?
"It is time to move on, as I pay back both Pelosi and the Teachers union.
Eloquent rapists? Illegal aliens? Amnesty for them,
with free medical and car insurance, and education at U of Mass.
Normal voting by citizens, as ordered by the Court? Screw them all. Yes, I can."
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.