(MA) Lawmakers reject amendment banning gay marriage, 157-39

[Lexingtonian]

After less than two hours of debate, a joint session of the House and Senate voted 157-39 against the proposed ballot question. (AP, 3:05 p.m.)

http://www.boston.com/

It's over!!! :D

[skypilot]

1. Woah!!!!

Did we just fast-forward out of the Bush administration or something? It is still Sept. 2005, right?

I really needed to hear news like this. I think we all did.

On edit: Look for Rick Santorum to start mouthing off about Massachusett liberals any minute now.

[ellenfl]

2. congratulations! eom

[Geoff R. Casavant]

3. Huh. Go figure.

Perhaps when people realized that gay marriage was not quite the end of civilization they expected, they saw no need to break up loving families for political gain.

[bicentennial_baby]

4. woohoo! yay! yay!

:bounce:

i knew thay could do it! so great! :D

[gratuitous]

5. This is why they rushed all those measures onto state ballots

The Repressive Right put a whole bunch of anti-gay ballot measures on the ticket in a lot of states in 2004, and I think they all passed (sad to say, in Oregon as well). They had to get the issue before the electorate fast because public opinion is shifting against them more and more every day.

The window is closing on the acceptability of gay bashing, and a lot of politicians are figuring out that there's no percentage in it anymore.

[DS1]

6. Ha ha!

Romney just got F'd

[TayTay]

8. Well, yeah there is that

There will be a ballot question on this, but in 2008. The MA ConCon vote was the second mandatory vote that would have put the Civil Unions instead of Gay Marriage provision on the ballot in 2006.

There are people who are working to ban Gay Marriage in MA. The next show down will be in 2008 when both sides go for broke. There will be no fall back into Civil Unions. It will be all or nothing for both sides. And the polls still show 56% support among the voters in MA FOR gay marriage.

(And that fathead Romney still loses. Hopefully, by then, Mittens will be back in Utah.)

[Lexingtonian]

13. oh, don't worry about that

Well, at least not yet. Travaglini-Lees was far more important of an obstacle.

To my reading of Mass. polling breakdowns the bill they're pushing for 2008 will start with 60% opposed, 25% in favor, and 15% undecided or initially slightly in favor. I don't know what the 15% will do (and, probably, neither do they) but the trend/public pressure is pro-marriage and there won't be defection from the 60% opposed.

I don't see any way support for it can or will break 40% and it could collapse to 20%. I believe it's merely a morale prop and political fallback position to prevent utter collapse of resistance to gay marriage here, while the Religious Right activist set bets on a containment strategy (which is already failing; California will predictably legalize next year).

[zbdent]

7. Is there a list of the names of the 39?

That would be helpful . . .

[Lexingtonian]

12. not yet

I think that'll be out by early tonight, though.

[Politicub]

9. Yay!!!!

WTG MA!!!

:woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo:

[SeanQ]

10. Yay!!!

[Downtown Hound]

11. Whoo hoo!

A shred of sanity in insane times!