Massachusetts is the only one of our 50 states to allow gay marriage. That could be in jeopardy.
An anti-gay marriage amendment took a step toward being placed on the 2008 ballot after enough state legislators voted in favor of doing so. The next legislative session must still endorse the amendment for this to happen.
During a break in the proceedings at the State House today, I talked with people on both sides of the issue who'd come to watch.
"The majority of Massachusetts residents fully supports marriage equality for gays and lesbians in the state," said Julie Verratti, a field organizer and canvass director for MassEquality. "In every single state across the country, except Arizona in 2006, when there's been gay marriage on the ballot, they've failed to protect families when people voted."
The Rev. Roberto Miranda, the chairman of VoteOnMarriage who was a plaintiff in two lawsuits against gay marriage, said, "We're convinced we're on the right side ... We're compelled by our convictions to stay until the last minute."
Verratti and Miranda expressed differing views on the role of Gov. Mitt Romney in all this.
"I think everyone understands Mitt Romney is trying to run for president," Verratti said. "He's doing whatever he can to position himself as being more conservative."
Miranda said, "I think (Romney's) been absolutely key. He's provided us with the support of a key member of government on behalf of our amendment. He's given us moral support."
Reader Comments ( Page 3 of 3)
31. A couple of years ago while working for a New York based property management company I was sent to Springfield to take back a building that was controlled by drug dealers. The guy and his sister who controlled the entire operation for the south side of Sprinfield lived in our building. My job was to build a relationship with the police. When Mr. Big (and he was, too) figured out who was responsible for a lot of his people getting arrested, he assaulted me. Actually, he came with a gun under his shirt but there were too many witnesses. Remember I said he was big? He taught me how to fly. A policy suggested and signed into law by Mitt Romney said that for me to sign a criminal complaint against this guy, I had to pay $15.00. I had the fifteen dollars but what if the guy killed me. Would there be no justice if some cop picked my pocket and only found twelve fifty? I am a Conservative Republican and I would vote for Hillary in a heart beat if Romney were the only other choice.
W.L. Barton at 9:06PM on Feb 13th 2007
32. In New Zealand, we are several hours ahead of the U.S, but when I read comments like the one at the start of this thread I wonder if we're not decades ahead.
I am not a Christian by any stretch of the imagination, in fact I would classify myself as a Fundamentalist Atheist, but that's another story.
Despite my atheism, I have a problem with intruding on the freedom of any religion to exclude any religious title, honour or status (such as the term "Marriage") from anyone they choose, for any reason they choose.
I believe that as long as no-one is hurt, it should be completely up to any club or religion to choose it's own members, rules and traditions. This should apply to all religions and all temples and churches equally.
By the same token, it should not be anyone's business whether two, or any number of people wish to be legally recognized in a loving partnership of some sort.
Why should any law-abiding person not be extended some protection from being kicked out on their ass by their partner(s) with nothing to show for years of shared income and belongings?
How would those denouncing gay marriage feel if someone were to advocate the idea of Militant Buddhists ransacking houses of Christians and taking away any belongings they perceived to be hedonistic. It's an equally valid viewpoint (though unlikely because Buddhists are non-evangelical pacifists).
In New Zealand there is a way for homosexuals to be legally recognized as life partners, and to have the same protection as married couples, but it is not called Marriage.
I see that as fair, and some homosexuals have even gone so far as to ceremonies at gay-friendly churches. That must, in all good sense, be considered a marriage. Even if it is not recognised by some.
In no way has that affected the ability of mainstream churches to denounce and reject any notion of gay marriage. It hasn't hampered their ability to decry those churches which have chosen to diverge even further from The Word. Nor has society degenerated into chaos.
On the other hand if the majority over there are angry closed-minded bigots like those who commented first, maybe it would.
me at 1:23AM on Feb 21st 2007
33. You damn catholics got it all. Wrong, you are twisting the word of the bible. Damn morons. The Bible may say that it sould be a man and a woman that get married, but it also to accept all people's for who they are. You may see gays as immoral, fine that's not my problem. But seperation of church states that your religous views have no basis in the workings of the government. If the catholic church doesn't want to marry gays then they don't have to. But the state can also perform marriges and there is nothing you can do about it.
John Lestrange at 8:07AM on Mar 14th 2007