34 South Main St., Attleboro, MA - (508) 222-7000
News
Opinions fly on Web
Top Headlines Gay marriage supporters cheered their victory. One simply wrote, "WOOOHOOO!" Another expressed satisfaction that the issue had finally been settled more than three years after gay marriage was first legalized. "It's absurd that the proponents of the ban feel that their rights are being violated because they don't get a chance to vote on it themselves," the anonymous reader wrote. "There is no constitutional guarantee that because a certain number of people sign a petition they have the right to a referendum. "It had to pass two legislative sessions with at least 50 votes and it didn't - end of story." But opponents of gay marriage expressed their displeasure with the Legislature, and hinted at more unorthodox unions. "This is great news," wrote one, "now I can marry my father and collect his state pension when he passes." Some said that despite their personal opposition to gay marriage, they were glad legislators had killed the measure with an up-or-down vote, rather than through procedural tactics. "I am against gay marriage ... but I was even more appalled at the state Legislature's ignoring the constitution of the commonwealth for political expediency," one wrote. "My views lost, but at least the representatives and senators did their (minimally-required) duty." Not everyone agreed. "The Massachusetts Legislature continues its tradition of ignoring the citizens of the commonwealth," another wrote. One reader, Steve, praised The Sun Chronicle for quickly posting local lawmakers' votes online. It is "important to know how people will vote when it comes to civil rights," he wrote. Another pointed out that Wrentham's two Republican state lawmakers - Sen. Scott Brown and Rep. Richard Ross - "cancel each other out. What a bargain for Wrentham." "Most never bought the idea of Ross as anything other than a Democrat to begin with," he added.
Post Your Comments Matt T. wrote on Jun 15, 2007 8:03 PM: " To Responses: Thanks... I think? " Joe S wrote on Jun 15, 2007 4:59 PM: " Lots of sore losers in the house! " To disgusted wrote on Jun 15, 2007 4:48 PM: " People lost the right to drink due to their reps in Congress years before it was restored. " Jerry wrote on Jun 15, 2007 4:08 PM: " To Joe S -"Get Real - nope, wrong again. I'm self-employed and know bigots when I see em. "? I'll bet you know a lot of people based on their appearance. I hate to thing what you would say about me if I was to date your sister? Probably nothing unless we were going to the Rep convention together. " Hey Jake wrote on Jun 15, 2007 4:06 PM: " I think you'll find RI Pols easier pickings than MA. They're a lot cheaper to buy. " Seth wrote on Jun 15, 2007 3:52 PM: " Blaaaaaah, Bllllah, Blllah - sore losers - admit it you lost - good ole' lobbying at work, it's called POLITICS. " disgusted wrote on Jun 15, 2007 3:41 PM: " Like I said, if the congress had chosen to put on the ballot for each voter to vote on, you would still have slaves, women would not be able to vote, and we would not be able to drink to name a few of the civil rights that were gained first by placing it on a ballot.
I may just move on to a state where the was of the land are enforced ad were we don't have illegal aliens every where and more coming thanks to Kennedy, Kerry & Patrick. Interesting to hear the governor this morning on WBZ boast, and mention that part of his tool kit to switch voters was to help raise funds for re-election campaigns, to help them run and appear at fund raisers. Sure sounds like he BOUGHT votes. The ethics laws say that a person should not use his position for personnel gain, getting campaign funds for a vote sure sounds like that. If you'll thought that this state wanted this than why didn't let the state vote on it? Oh yes we voted for a tax decrease and we didn't et that either because the legislators thought better of that idea as well. On another note, don't forget your Father this Sunday. Or your two Fathers if that is the case. " Jake wrote on Jun 15, 2007 3:36 PM: " RI Resident - get ready, here we come. First MA, next RI. " Joe S wrote on Jun 15, 2007 3:35 PM: " Get Real - nope, wrong again. I'm self-employed and know bigots when I see em. " To RI Resident wrote on Jun 15, 2007 3:17 PM: " How much ya got? " Get Real wrote on Jun 15, 2007 3:16 PM: " Hey Joe S., how long have you been on the state payroll. Sure she's a hero, everyone is a hero. Talk about the most overused word in the world. According to the Red Cross I'm a hero because 6 times a year I let them take blood from my arm.
