I don't know how much of a story this is in other parts of the country. I know that there have been ballot questions to amend the constitution in several states and a mojority have voted to do so. Here in MA, the legislature isn't all that interested in letting the voters decide if same sex marriage should be legal or not.

In '03 the MA SJC ruled that barring same sex couples from marrying is uncontitutional.

Boston Globe-SJC: Gay marriage legal in Mass.

The MA SJC ruling has been challanged. 170,000 people signed a petition to amend the constitution. That is more than enough signatures to require the legislature to give an up or down vote on this matter.


Town Hall-Mocking the rules in Massachusetts

The legislature has not voted as of yet. In fact, it seems quite unlikely that there is any chance that there will be a ballot question in '08. Now that we have essentially one party rule in this state it seems highly unlikely that we will ever get a chance to vote on this.

Boston Herald-Howie Carr

Maybe this isn't something people here are interested in discussing. I am most curious on what people think about what the MA state legislature is doing.

Do you think MA residence should get a chance to vote on this issue?

 

Why fight Gay marriage? How does a married gay couple affect our lives? Statitics show that gay people have good jobs, make good money, are peaceful people, keep up their properties and make good neighbors. Where is the problem with that? They pay taxes and raise unwanted children. How are gay people a threat to those who oppose gay marriage?

There are a lot of things in this country I don't like or believe in. But that's life. I'd rather have these people as neighbors instead of crackheads, child molestors, losers/low lifes and a ton of other people.

This will be in the courts for many many years and we as tax payers will be footing the bill for something that will eventually pass.

 

True True. . But here in Texas we already said no. My gov. class has been exploring this issue, needless to say it has been interesting & caused some heated debates!

 

Basically, if you are against gay marriage, the onus is on you to justify denying somenes constitutional right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

I have a question, how many people here use tobacco? Smoke, chew etc?

You're fast becoming a social pariah as well.

There's a growing number of employers who refuse to hire smokers, even drug test for nicotine. Many rental properties are non-smoking anymore, smoking bans are growing (the Univerity of Iowa announced their considering a total ban on university property).

Now how many of you want to ban gay marriage but don't think you should be discriminated against because of your lifestyle choices?

 

There is absolutely no reason for this to be in court for many years.

If the MA SJC had done it's job of interpreting the law, instead of making it and the legislature followed the law then the residence of this state would be able to vote on it.

I'm not giving a position for or against. I just think that it should be put to a vote, not decided by activist judges and law braking legislature. If it will eventually pass, than why isn't it on a ballot for us to vote on?

What if the circumstances were the same but the issue was something else? As far as I'm concerned same sex marriage is secondary. The main point is letting people have the right to vote. That's not happening here when the law says the legislature has to act.

 

Smoking bans are sweeping the county and any opposition to them is generally unheard. It's ok to discriminate against some but not others?

Ok, so smoking has health concerns attatched to it. I guess there isn't a direct parallel.

I'm not so sure people who oppose same sex marriage are intent on discriminating against same sex couples but rather preserving a long standing tradition in our culture.

I would guess that the framers of the constitution didn't consider same sex marriage because it was unfathomable to them.

 

wittom,
I'm afraid your state is too Blue to be a player in this game. Constitutional amendments on the ballot are a good tool to help a base 'get out the vote'.

It was on the crucial Ohio ballot in 2004. If it had not been, we might have a President Kerry today.

Last week it was on the Virginia ballot. Allen(R) = For, Webb(D) = Against
Even though the Senatorial vote was 50 - 50, the Amendment passed with 58% so, some people pulled the lever for Webb (Against) and pulled the lever (For)the Amendment. That's how bad off the Republicans were here and how badly misunderstood our amendment was.

In the 2008 election, look for the following states to have a Same Sex Constitutional amendment on the ballot:

North Carolina (especially if Edwards is anywhere on the ticket)
Iowa (legislature = Nay on same sex, nothing in their constitution)

Possibly Minnesota & Washington state.

By the way, the amendment we got stuck with here in Virginia was far reaching way past it's advertisment. In general, people didn't read what they were voting for, it was just a knee jerk reaction.
But what the heck, we always get the government we deserve.

 

Raoul, I'm following you around. Just kidding I agree with the VA question being tricky. Webb oppossed the amendment but also opposses gay marraige. I don't think alot of people understood this. I know this for a fact as someone told me you're either for gay marraige or against it... I personally voted no because frankly I don't think we need to alter the Constitution. That does not mean I feel they should be afforded the same rights and guarentees as a traditional marraige.

 

If not having a piece of paper saying you're married costs you life, liberty, and happiness, you have bigger problems......

 

Our founding fathers intended for us to have as much personal freedom as could be allowed without causing harm to others. And all the arguments about gay marriage harming society are about as abstract and disconnected as a Dali print.

 

Well there is no constitutional right to marriage but putting that aside.

Marriage has always been between a man and a woman. It should remain so.

If you want to give gays legal protections, etc fine make a civil union but don't call it marriage. This is more than semantics.

When you continue to ignore the obvious destruction of our cultural values and claim it is necessary to be equal and fair you are breaking down the foundation of this country.

Call me a bigot or whatever but a married couple consisting of a man and a woman is not equal to two gay people living together. A married couple is better. It is better for the family and the society. We can shove are heads in the sand and claim there is no difference but we are just kidding ourselves.

I will not be silenced by claims of bigotry or cave-man mentality.

Certain truths are self-evident regardless of how vitriol the attacks may be.

 

*clap* *clap* *clap*

 

Funny but our society seems to be fairly messed up already without gay marriages, despite all these wonderful straight marriages.

Maybe you should find another scapegoat, your current one doesn't seem to be working.

 

We're not saying you can't be gay Kretinus. It's okay.

 

Brilliant comment, best one I've heard from a 3 year old for a long time