Boston Marriage and Jean Chretien

[ciroccoj]

BOSTON - Two new polls released Sunday show Massachusetts lawmakers could be bucking public opinion if they try to thwart the Supreme Judicial Court's ruling last week that found the state's ban on gay marriage unconstitutional.

Fifty percent of Massachusetts residents surveyed for a Boston Globe/WBZ-TV poll said they agreed with the ruling, while 38 percent opposed it. A separate Boston Sunday Herald poll found 49 percent said they support legalizing gay marriage, while 38 percent oppose it.

Both polls, conducted after Tuesday's ruling, had margins of sampling error of plus or minus 5 percentage points.

"If people want to be together, who cares? Let them," said Bill Luff, 32, a nightclub owner in Worcester.

In its ruling, Massachusetts' highest court gave the Legislature 180 days to change the state's marriage laws for the benefit of gay couples. Some state lawmakers are now pushing for a constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage and effectively skirt the ruling. Others, including Gov. Mit Romney, suggest passing a law giving same-sex couples something short of marriage, similar to Vermont's civil unions.

Both polls released Sunday found opposition to the proposed constitutional amendment — 53 percent opposed and 36 percent in favor in the Globe/WBZ poll of 400 Massachusetts resident, and 54 percent opposed and 36 percent in favor in the Herald poll of 405 residents.

Another poll, by Merrimack College, found that 75 percent of Massachusetts adults support either allowing gay marriage or civil unions. That poll of 491 adults was conducted in the days before and after the decision, but the numbers didn't shift after the ruling. The margin of sampling error was plus or minus 5 percentage points.

The polls appear to show more support for gay couples in Massachusetts than the nation as a whole. A recent national poll by the Pew Research Center for People and the Press found Americans oppose legalizing gay marriage, 59 percent to 32 percent. That survey, of 1,515 adults, was conducted Oct. 15-19 and had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Cool :)

There's a big section on Jean Chretien's 10 years in office in the Ottawa Citizen this week. I haven't read the whole thing yet, but it looks pretty interesting, just in terms of how the world has changed in the last ten years, never mind Jean Chretien.

One thing I found very cool was that they had two columns of pictures on each side of the article, titled "Then And Now". I've scanned them in, if anyone wants to take a look:

Comments

[heathers.livejournal.com]

That's nifty.

The sad thing about the Mass ruling is that it really holds no value if you don't live there. Employers are still only bound to federal legislation as far as same sex benefits. If the marriage is only legal in one state it's a rather hollow victory. Especially since in the current leadership will do everything in his power to shoot the ruling down with federal legislation of his own in the name of protecting the sanctity of marriage.

At least in Canada it's a federal ruling (though, I don't know if you call it that there?) and is supposed to be recognized everywhere. I don't know how that's working in theory, but it's a bit more encouraging. Especially since it is a human rights issue and not an "agenda" that so many people would make it out to be here.

-H

[sangerin.livejournal.com]

At least in Canada it's a federal ruling

I thought it was only at provincial level. Wasn't the ruling in the Ontario superior court? I'm not sure there's really much difference, except in the government reaction (Ontario decided not to appeal to the Supreme Court, whereas Gov Romney is talking about changing the constitution), and the size of the state/province. But I may be wrong.

[heathers.livejournal.com]

I thought that the marriages were acknowledged throughout Canada. You may not be able to get married in, say, Alberta, but your marriage certificate from BC or Ontario would be legal in Canada as well as several European countries. The reason I was under that impression was because the ruling was based on the Charter of freedoms which is the equivalent of the US Constitution isn't it? And as far as I knew the Federal ruling is anticipated in February and it is speculated that they will affirm the BC and Ontario rulings but in the mean time it was binding. I could be wrong, that's just how I understood it. I get rather confused with the terms between the two countries. The processes are similar enough, but still not the same.

-H

[bast2.livejournal.com]

one change that i feel is negative is the attitude toward smoking. everyone has rights these days except smokers-- they are bashed, shunned, and banned--and no one feels this is unfair. don't talk to me about second hand smoke--the exhaust from autos and public transportation does more damage. it used to be that tobacco companies could peddle their wares like everyone else-via televison, magazines, newspaper ads. now the government compels them to have a web site devoted to the consequences of smoking, and to add small info leaflets inserted into their packs. i feel they should also do this with all forms of alcohol, birth control pills, any caffine products, etc.

smoking has become the very last recognized world wide sin.