RECENT  POSTS:  » Video: Gee, with compelling videos like this one, I just can't imagine why the anti-gay right is losing in court » #TBT: Even after legal equality, Americans—and particularly religious Americans—struggle to accept certain marriages » Indiana threatens its commerce, tourism dollars, reputation, general welfare of its citizenry » Video: AFA prez expounds on organization's movement-destructive ad by adding even more religious fervor » NOM resorts to blatant lying in its 2015 #March4Marriage materials » NOM coalition partner: America will fall unless you March For Marriage » AFA helps SCOTUS see that opposition to *civil* marriage equality is all about religious fervor » Video: Did this Texas 'biblical marriage' rally assemble least diverse crowd in recorded human history? » About those children of fractured families who keep blaming same-sex parenting for their issues... » Ha! NOM uses ad for a desk to represent president's real office  

« 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