RECENT  POSTS:  » NOM spends six figures on North Carolina's Hagan/Tillis US Senate race » Idaho wedding venue can be discriminatory so long as it sticks to new business model » Sunday in Houston: Activists mad that churches were noted for their politicization head to a church—to politicize » Lisa Kudrow thinks my website title is modest, at best » Do you take this man to be your lawfully wedded mission of destruction? » 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'  

« 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