1. Two major Massachusetts pro-family groups announce they will NOT help gather signatures to challenge Legislature's repeal of "1913 Law" -- exporting "gay marriage" across America!
The news has shocked and upset the Massachusetts pro-family movement. As activists across Massachusetts get ready to fight back against the Legislature's outrageous repeal of the "1913 Law" -- and as people across America watch in anticipation - two major Massachusetts pro-family groups publicly announced that they won't help. Both groups had been major forces in the signature drive for the recent Marriage Amendment. But this time they're backing off.
Last week the Massachusetts Family Institute and Catholic Citizenship both published press releases stating that they "will not participate" in the referendum effort.
Uh, Brian, do you think they don't want to be associated with a noted Hate Group?
If that's not enough the delusional few over at MR actually compare themselves with Samuel Adams, George Washington, John Hancock and Martin Luther King:
Imagine if Samuel Adams, Hancock, Washington and the other patriots announced that they wanted to try a "positive" approach instead of fighting a war against Britain. Where would we be now? Suppose that Martin Luther King, who lived in Atlanta, refused to join the fight in Birmingham because it would "have a greater impact outside the state than at home". (Or maybe he might have done an "education" campaign instead of going in the streets and protesting!)
Psst.. Brian, those patriots, and believe me, you are not one, were fighting for equal rights, not trying to take away rights. You should equating yourself to people like Davis, George Wallace, David Duke and Fred Phelps since they are most like you.
The AG's office also just authorized the ballot question:
In her ruling, Coakley said the question's supporters, MassResistance, had met the necessary technical requirement for filing a ballot question. The group must now gather 33,000 signatures by the end of October to appear on the November 2010 ballot.
Coakley differentiated between her official duties and any personal feeling she may have on the issue.
"Our decision that this referendum meets the constitutional requirements as to subject matter does not mean that it has our support, but simply that the constitutional requirements are met for the proponents of the referendum to obtain further signatures," Coakley said in a statement.
Now it will be interesting if MassResistance gets the 40,000 signatures it says it needs to put this on the ballot in 2010. They are desperately looking for money to do this and surely not getting help from within the State. Who will actually sign this mean petition?