January 03, 2007

Too angry to type.

GODDAMN. We were SO FUCKING CLOSE to being done with this.

I'll post something more constructive later. In the meantime, here's the news.

New York Times: Same-Sex Marriage Setback in Massachusetts

Chicago Tribune: Gay Marriage Foes Win in Mass.

Boston Globe:
Same-Sex Marriage Ban Advances
[How They Voted] 2nd roll call vote on ballot question proposing gay marriage ban
[Editorial] A Shameful Reversal of Rights
Patrick Concedes Being Surprised By Gay Marriage Outcome

MassEquality:
Anti-Gay Amendment Moves Forward

6 comments:

emily2 said...

i don't know how things get done in massachusetts, but it seems a bit fishy to me. 1/4 of the legislature is all it takes to put something on the ballot that gives the right to the people to alter the highest legal document in massachusetts, a document that ALL people in massachusetts are bound by? (maybe it's the same in all states. who knows. but this seems ridiculous to me.)

with all the yammering of "judicial activism" - a majority among justices is still required for any laws to be upheld or invalidated. a majority of the legislature is required for a bill to pass. a supermajority is required for an amendment to pass within the legislature.

why on earth is a superminority vote enough to punt something to voters - voters who ALREADY voted for their legislator to represent them?

bleh. ridiculous.

anyway, folks. for 2008, if you are still registered in the state where your parents live, register in massachusetts. tell your friends to do the same. the fantastic thing about massachusetts is that there are swarms of idealistic college students who have more progressive values than their parents. massachusetts' population swells during the school year.

a drive should be done - pronto - to register GLBT-friendly college students who go to school in massachusetts as massachusetts voters. start networking with other colleges (and law schools! massachusetts is also crawling with law schools.)

oh and one more thing. mitt romney is a tool. in 1993 (or 1994) he tried to poach the gay vote from kennedy by claiming he was friendlier to gays. now he has amnesia. he should go the way of santorum.

bat dor said...

It's not the same in all states. Thankfully, in Massachusetts, citizen initiative petitions are a four-step process:

1. 1% of the people who voted in the last election sign a petition in favor of this amendment. (They got 129k, 9k more than they needed -- they're claiming 170k. 120k of those signatures came from churches.)

2. 25% of the state legislature during the 2005-2006 legislative session votes in favor of the amendment. (On January 2nd, they voted 62-134; because there are 200 people in the state legislature, they needed only 50 for it to move on.)

3. 25% of the state legislature during the 2007-2008 legislative session votes in favor of the amendment.

4. The amendment is put on the ballot, possibly as early as November 2008. A simple majority is required to pass it.

I say "thankfully" because in other states -- California, for example -- if you collect enough signatures there's no legislative review at all. Watch for a proposed constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in California in 2008.

icarus said...

sad. sad sad sad.

emily2 said...

thank god i live in new jersey. (yes, we only have marriage lite, but people care so little about what gay people do here that the news that the civil unions bill passed was barely a blip.)

(p.s. did you know new jersey just included gender identity into its non-discrimination law? or did i already post that...)

emily0 said...

*shoots self in foot* - o wait, that was MASSACHUSETTS that did that.

fuckers.

Anonymous said...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thenewswire/comments/2007/03/31/44669

so, um, who's side do we take on this--Rosie the brave and outspoken lesbian or uh, Bill O'Reilly?

trying to figure this one out--it's kind of scary...