GLAD lawsuit puts ConCon on hold

Although originally scheduled for later this month, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) began hearing arguments on Thursday, May 4, from GLAD (Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders) for their lawsuit regarding the constitutionality of the current anti-gay marriage amendment.  A legislative vote at the May 10 Constitutional Convention will now likely be delayed.

KnowThyNeighbor contacted GLAD's Carisa Cunningham to help paint a better picture for you about what is actually taking place. It seems that our Legislature is expected to "gavel in and gavel out" at the May 10th Constitutional Convention.  Depending on the outcome of the lawsuit, the Convention would most likely re-convene in late July 2006 to vote on the amendment.

GLAD, the organization responsible for the Goodridge Decision, is arguing that the proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage is unconstitutional and should be thrown out.  KnowThyNeighbor.org agrees wholeheartedly with GLAD that the majority should not be allowed to vote on the equal rights of a minority and we hope to see this threat to our Constitution derailed.

What should you do? We need you at the State House in support of the defeat of this anti-family, anti-equality amendment in whatever form it may take.  VoteOnMarriage and the rest of the opposition to equality will be there on Wednesday, May 10 starting as early as 7am to show their support for the amendment.  Come and show the people of Massachusetts and our legislature that being an American means being equal and no one should have the right to take that from you.

Also, and most importantly, continue to contact you legislators and tell them why this amendment will hurt you and your families and the generations to follow.  True Leadership is needed now in the State House and also with you. KnowThyNeighbor also wishes to thank The Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders for all of their tireless work. No matter what the outcome of this lawsuit, you are true heroes in the fight for equality, fair treatment, and dignity.

Read the Bay Windows article on this topic...

Tom Lang & Aaron Toleos
Directors, KnowThyNeighbor.org
Contact us at (978) 335-0477 or info@knowthyneighbor.org

Comments

[John Hosty]

Tom, Aaron, thanks for the heads up on this. I will be there.

[soavifox]

I will try and be there as well. I am not entirely sure if I can get tehre from where I live in amherst. I can't drive and don't know many people who would be going.

[Steven Keirstead]

I'll be there taking documentary photos. I hope a lot of people show up.

[Paul Jamieson]

I will be there as well.

Please do not take documentary photos of me and put my head on the body of Tom Lang.

Or my body on the head of John Hosty

Or put Tyler's halo in place of my horns.

[John Hosty]

Make sure to introduce yourself to me Paul, I look forward to seeing you.

[Paul Jamieson]

May 5, 2006, 2:44PM
Gay Marriage Foes Face Issue in Schools

By JAY LINDSAY Associated Press Writer
© 2006 The Associated Press

BOSTON — Ever since her 5-year-old brought home a book from kindergarten that depicted a gay family, Tonia Parker has felt that her parenting has been under attack in the only state that allows same-sex marriage.

She and her husband, David, didn't want to discuss sexual orientation yet with their son, and were shocked that the book was included in a "diversity book bag" last year. David Parker subsequently got arrested for refusing to leave a Lexington school after officials refused to meet his demand that he be notified when homosexuality was discussed in his son's class.

Now the Parkers and another couple have sued school officials in federal court, claiming Lexington officials violated their parental rights to teach morals to their own children.

The way they and other opponents of gay marriage see it, the 2003 ruling that cleared the way for same-sex weddings has emboldened Massachusetts gay rights advocates to push their views in schools and ignore those who feel homosexuality is immoral.

"In many parts of the United States, we could have presented our concerns and our objections, and it wouldn't have been a problem," Tonia Parker said.

Glenn Koocher, executive director of the Massachusetts Association of School Committees, said there is no pro-gay campaign in the schools, just isolated cases exaggerated by anti-gay marriage activists who suffer from "narcissistic activist personality disorder."

Carisa Cunningham, spokeswoman for the Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, said school curriculums haven't changed, just the reaction to them by gay marriage opponents. "Maybe the impact of the law is that it has made people much more defensive and much more afraid," she said.

In Massachusetts, like most of the nation, there is no official education policy on when or how to discuss homosexuality in the classroom.

"It's done purposely to make sure local school boards reflect the values of the local district," said Martha Kempner, a spokeswoman for the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States.

Just 10 states have laws that deal with teaching sexual orientation, two of which require some teaching of it and eight of which put restrictions on how it's presented, according to New York-based SIECUS.

Massachusetts guidelines say only that teachers should define the different sexual orientations by the fifth grade. Each school district decides how to do that, and in the past year, Lexington has emerged as the center of debate.

