Friday, July 24, 2009

How Vote on Marriage Lied to You

Photobucket I think it is important to always look back on events in our lives and analyze them carefully even if they bring back hurtful memories. One specific event in my life that I have looked back on is the Marriage Amendment campaign in Massachusetts that failed on June 24, 2007 at the Constitutional Convention.

Prior to this day in history many facts about Vote on Marriage, the "pro-family" organization now known as the Coalition for Marriage & Family that orchastrated the amendment process along with the Massachusetts Family Institute (MFI), have come to light. There is no other easier way to present this information to you other than for you to read the facts that are clearly spelled out in a rebuttle to an e-mail to Tom Shields, former board member of Massachusetts Family Institute and Vote on Marriage.
Many of you will take this info "as a grain of salt", others will not even read 25% of it because they have been told by Kris Mineau, President of the Mass. Family Institute, that they did all they could to preserve marriage in Massachusetts. A lot of you have deep ties to the Coalition and MFI and have spent countless hours in their offices doing voluntary work to protect the traditional family. The info below will be mocked, manipulated and disenvowed. All I ask of you is to refute what is being said. Nothing more, nothing less. Help me understand where the facts go awry.
Read about how The Lie has spread by clicking HERE.

11 Comments:

Blogger The New Village Atheist said...

Jeez Scia, will you ever get it? I mean come on man, get with the program. We’ve discussed this before and you even said you wanted to discuss it with me further. It continued for a short time and then you just stopped and said no more about it.

Here are some points I wish to make:

1 If SSM is truly illegal why isn’t there a single lawyer anywhere in the US of A willing to take it to court? You are not going to be able to convince me that there aren’t enough funds for it.

2 If SSM is still illegal what do we do?

3 Why does John Haskins and “Robert Paine Esq” continually take this quote completely out of context every frickin time they use it? “We conclude, as did the judge, that G. L. c. 207 may not be construed to permit same-sex couples to marry.”

Why not include more of the next page if this quote is so damming? Well if they won’t I will


The larger question is whether, as the department claims, government action that bars same-sex couples from civil marriage constitutes a legitimate exercise of the State's authority to regulate conduct, or whether, as the plaintiffs claim, this categorical marriage exclusion violates the Massachusetts Constitution. We have recognized the long-standing statutory understanding, derived from the common law, that "marriage" means the lawful union of a woman and a man. But that history cannot and does not foreclose the constitutional question.



All I can say to those of you that want to blindly believe that SSM’s are still illegal in MA is it’s time to stop crying; grow up, pull your fingers out of your ears, and start trying to make it illegal. I will still fight you, but at least you can concentrate on future battles and not the battles you have already lost.

4:01 AM, July 26, 2009  
Blogger SCIA said...

Ken,

Good to hear from you. I have been away on vaca with the family and I am glad to be back.

You said:

"If SSM is truly illegal why isn’t there a single lawyer anywhere in the US of A willing to take it to court?"

It is in the works my friend.

You quote:

'We have recognized the long-standing statutory understanding, derived from the common law, that "marriage" means the lawful union of a woman and a man. But that history cannot and does not foreclose the constitutional question.'

"Common law is subordinate to statutory law". AKA: M.G.L. Ch 207still stands.

Sorry Ken, the facts stand.

6:13 PM, July 26, 2009  
Blogger The New Village Atheist said...

“It is in the works my friend.”

What has taken so long? Any idea how much longer? If a lawyer does take this issue to the courts and the courts final decision is that SSM’s are legal would you finally admit they are legal?

“M.G.L. Ch 207still stands.”

207 makes no determination of the legality of SSM’s; if you know where in 207 it does determine SSM legality I challenge you to provide for us all that part.

Until then your “207 still stands” means nothing.

Where’d you go on vacation? Wherever you went I am jealous!

3:31 AM, July 27, 2009  
Blogger John Hosty-Grinnell said...

Haskins, do you have a law degree or are you simply attempting to outargue a lawyer on law matters from ignorance?

How interesting that your entire "staff" goes on vacation with you. ;) Perhaps when they get fully back to the chalk board they can fix the gramatical and factual errors in the article. The Constitutional Convention was June 14, 2007 not July 24, 2007. ;)

Romney is old news, this is worth bothering with.

8:25 AM, August 01, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It is most gratifying to see that the anti-gay hatemongers are still spinning their wheels in the past. Like all entities whose time is past, they will fade away into obscurity, leaving the those of us who do not choose to believe their repressive and hate-driven rhetoric to march boldly into the light of a new day filled with hope.

Equality for all. Simple, isn't it?

9:38 AM, August 13, 2009  
Blogger SCIA said...

Anonymous,

You describe "hate" as one with a differing opinion?? Why?

I am sure we will not hear from you because you know that your approach to this issue is wrong.

Thanks for stopping by.

7:01 PM, August 18, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Homosexuals Shun 'Marriage' While Pro-Family Citizens Defend It

Back in April, homosexual activists in Montpelier, Vermont's state capital, managed to get 100 votes in the state's House--the bare minimum necessary--to legalize counterfeit "marriages" for homosexuals.

That law took effect today, but the number of same-sex couples who had applied for marriage licenses in Montpelier was--zero.

The same for Brattleboro and Manchester. In Burlington , the state's largest city, there had been only three.

Again, we see that the push to legally recognize homosexual unions is not based on any need for the "benefits" of marriage, or desire to "marry."

Instead, it's about providing affirmation of homosexuality itself.

Fortunately, pro-family activists across the country continue to defend authentic marriage.

4:59 PM, September 01, 2009  
Blogger The New Village Atheist said...

“Again, we see that the push to legally recognize homosexual unions is not based on any need for the "benefits" of marriage, or desire to "marry."”

Sometimes I don’t carry my gun with me. Sometimes I don’t close the shades. Sometimes I don’t speak my mind. Heck, sometimes I don’t even vote. Does that mean I shouldn’t have those rights? Does the fact that I don’t exercise all of my rights daily mean that I never should have had those rights?

1:36 AM, September 02, 2009  
Blogger John Hosty-Grinnell said...

"Again, we see that the push to legally recognize homosexual unions is not based on any need for the "benefits" of marriage, or desire to "marry."

I've been with the same person for 15 years now. In those 15 years I've had my house burn to the ground, he's been mugged, both of our grandparents have passed away and I have survived cancer. When I found out I had cancer it was his love and support that gave me the strength to face all these struggles and persevere.

Why does society need laws that prevent him from visiting me when I was in the hospital?

8:16 AM, September 02, 2009  
Blogger SCIA said...

John,

Re-read what you just said:

"Why does society need laws that prevent him from visiting me when I was in the hospital?"

What law would EVER prevent someone, either homosexual or heterosexual, from VISITING you in the hospital?

7:51 PM, September 02, 2009  
Blogger John Hosty-Grinnell said...

When you are in intensive care often hospitals will restrict visitors to family members. Gay life partners were denied access to the one they loved, and in some states this is still legal.

Did you really not know that or are you just trying to be snarky?

1:09 PM, September 04, 2009  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Powered by Blogger

Sign my Guestbook from Bravenet.com Get your Free Guestbook from Bravenet.com