Gay MArriage Amandment -- Don't Forget on Nov 7th!!

[tele_mark]

For me, this has little to do with the issue itself, and everything to do with these sleazy little legislators thinking of voters as ignoramuses with short memories. Please print out the list in "How they Voted", bring it with you to the polls, and vote against everyone who voted yes, and send them and email letting them know beforehand that you will be doing so:

http://www.boston.com/news/specials/gay_marriage/articles/2006/07/13/lawmakers_delay_vote_on_gay_marriage_measure/

http://www.boston.com/news/specials/gay_marriage/articles/2006/07/13/how_they_voted/

How they voted

July 13, 2006

A yes vote was in favor of adjourning the state's Constitutional Convention until Nov. 9.

HOUSE

Cory Atkins, D-Concord - Y

Demetrius J. Atsalis, D-Hyannis - N

Bruce J. Ayers, D-Quincy - N

Ruth B. Balser, D-Newton - Y

John J. Binienda, D-Worcester - N

Deborah D. Blumer, D-Framingham - Y

Daniel E. Bosley, D-North Adams - Y

Garrett J. Bradley, D-Hingham - N

Arthur J. Broadhurst, D-Methuen - N

Antonio F. D. Cabral, D-New Bedford - Y

Jennifer M. Callahan, D-Sutton - N

Christine E. Canavan, D-Brockton - N

Gale D. Candaras, D-Wilbraham - Y

Stephen R. Canessa, D-New Bedford - N

Mark J. Carron, D-Southbridge - N

Paul C. Casey, D-Winchester - N

Cheryl Coakley-Rivera, D-Springfield - Y

Virginia Coppola, R-Foxborough - N

Robert Correia, D-Fall River - N

Michael A. Costello, D-Newburyport - Y

Robert K. Coughlin, D-Dedham - N

Geraldine Creedon, D-Brockton - N

Sean Curran, D-Springfield - N

Robert A. DeLeo, D-Winthrop - Y

Viriato Manuel deMacedo, R-Plym. - N

Brian S. Dempsey, D-Haverhill - Y

Salvatore F. DiMasi, D-Boston - Y

Paul J. Donato, D-Medford - N

Christopher J. Donelan, D-Orange - Y

Joseph R. Driscoll, D-Braintree - N

James B. Eldridge, D-Acton - Y

Lewis G. Evangelidis, R-Holden - N

James H. Fagan, D-Taunton - N

Christopher G. Fallon, D-Malden - N

Mark V. Falzone, D-Saugus - Y

Robert F. Fennell, D-Lynn - Y

Michael E. Festa, D-Melrose - Y

Barry R. Finegold, D-Andover - Y

Jennifer Flanagan, D-Leominster - N

David L. Flynn, D-Bridgewater - N

Linda Dorcena Forry, D-Boston - Y

Gloria L. Fox, D-Boston - Y

John P. Fresolo, D-Worcester - N

Paul K. Frost, R-Auburn - N

William C. Galvin, D-Canton - Y

Colleen M. Garry, D-Dracut - N

Susan W. Gifford, R-Wareham - N

Anne M. Gobi, D-Spencer - N

Emile J. Goguen, D-Fitchburg - N

Thomas A. Golden Jr., D-Lowell - N

Shirley Gomes, R-South Harwich - N

Mary E. Grant, D-Beverly - N

William G. Greene Jr., D-Billerica - N

Dennis Guyer, D-Dalton - Y

Patricia A. Haddad, D-Somerset - Y

Geoffrey D. Hall, D-Westford - N

Robert S. Hargraves, R-Groton - N

Lida E. Harkins, D-Needham - Y

Bradford Hill, R-Ipswich - N

Kevin G. Honan, D-Boston - Y

Donald F. Humason Jr., R-Westfield - N

Frank M. Hynes, D-Marshfield - N

Bradley H. Jones Jr., R-North Reading - N

Louis L. Kafka, D-Sharon - Y

Michael F. Kane, D-Holyoke - N

Rachel Kaprielian, D-Watertown - Y

Jay R. Kaufman, D-Lexington - Y

John Keenan, D-Salem - N

Thomas P. Kennedy, D-Brockton - X

Kay Khan, D-Newton - Y

Peter V. Kocot, D-Florence - Y

Robert M. Koczera, D-New Bedford - N

Peter J. Koutoujian, D-Waltham - Y

Paul Kujawski, D-Webster - Y

Stephen Kulik, D-Worthington - Y

