Yesterday, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court heard arguments from the queer activist bar challenging the 1913 state law which prevents out-of-staters from marrying in Massachusetts, if that marriage would not be recognized as legal in their home state. For example, a man couldn't marry a girl considered under age in their home state, even if she were of age in Massachusetts. (SJC hears challenge to marriage law, Boston Globe, Oct. 7, 2005)
The "Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders" (GLAD) say this 1913 law is only being applied now to prevent out-of-state homosexual couples from marrying. But "Attorney General Tom Reilly, who says he personally supports same-sex marriage, but must defend the law," says "that Massachusetts is applying it both to gay and straight couples" and that "Massachusetts would infringe on the laws and practices of other states if it ignored their marriage statutes."
Once again, the Boston Globe lies: "The SJC's landmark 2003 decision legalizing same-sex marriage ..." No, it did not "legalize" anything. That is constitutionally impossible. Massachusetts' constitution leaves all matters of marriage in the hands of the legislature and governor. Note that our own Attorney General refers to the sanctity of "laws" and "marriage statutes" in other states. We ask: Where is the Massachusetts marriage law or statute saying sodomy can be the basis for "marriage"?
The Globe writes, "If the SJC struck down the 1913 law, out-of-state same-sex couples who married in Massachusetts might return to their home states and demand marriage rights there." Might? What a joke. That's their whole plan. It's been in the works for many years. How stupid do they think we are?
Obviously, the queer activists around the country want to use the supposedly "legal" homosexual "marriages" performed in Massachusetts as a wedge to challenge every state's laws. Their "equal protection under the law" is being violated, if they can be considered "married" in Massachusetts but in no other state in the country. That is, every other state in the country is WRONG. (Never would it occur to these people that maybe something is wrong with them.)
Empress Margaret has already used the gimmick of issuing a destructive, society-shattering ruling on an historical anniversary (Nov. 18, 2003 was the 50th anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education). Maybe she'll pick that date to announce that Massachusetts must allow homosexual "marriages" for couples -- or trios or quartets -- from all over the country. Then they can go back to their home states and create legal chaos.
The Globe predicts a ruling in about four months.
