Video: You decide who's truly 'brazen'!
Responding to the news that fair-minded Massachusetts lawmakers will soon attempt to overturn the antiquated 1913 law that has kept out-of-state gays from marrying in the Bay State, the unfair-minded folks at Focus on the Family have made this deeply offensive video:
And then building on her comments in the video, Jenny Tyree is also quoted in the accompanying CitizenLink article as saying:
“This is a last-ditch effort to transport gay ‘marriage’ to other states, in the event the California decision is overturned by the will of the people”
So why do we call this video and quote "deeply offensive"? Well, because this is a 95-year-old law that (a) was debatably used for unjust purposes like preventing the recognition of some interracial marriage, and (b) was barely even realized to exist before same-sex nuptials came to Massachusetts and social conservatives (like then-Gov Mitt Romney) freaked. Getting rid of this law isn't "brazen" or "shameful" -- ever using the law against gays was the insolent maneuver! And this attempt to get rid of the unnecessary measure doesn't constitute any sort of "last-ditch effort to transport gay ‘marriage’ to other states" -- it constitutes one more step to remove the unjust bars and disparity that have been places around certain types of unions! So it's not even so much that we find their arguments on this one deeply offensive to gay folks. Instead, we find that it deeply offends the very core of logical political discourse.
While we obviously and admittedly react negatively whenever folks like Tyree, Trobee, and Mineau try to foist their personal view of morality onto the civil rights of LGBT people, their reaction to this is particularly flagrant. For even if you personally think gay marriage is rapidly taking our world to a fiery end, it's simply unreasoned to act as if the attempts to remove this 95-year-old law are somehow out-of-line. This is not a law that's common to other jurisdictions. Removing it would not put Massachusetts in a place widely dissimilar from other states, but rather in a position similar to most every state in the union. So it is more than a little unfair for these "pro-family" folks, just because they are desperate to keep one certain type of Massachusetts' marriages at bay, to look at this from their typical "gays are militant" perspective. Such subjective lines of reasoning simply will not hold up to any objective arguments!
Massachusetts to Vote on Exporting Gay ‘Marriages’ [CitizenLink]
Legislators repealing laws that discriminate against a group of citizens? OUTLANDISH!
Posted by: stojef | Jul 11, 2008 12:42:55 PM
What a let-down! I heard FOF and Video and immediately thoughts raced through my head about how that whiny little girl was going to bitch to her mother about Massachusetts marriage laws. "Mommy, Dave and Brian next door went to Massachusetts last night and got MARRIED! Now they're both wearing dresses in MY BATHROOM! And Brian is using my razor to shave his legs. But they did bring some Potpourri and a nice vase." Or something like that.
Imagine my disappointment when it was just Jenny Tyree! But, I do have to say that she seems to be dealing with that shiny forehead problem better, and with her hair poofed up a little, and from this angle, you can barely make out that vestigial horn.
Posted by: Dick Mills | Jul 11, 2008 1:25:59 PM
Honey, I don't know who Pandora is or why Ms. Tyree needs to make such lewd and vulgar comments about her. I do know that coming from the mouth of such a self-appointed moral watchdog, those comments are especially shocking. My children's custody and inheritance have nothing to do with this woman's box and its apparently inexhaustable capacity. Disugsting!
Posted by: Sykler | Jul 11, 2008 1:40:00 PM
Ha, pray away asshats! That said I'm surprised I've seen no action in Rhode Island particularly since Justice Patricia Hurst said in her opinion that Casandra Ormiston and Margaret Chambers should bring suit against the Family Court Act under Article 1 Section 2 of the RI Constitution.
What that would do is invalidate the Family Court act. Hurst even said that this had to happen due to the inaction by the legislature and the administration.
Posted by: Tony P | Jul 11, 2008 2:52:03 PMcomments powered by Disqus