William Lantigua, D-Lawrence - N

James Brendan Leary, D-Worcester - N

Stephen P. LeDuc, D-Marlborough - N

John A. Lepper, R-Attleboro - N

David P. Linsky, D-Natick - N

Barbara A. L'Italien, D-Andover - Y

Paul J. Loscocco, R-Holliston - N

Elizabeth A. Malia, D-Boston - Y

Ronald Mariano, D-Quincy - Y

James J. Marzilli Jr., D-Arlington - Y

James R. Miceli, D-Wilmington - N

Michael J. Moran, D-Boston - Y

Charles A. Murphy, D-Burlington - Y

James M. Murphy, D-Weymouth - N

Kevin J. Murphy, D-Lowell - N

David M. Nangle, D-Lowell - N

Patrick Natale, D-Woburn - Y

Harold P. Naughton Jr., D-Clinton - N

Robert J. Nyman, D-Hanover - N

Thomas J. O'Brien, D-Kingston - N

Eugene L. O'Flaherty, D-Chelsea - N

Shirley Owens-Hicks, D-Boston - Y

Marie J. Parente, D-Milford - N

Matthew Patrick, D-Falmouth - Y

Anne M. Paulsen, D-Belmont - Y

Vincent A. Pedone, D-Worcester - Y

Alice H. Peisch, D-Wellesley - N

Jeffrey D. Perry, R-Sandwich - N

Douglas W. Petersen, D-Marblehead - Y

George N. Peterson Jr., R-Grafton - N

Thomas M. Petrolati, D-Ludlow - Y

Anthony Petruccelli, D-Boston - Y

William ``Smitty" Pignatelli, D-Lenox - N

Elizabeth A. Poirier, R-N. Attleborough - N

Karyn E. Polito, R-Shrewsbury - N

Susan W. Pope, R-Wayland - N

Denise Provost, D-Somerville - Y

John F. Quinn, D-Dartmouth - N

Kathi-Anne Reinstein, D-Revere - Y

Robert Rice, D-Gardner - Y

Michael J. Rodrigues, D-Westport - N

Mary S. Rogeness, R-Longmeadow - N

John H. Rogers, D-Norwood - X

Richard Ross, R-Wrentham - N

Michael F. Rush, D-Boston - N

Byron Rushing, D-Boston - Y

Jeffrey Sanchez, D-Boston - Y

Tom Sannicandro, D-Ashland - Y

Angelo M. Scaccia, D-Boston - N

John W. Scibak, D-South Hadley - Y

Carl Sciortino, D-Somerville - Y

Frank Israel Smizik, D-Brookline - Y

Todd Smola, R-Palmer - N

Theodore C. Speliotis, D-Danvers - N

Robert P. Spellane, D-Worcester - X

Christopher Speranzo, D-Springfield - Y

Joyce A. Spiliotis, D-Peabody - N

Harriett L. Stanley, D-West Newbury - N

Thomas M. Stanley, D-Waltham - Y

Marie P. St.Fleur, D-Boston - Y

Ellen Story, D-Amherst - Y

William M. Straus, D-Mattapoisett - N

David B. Sullivan, D-Fall River - N

Benjamin Swan, D-Springfield - Y

Kathleen M. Teahan, D-Whitman - Y

Walter F. Timilty, D-Milton - N

A. Stephen Tobin, D-Quincy - N

Timothy J. Toomey Jr., D-Cambridge - N

David M. Torrisi, D-North Andover - Y

Philip Travis, D-Rehoboth - N

Eric Turkington, D-Falmouth - Y

Cleon Turner, D-Dennis - Y

James E. Vallee, D-Franklin - X

Anthony J. Verga, D-Gloucester - N

Joseph F. Wagner, D-Chicopee - Y

Brian P. Wallace, D-Boston - X

Patricia A. Walrath, D-Stow - Y

Martin J. Walsh, D-Boston - Y

Steven M. Walsh, D-Lynn - Y

Marty Walz, D-Boston - Y

Daniel K. Webster, R-Hanson - N

James T. Welch, D-West Springfield - N

Alice K. Wolf, D-Cambridge - Y

SENATE

Robert A. Antonioni, D-Leominster - Y

Edward M. Augustus, D-Worcester -Y

Steven A. Baddour, D-Methuen - Y

Jarrett T. Barrios, D-Cambridge - Y

Frederick E. Berry, D-Peabody - Y

Stephen M. Brewer, D-Barre - Y

Scott P. Brown, R-Wrentham - N

Stephen Buoniconti, D-W. Springfield - X

Harriette L. Chandler, D-Worcester - Y

Robert S. Creedon, D-Brockton - Y

Cynthia Stone Creem, D-Newton - Y

Susan C. Fargo, D-Lincoln - Y

John A. Hart, D-Boston - Y

Robert A. Havern, D-Arlington - Y

