RECENT  POSTS:  » Today in ambition: NOM cofounder vows to fight marriage equality for 100 years » Video: Mississippian who made soldier his lifestyle choice seeks freedom based on unchosen orientation » One of America's most anti-gay organizations rallies for the Duggars; because of course they would » Photo: Stop! Turn around! Don't let NOM force you onto the dead-end pier that is their cause! » One day, two country singers—zero closets » Fringe pro-discrimination group thinks it can stop companies from sponsoring HRC event; adorable » Video: Josh Duggar promoting civil inequality for thousands of grown kids (and counting) » Brian Brown's focus on Kansas, Gov. Brownback shows how much of a political game this is for him » Tiny fraction of North Carolina magistrates choose to free up their days rather than serve local gays » Video: Reality star Josh Duggar leads sad little inequality rally in Little Rock, AR  

« 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