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


So when, exactly, will they apologize for the decades of stigmatizing Mass and its voters?

by Jeremy Hooper

Our marriages constitute a "dastardly deed," and the multiple votes that Massachusetts' elected lawmakers cast on the matter of a marriage amendment somehow denied the people of their "right to a voice." Just another round of "logic" from the FRC:

Mackey"The most delicious thing about the Scott Brown victory is, of course, the will of the people somehow got through in a state where the liberals had so beaten the citizenry down that any and all manner of strange cultural and economic dastardly deeds could be foisted upon them. Their taxes brought them the tag of “taxachusetts.” The gay marriage crowd denied them time and again the right to a voice in whether or not the state would adopt gay marriage. Imagine, hundreds of thousands of signatures were simply denied in yet another arrogance of judicial power"
-Connie Mackey, Family Research Council
A Victory for the People [FRC]

Well we certainly know something that's arrogant, but it ain't the independent judiciary!

Good lord these folks are such awful winners, stretching one seat -- ONE SEAT! -- into some kind of right wing rapture that's gonna wash all the donkeys out of the world. And they act like one semi-moderate is somehow a validation for their extreme-right causes and a repudiation of all that ever happened in the name of Kennedy. It's as absurd as it is bizarre.

Oh, and can we talk a second about the overnight jean-cream that the social conservatives have developed for this man? After Palin and now Brown, we better never again hear a conservative accuse a liberal of rushing towards deification!

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

Your thoughts

You know her reference to Taxachussetts is a falsehood. Taxes in MA are and have been much cheaper than those in RI and CT for some time now.

As one who is considering moving from RI to MA I've been looking at property tax rates. They're significantly lower than in RI.

Posted by: Tony P | Jan 20, 2010 7:08:27 PM

I suppose playing up a victory is par for the course among special interest groups, but it would be a serious mistake for folks to believe that Brown won because of social issues. "It's the economy, stupid" is why he won. People can frame that however they wish but in the end enough Mass. voters found Brown's message more appealing than Coakley's.

Posted by: John | Jan 20, 2010 8:40:00 PM

And, John, there's the contingent of Democrats who stayed home altogether because president Obama and Congress have not moved far *enough* on healthcare.

Posted by: G-A-Y | Jan 20, 2010 8:43:25 PM

Ugh...doesn't this woman understand that in an EFFECTIVE Democracy, there are prohibitions about what issues one can and cannot vote upon; as well as the FACT that the US Constitution (and even State Constitutions) have onlyt historically been amended to EXPAND upon individual rights, rather then strip them via a majority tyrannical gesture of animus?! WHAT'S SO HARD TO COMPREHEND ABOUT THAT?! It's taught in every Civics class, so far as i am aware.

But, this doesn't answer the most troubling question to me: Who started to convince these plebians that they have an unencumbered right to vote on any issue their hearts desire; and, don't they know, nor care, what a legally protected "suspect class" is? It means that NO ONE gets the right to vote on my individual freedoms, because it would likely eb based in religious animus, or fear-mongering from well-funded religious groups that have shown a demonstrable pattern of discriminating against me, and others who are 'different", or otherwise "a minority".

Poor Kennedy... This man stands for everything that he opposed! His dying wish was to see Universal health care in this country. *sigh* (May the gods be with you!)

Posted by: Wade MacMorrighan | Jan 20, 2010 11:43:45 PM

Again and again a lot of us wonder when did a civil right become something to be put to a vote?

Posted by: gleeindc | Jan 21, 2010 6:43:37 AM

Well, you see GleeInDC (and Justice Scalia will likely rule to this extent), there *is* no "right" to get married--for ANYONE, so they CAN make it a "special and exclusive club". Hence, the "onus" is on us to prove how allowing us to marry would somehow benefit the state and society, rather than how we have demonstrably been harmed, or in other words screaming that we're being "discriminated against" simply won't legally fly! Well, this is how i have seen SEVERAL anti-equality extremists on-line put it, again and again, as if someone's been feeding them this rote script.

Posted by: Wade MacMorrighan | Jan 21, 2010 9:15:21 AM

Gay marriage is still an issue in Massachusetts?

Last I checked, there hasn't been a significant moan out of the anti-gay crowd in a year or two.

Brown's win is evidence that voters are extremely emotional and horribly shortsighted. I've actually heard "Vote for Change!" about one hundred times from Brown supporters.

For the first time, ever, in this great state I have called my home, my boyfriend and I were booed at and scorned in public. This only compounded our desire to reserve our activities to Boston and North Shore. Anything south of the Quincy line is becoming a little to Rhode Island for me.

Posted by: Dramatic Pause | Jan 21, 2010 10:23:03 AM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy

Related Posts with Thumbnails