On Tuesday, the Massachusetts State Senate voted to repeal a law that prohibited non-residents from marrying if their own state would not recognize the marriage. I discussed the bill in a post last week
Wisconsin is not the only state with an archaic law inhibiting same-sex marriage. In 1913, the state of Massachusetts passed a law that said that nonresidents could not get married in Massachusetts if that marriage would not be legal in their home state. The purpose of the law was to prevent out of state interracial couples from getting married. The law was made obsolete by the 1967 Supreme Court ruling that struck down Anti-miscegenation laws.
After the Massachusetts Supreme Court gave gays and lesbians the right to marry, then-Gov. Mitt Romney announced the government would enforce the law to keep Massachusetts from becoming the "Las Vegas of same-sex marriage." Gay rights advocates and their supporters in the state legislature then focused their efforts on appealing the laws. The measure is expected to pass the House next week and Gov. Duval Patrick, whose daughter recently revealed that she is a lesbian, has indicated that he will sign the bill.
The right wing was outraged, with the leader of one "pro-family" organization accusing the "homosexual lobby" of taking control of the state government and subverting democracy:
Brian Camenker, chief of Mass Resistance, watched his state senate in action and described it as "completely orchestrated" by homosexual activists."It was horrible," he said. "It was as if the gays were playing them like a violin."
The voice vote, "was just a sort of murmur and that was it," he said.
"I'll tell you there's no more democracy in Massachusetts, no constitutional government. They were completely being run by the homosexual lobby," he said.
"The general population would never vote for that. The extent to which the state senate just rolled over for the homosexual lobby is absolutely breathtaking," he said.
Those results put the proposed ban in a politically perilous position in the Nov. 4 election, said Mark DiCamillo, director of the nonpartisan Field Poll."Starting out behind is usually an ominous sign for a proposition," DiCamillo said. "Over 90 percent of propositions that start out behind get taken down."
Typically, ballot measures start out ahead, but become less popular as the opposition campaign begins raising questions and creating doubt, he said.
Florida--SayNo2.com and VoteNoOn2.com
California--Equality California and No on 8 Pledge
Arizona--Equality Arizona
|
|
|
Permalink :: 41 Comments :: Post a Comment
|
In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.
If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.
