Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 21

Thread: Democracy donkey style.....

  1. #1
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,407
    Post Thanks / Like

    Democracy donkey style.....

    good to see the rat leaders of Assachusetts believe in letting the people decide issues for themselves....

    [QUOTE][B]Massachusetts lawmakers vote to block anti-gay marriage question from 2008 ballot[/B]

    Story Updated: Jun 14, 2007 at 2:32 PM PDT
    By STEVE LeBLANC Associated Press WriterBOSTON (AP) - Massachusetts lawmakers blocked a proposed constitutional amendment Thursday that would have let voters decide whether to ban gay marriage in the only state that allows it.

    ''In Massachusetts today, the freedom to marry is secure,'' said a victorious Gov. Deval Patrick, who had lobbied lawmakers up until the final hours Thursday to kill the measure.

    The narrow vote was a blow to efforts to reverse the historic court ruling that legalized same-sex marriage in the state. More than 8,500 gay couples have married there since it became legal in May 2004.

    As the tally was announced, the halls of the Statehouse erupted in applause. The ban needed 50 votes to secure a place on the 2008 statewide ballot. It got 45, with 151 lawmakers opposed.

    ''We're proud of our state today, and we applaud the Legislature for showing that Massachusetts is strongly behind fairness,'' said Lee Swislow, executive director of Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders.

    Opponents of gay marriage vowed to press on, but Thursday's defeat after more than three years of sometimes wrenching debate could prove insurmountable. Any effort to mount a new ballot question would take years at a time political support in Massachusetts is swinging firmly behind gay marriage.

    Former Gov. Mitt Romney, now running for president, called the vote ''a regrettable setback'' and said it makes it more important now to pass a national amendment banning gay marriage.

    ''Marriage is an institution that goes to the heart of our society, and our leaders can no longer abdicate their responsibility,'' he said.

    Raymond Flynn, the former Boston mayor and former U.S. ambassador to the Vatican who was the lead sponsor of the proposed amendment, said the 170,000 Massachusetts residents who signed the petition for the ban ''had their vote stolen from them.''

    The legal fight over gay marriage began in 2001 when seven same-sex couples who had been denied marriage licenses sued in Suffolk Superior Court.

    The case reached the state's highest court, which ruled in 2003 that it was unconstitutional to bar gay couples from marriage. It gave the Legislature 180 days to come up with a solution to allow gays to wed. President Bush criticized the decision, but the court was adamant that only full, equal marriage rights would be constitutional.

    Outside the Statehouse on Thursday, hundreds of people rallied on both sides of the issue. ''We believe it's unconstitutional not to allow people to vote on this,'' said Rebekah Beliveau, a 24-year-old Gordon Conwell Theological Seminary student who stood with fellow college-age amendment supporters across the street from the Statehouse.

    ''We're standing up not necessarily on the issue of same-sex marriage, but our right to vote,'' she said. Advocates said they had gathered 170,000 signatures supporting the amendment; the secretary of state's office accepted 123,000 as valid.

    Across the road, gay marriage advocates stood on the front steps of the capital waving signs that read, ''Wrong to Vote on Rights'' and ''All Families Are Equal.''

    Jean Chandler, 62, of Cambridge, came with fellow members of her Baptist church in an effort to rebuff the image that strict followers of the Bible are opposed to gay marriage.

    ''I think being gay is like being left-handed,'' Chandler said. ''If we decided left-handed people couldn't marry, what kind of society would we be?''

    The measure needed 50 votes in two consecutive legislative sessions to advance to the ballot, and it had passed with 62 votes at the end of the last session in January.

    On Thursday, in contrast to previous joint sessions, there was no debate. Senate President Therese Murray opened the constitutional convention by calling for a vote, and the session was gaveled to a close immediately afterward.

    It was a victory for the state's Democratic leadership, including Patrick, a vocal supporter of gay marriage.

