Mass. Lawmakers Block Gay Marriage Vote

Constitutional Amendment Would Have Let Voters Decide Whether To Ban Gay Marriage

(CBS/AP)  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.

Three years after this highly contentious debate began here on Beacon Hill, only 45 lawmakers voted today in favor of the constitutional amendment, so the proposal will not be going before voters in 2008, reports CBS News' Lana Jones.

To get the proposed ban on the 2008 statewide ballot would have required 50 votes. There was no debate.

The narrow vote was a victory for gay marriage advocates and a blow to efforts to reverse the historic court ruling that legalized same-sex marriage in the state. More than 8,500 gay couples have married in Massachusetts since it became legal in May 2004.

"The nation's eyes were on Massachusetts today, and they saw a triumph for civil rights and fundamental fairness," said Senator Edward Kennedy. "Today's historic vote will have a national impact on civil rights for years to come. Massachusetts has led the nation in education, in health care and in biotechnology, and today Massachusetts renewed its commitment as a proud leader in civil rights."

As the tally was announced, the halls of the Statehouse erupted in applause.

"We're proud of our state today, and we applaud the Legislature for showing that Massachusetts is strongly behind fairness," said Lee Swislow, executive director of Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders.

Opponents of gay marriage vowed to press on, but Thursday's defeat after more than three years of sometimes wrenching debate could prove insurmountable. Any effort to mount a new ballot question would take years at a time political support in Massachusetts is swinging firmly behind gay marriage.

For gay couples, the vote marked what could be the end of a struggle that began in 2001, when seven same-sex couples, denied marriage licenses, sued in Suffolk Superior Court.

Outside the Statehouse, hundreds of people rallied on both sides of the issue.

"We believe it's unconstitutional not to allow people to vote on this," said Rebekah Beliveau, 24, of Lawrence, a student at Gordon Conwell Theological Seminary who stood with fellow college-age amendment supporters across the street from the Statehouse.

Advocates of the amendment said they gathered 170,000 signatures supporting the amendment, although the secretary of state's office accepted only 123,000. "We're standing up not necessarily on the issue of same-sex marriage, but our right to vote," Beliveau said.

Across the road, gay marriage advocates stood on the front steps of the capital waving signs that read, "Wrong to Vote on Rights" and "All Families Are Equal."

Jean Chandler, 62, of Cambridge, came with fellow members of her Baptist church in an effort to rebuff the image that strict followers of the Bible are opposed to gay marriage.

"I think being gay is like being left-handed," Chandler said. "If we decided left-handed people couldn't marry, what kind of society would we be?"

In contrast to previous joint sessions, there was no debate Thursday. Senate President Therese Murray opened the constitutional convention by calling for a vote, and the session was gaveled to a close immediately afterward.

[bks59]

this is good and as time passes the many same gender marriage phobes will see that there never was anything to fear, but fear itself.

[kimoco]

As in the past, the bigots lose in the long run.

Thank you MAss voters for electing representatives who understand that ALL are equal and all deserve equal protections under the law.

[gunnerv1]

Kimoco-If all are equal under the law, then remove any and all special protections.

[tuckerndfw]

Who cares?

"Marriage" has no meaning other than providing financial benefits, primarily Social Security, that are soon disappearing for everyone. After which, the word marriage will have no meaning.

Good that people have so little to do with their time they have time to waste on an irrelevant issue.

Maybe those obsessed with "gay rights" (on either side) should find something more useful and productive to do with their time.

[imarltool2u]

You and I've known gay people and I've never been afraid. Why should you? WHy would anyone be afraid of allowing everyone to have equal rights. However, the religious zealots who want to deny equal rights are the equivalent of the neo-nazi hate mongers and they make me very nervous. You can't be catholic or a member of any other religion and be a bigot. But you are a bigot if you attempt to deny equal rights to others that you enjoy. The world has already had a Hitler and the Roman pope killed Jews during the Inquisition. Doesn't the Roman catholic church ever learn from its' mistakes. SHould everyone, icluding catholics, who signed a petition to ban constitutional equal rights for gay people lose their right to practice their religion? Freedom of religion is a constitutional right but you don't have gay people signing hate petitions to ban that fundamental freedom.

