Mass. Gay Marriage Debate Sparks Rallies

[Rhino]

Jul 12, 11:22 AM EDT

Mass. Gay Marriage Debate Sparks Rallies

By STEVE LeBLANC
Associated Press Writer

BOSTON (AP) -- Dozens of people on both sides of the gay marriage debate rallied Wednesday outside the Statehouse, where a series of proposed constitutional amendments awaiting lawmakers' consideration included one that would define marriage as the union of a man and woman.

Demonstrators held signs, waved banners, sang songs and urged passing motorists to honk in support of their cause.

"I think this is an issue for the people to decide," said Jonathan Gal, 39, of Lexington, wearing a sticker that read "Support One Man, One Woman." "I don't like the way this is being imposed on us by a small minority - the courts and the Legislature."

Across the street, supporters of same-sex unions cast the issue as one of civil rights.

"When does civil rights get put on the ballot for everyone to vote on?" said Jim Singletary, 44, of Salem, who last year married his longtime partner, Jim Maynard.

"This is for fairness for my family," Maynard said.

The goal of the gay marriage amendment, which supporters hope to put on the 2008 ballot, would be to block future gay marriages in Massachusetts. More than 8,000 same-sex couples have taken vows since gay marriages began in May 2004.........http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/G/GAY_MARRIAGE?SITE=FLTAM&SECTION=US

[True Grace]

"When does civil rights get put on the ballot for everyone to vote on?" said Jim Singletary, 44, of Salem, who last year married his longtime partner, Jim Maynard

I have yet to find anyone who can show me where it says that gay marriage is a civil right.

[DoctorDoom]

All this is academic. The queers own Massholechusetts and they dictate government policy. What the people want is absolutely irrelevant. The legislators' PoV is as follows: "If you don't like it, we don't give a shit. Shut up and send us your money."

[Beowulf]

"I think this is an issue for the people to decide," said Jonathan Gal, 39, of Lexington, wearing a sticker that read "Support One Man, One Woman." "I don't like the way this is being imposed on us by a small minority - the courts and the Legislature."

I totally agree with this statement. It SHOULD be put to the voters, not to the courts. As I understand it, a majority of Massholes, even though they're Liberals, oppose same-sex marriage.

[ConspiracyBuff]

I hate Massholes. Glad to see they finally took to the streets.

"This is for fairness for my family," Maynard said.

Haha. That is the most common line in the gay book. What family? You can't have kids you lack the necessary tools. Ah but wait, thats right, gays can adopt or even better make money from foster care. Still though, I would have to say that isn't fair to your family one bit. No, it's not fair to the adopted child, or the foster child to be forced into being around that backwards lifestyle 24/7 and "just having to get over it". So too then it's not fair to normal functioning families, not in the least. Why should they have to "just get over it"? Why should normal families have their marriage bond lessened or made light of by this minority, because they think it's "fairness"? HA. No, as a matter of fact, I would say it's quite selfish and they are the ones who need to just get over it.

[Republican_Legion]

I totally agree with this statement. It SHOULD be put to the voters, not to the courts. As I understand it, a majority of Massholes, even though they're Liberals, oppose same-sex marriage.

Its the same in almost all blue states, Majority of Liberals dont support gay marriage. The Ultra Far-Left Cindy Shehan part of the DP supports it.

Its funny watching the crazy dems assume everyone wants gay marriage and they lose and continue after voters reject their beliefs and they cannot except that their view is in the minority of people of Taxachussets, Taxafornia, Taxillinois, NewTaxork etc.

[d'urville]

They're doing everything in theor power to keep "gay marriage" as a judicial issue, it was shot down in moonbat-friendly states like Hawaii, it'll die anywhere it's put on the ballot.

Why the left is catering to this small segment of their base is strange, it's probably more about keeping (liberal) judical activism going than just gays.

[DoctorDoom]

As foreseen in post #3 (I know how those homophilic assholes operate), this is from an Article 8 email just received.

=== 1. Constitutional convention on gay "marriage" amendment adjourns until after Nov. elections! "It's dead," says minority leader. ===

As hundreds of homosexual activists and pro-family activists lined Beacon Street in front of the Massachusetts State House shouting, singing, and waving signs, the Legislature met inside in a Constitutional Convention today and, it would appear, essentially killed the marriage amendment.

Not completely unexpected. We had a feeling they find some way to procedurally derail it. Throughout the week various pro-family reps had told us that something was going to happen but they didn't know what it was. All we knew was that Senate President Robert Travaglini had "promised" in the media that there would be debate. The convention began at 1:00 pm, and the marriage issue was 20th on the agenda. They began taking up the various other constitutional amendments on the list, debating and voting, and it went fairly quickly. But it soon became clear what was going to happen, as Rep. Marie Parente and Rep. Philip Travis complained in their debate time about an upcoming adjournment -- before it got to the marriage amendment -- until after the elections.

Then around item number 10, a motion was suddenly made to adjourn until Nov. 9. A vote was taken and it passed by 100-91. That is much closer than the vote for the amendment itself would have been, according to all estimates (the amendment needed only 51 votes). Thus, we think that this was planned in advance, and that the anti-marriage reps with "safe" seats in the November elections voted "yes" to adjourn, and ones who might have tough contested elections were allowed to vote "no", since the outcome had been calculated in advance.

A quote from today's Boston Herald says a lot:[indenm]State Rep. Thomas Sannicandro (D-Ashland), who supports same-sex marriage, said he voted for the delay so fellow lawmakers could vote without the pressure of having to face voters soon thereafter.[/indent]Is that so? Not having to have pressure from voters???

It's dead, says Minority Leader

About an hour after the convention, the House Minority Leader, Rep. Brad Jones, a Republican, generally known as being pro-family, went on the Howie Carr show and said he could see no way it would be voted on at all, unless the leadership knew for sure there weren't enough votes to pass it, "It looks like it's dead," he said on the radio show.

=== 2. Don't let THIS one get away -- THURSDAY vote on huge $$ for homosexual programs in schools. Call the reps NOW! (Gays are lobbying in State House.) ===

As we said in the last email, Thursday is where the rubber meets the road. The House will convene on Thursday to vote on overriding the budget items which Gov. Romney vetoed last Saturday. They will vote on whether to override his vetos and give back the huge funding for homosexual finding and programs, and the hideous new "Commission." Don't let them do it!

[snip]

Here's some of the hideous stuff that's been going on in YOUR public schools with your money (in case you've forgotten):

http://www.massresistance.org/veto/horror_stories.html

[snip]

The first three items would give a huge funding increase for homosexual programs in the public schools - in direct and also hidden indirect amounts. There is already $250,000 being funded for these programs.

Do not be fooled by the labels of "suicide and violence prevention" that have been used for years to describe such spending. These programs are completely out of control, and have even made the national news on several occasions! In fact, this money ends up paying for transsexual and cross-dressing workshops in high schools, school assemblies where adults counsel children to "come out" as homosexuals, books on homosexual romance and marriage in elementary school classrooms, talks in schools by gay "clergy" re-interpreting the Bible to embrace homosexual behavior, discussions about having female breasts surgically removed to "become" a male, "The Little Black Book" which advises kids how to find homosexual sex partners, and gay clubs in schools which lead children to downtown "youth" events with homosexual adults.

Section 4 changes the General Laws to create a second "Commission" hand-picked by gay activists, to oversee the spending of money in schools for homosexual programs.

• Its language states that this Commission would be an "independent agency" which is "not subject to the control of any other department." Why? This is probably unconstitutional, if not extremely bad policy.

• It's a sleazy move! This was slipped in as a "budget item" instead of being a separate bill - in order to avoid having a public hearing and normal debate.

• It is redundant. It creates a second "Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth" in addition to the one that already exists and has been operating for years.Welcome to New England's version of Sodom.

