Call your State Senators and Reps AGAIN!

[snarkyman]

Here are the results of the first vote, which failed 100 - 98.

"It being the public policy of this commonwealth to protect the unique relationship of marriage, only the union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Massachusetts.

"This article is self-executing, but the general court may enact laws not inconsistent with anything herein contained to carry out the purpose of this article, including but not limited to, the enactment of laws establishing civil unions as may be defined by the general court from time to time."

Charles E. Shannon Jr., D-Winchester - N
James J. Marzilli Jr., D-Arlington - N

And here are the results of the second vote, which failed 104-94.

Under the amendment, any gay couples married between mid-May, when the first licenses could be issued, and November 2006, when a constitutional amendment would take effect, would be stripped of their marriage certificate by the state and automatically considered part of a civil union.

Charles E. Shannon Jr., D-Winchester - Y
James J. Marzilli Jr., D-Arlington - Y

You can find your senator or representative's info here:
http://www.wheredoivotema.com/bal/myelectioninfo.php

Senator Charles E. Shannon: 617-722-1578
Representative J. James Marzilli, Jr.: 617-722-2460

Comments

[metahacker.livejournal.com]

Could you wrap those urls? My friends list is *this* wide...

Thanks.

[eirehound.livejournal.com]

Under the amendment, any gay couples married between mid-May, when the first licenses could be issued, and November 2006, when a constitutional amendment would take effect, would be stripped of their marriage certificate by the state and automatically considered part of a civil union.

Something my sources hadn't covered. Well, it's gone down anyway. Good.

Under MA procedure, what options do the anti-SSM crowd have to try again? Does the idea have to wait a certain amount of time, or can they just keep firing off one proposed amendment after another after another in hopes that something will fly?

[outlander.livejournal.com]

So this means that there WON'T be an amendment made to the state constitution, right? And that, starting in May, anyone who wishes can marry anyone who wishes, providing they are a living human being and not related too closely. This is soo very confusing at times...

[snarkyman.livejournal.com]

Fixed, though it wrapped correctly on my system.