    House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi, a Democrat from Boston, also worked on lawmakers to get them to oppose the measure, arguing that the rights of a minority group should not be put to a popular vote. Before the session, a handful of lawmakers who had voted in favor of the amendment previously said they were reconsidering their vote.

    One lawmakers who previously voted in favor of the amendment, Democratic Rep. Anthony Verga of Gloucester, missed the joint session after injuring himself in a fall the day before.

    Kris Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute that backed the amendment, said his group was vastly outspent by gay marriage supporters. ''It certainly does appear that money speaks in this building,'' he said.

    Mineau pledged to continue fighting but wouldn't commit to presenting another proposed amendment.

    ''I don't believe it's dead because the people have not had the opportunity to have their vote,'' he said. ''This will not go away until the citizens have their opportunity to decide what the definition of marriage is.''

    Associated Press writers Glen Johnson and Ken Maguire contributed to this report.

    Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

    [/QUOTE]

    [url]http://www.komotv.com/news/national/8003427.html[/url]

  2. #2
    All Pro
    Annoying Chowd

    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    6,259
    Post Thanks / Like
    The population loss that's occured the past few years tells you all you need to know about the liberals running Massachusetts.

  3. #3
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    13,179
    Post Thanks / Like
    Since when where rights in this country up to a vote?

  4. #4
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    6,284
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs]Since when where rights in this country up to a vote?[/QUOTE]

    Exactly. A court said they have the right to marry there, and now they do.

    Do you think votes on free speech and free assembly should be permitted to, CBTNY? Should there be a vote to decide if your marriage is legal after its been certified?

  5. #5
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,407
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola]Exactly. A court said they have the right to marry there, and now they do.

    Do you think votes on free speech and free assembly should be permitted to, CBTNY? Should there be a vote to decide if your marriage is legal after its been certified?[/QUOTE]


    so why did the legislature have a vote on deciding whether the people should get to vote on the issue???

    why did they not let them vote when other states have in fact let the electorate/constituents vote on this measure???

    like I said- democracy donkey style....

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Long Island
    Posts
    13,518
    Post Thanks / Like
    What a non issue this gay marriage bullsh!t is.

    How about we worry about more important things like the war, the economy and education?

  7. #7
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    6,284
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Come Back to NY]so why did the legislature have a vote on deciding whether the people should get to vote on the issue???

    why did they not let them vote when other states have in fact let the electorate/constituents vote on this measure???

    like I said- democracy donkey style....[/QUOTE]

    In the other states that voted, marriage rights hadn't yet been granted as they have in Mass. These people want to vote to overturn a court decision they don't like. The way to do that is to go further up the judiciary ladder and appeal to a higher court.

    Do you think southern voters should have been able to vote to repeal Brown versus Board of Ed?

  8. #8
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,407
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola]In the other states that voted, marriage rights hadn't yet been granted as they have in Mass. These people want to vote to overturn a court decision they don't like. The way to do that is to go further up the judiciary ladder and appeal to a higher court.

    Do you think southern voters should have been able to vote to repeal Brown versus Board of Ed?[/QUOTE]


    good way to answer the post with more usual gibberish.....

    again- why was it neccessary for the legislature to have a vote deciding whether or not the constiuents should be allowed to vote on the decision??

    of course letting a court of less than a dozen people decide an issue for millions who are not allowed to vote on that issue is a completely different topic...

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    3,278
    Post Thanks / Like
    F U reds. do you even realize what it is you are arguing about?! Does gay marriage really hinder you from living your own life? This shouldnt even be a topic of disussion but political scumbags like yourself feels it should. Leave those people be. The less time you spend worrying about gays the more time could be spent solving real issues, like say,

    THE WAR IN IRAQ....

    just a thought....