Officials there say that since same-sex marriage is part of life in Massachusetts, it comes up naturally and that it's impossible to notify parents every time the issue is discussed.

"It certainly strengthens the argument that we need to teach about gay marriage because it's more of a reality for our kids," said Paul Ash, superintendent of schools in Lexington. "The children see married, gay couples."

An "opt out" provision in state law requires parental notification and the chance to remove their kids from the classroom if the curriculum "primarily involves human sexual education or human sexuality issues." But same-sex marriage comes up in current events classes and other forums where it's not the primary focus and, educators say, not subject to the "opt out" law.

Kris Mineau of the Massachusetts Family Institute, which opposes gay marriage, says educators are using the perceived loophole to bypass parents. Since the marriages began in May 2004, his organization has compiled about 20 reports from media and parents in towns from Medford to Newton that highlight what his group feels is inappropriate teaching of homosexuality.

Among recent incidents: Parents Joseph and Robin Wirthlin joined the Parkers in the federal suit after a second grade teacher in Lexington read to her class the fairy tale "King and King," which tells the story of two princes falling in love.

Last April, a sexually explicit pamphlet aimed at helping gay men avoid sexually transmitted diseases was distributed at a Brookline High School conference on gay and lesbian issues. School officials said the booklet was mistakenly displayed.

Brian Camenker of the Article 8 Alliance, which opposes gay marriage, said there's been a striking change in tone by gay marriage proponents since marriages started.

"It's like you're dealing with people from Mars, people who feel they're so superior they can use your child's mind as a sandbox for their own personal ideologies," he said.

[Paul Jamieson]

GET THE HELL OUT OF MY 2ND GRADERS CLASS

[John Hosty]

Shouting instead of reason is the symptom of defeated debate. Teach your kids to hate all you want, but not on my dime. I pay taxes too and I don't want hate to be an American value anymore.

[John Hosty]

Wisconsin Likely to Crush Gay Marriage Ban
To Be First Rout Suffered by Rove on DOMA
by Michael Leon

http://www.opednews.com

Madison, Wisconsin—The so-called Defense of Marriage Acts/Amendments (DOMAs) will be back on the ballots in some 10 states this fall.

In Wisconsin—the first state to ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation—the Rovian gay-bashing amendment is doomed.

Wisconsin would become the first state to defeat a non-judicial anti-gay marriage initiative since the Republican party instigated its recent national campaign against gays and lesbians resulting in 18 states passing some version of amendments to their constitutions that ban gay marriage.

The contention that the Republican-launched DOMAs—proposed statues or constitutional amendments that double as get-out-the-wacko-vote efforts and policy preferences—are effective in getting Republicans elected has been widely discredited. [See, for example, Alan Abramowitz at “Donkey Rising” for the definitive knock down of the thesis that the 11 state gay marriage referenda were decisive in Bush’s 2004 electoral state wins.]

But the beleaguered Republican party cannot afford to lose its base, hence the return to gay-bashing marriage campaigns. Nationally, this June the U.S. Senate is expected to hold a vote on a proposed anti-gay marriage amendment to the U.S. constitution that will also likely be trounced.

[johnson]

Joseph and Robin Wirthlin are members of a certain religious denomination that despite their fairly new stance that they "love" gay people, the facts show just the opposite. The same religion that went into Hawaii, Alaska and California and spearheaded anti-gay legislation. The same religion that until just a few short years ago (they claim it's "ancient history")advocated the use of gay pornography and electro-shock treatment to "cure" gay men. Now it apprears members of the same said religion has started up the old anti-gay rhetoric in a state where they make up a very small minority of the population. Coincidence? Or just the beginning of a very concerted campaign to put one of their own in the White House?????

[Tom Lang]

"Kris Mineau of the Massachusetts Family Institute, which opposes gay marriage, says educators are using the perceived loophole to bypass parents. Since the marriages began in May 2004, his organization has compiled about 20 reports from media and parents in towns from Medford to Newton that highlight what his group feels is inappropriate teaching of homosexuality."

Kris Mineau...the inappropriate teaching of homosexuality??!!!

And I thought it was ONLY about democracy and "letting the people vote."

Could it be that there is more to this??

duhhhh

[Christopher Robert]

Tom -
LOL. Of course it is about the democratic state of this nation and how the people rule. That is why democracy is not mentioned in the constitution once.

Democracy is not some new word coined in this century either. It predates the US by many years. They could have included it if they wanted to...

[Paul Jamieson]

"Teach your kids to hate all you want"

Your twisted logic cannot stop my right to vote

this isn't about hate or love

and too many pages have been wated by both sides on both

We will overcome

we will vote

you cannot stop it

Even if you defeat this petition

there will be others to safeguard the publics right to vote

STAY THE HELL OUT OF MY LIE WITH YOUR LINERAL FEEL GOOD AGENDA

[johnson]

Paul's coming apart at the seams: Read that last line again, everyone. "STAY THE HELL OUT OF MY LIE". Or is he??? Paul, I think most of us here have tried like hell to stay out of your lie...

[Joe S]

Paul...like Tyler is VERY troubled....

I wish this board had a "block" button...

But not to worry...when all of his hate and lies go into the sewer where they belong...we can all go on with our lives...getting married....raising families...and yes...teaching this next generation ALL about TOLERANCE....

Bahahahahhahaah....you're getting steamrolled Paul...and I, personally, am LOVING IT!

BAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHHAAH

[Christopher Robert]

Paul, show me in the constitution where it gives people the right to vote on policy?

[Paul Jamieson]

My apologies about the typos.

I believe you got the jist of my message.

"I wish this board had a "block" button"

Here it is in all its sweet bigotry. Joe encapsulates the attitude of the prossm folks. Wouldn't it be nice just to block us all out Joe.

And Hosty the Hater's denials get weaker and weaker

[johnson]

Paul, you know you love Hosty, Joe and all of us here at KTN. Without us, who else would get your blood pumping like we do? I think it is WE who have you prisoner here...

[Paul Jamieson]

New gay marriage battle looming
By By Erik Arvidson, Sun Statehouse Bureau

BOSTON — Thomas Cedrone doesn't view himself as a bigot. Nor does he have personal animosity toward gays or lesbians who want to be married.

But on an issue as divisive as marriage rights for same-sex couples, the Westford resident said it's become more difficult to voice his own moral objections to gay marriage without being seen as narrow-minded or intolerant.

“I don't hate the people who are engaged in it. I just have to take a stand and say that it's morally incorrect, and it's against my Christian faith,” Cedrone said. “I do feel like I'm thrown into a group of extremists. My belief about gay people is, ‘It's not you, it's your actions.' ”

Cedrone added that he's become frustrated by what he sees as the proponents of gay and lesbian marriages “forcing their agenda so that my kids have to learn about it in school.”

Cedrone was one of about 170,000 people who signed a citizen petition that seeks to put a question on the 2008 ballot that, if approved, would amend the state constitution to say that only heterosexual couples may wed.

Like many other signers of the petition, Cedrone said he just wants an opportunity to vote on the question. He may get his chance.

The Legislature may consider the ballot question as early as Wednesday, when lawmakers meet in a joint session of the House and Senate to consider changes to the constitution.

Last week, a spokeswoman for Senate President Robert Travaglini, who is the presiding officer at the Constitutional Convention, said it's uncertain whether lawmakers will debate the petition on Wednesday.

Gay-rights activists in January sued Attorney General Thomas Reilly for certifying the anti-gay-marriage petition, saying the state constitution doesn't allow citizens to reverse a ruling of the Supreme Judicial Court. The state's high court heard oral arguments on the case last week, and some lawmakers said it would be premature to debate the ballot question when it could be invalidated by the court.

The question must be approved by two consecutive sessions of the Legislature before advancing to the 2008 state election ballot.

Unlike the last time lawmakers had an emotionally charged debate over marriage rights for same-sex couples, it may not be a question of if, but when, this one is approved.

Because it's a citizen-initiated petition, only 25 percent of the Legislature, or 50 lawmakers, must approve the question for it to go forward. In 2004, when lawmakers approved a legislator-driven measure banning gay marriage but legalizing civil unions, a simple majority of the 200-member Legislature was needed.

Some gay activists see it as virtually a foregone conclusion that opponents of same-sex marriage will get the 50 votes.

“As of this moment, they definitely have the votes,” said Arline Isaacson, executive director

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advertisement

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

of the Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus. “I can't tell you how many people I talk to who say, ‘We don't have to worry about this Constitutional Convention.' They're so wrong.”
Isaacson's group is strategizing over how they might amend the ballot question to make it more favorable for gay and lesbian couples, but they acknowledge doing so will be difficult.

It takes a vote of 75 percent of the Legislature to amend the ballot question. Most lawmakers agree it's difficult to get a 75 percent majority on anything related to same-sex marriage.

