Sounds like a joke huh? It's not. Disgraced Republicans David Vitter (Louisiana) and Larry Craig (Idaho) both signed on as sponsors for another attempt on a federal marriage amendment which I believe has already failed 3 times in previous years.

OK, so it's not news that politicians are hypocrites. But, my goodness. This just takes the hypocritical cake. As reported by PageOneQ.com, two infamous senators have signed on to the bill of Mississippi Republican Sen. Roger Wicker to establish a constitutional amendment codifying marriage as between a man and a woman.

You probably only need two guesses as to which two senators announced they were co-sponsoring the bill today -- David "John" Vitter and Larry "Wide Stance" Craig. The actual wording of the amendment and the status of Vitter and Craig as co-sponsors can be seen here.

I mean, really now. How much further down the rabbit hole can we go? A man who pleaded guilty to lewd conduct in propositioning an undercover police officer for anonymous sex in a bathroom, and a man who allegedly has a diaper fetish exerting their moral authority over the rest of us. How can it have come to this?

Get the rest of the story here.

Labels: another disgraced Republican, constitutional amendment, dick of the week, federal, marriage

Supporters of a constitutional ban on same-sex marriages likely will have to wait at least another four years after a key House leader decided he won't consider legislation that passed the Senate.

Conservative activists and lawmakers expressed frustration Friday with the decision by Rep. Scott Pelath, D-Michigan City, not to hear Senate Joint Resolution 7, the legislation that included the constitutional ban.

Pelath's decision did not come as a surprise because earlier this session, he refused to hear a House version of the legislation in his Rules Committee. His decision not to hear the Senate version of the proposal, however, is significant because it likely wipes out a decision by the General Assembly in 2005 to pass the measure.

In order to amend the constitution, two consecutively elected legislatures must pass the measure, and voters must approve it in a general election.

Read the rest here.

Labels: constitutional amendment, indiana, marriage

Absolutely amazing. I was watching the live Tv feed online as the vote happened. 45 vote to send it to the voters, 151 voted to not send it to the voters. The "yes" side needed at least 50 votes.

Go Massachusetts! You are a role model for every other state in the nation. As BlueMassGroup.com said, "A glorious victory for the forces of equality."

-Gavin

Labels: constitutional amendment, legislature, Massachusetts

Right this moment, Massachusetts state legislators are meeting for a constitutional convention. Today is the day that the future of gay marriage will be decided for the state. Will it be referred to the voters?

From HRC:
As you may know, today the state legislators will vote on whether to add an anti-marriage constitutional amendment to the 2008 state ballot. Our opponents need to secure at least 50 votes today to get the amendment on the ballot.

After 3 years and more than 9,000 same-sex marriages, the vote will likely be very close. We picked up one vote last night, but it's really coming down to the wire.

Live Blogging from the constitutional convention is here.

There is also a live TV feed here.

UPDATE FROM HRC Field Director:
Just got out of a closed-door meeting of 30 or so of the legislative leaders who support marriage equality and are whipping for final vote. Scarfing down sandwiches held together with toothpicks adorned with American flags. The meeting is in the basement of St. Paul's Episcopal Church across the Boston Commons. The mood is serious as every possible move is being plotted. It is almost reverent as legislators are keenly aware of what is about to happen is less than one hour. The leaders, Senator Stan Rosenberg and House Member Byron Rushing, gave the directions. The vote is expected to happen at 1:00 sharp and to be over quickly, if all goes well.

The legislators in the church are silent and seem to struggle to swallow their lunches. They stream out in silence and now head to the Statehouse. One by one, legislators say to me, "Welcome home." The crowd outside the Statehouse, now in the thousands, is rather quiet, sensing the seriousness of the moment as the legislators file by them. I am now walking into the Statehouse to, hopefully, see history made in our country.

Labels: constitutional amendment, legislature, marriage, Massachusetts

Wow. A very strange way of going about social change.

An initiative filed by proponents of same-sex marriage would require heterosexual couples to have kids within three years or else have their marriage annulled.

Initiative 957 was filed last month by Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance. That group was formed last summer after the state supreme court upheld Washington's ban on same-sex marriage.

Under the measure, marriage would be limited to men and women who are able to have children. Couples would be required to prove they can have children in order to get a marriage license, and if they did not have children within three years, their marriage would be subject to annulment.