[ConspiracyBuff]

Why are these congressman acting so shady? Tell me one good reason they have when about 65% of people don't want such actions to be taken as the ones mentioned in Dooms post. Do they just want to see a values/morals break-down in this country? The last part of Dooms post says it all. There is no need for gay-awareness, if they are there then trust me, we will all be aware. My favorite word as of recently, ridiculous.

[ConspiracyBuff]

P.S.- Doom I forgot your from Mass and I still hate Massholes, but thats only in reference to liberals(post#5). You are A okay.

[DoctorDoom]

I must be at least a semi-Masshole for living here. :D

[True Grace]

I must be at least a semi-Masshole for living here. :D

I don't know how you do it, Doc. You are a stronger person than I am.

[Oolon Coluphid]

Why should normal families have their marriage bond lessened or made light of by this minority, because they think it's "fairness"?

How is your or my straight marriage bond lessened by a gay couple marrying? I've never understood that.

[Oolon Coluphid]

Its the same in almost all blue states, Majority of Liberals dont support gay marriage.

Yes, it's a good thing that this country is based on majority rule, isn't it?

....Oh wait, it's not. This is a democratic republic.

[d'urville]

Yes, it's a good thing that this country is based on majority rule, isn't it?

....Oh wait, it's not. This is a democratic republic.

Actually, it's a representative republic, Roger. Fifty posts at the most, Illuminati.

The liberals in MA are pushing this FAR too hard, a "ban on gay marriage" was upheld today in NE, this MA law can and will be undone.

[Oolon Coluphid]

Actually, it's a representative republic

Sorry. Yes, that's what I was trying to say. We are not subject to a tyranny of the majority.

[DesertFox]

You're right. Instead we're subject to a tyranny of a minority.

[Wyatt_Junker]

How is your or my straight marriage bond lessened by a gay couple marrying? I've never understood that.

The stink.

[DesertFox]

Dear Mr Celluloid:

My straight marriage bond is lessened by a gay couple marrying, because now there's a guy in that marriage who is considered the same as my wife is in my marriage. Everyone knows he is really a she, but because of politics we're all going to pretend that he has a vagina and mounds on his chest and can reproduce, since that's what the word "woman" has always meant, not to mention the word "wife."

If you don't get it, dude, the debasement of common sense, of the English language and of human reason happens when we all play "let's pretend" so that somebody can feel like he's something he isn't. My marriage gets "lessened," as you put it, because we're all colluding by force and with no constitutional backing in adjusting reality to suit the whims of one bunch over another.

Politics should never be about whose tantrum will win today.

[ooh_child]

How about this as a comprimise. Marriage is completely obliterated from government control. Only churches can perform the ceremony, and they have complete control over who they grant permission to be married.

In the meantime, government now approves civil unions granted to 2 adults who intend to form a union which the states recognize as having certain privledges, as outlined by the state.

Mainly, this would grant rights to partners in medical situations, including insurance & POA. It would also cover any minors involved in the civil union at any given time.

Would folks have a problem with this kind of government involvement?

MHB

[Wyatt_Junker]

How about this as a comprimise. Marriage is completely obliterated from government control. Only churches can perform the ceremony, and they have complete control over who they grant permission to be married.

In the meantime, government now approves civil unions granted to 2 adults who intend to form a union which the states recognize as having certain privledges, as outlined by the state.

Mainly, this would grant rights to partners in medical situations, including insurance & POA. It would also cover any minors involved in the civil union at any given time.

Would folks have a problem with this kind of government involvement?

MHB


If Gay Person A wants to sign over his last will & testicles rights to Gay Person B, by all means, Gay Person A should be able to tell Gay Person B beforehand(reacharound) to 'pull the pud', I mean the butt plug on his life support.

Now, if Gay Person B wants to eat from the same bow(e)l of Gay Person A, and let's say this particular meal is shrimp cocktail, then Gay Person B should be able to share the tail in public.

However, and wherein the rights of the soon-to-be deceased remain with one's sole lineage apart from any menage a trois or gloryhole pen pal, then Gay Person C is entitled to the full disclosure of records known and unknown and thereby should be able to exercise his hamster wheel after greasing it first, whereas Gay Person D, E and F are hereby excluded from such discovery of said medical record.