None of our state pols is a hero for being in the state house. A hero is the cop in rural New York pulling over a car at 2:00 in the morning. It might be someone on the way home from a party or a terrorist, it's the fireman who runs into the building when every one is running out. A hero is the Marine or soldier who know full well what could happen to him, but gets in that helo and heads into battle anyway.
I can't wait until these pols and their coat holders stop patting each other on the back for making a politically easy decision.
" Joe S wrote on Jun 15, 2007 2:56 PM: " Christina M. Knowles - 100% right on! Ross is a HERO - these bigots won't ever get that so ignore them. You are a hero too! " RI resident wrote on Jun 15, 2007 1:30 PM: " I thought Rhode Island had corrupt government. Welcome to Massachusetts, How much for your vote? " Philip wrote on Jun 15, 2007 1:26 PM: " The folks that flip-flopped are prostitutes. " Enough Already wrote on Jun 15, 2007 12:26 PM: " Disgusted wrote on Jun 15, 2007 8:33 AM:
" As I understand it over 170,000 voters asked to have this issue placed on a statewide ballot, but Rep. Ross' concerns over the impact on about 18,000 gay persons..."
The proper way to look at this, Disgusted, is that 170,000 voters out of a population of approximately 6.4 million thought that signing a petition automatically gave them the right to vote on something. That's less than 3% of the population. There's a reason the constitutional process requires signatures on a petition AND support from 50 legislators in two separate sessions. Neither of those is a terribly high threshold and when they can't be met there shouldn't be whining that the rights of the people were subverted. This has been going on since 2004 and there has been ample opportunity to elect a legislature that would support the ban. It hasn't happened and it's now time for the proponents of the ban to come to grips with the fact that they're the minority. " Enoug Already wrote on Jun 15, 2007 11:59 AM: " Tired, exactly what part of the constitutional process was subverted? The constitutional process requires signatures and votes in two legislative sessions. If all it required was a petition, why do the have the legislative vote requirement? The process went as it was supposed to, there wasn't enough legislative support (there was barely any - c'mon, if you can't get 25% legislative support then maybe it's time to realize that it was a non-starter to begin with).
" Tired and taxed wrote on Jun 15, 2007 11:17 AM: " To Christina - what you felt was not "euphoria, relief, amazement, and pride". It was plain and simple gloating. You won, the others lost and to h**l with the constitutional process. When your statehouse weekend is over (Tuesday afternoon?) please start working on the plans to raise our taxes some more. Because that's what the Governor is expecting his pet legislature to do. " Your jobs are safe wrote on Jun 15, 2007 10:28 AM: " To the hacks who switched votes after being "persuaded" by Gov T&S. Don't worry you won't lose your cushie jobs. Just send out a few more proclamations to the local civic groups and you're all set. If not, I'm sure the people's governor promised you something cozy for your future " To Christina M. Knowles wrote on Jun 15, 2007 10:25 AM: " Save it for your memoirs, or your speech at the next Hillary Clinton love fest. The people who pay your salary are tired of hearing the adorations of State House lackeys. Euphoria? What are you smoking in the coat holders' break room? " Sick of preachers wrote on Jun 15, 2007 10:19 AM: " To Christina M. Knowles - I'm glad you felt euphoria. Now get out of the trough and get a job in the real world and stop worshipping the house of hacks we call our legislation. " Responses wrote on Jun 15, 2007 10:13 AM: " Siked - "anti gay biggot swamp yankees"? Good job of lumping everyone who disagrees with you into one negative stereotype. You showed us how to keep an open mind on issues and avoid the hate speech you accuse your opponents of using. You may want to get a dictionary too, the word is bigot.
Matt T - you're an example of why the anti-gay marriage group looks like a bunch of fools.
Realist - You're right, it's more complex an issue than either side wants to admit.
The winners will be the lawyers who set up divorce practices specializing in "non traditional union dissolution". " Christina M. Knowles wrote on Jun 15, 2007 10:11 AM: " As an Aide in the State House, I had the opportunity to watch the momentous and historical event of protecting gay rights unfold before my eyes. With the announcement that same-sex couples would continue to have their civil rights upheld, I felt euphoria, relief, amazement, and pride. As a staunch supporter of gay rights, this was the perfect day. My elation grew when I discovered that, in an unprecedented turn of events, my State Representative cast his vote against the amendment.
Representative Richard Ross was expected by most to be a guaranteed “yes” vote. As one of the few Republicans in an overwhelmingly Democratic legislature, and as an elected official in a mostly conservative district, it required tremendous courage and soul-searching to cross party lines and risk angering constituents.