Let people live in peace and enjoy the same freedoms that I and most of us, unfortunately, take for granted. Gay people never bothered me. I've not lost any rights because gay people now have the right to marry. In fact many Vietnam vets lives were saved by medics who were gay and you can rest assured that when you could die in some rathole in Southeast Asia you don't care what the medic's preferences are when he's risking his life to save your life. It's the same today in Iraq and elsewhere. Let them have the same rights that you and I have. Stop being bigots.

[kimoco]

gunnerv1....as if all heterosexuals would agree to eliminate all beneifts, rights, protections and responsibilities of marriage.

Come on....be real.

[infidel_us]

This is how libs run things.....if you disagree, you don't have the right to disagree!!!!

They know what's best for you...you MA peons! You'll take gaydom and like it!! You will have NO VOTE~!!!!!

Shades of Christmas future.......

[drdilemma]

If the state is for fairness, why not put the issue to a vote?

[dowjones20k]

Sad that the MA legislature refuses to do what is right, and that is put the question to a vote to the citizens.

There will be a day of rekoning when these pols come back up for re-election.

If it so right, wonder why 1 person decided the fate, the SJC voted 5-4 to allow gay marriage after years of the legislature ignoring (afraid to deal) with the issue?

If it is so right, then let the people vote, afterall MA is the bastion of liberlism, so let the chips fall where they may.

The issue may be dormant, but it is not dead.

[kimoco]

infidel_us---(interesting login name by the way).....You HAVE a right to disagree.

You do not have the right to have your personal view over-ride the constitution, or the right to vote on CIVIL RIGHTS of others.

Don't agree with homosexuality? Simple, don't agree. But dont tell the rest of us we must abide by your view.

[kimoco]

THOSE IN FAVOR OF A VOTE ON THIS:

Can you honestly say that if you happened to be a member of a minority that others wanted to deny marriage to, would you still be in favor of a vote?

I find it hard to believe anyone would want their civil rights voted on.

[clevercandi]

I can't understand why some people believe the federal government has a right to tell you whom you can and cannot marry.

If the church thinks it's wrong, then they don't have to allow same *** couples to marry in their church.

It's just that simple.

[dowjones20k]

KIMOCO ..

Since when is choosing to be gay a civil right?

I love how liberals have coined this phrase ...

Being black, red, yellow, green or white is not a choice ....

Personally civil unions are fine with me ... marriage is a different animal .. (no pun intended)

My 12 year old daughter knows that 2 male or 2 female horses cant have babies .... they have to have 1 of each .... and that is natural .... folks know that practicing homosexualality is not natural ..... it is a lifestyle choice

[kimoco]

Dowjones20k----I am protected by law for my CHOICE of religion, using your 'logic' this is wrong.

What if people wanted to vote on making it illegal for a CAtholic and a Methodist to marry?

I mean, if the majority agreed, this should be OK with you.

Though you know, the majority in Mass do not agree with you, thus they elected people who voted against this discriminatory action.

[jimibear]

"folks know that practicing homosexualality is not natural ..... it is a lifestyle choice


Posted by Dowjones20k at 04:01 PM : Jun 14, 2007
+ report abuse"

Startlingly, Dow, your daughter's knowledge of the ability of animals to breed has no bearing on the matter, although you do exhibit approximately a 12-year-old's knowledge of the facts.

Study after study and autopsy after autopsy have revealed significant differences in the brain structure and hormonal balance of homosexuals as opposed to heteros. Being gay is no more a choice than being left-handed - another "flaw" people of your mindset have tried to suppress.

No one would choose a lifestyle that led to marginalization in society by bigots like you. I suggest that you learn something about what you are discussing before you open your mouth.

You may be quiet for some time, in that case.

And no, by the way, I am not gay. But I'm also not a judgmental, narrow-minded tool.

[nolalou]

tuckerndfw,

Marriage provides many benefits besides Social Security. These include things like inheritance, hospital visitation, life or death decisions, like rather or not to continue life support for a terminally ill or injured person, etc. There are also various property ownership and tax befefits.

Some states have sought to remedy this by passing 'civil union' laws to extend these rights to same-*** couples, instead of 'marrage'.

[jimibear]

And one more thing - I am not a "lib" (unless you possibly mean that to stand for "libertarian") but I will tell you right-wing so-called (overly judgmental) Christians one thing:

Mind your own *** business. Who someone chooses to love is nothing to do with you, and neither you nor any governmental body has the right to deny someone the same recognition of their union as you have of yours with your spouse, simply because they don't happen to like it.

