Legislators vote to defeat same-sex marriage ban (MA)

Boston.com ^ | 6/14/07 | Frank Phillips

[andy58-in-nh]

I am once again overjoyed that I no longer live in the PRM. If your lawmaker had been mine, I would be tempted to call him and ask if he were interested in marrying my pet donkey. If he asked why I’d wanted him to do such a thing, I’d reply that I just want to see him kiss my ass.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

I have to admit that I don't give a rat's ass about this issue. Homos or dykes marrying each other has no effect on my life whatsoever, and from where I sit, I can say that homosexual marriage has certainly not destroyed civic life. In fact, even Howie Carr would admit---and admitted as much yesterday---that only a tiny fraction of homosexuals even bother to get married, and of those who do, the overwhelming majority of them are lesbians, and the number of homosexual marriages has dwindled down from "a few" to "hardly any at all" as of late.

True, I would have preferred to vote on the issue, as I think the people who championed the initiative proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that people wanted to vote on the issue, and that the system circumvented this vote through back-room political maneuvering. But I feel that way because of the political process, and that would be true of any ballot initiative, not simply this one. Homosexual marriage? Who gives a sh*t.

[Andy'smom]

I care a whole lot less about the actual “marriages” than I do about the repercussions that follow. There are school districts in the state that are now indoctrinating school children as young as five and telling them that when they grow up they can marry either a boy or a girl.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

There are school districts in the state that are now indoctrinating school children as young as five and telling them that when they grow up they can marry either a boy or a girl.

I hear you, and I believe it's our duty, as conservative people, to instill in our children the conservative values that will prevent this from being an indoctrination, and make it, rather, a trickling of information akin to "grass is green." You can marry a boy or a girl? Wonderful. You can also jump off a bridge. Would you?

[Andy'smom]

He said something to that effect in 1994 when he ran for the senate against Kennedy. What he meant was discrimination in jobs, housing, etc. At the time gay marriage wasn’t on the radar here.

[beejaa]

“Homos or dykes marrying each other has no effect on my life whatsoever... Homosexual marriage? Who gives a sh*t.”

Let’s change the wording a little. I’ll replace homosexual marriage with poverty and clean up your language.
“Poverty? Who cares about poverty? It has no effect on my life whatsoever.”
It is useful, in other words, to care about things beyond your own backyard.

The reason why so few homosexuals/lesbians bother to get married is because they want to use marriage as a wedge to achieve the rest of their agenda. They are not interested in marriage for its own sake. For example,
Michelangelo Signori, a gay writer and journalist, advocates:
“fight(ing) for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefin(ing) the institution of marrige completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society’s moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution that as it now stands keeps us down. The most subversive action lesbians and gay men can undertake - and one that would perhaps benefit all of society - is to transform the notion of “family” entirely.” “Bridal Wave,” “Out” magazine, Dec./January, 1994, p. 1-D

Notice how he says, “one that would perhaps benefit all of society”. Perhaps it wouldn’t, but who cares?

A little more recently (Sept. 3 - 9, 2003) in the Village Voice, Richard Goldstein wrote in a piece called “The Radical Case for Gay Marriage” that
“Both feminism and gay liberation and developed a potent critique of matrimony, exposing its relationship to repression and patriarchal privilege... Generations of radicals have imagined a world in which the norm-making rules of matrimony are suspended - or at least loosened to suit the way people actually live.” I have no idea what “the way people actually live” refers to. It probably refers to how writers for the “Village Voice” live.

What I don’t entirely get is why they don’t leave marriage alone. They already have the freedom to engage in whatever sexual relationship they want. That’s not good enough for them. They continually attack something that provides the best possible environment for kids. They deny that it provides the best possible environment for kids. They don’t seem to understand that if they “educate” the rest of us to want sexual anarchy, anarchy generally leads to greater repression. Anarchy does not work as social policy. “Gay” rights advocates and feminists actually have no idea at all of what will happen if traditional marriage collapses.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

Let’s change the wording a little. I’ll replace homosexual marriage with poverty and clean up your language. “Poverty? Who cares about poverty? It has no effect on my life whatsoever.” It is useful, in other words, to care about things beyond your own backyard.

Your analogy makes little sense, since poverty effects me only if I am poor, I am attacked for my possessions by someone who is poor, or my property is robbed from me by the government to be redistributed to those who are poor. The latter have little to do with poverty; but much to do with people who take it upon themselves to play the social engineer. In that I am not poor (by the grace of God), poverty, therefore, in and of itself, does not effect me.

Marriage is an "institution," true, but in essence, that institution is made up of the common elements of millions, if not billions, of extremely personal and intimate relationships between individuals. My first marriage, for example, had little, if anything, in common with my marriage now---and my relationship with my wife is certainly not influenced by my neighbor's relationship with his wife, or my other neighbor's relationship with his wife, or the relationship between my two neighbors who lived with each other before they were married.

I submit that the ability of one homosexual to marry another homosexual legally, in the state of Massachusetts, has done absolutely nothing to "normalize" homosexuality. The nature of a homosexual relationship matters very little, since what makes homosexuality abnormal is the very existence of a sexual relationship between people of the same sex. The fact that homosexual relationships can now be thought of---quite flimsily, at that---in this quasi-legal manner is hardly something to promote homosexuality as a lifestyle to those not inclined towards homosexuality themselves.

So we're to sweat over this one tiny fraction of a minority? We're really that fearful for our society? We really want to deprive our fellow men and women the tiny bit of happiness they might derive from thinking of themselves as married?

[Honorary Serb]

Disgusting!!!!

[massgopguy]

Nyman is the worst offender. He actually ran for office as a pro-traditional marriage candidate. THUMBS DOWN ON ALL!

[Andy'smom]

Wow, is he a new rep?

[tuesday afternoon]

I submit that the ability of one homosexual to marry another homosexual legally, in the state of Massachusetts, has done absolutely nothing to "normalize" homosexuality. The nature of a homosexual relationship matters very little, since what makes homosexuality abnormal is the very existence of a sexual relationship between people of the same sex.

And I believe you are wrong. The recent brouhaha over Dr. Holsinger's paper exposed the MSM's agenda to normalize homosexuality. And, as has been pointed out to you, children in MA and elsewhere are being indoctrinated into accepting homosexuallity as normal. If you don't think kids can be influenced to experiment, then you've never seen a "Girls Gone Wild" commercial.

[beejaa]

Gay rights proponents definitely want to be social engineers and they’re not interested in “live and let live”. They’re attacking tradition. They want everyone and everything in the way of their agenda to change for them and claim that anyone telling them to change is “homophobic”. The Episcopal church has to change for them; they want the Boy Scouts to change for them. They’re indoctrinating children as young as 5 years old to accept “diversity” in families, as other people here have noted. Gay marriage never existed in all of recorded history until very recently. Now we’re being told that we’re “racists” and “bigots” for not jumping onto this radical, untested bandwagon. Gay marriage states that marriage has nothing in particular to do with children; it’s all about adult desire and preferences. Any community requires norms and restrictions. It’s not all about individual freedom and choice. We only have freedom and choice because of social restraints. Once social restraints become too loose, individual freedom is lost. There’s not enough to bind us together.

[fwdude]

I could be irrationally optimistic about the repercussions of this vote, but perhaps there will be a conservative backlash in the next legislative election in MA. I’m sure this loss by pro-marriage forces is reverberating across the country, solidifying conservative resolve somewhat, for the next election. Hope I’m right.

[seamusnh]

It would be nice if this were a tipping point and the people of MA voted a few conservative Republicans into office to balance the power in MA.
I grew up in MA and work there now, but live in NH. I have followed this closely.
The citizens put together 170,000 votes to put this question on the ballot. The pols stalled it until a judge ordered them to vote on it at the constitutional convention. Now, the gay lobby got enough politicians to change their votes so the ballot question will not be there in 2008.
Governor Deval Patick described this as a “victory”. A victory over what - the will of the people? 170,000 people want a vote. 4 judges created gay marriage in MA. Now, 151 legistlators are denying people the vote.

[seamusnh]

And, this has nothing to do with Romney. He campaigned to get more Republicans in the state house and senate. Didn’t work out very well...

[puroresu]

The reason this is an important issue is that it does impact other aspects of our society. Proponents of same-sex “marriage” have tried to create an illusion that this is a private, individual rights issue. This is a calculated, deceitful argument designed to lure in “libertarian” type conservatives. “Oh, yeah, I think same-sex ‘marriage’ is silly, but it doesn’t impact my life, and if it makes gays happy to think they’re ‘married’, I say live and let live.”