Robert L. Hedlund, R-Weymouth - N

Patricia Jehlen, D-Somerville - Y

Brian A. Joyce, D-Milton - Y

Michael R. Knapik, R-Westfield - Y

Brian P. Lees, R-East Longmeadow - Y

Thomas M McGee, D-Lynn - Y

Joan M. Menard, D-Somerset - Y

Mark C. Montigny, D-New Bedford - Y

Richard T. Moore, D-Uxbridge - N

Michael W. Morrissey, D-Quincy - N

Therese Murray, D-Plymouth - Y

Andrea F. Nuciforo, D-Pittsfield - Y

Robert D. O'Leary, D-Barnstable - N

Marc R. Pacheco, D-Taunton - Y

Steven C. Panagiotakos, D-Lowell - N

Pamela P. Resor, D-Acton - Y

Stanley C. Rosenberg, D-Amherst - X

Karen E. Spilka, D-Ashland - Y

Bruce E. Tarr, R-Gloucester - N

James E. Timilty, D-Walpole - N

Richard R. Tisei, R-Wakefield - Y

Steve A. Tolman, D-Boston - Y

Robert E. Travaglini, D-Boston - Y

Susan C. Tucker, D-Andover - Y

Marian Walsh, D-West Roxbury - Y

Dianne Wilkerson, D-Boston - Y

N - no

Y - yes

X - not voting

P - present

 

[Shane]

I agree for the most part.

Unless the legislator in question is supported by the NRA or GOAL.

In my case, my State Representative has an A+ rating, even though he voted Y.

So I'll be voting for him anyhow.

But the Senator.....now he's just awful, with the 2nd Amendment, and this, so he won't be getting my vote.

By voting Y, they basically said the progressive agenda will continue to progress, and voters don't matter.

 

[swatmedic]

Both my Rep + Senator voted no.
But if any of these people are in a close race, definatly send them a message that their inabillity to allow the people to have a voice will cost them votes.

 

[Jaxon]

I know we had this conversation on another thread, but....

Don't we elect people to pass legislation - or not - without our micromanagement?

RJ

 

[Martlet]

I know we had this conversation on another thread, but....

Don't we elect people to pass legislation - or not - without our micromanagement?

RJ

No. We elect people to represent us. Micromanagement is what it's all about.

Regardless, how is this micromanagement? The people of Massachusetts, whom they represent (there's that word again), clearly stated they want to vote on this. It's their responsibility to send it to us for a vote. If they don't, then we elect someone else who will represent us.

That's the reason they postponed the vote. To avoid accountability.

 

[clinotus]

I know we had this conversation on another thread, but....

Don't we elect people to pass legislation - or not - without our micromanagement?

RJ

Our elected officials are only there because they are our voice in matters of government; whether it be local, national, or international.

Allowing someone to voice an opinion and have that voice become (or deny) a law or statue on your behalf without your say, your opinion, or your input is tantamount to relinquishing your rights away.

In order for our system to survive in good and bad you must make your voice heard by voting, writing letters, and campaigning for things that you believe in.

 

[tele_mark]

I agree for the most part.

Unless the legislator in question is supported by the NRA or GOAL.

In my case, my State Representative has an A+ rating, even though he voted Y.

So I'll be voting for him anyhow.

But the Senator.....now he's just awful, with the 2nd Amendment, and this, so he won't be getting my vote.

By voting Y, they basically said the progressive agenda will continue to progress, and voters don't matter.

Sorry. But I won't drop my pants and look the other way just because a candidate gets a good GOAL rating. Gun ownership is of course of tantamount importance to me. But, to have an elected official play me for a fool, and ignore my voice, no matter what side of the issue I'm on, is particularly repulsive. I will risk hurting a pro-gun candidate over this, if he/she voted yes. Thankfully, I get the lightweight way out -- none of the three in my district were pro gun! They can take away my voice and choice. They can't take away PVC pipe, map and compass coordinates and earth......

 

[Jaxon]

So, the solution is to have everyone vote for any item that they feel important?

And when did the People of MA "clearly state" anything? I've seen lots of stating, from both sides of the issue and none of it was clear.

If you're referring to the alledged signature lists, I seem to recall alot of fraud and abuse on those lists... so..

My point is... if you don't like the way your Rep voted, then, by all means, vote against them. But pick your battles well, when you have to weight what issues take priority.

Ahh.. election time, don't you just love it?

RJ

 

[Martlet]

If you're referring to the alledged signature lists, I seem to recall alot of fraud and abuse on those lists... so..

That's exactly what I'm referring to. You know. The one the AG spot checked and accepted. Over 170,000 signatures in 2 months is a pretty clear statement.

And yes, the solution IS to let the people vote on any item they feel is important enough to vote on.

 

[matt]

And when did the People of MA "clearly state" anything? I've seen lots of stating, from both sides of the issue and none of it was clear.

This is precisely the point. We've not been given the opportunity to clearly state anything.

By ingoring the demand of a large block of citizens who did legitimately sign the petitions and ignoring the constitutional processes that are required by that petition process, the legislature is effectively rewriting the constitution at thier whim. Simply by fiat.

Mark is correct. This has past the marriage issue. If this is allowed to stand we are no longer citizens, but subjects.

Matt

 

[tele_mark]

<SNIP>

Ahh.. election time, don't you just love it?

RJ

Yep! S'cuse me while I get sick in the corner:

 

[Jaxon]

That's exactly what I'm referring to. You know. The one the AG spot checked and accepted. Over 170,000 signatures in 2 months is a pretty clear statement.

And yes, the solution IS to let the people vote on any item they feel is important enough to vote on.

The same AG that we belittle for his Big Dig actions? The same one lords over us with his gun laws?

Yeah, right. And a year ago, there were hearings about the signature fraud. So, I have very little trust in anything the AG's office accepts.

RJ

 

[JellyFish]

My feelings on this are somewhat complex.

I was initially against gay marriage as I dislike the concept and had always found the idea of two men or two women marrying somewhat odd. After the court decision, I sort of went along with it as it seemed a done deal.

However, I do not agree with how it was done. There is NOTHING in the MA constitution that lends itself to gay marriage. Nothing. Nada. Zilch. Zero. Nothing. Disagree with me? Well go read it for yourself. To say that gay marriage is in there is REALLY stretching...well let's call it what it really is...bullshitting or flat out lying. And that's what the court did.

Also, the fact that it was done through a court decision means that it will always lack political legitimacy in the eyes of many people. It is similar to the abortion decision of 1973. No matter how much time passes, there will always be a segment of the population that will not accept it. Not now and not ever.

What would have been better is a civil unions bill passed by the legislature. I know whose fault it was that nothing ever got passed - Tom Finneran. He blocked EVERY attempt to pass a civil unions bill and thus the whole mess got put into the court system. Civil unions would have left the traditional concept of marriage alone and yet would have provided the same legal benefits.

Fast forward to now and what is the right thing to do? Well if there is never a vote on this issue then it will NEVER have any kind of political legitimacy. And I suspect that there will not be a vote. The leftists in the legislature will not allow the people to vote as it is not assured that the vote will go the right way. If people did vote and gay marriage was kept then it would be a huge victory for those who want to keep it here in MA

But nobody knows how the vote will turn out and thus the legislature will not allow a vote to happen. The way they put it off until after November speaks volumes about the contempt with which they view the voters. And why shouldn't they have contempt for us? They spit in our faces and do whatever they want over and over and over again, not just on this issue. And we the people (or we the idiots as I like to call it) just keep voting them into office again.

