Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Massachusetts preps to recognize out-of-state same-sex marriages....Fundies go batshit!

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
marmar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-18-08 08:52 AM
Original message
Massachusetts preps to recognize out-of-state same-sex marriages....Fundies go batshit!
from the American Family Association's One News Now:



Mass. '1913 law' being misrepresented
Jeff Johnson - OneNewsNow - 7/17/2008 6:00:00 AM



Pro-family advocates in Massachusetts say their opponents are using falsehoods to get homosexual "marriage" legalized for out-of-state, same-sex couples.

Massachusetts legalized same-sex marriage in 2004. But because of a 1913 marriage federalism law, residents of other states can only marry in Massachusetts if their marriages would be legal in their home states. That means only homosexual couples who are residents of Massachusetts can get "married" there.

First, homosexual activists sued to overturn the 1913 law. When that failed, they turned to their supporters in the state legislature. The Massachusetts Senate repealed the law Tuesday, and the House is expected to vote on doing so this week. But Kris Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute, says homosexual activists are being dishonest in their efforts to get the law repealed.

"We decry our opponents' accusations that this law was a racist law," he exclaims. "This is the pressure that's being put on legislators here in Massachusetts, that the 1913 law was based on attempting to ban interracial marriages -- which absolutely makes no sense because, in 1843, Massachusetts the second state to stop the ban on interracial marriages. And there's no reason on earth that Massachusetts, 70 years later, would try to ban interracial marriages in other states." ......(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.onenewsnow.com/Legal/Default.aspx?id=180566 .... and if it gets Rick-rolled, you can access the story at www.afa.net





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
bdamomma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-18-08 08:53 AM
Response to Original message
1. too bad for the fundis!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenPartyVoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-18-08 10:26 AM
Response to Reply #1
7. Indeed!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ian David Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-18-08 08:57 AM
Response to Original message
2. See also: Cowardly = Unanimous? and One More Strike and You're Out!
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Cowardly = Unanimous?
Well, is it any surprise that MassResistance is SHOCKED, SHOCKED I tell you, that the Senate voted to repeal the racist 1913 law:

Mass. Senate repeals “1913 Law” to allow out-of-state gays to “marry” in MA using voice vote. Members too cowardly to go on record.


Uh, Brian, the Mass Senate voted unanimously to repeal this racist law...that means EVERYONE voted to repeal it. Let me repeat that, EVERYONE VOTED TO REPEAL THE 1913 LAW. How much more on the record is there?

I'm betting the real reason they're so pissed is that Brian Camenker only got "a few seconds" of air time by the local media.

Quotation Count for this latest MassResistance Rant: Too many to count

More:
http://massresistancewatch.blogspot.com/2008/07/cowardly-unanimous.html



Also:


Tuesday, July 15, 2008
One More Strike and You're Out!
Well it's looks like MassResistance is batting 0-2 so far this week.



First off, they sent an email out to their followers to "read the riot act" to the Massachusetts State senators to stop them from removing bigotry from the law. They even got Porno Pete to put a blurb on his Americans for Hate website with a link to the State Senate's email addresses (funny, MassResistance doesn't provide a link on their website to this page even though it can be found elsewhere on the MassResistance site...) Of course, the State Senate voted to repeal the racist 1913 law, so much for MassResistance bombarding the State House.



Secondly, the Massachusetts House voted for a MassHealth Equality Bill:


Malia filed the MassHealth Equality Bill, H.B. 4107, to remedy the fact that because MassHealth relies on federal as well as state funding, same-sex married couples, whose marriages are not recognized at the federal level, are not treated as spouses under the program, which can pose serious financial hardships for couples should one partner require long-term nursing home care, among other issues. If signed into law by Gov. Deval Patrick, it would require MassHealth to recognize the marriages of same-sex couples and have the state pick up the cost of services for those couples that are denied by the federal government.



Now the repeal of the 1913 law has to go to the House (which it's expected to do this week) and the MassHealth bill has to go to the Senate (no word on when).



Ooh, MassResistance has those legislators shaking in their boots now!

More:
http://massresistancewatch.blogspot.com/2008/07/one-more-strike-and-youre-out.html


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TechBear_Seattle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-18-08 09:03 AM
Response to Original message
3. It is the Talibangelicals who are misrepresenting the law
But no surprise there. :eyes:

Massachusetts repealed their antimiscegenation law in 1843, yes. But 70 years latter had a different governor and different legislature. The law was put in specifically to appease other states that still had racist marriage laws, who feared that residents would go to other states to get married, then return and force the racist bigots to recognize the marriage. Virginia and several other states went so far as to make it a criminal offense for residents to leave and enter into a mixed-race marriage; see Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court case that struck down racist marriage laws.

The thrust of the Talibangelical argument seems to be that, because the MA law was not explicitly racist, it wasn't racist at all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rox63 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-18-08 09:30 AM
Response to Original message
4. I am so damn proud of my home state
And watching the fundies' heads explode is fun too. :) :popcorn:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Iggo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-18-08 09:37 AM
Response to Original message
5. Good. Fundies need to go batshit.
Now THAT'S entertainment!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PLE Donating Member (11 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-18-08 09:50 AM
Response to Original message
6. Is it just
coincidental that these issues (designed to bring out the right-wingnuts) only get trotted out on presidential election years? Fundies are being played by Repugs again and again and again.

Also, take note of the MSM's mad search for a "missing blonde" story to swallow up chunks of the 24-hour news cycle heading into the Fall.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Iggo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-18-08 10:38 AM
Response to Reply #6
8. They had a live news conference this morning...
...on CNN about some missing woman or other. ("She's afraid she'll never see her twin sister again!")

I'm sad and I hope they find her sister, but there's missing people everywhere. That's for local news.

I'm kinda more concerned about the two wars in the middle east, and the third one coming.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 09:55 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC