Watch out, America . . .
MA Legislature resurrects bill to repeal “1913 Law” to placate homosexual lobby. Would destabilize MA marriage laws allowing out-of-state residents to marry here.
Senate and House will vote next week – TAKE ACTION (see below)!
Thursday, July 10, 2008
As the final few weeks of the session wind down, the Massachusetts legislature has decided to resurrect the controversial attempt to repeal the "1913 Law" - which the homosexual lobby has been crusading for and which is one of their "goals" for 2008. Rumors had been swirling around in the "gay" press about this. Last week it was on the front page of the Boston Globe.
The bill would destabilize the Massachusetts marriage laws (see details below). Currently no out-of-state couple can get "married" in Massachusetts if that marriage would not be legal in their home state. This would overturn that law (passed by several states in 1913) and allow any homosexual couple in America to get "married" here - and cause havoc in their home states. (It would also cause Massachusetts to be a "gay marriage" capital of the world. If you think "gay pride week" was bad, imagine seeing it all year around.)
Repealing this law is a major goal of the homosexual movement, in order to help spread homosexual "marriage" around the country. Couples from across America would come here, get "married" and then demand (using court challenges) that their home states legally recognize those marriages because of the US Constitution's "full faith and credit" clause. See MassResistance Blog report from June, 2007
Stopped earlier this year by MassResistance
Earlier this year, MassResistance successfully lobbied against this bill, despite the push by the "gay" movement. We gave very hard-hitting testimony at the public hearing, and warned the Judiciary Committee it would be vigorously opposed from all over America. As a result, on May 1 the Committee "killed" it by putting it into a "study."
But the recent events in California have apparently energized the homosexual lobby. They apparently persuaded Sen. Robert Creedon (D-Brockton), Senate Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, to take the unusual step of resurrecting it from the study to be voted on. Creedon, normally a pro-life, moderately pro-family senator, isn't running for re-election this fall. According to press reports, Sen. Diane Wilkerson (D-Mattapan), who led the charge to push for huge taxpayer-funding for homosexual programs in the schools, is the major force behind this also.
Here's what it does
Here is the wording of the bill (S800):
AN ACT CONCERNING MARRIAGE LAWS
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:
SECTION 1. Chapter 207 of the General Laws is hereby amended by repealing sections 11, 12, 13 and 50.
This would repeal the following four statutes:
Chapter 207: Section 11. No marriage shall be contracted in this commonwealth by a party residing and intending to continue to reside in another jurisdiction if such marriage would be void if contracted in such other jurisdiction, and every marriage contracted in this commonwealth in violation hereof shall be null and void.
Chapter 207: Section 12. Before issuing a license to marry a person who resides and intends to continue to reside in another state, the officer having authority to issue the license shall satisfy himself, by requiring affidavits or otherwise, that such person is not prohibited from intermarrying by the laws of the jurisdiction where he or she resides.
Chapter 207: Section 13. The three preceding sections shall be so interpreted and construed as to effectuate their general purpose to make uniform the law of those states which enact like legislation.
Chapter 207: Section 50. Any official issuing a certificate of notice of intention of marriage knowing that the parties are prohibited by section eleven from intermarrying, and any person authorized to solemnize marriage who shall solemnize a marriage knowing that the parties are so prohibited, shall be punished by a fine of not less than one hundred or more than five hundred dollars or by imprisonment for not more than one year, or both.
Stupid and absurd arguments.
The arguments that the homosexual lobby are dishonest and logically absurd, but nevertheless the politicians seem to believe them. In particular, they claim that the law was originally passed by Massachusetts to support miscegenation laws which kept blacks and whites from marrying each other. There's no factual evidence whatsoever to support that reasoning - nor do they offer any. Certainly, Massachusetts did not prohibit blacks and whites from marrying at the time that law was passed.
Here's the ridiculous statement that Gov. Deval Patrick gave to the homosexual newspaper Bay Windows:
"I still think the 1913 law should be repealed, and if the legislature takes it up I look forward to signing it. This is about dealing with a Massachusetts statute that has very shady origins going back to a time of lawful racial discrimination and that has concerned me for a long time. If the bill does come to me, I look forward to signing it."
The other reason the gay lobby gives is that it's not "fair" to homosexuals. But under that logic it's also "unfair" to brothers and sisters, 13-year-olds. Furthermore, the current law applies to everyone the same way.
WHAT YOU CAN DO
According to news reports, the Senate plans to vote on this on Tuesday. If it passes, the House will vote on it later that week.
Pick three or four legislators. Make some phone calls. Send them some emails. Read them the riot act. EVEN IF YOU LIVE OUTSIDE OF MASSACHUSETTS, let them hear from you - because this will affect you, too!!
Here's the link to the emails, phone numbers, and websites of all 40 Senators.
Link to the 40 Massachusetts Senators
This legislative session thankfully ends on July 31. Don't let it end this way.
Homosexual lobbyist Arlene Isaacson and activist Patrick Guerriero (representing homosexual millionaire Tim Gill) at the State House. Lurking over Guerriero's shoulder . . . Bay Windows [homosexual newspaper] reporter!
Other "bad" bills coming back from study?
The first thing that came to our minds is: Are there any other "bad" bills coming out for a vote? For example, H1722, the transgender hate crimes bill? We called the House and Senate Judiciary Committee offices. As far as they know, none of the other bills currently in study are coming out.
What we ought to learn from this.
When the "gay marriage" fight erupted in 2003, many well-funded pro-family groups thought it would be an easier fight if they were to compromise on the "concept" of marriage by dropping opposition to civil unions or domestic partnerships. So they concentrated on the word "marriage", and ignoring the fact that civil unions were the same thing under another name. They also refused to make any references to the dangers homosexuality.
This strategy failed, and continues to fail. As a result, the homosexual lobby was able to ingrain the concept of homosexual relationships being "legitimate" in the minds of public officials, without conflict from the well-funded pro-family groups. That concept is still there.
So we're needing to roll up our sleeves and root it out now. Our lesson here is never to be afraid to tell the truth.