RECENT  POSTS:  » MassResistance's hilarious fourteen-point plan for reinstating marriage discrimination: Get really, really nasty » Concerned Women For America finally learns to call out anti-gay rhetoric » 'Rivka Edelman' responds to me via one of the most bizarre comments I've ever read » Just going to another vendor isn't always easy, isn't good basis for sound policy » Pat Robertson: People who believe in fair nondiscrimination law are 'terrorists, radicals, and extremists' » In which another anti-gay group forces politicos to Gladys Kravitz our way into one family's divorce drama » In 2008, the AFA was the same on LGBT rights as President Obama; and I was a flying unicorn » The Hitching Post plot thickens in a truly remarkable way » On Rivka, Robert and their dirty, self-victimizing, anti-intellectual blame game » POTUS believes in fifty-state equality, happy with way it's playing out  

« 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