Massachusetts Constitutional Convention

EmperorSolo51 · Post by **EmperorSolo51** » 2004-02-11 06:51pm

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4240022/

A joint session of the Legislature has just voted down a revised amendment that would have defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman and the legislature,at a later date, could establish a civil union law. The amendment was introduced by House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran (D-Boston) and it was debated all day today. It was brought to a vote and the amendment failed by just 2 votes. (100-98). The legislature is now debating a Senate amendment that would establish civil unions along with defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-02-11 07:01pm

Fucking religious idiots. I do like the way they try to bolster their argument with pseudo-secular justifications when we, they, everybody else, and my dog all know what the real reasons are.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2004-02-11 07:31pm

EmperorSolo51 wrote:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4240022/

A joint session of the Legislature has just voted down a revised amendment that would have defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman and the legislature,at a later date, could establish a civil union law. The amendment was introduced by House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran (D-Boston) and it was debated all day today. It was brought to a vote and the amendment failed by just 2 votes. (100-98). The legislature is now debating a Senate amendment that would establish civil unions along with defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

This isn't as big a deal as it sounds. Even if it had passed, it would have had to have been resubmitted to the next legislature, and after that, submitted to the people, before becoming a constitutional amendment in MA.

Post by **LadyTevar** » 2004-02-11 07:49pm

If WV ever starts that kind of thing, I'm going to have to go stumping for votes against the law/amendment.

I've already practiced a possible speach on Nitram. His comment? "Slippery Slope, Logical Fallacy, Appeal to Authority, Completely Illogical, Appeal to Emotion... in short, politics as usual."

Xenophobe3691 · Post by **Xenophobe3691** » 2004-02-11 08:10pm

That reminds me, if anything like that comes up down here in Florida, it's time to start mailing letters and doing stump speeches...

EmperorSolo51 · Post by **EmperorSolo51** » 2004-02-11 08:35pm

Darth Wong wrote:Fucking religious idiots. I do like the way they try to bolster their argument with pseudo-secular justifications when we, they, everybody else, and my dog all know what the real reasons are.

The only reason the Democrats in Massachusetts are even considering this is because Thomas M. Finneran (democrat- boston)and his cronies are pandering to thier supporters. These supporters are none other than the Catholic Church, Jewish groups and minority groups.

EmperorSolo51 · Post by **EmperorSolo51** » 2004-02-11 09:27pm

The senate version of the defense of marriage amendment has just failed. The President of the Senate has announced the convention is in recess for the night and presumably a compromise can be worked out tommorrow.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2004-02-11 10:12pm

This makes me a happy Panda. I knew this would fail.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2004-02-11 10:28pm

The interesting question is if the failure of this amendment will encourage or discourage a federal amendment.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-02-11 10:30pm

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:The interesting question is if the failure of this amendment will encourage or discourage a federal amendment.

Massachusetts is a liberal state, it's no wonder it failed there. I would say unfavorable public opinion polls would be a better deterrent to a gay marriage amendment.

EmperorSolo51 · Post by **EmperorSolo51** » 2004-02-11 10:41pm

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:The interesting question is if the failure of this amendment will encourage or discourage a federal amendment.

I would say the amendment has failed. We still have another session of the convention tomorrow. "m sure the hoiuse and Senate leaders will come up with a compromise for both sides.

EmperorSolo51 · Post by **EmperorSolo51** » 2004-02-11 10:42pm

EmperorSolo51 wrote:
The Duchess of Zeon wrote:The interesting question is if the failure of this amendment will encourage or discourage a federal amendment.
I would say the amendment has failed. We still have another session of the convention tomorrow. "m sure the hoiuse and Senate leaders will come up with a compromise for both sides.

Edit: that should say "I wouldn't say".

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2004-02-11 11:40pm

This really isn't much. All it's doing is defining marriage as something between a male and female. I see no problem with this, as long as an option for other civil unions with the same benefits is able to be established.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2004-02-11 11:49pm

Nathan F wrote:This really isn't much. All it's doing is defining marriage as something between a male and female. I see no problem with this, as long as an option for other civil unions with the same benefits is able to be established.

The we get nto the "Seperate but equal" issue.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-02-12 12:09am

Nathan F wrote:This really isn't much. All it's doing is defining marriage as something between a male and female.

Thus defining it in a discriminatory way.

I see no problem with this, as long as an option for other civil unions with the same benefits is able to be established.

