RECENT  POSTS:  » Anti-gay clerks are going to have to do their jobs. Because of course they are. » Jeb really wants to remind voters of his anti-'same status' plan for gay couples » Maine: NOM finally forced to hand over its tiny, out-of-state, incestuous donor roll » This delusional primary: Huckabee claims 'same-sex marriage is not the law of the land' » The 'Yeah. Duh. Of course' phase of this fight » Trailer: 'Stonewall' » And now NOM is literally pleading with its (theoretical) supporters » Add 'professional advocate for anti-gay scouting' to list of bygone career choices » NOM to lasso the White House with a rosary. Or something. » NOM's new plan? To beat up its org-crushing loss until it becomes a win.  

« 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