Personally, I still think civil unions make much more sense. A homosexual relationship is different in nature than a heterosexual one. Why glom a homosexual one into the definition of marriage? Because it's simply easier to get certain rights and benefits that way and that's ultimately is what it's about. And I suppose it also provides some legitimacy to the relationship where there might have been some doubt about that in the minds of people.

If civil unions had been a starting point, then perhaps marriage could have ultimately come over time with some legitimacy. But I doubt that will ever happen now. This issue is not going to go away nationally even if it fades here in MA.

So if you are against gay marriage, call and write your legislator, etc. But please don't be disappointed if you never get a chance to vote on it. The legislature is counting on the fact that they'll still get voted back in, even if they deny you the right to vote.

And if Deval is elected...well...good luck because then you'll also have a governor working directly against you too.

As for me, I personally care much less about this issue than I do about taxes and guns. I don't have plans to marry anybody anytime soon so I'll leave the entire institution and issue to all of you...and to the divorce lawyers of course.

 

[Admin]

I still think the state should get the hell out of the marriage business... I believe marriage was started by the church, why does the state have anything to do with it?

 

[matt]

I still think the state should get the hell out of the marriage business... I believe marriage was started by the church, why does the state have anything to do with it?

I agree, but Mark's point still stands. The legislature gave us all the "one finger salute", and we took it.

 

[JellyFish]

Well I like that idea. Civil unions for everybody then let the churches decide who will "marry" and all of that. Separates the state from the religious stuff altogether.

However, there are those who feel that the state has a legitimate interest in making sure that marriage exists as it is in the long term interest of the state to encourage its residents to breed and make more citizens.

That's a bit of a fascist type of view though or at least it seems so to me as it puts the state in the role of uber-parent with citizens as its subjects or children.

I still think the state should get the hell out of the marriage business... I believe marriage was started by the church, why does the state have anything to do with it?

 

[tele_mark]

I still think the state should get the hell out of the marriage business... I believe marriage was started by the church, why does the state have anything to do with it?

Because there's political clout and/therefore votes in it. Jeyllfish -- great commentary -- thanks!

 

[Jaxon]

Yes, thank you Church.

RJ

 

[matt]

Yes, thank you Church.

RJ

Yeah... you're right. It's the churches fault the government igonores us and treats us as subjects.

 

[Martlet]

The same AG that we belittle for his Big Dig actions? The same one lords over us with his gun laws?

Yeah, right. And a year ago, there were hearings about the signature fraud. So, I have very little trust in anything the AG's office accepts.

RJ

No, you have a fear that if the people are given a voice, you'd lose. You want the courts to make decisions for the people if you are afraid you're the minority.

 

[Martlet]

My feelings on this are somewhat complex.

However, I do not agree with how it was done.

That's the bottom line for me. My views aren't that complex. I feel the state should be out of the marriage business. They have no reason to be involved. They should be in the contract, or civil union for rights/benefits business. That being said, if they establish civil unions, they should be for everyone. Males, females, brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, and fire hydrants. If you want to enter into a legal contract with someone, and the means for that contract exist, you should be able to. Period. Leave the "marriage" to the churches.

In this case, it was crammed down our throats. Let the people vote. If they ban homo marriage, then the Legislature is just going to have to come up with something else that doesn't discriminate between homos and heteros.

 

[tele_mark]

<SNIP> Let the people vote. <SNIP>.

You pretty much said all that needs to be said....

 

[LoginName]

Hooo boy... I still remember the flame war that erupted the last time this subject came up (with at least one banning, IIRC).


I have mixed emotions about this.

To begin with, I have no problem with permitting gay/homosexual/lesbian couples to get married.

From a personal viewpoint I see it as a non-issue (there's more important things in my life to worry about).

From a political viewpoint, I view a ban on gay marriage as just another abridgement on a persons chosen lifestyle or beliefs that neither the government nor moral opponents have the right to deny or prohibit.

Given that, I believe that the question should not be allowed to be voted on. I mean, replace "gay marriage ban" with "handgun ban" (which as I recall from the earlier thread had been allowed for the "people" to decide), what would the reaction here be?