All other marriages would be defined as "unrecognized" and people in those marriages would be ineligible to receive any marriage benefits.

Supporters must gather more than 224,000 valid signatures by July 6 to put the initiative on the November ballot.

According to the group's Web site, organizers hope that the supreme court will strike down the initiatives as unconstitutional, weakening the basis for the same-sex marriage ban.

"And at the very least, it should be good fun to see the social conservatives who have long screamed that marriage exists for the sole purpose of procreation be forced to choke on their own rhetoric," it says.

Labels: ballot measure, constitutional amendment, washington

Just months after the hateful and discriminatory anti-marriage amendment failed in Arizona, lawmakers are now considering taking the issue up themselves in a blatant attempt to overturn the will of Arizona voters.

Via 365gay:
A group of Republican lawmakers on Wednesday filed a proposed amendment banning same-sex marriage in the only state where voters have already rejected a similar ban.

The new bill, introduced in the state House of Representatives, defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman, but does not contain additional language also banning civil unions and domestic partner benefits that voters found difficult to accept in the previous amendment.

Last November the state became the first in the nation to defeat a constitutional ban on gay marriage.

A survey taken following the vote showed Arizona voters were concerned about the broad nature of the proposed amendment. Groups fighting against it had pointed out that it would affect thousands of unmarried opposite-sex couples in the state.

State Reps. Russell Pearce, Trish Groe and Rick Murphy, all Republicans, say the new measure has wide support within the state GOP.

The Catholic Church and evangelical Protestants support a gay marriage ban and are likely to throw their support behind the new measure.

US Sens. Jon Kyl and John McCain, a GOP presidential hopeful also support a ban on same-sex marriage.

Arizona already has legislation limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples, but the three lawmakers said they feared the law could be overturned in court.

If the new proposed amendment passes both chambers of the Legislature, which is likely, it would be put on the November 2008 ballot.

Labels: Arizona, constitutional amendment, marriage

What a day in Massachusetts today. Today the legislature convened for their last day of the session. Up until today it was unclear if they would end up voting for a proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage-making it between one man and one woman, after it was already legalized in 2004.

So what is the state of gay marriage in Massachusetts? First there are a couple of things that you should know. Opponents of gay marriage only needed 50 of the total 200 votes to pass this constitutional amendment on to the next legislature next session, then if it passes next session, it will be moved to the ballot where the people of Massachusetts will vote on civil rights.

So today, the amendment was brought to the floor without debate. It passed. The vote was 61-132 in favor of advancing the proposed constitutional amendment. Backers of equality failed to rally the 151 votes they needed to kill the measure but succeeded in forcing an hour delay to reconsider the initial vote.

A second vote then took place. The vote tally was then 62-134, still enough to move the amendment forward to the next legislative session.

A total of 17 lawmakers who voted Tuesday won't be returning in the new session, including some of the most vocal opponents of same-sex marriage. Supporters of marriage equality say they will pick up a total of seven votes to block the proposed amendment in the new session, according to Marc Solomon, campaign director for MassEquality.

Massachusetts has some very strong allies of equality in their legislature, as well as their new Governor who is set to take office. The following are some statements made regarding the repulsive nature of writing discrimination into the constitution.

House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi, (D-Boston):
DiMasi said the amendment discriminates against gay citizens and vowed to work with Patrick to defeat the question before it reaches voters.

"Today a minority of legislators voted to advance a proposal that takes away the civil rights those couples are guaranteed to under our constitution," DiMasi said in a statement. "This initiative petition is offensive and deplorable."

Governor-elect Deval Patrick, a supporter of marriage equality, urged legislators to avoid a vote on the proposed amendment. A vote to adjourn the joint constitutional convention without taking up the gay marriage amendment would have killed the measure and put supporters of the ban back to square one. Governor-elect Patrick said:

"This is not just another question for popular decision. This is a question, under the equal protection clause, about what freedoms the minority is entitled to," Patrick told reporters after meeting with DiMasi. "This is the first time that the petition process has ever been used to consider reinserting discrimination into the constitution."
After the vote, Patrick said issued a written statement saying he was disappointed.

"We have never used the initiative petition to limit individual freedoms and personal privacy, but today's vote was a regrettable step in that direction," he said.

