I know, it’s already been reported, but I figure if there’s a time to do all-caps, it’s now. I was at the State House, just outside the gallery when the vote came down. I saw John Walsh, who gave the news — 151-45; it’s over.
Later this afternoon, I’ll have audio of the raucous, jubilant reception that Deval Patrick, Sal DiMasi and Terry Murray received, along with a few dozen legislators on the staircase.
Today’s a great day in Massachusetts.
Here’s Terry Murray speaking (w/o amplification, unfortunately).
Senate Minority Leader Richard Tisei. Thanks to CDinBoston — I knew someone would know …
I had a chance to talk to a couple of pols whom I’ve met before. Sen. Jarrett Barrios congratulated the grassroots effort, saying it made a big difference — citing this diary in particular. Carl Sciortino was enjoying the moment, embraced by a clergywoman in a rainbow sash. “It’s really an amazing moment. It’s sort of unreal still that it’s over. I’m sure tomorrow I’ll process it.” Jamie Eldridge looked beyond the borders of our fair Commonwealth: “We’ve been working on this for four years now, so, I’m so happy that we finally know that gay marriage is legal now in Massachusetts and hopefully it’ll spread across the rest of the country.”
how the three of you share. Bob, David and you all get a post on the victory!
I got a bunch of photos out front before they started, inside the gallery during and just after the vote, and outside again of the speeches. I looked for familiar people (and found a lot!) but never saw you.
Happy about the result and happier still that it wasn’t a one vote margin.
<
p>
Congratulations to all of those who will be able to enjoy their protected right to marry, wihtout worrying the rug will be pulled out from under them.
<
p>
I’m proud this has been done and defended in Massachusetts. I am amazed and disappointed at the amount of hate the issue has generated across the country against people who simply love each other.
151 voted no. Sure, there weren’t 49 Y votes, but methinks a few of the ABS votes would have voted Y if forced.
<
p>
Still, 151 is ironclad.
There were 3 ABS (well, 4 if you count Trav’s empty seat)
1) Verga, who was a likely “Y”
2) St. Fleur, who was a likely “N”
3) Atsalis, who voted “N” last time around.
<
p>
If you count those, the lege is 78.5% against the marriage ban.
I’m going to every damn blog I can think of to comment about this.
<
p>
What a beautiful day.
Definitely a great step forward, I prayed that this would not make it to the ballot and start a divisive campaign and our side has been vindicated! It was even better to hear the news from Howie Carr and other anti-equality activists on his show, their lament at the loss, the shock in the voice of the director of the Vote on Marriage group at how his campaign had failed. The only sad thing is they still don’t understand, the legislature is the voice of the people and all the people that switched votes were pressured from the people of their district. Today was a victory for the voice of the people in preserving equal rights for all people and keeping an embarassing, divisive bill off our ballots!
have bet on such a good outcome from the talk radio I heard on my way to work this morning.
<
p>
Gotta hand them some appause when they do the right thing.
As a libertarian, I am not opposed to “gay marriage.” The more that the government (especially this state’s government) stays out of our lives the better. But we have to realize that today’s action will not play well, especially for the liberal wing of the party, in the rest of the country. Conservatives will probably now play the “Romney” card against us.
in ’08 and they know it. They stick like glue to the war presnit and they’re screwed with the American people. No Republican will get elected in 2008, I’m quite confident about that – especially one who is peo-war, pro-corporate, and socially conservative. They’re toast.
<
p>
The only thing this is is red meat to the super conservatives. Well, those are the people who are going to show up to primaries anyway. In fact, this will help liberals, if the conservatives show up in force due to anger, they will pick the lousiest Republican among the candidates – and then we Dems can trounce them in 08, in the presidential and the Senate/Rep races.
They were toast in ’00 and in ’04 as well.
The reason should be obvious: civil marriage confers certain legal benefits to, and imposes certain legal obligations on, the married couple. Government is the entity that enforces those items, and to do so it must determine whether a marriage exists or (in the case of inheritance) existed.
<
p>
Western marriage traditions are not based on middle eastern (i.e., “biblical”) marriage traditions, but on Greek and Roman marriage traditions. Roman marriage tradition is more akin to “common law” marriage–but the problem with common law marriage (a couple holding themselves out as being married) is that that requires proof that the marriage exists or existed–which may be difficult to do when one spouse dies and the surviving spouse is trying to claim inheritance rights.