However... the MA Constitution does allow for the people to make changes as they see fit (the 10th and 14th amendment and possibly the 9th to the US Constitution/B.O.R. notwithstanding). Even Herr Reilly stated that the "people" have a right to do so. And therein lies my "mixed emotions"... the "people" have the right to do so, but is it the right thing to do?

This is a political 'hot potato' on Beacon Hill and every politician in their right mind just wishes it would go away.

What it comes down to is that I'm not pissed off at the legislature for not allowing MA voters to voice their rights... it's the political and procedural manipulation by Statehouse Dems that delayed the vote because it's an election year and no one wants to be held accountable nor provide an enticement for moderate/Republican/Conservative to turn up at the voting booths.

 

[Jaxon]

No, you have a fear that if the people are given a voice, you'd lose. You want the courts to make decisions for the people if you are afraid you're the minority.

And that's an assumption on your part. You assume I care either way. I don't. If people want to get married, who cares.

Just for once, let's assume that your Rep actually listened to the people in his or her district and actually voted they way then wanted. Mine did. Maybe yours voted the way they did becuase the other people in your district disagree with your POV. So, should you then get to vote anyway because your Rep didn't vote *your* way?

I question the rule of the majority. This is a Republic, not a democracy.

Remember that when that petition is passed around to reinterpret 2A.

RJ

 

[Martlet]

And that's an assumption on your part. You assume I care either way. I don't. If people want to get married, who cares.

Just for once, let's assume that your Rep actually listened to the people in his or her district and actually voted they way then wanted. Mine did. Maybe yours voted the way they did becuase the other people in your district disagree with your POV. So, should you then get to vote anyway because your Rep didn't vote *your* way?

I question the rule of the majority. This is a Republic, not a democracy.

Remember that when that petition is passed around to reinterpret 2A.

RJ

How do you know yours did? Let's assume yours didn't. Should the people be denied the right to vote because one person failed to perform his/her duties? If you think it's simply "majority rules", you need to take another look at how amendments are passed.

 

[adweisbe]

I still think the state should get the hell out of the marriage business... I believe marriage was started by the church, why does the state have anything to do with it?

+1
But the reality is that our legal system provides privileges and protections to spouses in marriages. These legal protections, whatever you want to call them (marriage, civil union etc.) need to be extended to some degree to same sex partners IMHO. Given that same sex partners are starting to adopt children and form actual family units it is important that they be able to benefit from the laws and case law that has taken many years to develop.

I am not a big believer in marriage though I do it anyway because it something you have to do much like gun licensing. You can't get insurance or recognition from family without it.

 

[Admin]

Well put LoginName. I feel the same way.

 

[Emoto]

The whole gay marriage thing is a sham; a distraction used by both sides to drum up support form their preceived bases.

The real problem is government being in the marriage business and deciding to hand out special priviledges to married people. I am 100% in favor of government getting the hell out of the marriage business.

The talk of the gov't needing to promote marriage to have stable relationships and (tax payign) offspring is hogwash. Humans will always engage in pair-bonding and produce children, regardless of what some nitwit in the government says or writes into law.

Create a civil contract category that any two people can enter into and leave the marrying to the various faiths.

 

[matt1956]

So, the solution is to have everyone vote for any item that they feel important?

And when did the People of MA "clearly state" anything? I've seen lots of stating, from both sides of the issue and none of it was clear.

If you're referring to the alledged signature lists, I seem to recall alot of fraud and abuse on those lists... so..

My point is... if you don't like the way your Rep voted, then, by all means, vote against them. But pick your battles well, when you have to weight what issues take priority.

Ahh.. election time, don't you just love it?

RJ

The whole issue here is the simple fact that if your legislator wants to put the vote off until after Nov. 7 it is because they know that their vote may be against that of those that would elect them... meaning they dont care what their voters want.

THAT is why it is important to send them a message. Those that voted "no" understand that their position is given to them by their voters and can be taken away by their voters.

This is not about gay marriage for me... I could care less who marries who... this is about the fact that the legilature doesnt care what the voters want... and that is the major issue with MA.

 

[JellyFish]

Well the fact that the legislature doesn't care about what the people think isn't surprising. They did the same thing with the income tax vote too.