The Massachusetts legislature today voted down a proposed constitutional amendment to define marriage as between a man and a woman. 50 votes were needed to put the amendment on the ballot; only 45 voted in favor of doing so.
According to the New York Times, “opponents of gay marriage would have to start from square one to sponsor a new amendment, which could not get on the ballot before 2012.” The AP story says it could get on the ballot in 2010:
That would happen only with a successful new petition drive and the backing of 50 lawmakers in two consecutive sittings of the 200-seat Legislature _ including the one that just rejected the ballot measure.
Massachusetts is the only state which allows same-sex marriage; five other states allow some form of civil union. Some 8,500 couples have married since May 2004.
And guess what? Like in the Loving case, the world hasn’t ended.
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
Congrats to Massachusetts residents.
Any bets on when DC is going to follow suit? With either civil unions or gay marriage?
I couldn’t give you a specific timeframe, Sean, but I’m thinking that it’s going to wait until after DC gets its vote in Congress. Republicans already did a pretty good job surpressing the right to Congressional representation for a half-million mostly-black urban voters using a rider on one gun rights ruling, and pursuing gay marriage at this point in time will push that objective even further out of reach.
However, once that vote in the House is secured, I think civil unions would be pretty achievable.
added: Once it does happen, you’re welcome to come up here and crash while you look for housing in an officially-gay-friendly District of Columbia. Can’t promise the Mets, but I do have a share of our season tickets for the Nats. 😉
Thanks anonymous, but perhaps not unknown, friend.
Unfortunately. I may have to land myself into another tax braket first.
The MA Legislature should have allowed the people to decide whether they want gay marriage or not. I hope that this decision by the MA polititcans stimulates the residents into voting and putting people into the legislature that represents them and not the special interest groups. Also, I want to know what the nine legislators were promised for changing their votes from the previous session.
Nonsence, Virginia Voter. It’s much better to let the judges make the laws than have ignorant voters decide what is right.
Drip…..
Drip…..
Drip…..
No, that’s not your sink dripping, it’s the sarcasm.
Virginia Voter—their reelection, that’s what.
Actually, I hope you’re right, Sean Holihan. Because that would mean the implication of a lot of high ranking Democrats in Massachusetts working together to fix the elections of fellow democrats and a lone republican for political favors. That would make my day, and we could finally cleanse the Massachusetts political system of all the sleaziness of the Democrats. I live for that day.
Virginia Voter–you know, just like a lot of West Coast and North Eastern Democrats make the profound mistake of thinking Virginia is just like their state, I suspect you’re likewise forgetting that not every state is as filled with people who are as deeply concerned with what their neighbors are doing behind closed door as in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Lest we forget that both John Kerry and Ted Kennedy were both to represent the state in the Senate for a reason, please bear in mind that the Democrats who adequately represent the views of their more-liberal-than-most-Virginians constituencies don’t have to bother rigging anything.
But thanks for playing Evil Left Wing Conspiracy Theory.
Anonymous, First I find your post hard to read and understand. Secondly, I am a transplant from Massachusetts having lived there for some 30 plus years. I know that the Democrats in Massachusetts are corrupt and that back room dealing goes on all the time. As for the behind closed doors comment, I do not care what people do behind closed doors. But, the Gay agenda is not about behind closed doors. The Gay agenda is about pushing a sexual lifestyle or behavior upon the rest of society without allowing society to have a say as to whether or not they agree with such behavior or lifestyle.
Virginia Voter:
I’m sorry, I’ve been out of press long enough that I’ve stopped writing for the reading comprehension of high schoolers. Let me help you out by putting this very clearly: you won’t have to have sex with a homosexual. You won’t have to watch the homosexuals have sex. You won’t have to live with a homosexual or any member of the same sex if you don’t want to. You won’t have to go to a gay bar after work, and your children will not learn about gay sex in school. The gays are not going to start going at it in your front yard–but they are going to have sex whether you want them to or not, and that in itself is not a political agenda anymore than it’s a political statement when you have sex with your wife.
Unless you DO think it’s a political statement when you have sex with your wife, in which case, ohmigod that poor woman….
I must have missed the memo on the Gay Agenda.