The Massachusetts Senate voted by "voice" to repeal a 1913 law banning marriages that would not be recognized in other states – allowing gay couples from around the country (or the world) to marry in Massachusetts. Those in support of the repeal suggest that the state will benefit from an increase in tourism, while those who opposed the legislation cite the imposition of Massachusetts societal rules on other states. Governor Duvall Patrick supports the bill.
The legalization of gay marriage in Massachusetts produced several negatives. The Catholic Church was no longer able to offer adoptions in the state, as the law requires that all adoption providers include gay couples. The church had sought an exemption from the law, but was forced to halt adoptions in order to “exercise religious freedom in Massachusetts”.(Boston Globe) Economically, the legislation placed a burden on companies doing business in Massachusetts, a state that relies on tourism, tech and service industry.
Additionally, gay couples attempting to obtain a divorce out-of-state found it difficult. A Rhode Island Gay couple, married in Massachusetts, were denied a divorce ABA Law Journal, in Rhode Island as that state does not recognize Gay Marriage. Those party to a gay marriage seeking divorce and living out of state, must return to Massachusetts and complete a years residency prior to obtaining a divorce. The ACLU is putting pressure on Rhode Island – and is lobbying hard for those gay couples involved in divorce and custody battle around the nation.
In Massachusetts, residents questioned the need for a Senate "voice" vote over a traditional and transparent roll-call. Fear might be a motivating factor. The Massachusetts Legislature, under the direction of Governor Duvall Patrick, struck down a petition to place a marriage question on the ballot last year despite overwhelming support for the ballot question by residents (World Net Daily A Western Massachusetts representative, Angelo Puppolo, who first supported a vote by the people and later changed his mind was assailed by a highly visible billboard comparing Puppolo to Judas.
Those state legislators, who were under pressure from constituents regarding this issue, as well as pressure from special interest groups and the Governor, needed protection from similar Billboard attacks. Is it any wonder that the vote taken yesterday was by “voice”? (No record available as to how a particular Senator voted).
Massachusetts residents have only one recourse, those in opposition to the question, should send a clear message with their vote this November and the subsequent Novembers until there has been a complete replacement of those elected officials too spineless to face the wrath of a billboard. Resident in other states, where this ruling will eventually have an effect (if only to cost taxpayers money vis a vis court cases), should pay careful attention.
On the question of Marriage: The term marriage is a religious, not civil term. The Massachusetts judiciary in concert with the legislature and the Governor has trampled on the Constitution of the United States (those who take separation of church and state literally) by attaching a civil meaning to a religious term. This produced uproar by the 80% of this nations religious (approximate percentage) (See the 2004 presidential election: states with Marriage Questions on the ballot overwhelming voted Republican and for Traditional Marriage.) However, calling for a civil union is not enough for these interest groups, as it does not carry a religious overtone, by using the term “Marriage”,
Churches may be forced to marry Gay couples or face loosing their tax free status – in neighboring states. Is it really a civil rights issue designed to give gay couples rights, or is it a Progressive Issue designed to denigrate religion to a practice of no import? Civil Unions allow the same rights under the law as Marriage – support of Civil Unions - not “Gay Marriage” would leave religion out of the civic arena and give full and equal protection to those same couples under the law. Further gay couples may receive the support of those who now stand in opposition on religious grounds.
Additional References
Theological Education Institute, East Hartford, CT
California, Same Sex Marriages Will Affect Other States (USA Today)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I am so sick of the socialistic politics in this state. Our legislators feel that they have the right to tell us how it is going to be. They have skipped over allowing the people a voice to many times. I think that come November many of our liberal law makers are going to have to find themselves a new line of work because the people of Massachusetts will no longer stand for this foolishness.
Hear Here Lisa ... Excellent point, however, are the blueples of Massachusetts prepared to do what's RIGHT for the state? Wishing you all well from afar!
Post a Comment