Category: In the News

Marriage ban likely to appear on Mass. ballot

The proposed amendment seeks to undo a November 2003 ruling by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court that deemed it unconstitutional to deny marriage licenses to gays and lesbians.

Yahoo! News

“The proposed amendment seeks to undo a November 2003 ruling by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court that deemed it unconstitutional to deny marriage licenses to gays and lesbians.”

Full Story

Well here we go again. I am so upset that people I don’t know, and don’t know me, might get a chance to decide whether I can visit my partner in the hospital, obtain joint healthcare, have bereavment leave should one of us die, and over 1000 other benefits heterosexual couples take for granted. But does anyone marry because of benefits? Perhaps…but we got married because we love each other. We were married after nine years on May 28th, 2004. Why is this anyone else’s business other than our own? Why do people want to deny me the right to happiness that they so richly enjoy? Do you believe in your heart that some people are more deserving of basic rights than others?

First they came for the Communists,
and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn’t speak up, because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me.
                                          —Rev. Martin Niemoller

Please Support Marriage for Gays and Lesbians
Especially if you live in Massachusetts!
Equalmarriage.org
Massequality.org

Here we go again

Senate panel OKs gay marriage ban
Christopher Curtis, PlanetOut Network
Thursday, November 10, 2005 / 04:53 PM
SUMMARY: A proposed constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage was approved by a Senate subcommittee on Wednesday.

A proposed constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage is expected to go before the Senate Judiciary Committee next week and a likely vote in the Senate next year after a Senate panel approved it Wednesday.

The Marriage Protection Amendment reads: “Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any state, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.”

The amendment would also rescind the Massachusetts precedent that made same-sex marriage legal in that state.

“None of us takes amending the Constitution lightly,” said Kansas Republican Sam Brownback, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary subcommittee on the Constitution. “The plain fact is this amendment has been exhaustively studied and it really is time to act,” he told the Associated Press (AP).

Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., called the measure “an extreme and unnecessary reaction” that has little chance of passing. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said those behind the amendment have a political agenda.

Brownback, who is considering a presidential bid, insisted politics had nothing to do with the bill.

But Brad Luna, a spokesman for the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), said, “Basically what we saw yesterday was another version of cynical politics, when you see the poll numbers go down and Capitol Hill goes into disarray.”

“That’s when the radical right wing reaches into their playbook to write discrimination into the Constitution and threaten the security of millions of American families,” Luna said.

“The Constitution exists to protect rights, not undermine them,” said Caroline Fredrickson, director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) Washington Legislative Office.

“Congress rightly rejected this measure last year and must reject it again,” Fredrickson said, referring to the Federal Marriage Amendment, which failed to get enough Senate votes in July.

Eric Stern, the executive director of the National Stonewall Democrats, told the PlanetOut Network his organization was “extremely disappointed” with the panel’s decision. While praising all the Democrats on the committee who voted against the proposed amendment, Stern directed his strongest criticism against Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa.

Specter, who cast the deciding 5-4 vote, claimed he opposes the amendment but felt it should not “be bottled up” in committee.

Stern called Specter’s decision “hypocritical” and compared it to actions of other “supposedly pro-gay Republicans” such as Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who vetoed a bill that would legalize same-sex marriage.

In order to become law the Marriage Protection Amendment would need to be approved by two-thirds of those voting in the House and Senate and then be ratified by at least 38 state legislatures.

——————————————————————————–
Copyright © 1995-1999 PlanetOut Corporation. All Copyright & Trademark Rights Reserved.

Support our Troops?

I am so sick of the president and other republicans saying that if you are against the war in Iraq then you don’t support our troops and are a traitor. It is the craziest spin I think to have ever come down the pike! People who are against the war in Iraq care so much about our troops, we want them home with their families! I also want them to have the best of everything while they are there, with the best armor money can buy. I also want them to have excellent benefits for themselves and their families. How in God’s name is that not supporting the troops! The president and republicans have been spinning this for so long they have many people who believe them. I am incredulous. Opinion is an important thing, and to try to squash others who disagree with you I believe is truly anti-american and traitorous.