- If the amendment banning same-sex marriage comes to a vote, they must vote against it.
- As yesterday's SJC decision stated so strongly, the amendment would be "discrimination in its rawest form."
- Stopping this amendment in any legal way is just fine.
The proposed initiative cannot be said to further a proper legislative objective (as was categorically decided by the Goodridge court, there is none [Secretary of State]). The only effect of a positive vote will be to make same-sex couples, and their families, unequal to everyone else; this is discrimination in its rawest form. Our citizens would, in the future, be divided into at least three separate and unequal classifications: heterosexual couples who enjoy the right to marry; same-sex couples who were married before the passage of the amendment (but who, if divorced, would not be permitted to remarry someone of the same sex); and same-sex couples who have never married and, barring the passage of another constitutional amendment on the subject, will be forever denied that right.That is certainly not an association the senators and reps want to have. They do not want to be remembered, either by historians or voters for that.
Say it loud, say it clearly, and say it to all concerned. If you don't have the contact info handy, start with this page to find your public servants.
Tags: massmarrier, Massachusetts, Constitutional Convention, same sex marriage