34 South Main St., Attleboro, MA - (508) 222-7000
News
Ross struggled with vote
Top Headlines THE SUN CHRONICLE WRENTHAM - State Rep. Richard said he knows he serves a conservative district that opposes gay marriage and wants a ban put before voters. He said Thursday he also knows in his head that to represent those views he should have voted to put a proposed ban on the ballot so the voters could decide the issue. But, he said, as he wrestled with the issue, the feelings in his heart started to change the thoughts in his head. He finally decided to change his position and vote against the ban while talking about his father with a visitor Wednesday. The visitor had asked Ross about his business as a funeral home director. Ross, R-Wrentham, said he was recalling how his father was an undertaker before him. His father told him that the business teaches you that everyone is entitled to respect and dignity. "As I told that story, I started to cry and had to excuse myself. That story came from up above and was dropped on me," he said. The memory of his father teaching him the importance of respect confirmed for him that he had to vote against the ban because it would have subjected gay couples to "hatred and bigotry," he said. Ross said gay marriage has been allowed in Massachusetts for about three years now. Couples have been united and families formed in that time. Gay couples have never done anything to hurt him or his family, so why should he hurt them? he asked. The ban would not have provided any alternative forms of protection for gay couples like civil unions, another factor in deciding to vote against it, he said. Ross was one of a handful of legislators who changed their position to help defeat the ban. He said he knows some in his district of Wrentham, Norfolk, and Plainville, along with some of his Republican colleagues, will be angry at him and feel betrayed. "I have to suffer whatever the consequences or whatever peril might be, but I'm at peace with myself," he said. There have been stories in the media about Gov. Deval Patrick and Democratic leaders in the Legislature pressuring lawmakers to change their positions and vote against the ban. There have also been unsubstantiated rumors of jobs being offered for votes. Ross said he was never threatened or promised anything. He said he tried to talk to voters, not lobbyists during the process. As one of a handful of Republicans in the Legislature, Statehouse leaders tended to ignore him and concentrate their lobbying efforts on fellow Democrats, he said. "One thing about being a Republican in Massachusetts, you really are a free agent," he said. Ross said his vote might have constituted "political suicide," but he is glad he voted the way he did. As he traveled to Boston Thursday to cast his vote, he said he remembered his mother's favorite Shakespearean quote: "To thine own self be true."
Post Your Comments Chakra wrote on Jun 15, 2007 9:10 PM: " Awesome Oscar - let em' have it! " oscar wrote on Jun 15, 2007 8:47 PM: " to pj and taxed to death in plainville:
You are wrong. Think about the history of civil rights in this country, starting in 1776. A small group of people went up against an empire with nothing more than their personal experience and this thing called the magna carta. Then there is the movement by african americans for civil rights in the 1950's and 60's. This movement was based on the promise that IS america. Compare that to George Wallace's populism: mean, ugly and unreconstructed racists. It is the promise of the constitution that leads to the light and often leads to our representatives voting against their constituents. We are a representational government, bound by the people's will AND the rights and freedoms described in the constitution.
I know this is too much for you hillbillies, but we snot- nosed liberal-conservative-faggot-neocons will keep trying to explain it to you. By the way, Hitler also killed all gays and gypsies too, which should make you very happy. " can't argue with idiots wrote on Jun 15, 2007 8:38 PM: " Smith, take a hike and Brown bag for lunch. In their infinite wisdom, our Founding Fathers established a representative republic to protect everyone from mob bigotry. Marriage is a union of two humans regardless of gender because all are equal in the eyes of the Law and heart of the Creator. You get to vote for your representative. " bigot buster wrote on Jun 15, 2007 8:16 PM: " “Adolf Hitler was not a big fan of letting the "people" vote either?
The legislator’s job is to go over amendments brought to them and if they “warrant” they go through, this one didn’t warrant.
Just because a citizen’s petition was presented, it doesn’t mean it is sure to go through, if that were the case, anyone could gather signatures for anything and who knows what would happen - you need checks and balances.
As for Hitler he also created two classes of people, same as what you would like to see happen, we all know how that turned out, don’t we..
" Matt G wrote on Jun 15, 2007 5:23 PM: " Phillip, you are SOOOOOOO wrong about democrats not voting for Ross.
Get this; not ONE Massachusetts rep or Senator (Dem or Rep) who voted for equality lost their seat, NOT ONE!
Voters for equality (again, Dems and Rep) came out in numbers to support those candidates, look that fact up on Mass Equality’s website; that’s FACT!
Ross will have all the support and love he gave the supporters of Same Sex Marriage!
Ross….THANK YOU for rising above we WONT forget you!