<
p>
The Roman Catholic Church pretty much stayed out of the marriage business until the late middle ages, and took the business over during a struggle with secular authorities. Marriage is not a religious institution.
The bottom line numbers are only changing very slowly (1% per year), but the interest/enthusiasm/fervor by the conservatives about it has fallen off substantially. Sure, they can still get worked up, but the flareups of backlash are weakening and draw in fewer people each time. This one…I give it three or four months of right wing talk radio phlemage.
<
p>
Most actual liberals in elected office were elected in tougher times for them than now. Swing voters don’t want to deal with gay marriage now, so nationally both major Parties are nationally in no hurry to focus on it or create a confrontation.
Can you please remind me of the difference between libertarian and conservative? To me, a libertarian is a conservative who doesn’t respect the rights of others. To the right of a conservative, in other words. So, please don’t include me in your “us”…
<
p>
On a more postive note: in case anyone missed it, the roll call is on the MassEquality website, along with email addresses to thank (or unthank) members of the leg for their votes.
The country and the Dems will benefit from this. I am sure of it. Now it’s on to thanking everyone – all the people and organizations – who helped with this, and then on to working for other important human rights.
<
p>
Thank you, everyone!!!!!!!!!! Hooray!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I believe that the person speaking in the fourth audio clip in the main post is Richard Tisei (R), the Minority Leader in the State Senate.
It gave this very happy person who is stuck at work a taste of what it was like to be there. And I suspect I’m not alone.
<
p>
(Thanks for all the work you do on the site, also!)
It was really a thrill to hear the speeches today — I had a lump in my throat, and I’m not the only one. Barrios, Koutoujian, and a number of others seemed really choked up.
And Susan Fargo is my Senator! I’ve already thanked them both for voting for equality… again and again and again.
<
p>
Let’s celebrate, but then look into making sure this doesn’t happen again. Maybe an equal-rights amendment to the Constitution? Maybe tons of letters to those hate groups which keep getting paid to raise the issue? Not sure, but let’s solidify this astounding victory so gay and lesbian families don’t have to keep tensing up all the time.
<
p>
Also, we have so many more important things to work on…
go on to reform the petition initiative system so that, at the least:
1) petition sheets can be linked back to the signature gatherers,
2) petition sheets are re-designed so that signature gatherers can’t hoodwink signers into signing something other than what they think they’re signing,
3) make signature gathering fraud and trickery an punishable offense,
4) amend the constitution so that civil rights can only be added, never removed via this process,
5) increase the threshold of legislative approval to >25%.
And while we’re at it, put in some kind of enforcement mechanism so that the legislature has to vote on all the amendments.
<
p>
I think there are times when a 25% approval from the legislature should be enough. Any amendment limiting the power of the legislature is unlikely to do better than that. I think the best way to allow amendments that are popular with the people but not the legislature without lowering the bar for everything is to have some requirement on the combination of the legislature vote and the popular vote. So something that passes the legislature with only 25% would require perhaps 75% of the people to approve it, while anything that passes the legislature with at least 50% could be approved by just a majority of the people. Either that or say that amendments which specifically affect the legislature only need 25% legislative approval and everything else needs 50%.
I’d change the petition process in one subtle but crucial way. Right now we have “it goes to the people if it gets 25% of the Legislature to vote for it in two consecutive sessions.”
<
p>
I’d change this to “it goes to the people if, in either the current session and the subsequent session, the legislature does not ‘veto’ it by a >75% margin.”
<
p>
Problem solved. Healthcare amendment sent off to die in committee? Not so; it’s just that the Legislature failed to kill it. It puts more of an onus on them to actually act, rather than fail to act.
<
p>
Now, we need a legislator to put this idea forth since the petition process itself cannot be amended by petition…..
He will submit anything and it likely to get 10 co-sponsors before they realize what it is.
I’m with you for everything but part 5, as 1-4 should make it possible that the only kind of amendments that get to the legislature by citing petition are the kind they should be, ones affecting the issues of democracy and the legislature, on which there would a large level of self-interest to for legislators to block it, which would be far to easy under a simple majority. Maybe lowering it to 2/3 instead of 3/4 to block an amendment would be a good compromise, but I prefer to secure the right for direct democracy when necessary and appropriate.
