By STEVE LeBLANCAssociated Press Writer
BOSTON (AP) -- Lawmakers in Massachusetts, the only state where gay marriage is legal, voted Tuesday to allow a proposed constitutional amendment to move forward that would effectively ban it.
The amendment's backers had collected 170,000 signatures to get a question on the 2008 ballot asking voters to declare marriage in Massachusetts to be between a man and a woman, but they still needed the Legislature's approval in two consecutive sessions.
On Tuesday, 61 lawmakers backed moving the measure forward, compared to 132 opposed. The amendment need 50 votes of support to advance.
Last fall, the Legislature had angered the amendment's backers and Gov. Mitt Romney when it recessed without voting on the amendment. They appealed to the state Supreme Judicial Court, which declined to intervene but chastised lawmakers, saying they had d shirked their constitutional duties by not voting.
Gov.-elect Deval Patrick had urged lawmakers to skip the vote again on Tuesday, calling it a "question of conscience" and saying the amendment process was being used "to consider reinserting discrimination into the constitution."
Since Tuesday was the final day of the session, that would have effectively killed the amendment effort, but the Senate president instead called for a vote shortly after opening the constitutional convention.
About 8,000 same-sex couples have wed in Massachusetts since the Supreme Judicial Court ruled in 2003 that the state Constitution guarantees gays the right to marry. A few other states offer civil unions with similar rights for gay couples, but only Massachusetts allows gay marriage.
(Copyright 2007 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.
― Eric H. (Eric H.), Tuesday, 2 January 2007 19:58 (seventeen years ago) link
― aimurchie (aimurchie), Tuesday, 2 January 2007 20:44 (seventeen years ago) link
― Maria e (Maria), Tuesday, 2 January 2007 20:56 (seventeen years ago) link
― Eric H. (Eric H.), Tuesday, 2 January 2007 21:48 (seventeen years ago) link
― Abbott (Abbott), Tuesday, 2 January 2007 22:50 (seventeen years ago) link
― Abbott (Abbott), Tuesday, 2 January 2007 22:51 (seventeen years ago) link
― Beth Parker (Beth Parker), Tuesday, 2 January 2007 23:14 (seventeen years ago) link
― aimurchie (aimurchie), Tuesday, 2 January 2007 23:35 (seventeen years ago) link
Any new law gets argued about, but unlike yr average water rights bill, yeah, it's a fucking ridiculously touchy national issue and of course everyone's going to try and IMPORT their own 'democracy' to Massacusetts or anywhere else that touches the issue with some dignity. Sorry they're shaking up your backyard for no reason.
― Abbott (Abbott), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 00:58 (seventeen years ago) link
― Eric H. (Eric H.), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 05:40 (seventeen years ago) link
― step hen faps (Curt1s Stephens), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 05:52 (seventeen years ago) link
― aimurchie (aimurchie), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 06:16 (seventeen years ago) link
Is this sentence entirely fucked? What crazy system requires a (more or less) 25% vote to move an amendment forward?
― Casuistry (casuistry), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 06:17 (seventeen years ago) link
― friday on the porch (lfam), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 06:46 (seventeen years ago) link
― friday on the porch (lfam), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 06:48 (seventeen years ago) link
Um..gosh. it's a state by state decision. So..if this amendment gets any farther than the posing, rhetoric based place it is in, I guess it could be challenged in the state supreme court.
I think I get your point - it's a huge leap from legislation to practical applications of the law. it's a civil rights issue, I suppose.
― aimurchie (aimurchie), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 06:58 (seventeen years ago) link
PARSE THE SENTENCE!
Follow the verbs.
― aimurchie (aimurchie), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 07:07 (seventeen years ago) link
― aimurchie (aimurchie), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 07:38 (seventeen years ago) link
― aimurchie (aimurchie), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 16:46 (seventeen years ago) link