What happens next to "gay marriage" in Massachusetts?

[TaleWgnDg]

---

I've posted this (below) post in the DU http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=158x2626">"Massachusetts states" discussion area and in the DU "GLBT Issues" discussion area. However, I've been told recently by DUers that this post should get more DU attention.

This is why I've *reposted* it here in this DU "General Discussion" area. Keep it *kicked,* please. And, thank you.

---

What happens next to "gay marriage" in Massachusetts?
It's time to notify your Massachusetts senator and representative . . .

Yes, it's time to snail-mail and/or telephone and/or email and/or FAX your Massachusetts state representative and senator. Help your Massachusetts neighbors and relatives. Don't allow discrimination to appear in the Massachusetts constitution against them! The Massachusetts constitution was the first constitution in the entire world. John Adams, its author, would think it unconscionable to place discrimination in his constitution against residents of Massachusetts. Be aware the discriminatory anti-gay amendment is up again for grabs in the Massachusetts house and senate in 2005.

Take a moment, please, to read and analyze the process to amendment the Massachusetts constitution, then the Boston Globe article on the status of the anti-gay amendment as of Tuesday, January 18, 2005.

A brief overview:

1. It takes two years, back-to-back, of the combined Massachusetts house and senate (a constitutional convention) to pass the exact same bill without any changes to it, first year to second year, and then that wording (as passed in two consecutive years) is placed as a voter's question on the following (3rd) year ballot for an up or down public vote. Thus, it takes three years with the same language of the various votes to amend the Massachusetts constitution. John Adams meant it to be pensively thought-provoking and difficult to amend his Massachusetts constitution. So where are things so far as to "gay marriage" in Massachusetts?

2. So far the Goodridge v. Massachusetts Department of Public Health, 440 Mass. 309, 798 NE.2d 941 (2003) decision, which held it was unconstitutional under the Massachusetts constitution to withhold the laws of marriage from same-sex couples, has gone along smoothly without any hitches. In other words, the sky over Massachusetts has not fallen. In law, your Massachusetts same-sex neighbors and relatives have been able to marry and protect each other and their children. And, any Massachusetts religious institution may continue to refuse to marry same-sex couples because that right is protected by the federal constitution's first amendment Freedom of Religion and Separation of Church and State, as well as similar protections in the Massachusetts constitution regarding religious institutions.

3. In the spring of last year (2004), Senate President Robert E. Travaglini, D, Boston (who replaced ex-Senator Tom Birmingham, D, Chelsea) convened a constitutional convention of the joint legislature. The first step was reached to amendment the Massachusetts convention. The proposed amendment which grants marriage to opposite-sex couples only and civil unions to same-sex couples passed by a mere 4 votes in March of 2004.

4. However, since then things have changed somewhat in the Massachusetts legislature. Massachusetts is in a new legislative year, 2005. State legislative members have come and gone -- voted out, voted in, retired, resigned. For example, House Speaker Thomas Finneran, D, Mattapan is gone. He "retired." He was anti-gay (anything), frankly. Finneran has been replaced as House Speaker by former majority leader Salvatore F. DiMasi, D, East Boston, who appears to not want to place discriminatory language against gays in the Massachusetts constitution. Yes, it appears the new House Speaker DiMasi is opposed to overturning the Goodridge decision by amending the Massachusetts constitution.

5. So what happens next? Will the new President of the Senate DiMasi convene a Massachusetts constitutional convention in 2005? If so, are there enough votes to forestall the second step to a discriminatory amendment to the Massachusetts constitution? Is Senate Minority Leader, Brian P. Lees, R, East Longmeadow, who co-sponsored the anti-gay amendment in the 2004 convention, going to change his mind in 2005 and vote against the amendment? Will Senate Majority Leader Frederick E. Berry, D, Peabody, who voted against various proposed amendments in 2004 but for the final proposed amendment, change his mind as against any amendment at this convention?

The Boston Globe in a front page (albeit, below the fold) article on Tuesday, January 18, 2005, describes "what may happen next" and with variables thereof tossed in as well.

Your DU voice should be heard! This Massachusetts vote is going to be close. Don't allow discrimination in our state constitution. Notify your state representative and your state senator. Tell him/her that you do not want any amendment to our state constitution. Tell him/her that you do not want discrimination in our state constitution.

You can find your Massachusetts state senator and representative and his/her snail-mail address, email address, fax number and regular telephone number, if available, at this highlighted LINK, "select a state" Massachusetts, hit "go," then left-hand column, enter your 9-digit zip code or follow instructions "Don't Know Your 9-digit Zip Code?" scroll down the page to and hit "State Legislature Home Page," scroll to middle of page, extreme left-hand side "Legislators," then choose means to reach your Massachusetts senator and representative as listed under "Legislators." If any problems, please DU private message me (TaleWgnDg).



. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

---

.

[Nothing Without Hope]

1. Kick! Good review of the situation - needs support! n/t

[Nothing Without Hope]

2. Come on, people, this is more important than b**'s recoronation

:kick:

You know, if this doesn't get the attention it deserves,you may want to consider reposting it after some sanity returns next week.

Right now, people are pretty fixated on the horror of the b** inaug. They're either talking it out or ducking the board altogether because hearing about it makes them too ill.

[TaleWgnDg]

3. Good suggestion . . . n/t

[Nothing Without Hope]

4. and another kick, though I think they're still wringing their hands n/t