Gay Pasta Night, et al

Last night was "Gay Pasta Night" at Schmedleys. We went a couple of weeks ago and was unable to go last week. We had a great time once again. I like the guys there that I meet. Basically, a group of gay men meet there every Wednesday night for dinner. It's nice to talk with others who have your same interests without worrying about how they will react. We've made some nice acquaintances that will hopefully become friends over time.

In other news, Massachusetts lawmakers are set to reconvene the Constitutional Convention on Monday, their third try to enact a ballot initiative that could ban gay marriage and overturn the Supreme Judicial Court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage. As of May 17, marriage for gay couples will be legal in Massachusetts.

All of this effort is to bring this issue before the voters of Massachusetts. Basically, in a nutshell, the voters will decide who will get civil rights, and that will get the lawmakers off the hook. The lawmakers will then be able to see, "hey, it's the will of the people". Civil rights should never be a ballot issue. NEVER. I read the report, but got disgusted with it. Read it if you wish.

I will comment on one thing that Speaker Thomas M. Finneran told WBZ-AM radio personality David Brudnoy last night:

...the advances made by gay and lesbians have been "put at risk" by reaction to the SJC decision around the country. Other states are considering enacting statutes to ensure that only heterosexual couples can marry. Noting that gays and lesbian may be able to marry May 17 in Massachusetts under the SJC decision, Finneran added: "I think it is very obvious that the pendulum is swinging back aggressively against their interests, their concerns, and their goals in many, many other states. That's one of the rich ironies."

But Speaker Finneran misses even the greater irony here. In trying to come up with a compromise to allow gay and lesbian citizens the right to marry, they are on the side of bigotry, along with all those other states that are passing their own DOMA's against us. There is no way around this fact and they can put window dressing on it all they want; it's not irony, it's bigotry. Eventually this will fail and be seen for what it is.

And, it has already started in Finneran's little world.

Travaglini and Lees are proposing to reword an earlier amendment that was sponsored by Finneran, but Finneran did not sign yesterday's letter and did not sign on with Travaglini and Lees as a sponsor to the latest changes. That is fueling suspicion that the speaker no longer backs the amendment bearing his name.

An a lighter note, I got a chuckle out of this letter that was printed in the Hartford Advocate.

Why Ban Gay Marriage?

1) Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control.

2) Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children.

3) Obviously, gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

4) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage is allowed, since Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.

5) Heterosexual marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are property, blacks can't marry whites, and divorce is illegal.

6) Gay marriage should be decided by people, not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of the minorities.

7) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country.

8) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

9) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

10) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why single parents are forbidden to raise children.