Somerville Legislators Sued for Violating Constitutional Duty

[dominic-santos.livejournal.com]

Representatives Denise Provost, Carl Sciortino, and Tim Toomey, and Senators Jarrett Barrios and Pat Jehlen were sued today in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts "for violating the constitutional rights of Massachusetts citizens by intentionally refusing to vote on a citizen initiative amendment on the definition of marriage," according to a press release issued by Vote on Marriage, the initiative petition campaign seeking to define marriage in Massachusetts as the union between a man and a woman.
 

The Vote on Marriage press release is available here.

A PDF of the Complaint is available here.

Selected initiative petitions that would have never been voted on if past State Legislatures disregarded their Constitutional duty like our fine legislators from Somerville:

1938 - Initiative to provide free public taxicab stands in cities and towns.
1950 - Initiative to establish the Massachusetts State Lottery.
1976 - Initiative to prohibit to possession, ownership, or sale of any weapon from which a shot or bullet can be discharged and which has a barrel length of less than 16 inches.
1976 - Initiative to require every beverage container to have a refund value of $.05 and to ban containers with flip-tops.
1980 - Initiative to limit local property taxes (a.k.a. Proposition 2 1/2).

Comments

[ravenword.livejournal.com]

"You'd find more folks who are expressly against gay marriage than they are against gay love."

I strongly disagree. I think that most people only bicker about the term "marriage" as a way to sidestep voicing their visceral distaste for same-sex relationships. "Give them civil unions," they say, "just don't let them think that they're the same as me, because that would debase me in some way." If "irregardless" can be in the dictionary, if "NOOK-u-lar" can be in the dictionary, then we can amend the damn dictionary for these loving couples.

I think the term "anti-love" is painting with a very broad and sensationalist brush, however. The equivalent would be referring to pro-marriage people as "pro-perversion" or something. I agree with the sentiment expressed by agnosticoracle, but it wouldn't have been my choice of term either.

[two-stabs.livejournal.com]

Many folks are against gay marriage because they believe the institution is pure (I'm a wedding DJ; it's not!). Romans 32 cracks down on homosexuality, and seeing as western marriage has basically been usurped by mainstream christianity in the past two hundred and fifty years, I think there's a lot of confusion as to why gay folks don't want civil unions with comparable financial benefits. Some people (stupidly, spitefully) see it as a snub. They may not be against gay love, which we must remind ourselves does not always go hand in hand with marriage, but simply the 'infiltration' of a perceived christian instutition.

I'd rather see the majority of folks get civil unions, personally: straight, G, B, L, T, Q, I, or otherwise.