While the news shouldn’t be shocking, it still is. Attorney General Martha Coakley has approved a ballot question to reinstant the 1913 Marriage Law that was recently repealed by the Legislature.
In her ruling, Coakley said the question’s supporters, MassResistance, had met the necessary technical requirement for filing a ballot question. The group must now gather 33,000 signatures by the end of October to appear on the November 2010 ballot.
Coakley differentiated between her official duties and any personal feeling she may have on the issue.
“Our decision that this referendum meets the constitutional requirements as to subject matter does not mean that it has our support, but simply that the constitutional requirements are met for the proponents of the referendum to obtain further signatures,” Coakley said in a statement.
In Massachusetts, differentiating between official duties and personal feelings is a rarity. The will of the people has been brushed aside by the Legislature time and time again, and yet, somehow, these buffoons on Beacon Hill keep getting reelected.
When this question comes to a vote, and the 1913 Marriage Law is reinstated, how long do you think it will be before the legislature ignores the will of the people?
Tags: Martha Coakley, MassResistance
August 26th, 2008
House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi is trying to force a vote on the out-of-state gay marriage bill, which is leaving some democrats feeling a bit shafted.
“He has no concern for the members,” said one legislator, who requested anonymity. “This is stuff we should be dealing with in the first year (of the session). It’s a lose-lose for anyone facing a challenger.”
Another irate Democrat compared DiMasi unfavorably to his predecessor, former House Speaker Thomas Finneran, saying the controversial vote could alienate support for the embattled North End Democrat.
“Finneran always did things to protect the membership,” the lawmaker said, “and he (DiMasi) has only worked to protect himself.”
Even pols who support the repeal of the 1913 ban on out-of-state residents from marrying here are concerned about the political timing, which renews the roiling gay marriage debate and provides opponents with fresh fodder only months before voters decide who to send to Beacon Hill.
How bizarre. It’s bad timing only because it brings back the gay marriage debate? While this certainly isn’t great timing for gay marriage supporters and supporters of the repeal, I would suggest that it’s bad timing because it takes time from the legislature to worry about problems within the borders of the Commonwealth rather than trying to advance the gay marriage lobby. We have the rising costs of health care and energy and the Legislature is going to take time to worry about whether or not out-of-state gay couples can get married in Massachusetts? Please… this is a complete waste of their time.
Meanwhile, the state Senate has voted in favor of raising taxes on all cell phones, and voted against requiring convicted child rapists to register with the Sex Offender Registry Board for life, against 10-year mandatory minimum sentences for the first offense of rape of a child by force, and against prohibiting convicted sex offenders from operating ice cream trucks. Is our biggest problem right now whether or not out-of-state gay couples can get married here? I don’t think so.
Let’s worry about our own problems first before worrying about the problems of people that don’t live in the Commonwealth.
Bad political timing? It’s only bad political timing if you believe supporting the repeal could have adverse effects on your re-election.
Tags: Gay Marriage, Salvatore DiMasi
July 22nd, 2008
Earlier today the State Senate voted to allow out-of-state gay couples to get married in Massachusetts… opening the door for Massachusetts to become the Gay Las Vegas.
The Massachusetts Family Institute, issued a press release earlier today, accusing the Senate of redefining marriage in other states:
With its vote today to dismantle a 1913 law prohibiting out-of-state couples from marrying Massachusetts if they are ineligible for marriage in their home state, the Massachusetts Senate is inviting court challenges to the marriage laws of other states.
“The Massachusetts Senate has no right to infringe on the internal issues of how other states define marriage but that’s exactly what they voted today to do,” said Kris Mineau, president, Massachusetts Family Institute.
Dubbed falsely by same-sex marriage activists as a law with an anti-race bias, the State Supreme Judicial Court in 2006 ruled that the law was not racially motivated.
“Legislators were pressured unscrupulously by same-sex marriage activists to dismantle this law or be branded racists,” Mr. Mineau said—adding that the Human Rights Campaign hired lobbyists to work over Massachusetts legislators on this issue.
Move over San Francisco.
Tags: Gay Marriage, Massachusetts Family Institute
July 15th, 2008
Continue Reading June 16th, 2007
