Speaking of the homosexual activists agenda to undermine societial opposition, Harry Forbes at Squaring the Boston Globe had an interesting find in the Boston Globe’s archives. All the way back in 1989, the fight in Massachusetts was over setting up homosexuals as a specially protected class with enumerated rights in law. Opponents said it was a slippery slope that would eventually lead to things like “gay marriage.” Supporters of the law said critics were crazy homophobes and that nothing of the sort would happen. Here is the Globe‘s editorial from October 15, 1989.
No broad constitutional rights are conferred. The bill does not legalize “gay marriage” or confer any right on homosexual, lesbian or unmarried heterosexual couples to “domestic benefits.” Nor does passage of the bill put Massachusetts on a “slippery slope” toward such rights.
All the bill does is give gays some protection from being discriminated against in credit, employment, insurance, public accommodation and housing—and the right to file complaints with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination. Before the MCAD board, plaintiffs would have to prove the alleged discrimination was because of their sexual preference.
The editorial ends by saying that “passage of the gay rights bill implicitly recognizes the change in public attitudes that have occurred over the past 17 years—a change from opposition to acceptance.” The question is which came first: the acceptance or the changes? Did the changes forced down people’s throats force their attitudes to change? Have those attitudes really changed or have they just been forced, dare I say, into the closet?
Forbes adds that it was this gay-rights law that was cited by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in its logic for mandating same-sex marriage. I guess they didn’t listen to the Globe when it assured us it would never be used that way. Harry says that this illustrates why we must not so easily disregard the requirements of the Constitution, since fashions of opinion may change so rapidly: “See how much the liberal stance represented by the Boston Globe has “evolved” since 1989. This is a fine example of the need for rule by process of law rather than by the current sensibilities of our officials.” Hear, hear.[See also Harry’s contrast between the words of the Arline Isaacson, leader of the gay rights lobby in Massachusetts, and Cardinal Sean O’Malley in advance of yesterday’s rally on Boston Common against gay marriage. Illustrative.]
Technorati Tags:Boston Globe, gay rights, homosexuality, Massachusetts, politics, same-sex marriage