Breaking…People’s Voice “Stolen” in Mass. Will CT Be Next?
June 14th, 2007 by Peter
BOSTON – Massachusetts lawmakers blocked a proposed constitutional amendment Thursday that would have let voters decide whether to ban gay marriage in the only state that allows it…
Former Gov. Mitt Romney, now running for president, called the vote “a regrettable setback” and said it makes it more important now to pass a national amendment banning gay marriage.
“Marriage is an institution that goes to the heart of our society, and our leaders can no longer abdicate their responsibility,” he said.
Raymond Flynn, the former Boston mayor and former U.S. ambassador to the Vatican who was the lead sponsor of the proposed amendment, said the 170,000 Massachusetts residents who signed the petition for the ban “had their vote stolen from them.”…
Kris Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute that backed the amendment, said his group was vastly outspent by gay marriage supporters. “It certainly does appear that money speaks in this building,” he said.
Mineau pledged to continue fighting but wouldn’t commit to presenting another proposed amendment.
“I don’t believe it’s dead because the people have not had the opportunity to have their vote,” he said. “This will not go away until the citizens have their opportunity to decide what the definition of marriage is.”
The Massachusetts legislature’s message to the people is clear: 1) We serve special interests, not the will of the people. 2) Obey the diktats of your robed masters and stop bothering us.
With the same-sex “marriage” decision pending in Connecticut’s Supreme Court, we may soon be getting the same message from our own state government. But if the Court follows Massachusetts’ lead in imposing same-sex “marriage” on an unwilling public, it will be the greatest judicial usurpation of democracy in Connecticut history.
Watch for more information on what we can do to preserve our right to self-government and avoid the tragic condition of Massachusetts.
Oh, Peter. The people did decide. Who elects the representatives who voted? Do they just appear, fully formed, from the head of Ted Kennedy?
A glorious victory for right over the forces of intolerance, stupidity and banal evil. Glorious. Let’s hope it spreads here!
Perhaps you need lessons in how this country works. We elect a number of people who then make the major decisions for us. If we don’t like what they do then we have the opportunity to vote them out. If the people of this country or individual states were to vote on every issue, nothing would ever be accomplished. If that’s how you want things to be then work to changing the system. The peoples’s voice was not “stolen”, they certainly still have the ability to vote for candidates that think like them. Let’s put to popular vote this obscene war that Bush has us buried in, let’s vote on healthcare for all, heck, let’s vote on abortion. Had the vote yesterday gone in the direction you like would that somehow mean that money doesn’t speak “in this building”. Hardly. If they had again refused to vote on it as they have in the past then I would certainly agree with some of what is said in your post. But they finally did the right thing and let it go to a legislative vote. The procedures of the State of Massachusets were followed, and I would believe everything I said above even if the vote had gone against us.
LGBT people are not a special interest, we are simply fellow citizens of this country who want the same protections of our family relationships that the rest of the people have. Massachusetts is not in a “tragic condition”, on this issue it is the only healthy state in the union. The real tragedy is that some of you believe that is ethical, acceptable and in line with the beliefs this country was founded on that you should be able to vote on the lives of other citizens whose only “crime” is that they love someone of the same sex. That is the saddest thing of all.
It is an unfortunate setback, but hardly the end of the struggle in Massachusetts. As described by Kris Mineau,
VoteOnMarriage.org promises to continue the fight for the people of Massachusetts to be heard on this issue. And now that all of their state legislators have actually taken a stance, on the record, we’ll see what impact this has on the next election cycle.
Now there’s one for the archives. We’ll have to save that quote the next time conservative principles win in a legislature.
But the logic is astounding. Let’s see… If politicians vote against what poll after poll say what “the people” want and believe then “the people” have decided.
Huh…
If the supporters of the Mass Family Institute are serious, they will target 20 or 30 vulnerable opponents and conduct a thoughtful door-to-door campaign in those districts. This campaign would inform persuadable voters and identify pro-family voters.
I am sure that many people worked very hard on the ’06 legislative elections. However, it is obvious that too few people were active. The results speak for themselves.
There is a sluggishness that pervades the pro-family movement in New England. What exactly are people waiting for?
Speaking of voting, on Thursday the Senate Republican caucus unanimously elected John McKinney to replace Lou DeLuca as Minority leader. Here’s a part of his profile from yesterday’s Courant.
In most other states, certain issues are of such importance that the people of the state are actually allowed to vote on the issue. In Massachusetts, the people should have had that right as well- marriage is a fundamental social institution, as important as any election (where we use direct democracy) and therefore the people should be allowed to vote. Obviously, gay activists feared what has already happened in 44 other states. It is true that we have representative democracy, but the only legitamite reason the gay activists give for nto wanting it to be put up to a citizen vote is that they will lose. The opposition can point out the utter importance of the institution.
But the “opposition” as yet to produce one credible reason why the “institution” is in danger. Problems with marriage? Get the heterosexuals to straighten (no pun intended) their act, the problem isn’t our fault. Perhaps your fear is that we will do it better. The system in MA correctly protected a minority that was being threatened by the majority. The “people” do not have the right to attack innocent citizens, with or without a vote. It’s simply wrong. 44 states, and more if they institute the foul discrimination to their constitutions, will be removing them in the near future. What a waste of time and resources that could actually be helping somebody.