Reilly certifies the Anti-Gay Marriage Ballot Initiative

[TayTay]

Reilly certifies gay marriage ballot initiative
By Theo Emery, Associated Press Writer | September 7, 2005

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2005/09/07/reilly_certifies_gay_marriage_ballot_initiative/

BOSTON --Attorney General Tom Reilly has certified a proposed ballot initiative that would ban gay marriage, allowing conservative groups to begin the long process of gathering signatures and lobbying lawmakers in hopes of putting the matter before voters in 2008.

Supporters now must go out and gather the signatures of at least 65,825 Massachusetts voters. If they are successful, the question then must by approved by 25 percent of two successive sittings of the 200-member state Legislature. The question would then be placed before voters again as a constitutional amendment in 2008.

The state's highest court ruled in 2003 that it was unconstitutional for the state to ban marriages between gays and lesbians. The following spring, the nation's first state-sanctioned same-sex marriages began taking place in Massachusetts and thousands of gay couples have since tied the knot.

In August, the Massachusetts Family Institute proposed a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Former Boston Mayor Raymond L. Flynn's name was atop the list of 30 people who signed the petition.

[Mass]

1. Did he have a choice?

Was there any way for him not to certify it?

[TayTay]

3. Legally, no they met all their requirements

And there was another strong pronouncement by Reilly that he is not in favor of this ballot question. But he probably did have to certify it. The implications for not certifying it would come back and bite some other group in the ass in the future.

This does make the ConCon next week more interesting. (There is still a Constitutional Convention next week on the 14th right?) This is the second consideration of the ballot question from last year. The Globe has ben reporting that the votes were not there to pass the Travaglini Amendment that would repeal Gay Marriage but add Civil Unions. That was supposed to go down in flames, as opinions have changed and more Senators and Reps nove favor Gay Marriage. But they might pas the Civil Unions bill, just to have a backup in case the ballot initiative passes.

It gets confusing. If anyone here has any more info, share. I probably got a lot wrong.

[Rockholm]

4. He did not have to certify the petition.

[TayTay]

5. So, what happens next

This is so odd. There is now and always has been a loud group in MA that doesn't want gay marriage or civil unions. I think that group has diminished somewhat. (Gay marriage simply isn't as threatening anymore to a large group of people. It was implemented, it looked pretty much like other marriages and that was that.)

I think this will be an intersting fight and will pit all the usual MA interest groups against each other. But I honestly don't see enough support for this ballot initiative for it to pass. I really don't. This is not new and by 2008, gay marriage will have been legal in MA for 4 years. I just dont' see it passing.

What do you think? (btw, I am basing this on talking to the usual collection of born-in-MA, Irish-Catholic, large-family here and in NH people that I have known all my life. These folks have changed their minds. They don't see it as threatening anymore. Granted, some do, but I have seen a lot of changed minds among the folks I grew up with her in MA.)

[whatever4]

2. Well, there's another one to cart off, vote out

and don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.

Shouldn't there be a law about representation, that all these "straights" don't get to vote on laws that NEVER affect straights?

I just think there ought to be a law. I wish someone would lobby for THAT. No straights getting to dictate to gays over matters involving sexuality. It's just wrong. And sick.

Okay, okay before anyone jumps on me, I do fully realize it would be unconstitutional, and further, how would we enforce it? But it would make far more sense than the shit they're doing, wouldn't it? Had to point it out.

[TaleWgnDg]

6. For an EXCELLENT overview and understanding of what's happening . . .

Anti-gay Marriage (ballot) Initiative Allowed on Ballots in Massachusetts, Attorney General Reilly Says

Chris Buell, (of Jurist News,) Wednesday, September 07, 2005, at 4:15 PM ET

(JURIST NEWS) A proposed ballot initiative to ban same-sex marriage (JURIST news archive) in Massachusetts can move forward after state Attorney General Tom Reilly (official profile) ruled (Attorney General Reilly's opinion letter, .rft format) Wednesday that Article 48 of the (Massachusetts) state constitution (full text) allows voters to overturn court decisions. The ruling to allow the initiative means supporters can move forward in the lengthy process to have the initiative placed on the ballot. Initiatives must obtain 65,825 signatures of voters and 25 percent support of the state legislature in two successive sittings to be certified. Same-sex marriage supporters had urged Reilly, a likely Democratic gubernatorial candidate in 2006, not to certify the initiative, but current (Massachusetts) Governor Mitt Romney (official website) called on Reilly to allow the initiative. The (anti-gay) Massachusetts Family Institute (anti-gay advocacy website) has sponsored the http://www.ago.state.ma.us/filelibrary/petition05-02.rtf">proposed initiative (.rft format), which would amend the (Massachusetts) state constitution to define marriage as being between a man and a women. The Massachusetts Supreme (Judicial) Court in 2003 legalized same-sex marriages in the state (see: Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, 440 Mass. 309 (2003) ). Read a news release from Reilly's office. AP has http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050907/ap_on_re_us/massachusetts_gay_marriage_1">more.
.
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2005/09/anti-gay-marriage-initiative-allowed.php

.

This is an excellent overview and helpful understanding regarding the ballot initiative to overturn the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's 2003 decision to allow same-sex marriage in Massachusetts. I strongly urge all to take the time and read these linked hypertexts (above).

As a lawyer practicing in Massachusetts, I disagree with Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly in his decision allowing this ballot initiative to go forward. This ballot initiative is unconstitutional u/ our Massachusetts constitution. Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD), who represent the same-sex couples that originally brought the Goodridge case, will be appealing Reilly's decision. The appeal will be heard, initially, by one SJC justice, then the full court will review the matter if appealed further. The SJC's opinion is final whether this anti-gay ballot initiative goes forward to its next step as defined above.

see also: (1) http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2005/09/08/reilly_oks_2008_initiative_on_ban_of_gay_marriage?mode=PF (Boston Globe, sub-headlines, page A-1, Thursday, September 8, 2005), and
(2) http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2005/09/08/decisions_critics_may_appeal_to_sjc?mode=PF

.

[yankeefanatic3]

7. Withdrawing my support, Deval Patrick just got tons of money n/t