MA Legislature Gives Preliminary Approval to State Constitutional Amendment Banning Gay Marriage

FNC

[William McKinley]

Another Fox News alert.

[Neets]

Interesting development.

[Neets]

ATRW ping

[stopem]

Breaking news on CNN CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT BANS gay Marriage!!!!!

[k2blader]

Good!

[William McKinley]

Someone emailed John Derbyshire and made a suggestion.

Supposedly, the MA Supreme Court has put the legislature in a box, saying that they must change the laws to allow Gay marriage by May, knowing that an amendment could not be passed in time to stop it.

The person who wrote Derb suggested that the legislature could pass a law temporarily stopping all new marriage licenses in Massachusettes. That would not violate the equal protection clause of the MA constitution, and would allow there to be enough time for an amendment to be argued and either enacted or rejected.

In the interim, hetero couples who wanted to get married could go to NH or such to get hitched.

[george wythe]

I thought it takes a couple of years for any amendment proposal to become law in Massachusetts.

It has to be approved by two consecutive legislative sessions, and by the Massachusetts voters.

Will suspending marriage licenses for two years be feasible?

[CA Conservative]

Breaking news on CNN CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT BANS gay Marriage!!!!!

Unfortunately, no. All they have done is stopped SF from issuing licenses until the matter is heard in May or June, and the only issue being heard is whether or not a city or county has the right to ignore laws they beleive are unconstitutional. The court practically invited SF to file a separate legal action challenging the constitutionality of Prop. 22 and the existing marriage laws.

[george wythe]

AP

Massachusetts lawmakers gave preliminary approval Thursday to a constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage but allow civil unions.

The amendment, which would strip gay couples of their court-granted marriage rights, must still weather several additional votes and anticipated legislative maneuvering by opponents.

The earliest a ban could end up on a statewide ballot is November 2006, more than two years after same-sex couples can start getting married in Massachusetts.

[b4its2late]

#2

[William McKinley]

Probably not-- I would imagine that a whole lot of caterers and other types would go apoplectic if that was given serious thought.

Still, it was an interesting idea.

[Kahonek]

I understand that this is partly due to a strategic move by some pro-gay marriage legislators who voted for it in order to suspend debate on the issue until that last critical vote of the constitution, where they'll drop their support and kill the ban. Any truth to that?

[inquest]

From a more elaborate version of the same article:

The amendment, which would strip gay couples of their court-granted marriage rights, must still weather several additional votes and anticipated legislative maneuvering by opponents, who said the vote was all part of their strategy to ultimately defeat a ban.

Hmm, I wonder what this is all about. Does anyone have a link to the text of the version that actually passed?

[Blood of Tyrants]

As I said in the other gay "marriage" alert, this is damage control. Their pet homos jumped the gun and gave the GOP a new issue to beat them over the head with.

[george wythe]

Hmm, I wonder what this is all about. Does anyone have a link to the text of the version that actually passed?

No version has passed as far as I know

[george wythe]

It was adopted 129-69 with the help of several known advocates of gay marriage, triggering speculation that they could withdraw their support on the critical final vote needed before this year's constitutional convention ends.

Sorry about my previous unclear post.

The amendment has been adopted, but it has not passed the final vote.

[inquest]

My initial impression, which now appears to have been faulty, was that the gay-marriage advocates were able to alter the wording of the amendment so as to somehow work in their favor. But apparently they have some other kind of trick up their sleeve which isn't immediately clear. My guess is that they're bluffing.

[george wythe]

From the link you provided, I found the complete text of the amendment:

"It being the public policy of this Commonwealth to protect the unique relationship of marriage, only the union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Massachusetts. Two persons of the same sex shall have the right to form a civil union, if they meet the requirements set forth by law for marriage.

"Civil unions for same sex couples are established hereunder and shall provide entirely the same benefits, protections, rights and responsibilities that are afforded to couples married under Massachusetts law. All laws applicable to marriage shall also apply to civil unions.

"This article is self-executing, but the General Court may enact laws not inconsistent with anything herein contained to carry out the purpose of this article."

[King Black Robe]

But it will still be 2006 before it is voted on I think. In the meantime marriages will take place. What they really need to do is impeach 4 justices.

[King Black Robe]

That's like saying you can keep the title to your house but you must give up the house. That's no kind of compromise. In addition, it just puts queer marriage by another name into the constitution. Who are these compromise people? I'd like to do business with them. They give away the farm and think they've won.