The Boston Globe's article on Tuesday (10-31-06) on the Massachusetts Catholic Bishops pushing for a vote on the VoteOnMarriage amendment seemed to be an excuse to post a list of "religious" institutions favoring sodomy "marriage". It mentions worries that a walkout by legislators will scuttle the amendment.
But why does the press never mention the OTHER marriage amendment, #19 on the Nov. 9 ConCon calendar? It offers a purer definition of marriage: one man/one woman, with a ban on civil unions.
Will the ConCon adjourn without the required vote on the VoteOnMarriage referendum amendment (#20 on the calendar), as happened a few years ago? Here's a possible scenario, that makes use of that other marriage amendment:
We filed #19 as a bill (H653) to define marriage in statute, but homosexual activist State Senator Jarrett Barrios mysteriously turned it into a constitutional amendment proposal. Why? He's certainly against it in principle. But he must have had some use for it up his sleeve...
It would require a 50%+ vote to pass (rather than the 25% for the VoteOnMarriage citizens' petition). Knowing there aren't that many who would vote for #19 now, maybe the intention is to give cover to legislators worried about their record on marriage. They could safely vote for #19, knowing it will fail. Then the ConCon can adjourn before taking up #20, the VoteOnMarriage amendment. And the worried legislators can still tell their constituents they voted for traditional marriage at the Nov. 9 ConCon!