The problem there is multifold. First, it’s an Orwellian redefinition of what constitutes a marriage. God and/or nature (I won’t get into that side discussion here) gave us two sexes. Those sexes bond together in a natural way. We call such bonding marriage when it’s intended to be permanent. Two people of the same sex thus CAN’T marry. To call such relationships “marriage” is as ludicrous as passing a law declaring live horses to be inanimate objects. It wouldn’t make them inanimate objects, and it probably wouldn’t impact the lives of most citizens directly, but we should all be damned concerned that our government was arrogant or idiotic enough to do this, because a government so deviant could literally do almost anything.

But, of course, same-sex “marriage” does impact our lives in many ways. We’re already seeing some of those ways. Others will come in future years as people like yourself (and I don’t mean this offensively) are simply worn down by the process and the manipulation of language.

Children are now propagandized in favor of homosexuality in the schools. Male anal sodomy is taught as being just as natural as real intercourse. People who object are told to shut up. Children are now being adopted by homosexual couples. Adoption services in Massachusetts that refuse to place these innocent children in this situation are being forced to close down. Catholic charities can no longer participate in helping orphaned children find homes because they won’t “provide services” to same-sex couples. Their freedom of religion is trumped by the newly-minted “right” to same-sex “marriage”.

Dating and matchmaking services are now being hauled into court with the demand that they provide these services to homosexuals.

Do you own a hotel and do you limit your honeymoon suites to male-female newlyweds? Sorry, the state will soon dictate that you provide those suites to homo couples. Do you own a restaurant and wish to offer Valentine’s Day specials to couples? Well, you’d better include homo pairings or the wrath of the state will be upon you.

Want to speak out against the homosexual agenda? Sorry, we have new hate speech laws. Do you tell your kids that homosexuality is immoral or unnatural? Then you’ll be in big trouble when you’re nominated to a judgeship or other post. You’ll be raked over the coals and forced to apologize for your “homophobia”. One of President Bush’s judicial nominees was actually rejected because he refused to take his small children to DisneyWorld on “gay day”, when perverts roam the park in drag, dress up like Mickey & Donald and pretend to sodomize one another, etc.

Wait’ll a future FCC orders all advertisers to include a percentage of homo couples in their ads.

Wait’ll churches get hauled into court and ordered to either perform same-sex “marriages” or lose their tax exemption.

Wait’ll the narrow 5-4 ruling protecting the Boy Scouts from having to send little boys on camping trips with homosexual scoutmasters gets reversed.

The homosexual agenda impacts us all. And it impacts people of faith, people with traditional values, and children most of all.

[Sons of Union Vets]

I see your point, and if these critters were simply content to “get married” and let it go at that, it would be one thing, but here in Massachusetts, they are also trying to indoctrinate our kids in the public schools. Case in point: David Parker from Lexington, MA. He wasn’t even trying to tell the school what to teach. All he wanted was to be notified so that he could opt his kid out of being “desensitized” Translation:”Brainwashed into regarding sodomy, etc. as perfectly “acceptable” and “normal” sexual activity.

Sounds to me like the gays are looking for “fresh meat.”

[Hemingway's Ghost]

And, as has been pointed out to you, children in MA and elsewhere are being indoctrinated into accepting homosexuallity as normal.

I'm sorry, but no amount of social indoctrination will make homosexuality "normal," as in "the norm." Human beings simply aren't wired that way. The overwhelming majority of us will prefer to have sexual relationships with the opposite sex. Homosexuality may become increasingly tolerated, but I don't think I would be going out on a limb by saying heterosexuality will always be the norm.

If you don't think kids can be influenced to experiment, then you've never seen a "Girls Gone Wild" commercial.

I have seen plenty of them.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

Honestly---and I truly mean no offense---it sounds like a whole bunch of paranoia to me. I am just not afraid of homosexuals taking over the world and ruining it for the rest of us, because no matter how you slice it, (a) homosexuals constitute fewer than ten percent of the population, at most, and (b) no amount of indoctrination or social engineering can disguise the fact that in order to be a homosexual, one must have a sexual desire for members of the same sex. That type of desire just isn't found in the overwhelming majority of us.

The only instance in which your case strikes a chord with me is the schooling instance, but then again---this is really one small portion of a larger issue, in that schools should not be teaching this sort of thing at all. Rather, schools should be teaching things like English, math, science, and history.