Today’s vote to block a gay marriage ban from even being placed on the ballot underscores what this fight is all about.
Between the perpetually angry, hate-filled Therese Murray, power-mad Sal DiMasi and wimpy, Dukakis-like Gov. Deval Patrick, Massachusetts needs checks and balances.
In the past, WRKO and to some extent WTKK, have filled that void, along with the Herald. Now, we’ve nearly lost the first one to Finne-felon & Friends, while WTKK figures out what to do with itself. And the Supreme Judicial Court would be happy to shut down the Herald if it gets another opportunity to do so.
Nearly 200,000 Bay State citizens signed a petition merely asking for a vote on the gay marriage issue. The corrupt-o-crats on Beacon Hill have denied the people that opportunity.
THIS is what makes for successful talk radio, not sucking up to Patrick, Menino, MSNBC, or columnists at the Globe. Take it to the people and watch your ratings and revenue soar. That’s what has always worked here in the past and it will again today.
I’m sure at every gay bar in the city there will be celebrating today, and into the evening. Murray, Devil, and Demasi must be polishing each others shoes. After all, it is no longer a democracy, but a socialist society we live in.
First of all, I have no issues with gays or unions, or what they want. I just want to have the right to vote, that is a democracy.
Obviously, as usual, the Liberal elite proved that the Beautiful people know better than I do. we no longer have a say—and this proves it. ‘Eff them all!
(at least I won’t have to see Arline Issacson on TV anymore for awhile)
I certainly hope some of the people in this state WAKE UP and start voting these a-holes out of office. I’m sure we can get a list of who changed their vote—–and those people should be put on notice now. CALL THEM and tell them, that next election, they are gone.
THE VOICE OF THE PEOPLE is the only way these clowns are going to get it.
To mass equality, you may think you got what you wanted, but it ain’t over , till its over.
To those legislators who flipped, start filling out applications for dunkin donuts, because you’ll be out of a job at the trough soon enough!
Sometimes I wonder, are you from Massachusetts? Do you live in this state?
Tom Finneran has been one of the most anti gay legislators in recent history. He did everything he could to stop Gay marriage.
VoteonMarriage collected 170,000 signatures but only 140,000 were certified. The cases of fraud and misrepresentation by the out of state migrant workers they hired to come to Massachusetts to collect signatures have been well documented.
Just becasue they collected signatures doesn’t give them the right to put an issiue of civil rights up for a popular vote. The issiue was debated and by a large majority the legislature voted that it was not in the best interest of the Commonwealth to have this issiue on the ballot.
End of story.
Real, it doesn’t matter: those are his pals on Beacon Hill, when push comes to shove he will be defending them, regardless of his own stance on gay marriage. Bay State politics are often more about cronyism than ideology.
TANGOMAN, don’t get your hopes up. The voters of Massachusetts are too stupid to realize that political balance is needed at the statehouse.
Mass. voters obviously like one-party Democrat rule.
As Massachusetts paints itself into an ultra-liberal, socialistic, compassionate, tolerant commune, I’ll happily watch the ‘Mass’ exodus accelerate. In my neighborhood of %350k homes in southern NH a family from Massachusetts just built and moved into a $749,000 home. Home prices declining? Real Estate bubble? Thank you, Massachusetts
.
Hey Chris
I may be in that same neighborhood myself.
I own my home outright, and it is now worth almost 2 1/2 times what I paid for it. If I could sell it–I could pay cash for a house in Southern NH—always liked Manchester.
Even though most Mass residents are “too Stupid to realize that political balance is needed”—As MAK so perfectly put it—-right now, I believe there is a “silent majority” of the people who are FURIOUS right now, and I hope they do the RIGHT thing, and take it out, on their senator or legislator when the time comes, at election time.
That is the most important thing to do—-and is their right as a voter.
If the Republicans and Independents were smart, they would use this to their advantage and find opponents to the entrenched liberals, to have a choice next election. When they get voted out, that is how democracy works!
On a totally different topic—can anybody tell me who is worse, as a Todd F fill in?
Mariellen is on now, and I can’t figure out who is worse, her, or Marjorie “Ruth Buzzi” Clapprood?—-they both are awful.
