"to honor a scheduled vote next month on a proposed gay-marriage ban, saying any move by gay-rights advocates to kill the measure would be a subversion of democracy"Yet if we were to get into the time machine and go back to 1990 when the people got enough signatures to revise the constitution to include an amendment to guarantee a woman's "right to choose", guess what happened? Well, read about it here:
Is Governor Romney sticking around long to even see what happens or does he have another fundraiser to attend where he can bash Massachusetts? I'm also so glad that O'Malley took time off to support this anti-gay measure when he didn't have the time to meet with other religious leaders who support marriage equality to address their concerns (I won't even go into the huge payoff he gave to the accused sexual harasser). But then a photo opt is a photo opt.
He (former State Rep. David Cohen now Newton Mayor) cited his own experience in the legislature in 1990 as one of the supporters of an amendment that would guarantee the right of a woman to receive an abortion, when his opponents were able to block that amendment through a combination of procedural maneuvers, ultimately killing it by refusing to attend the ConCon.
"That was used again by the anti-choice forces in blocking the amendment. There were repeated quorum calls, and since the pro-choice forces did not have a majority we could not maintain a quorum, and so that certainly is a legitimate tactic," said Cohen.
Mass Marrier has more coverage of the "quickie" Globe reporting.