Many constituents will be upset and angered by this decision. You have every right to your opinion, and to share this opinion with your elected official. But no matter how much you disagree with Ross’ vote, you cannot be upset that your elected official did what he thought was right, even in the face of intense opposition. You cannot be disappointed that your representative is a man of courage, integrity, and principles. You can disagree with his decision, but you cannot disagree that you voted for a man who was willing to listen and learn, and to change and grow.
As a progressive Democrat, I don’t always see eye-to-eye with my Republican representative. Today, however, I am proud to say that a Republican represents me. I am honored to be a constituent of a representative who is willing to hear all sides of the story, weigh the options, and cast a vote based on knowledge and justice. If that isn’t democracy, then I don’t know what is. So happy am I, that in the next state representative election for my district, I’ll do something I thought I would never do—vote to keep a Republican in office.
" Calling Him Out wrote on Jun 15, 2007 9:26 AM: " Ross is a traitor. His district supporters need to wake up and realize that. His self-titled "revelation" is no more than a sham, excuse. He's already backpedaling to get ready for re-election in '08. Hope his democratic friends will stand by him - oh, that's right, they probably promised not to run anyone against him in favor for his vote. Nice system we have in Massachusetts. " Martha wrote on Jun 15, 2007 8:56 AM: " Hey Siked... short, sweet and simple. I couldn't agree more. " Steve wrote on Jun 15, 2007 8:53 AM: " "It's absurd that the proponents of the ban feel that their rights are being violated because they don't get a chance to vote on it themselves," ...
This is poetic justice. They are upset because thier rights were violate... yet they were seeking to violate the rights of gay marriage. " Realist wrote on Jun 15, 2007 8:50 AM: " Both sides in this argument have shown some of the ugliest behavior on any issue Massachusetts has experienced. Anti gay marriage people have gone so far as to say this [lack of]decision by our pols will lead to everything from polygomy to bestiality being sanctioned. The pros have thrown every hateful slur at the antis that has ever been used by homosexuals against non homosexuals. Both sides have screamed "if you don't like it, leave" And Siked brings up the NBC news tactic of insinuating an absolute division of the Commonwealth's people (red state vs blue state). Nobody has anything to be proud of with this issue, especially the politicians. " Siked wrote on Jun 15, 2007 8:37 AM: " Disgusted: Get a grip. You shouldn't get to vote on someone else's human rights and it was turned into a circus by anti gay biggot swamp yankees who give the Commonwealth a bad name. If you don't like it, move to a red state.
" Disgusted wrote on Jun 15, 2007 8:33 AM: " As I understand it over 170,000 voters asked to have this issue placed on a statewide ballot, but Rep. Ross' concerns over the impact on about 18,000 gay persons (some who are not voters or residents of the state) or to put it another way, 10.5% of the petitioners number held the majority. The case that voters should not vote on 'civil rights' issues is ridiculous, for example a woman's right to vote was voted on by the people, the abolishment of slavery was voted on by the people. The whole issue was made into a circus by a new governor who intently urged legislators to abandon their constitutional mandate and not even take a vote. What this now does is open up the Commonwealth to all kinds of 'civil rights' entitlements by anyone. Illegal aliens will claim civil rights protection, I have a civil right not to pay taxes as I don't support certain governmental actions programs or policy. The Commonwealth has now once again become a bright torch in the darkness to light the way to Sodom. If as the proponents (including this paper) say its what the people want, than why were they afraid to but it on the ballot? The simple reason is that it would be on the ballot at the same time as most of our elected legislator wold be standing for election again, and they would have to answer to the voters. Shame on you Ross! " Matt T. wrote on Jun 15, 2007 8:31 AM: " "now I can marry my father and collect his state pension when he passes."
How the hell is being a homosexual equal to committing incest?
That's got to be the most ignorant thing I've ever heard, and I'm glad the SC published it, because it only further displays the ignorance of the minority who are upset because they didn't win.
Some times you win, some times you lose. Deal with it, and try to be a halfway decent person when you lose. " Rick wrote on Jun 15, 2007 8:27 AM: " Where are all those comments that "flew fast and furious on The Sun Chronicle Web site's comments board"??? " Jake wrote on Jun 15, 2007 6:16 AM: " ROSS IS A HERO. Please thank him for what he did yesterday. " or
|