Maybe lowering it to 2/3 instead of 3/4 to block an amendment
<
p>
I’m sorry to be pedantic, but the MA state constitution requires an affirmative vote on an amendment proposed by an initiative petition to be approved by 25% of the legislators siting in the ConCon. That is far different than suggesting that an amendment be blocked by 3/4 of the legislators.
<
p>
In order for the amendment to proceed to the voters, it would have required an affirmative vote by at least 50 legislators (25%), regardless of the number of legislators who were voting on the amendment. Therein lies the difference.
What happened was just political pandering of the worst sort. Let the vote happen. I wasn’t against gays but now I think I am.
The left had to get it under 50, the right had to get the count over 50 and they started with 62 voted. How is that pandering? It just politics. If the situation was reversed would you be holding the same opinion?
<
p>
LOL! Have you any idea how idiotic sounds? Apparently not. This is a keeper.
Lasthorseman must be against straight people, too!
is against everything, I suspect, given the right circumstances and the right neurochemical reaction.
This was another previous “keeper” comment of his in a different post:
<
p>
“Mixing the races makes it harder to unite people and keeps government in business in an attempt to “fix” the problem.”
<
p>
Yeah, I’m sure before today he wasn’t “against the gays” lol.
No doubt once gay marriage was banned he’d want to vote on interracial marriages too.
That’s just gibberish, but it has certain endearing quality to it, a certain earnest-yet-misguided charm. I’d keep that one, too. 😉
One point of discontent and the extrapolation, the ASSumption that natrually I have to be a bigot also.
This is what turns me off, the far left.
BTW, I noticed you’ve trollrated almost every post on this thread. How very adult of you.
<
p>
Why are you here, anyway? Need an outlet for your little tantrums? Shall I call the WHAAAAAAAAAAAAMbulance?
<
p>
I hadn’t planned to gloat, but in your case I’ll make an exception.
<
p>
Your side LOST. They deserved to lose. They are on the wrong side of history and of everything this country stands for.
<
p>
So deal. Trot on back to RedState, or RedMassGrope, or wherever it is you normally slink around when you’re not making an ass of yourself. Buh-bye!
My skin is much thicker than that. All of these manufactured “issues” now bandied about and the seriousness of them is all going to fade away into oblivion in the next year. I am talking about food not coming to the supermarket kind of stuff.
…for gays before you were against them? Flip-flopper!
here
thanks for posting it, Laurel
was MIA today. Anyone know the story?
mentioned that her father passed away.
Marie, who has been a consistent support of our equality, lost her father this morning after a long illness. She told us she would be there if she was needed, and the sentiment of the body was that she should stay with her family.
my sincere condolences to her and her family. she has indeed been a valued supporter of equality. it was her floor speech during the debate of the previous amendment that really demonstrated something very important to me: some legislators really do care, and really do have a conscience and will do what is right before what is expedient. i will never forget her speech, and i will never forget how it renewed my trust in the legislative process.
Charlie, I’m glad you didn’t have to take the math MCAS 🙂 There were a HECK of a lot more than “a few dozen” on the Grand Staircase. It was an awesome and beautiful sight to behold! However, it would have been even sweeter for me if my Rep (Donato) could have done the right thing and been able to join them.
But I knew there were some staff and security in there as well.
<
p>
Off the top of my head, I recognized Koutoujian, Marty Walz, Carl Sciortino, Jamie Eldridge, Dan Bosley, Jarrett Barrios, Terry M and Sal … but you’re right, there were as many as could fit on the stairs.
did anyone besides me catch this in BayWindows.com?:
<
p>
<
p>
LOL. Didn’t you just KNOW that our everpresent friend John Howard would make an appearance somewhere in the coverage? I wish I could have seen what kind of reception his little quirky crusade got from bystanders.
I introduced myself, and John started blinking like someone who was just pulled into a brightly lit area from a much darker room. I have to say that he is as strange in real life as he seems to be on the blog, although far less vocal. Purhaps it was my size (225lbs), but he seemed meek, passive, and a little efeminate. I walked away with the distinct impression that John is a closet case self hating homosexual, and actually felt bad for him.
I’m sure.
the truth is even more outrageous that what it appears…
Seems Mr. Egg-and-Sperm (sounds like a breakfast buffet, doesn’t it?) is now posting over at RedMassGroup.
<
p>
It’ll be fun to see what kind of reception his campaign gets there.