BOSTON - Another round in the Massachusetts gay marriage debate began Thursday, as activists both pro and con gathered at the Statehouse before lawmakers decided whether to support or sink a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
‘‘It’s not like we’re looking for something extra,” said Jeremy Spiegel of Stoughton as he stood on one side of Beacon Street holding a sign that read, ‘‘No Discrimination in the Constitution.” He added: ‘‘Same-sex couple just want the same rights as straight couples.”
But across the road, Travis Housman of Lynn had the opposite opinion. He said marriage historically has been between the sexes, not within them, but more fundamentally, he wanted the Legislature to allow state residents to vote on the matter in 2008.
Gay marriage supporters were working to kill the proposed amendment by forcing Thursday’s constitutional convention to recess without taking action on the proposal.
‘‘If we lose, we lose, but we want the right to vote on it,” Housman said.
The amendment needs the support of just 25 percent of the Legislature, or 50 lawmakers, to move forward. It must then be approved again in the next legislative session to wind up on the November 2008 ballot.
In 2002, former Senate President Thomas Birmingham adjourned the convention before a vote. Senate President Robert Travaglini has said he intended to bring the question to debate and resolution, but on Wednesday indicated he would entertain a motion by lawmakers to adjourn or recess before voting on the amendment. It would take 101 votes to recess or adjourn.
A vote to recess indicates lawmakers intend to reconvene the convention before year’s end, though it was not immediately clear if they would be required to do so. Adjournment would end the convention and kill the amendment.
2006-11-10 05:35:48 · 11 answers · asked by ellisMC 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
http://news.bostonherald.com/localPolitics/view.bg?articleid=166499&format=text
2006-11-10 05:36:17 · update #1
It's good.
People have to stop caring about who sleeps with who. It does not matter.
2006-11-10 05:37:06 · answer #1 · answered by keith s 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
So what do you want to know? What the yahoo! answers users think about it? I think that if a same sex couple wishes to have the same benefits that straight couples have then they should be allowed. With all the same rules. I think that if they live together they should be able to get health insurance from their partner and such. Just make sure they are held to the same standard. If they allow same sex marriage then it needs to take the same time and effort, not to mention money, for a divorce. All in all I think we have bigger issues in this country than who loves and marries who. Who is it hurting, really?
2006-11-10 05:39:48 · answer #2 · answered by sukesgirl 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It's good.
One thing that has been absolutely proven since MA allowed gay marriage a while back: doing so doesn't hurt anyone, doesn't harm straight couples, hasn't caused civilization to end or mass numbers of kids "turning" homosexual...
Since they (rightly) allowed gay marriage, it's just been business as usual.
It shows that there's no threat to anyone by doing so, despite all the religious right claims to the contrary!
2006-11-10 05:40:40 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
With Global Warming melting the ice caps and the war in Iraq about to touch off WWIII, don't you think gay and lesbian citizens of America could be allowed their civil rights? Is this really such a major issue?
2006-11-10 05:38:58 · answer #4 · answered by Isis 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
i'm prepared on similar-sex marriage. My brother is gay, and it develop into no longer perplexing for me to except him for who he's. the actual undeniable actuality that he likes different adult men did not result me emotionally or in any respect. notwithstanding, my mom remains having a perplexing time accepting him for who he's. She even calls gay people "fags", and says that my brother would not understand what that's like too be in a courting with a woman. She's cried some cases, and brings up this topic regularly at social activities. i hit upon this extremely unacceptable for a determine to do. She's been doing this for no less than 2 years, she has a perplexing time accepting actuality. Like my dad plans on retiring contained in the bush, he likes fishing and searching ext. yet my mom nonetheless likes to imagine they are going to be residing jointly contained in the city. Hah. back on topic...... So i develop into declaring i'm for gay marriage. i will initiate with the entire faith idea. properly i'm atheist and the in hardship-free words faith that makes any sorta experience to me is Buddhism. This faith accepts people for who they're. notwithstanding Christianity would not settle should you favor a similar gender. a faith might want to no longer turn people hostile to people or confirm what's morally authentic. people shouldn't take each and every thing contained in the bible so literary. that's okay to trust contained in the bible and that faith, yet do not enable it turn you right into a foul man or woman. some Christians are so quick to judge people, and basically enable it take over their lives. They carry onto their beliefs so dearly. actuality is gay each and every man or woman is people too. If 2 people love one yet another sufficient, they ought to have the alternative to marry one yet another. it would not count number what people imagine. they ought to easily legalize it already, there is not any longer some thing incorrect with being gay. i imagine that's regularly older those who are not accepting of them, in 15 years or so it will probable be legal.
2016-10-16 08:27:27 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Doesn't matter-Ted Haggart will do his thing he just won't be allowed to get married to another man-even if he does live in a red state
2006-11-10 06:30:02 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
They ought to take the judges who promoted it and hang them in a public square. The "legislator" I heard talking about it said that he couldn't trust the people to vote on such an issue. I think that is what he was trying to get past his lisp.
2006-11-10 05:39:09 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
It's not my choice, but who cares it's only about legal rights. Government stay out of the bedroom!
2006-11-10 05:38:34 · answer #8 · answered by edubya 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
WELL ITS BOTH BECAUSE PEOPLE WHO LOVE EACH OTHER AND R OF THE SAME SEX IS GOOD BUT FOR THEM TO GET MARRIED IS BAD
2006-11-10 05:37:38 · answer #9 · answered by ♫Jessica♫ 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Terrible. The more vile a nation becomes the more God draws back His hand of grace.
2006-11-10 05:37:17 · answer #10 · answered by relztnad 2 · 0⤊ 3⤋