[DesertFox]

Don't forget in loco parentis au gratin juris proctor.

[Wyatt_Junker]

Especially the proctor part.

Sorry to insert a thumb into your argument.

[DesertFox]

You did notice the cheesy portion thereof, monsieur?

[Wyatt_Junker]

If you mean that article A of the Velveeta Clause has fewer holes in it than the Swiss Amendment, I concur.

[DesertFox]

Ahhhhh.

[Timberwolf]

Don't forget in loco parentis au gratin juris proctor.
Parents move to justify cheese ass???

sorry, my latin is non-existant...LOL

[DesertFox]

So's mine :D

[DoctorDoom]

How about this as a comprimise.Another clue-bereft liberal calls for a comprimise (sic). And what is the liberal definition of "compromise"?

compromise n. : agreeing with liberals even if it means abandoning morality, decency, ethics, responsibility, self-respect and principle; giving in to the incessant, outrageous demands of homosexual activists; situational ethics; moral relativism.

Your compromise demands too much of us, especially when there is no liberal on Earth that will do his/her/its part in a compromise.

[Timberwolf]

Doesn't "compromise" mean "weaken"??

[DesertFox]

Compromise is ethically neutral when no moral principle is involved, or when the issue has several equally good solutions. However, compromise between good and bad always weakens the good and strengthens the bad.

Nevertheless, we don't live in a perfect world. Sometimes the only solution available is somewhere between what the bad guys want and what the good guys can keep the bad guys from just stealing. That's a compromise.

[ooh_child]

Another clue-bereft liberal calls for a comprimise (sic). And what is the liberal definition of "compromise"?

compromise n. : agreeing with liberals even if it means abandoning morality, decency, ethics, responsibility, self-respect and principle; giving in to the incessant, outrageous demands of homosexual activists; situational ethics; moral relativism.

Your compromise demands too much of us, especially when there is no liberal on Earth that will do his/her/its part in a compromise.
Well, I guess that answers my question. Sorry for the mispelled word, Doc. I would hope that a compromise is a needed conclusion so we Americans can democratically learn to live with our differences. I gather from your response you have no inclination to use our US laws to settle this matter. Carry on with your hate, m'dear.

MHB

P.S.- Does everyone here agree that a compromise isn't possible? Do y'all agree with Doc, that liberals like me wouldn't abide by the law?

[DesertFox]

ooh_child, if you really are willing to abide by the law, you are unusual. Liberals have made it a practice since the Clinton years of simply ignoring the rules (and the law) when they don't agree with it or when it's inconvenient for them. We know perfectly well that some libs do abide by the law. But those libs have no say in the Democrat Party or in elite liberal circles. Those others -- the Clintons, the Alec Baldwins, the Tom Daschles, Ted Kennedy, Pinch Sulzberger, et al -- control liberalism in America and they do NOT compromise or play fair, ever.

[True Grace]

P.S.- Does everyone here agree that a compromise isn't possible? Do y'all agree with Doc, that liberals like me wouldn't abide by the law?



No, compromise is not possible.

There is no such thing as gay marriage. And perversion should not be rewarded with benefits and perks.

[DoctorDoom]

Well, I guess that answers my question.You asked, I replied. If you don't like my reply, call 1-800-555-WGAS and register your complaint.

I would hope that a compromise is a needed conclusion so we Americans can democratically learn to live with our differences.As I clearly stated, compromise requires action by both sides, and liberals refuse to yield. To liberals, compromise is conservatives acceding to their demands. I for one refuse to kiss liberal ass for the sake of "just getting along".

I gather from your response you have no inclination to use our US laws to settle this matter.How deliciously ironic that a liberal wants to use US laws to settle differences when liberals routinely use US courts to overrule US laws that they don't like.

Read post #5 and tell us which side was defecating on the law.

