RECENT  POSTS:  » READ: Very anti-gay crew vows to never recognize civil marriage equality (even though they so will or face penalties) » NOM #March4Marriage coalition partner, religious liaison: 'Homosexuality is behavior and choice...immoral' » Mike Huckabee blatantly lies about something no civil marriage activist is seeking » Video: Man who once called for ban on gay teachers promotes #March4Marriage; because of course he does » FRC Senior Fellow: We are prepared to 'give our lives' to fight same-sex marriage (i.e. 'our eternal destruction') » Questions 'Face The Nation' should ask Tony Perkins (but likely won't, sadly) » Gorgeous clip from PFLAG Canada recognizes the many marriage memories that never were » On marriage, FRC prays SCOTUS will 'rule in the fear of the Lord' » AFA's new desperation: Marriage equality will turn bible into 'Mein Kampf' » Stop me if you've heard this one: Gay men throw reception for Ted Cruz; Cruz doesn't act as super anti-gay as usual  

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

05/09/2007

Mass ConCon to meet, not vote on proposed historical blight

by Jeremy Hooper

 Time-Zone Usa Massachusetts Images MassachusettsToday in a Massachusetts, a Constitutional Convention (joint session of the Senate and House) will be held, where a proposed ban on the currently legal practice of same-sex marriage will once again be brought to intolerant light.

Because we've missed it so much, right?

As you might remember, that gross ban received preliminary approval back in January, but under Mass. state law, it needs another round of approval from at least 25% of the legislature before it can head to voters in 2008 election. However, folks on both side of the issue (the right side and the one that would ban something that has caused no harm) agree that it's unlikely there will be a vote taken today, with Senate President Therese Murray expected to postpone the matter until after work on the state budget is finished.

Our advice to Murray: While crunching the numbers regarding the state's fiscal matters, force those who plan to vote in favor of the ban to also consider the high cost this proposed gay-bannign amendment would present to gay couples, the state's good name, decency, and the historical legacy of those who support discrimination. For while it may be easy to see the repercussions that will result from the earmarking of certain funds for certain services, the reverberations resulting from the allocation of bias for a certain sect of the population sometimes need a little more spelled out. An easy formula:

Decent, tax-paying couples + A ban that keeps them from legally recognized monogamy = The same sort of backwards bias that once had large support in this nation, but which we now look back upon with almost universal contempt.

Constitutional convention to meet, but no vote on gay marriage [AP via WPRI]
Lawmakers To Dodge Gay Marriage Vote Again [AP/Boston Channel]

**UPDATE: Lawmakers postpone gay marriage vote until at least June 14 [SoVo]

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


Your thoughts

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails