RECENT  POSTS:  » Read: NOM's guide to pressuring lawmakers to ban marriages (while pretending you're doing something good and positive instead) » Full trailer: 'The Normal Heart' » Vintage Clinton era oppo memo perhaps even more relevant today » Concerned Women For America advises churches to lockdown exclusionary marriage views » Video: What does conservative columnist Cal Thomas see as America's biggest threat? Take a guess. » Correcting NOM's fallacious fear graphic » Gee, Bryan, can't understand why federal courts are rejecting you gay = incest view » Former NOM sr. associate admits shift: Moving away from intellectual arguments, focusing on spiritual » Prop 8 defense attorney now planning lesbian daughter's wedding » If you can't afford your event, NOM, perhaps you should just cancel  

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

08/26/2008

MASSively annoying: Anti-progress progresses in Bay State

by Jeremy Hooper

2008081517411 And now in "Geez, can't they leave that poor dead horse alone?" news: Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley has approved paperwork that had been filed by the radically anti-gay Massresistance group.  And what does the paperwork entail, you ask?  Well, it is MR's attempt to reinstate the recently-downed 1913 law that had previously prevented out-of-state gays from getting hitched in the Bay State.  So now that they've obtained the AG's approval, MR is free to begin collecting signatures (33,297 by the end of October) in order to put this tired matter before voters in 2010, and ultimately limit the state's same-sex unions to only locals. 

The Boston Globe has more:

Referendum on 1913 law passes first test [Boston Globe]

Now it should be noted that by approving the paperwork, the state is in no way giving credence to the endeavor -- they are simply saying that it's kosher on constitutional grounds.  So it's sort of like when your friend asks you if they can wear a pink sequined shirt with camouflaged shorts: You as a reasoned person may feel compelled to give an affirmative response since the clothes are unlikely to melt their body.  However, your vote for "can wear" in no way equates a vote for "should wear." And on that same token, the Mass AG has only given MR permission to dress themselves in out-of-style views, even if she herself might not be caught dead wearing the same.

Now here's just hoping Mass citizens will do the job the state is not free to do: Realize that peace and equality are in fashion, and call out the nonsensical out-of-vogue misstep for exactly what it is!

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


Your thoughts

Oh swell. Another referendum fight. Well at least this one should be easier.

Posted by: John | Aug 26, 2008 10:43:13 AM

The problem of course is in order to get signatures, they will state it is all about the gays, not the fact it was enacted to prevent interacial marriage.

Posted by: Mary | Aug 26, 2008 10:46:10 AM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails