RECENT  POSTS:  » I can't keep pretending to care about [insert activist] saying [insert ridiculous thing] » NOM president: Marriage ruling is 'Dred Scott decision of our time' » Episcopalians approve ceremonies for all legally-qualified couples » NOM's wishful (and disrespectful) thinking: SCOTUS ruling is 'illegitimate' » Focus on the Family creates itemized price list for 'saving' marriage » Fox News pays this person for his opinions » Pat Buchanan doubles down on 1983 column claiming AIDS is nature's punishment » Is NOM really going to push for a constitutional convention on marriage? » Video: Great piece from 'CBS Sunday Morning' highlights sweet success » Yes, the American marriage equality fight is over—the rest is just bluster  

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

10/31/2006

The power to dePRESS: CO paper reverses marriage ban stance

by Jeremy Hooper

Retracting their recommendation that Colorado citizens vote against a proposed constitutional ban on gay marriage, the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel newspaper is now recommending voters go the opposite route. In an editorial message, the paper says:

A few weeks ago, this corner reasoned that because state law already clearly defines marriage as a union only between one man and one woman, there was no need to formalize such language in the state Constitution. The decision of the New Jersey Supreme Court this week has changed our view.
...
In light of the New Jersey ruling, clear language in the Colorado Constitution that cannot be so easily overturned by judicial fiat as state law is a virtual necessity to ensure that marriage in Colorado remains a union between one man and one woman.

Vote “Yes” on Amendment 43.

Which is actually a blessing in disguise, as this writer...

Sent4

...was completely out of toilet paper.

Rethinking Amendment 43 [GJSentinel.com]

.

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