Today was a huge day for agenda-pushing propaganda, so let's get it started....
PAGE ONE LEAD:
"A curb on gay marriage will fall; Repeal of 1913 law goes next to Patrick; Nonresidents to get right to wed in Mass." by Eric Moskowitz, Globe Staff | July 30, 2008
In a major victory for advocates of same-sex marriage rights, the House voted by a wide margin yesterday to repeal a 95-year-old law that prevents gay and lesbian couples from most other states from marrying here, setting the stage for Massachusetts to join just one other state, California, in allowing same-sex couples to marry regardless of residence.
With all the problems this state has, it being on the verge of bankruptcy and all, and this is what they are spending their time on.
I guess when they are looting the place, this is the best they can do.
The repeal was among many measures considered yesterday by lawmakers, who must wrap up their work for 2008 by midnight tomorrow. Among the decisions, the Senate passed a bill to allow registration on Election Day, while the House budget committee rejected Patrick's request for expanded powers to cut budget line items without legislative approval.
Neither House nor Senate votes on the issue drew protesters to the State House. Advocates cited the absence of demonstrations as a sign that same-sex marriage has become an accepted fact of life in Massachusetts.
Unfortunately, yup.
Unlike what happened in the earlier debate in the Senate, several representatives called yesterday for keeping the law on the books. Representative Mary S. Rogeness, a Longmeadow Republican, said that the Supreme Judicial Court in its 2003 ruling legalizing gay marriage said the 1913 law would keep couples from marrying in Massachusetts and challenging marriage laws elsewhere. She warned that repeal might invite young couples from states with stricter age laws to take advantage of the Massachusetts provision that allows minors to seek marriage through a court hearing, with parental approval.
"We in Massachusetts pride ourselves on being a very progressive state and hold in a certain amount of disrespect states that might have teenaged marriages," she said.
You mean, like the Texas Mormons?
Yup, the ONE TIME they mention western Mass. it is in the context of us being a bunch of bigots or rubes!
Sorry to burst your propaganda bubble, but have you been out to the lesbian capital of the world, a.k.a. Northampton?
Been to all the liberal, left-wing colleges in the area?
Just being rhetorical, because I know we don't exist to you elite Boston stinkshits other than to be shat on with insults.
Well, right back at ya!!!!
Same-sex marriage advocates in Massachusetts and beyond celebrated the vote.
Of course they did!
In other legislation addressed yesterday, lawmakers passed a bill that gives greater access to treatments for patients with substance abuse problems, autism, eating disorders, or post-traumatic stress disorder. Known as the "mental health parity bill," the measure, passed by the House and Senate, allows coverage for treatments of the four conditions, to go along with those that current law requires health insurers to provide full coverage for.
Yeah, let's expand coverage when we already can't pay for what we have.
Sigh.
Other votes:
The Senate voted to implement Election Day voter registration, a proposal proponents say will increase voter rolls by hundreds of thousands.
Like there are hundreds of thousands of unregistered voters chomping at the bit!!
This has the STINK of a LIE and VOTE FRAUD, folks!!!
The House rejected budget amendments authorizing a three-month gas tax holiday, and increasing solar power tax credits."
WTF, Mass. residents?
The GLOBAL-WARMING, etc, is JUST a bunch of HOT FART MIST, huh?
By the way, I'm not the only one who sees the GAY AGENDA being advanced in the pages of the Globe:
"He feels paper's pushing gay agenda
ENOUGH ALREADY with the Globe's gay agenda. How many front-page stories do we have to see to know that your agenda is to promote the gay/lesbian lifestyle? The July 21 article "Bloom's off the brick row house: Buyers picking modern high-rise over classic style" could and should have been written from the heterosexual perspective. What you're writing about is not a gay issue, it's a human issue, and casting the story in a manner to feature gays is inappropriate. It's time to straighten out, and I mean that in all senses of the word.
ROY EINREINHOFERUxbridge
Also see: She's a S***, House!