Do what the Bible tells you and get your own house in order. Judge not. Don't cast stones.

In short, shut up and make sure you love those around you well, and let others do the same. If we all do that, it will be a much better world, and much closer to what Jesus preaches.

[dowjones20k]

Must have struck a few nerves ... obviously ..

KIMOCO .. we have been down that path with real civil rights issues .. women voting, inter racial marriages, seperate drinking fountains .. etc ..

I live here in MA, and if your not familiar with MA politics ... you would not understand. I can tell you that just because a bunch of hack pols (democratically controlled) are dodging the issue, the citizens of MA want to vote. Nine people decided this issue. Is that your idea of fairness?

and JIMIBEAR

Studies after studies do not account for reality .. and reality is that men and woman are different ... in order to reproduce you can't be the same *** ....

So how does one accomplish this in order to increase future generations?

And if you were not so judgemental you would have seen my position for civil unions .. dont flatter yourself about being a non judgemental namecaller ...

[jimibear]

It's a simple matter: if you don't agree with homosexuality, don't have $ex with your own gender. No one is forcing you.

How is it any business of yours what other people do? I can tell you that, as a hetero, I look at some other hetero couples and find the idea of them breeding, or even going through the motions, utterly sickening. But I don't tell them not to. It's their business, and being a kind person with a real life of my own, I have better things to do than to obsess over and try to dictate the love lives of others.

Maybe certain posters here just really need to get laid. By the gender of their preference, of course.

"Its perverted. If all thought like that, there would be no reproduction. So perverts want to corrupt children of normal people, to support their cause? Get real and enjoy walking in the shadows. You've come a long way baby.
Posted by billysmith6 at 03:56 PM : Jun 14, 2007
+ report abuse"

And you, billysmith, are just an idiot who has obviously no experience of *** at all. They have no desire to pervert you or your children; in fact, chances are they find you as repulsive as you find them, and with far better reason.

Everyone of kind heart, gay or straight, can agree that mean people suck.

[kimoco]

Dowjones20k----The reality is, that just like in the past civil rights cases, bigots lost, they lost again today.

It makes no difference if I cannot actually produce a child with another woman as if with a man, anymore than it matters that some heterosexual couples cannot conceive.

Sorry, you guys are running out of arguments, and losing the argument.

And I do not believe that most in Mass wanted this vote. PROVE THAT assertion please.

[joolzann]

Kimoco - The majority DOES want to vote - and that is a fact. Once again, it's our government trying to tell us what we think. There is no democracy in this state, not truly. And it's only getting worse by the day.

[kimoco]

Dowjones20k----The reality is, that just like in the past civil rights cases, bigots lost, they lost again today.

It makes no difference if I cannot actually produce a child with another woman as if with a man, anymore than it matters that some heterosexual couples cannot conceive.

Sorry, you guys are running out of arguments, and losing the argument.

By the way, if you were in a group that others wanted to deny marriage to, would you still be in favor of a vote?

And I do not believe that most in Mass wanted this vote. PROVE THAT assertion please.

[jimibear]

"and JIMIBEAR

Studies after studies do not account for reality .. and reality is that men and woman are different ... in order to reproduce you can't be the same *** ....

So how does one accomplish this in order to increase future generations?"

I haven't read back to see your position on civil unions, for which I apologize.

However, I was taking issue with your statement that being gay is "a choice", not with your statement that *** can't breed. Obviously, they can't, and I never said they could, so there is no challenge to that reality in my post.

However, just as men and women are biologically different, so it appears that there are biological differences between *** and straights which dictate their preferences. It is no more fair to accuse a gay person of "choosing" to be gay than it would be to accuse a straight person of choosing heterosexuality. That is what the studies and autopsies have shown.

[dowjones20k]

KIMOCO ..

Again this is not a civil rights issue ... since when did sexual preference become a civil right?

As for proving that the citizens want to vote, a petition was signed by 170,000 citizens to bring this to a vote .. and there are 6.5 million citizens in MA, THE SJC decided this after the legislature refused to deal with it. So in a 5-4 vote, 5 people decided for 6.5 million ....

again, civil unions accomplish the concerns of homosexuals .. so does a good lawyer.

