My husband and I were lucky enough to be in the gallery yesterday during the Constitutional Convention when they were voting on same sex marriage. Most of the speakers literally brought tears to my eyes.
Then there were the speakers that were advocating for discrimination in the constitution (I was sorry for them). However this time they were trying a new tactic. Instead of saying how they didn't want same sex marriage, they couched it in a "well we should do the process thing and let the people vote." Amazing. These people didn't even have the nerve to stand up for their beliefs.
One of the anti-gay Reps, Rep. Phil Travers, must have forgotten that he and Emile Goguen submitted the anti-marriage bill (which Article 8/Massresistance take credit for) they were voting on because he called it unconstitutional and said that no one should vote for it. I wonder why he didn't think that when he first submitted it (which WAS after the Goodridge decision)? Needless to say the whole legislature defeated it unanimously. Here's Massresistance's take on it:
Of course, I don't understand why they call Sen. Barrios' speech"slimey" since he did exactly what they wanted, he just pushed their bill forward. They should be happy that the whole legislature finally got to vote on their bill. Did I say it was unanimously defeated?
Shockingly, today we learned that there's not a single honorable, courageous legislator in Massachusetts. Item #19 on the calendar, the pure definition of marriage with a ban on civil unions (just before the weaker VoteOnMarriage amendment, #20) was voted down 196-0, just before the ConCon adjourned. Now what is wrong with #19? Our group filed it as a bill (H653), in an effort to strengthen the definition of marriage in our statutes. (Gov. Romney recommended this very course in his famous Wall Street Journal op-ed of February 2004!) The bill's co-sponsors were Rep. Goguen and Rep. Travis.
Granted, homosexual activist Sen. Barrios turned #19 from a bill into an amendment. (Though he never said a thing about that in his slimey speech.) But it could never have passed today anyhow (needing 50%+), so the pro-family legislators could safely have voted for it -- but still didn't. Unbelievable.
Reps. Goguen, Loscocco, Parente, DeMacedo, Sens. Brown, Hedlund: What happened to all of you? What twisted strategy were you following? The wording of #19 is exactly the same as the marriage amendment you supported in 2002! So why the change? Not a single legislator in Massachusetts is "brave" enough to confirm marriage is between a man and a woman, and civil unions should be banned! And that the Goodridge ruling is illegitimate; and that current same-sex "marriages" are illegal and should not be protected!
I agree with Massresistance, I don't understand why the anti-gay reps (who were either voted out or are retiring) didn't vote for this amendment. It was exactly what they wanted. In the purest sense of the law, the whole legislature was given a choice, vote for marriage as the union of one man and one woman or not. They voted a resounding NO.