Posted on 07/14/2008 12:59:49 PM PDT by beejaa
Mass. Legislature poised to export our "gay marriage" across the country by repealing "1913 Law". National gay groups pouring in money to lobby. Pressure needed NOW to stop Senate vote Tuesday - (see our new fax feature!)
The national homosexual movement is funding a huge lobbying effort over the next few days to persuade the Massachusetts Legislature to repeal the "1913 Law" which would allow out-of-state "gay" couples to legally "marry" in Massachusetts -- and then cause havoc in their home states. Currently, out-of-state couples can not marry in Massachusetts if that marriage would be illegal in their home state. (See our report with the language of the bill.)
The Massachusetts Senate is scheduled to vote on it on TOMORROW -Tuesday. If it passes the Senate, the House will vote on it later in the week.
Exporting "gay marriage" to cause legal challenges and havoc in other states from Massachusetts has long been a goal of the homosexual movement. But this law has stood in the way. They have tried to repeal it in the past, but with pressure from citizens and MassResistance, it never got out of committee. Now, with only days left in the 2008 legislative session, they suddenly pulled it out of committee and they're trying to push it through into law. The Governor has said he'd sign it.
Money flowing in to lobby legialsture
The national homosexual group "Human Rights Campaign" is funding a quick push to inundate the State House. They are giving MassEquality a $25,000 matching grant. (And that's just what we know about.)
This email was sent by the homosexual lobby group MassEquality to its supporters:
Dear xxxxx,
It's time to put an end to a final strand of marriage discrimination in our Commonwealth: the discriminatory 1913 law that bars out-of-state same-sex couples from marrying here.
The Massachusetts Legislature is planning to take up legislation repealing this outdated law as early as next week. This is the result of intensive lobbying work we've done -- in partnership with the lead Senate champion of the bill, Dianne Wilkerson -- as well as the recent events in California.
Please take action to make sure this bill passes by contacting your legislators today to ask them to repeal the 1913 law.
The recent decision in favor of marriage equality in California, which has no similar law barring out-of-state couples, makes this all the more urgent. We should be encouraging committed couples to come to our state -- the first in the nation to have marriage equality -- to marry, not turning them away at the border.
Click here to send your legislators an email asking them to repeal the 1913 law.
We've brought on board two of the best lobbyists in the State House to help us finish the job on the 1913 law repeal. We need your help to pay for their work.
In fact, we have a special deal for you: for everyone who contributes at least $191.30 to this effort, we will send a note to former Governor Mitt Romney letting him know that a contribution of that amount was made to MassEquality in Mitt's honor to support repeal of the 1913 law (don't worry: we will not share your name with him). Romney turned to that law, which was used to limit the number of interracial marriages performed in Massachusetts, to reject out-of-state gay and lesbian couples.
Thanks, as always, for your support.
Sincerely,
Marc Solomon Executive Director
P.S. GIVE NOW and your gift will be doubled -- matched dollar-for-dollar by a $25,000 grant provided by the Human Rights Campaign.
You can and MUST stop this.
Do not let the homosexual movement do this.
Even if you don't live in Massachusetts, you can still do something. You can call and email our 40 state Senators and read them the riot act. They need to hear from you.
And now you can send a fax to them, too! We've just set up a new system to send faxes to these Senators! You can compose your own message. It gives them a piece of paper to hold in their hands and read. (However, the faxing service is only available to people with a Massachusetts address.)
But everyone - please - take a minute or two to do something. They claim they've brought the "best lobbyists in the State House" to help them "finish the job." Don't let them beat you.
CLICK HERE to take action now: http://www.massresistance.org/fightback/1913_repeal.html
Click on email in red letters. You will get a blank page and then the correct page from MassResistance.
Does anybody out there need any further evidence of why only a Federal Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage will work? OK - then.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Does anybody doubt that such an amendment will never pass the Congress (too may D's & RINOs)? If such an amendment is to be adopted, a Constitutional Convention must be formed. Two-thirds of the State Legislatures are necessary for that to happen.
just an observation: the world has gone certifiably mad in my lifetime.
“Why bother?”
If this law is repealed, it only makes it that much easier for same sex marriage advocates to win in all states across the U.S. Also, remember that California residents will be voting in November on whether or not to keep same sex marriage legal in California. If they vote to protect heterosexual marriage from redefinition, then we only have Massachusetts to contend with. So far, the situation in Mass. has been contained by the 1913 law.
Don’t give up! Babies need mothers; boys especially need fathers. We need to do all we can to protect marriage from being redefined out of existence.
“just an observation: the world has gone certifiably mad in my lifetime.”
I agree. It’s astonishing that so many people simply don’t understand the purpose of marriage (procreation, a stable environment for kids, etc.). Gay rights advocates must be given credit for waging a brilliant public relations campaign. Homosexuals and lesbians have a lot of money and power compared to their numbers and people feel sorry for them because they view them as a victim group.
They must put some kind of mind control agent in the water in Massachusetts.
It works on most people with a certain mental defect (Liberalism).
It’s very curious how this is happening and how the legislature is dealing with marriage.
When the people gathered the needed signatures to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot defining marriage, Mass. law requires that the legislature approve in two consecutive sessions. It was approved the first time, but the second time it was up for a vote, the legislature adjourned rather than take up the issue. So the potential vote of the people on marriage in Mass. died at that time. We’ll have to see if the people’s groups revive the issue in the future.
But on this marriage related issue, now they are apparently fast tracking this repeal of the law which has kept same-sex marriage confined to Mass. residents only.
Why, on the one hand, did the legislature drag their feet and not even consider the people’s petition for a vote on a marriage amendment, but on the other hand, have now decided to fast track new legislation which will allow for same-sex marriage to be exported to other states?????
This isn’t the America my father knew.
