001 |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 1 of 6 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large
Extra Large
Full Size
Full Resolution
|
This page
All
|
Loading content ...
, hmlkmd Friends of lesbiansandSap
GREENSBORO, N.C.
Vol.11 No. 4
April, 2004
Mass. amendment would ban gay
marriage, establish civil unions
BOSTON (Mar. 30) - The Massachusetts
Legislature lias voted to ban gay marriage and establish civil
unions, approving a proposed constitutional amendment that
would reverse the Supreme Judicial Court's historic ruling
that legalized same-sex marriages. The proposed
amendment must still be approved in the state legislature
next year and would then go to voters for final adoption in
2006.
Governor Mitt Romney immediately vowed to ask
the court to block gay marriages until voters can decide the
fate of the dual proposal in November 2006. The SJC
decision legalizing gay marriages is set to go into effect May
17, and Romney said he wanted to avoid confusion that he
believes would result if gay couples married and then the
voters banned gay marriage. Attorney General Thomas F.
Reilly, however, said minutes later that he would not take
Romney's request to the SJC. Reilly said he believed that
Romney lacked a valid legal basis for a stay, because the
SJC has ruled twice in favor of gay marriage.
The SJC ruling would make Massachusetts the first
state to allow gay couples to marry. The proposed
consitutional amendment, on the other hand would ban gay
marriage but make Massachusetts the second state, after
Vermont, to legalize civil unions.
The Legislature narrowly approved the amendment
105-92, after the fourth intense day of debate in the past six
weeks. The vote was met with a stunned hush by the gay-
marriage supporters in the House gallery. It would ban gay
marriage but establish civil unions that would provide the
same state rights and benefits available to heterosexual
couples through marriage.
Greensboro PFLAG
April meeting
April 2©3 7:30 p.m.
Friendship Friends Meeting House
1103 Mew Garden Road
Welcome to PFLAG. We offer a safe,
confidential space in which to explore our feelings and
understandings about the gay experience, especially
"coming out" and what this means to families and other
loved ones. Listen and share as much or as little as you
feel comfortable with, knowing that others can
understand. Welcome especially to our returning
members whose love is so healing.
Tenuous and shifting coalitions held together in the
final vote, despite a series of parliamentary moves by liberal
lawmakers to stop anything from moving forward In the
end, an amendment that was disliked by the political right
and the political left was approved because it was the only
measure that could draw the support of a majority of
lawmakers.
Court halts same-sex marriages in San
Francisco
San Francisco (March 11) - A California Supreme
Court ruling this afternoon temporarily keeps San Francisco
officials from issuing more marriage licenses to same-sex
couples, but the court lias not yet addressed whether it's
constitutional to deny marriage to lesbian and gay couples,
Lambda Legal said.
The California Supreme Court put the matter on
hold while the court considers a lawsuit filed by antigay
groups. Since Mayor Gavin Newsom began issuing license
to same-sex couples last month, judges have refused to
intervene five times. "All that happened today is that matters
were put on hold. This ruling hits the 'pause' button, not the
'stop' button," said Jon Davidson, Senior Counsel for
Lambda Legal in its Western Regional Office in Los
Angeles.
The City of San Francisco began issuing marriage
licenses to same-sex couples last month when Newsom said
the state Constitution's guarantees of equality and due
process required him to issue licenses to same-sex couples.
More than 4,000 same-sex marriages have been performed
since then. California state statutes prohibit recognition of
marriage between same-sex couples—but those statutes
would have to comply with the state Constitution to remain
valid, and before this week California courts had never been
asked to consider whedier they are constitutional, Lambda
Legal said. The California Supreme Court's ruling today
does not address any of those substantive issues, nor does it
address Newsom's authority as mayor to issue the marriage
licenses. Those questions will be argued in the next couple
of months.
Object Description
Page/Item Description
| Title | 001 |
| Transcript | , hmlkmd Friends of lesbiansandSap GREENSBORO, N.C. Vol.11 No. 4 April, 2004 Mass. amendment would ban gay marriage, establish civil unions BOSTON (Mar. 30) - The Massachusetts Legislature lias voted to ban gay marriage and establish civil unions, approving a proposed constitutional amendment that would reverse the Supreme Judicial Court's historic ruling that legalized same-sex marriages. The proposed amendment must still be approved in the state legislature next year and would then go to voters for final adoption in 2006. Governor Mitt Romney immediately vowed to ask the court to block gay marriages until voters can decide the fate of the dual proposal in November 2006. The SJC decision legalizing gay marriages is set to go into effect May 17, and Romney said he wanted to avoid confusion that he believes would result if gay couples married and then the voters banned gay marriage. Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly, however, said minutes later that he would not take Romney's request to the SJC. Reilly said he believed that Romney lacked a valid legal basis for a stay, because the SJC has ruled twice in favor of gay marriage. The SJC ruling would make Massachusetts the first state to allow gay couples to marry. The proposed consitutional amendment, on the other hand would ban gay marriage but make Massachusetts the second state, after Vermont, to legalize civil unions. The Legislature narrowly approved the amendment 105-92, after the fourth intense day of debate in the past six weeks. The vote was met with a stunned hush by the gay- marriage supporters in the House gallery. It would ban gay marriage but establish civil unions that would provide the same state rights and benefits available to heterosexual couples through marriage. Greensboro PFLAG April meeting April 2©3 7:30 p.m. Friendship Friends Meeting House 1103 Mew Garden Road Welcome to PFLAG. We offer a safe, confidential space in which to explore our feelings and understandings about the gay experience, especially "coming out" and what this means to families and other loved ones. Listen and share as much or as little as you feel comfortable with, knowing that others can understand. Welcome especially to our returning members whose love is so healing. Tenuous and shifting coalitions held together in the final vote, despite a series of parliamentary moves by liberal lawmakers to stop anything from moving forward In the end, an amendment that was disliked by the political right and the political left was approved because it was the only measure that could draw the support of a majority of lawmakers. Court halts same-sex marriages in San Francisco San Francisco (March 11) - A California Supreme Court ruling this afternoon temporarily keeps San Francisco officials from issuing more marriage licenses to same-sex couples, but the court lias not yet addressed whether it's constitutional to deny marriage to lesbian and gay couples, Lambda Legal said. The California Supreme Court put the matter on hold while the court considers a lawsuit filed by antigay groups. Since Mayor Gavin Newsom began issuing license to same-sex couples last month, judges have refused to intervene five times. "All that happened today is that matters were put on hold. This ruling hits the 'pause' button, not the 'stop' button," said Jon Davidson, Senior Counsel for Lambda Legal in its Western Regional Office in Los Angeles. The City of San Francisco began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples last month when Newsom said the state Constitution's guarantees of equality and due process required him to issue licenses to same-sex couples. More than 4,000 same-sex marriages have been performed since then. California state statutes prohibit recognition of marriage between same-sex couples—but those statutes would have to comply with the state Constitution to remain valid, and before this week California courts had never been asked to consider whedier they are constitutional, Lambda Legal said. The California Supreme Court's ruling today does not address any of those substantive issues, nor does it address Newsom's authority as mayor to issue the marriage licenses. Those questions will be argued in the next couple of months. |