I am not a biggot or homophobe, I am very updet that 5 people decided to redefine marriage as we have known it centuries.

[jolsonbear]

If you believe that Homosexuality is not natural, then ask a zoologist about how frequent it occurs in the animal kingdom.

[bobgee_1999]

To begin with, America is not now, never was, and was never intended to be a pure democracy. It is a representative democratic republic. Which is to say, we vote for representatives, not issues by referendum. I know they probably didn't teach you that in school, but they didn't teach you much of anything else that was factually based, either.

Seondly, where did this bizarre notion come from that homosexuality is "unnatural"? If it isn't natural, what is it? Synthetic? Many species practice it, and certainly all primates. It doesn't lead to progeny, but neither does masturbation or ********, and nobody's getting bent out of shape about those. Marriage itself is an artificial cultural institution, if it weren't, people wouldn't cheat on their spouses or get divorced in such huge numbers.

Lastly, sexuality---especially someone else's---just isn't worth all the debate, excitement, or stress. It's a biological function, like going to the toilet. People who fixate on it (whether gay or straight) and make it more important than it actually is, are the perverts.

[kimoco]

Dowjones20k ---- Um, 170,000 (actually the number of legit sigs was just over 120,000) is not a majority in Mass.

Second, since when is choice of religion a civil rights issue? If you believe a trait that can be chosen does not deserve equal protections, and you believe I chose to be gay, then you must be for denying equal protections to people based on religion.

Also, it seems a shame that we must remind you that the judicial branch has a duty to determine if a law is constitutional. In this case, based on the state constitution, it is not legal to discriminate against ***.

I am sorry this upsets you, but I assure you the world will not end, and your marriage (assuming you are married) will not be damaged if *** marry.

I mean, there is already over 8000 married in Mass, how have they hurt you?

[salty1954]

The Constitution protects the minorities against tyranny from the majority. The Constitution affords equal rights to all citizens. There is no "voting" on basic human rights. BTW, gayness is not a "preference", it is a God-given human condition.

To all the frustrated bigots: Ha ha ha. Why don't you all join Rev. Fred Phelps in picketing the funerals of the American servicemen - that's where you all belong.

[jonesforch]

homosexuality has been around for as far back as you can go...just not so public because it is considered not the norm....Who the hack decided that?

[klingon69]

WHy would anyone be afraid of allowing everyone to have equal rights.
Equal rights are fine, special rights make me nervous. Hate crime legislation (for g@ys)is catering to one special interest group however will affect the society at large.

[dowjones20k]

Odd that most of you seem young ... some have very interesting opinions .. others are very young minded ... obviously some do not understand how petitions work ...

The debate is not over .. if this issue were not a big deal then all 50 states would ratify the same idealogy ... but that is not the case.

The pols will answer for their positions .. and the people will make that clear in the next wound of state elections .. this will be a hot button issue ..


I am off to FENWAY .. GO SOX !!!

[kimoco]

Klingon69---so you are in favor of gay marriage, but not gay hate crime laws?

Do you also oppose hate crime laws against religious hate crimes?

[randalds]

Bravo to Massachusetts!! 100 years from now when ga*y marriage is commonplace people will look back at this and wonder what all of the fuss was the same way we look back and wonder how it was actually illegal for people of different races to marry here. This is a victory for civil rights because ga*y rights ARE civil rights!

[klingon69]

"Marriage" has no meaning other than providing financial benefits, primarily Social Security, that are soon disappearing for everyone. After which, the word marriage will have no meaning.

Posted by tuckerndfw at 03:25 PM : Jun 14, 2007
The term marriage will always hold meaning for me and my wife, as we are Married. But, on the other side of the coin, let them get married, like was said on Family Guy, So a couple of the opposite gender have every right to be misderable, but can't allow a same gender couple the right to possible happiness. They are the ones who have to wake up with their life-partner every morning.

[kimoco]

dowjones20k----I guess you are not able to answer my question. Nor explain your fuzzy math. LOL

Thus you show how hypocrisy works in the mind of bigots.

[klingon69]

Do what the Bible tells you and get your own house in order. Judge not. Don't cast stones.

Jimi, the bible also says not to suffer a witch to live, it also says a man shall not lay with another man as he would with a woman.
I personally don't care who anyone wants to marry. All I care is that my wife and I are happily married. More power to whoever.