I think you have it a little off, The Constiturion has two methods for amendment. From http://www.usconstitution.net/constam.html :
**************************************
There are essentially two ways spelled out in the Constitution for how to propose an amendment. One has never been used.
The first method is for a bill to pass both houses of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states. This is the route taken by all current amendments. Because of some long outstanding amendments, such as the 27th, Congress will normally put a time limit (typically seven years) for the bill to be approved as an amendment (for example, see the 21st and 22nd).
The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions. This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in political science circles about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about.
Regardless of which of the two proposal routes is taken, the amendment must be ratified, or approved, by three-fourths of states. There are two ways to do this, too. The text of the amendment may specify whether the bill must be passed by the state legislatures or by a state convention. See the Ratification Convention Page for a discussion of the make up of a convention. Amendments are sent to the legislatures of the states by default. Only one amendment, the 21st, specified a convention. In any case, passage by the legislature or convention is by simple majority.
The Constitution, then, spells out four paths for an amendment:
Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state conventions (never used)
Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state legislatures (never used)
Proposal by Congress, ratification by state conventions (used once)
Proposal by Congress, ratification by state legislatures (used all other times)
Some left wing people (on the MA legislature and elsewhere) think that they are in the vanguard and compare themselves to civil rights activists of the 1960s. The comparison is not apt, but it allows them to believe that anyone who opposes them is a bigot, motivated by hate, etc. So why would you allow such backwards people to vote?
True. Equating civil rights laws that prevent discrimination based on amoral characteristics with laws that prevent discrimination based on immoral behavior is as confused as the perverse behavior it seeks foist upon the public as normal.
Back when America was overall more influenced by foundational Christian morality, these Massachusetts laws were written, but which they yearly (it seems) to remove as well:
Massachusetts General Laws:
CRIMES, PUNISHMENTS AND PROCEEDINGS IN CRIMINAL CASES
TITLE I.
CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS
CHAPTER 272.
CRIMES AGAINST CHASTITY, MORALITY, DECENCY AND GOOD ORDER
Section 36: Blasphemy
Whoever wilfully blasphemes the holy name of God by denying, cursing or contumeliously [without respect; in a disdainful manner] reproaching God, His creation, government or final judging of the world, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching Jesus Christ or the Holy Ghost, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching or exposing to contempt and ridicule, the holy word of God contained in the holy scriptures shall be punished by imprisonment in jail for not more than one year or by a fine of not more than three hundred dollars, and may also be bound to good behavior.
Section 38: Disturbance of assembly for worship
Whoever wilfully interrupts or disturbs an assembly of people met for worship of God shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than one year or by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars.
Section 14: Adultery
A married person who has sexual intercourse with a person not his spouse or an unmarried person who has sexual intercourse with a married person shall be guilty of adultery and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than three years or in jail for not more than two years or by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars.
Section 15: Polygamy
Whoever, having a former husband or wife living, marries another person or continues to cohabit with a second husband or wife in the commonwealth shall be guilty of polygamy, and be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than five years or in jail for not more than two and one half years or by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars; but this section shall not apply to a person whose husband or wife has continually remained beyond sea, or has voluntarily withdrawn from the other and remained absent, for seven consecutive years, the party marrying again not knowing the other to be living within that time, nor to a person who has been legally divorced from the bonds of matrimony.
PART IV.
Section 17: Incestuous marriage or sexual activities
Persons within degrees of consanguinity [related by blood] within which marriages are prohibited or declared by law to be incestuous and void, who intermarry or have sexual intercourse with each other, or who engage in sexual activities with each other, including but not limited to, oral or anal intercourse, fellatio, cunnilingus, or other penetration of a part of a person’s body, or insertion of an object into the genital or anal opening of another person’s body, or the manual manipulation of the genitalia of another person’s body, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than 20 years or in the house of correction for not more than 21/2 years.
Section 18: Fornication
Section 18. Whoever commits fornication shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than three months or by a fine of not more than thirty dollars.
Section 34: Crime against nature
Whoever commits the abominable and detestable crime against nature, either with mankind or with a beast, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than twenty years.
Section 35: Unnatural and lascivious acts
Whoever commits any unnatural and lascivious act with another person shall be punished by a fine of not less than one hundred nor more than one thousand dollars or by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than five years or in jail or the house of correction for not more than two and one half years.
Section 16: Open and gross lewdness and lascivious behavior A man or woman, married or unmarried, who is guilty of open and gross lewdness and lascivious behavior, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than three years or in jail for not more than two years or by a fine of not more than three hundred dollars.
http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Mass.Gen.Laws.html
How am I a little bit off? We seem to be in agreement.
Who needs California when we have Assachusetts?
We are in synch. I was trying to point out that the Constitution is usually amended without having to convene a constitutional convention.
All sorts of mischief might occur if there is a convention, as there is no limit to what could be proposed. I think there have been multitudes of amendments proposed in Congress, but fortunately most have not made it to the states.
I understand, but:
(1) That mischief already occurs at the Supreme Court, the People and the States notwithstanding; and
(2) Any proposal by a Con-Con could be rejected by the States, so the Con-Con couldn't amend the Constitution unilaterally.
In the end, I don't believe we have anything to fear from a Con-Con. It's better than the nine member one we have now.
The state senate already approved the bill to repeal the 1913 law - by a “voice vote”, the cowards. The house will vote on it later in the week.
Are you from Massachusetts? Even though I live in Virginia, I sent all 40 Mass. senators emails urging them to keep the 1913 law. I’m wondering if I should do the same in connection with House members. I don’t know if it would be a waste of time, but I suppose it couldn’t hurt.
Yes, I’m from Mass. My state senator is a conservative and wouldn’t have voted for this, but I imagine you’d be wasting your time emailing the house members.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.