Massachusetts again finds itself in a gay marriage war.
Right-wingers this week reignited an old debate by pushing a ballot question aimed at ending wedding-related immigration.
The activists claim Governor Deval Patrick lawmakers acted unfairly in repealing a 1913 law prohibiting out-of-staters from marrying in Massachusetts if their own state wouldn’t allow such a wedding.
The law was originally aimed at interracial couples, but has become more closely associated with gay rights – and you know how the right hate’s the homos…
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
Opponents of same-sex marriages are seeking a ballot question that would prevent gay and lesbian couples from getting married here if their union wouldn’t be legal in their home state.
Brian Camenker of the group Mass Resistance said Friday lawmakers and Gov. Deval Patrick bowed to the will of the “gay lobby” last month by approving the repeal of a 1913 statute that banned such marriages.
…
“The Legislature and the governor changed our marriage laws to please the well-connected minority and force a social experiment into other states that’s very offensive to a majority of the people, at least the way the votes have been going,” Camenker said, referring to recent votes in favor of gay marriage bans in other states.
Camenker specifically points to the repeal’s immediate enactment, rather than waiting the customary 90 days, during which time opponents can rally their reactionary troops. So now Camenker and his ilk are attempting to get 32,000 signatures to put the 1913 law question on this November’s ballot, because nothing says political prowess like fighting for a law written almost 100 years ago.
Jimbo
Hi I am from Massachusetts and now how are system works this question will not be on the 2008 ballot or the 2010 ballot it is just not posible this is just a lame attemp for the ant-gay folks to raise money
crazylove
it’s also very telling that despite the claims about “judicial activism” now that we are starting to win legislatively, they are once more shifting the debate to a new arena to try to win. basiclaly they are showing that they are all about the discrimination, and not as they claim about democratic principles
Charles J. Mueller
Isn’t it interesting that a discriminatory law written almost 100 years ago and which was originally aimed at interracial couples, can now be applied as the same method of discrimination against the LBGT community, even though nothing in that law specifically mentions gay people getting married.
Talk about the religious right stretching a point…
God and the Bible were also used to justify Prohibition. In fact, there isn’t much that God and the Bible haven’t been used to justify. Rather than admitting, however, that Prohibition was an utter failure when it was repealed by the 27th Amendment on December 5, 1933, they simply took the position that “Satan never sleeps”.
With respect to the Evangelicals constant, unceasing need to make second-class citizens out of just about anyone they can, the following quotation says it all.
“The objection to Puritans is not that they try
to make us think as they do, but that they try to make us do as they think.” – H. L. MENCKEN
Charles J. Mueller
Correction: Insert ‘that’ between law and specifically
mark
Even repigs members of Congress in MA didn’t even ask for a recorded vote. That tells you how TOXIC this racist homobigotted law is in MA. they don’t want records of supporting or opposing it.
Voters WON’T reinstate this toxic cr*p.
seitan-on-a-stick
Can we see where this is going this election cycle? Just look back to 2004 and you can tell that the McCain desperados (Rove Jr’s Steven Schmidt) are back at putting Queers in the Cross-hairs and watch for Deval and Obama joined at the hip in some sorta gay way.
In Al Franken’s book The Truth (with jokes) he looks at the GOP’s 2004 tactic to win the election
From Wikipedia:
Fear, Smear, and Queers
In the book, Franken looks at what he calls “fear, smear, and queers,” or the Republican strategy used to win the reelection of George W. Bush. As in his previous work, Franken relies on direct quotes from Republicans to back up his research.
Fear
Franken uses several quotes from throughout the 2004 campaign to highlight the use of fear. In several instances campaigners heavily relied on the events of 9/11 to paint President Bush as a strong military leader and John Kerry as a waffler. Franken counters with direct quotes from the 9/11 Commission that show Bush ignored or overlooked several key pieces of intelligence from the CIA that, if acted upon, could have prevented the attacks altogether.
Franken also wrote that Bill Clinton received similar intelligence regarding potential attacks on January 1, 2000 and was able to quickly raise the security level and prevent any terrorist activity.
Smear
Franken addresses the accusations of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth group that alleged during the 2004 election that John Kerry’s medals for valor were actually based on an act of cowardice. The incident, involving Kerry’s killing of a Vietcong soldier, was not witnessed by any of the group’s members. Moreover, the group dubiously claimed that Kerry shot a potentially unarmed and wounded teenager in the back while attempting to escape.
Franken states, using the testimony of the soldiers who were actually there, that Kerry’s original version is the correct version. Franken also quotes a Ted Koppel story from 2004 when Koppel went to Vietnam and actually spoke with the commander of the Vietcong attack, who verified the man killed by Kerry was an adult, and military records that show the man was in possession of a grenade launcher.
Gay Marriage Issue
The book describes ways in which gay marriage was used as a wedge issue to break off certain voters who would have otherwise supported Kerry. It argues that Republicans relied on misrepresenting Kerry’s position by saying and implying he is in favor of gay marriage. Franken lays out John Kerry’s exact stance on gay marriage: he’s against it but agrees with civil unions. While Franken disagrees with this view, he says that Kerry has spoken on the record with the same opinion since at least 1996.
Franken shows photos of protesters and pamphlets in red states and swing states that say “Support Gay Marriage, Vote John Kerry.” Franken implies that these protesters were employed by Republicans trying to sway voters by using the controversial issue of gay marriage.
Ian J UK
Home of the free?
Home of the ultra right wing religious nutter!