Carry on with your hate ...Golly gee whiz, the H-word. How unexpected. :rolleyes: Whenever a liberal is suffering a butt-kicking, out comes "hate" and its variants to evoke gut reactions and attempt to derail the discussion.

Sorry, child, but that sort of liberal ineptitude doesn't work here.

... m'dear.I'm not your "dear". You are nothing but pixels on my monitor. You have no existence other than as binary data. And knowing what Internet day-care you came from, your relevance is nil.

P.S.- Does everyone here agree that a compromise isn't possible?Your spin is tedious. The issue is your demand for compromise when liberals do not do so.

Do y'all agree with Doc, that liberals like me wouldn't abide by the law?Liberals abide only by laws that they can't use the courts to undo.

[Bluemoon_Rising]

LMAO! This thread's friggin' hilarious.

[Longhorn_Platinum]

DoctorDoom:
Golly gee whiz, the H-word. How unexpected. :rolleyes: Whenever a liberal is suffering a butt-kicking, out comes "hate" and its variants to evoke gut reactions and attempt to derail the discussion.

:moo: It's probably a corollary to Godwin's law. Ooh_child wasn't quite ready to prove that Godwin was right.

[ConspiracyBuff]

How is your or my straight marriage bond lessened by a gay couple marrying? I've never understood that.

You probably don't understand much of anything then. A marriage between "one man and one women" is a sacrament, not only is it a scarament but it is a bond which is made by the grace of God-whether you agree it is a sacrament or not. That is, He recognizes the bond and it therfore has His approval. God hardly approves of gay marriage. When two butt buddies marry it makes less of your or my marriage bond by demoralizing the entire premise. It takes a large dump on the bond that we would share with our wives via tarnishing the validity of marriage to begin with.

If you don't belive in God, or that he has a hand in your marriage then it is easy to disagree, this is mostly the case of the homos,dykes and the majority of their "bendover- insert here" supporters. They may be in denial of their sinfulness, so in a childish rebellion against normal society and God they lash back by trying to demand "equality". They fail to realize that the marriage bond has more than a superficial meaning to straight couples (as it seems to have with them) who believe in God and that their marriage is graced by Him. What is they deem (in cover) as equality for their minority I call forced intrusion on the majority.....

I have said it in the past, it is my stance on the issue. I don't believe at least 75% of the ones who want to marry do it because they genuinely care about marriage. I think they do it so that they can force their lifestyle on us(we are resistant), make us accept them(we won't), piss us off(they have), get our attention (they have it) or because they want to feel normal for the first time in their lives(oh well, too bad, they are not normal and it is THEY who have to deal with it). They had no problem flying under the radar, practicing their gay sex, living together etc. doing all the things married people do without us and God having to recognize them- until recently.

[ConspiracyBuff]

" Ooh ooh Child things are NOT going to get easierrr, Ooooh oooh Child things are not going to get Brighterrrrr...."

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

P.S.- Does everyone here agree that a compromise isn't possible?

What compromise could possibly be reached that would not compromise the convictions of those who are adamantly against that which is in direct opposition to their faith conviction?

I agree with Fox's assessment: ". . . compromise between good and bad always weakens the good and strengthens the bad."


Do y'all agree with Doc, that liberals like me wouldn't abide by the law?

Absolutely I agree with Doc on this.

How many states have approved a ban on homosexual marriage, and how many homosexual groups have accepted it and NOT continued to pursue changing it through the courts?

When the issue is settled by law, does the left leave it alone, or keep pushing, and pushing and pushing . . . all the way to the Supreme Court if they can? Why then should we even TRY to bring things before the voters, if they are immediately over-ruled by the courts?

It seems that to save this country time and money, we should just side step the "we the people" and go straight to judicial fiat and let the SCOTUS reign supreme. http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/images/icons/sad00000.gif

[DoctorDoom]

Even the SCOTUS is ignored by the homos, e.g., the ruling re the NJ Boy Scouts (http://archives.cnn.com/2000/LAW/06/28/scotus.gay.boyscouts/) that the queers simply ignore in their quest to force the BSA to accept fags as scouts and leaders.