MEDIA LOG UNDER ATTACK! I just learned that the anonymous "Mass Resistance" blogger has come after me, and is urging readers to send me e-mail. To judge from the site, I'm hardly the first person to have his or her e-mail address given out for purposes of harassment. But unless I'm missing something, you can't talk back to the anonymous blogger. Nice!
Amy Contrada of Massresistance is a coward. She's the worse the internet has to offer. She types insane diatribes and hate speech and takes no responsiblity. Then she screams about freedom of speech while still keeping herself anomymous. All those Article 8 people are pretty scarey. I went down to Fanueil Hall last year when they brought in Family Values person Alan Keyes (yes, the family values man who cut off his daughter when he found out he was gay.) The lot of the people attending looked like the villians from Deliverance, i.e., his father is his brother is his grandfather, etc...
They also show total disregard for the laws of the Commonwealth by recording conversations without the person's ok and then cry "victim" when prosecuted by the elitist lawyers. (They're not elitist, just plain old common sense intelligent people who are law abiding citizens unlike Article 8.)
Article 8 also brought in a man dressed like Margaret Marshall to "burn" the constitution on November17th to protest the SJC's decision. They still don't get that same sex couples can marry in this state. I recommend they go back to south where bigotry is not only tolerated but codified in law.
I'd find things like this hilarious if they weren't so sad.
"Is it wrong to be nauseated by the existence of transexuals?" Well, uh, yeah. It is.
wow, Alan Keyes is gay?
All I can say is it could be worse -- you could work for that bastion of all that is unholy known as the Globe:
Noe that Mr. Camenker carefully Xs out his own e-mail address while publishing the hapless Globe editor's e-mail (presumably to allow others to chime in).
It continually amazes that whenever someone objects to sodomy and the fact that such behavior is being pushed down the throats of our children, that such speech is termed "hate speech". And if that isn't enough then anyone who disagrees with sodomy is a "bigot".
The fact is that there is no "law" allowing same-sex marriage. What we have is a decree issued by 4 people who no regard for the state constitution, law or traditions. Shameful!
you may not like it, but the system is what it is. My "bacon" is your "pork". What you consider a "slippery slope" is "greasing the skids" to your opponents. Get specific with political candidates about your expectations on judicial appointments. Only then can you realistically expect judges that share your world view.
I guess the Article 8 people are out in force. They are in serious denial also! In Massachusetts, same sex couples can get legally married. No amount of your "it's not in the law" is going to change that. Gay and lesbian people are getting legally married. Using their irrational logic, interacial couples would not be married either since "the law doesn't allow it".
These people are ridiculous.
Hey Amy Contrada's followers: Move out of the State if you don't like it, Massachusetts is as blue as blue can be, rejoice and be glad!
The court gives and the court takes away. The court allowed interracial marriage. And the court allowed abortion which has killed disproportionately more blacks than any other race.
The court should not have been involved in either issue or this one. It was not in their charter to reconstruct society in their image.
I really have to laugh when I hear these same arguments rehashed continually. Keep trying...some day you will think a rationale thought. :-)
Maybe I will leave Massachusetts if you promise to bring all your friends to this state and secede. I wouldn't mind seeing it cut off.
What a joke! The "anomymous" Massresistance blogger thinks that her blog is having an effect! She actually believes that her hatred is making people see the errors of their ways. If you read through some of her insane post you come to realize that she's severely mentally ill and needs help badly. I wonder what her husband thinks of her bigotry?
Ummm, Lance? That line about "sodomy ... being pushed down the throats of our children"? Was that metaphor intentional? I mean, it's a slightly more refined turn of phrase than "shoved up their keisters," but really, it buggers the mind. Well, perhaps you were watching Cardinal Law ponce around the Vatican when you wrote it, and a natural association of sodomy with children came to mind.
Dan S., the line was not intentional. But after I posted, I realized that it could be taken that way.
One other comment on judges and their worldview. I really don't care what worldview a judge has as long as they follow a defined standard, in this case the state constitution. Margaret and her cohorts failed to do so. As a result, in my view, all of these marriages are illegal regardless of what the press says.
In all sincerity, thanks to BP for allowing this exchange. There has been more "debate" (so to speak) on this one thread than there has been in the local versions of Izvestia and Pravda.
Well Lance, frankly I don't care if you think my marriage is legal or not. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the Governor, the Legistature, the IRS and my husband knows it's legal. Your little mind is not important to me.
At the risk of endangering spontaneity, it really would help if you invoked the "deep breath" rule and re-read your stuff prior to posting.There is a difference between "proportionately" and "disproportionately"; between "rational" and "rationale". Left-wingers are not the only articulate folks out there.
Sorry about grammatical errors...your write (:-)) I should doublecheck more.
Bigots, little minds, hate speech...I thought you people were supposed to be the tolerant folks.
Don't worry...I won't pollute your board much longer. You may continue living is a state of denial or the state of Massachusetts, whichever you prefer. The fact is that the majority of the people in this state disagree with the ruling. But like Communist Cuba, that hardly matters here.
"The majority of the people"??
This is a civil rights issue. The Majority of the People in Virginia, for instance, did not agree with marriages between a black person and a white person until sometime in the 1990s. Does that mean it should have been illegal?
It isn't a civil rights issue, whatever that means. I will commend your side for successfully casting it as such. But the fact is that your group, such as it is, is characterized by a behavior, not some innate difference.
Is polygamy a civil right?
Is marrying your sister a civil right?
Just because a few percent of the people want to do something, it doens't mean there is a right, civil or otherwise.
My last post on the subject.
Lance, if only it was your last message. It is a civil rights issue. By you framing it's not a civil rights issue I should be able to assume that you could love and be with another person of your sex (I wouldn't assume how you define yourself).
I, myself, cannot imagine being married to a woman, I was just not made that way. It has always been natural to me to be attracted to men. When I was a young boy I wasn't interested in girls like other boys and wondered how come? I cannot change my sexual orientation no more than you can "turn" gay.
Post a Comment