If Charlie Shannon is YOUR Senator

[on-reserve.livejournal.com]

In less that three hours we will be at a make-or-break moment in the
battle to block a constitutional amendment. We have just reviewed our
vote count and where we think legislators stand.

Your state senator, Charles Shannon, could be the make-or-break vote we
need to defeat any antigay amendment.

Please call him RIGHT NOW at 617-722-1578 and tell him you want him to
vote against ALL antigay amendments, including John Rogers'.

Please hurry. And then contact your neighbors and ask them to call your
legislator, also, with the same message.

Thank you.

Comments

[snarkyman.livejournal.com]

Here are the results of the first vote, which failed 100 - 98.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2004/02/11/how_legislators_voted_on_finneran_backed_gay_marriage_amendment/

"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


And here are the results of the second vote, which failed 104-94.
http://www.boston.com/dailynews/042/region/How_legislators_voted_on_a_Sen:.shtml

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

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

Re:

[dietrich.livejournal.com]

Jeeeezus.

Why would he vote No on defining marriage as only between one man and one woman, and then Yes on having gay married couples lose their marriage licenses when the amendment went into effect??

Done, btw.

Re:

[on-reserve.livejournal.com]

It was a strategy decision. Freedom to Marry actually asked them to as a strategy decision. I can't remember why ...

[jadelennox]

Is Barrios' amendment up today?

So they've defeated marriage=man+woman, and they've defeated marriage=man+woman-but-let's-have-CUs-and-autoconvert, and what's up today is marriage=man+woman-and-maybe-we-can-have-CUs-later-if-we-feel-like-it, right?

I watched hours of the debates and I was still confused, because they talked about all three amendments together.

Re:

[cnoocy]

According to Boston.com, they're discussing Barrios' amendment now. They're also working on an amendment that would ban same-sex marriages, but allow marriages between May and 2006 to stand.