Labels: constitutional amendment, marriage, Massachusetts

In an act of unethical despiration, presidential hopeful and outgoing Massachusetts Governor, Mitt Romney is threatening to hold back pay for state legislators until there is a vote on banning gay marriage in Massachusetts. The man is on a damn crusade to take the rights and protections away from children and their families.

With time running out opponents of same-sex marriage are massing a major campaign aimed at forcing Massachusetts lawmakers to vote on a proposed constitutional amendment that would bar gay and lesbian couples from tying the knot.

Outgoing Gov. Mitt Romney is threatening to tie up pay raises for the legislature if it does fails to act and the group behind the amendment says it will seek bar sanctions against attorney's at the legislature if the vote is not held.

The opposition mentioned above are part of the same people who attacked a woman at a rally. She was counter-protesting in favor of keeping the current pro-equality marriage laws already on the books in Massachusetts. The leader (story here) tackled the woman, shoved her face into the concrete and threatened her. Oh-and he is from the Catholic Church. It's so wrong-on so many levels.

On November 10 the legislature, meeting in a special joint session to consider the proposed amendment, recessed until January 2, without taking a vote.

The proposed amendment was the result of a signature gathering campaign mounted by conservative groups. More than the required number of names were collected, sending the issue to the Constitutional Convention where it needs only the support of only 50 lawmakers - 25 percent of the House and Senate - in two constitutional conventions for it to be put to voters in 2008.

If the convention fails to vote on January 2 - the final day of the current session - the proposed amendment would die and supporters would have to begin collecting signatures all over again in an attempt to place it before voters in 2010.

Even if the measure were to pass on January 2 it would need a second round of approval in the new session of legislature.

Romney, who leaves office in January and is expected to announce his candidacy for the GOP nomination for president, is reportedly preparing to play his final card in the battle over the amendment vote - refusing to sign automatic pay raises for lawmakers.

We shall see what happens. They really only have one day left, next Tuesday.

For more on the woman assaulted by the Catholic demonstrator:
Cathlolics Turning to Violence to Stop Equality
Update: The Violent Catholic

Labels: constitutional amendment, discrimination, gay rights, marriage, Massachusetts, mitt romney

This is an update to "Cathlolics Turning to Violence to Stop Equality".

Police have filed a criminal complaint against the executive director of Boston-based Catholic Citizenship on allegations he pushed a female counter-demonstrator to the ground and pushed her face into the concrete during an anti-gay marriage rally Saturday outside City Hall.

Detective Capt. Edward J. McGinn Jr. said police yesterday filed an assault and battery complaint in Central District Court against Larry Cirignano, 50, of 15 County Lane, Canton, who heads the Catholic Citizenship group, which opposes gay marriage. Continue here

I think that it is high time people start asking Raymond Flynn and Cardinal O'Maley what actions they intend on taking in this matter. Cirignano already publicly admitted to "escorting" Mrs. Loy, which amounts to assault. Unauthorized touching of another person is illegal, and he has made it clear he crossed that line, so the witnesses testimony will only serve to prove how far things went. Personally I would expect a man of Larry Cirignano's position to have a better understanding of the law than to put his hands on anyone at a rally like this when there were police there to control the crowd. Now he will have to face the consequences of his actions, whether he comes clean on the truth or not.

via TELEGRAM & GAZETTE STAFF and Live, Love, and Learn

Labels: Catholic, constitutional amendment, crimes, Massachusetts

Massachusetts legislators today soundly rejected one constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, and recessed the Constitutional Convention until January, thereby effectively derailing a proposed ballot measure which would have ended marriage equality in Massachusetts.

By taking this action, the Legislature sided with the majority of people in Massachusetts who believe that marriage equality is good for families and communities and that it's time to move on to more pressing matters.

In addressing two proposed constitutional amendments that would have stripped away marriage rights for same-sex couples, legislators overwhelmingly defeated the first by a 196 to 0 vote. They then moved to end the debate altogether, thereby effectively terminating our opponents' drive to put a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage on the 2008 November ballot. That vote was 109 to 87.

That is amazing news from Massachusetts. I am seeing a trend here. Arizona defeated their proposed constitutional amendment on Tuesday, New Jersey ruled in favor of marriage equality and now the Massachusetts legislature has help up marriage rights for same-sex couples.

Labels: constitutional amendment, Massachusetts