# Signature gathering fraud for Massachusetts' anti-same sex marriage petition **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [December 24, 2005, 4:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/signature-gathering-fraud-for-massachusetts-anti-same-sex-marriage-petition/337052 "2005-12-24T04:26:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 3\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![waterj2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/858c86/32.png) [@waterj2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/waterj2)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2005, 6:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/signature-gathering-fraud-for-massachusetts-anti-same-sex-marriage-petition/337052/21 "2005-12-25T06:33:36Z")
> [@Otto](#): > > It’s already qualified to be sent to the Legislature. Now, it must garner the support of at least 50 legislators in each of the next two sessions before it can be placed on the ballot. Given that the Legislature failed to pass the amendment when it was before them in the last session, given that a number of the amendment’s supporters were defeated in the last election and none of its opposers were, and considering that it got fewer votes on its second time through than it did on the first, chances of its garnering the necessary 50 is considered pretty slim from everything I’ve read. I was assuming that if enough signatures were found to be fraudulent, that that could change, just because the state has a mechanism to report that your signature was obtained under falso pretenses. The main mistake in your analysis is that the previous ammendment was initiated by the legislature, which means that an overall majority was required (101 votes), while a proposal in response to a citizen petition only requires approval by 25% of the constitutional convention. When an ammendment was proposed back in Feb. '04 with wording like the one the legislature will vote on now (no gay marriage, no civil unions), it recieved 94 votes. There hasn’t been enough change in the membership to make enough of a difference to keep it from recieving a mere 50 votes. They could always do what they did the first time that they had to vote on a citizen petition to ban gay marriage, way back in the wake of DOMA, and gavel the constitutional convention to a close by simple majority before even taking up the question. But I don’t think you can get away with that trick more than once, and I don’t think Robert Travaglini is a Tom Birmingham. So I’d wager the matter goes to the polls, where it’ll get defeated. ---
**Author:** ![wolf\_meister](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolf_meister/32/15202_2.png) [@wolf\_meister](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolf_meister)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2005, 7:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/signature-gathering-fraud-for-massachusetts-anti-same-sex-marriage-petition/337052/22 "2005-12-25T07:37:12Z")
**stpauler** My remark was _not_ meant to be offensive. A _LOT_ of my postings (possibly 50% ?) are humorous (or an attempt thereof). Now I know you can reply that I shouldn’t have said it in the first place, etc. But rather than have this discussion just become an “insult-fest”, why not let’s just drop it? Also, if you think my attitude toward homosexuality or same-sex marriage is cloddish and boorish, then why would I have _started_ this thread? ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2005, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/signature-gathering-fraud-for-massachusetts-anti-same-sex-marriage-petition/337052/23 "2005-12-25T15:16:33Z")
> [@waterj2](#): > > The main mistake in your analysis is that the previous ammendment was initiated by the legislature, which means that an overall majority was required (101 votes), while a proposal in response to a citizen petition only requires approval by 25% of the constitutional convention. When an ammendment was proposed back in Feb. '04 with wording like the one the legislature will vote on now (no gay marriage, no civil unions), it recieved 94 votes. There hasn’t been enough change in the membership to make enough of a difference to keep it from recieving a mere 50 votes. You would certainly have a better sense than I, but from everything I’ve read it strikes me that the Legislature is tired of dealing with this issue. They’ve been dealing with it for, what, three or four sessions now, they’ve had enough time to figure out that SSM will not cause the state or the nation to collapse into chaos and they understand that mainstream MA doesn’t want the amendment. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/signature-gathering-fraud-for-massachusetts-anti-same-sex-marriage-petition/337052.md?page=1)