And at least Finnerans Boredom, had something to talk about-LOL
TANGOMAN
You’re absolutely right that the people can vote in new legislators, but did you notice how in 2006, the people voted out many anti-gay legislators? Do you think that’s going to change dramatically in the next round of elections?
It might, of course.
I’ve been saying this all day, but EVERYONE who was at the State House is “the people”. Gay, straight, liberal, conservative, pro- and anti- marriage equality; we’re all “the people”.
Overturning the Goodridge decision will hurt more people than leaving it as it stands, but is that OK, since it’s only gay people…and their children…and their parents…and their friends…and everyone who cares about a gay person…that would be hurt?
Molly
You are making it sound like I hate gay people
I don’t—and I have certainly heard alot of bashing on the radio. My sister is gay, and she, like a few of her gay friends, do not agree with the Marriage equality act. There were even quite a few gay callers on the radio today, who did not agree either
What I hate, is not having the democratic process work, where the People, and yes, that is ALL the people you note above, decide.
No one is trying to take anything away from anyone—even if it did pass, which, it WOULD have, had not the legislative whimps not backpedaled to the almighty dollar thrown at them—-no one married is going to have their marriage removed from them.
That is the point, I and countless others are trying to make——the people wanted to vote on the right to change the definition, as countless other states have done
(and they decided to vote it down, I might add)
So Molly, bask in the moment, enjoy your victory—-we’ll be back in 2012
No, no current marriage would be taken away (although some people think the amendment as proposed didn’t go far enough, but that’s not the point). But if I were to want to marry again, under the amendment, I wouldn’t be able to.
May I ask what your sister’s objection to equal marriage is? The only objections I’ve heard from queer folks are from the ones who don’t believe in marriage for anyone. I’d be really interested to hear another viewpoint.
Thank you.
Molly
Marriage would not have been taken away from gay married partners already. Their unions would not be invalidated. They would still be recognized and have the same benefits as they enjoy now. It would just be civil unions for those after the fact.
My sisters ojections to gay marriage/marriage equality are this… (and these are her words, not mine, I am repeating what she told me)
“While I am gay, and believe it is my right to be a partner or with someone of my choosing, I have always believed marriage to be, made of one man, to one woman. that is the way it has been for hundreds of years, and it would be wrong for otherwise. If it were put to ballot, I would vote No to marriage equality–however, if it were put to a ballot, and passed, I would respect those that decide to marry, but I would prefer to be in a civil union,which has just as many rights”
She lives in Provincetown, and those are her words
Have a great day
If the amendment had passed as written, I’m pretty sure civil unions weren’t in it, but I could be mistaken. I can’t seem to find it easily online, and I haven’t read it in a while.
What I don’t understand, and maybe never will, is why the word “marriage” is so loaded.
Theoretically:
Bob and Jane are in a committed partnership, intend to spend their lives together, have rights and privileges under the law that single people don’t have, have had a ceremony declaring such before their friends-and-relations; Bob and Jane are married.
Bill and Joe are in a committed partnership, intend to spend their lives together, have rights and privileges under the law that single people don’t have, have had a ceremony declaring such before their friends-and-relations; Bill and Joe are…civilly unionized?
Why not just separate the concepts of marriage and civil unions entirely? You register your civil union at City Hall and get all the legal benefits (and penalties) that come with it, and if you want to get married in your church or shul or mosque or other spiritual home, that’s fine, but we’ll just call every such life partnership a civil union?
Molly,
While I sympathize with your sentiment, I do have a disagreement with one thing you said earlier. You said;
“No, no current marriage would be taken away (although some people think the amendment as proposed didn’t go far enough, but that’s not the point). But if I were to want to marry again, under the amendment, I wouldn’t be able to.”
Yes you would.
It seems to me that you equate a “partnership” between a man and a women with a “partnership” between a woman and a woman. These things are not the same. Redefining things by judicial fiat and legislative inaction will not make them the same.
I understand that as a homosexual person (note I didn’t use the word “gay”…gay means happy….another word that has been hijacked…) you feel that you have been discriminated against (Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice). While I will concede a larger point on this, in this one case I feel that you are NOT being discriminated. You simply don’t like being treated equally. You want a “special” rule just for homosexual people.
The sky is blue, grass is green, the earth revolves around the sun and marriage is between one man and one woman.