Log in

No account? Create an account

Tue, Jan. 2nd, 2007, 08:40 pm

From CNN.com

BOSTON, Massachusetts (AP) -- Lawmakers in Massachusetts, the only state where gay marriage is legal, voted Tuesday to allow a proposed constitutional amendment that would effectively ban the practice to move forward.

Within two hours, they voted to reconsider, but then voted again to uphold their initial decision.

Sixty-one lawmakers voted in favor of advancing the measure, which would appear on the ballot in 2008 and declare marriage to be only between a man and a woman. The proposal still needs approval of the next legislative session. (View a state-by-state breakdown of same-sex marriage laws)

After the initial vote, gay marriage proponents called for an hour recess.

They returned and voted 117-75 to reconsider the vote after a scolding from one of the Legislature's most outspoken gay marriage opponents.

Lawmakers later considered the issue a third time, voting 62-134 to advance the amendment to the legislative session.

If it makes it on the ballot and residents approve it, the amendment would leave Massachusetts' existing same-sex marriages intact but ban new ones.

Geesh. What is with these people? Why does everyone care so much about this crap? The whole argument used to be that gay marriage would destroy traditional marriage. My marriage seems fine. I don't know anyone who go divorced because of gay marriage. What is the problem?

My other question is... why does it only take 25% to pass? Normally amendment type stuff took 2/3 majority, not 1/4 minority.

I guess it will probably be up to the populous to see reason and vote down the amendment(fat chance). Although they elected Mr. Patrick and he is pro gay marriage.

Wed, Jan. 3rd, 2007 05:03 pm (UTC)

I think the 25% was because they were going for a ballet measure, not a law. Had the state congress been voting to make this a law, they would have needed 2/3 vote. Instead its going to the people in 2008.

I wouldn't be surprised if it gets voted down. Its been voted down in so many other states. And it does open doors for other minority relationships to request marriages (more then one wife/husband) and that is a concern for some religious groups and idealists.

Then again, we are a blue state, so thing may stand.

Wed, Jan. 3rd, 2007 05:36 pm (UTC)

Assuming they next legislature passes it too, does it need 2/3 majority to pass in 2008 general election?

I wouldn't be surprised either.

As to opening doors... I don't understand why those are not allowed either. The government normally regulates things to make them 'fair' (usually from a commercial point of view) and to make sure no one is infringed upon(don't want murders, assults, etc).

Gay Marriage, Polygamy, Assisted Suicide, Marijuana Legalization, etc don't really fall into that area. I think that is why they stirred up such controversy. Those tend to fall into liberties. People want to be able to do what they want so long as it doesn't hurt anyone.

Then again, we are a blue state, so thing may stand. - I can only hope.

Wed, Jan. 3rd, 2007 05:47 pm (UTC)

From a government standpoint, being married is a tax deduction. More so if you have kids. In some sense it boils down to the buck.

Wed, Jan. 3rd, 2007 08:33 pm (UTC)

Don't get me started.

They should get rid of the current tax system and go to a national sales tax. No more deductions for marriage. As a bonus we'd get to legally tax all the crap that Walmart sells(made in china) which wouldn't normally be taxed.

So, if we switched tax systems, then we could all become pot smoking gay polygamists who eventually need help committing suicide.

Wed, Jan. 3rd, 2007 08:46 pm (UTC)

I never really considered a solution for the tax problems. You are right, the tax situation sucks. Some states its property, others it is income. But sales tax makes the most sense since it fuels the economy.

I've always been in favor of a flat tax. Everyone pay out an equal percentage.

Thu, Jan. 4th, 2007 01:09 pm (UTC)

I was in favor of the Flat tax, back in the 90s when Forbes proposed it.

I've since jumped on the 'Fair Tax' bandwagon. Mostly because it encourages saving and because of its effect on foreign made products. Right now, we support the government by working. Only goods made in the US are taxed. This would collect taxes on all products, including those made outside the US.

With the money collected at the point of sale, foreign tourists would also support the government when the buy products while in the US.

Thu, Jan. 4th, 2007 02:18 pm (UTC)

It would also encourage sales of American products since they will have about the same value once everything is taxed, which could in turn lead to more US sales and more jobs. Which again puts back into our economy.

That is a very interesting tax plan! Thanks for introducing me to it.

Thu, Jan. 4th, 2007 04:32 pm (UTC)


I think they have some website, FairTax.org or something.

I don't think it'll ever become law because of the existing tax code. It would make all the tax sheltered money(401k, roth IRA, etc) pointless. It would mean that all the money you have in the bank(which was already taxed) would be taxed again when you spend it.