Nothing proves it as much as the one-sided and biased coverage they give this particular issue.
"Senate votes to repeal 1913 law; Bill to OK wedding of nonresident gays now goes to House" by Eric Moskowitz, Globe Staff | July 16, 2008
The state Senate voted swiftly and unanimously yesterday to strike down a 95-year-old law that blocks gay and lesbian couples from most other states from being married in Massachusetts, drawing condemnation from Catholic Church leaders but delivering a victory for advocates who have fought for the repeal and who say that same-sex marriage has become an accepted part of the state's culture.
Been around less than five years and its part of the culture already!
The atmosphere during Senate deliberations lacked most of the drama of previous Beacon Hill debates over gay marriage. There were no chanting protesters outside, and not a voice on the Senate floor was raised against the repeal.
Would the Globe have reported them if there were?
See: The Protests the Boston Globe Did Not Cover
Advocates of same-sex marriage rights are hopeful the repeal will pass the House and be signed by Governor Deval Patrick before the end of the month. If that happens, the last obstacle to same-sex marriage in Massachusetts for nonresidents would be removed, making the state the second to allow gay and lesbian couples to marry regardless of their place of residence.
Sponsors said the relative quiet surrounding the State House debate was evidence that same-sex marriage has become much less divisive in Massachusetts since it was first permitted in May 2004, following a 2003 decision by the state's Supreme Judicial Court.
And this was altered ever so slightly, can you believe it? Why?
The church statement did not address the racist roots of the 1913 law, which grew out of the national backlash over the interracial marriage of heavyweight boxing champion Jack Johnson, Wilkerson said. At the time, 30 of 48 states banned interracial marriage, and many other states, including Massachusetts, enacted provisions that would keep interracial couples from crossing borders to marry in their jurisdiction.
Translation: The church is racist as well as homophobic, right?
The law remained on the books but fell into obscurity until gay marriage became legalized in Massachusetts, and Governor Mitt Romney cited the law as a means to prevent Massachusetts from becoming what he called "the Las Vegas of gay marriage."
It was not immediately clear yesterday when the House will consider the bill. Speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi supports repealing the law by the end of this session, which closes formally July 31, a DiMasi spokesman said yesterday. The repeal bill can go directly to the House floor without first needing review by a House committee, spokesman David Guarino said in an e-mail.
Arline Isaacson, cochairwoman of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus, predicted that the House would pass the measure.
Kris Mineau, who has lobbied against the repeal as president of the Massachusetts Family Institute, said he hopes the House will deliberate at greater length on the bill and consider the "legal quagmire" that could result for other states if their residents flock to Massachusetts to marry.
You know, I HADN'T THOUGHT of that!!!
And neither have the SELFISH GAYS and their agenda-pushing friends who want to destroy the family unit!!
Advocates of unrestricted same-sex marriage have described the possible economic benefits for the state. A recent study commissioned by the Executive Office of Housing and Economic Development predicted that Massachusetts would receive $111 million in wedding and travel spending and $5 million in taxes and marriage-license fees in the first three years.
The same nonprofit institute that prepared that estimate calculated that California, as a result of a May court decision legalizing gay marriage there regardless of residency, would reap nearly $700 million in same-sex wedding travel and tourism.
Along those lines, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger invited same-sex couples two months ago to visit California and bolster its tourism economy. Many New York couples have been planning trips to California to get married, now that Governor David Paterson has directed all state agencies to recognize same-sex marriages granted in other states. But those trips could be rerouted if lawmakers in Massachusetts repeal the 1913 law.
Alan Van Capelle, executive director of Empire State Pride Agenda, a statewide lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender advocacy organization in New York:
"There will be a lot of
--MORE--"
I really don't care how much $$$ they offer to buy us off, I really don't want my state being the Las Vegas of gay marriage!!
It's bad enough we have the lesbian capital of the world, 'kay?
Get the fuck out of our face on this issue, will ya?
Nope!
Check out how one-sided this article is.
I was astonished.
NEW YORK - Advocates for gay and lesbian families are denouncing Senator John McCain, an adoptive father himself, for opposing adoptions by gays, which prompted his presidential campaign to clarify yesterday that he does not seek a federal ban on the practice.
Only one state, Florida, outlaws gay adoptions, which have become commonplace in much of the nation. The presumptive Republican nominee was asked for his views on the subject in an interview published Sunday in The
McCain replied: "I think that we've proven that both parents are important in the success of a family so, no, I don't believe in gay adoption."
Watch, this will end up being the big issue in the campaign!
McCain then remarked that he and his wife, Cindy, were proud to be adoptive parents of a daughter born in Bangladesh, and he encouraged others to adopt. Asked whether those adopting should be a "traditional couple," McCain answered, "Yes."
The responses were condemned by gay and lesbian groups.
Kara Suffredini, public policy director for the Family Equality Council:
"He's completely out of touch. There's no reason, except for the sake of red meat for his base, to throw up screens in the way of children in foster care getting homes."
Jody Huckaby, executive director of Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, said McCain's comments were especially dismaying because more than 100,000 children are in foster care waiting to be adopted:
"Senator McCain would deny loving homes to children who desperately need them simply because of an outdated prejudice about what a family may look like."
Yesterday, as criticism of McCain's comments spread, his campaign said:
"[The Arizona senator] could have been clearer in the interview in stating that his position on gay adoption is that it is a state issue. . . . He was not endorsing any federal legislation. Senator McCain's expressed his personal preference for children to be raised by a mother and a father wherever possible. However, as an adoptive father himself, McCain believes children deserve loving and caring home environments, and he recognizes that there are many abandoned children who have yet to find homes. John McCain believes that in those situations that caring parental figures are better for the child than the alternative."
Yeah, I AGREE on the STATES RIGHTS because that is what is CONSTITUTIONAL!!!
Thanks for trying to WRECK the CONSTITUTION, gays!!!!
And how come the gays (like the Jews) exercise undue influence relative to their population figures?
I think we all know why at this point.
McCain's Democratic rival, Barack Obama, supports adoption rights for gays and lesbians. An estimated 65,000 children have been adopted by gays and lesbians, according to advocacy groups. The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychiatric Association, and the National Association of Social Workers, among other groups, have expressed support for gay adoptions.
How is that for a one-sided debate, huh?
Please see The Role of Feminism in the New World Order and WHO is Pushing the Gay Agenda? for more.