  10. #10
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    22,377
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Come Back to NY]of course letting a court of less than a dozen people decide an issue for millions who are not allowed to vote on that issue is a completely different topic...[/QUOTE]


    [IMG]http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f72/beerman7543/Legalize.jpg[/IMG]

  11. #11
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    6,284
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=PMCRW]F U reds. do you even realize what it is you are arguing about?! Does gay marriage really hinder you from living your own life? This shouldnt even be a topic of disussion but political scumbags like yourself feels it should. Leave those people be. The less time you spend worrying about gays the more time could be spent solving real issues, like say,

    THE WAR IN IRAQ....

    just a thought....[/QUOTE]

    Good post. I'm embarassed for taking the bait on this.

  12. #12
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,407
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola]Good post. I'm embarassed for taking the bait on this.[/QUOTE]

    you should be embrassed...his post has nothing to do with the thread....the thread concerns taking a vote to deny people the right to vote on an issue...but your mind which twists everything doesn't even realize this...

  13. #13
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    7,297
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs]Since when where rights in this country up to a vote?[/QUOTE]

    Great drop Biggie

  14. #14
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    319
    Post Thanks / Like
    I believe we live in a kind of a democracy that still tries to protect the rights of the individual and of minorities from the tyranny of the majority.

    The courts are often there to take a longer term look at things and to protect the rights of the individual. Is this not correct? Often the majority is short sighted.

    We don't get to vote on everything. In fact we vote people into office to make decisions for us. If we don't like the decisions that are being made we vote those in office out of office.

  15. #15
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    7,680
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Come Back to NY]you should be embrassed...his post has nothing to do with the thread....the thread concerns taking a vote to deny people the right to vote on an issue...but your mind which twists everything doesn't even realize this...[/QUOTE]

    CBNY,
    Do you think a state should have the right to put to popular vote whether blacks should have the right to vote?

  16. #16
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,407
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=kennyo7]CBNY,
    Do you think a state should have the right to put to popular vote whether blacks should have the right to vote?[/QUOTE]

    of course not....were it left to the rats though, blacks would not be voting and would be enslaved in the south....

    do you think legislators should be voting to give consituents the right to vote on an issue???

    what does it say about the legislators when a vote like this is taken and they vote "no"???

  17. #17
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    7,680
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Come Back to NY]of course not....were it left to the rats though, blacks would not be voting and would be enslaved in the south....

    [B]do you think legislators should be voting to give consituents the right to vote on an issue???[/B]

    what does it say about the legislators when a vote like this is taken and they vote "no"???[/QUOTE]

    Yes especially in cases where the question at hand being voted on already has a law supportint it and especially when you are voting to take rights away from a minority that already has been granted these rights.

    Had the rights of African Americans been put to vote in 1950s Mississippi, a major injustice would have been voted for. Just cause the majority may vote against it, doesnt make it right

  18. #18
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,407
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=kennyo7]Yes especially in cases where the question at hand being voted on already has a law supportint it and especially when you are voting to take rights away from a minority that already has been granted these rights.

    Had the rights of African Americans been put to vote in 1950s Mississippi, a major injustice would have been voted for. Just cause the majority may vote against it, doesnt make it right[/QUOTE]


    if there is already a law to support then there's no reason for the legislature to be holding votes to allow constituents to vote on the issues....should there be??

  19. #19
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    13,179
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Come Back to NY]of course not....were it left to the rats though, blacks would not be voting and would be enslaved in the south....

    do you think legislators should be voting to give consituents the right to vote on an issue???

    what does it say about the legislators when a vote like this is taken and they vote "no"???[/QUOTE]


    Legislators who want to give the vote on an issue to their constituents shouldn't be legislators. We have representative government and if a legislator doesn't feel he can lead or represent he or she should get out.

  20. #20
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    7,680
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Come Back to NY]if there is already a law to support then there's no reason for the legislature to be holding votes to allow constituents to vote on the issues....should there be??[/QUOTE]

    exactly. Thats why this is bing blocked in MA. This is a political stunt

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us