The Marriage Initiative Petition is still alive because the Massachusetts Legislature held a vote at the Constitutional Convention in Boston today and more than the 50 minmum required legislators (61) voted to send the ballot question into next year's Constitutional Convention. If the Petition gets at least 50 votes next year, it will go on the Ballot for voters in 2008. Perhaps the legislators realized that they could not spin a recess vote after the SJC ruled they had a Constitutional duty to vote the petition up or down.
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2007/01/02/D8MDBAK80.html
We've argued here that this issue was initially about marriage (not homosexuality), but with the political machinations in Boston, this issue became about Constitutionality. The Constitution was upheld today.
9 comments :
The ConCon is still running, and it's not midnight yet, so who knows if they'll vote to rescind or what, but as it stands the Marriage Petition is going forward. But stay tuned.
http://blog.worcestercountyrepublicanclub.com/
I hope we can get the message out, like you said it is about marriage and nothing else. I wrote to my reps about my own expereince as a stay at home mother of three young children being married and how much my husdband and I rely on each other to raise children. That it had nothing to do with government benefits, but a word that describes our unifying bond of family. I think it went well.
I can't imagine the number of emails and phone calls they have recieved. I've also been reviewing vote on marriage's FAQs, so I can be prepared if conversation arises.
Thanks Renee,
I checked to be sure, and there were no more votes to rescind, so the Marriage Petition goes to the ConCon next year.
The false premise of the Boston Globe's editorial against this vote is that they are waiting to hear from the first heterosexual couple who's marriage was damaged by the same-sex couples who married in MA - that is false because it is the institution of marriage itself that is being damaged. This damage is like the shifting of the Continents, we don't feel it until the earthquake!
HOUSE:
John J. Binienda, D-Worcester - Y
Jennifer M. Callahan, D-Sutton - N
Mark J. Carron, D-Southbridge - Y
Christopher J. Donelan, D-Orange - N
James B. Eldridge, D-Acton - N
Lewis G. Evangelidis, R-Holden - Y
James H. Fagan, D-Taunton - Y
Barry R. Finegold, D-Andover - N
Jennifer Flanagan, D-Leominster - N
John P. Fresolo, D-Worcester – Y
Paul K. Frost, R-Auburn - Y
Anne M. Gobi, D-Spencer - N
Emile J. Goguen, D-Fitchburg - Y
Thomas A. Golden Jr., D-Lowell - N
Geoffrey D. Hall, D-Westford - N
Robert S. Hargraves, R-Groton - Y
Michael F. Kane, D-Holyoke - Y
Paul Kujawski, D-Webster - Y
James Brendan Leary, D-Worcester - N
Stephen P. LeDuc, D-Marlboro - N
Kevin J. Murphy, D-Lowell - N
David M. Nangle, D-Lowell - Y
Harold P. Naughton Jr., D-Clinton - N
Marie J. Parente, D-Milford - Y
Vincent A. Pedone, D-Worcester - N
George N. Peterson Jr., R-Grafton - Y
Thomas M. Petrolati, D-Ludlow - Y
William "Smitty" Pignatelli, D-Lenox - X
Karyn E. Polito, R-Shrewsbury - Y
Robert Rice, D-Gardner - N
Mary S. Rogeness, R-Longmeadow - Y
Tom Sannicandro, D-Ashland - N
Todd Smola, R-Palmer - Y
Robert P. Spellane, D-Worcester - N
Ellen Story, D-Amherst - N
James E. Vallee, D-Franklin - Y
Joseph F. Wagner, D-Chicopee - N
Patricia A. Walrath, D-Stow - N
SENATE
Robert A. Antonioni, D-Leominster - N
Edward M. Augustus, D-Worcester - N
Stephen M. Brewer, D-Barre - N
Scott P. Brown, R-Wrentham - Y
Harriette L. Chandler, D-Worcester - N
Michael R. Knapik, R-Westfield - N
Brian P. Lees, R-East Longmeadow - N
Richard T. Moore, D-Uxbridge - Y
Andrea F. Nuciforo, D-Pittsfield - X
Marc R. Pacheco, D-Taunton - N
Steven C. Panagiotakos, D-Lowell - Y
Pamela P. Resor, D-Acton - N
Stanley C. Rosenberg, D-Amherst - N
Karen E. Spilka, D-Ashland - N
Susan C. Tucker, D-Andover - N
You'll never hear from "us", because we simply don't have the time or money to constantly lobby and fund these iniatives. We're busy with families, even myself shouldn't be that much online to defend myself. It seems they take advantage of the fact we're busy providing and caring for children. Government was suppose to protect the venerable, such as pregnant women and children. The best way is to support at the very least the definition of marriage. To say women and men are different when it comes to being a family is just discrimination, because well we are different. Nothing wrong to say in the context of family, that is what we are.
And to note governments should protect all people from unjust discrimination, but now it is being turned upside down that language protecting families is a hate crime.
Is anyone asking why it now takes a two-thirds majority to NOT change the legal definition of marriage? Or, for that matter, to recognize the legal status of children in the womb? Why accept unrestrained judicial oligarchy with its unjust arrogation of power? Since our Constitution disallows any such unbalanced usurpation of power, activist judges ought to be seen and prosecuted as the criminals they are.
jerry,
I don't blame the judges for what happened in Massachusetts. I blame the legislature for the most part. The won't let us vote, and instead of allowing gays to use the term marriage to describe their relationships they should of stiken out the word marriage and call every thing civil unions.
I also blame Romney, who could have nipped this in the bud right after the SJC Goodrich decision by executive order to the Health Departments to maintain the status quo on marriage until some kind of debate or action in the Legislature.
MA is no picnic Jerry!
Neither is WI (sigh)
Post a Comment