Saturday, November 11, 2006

MA keeps same-sex marriage for now


Pam Belluck has an important story in The New York Times, "Massachusetts Effort to End Same-Sex Marriage Is Dead for Now," On Nov. 10, 2006, p A14.

The legislature decided to recess a constitutional convention until after Jan. 2, 2007. The regular session of the legislature will have ended by then, permanently postponed a divisive constitutional amendment process indefinitely.

In Virginia, as I note in the preceding blog, the Marshall-Newman amendment passed on Nov. 7, which can lead to legal complications even for those who do not directly seek a same-sex union.

However, a subsequent story in The Washington Blade (Nov 24) indicated that Gov. Mitt Romney asked the state supreme court to force a counter gay marriage amendment onto the 2008 ballot for referendum.

UPDATE: On Jan 2, 2007 the Massachusetts legislature took two votes that would result in the same-sex marriage ban being placed on the November 2008 ballot after all. The ban would apply only going forward from that time, and would not affect existing gay marriages. The Washington Times likes to gloat about this. The story is by Cheryl Wetzstein, "Same-sex 'marriage' measure advances", at this link. The Washington Times always uses the word marriage in single quotes in this context. Would that fit The Chicago Manual of Style?

No comments: