I'm in Massachusetts and married to him and I want a divorce.
2007-03-29 09:15:56
·
answer #1
·
answered by craven 2
·
3⤊
2⤋
The only way it would go to a vote would be to entertain a bill for the constitutional amendment, I am willing to bet. All amendment changes have to be put up to a vote in most states, so I think that what they did is to say that they weren't even going to put it up to a vote
Here in VA, we just passed an amendment in the Nov elections to ban any recognition of same sex couples. It had a rider attached to include opposite sex people who are living together as well!!! So the people here voted to amend the state constitution by a substantial margin. I believe it was something like 59-41% Crazy to live in a country where civil rights can be put to the popular vote. The majority is supposed to PROTECT the minority.
Papa mac, how exactly is it a step BACKWARDS? It seems that what they said it to leave things the way they are? That certainly isn't backwards!
2007-03-29 08:32:38
·
answer #2
·
answered by Tikhacoffee/MisterMoo 6
·
2⤊
0⤋
Yay! The House voted 233-124 to kill it, a resounding solid majority. To pass it would have had to receive support from 2/3 of the legislature.
I live in New Hampshire. The constitutional amendment would have had to go before the people for a vote. But if the legislature passes civil unions (they'rve voting on it next Wednesday) and the governor signs it into law, that's as far as it has to go: it would be come the law in the state.
So far in New England, VT, CT, and ME have civil unions or domestic partner registration, MA has marriage, and RI has said it will recognize gay marriages performed in MA. We are such a progressive region of the country. Much better than my native Tennessee and Virginia.
2007-03-29 08:52:23
·
answer #3
·
answered by NHBaritone 7
·
4⤊
0⤋
California has domestic partnerships. This isn't exclusive to same-sex couples, however. By definition, if a man and a woman age 60 or over wish to enter into a domestic partnership without the "benefit" of marriage, they may do so.
Unfortunately, with the current "governator" in office, SSM won't happen here any time soon. Because you know the state legislature is just a bunch of "girlie men." ;-)
2007-03-29 09:07:57
·
answer #4
·
answered by behrmark 5
·
2⤊
0⤋
I'm in Illinois ...I heard they are voting on civil unions here...My feeling is that I want the benefits not( pensions go to partner,taxes and so forth) then we'll deal with the "marriage thing nxt....
I just think it sucks that we cant get the benefits right now....
2007-03-29 08:20:21
·
answer #5
·
answered by ? 3
·
2⤊
0⤋
faith is a various subject than homosexual marriage - they might't be lumped at the same time. we ought to continually persist with the reason of the form... I an specific the Founders would not approve of homosexual marriage ( i'm specific they won't have imagined it) - yet they did have faith in freedom of non secular selection so we ought to continually no longer ban atheism. God would not tension faith or ideals on us the two.
2016-12-15 11:17:58
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Well, I'm in Canada and we have full constitutional protections and gay marriage.
Edit: I should point out, society is still functioning, cats and dogs are not getting married to their owners, brothers and sisters are not going down the aisle, and planet is still spinning in its orbit......I say this just in case any Neo Fascists had something to say in regards to these things happening if gay marriage was passed.
2007-03-29 08:17:12
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
7⤊
0⤋
Another step backwards for NH and our nation.
2007-03-29 08:14:09
·
answer #8
·
answered by Papa Mac DaddyJoe 3
·
0⤊
5⤋
I live in alabama and it'll never be passed. I'm sorry.
2007-03-29 08:14:27
·
answer #9
·
answered by Adam 2
·
0⤊
3⤋