" smith wrote on Jun 15, 2007 5:07 PM: " to spamalot: all your comments are spoken like a true liberal. I bet you want to see Hillary become president too. What Rep. Ross voted for wasn't "gay marriage" it was the people's ability to have a vote. As an obvious Democrat, isn't that what you are supposed to stand for?? I just love it. Hypocrites... " Jake wrote on Jun 15, 2007 4:57 PM: " Hey PlainvilleTaxedToDeath - get used to it or MOVE away. How's Alley-Bammy sound? " WrenthamVoter wrote on Jun 15, 2007 4:55 PM: " pj, you heard him, it's all about his feeeeelings. " more to to wrote on Jun 15, 2007 4:55 PM: " Now will the legislators change the wording of the marriage laws to reflect the privledge of same sex couples to marry? Or will they keep ignoring this issue. " Wrentham mother wrote on Jun 15, 2007 4:53 PM: " Thank you, Richard, for upholding our Constitution and supporting civil rights. Thanks to you and most of our state legislators, Massachusetts remains at the forefront of liberty for all...for civil rights under the state and US Constitution. Civil rights never were and never will be in the domain of mob rule, and I am pleased that you recognized the need for leadership in this matter. This never should have been an issue, just as we never should have allowed slavery and child abuse just because the Holy Bible recorded these practices. Yet, we're evolving as humans just as our relationship with our Creator is evolving, and this decision was about allowing a Love oommitment. What's left to argue? Again, thank you! " PlainvilleTaxedToDeath wrote on Jun 15, 2007 4:08 PM: " Adolf Hitler was not a big fan of letting the "people" vote either after his election that is. And Stalin thought he knew best too, no need for "people" to have a say. Ditto Idi Amin and Pol Pot. You liberals are digging your own graves. Enjoy hell. " Jake wrote on Jun 15, 2007 3:37 PM: " A Hero's HERO! " pj wrote on Jun 15, 2007 3:28 PM: " I think the issue here is that Rep. Ross didn't vote they way that his constituents wanted him to vote. Who are the people that put him in office? If he had received enough comments, letters, calls, emails from the people he represents to vote yes then he should have!
Senators Kennedy and Kerry don't listen to the people they represent all the time either. Guess being in politics is really about doing what you want?!?!?
We put them in office and we let them stay when we don't go out and vote against them. But that is another issue altogether. " Joe S wrote on Jun 15, 2007 2:54 PM: " Here's looking at you baby - you brought it home for equality!!! RICHARD, YOU ROCK!!! " truman wrote on Jun 15, 2007 2:26 PM: " To smith: What insight! gays can't procreate. And you can't think. Let me help you fill in the blanks. In caveman times people did the act to procreate the species, see. What with sabre tooth tigers and no fire and all that. Then, after about 15000 years, men and women married to expand family fortunes, unify nations, or maintain social status. Finally, the 12th century french poets of provence, known as the troubadours, wrote songs and poems that changed the whole thing to marrying for love-yes,love. Imagine. And that is how its been ever since: Marry to survive (sort of), marry for money, or marry for love. I couldn't make this sh*t up. " nancy wrote on Jun 15, 2007 2:06 PM: " to Philip: I get a kick out of these apes who only marry so they can procreate, otherwise, they'd stay shacked up together like a bunch of liberal hippies, man. A real Tarzan and Jane mentality you got there, Phil. Which one are you? " Philip wrote on Jun 15, 2007 1:15 PM: " I get a kick out of these liberals saying Ross is so great. Sure as sh*t they will not vote for him instead of the Dem that runs against him. These liberals are hypocrites, whose most complex thinking is how they FEEL. Well you folks are so out of touch that you are creating a society of wimpy, Oprah men who couldn't survive without a cell phone. In ten years, if we aren't all speaking Spanish because you don't believe in borders, or we are following sharia law, women will do all the work, make the babies, and this new generation of men can sit back and thumb thru catalogs and try to figure out when they will go to the salon. Oh, it's already happening, women don't need men to make a baby says science. Great! " Spamalot wrote on Jun 15, 2007 12:27 PM: " Chris wrote: "Not exactly an aspiring Theodore Roosevelt." How soon we forget Roosevelt's own breakdowns over the deaths of his father while he was away at school, the twin deaths of his mother and first wife on the same day, and the depression he suffered for the rest of his life trying to live up to the ideals that those excellent people instilled in him. Don't fool yourself, true leaders cry and do so sincerely when confronted with agonizing moral issues. Washington, Adams, Jefferson and Lincoln broke down regularly when seeking the right path, the right decision. Excoriating someone for crying over a particularly sensitive decision is NOT a particularly informed way to judge someone's actions. " Spamalot wrote on Jun 15, 2007 12:21 PM: " Smith wrote: "Procreation is one of the foundations for marriage and gays can't do that." Since when is procreation, a simple biological function of the human body, in any way related to marriage? People have children out of wedlock every day of the week, whether you approve of this or not, it is a basic fact. And what about married couples that either can't or choose NOT to have children. Does that make them not married because of that? Enough of this trying to rationalize personal prejudice through