RECENT  POSTS:  » Photo: Stop! Turn around! Don't let NOM force you onto the dead-end pier that is their cause! » One day, two country singers—zero closets » Fringe pro-discrimination group thinks it can stop companies from sponsoring HRC event; adorable » Video: Josh Duggar promoting civil inequality for thousands of grown kids (and counting) » Brian Brown's focus on Kansas, Gov. Brownback shows how much of a political game this is for him » Tiny fraction of North Carolina magistrates choose to free up their days rather than serve local gays » Video: Reality star Josh Duggar leads sad little inequality rally in Little Rock, AR » READ: Federal judge strikes Montana's discriminatory marriage ban » Major global brand P&G comes out for marriage equality » In 2013, HRC went red for equality; NOM just went in the red  

« 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