Kristian Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute, which is driving the ballot-question campaign, said he has “a very high level of confidence” that the petition has enough votes to pass.

“We just finished collecting the greatest number of signatures ever for a ballot question in Massachusetts history,” Mineau said. “People are more electrified on this issue than on taxes.”

In February 2004, House and Senate lawmakers debated a measure — which was defeated — to ban same-sex weddings but to say that the Legislature “may” adopt civil unions in the future. That proposal failed on a 100-to-98 vote.

Of the 98 lawmakers who voted in favor of it — those who are seen as the most conservative-leaning on the issue of gay marriage — 15 have since departed, and 83 are still in the Legislature.

State Rep. Colleen Garry, D-Dracut, who opposes full marriage rights for gay and lesbian couples, said she wants the Legislature to vote on the ballot question as soon as possible, but thinks it will be delayed.

“I think this is a ploy to delay a vote. The gay and lesbian groups see the writing on the wall of where the public seems to be, and they'll do anything to prevent it from happening,” Garry said.

Rep. James Eldridge, D-Acton, a gay-marriage supporter, said citizens have a right to directly petition to change the constitution, but the Legislature should have the final say on what goes on the ballot.

“It's not just about how the voters feel, but there's also the Legislature that needs to vote on the referendum. Just as I respect a voter's right to vote as they wish, I hope that same respect is given to me as a legislator,” Eldridge said.

[Steven Keirstead]

Is there going to be any action on the anti-gay-marriage initiative this Wednesday or it it likely to be tabled or left off the agenda? If it's rainy I'll take photos inside, but if no one from the loyal opposition or the loyal support is showing up, they will be rather dull photos.

[Paul Jamieson]

Action?

Like what?

[Tom Lang]

Friday, May 05
BOSTON — If the citizens of Massachusetts can take a ballot vote on whether to ban gay marriage, what's stopping them from reinstituting slavery?
That's one of the possibilities Supreme Judicial Court Chief Justice Margaret Marshall posed yesterday to attorneys who argued whether residents are legally allowed to amend the state's constitution through a ballot vote.

Attorney General Tom Reilly gave citizens the go-ahead last September to collect signatures for a ballot petition that asks voters whether they support amending the constitution to ban same-sex marriage.

Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) responded with a lawsuit, claiming voters do not have the right to change the constitution with an amendment that overtly ignores a ruling by the court.

"You can't attack a (judicial decision) directly," argued Gary Buseck, GLAD's legal director yesterday.

Peter Sacks, an attorney for Reilly's office, told justices the petition is well within the law, and that the the attorney general was upholding voters' rights to put forth a ballot question.

"The drafters (of the constitution) were very clear that the people should be masters of their own constitution," he said.

Marshall and fellow justices pushed Sacks on the slavery question.

"Obviously, the subject matter is very troubling," he started.

Marshall interrupted, telling Sacks that whether the issue is troubling has nothing to do with the law.

"Then,

it would be permissible," the attorney finished.

Justice John Greaney continued the thought: "Are you saying that people, after something is declared utterly discriminatory, can just reinsert it in the constitution?"

Sacks gave a positive response.

The question is currently on path to appear on the 2008 ballot. According to the law, after voters have gathered enough signatures in support, the Legislature must give the ban preliminary approval in two consecutive constitutional conventions.

The Supreme Judicial Court, with a landmark 2003 ruling, cleared the way for same-sex marriages to begin in Massachusetts in May 2004. More than 7,000 gay couples have married since.

Lawmakers are scheduled to call their required annual convention next Wednesday, but it is unclear whether Sen. President Robert Travaglini — who will preside over the convention — will entertain a vote on a matter that could soon become moot. It is also unknown how long the SJC will deliberate before ruling.

Material from The Associated Press was used in this story.

[Joe S]

Once again paul....you twist my words...i said "I WISH" not LET'S PUT a BLOCK BUTTON on this board....

Your trivial dribble everyday is QUITE TIRESOME so it is no wonder that we ALL get SICK OF YOU!...But since not all wishes come true we will have to endure your presence....at least for a little longer...a VERY little longer...bahahhahahahahahhahahahhahahahahhahaaaaaaaaaahahhahahahahahahhahahhahahahhahahahahhahahahahha

Get a life you TROLL PAUL!

[Steven Keirstead]

Thanks Tom, so lawmakers may or may not be discussing the bill. Not exactly a clear answer, eh?

[John Hosty]

Even if there is no vote on Wednesday, Steve, there will be plenty to photograph.