RECENT  POSTS:  » Court upholds Houston's Equal Rights Ordinance » Maggie Gallagher won't toast you while you trap your spouse in sin » NOM pre-spins its likely low #March4Marriage attendance » 'Children of gays' lawyer to SCOTUS: Ban same-sex marriage so bisexuals will marry heterosexually » Audio: Ryan T. Anderson says sexual orientation speaks to content of character; links it to sadomasochism, polyamory » WHOA: FRC 'reediting' all those heinous fasting-for-marriage prayers I've been showing you!! » Man who dedicates his life to fighting marriage equality, gay parenting: 'I don't work to harm others' » FRC's eighth day of fasting-for-discrimination: Uses passage about forced drowning to condemn gay parents » NOM: Marriage is some creepy number that looks like it's about to behead one spouse » Desperate anti-gay movement's latest attempt to dehumanize: Gay unions harm straight kids  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

05/04/2006

Will initiative to keep us from registering for waffle irons and china proceed in Mass?

by Jeremy Hooper

    Today in the gay marriage-allowing land of Massachusetts, the state Supreme Judicial Court will begin hearing a case in which they'll ultimately decide if a ballot question seeking to put a marriage-banning amendment on the 2008 ballot can proceed down its matrimony-halting path. The equality-encouraging folks at GLAD (Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders) are arguing that the Mass. constitution prevents citizen-initiated amendments that reverse judicial decisions; Attorney General Thomas Reilly, however, is defending that the amendment wouldn't reverse the landmark 2003 ruling, as gay marriages already performed wouldn't be invalidated, only future ones would be disallowed.

Because that was the rulings intent -- just to allow same-sex marriage for a few years and then stop. Makes total senseless.

We'll have to wait and see how the court battle turns out, but even if they rule in favor of those seeking to ban queer nuptials, those folks would still have to win votes of support from 25% of the legislature in two successive sessions in order to get their proposed ban on the '08 ballot. Here's hoping that as they continue to jump through the hoops necessary to reverse their state's turn towards non-discrimination, those seeking a ban will realize that their efforts are in the best interest of only their future placement in the history books under the heading "They thought they were doing the right thing, but..."

Case Documents - Schulman v. Reilly [GLAD]
Court May Put Gay Marriage Before Voters [AP via Wash Post]

space gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper


comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails