Wednesday, September 7, 2005

Article 8's Short Term Memory Loss

Well, Article 8 finally put up their "exclusive" about the Parker Rally last night. While reading it I couldn't help notice the bitterness Article 8 is feeling because so few of their people showed up and that they didn't get any news coverage. Ironically all they do is complain about the counter protesters which out numbered then 3 times over. Here is a compilation of what they said about the rally last night with pictures from Article 8's past protests:

They lined up along Bedford Street, right across from the Parker gathering, to hold signs, intimidate, etc.

Outpouring of public anger and intolerance. The line stretched over a block long. It included very young kids, adolescents, and adults.

Raising kids to hate others. Rev. Bill Clark again, along the street. The kids signs have particularly insidious messages: "Support ALL Our Children, Families, Schools" and "Anyone Can Go to School."

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

Wonder why Brian Camenker didn't include a photo of one of his folks with the "David Parker Jailed for Being Christian" sign? Probably figured he'd told enough lies already.

Anonymous said...

you know, I looked at the pictures of the counter protesters and they looked pretty calm to me. I'm guessing that Camenker probably sees the looks of anger in everyone's eyes because he is such an idiot and brings out the best in people.

Rieux said...

Slightly off-topic, but it's clear in Ms. Massresistance's post from yesterday (Wednesday) afternoon that she's clueless even when she's attacking her fellow homophobes.

She writes:
Don't waste your effort getting signatures for this referendum [for the 2008 ballot initiative]. Even if it were a clean amendment (one which would overturn the fraudulent homosexual "marriages" and ban civil unions), and even if it is approved by the voters, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) will likely not let it stand.

Hey, doofus: State supreme courts can't invalidate amendments to their own state constitutions. That's the whole point of your cronies' 2008 initiative in the first place. Maybe you should learn a tiny bit of constitutional law before blathering about it online.

(Ms. MR also whines that if the SJC doesn't "block" the 2008 amendment, "some federal judge will." That's at least not quite as idiotic as her other prediction--federal judges can invalidate state constitutional provisions if they violate federal law, e.g., the U.S. Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment therein--but with the current rightward tilt of the federal judiciary it isn't obvious that the forces of love and tolerance would win here.)


On the other hand, what Ms. MR is trying to do is to discredit the whole 2008 ballot initiative drive going on right now. So I've changed my mind: You tell 'em, Ms. MR. Stop that "unclean" amendment!