[hypnotoad72]

Why trample on the Bible? Call it "civil union" and not only won't you be insulting the religious who believe homosexuals are living in sin, but adding credibility to the purported cause.

And Klingon69 is right in that one should fix one's house; not throw stones at others'.

[fredgrad2000]

I personally don't care what homosexuals do or what Massachusetts does as I view this as a state by state issue; and personally, think civil unions are a way to allow homosexuals the same rights as marriage without taking away the majority's traditions; I do believe marriage, as it has always been defined is between a husband and a wife - but that doesn't mean a mechanism like civil unions can't be instituted to give gay couples the same basic rights. What's disturbing here though is again, the left have taken it upon themselves to usurp the public will - I think anyone knows that the reason the gay groups and the ultra lefty governor of Mass fought so hard to keep this off the 2008 ballot is because they're afraid that if given the chance to vote; the Mass people would shoot down full-on gay marriage. The people should be allowed to speak on this in a vote; I personally don't think it would pass in Mass given recent opinion polls, and it certainly wouldn't matter in the '08 presidential election; no Republican will win there no matter what amendments were on a ballot!

[graphictruth-2009]

um. What's this with censoring the words "gay" and "***?" If it's self-censorship, it's silly, if it's CBS, it's freakin' bizarre.

Well, we will see which it is after I punch the send button. Meanwhile, a wry observation that if marrage were to be officially linked to particular sexual practices, I doubt more than ten percent of the population WOULD be legally qualified to marry.

Oh, and the presumption that the Authorities have the right to peek into your doctor's files and your bedroom window is really what Roe v. Wade was all about. Gonzolez says "the constitution doesn't grant the right to privacy - which shows he's a liar or an idiot. Google US Bill of Rights and "Rights not enumerated" and you will find the truth of the matter.

Roe was an awkward and inelegant decision, it's founding precident, Grizwald v. I'm Not Sure is more solid, but both recognize (without establishing, nobody has to "establish" a right, rights being "inalienable.")

That is why the idea that it's "unconstitutional" to forestall a vote on individual liberties. Nobody, repeat, nobody has the unqualified right to decide on the rights of other people.

Undemocratic? Absolutely! Deliberately! Our founders were smart people who were all too well aware of the intellectual and moral failings of their fellow man. They created a representative republic with safeguards so that people could not be led into democratically abandoning their rights, thinking those rights only mattered to "those people."

[kimoco]

I fail to see how allowing an unconstitutional vote on an issue that would waste millions of dollars, and divide a state is any benefit to the state.

The majority approve of the law as is.

The ELECTED legislature voted the law is good as is.

Bigots lost yet again, and as expected they whine.

[marcodele]

Gay marriage is such a non-issue it does not belong in the political arena. We have far more important issues in our country. If the Republicans think they can run another election on issues like gay marriage, flag burning, Willie Horton and all the other red herrings they've thrown out over the years, they're in for a rough time in 2008.

40 years ago it was illegal to marry someone of another race.

In the 1800's, you had to marry a first cousin your parents picked for you.

Henry VIII gave his ten year old daughter to Spain to marry the king when she was of age.

Marriage has a long history of evolving along with social mores. The neocons of the U.S. don't own the copyright on it.

If your marriage is threatened by two lesbians in Massachusetts, you're on shaky ground anyway.

[wiccantexan]

Personally civil unions are fine with me ... marriage is a different animal .. (no pun intended)
Posted by Dowjones20k at 04:01 PM : Jun 14, 2007

So, which religion has a copyright on what "marriage" entails? It's a spiritual blessing on a civil union, in essence. And if a religious body chooses to do so for a gay civila union, than it's a marriage.

[jolsonbear]

If you want to define marriage by the "Bible" then we will have to go back to plural marriage.

The Bible does not condemn homosexuals; Nor does God. The condemnation comes from the words of Hatefull Jewish leaders who were also called for the execution of Jesus. Jesus never syas anything about homosexuality.

Marriage has "NOT" been the same for centuries. Only within the last century has marriage transformed from being about the ownership of women to the union of two people in love.

I know that a democracy is about "majority rules", but when the majority wants to trample on others freedoms or define others as second class citizens (eg Slavery, Segregation, women's suffurage, and now Gay Rights), then the privilage of voting on such issues should not allowed.

