News

By Hilary White

  BOSTON, February 29, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Pro-family activists in Massachusetts warn that a series of bills pending in the state legislature are pivotal for the future of the legal institution of marriage in the state and across the US. The group Mass Resistance writes that, due to the work of homosexual activists in the courts, proposed changes to Massachusetts law regarding the definition of marriage, will necessarily bleed into the laws of other states.

  Two Senate Bills, S1029, S800 and House Bill 1728 propose to repeal Sections 11, 12, 13 and 50 of the General Laws that make it illegal for out-of-state couples to marry in Massachusetts if that marriage would be considered illegal in the parties’ home state. The repeal would remove from Massachusetts law what is the norm in most jurisdictions in the US.

  The current Section 12 requires the licensing officer to ascertain if the applicants for marriage licences are “not prohibited from intermarrying by the laws of the jurisdiction where he or she resides.” Section 50 levies fines and possible prison terms against any licensing officer or minister who knowingly allows couples to marry whose marriage would be prohibited in their home state.

  A major strategy of the homosexual activist movement to abolish legal recognition of natural, heterosexual marriage, has been to encourage activists to “marry” in one jurisdiction and then use the courts at home to force recognition in jurisdictions where the practice is not legally recognized. “Anti-discrimination” legislation, that is enacted in most jurisdictions in the western world in various forms, have been especially useful for this.

  Even more important, Mass Resistance says, is House Bill 1722 that amends current legislation on “hate crimes”, that the group calls, “Probably the most radical bill ever seriously considered by the Massachusetts legislature”.

  The bill would amend the law to say that crimes motivated by “bigotry and bias” on the basis of “gender identity or expression prejudice” as a new condition for a hate crime. This, Mass Resistance says, means that the “transgendered” will become a protected class of people who may not be discriminated against under the hate crimes statutes.

  Bill H1722 was drafted by Gay & Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD), the legal advocacy group behind the Goodridge homosexual “marriage” lawsuit in Massachusetts, on behalf of a radical lobbying organization called Massachusetts Transgender Political Coalition (MTPC).

  Governor Deval Patrick pledged at a candidate forum in September 2006, to support whatever the “transgendered” community asked for, while admitting that he knew nothing about the issue and asked the activists present to teach him.

  Bill H1722, is set for a hearing before the Joint Judiciary Committee sometime in early 2008. At least 25 state representatives and senators have signed on to co-sponsor the bill. Mass Resistance warns that the bill would affect schools, government, private businesses, health clubs, and all public accommodations, including churches and religious institutions.

  In addition, a pair of bills, H1710 and S918, propose to change the marriage statutes to say, “Any person who otherwise meets the eligibility requirements of this chapter may marry any other eligible person regardless of gender.”

  Bill H1709 would repeal the state’s sodomy laws and overturn several other sections of Massachusetts General Laws including Chapter 272 on “Crimes Against Chastity, Morality, Decency, and Good Order,” and laws against “resorting to restaurants or taverns for immoral purposes” and committing “unnatural and lascivious acts”.

  Homosexual activists, according to the gay newspaper, Bay Windows, are interested in repealing these laws because they “have historically been used to target gay men in cruising areas” where gay men meet to have anonymous sex in public. These commonly include public parks, rest areas, wooded areas, stores, and public men’s rooms.

Comments

Commenting Guidelines

LifeSiteNews welcomes thoughtful, respectful comments that add useful information or insights. Demeaning, hostile or propagandistic comments, and streams not related to the storyline, will be removed.

LSN commenting is not for frequent personal blogging, on-going debates or theological or other disputes between commenters.

Multiple comments from one person under a story are discouraged (suggested maximum of three). Capitalized sentences or comments will be removed (Internet shouting).

LifeSiteNews gives priority to pro-life, pro-family commenters and reserves the right to edit or remove comments.

Comments under LifeSiteNews stories do not necessarily represent the views of LifeSiteNews.