What's MA Atty Genl Reilly doing? What's this new anti-gay ballot stuff?

[TaleWgnDg]

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

.

[Caution]

1. He's running for governor.

It's that simple. Fact is that more than 50% out there even here in true-blue MA are against gay marriage for whatever idiotic reason and Mr Reilly is doing this as a vote getting tactic. He'll claim for those of us with a heart and comassion that he was just doing his job but he just got a lot of votes on this one., It's for reasons like this that my vote is going to Deval Patrick.

[TayTay]

2. I don't think 50% are against

In fact, the last polls I saw had something comfortably over 50% in favor of leaving the present law in place.

Where did you get your numbers?

[Caution]

4. ust past data reported by the newspapers. Hopefully you are right and the

numbers have swung around.

[TayTay]

5. This is the latest I had on the polls in MA

I doubt it has changed much either way since this May 16th Boston Globe article:

More than 6,000 gay and lesbian couples in Massachusetts have wed since gay marriage became legal a year ago. Public opposition to such marriages has steadily eroded to the point where a majority of Bay Staters now support the new legal status quo, polls indicate. A Boston Globe poll in March indicated that 56 percent of those surveyed supported gay marriage, 37 percent were opposed, and 7 percent were unsure.

By comparison, a Globe poll conducted in spring 2004 indicated that 40 percent of those surveyed supported gay marriage. Those who either wanted to ban gay marriage and replace it with civil unions, or who wanted neither, represented 45 percent of those queried.

Like the majority of those surveyed, Lees, the state Senate's ranking Republican, said the relative lack of apparent societal damage caused by the onset of same-sex marriage has given him pause even though he was a coauthor of the amendment before the Legislature.

"You've heard from many folks that this would be a huge problem for the Commonwealth, and none of those problems have arisen," Lees said.

[paineinthearse]

3. I spoke with a member of the state committee today

She is of the opinion that Reilly did not have to certify the action of the General Court FOR A SECOND TIME, details to come....

[merbex]

6. The consequence of this is that Deval Patrick's campaign gets

a lift and more probably a healthy infusion of cash from people angry with Reilly's flip flop /spin or whatever the hell he did

[whometense]

7. I think that's true.

I was undecided until this. Now I'm with Patrick. I can't imagine I'm alone - but will there be an equal number of people driven into Reilly's corner by this action?? I doubt it.

Don't miss what John at http://chimesatmidnight.blogspot.com/2005/09/reilly-caves.html">The Chimes at Midnight has to say about this today, in case you haven't read it yet.

[TaleWgnDg]

8. State House News Poll (SHNP) . . . September, 2005

.
State House News Poll (SHNP), dated September 2005

1.) 52% oppose a ban on same-sex marriage (in other words 52% polled said same-sex marriage was okay)

2.) 43% want a ban on same-sex marriage

3.) 5% don't know (have no opinion)

The Q&A and methodology included on this url: http://www.statehousenews.com/public/poll/ . . . and on this url: http://www.statehousenews.com/public/poll/Internals.htm (question #14)

Caveat: This poll seems to be a tad bit biased. The demographics are "off." (1) apparently there is no polling of cell phone telephone numbers which would include a younger respondent; and (2) the age spread that did answer this poll was top-heavy in the over 40-age-group. That, together with what is general knowledge that younger voters seem to agree to retain same-sex marriage and that older voters seem bent the other way toward anti-same-sex marriage, skewer the polling result. A poll that does not have an fair and adequate pool of respondents according to demographics, is a biased poll.

And a further note -- this (biased) poll is about a ballot initiative (to amend the state constitution) that may (or may not) appear on the ballot in November 2008!! That's quite a long way off. In the meantime, there are potential court challenges to be filed and argued and decided, plus further state procedures that must be met including signature requirements, legislative requirements. Yes, November 2008 is a long way off!

.