[jimibear]

"Lastly, sexuality---especially someone else's---just isn't worth all the debate, excitement, or stress. It's a biological function, like going to the toilet. People who fixate on it (whether gay or straight) and make it more important than it actually is, are the perverts.
Posted by bobgee_1999 at 04:31 PM : Jun 14, 2007"

bobgee, this (and all the preceding points) were very well put, and in my opinion, dead on the money.

A gay friend once said to me something like, "Even if I were the busiest, luckiest guy in the world, I couldn't possibly spend more than about 10% of my waking hours having ***. Why are people so determined to label based upon something so relatively insignificant in someone's life?"

You are correct; those who fixate on the $ex lives of others are the freaks.

Thanks.

[klingon69]

It makes no difference if I cannot actually produce a child with another woman as if with a man, anymore than it matters that some heterosexual couples cannot conceive.
However a lesbian couple does have the chance at artificial insemination, thusly technically, the couple having a child together.
Male g@ys, however would have to locate a surrogate mother who would then have a legal right to the child as well as the couple.

[randalds]

Civil unions are good, but only as a first/intermediate step toward legal ga*y marriage. Legalizing ga*y marriage is NOT a threat to anyone else's religious belief's because it does not mean that they'll have to allow ga*y marriages in their church. It just means that ga*ys can get married in churches that do allow it, so the idea that it's a threat to traditional/religious marriage is a lie and just a way for some people to try to force THEIR religion on other people and their religion.

[klingon69]

The Constitution protects the minorities against tyranny from the majority. The Constitution affords equal rights to all citizens. There is no "voting" on basic human rights. BTW, gayness is not a "preference", it is a God-given human condition.
Well Salty (must have been a sailor) sprend much time in the barrel?
I do not believe that gayness is a God-given human condition. If it was then why was it classified as an abomination in the eyes of the Lord?

[klingon69]

Klingon69---so you are in favor of gay marriage, but not gay hate crime laws?

Do you also oppose hate crime laws against religious hate crimes?
Posted by kimoco at 04:46 PM : Jun 14, 2007
I have a problem with any law that targets or singles out a particular demographic for special protections.
Gay marriage, does not bother me in anyway, I am not the one that wakes up with them, I wake to my wife, and find myself quite happy about it.

[equality07]

I am relieved that our state's congress men and women have chosen not only to keep the banning of a right every person deserves off the ballot for 2008, but also to keep this debate from becoming a major campaigning issue in the presidential election, as well. Had this proposed ban reached the ballot, it most certainly would have overshadowed more important issues facing the citizens of the US - issues of healthcare coverage, education policies and funding, rising inflation rates, increasing home foreclosures as a result of deceptive mortgage practices, caring for and supporting the aging population, and so forth.
It would have been a great injustice to the US and to all of the people affected by the myriad of issues that do need the attention of our elected representatives if instead they were forced to waste time and effort discussing whether a person should be "allowed" to marry another person of the same gender. It also would have been an awful implication to the families in MA comprised of male-male and female-female parents %u2013 most importantly to their children - that they are not equal to the female-male parent families in MA. Opponents of allowing each and every person the freedom to choose their spouse without stipulations based on gender would do more harm to the couples and families in this state and perpetuate ignorant, stereotypical, prejudice attitudes if this proposal had reached the ballot.

[equality07]

At no other time, & in no other context, have any other civil rights of the population been defined explicitly in heterosexual terms. Our right to marry should not be, either. No other ban on the rights of lesbian, gay male or bisexual people would ever reach the ballot and marriage should not be an exception.
Many opponents of f-f and m-m marriages define the institution of marriage in religious terms (as between a man & a woman). What they fail to recognize is the institution of marriage is a civil right of every person, thus negating any religious connotations. We all have the same civil right to choose what religion we practice & many religions accept and recognize marriage between two adults devoid of emphasis on the gender of either of them. Under what circumstances do these individuals believe their religious definition deserves more consideration than any other definition does?
The state%u2019s congress has made a powerful & admirable statement this afternoon. Regardless of any personal opinions on lesbian, gay male & bisexual sexual orientation, Massachusetts will not be a state where the rights of any segment of the population are put to a vote. The fundamentals of the state and federal constitutions have prevailed today, and the precedent has been set for the future. Discrimination against and exclusion of any segment of our population will not be tolerated. It is a great moment for the people of Massachusetts, one that should make every person proud.