arguments about what marriage is and isn't. It IS about a union of two people who dedicate their lives to one another, presumably out of love, but who do so with the blessing of a church if they so choose and with the official legal sanction of the state if they want the legal protections and responsibilities that marriage entails. Stop trying to exclude people from this institution just because the ONLY ideal of marriage you WANT to recognize is one man/one woman = kiddies! " Sean wrote on Jun 15, 2007 11:48 AM: " To Richard Ross - You are a hero and a true leader. You did what you did without the full understanding of many constituents and stuck to your principles and morals. You will get a lot of flack for your decision. You are, however, a great leader and it sounds like a great father too! You have taught me a lot and I hope your story reaches a lot of people. Keep up the good work!!! " mahlers9th wrote on Jun 15, 2007 11:35 AM: " I will now vote for ROSS even though he is a Republican. He deserves our support for taking a couragous stand for civil liberties. Once apon a time Republicans stood for individual liberties and fiscal conservatism not religous fundamentelism. Maybe this is a sign Ross an other Republicans are returning to their true roots. Bravo. " CHRIS wrote on Jun 15, 2007 11:08 AM: " He was not voting for or against gay marriage. He was voting for the peoples right to vote for or against gay marriage. He broke down and cried over thinking about giving the people right to vote on an issue and he is a representative of the people? Not exactly an aspiring Theodore Roosevelt. How exactly is it fair, compassionate and heroic to deny the people the right to vote when they have set a record for number of votes on a petition to get this on the ballot? " To Jim Hand wrote on Jun 15, 2007 10:36 AM: " Please, if you are going to print inuendo and rumor cite real sources. Phrases such as, "There have been stories in the media about Gov. Deval Patrick and Democratic leaders in the Legislate..." and "here have also been unsubstantiated rumors..." are not journalism, they are Channel 12 News style sensationalism. If you are going to write an editorial do so. What's next, you'll be taking a page from Katie Couric's style book and using the phrase "some say"> " WrenthamVoter wrote on Jun 15, 2007 10:22 AM: " Representative Ross has obviously spent too many years sniffing the embalming fluid. " Laurie wrote on Jun 15, 2007 9:32 AM: " Although Rep. Ross is not my rep, I admire how he was able to think this through and make a decision based on fairness and compassion. If only Rep. Poirier had this ability.... " Cheryl wrote on Jun 15, 2007 9:24 AM: " Now this is an example of a TRUE leader! We need more people like Ross representing us!
Thank you Richard for doing the RIGHT thing!
Cheryl " Smith wrote on Jun 15, 2007 9:22 AM: " It seems obvious that all these comments have been posted by liberals, who is not the constituency that Rep. Ross is supposedly representing. No one wants hate or bigotry aimed at gays, but marriage is one man and one woman. Procreation is one of the foundations for marriage and gays can't do that. (of course, I'm just waiting for the day a man gets pregnant, I'm sure it's coming.) Rep. Ross's story of his father's comments was touching, and taught a good lesson, but it doesn't change the fact that marriage is not something gays can or should have a right to. A civil union -- yes -- absolutely. Sen. Brown voted the way his constituents feel, obviously something Rep. Ross doesn't feel obligated to do, despite the voters who put him in office. " Kevin wrote on Jun 15, 2007 9:03 AM: " "One thing about being a Republican in Massachusetts, you really are a free agent," he said. I think this man is a prostitute. It appears that he sold his vote to the highest bidder just like a free agent. His title is representative. He did not represent and the voters will boot him out. " Not a hero wrote on Jun 15, 2007 8:45 AM: " Governor Cadillac spent the past month wheeling and dealing. Ross will probably retire and get a nice state job for which he is unqualified. Maybe VP of government relations at Bridgewater State College. " Steve wrote on Jun 15, 2007 8:35 AM: " Rep. Ross, I applaud you, your courage, and your principles. Great story.
""""The memory of his father teaching him the importance of respect confirmed for him that he had to vote against the ban because it would have subjected gay couples to "hatred and bigotry," he said."""....
This statement represents the ONLY factor of this issue. This is a very simple concept. These are not qualities I would teach my children. These are not qualities I want as leaders. Poriere, Lepper, Brown clearly foster allowing "the people" to the ability to Vote this type of thinking into our neighborhoods. I am glad to see the majority of Reps understand that CIVIL RIGHTS are not an issue that is left to be voted on... especially by the people.
" Spamalot wrote on Jun 15, 2007 8:23 AM: " Perhaps the better way of thinking here should be, as Rep. Ross has shown a courage and a maturity that Sen. Brown has obviously lacked on this issue, as well as several others (anyone else hear about last year's Memorial Day pronouncement by Brown that his daughter's accomplishments on American Idol compared with those of veterans of the various wars America has fought?), mightn't he make a superior state senator as opposed to whom we are saddled with currently? " Jake wrote on Jun 15, 2007 6:14 AM: " AN ABSOLUTE HERO!!! You've set the standard for Scott Brown - let's hope he's smart enough to reach it. " or
|