"Separate but equal" is not equal, dumb-ass. No law should be openly discriminatory; if marriage is going to be legally recognized, then it should not discriminate. The creation of a "separate but equal" union for homosexuals would not change the fact that an openly discriminatory institution is being enshrined in law.

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2004-02-12 12:24am

Jeez, Mike...dumbass?

I mean, I have considered what you're saying, and you are correct, I guess it would fall under the 'separate-but-equal' debacle, which would open up a pandoras box of discrimination.

It'd be greatly appreciated if you'd hold the flames for later...I mean, all you had to do was first off show me the other side of the statement, and THEN start flaming if I keep trying to push the point. Not trying to tell you how to act on the board you are fitting the bill for, but it would be nice if you'd be willing to give someone a bit of a chance to accept your side of the issue.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-02-12 12:34am

Sorry, but given the time you've spent on this board, if the "separate but equal" issue didn't occur to you without me having to point it out, then you were indeed being a dumb-ass.

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2004-02-12 12:37am

Darth Wong wrote:Sorry, but given the time you've spent on this board, if the "separate but equal" issue didn't occur to you without me having to point it out, then you were indeed being a dumb-ass.

You're correct, it should have occured to me, but it didn't. I suppose I should have thought through my words more clearly instead of just dashing it out.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-02-12 12:59am

Eh, a few months ago I gave the fundies the benefit of the doubt. I thought it would be neat to completely remove the word marriage from everything, have it all be civil unions. Leave the word "marriage" for the user to decide. It'd be a fairly workable compromise.

But the fundies have shown they are not worthy of the benefit of the doubt. Most of them are set dead against even a separate-but-unequal version of marriage for gays. So I say fuck 'em. Let everyone get married if they fucking feel like it.

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2004-02-12 11:24am

Joe wrote: Massachusetts is a liberal state, it's no wonder it failed there. I would say unfavorable public opinion polls would be a better deterrent to a gay marriage amendment.

not as liberal as you think. Granted Democrats may have complete control of Southern New England states, but for the most part they are RELIGIOUS DEMOCRATS. Catholics (Irish, Italian and Portugese) and Jews make up the backbone of the democratic parties up here. To say oh, it's a liberal state, no wonder it failed shows a complete lack of understanding of Yankee politics. Granted if you cross the Charles from Boston into Cambrige and Charlestown, you find yourself in the capital of American left-liberalism. However, the old school 'hard-hat' dems in places like South Boston, Dorchester and Worcester outnumber them by an order of magnitude.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-02-12 11:31am

"Liberal" is a relative term. MA is extremely conservative compared to Toronto, but no doubt ridiculously liberal compared to, say, Alabama.

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2004-02-12 11:42am

Darth Wong wrote:"Liberal" is a relative term. MA is extremely conservative compared to Toronto, but no doubt ridiculously liberal compared to, say, Alabama.

Actully it really defies definition in the traditional "left-right" sense. From an economic standpoint Massachusetts and many of the other New England states are comparative to Ontario, . Unions are powerful, the tax system is 'progressive' and consequently social spending is very high. But, there are places in the US that are FAR more socially liberal. The Catholic Church is very powerful here. Too fucking powerful. Sometimes i wonder whether or not the Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Connecticut Democratic parties are owned subsidiaries of the Catholic Church.

Darth Raptor · Post by **Darth Raptor** » 2004-02-12 01:19pm

Has anyone asked what the point of having two words for the same thing is? If the civil union does the same thing as a marriage, why not just call it that? A lot of conservatives aren't having problems forking over the benefits, they seem to be in a tissy over the name.

How petty.

GySgt. Hartman · Post by **GySgt. Hartman** » 2004-02-12 04:13pm

I think that "marriage" has a religious connotation to it, so they want to give gays the tax benefits, but prevent them from being able to say that they are "married" (as in "married before god").

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2004-02-12 04:46pm

GySgt. Hartman wrote:I think that "marriage" has a religious connotation to it, so they want to give gays the tax benefits, but prevent them from being able to say that they are "married" (as in "married before god").

Which is where I start getting bent out of shape.
Why doesn't the government try it's hand at making a "Defense of Bar-Mitzvah" act, or "Recognition of Confirmation Act", they have as much a right in defining those two religiously defined states of being as they do with marriage.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Massachusetts Constitutional Convention

Massachusetts Constitutional Convention

Re: Massachusetts Constitutional Convention