Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

House to debate 1913 law today!

By

PolitickerMA has the scoop:

The state House of Representatives is likely to debate the final vote on repealing the 1913 law Tuesday, PolitickerMA.com has learned.

According to a House leadership source with knowledge of the legislative schedule, debate over the law is expected to occur when the House returns to full session Tuesday.

Excellent news.  The debate should be interesting; the result should be a good one.  It’s hard to imagine a majority of House members not voting to repeal this miserable, obsolete, worthless relic of a mercifully bygone era.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. LOL David, a perfect description!  It would seem that Senators Tisei, Wilkerson and Creem agree with you.  The are featured in a video of some of last week’s senate debate here.  Enjoy the cosmic justice as you watch that edited clip, knowing that Brian Camenker posted it to show how depraved the Bay State Senate has become. đŸ˜€

  2.  Maybe the representatives don’t want to, this being only 3 months before the elections. It will be interesting that’s for sure. I’m watching.

    • the whole elections scare tactic is a red herring in MA.  supporters of equality have consistently been reelected, whereas equality opponents have a history of losing their seats.  so, i’m watching too, because there is no reason other than bigotry to oppose the repeal of this noxious law.

      • If this has no consequences – why did you and others feel the need to twist arms, bribe and cajole leges into not letting the people vote?????????

        <

        p>We know why –

        <

        p>Did you know that gay marriage has led to a substantial increase in the number of gays coming to MA for orgies on the beach?  In the last 5 years this behavior has increased DRAMATICALLY.  

        <

        p>http://www.capecodonline.com/a…

        <

        p>How do you feel about public sex acts that are advertised in national gay magazines and behoove people to come to our National Seashore and other public places to have orgies?

        <

        p>This law, as rooted in ignorance as it may have originally intended – will make Massachusetts less of a destination for gay people looking to orgy in the dunes of the Cape.

        <

        p>The Seashore is for all people. Provincetown should be accessible for ALL people.

        <

        p>Do you think it is right to have a “special” place for homosexuals to live? Don’t you think that is a little wierd given the times?

        <

        p>I mean it Laurel – you have not addressed this and I would love to know how you feel about it.

        • Since the discussion of the repeal of the 1913 law, MBTA ridership is up.  Clearly one caused the other, right?

          <

          p>Look, nobody thinks its OK for public sex acts on public property down Cape or anywhere else for that matter, be they public or private.  But, the suggestion that the increase in citations — which “ranges from flashing to masturbation to men’s outdoor orgies” — is specifically related to marriage equality seems a stretch, especially since the number of violations isn’t broken down by sexual orientation.

          <

          p>There’s nothing to address.  Your claim doesn’t have a nekkid leg to stand on.

          • Anyone who thinks marriage is correlated with promiscuous sexual activity is, I dare say, probably not married.

            <

            p>The article cited refers to problems over the last decade, and gay marriage was not available for most of that time.

            <

            p>Methinks Mr. Master of the House just like to type the word “orgy” because his comment was nonsense.

            • He’s posted that link and variations on the orgy rant 7 times.  And that’s just in threads I was paying attention to.  He even tried to link the Gloucester pregnancies to it.

              <

              p>Lame.

              <

              p>You’re spot on about marriage and promiscuity.  As my sister says “let’s pretend we’re married, send out for pizza and watch Letterman.” (with apologies to Prince).

              • if no one obsesses over it?

                <

                p>How about, “let’s pretend we’re married with little kids and fall asleep on the sofa watching Jeopardy!, and then wake up so we can go to bed and fall asleep again, all hours before Letterman is even on?”

                <

                p>It was a P.J. O’Rourke comment (Wait, wait Don’t Tell Me on NPR) that noted that social conservatives should be in favor of gay marriage because more gay marriage means less gay sex.

                <

                p>He then went on to note the big gay rights issues at the time: ordination as clergy, marriage, and adoption of children, meant that gays were keen to get married, have kids, and go to church– in short, to become Republicans.

                • Basically, if gays getb married and have kids, they’ll be just like the other married couples – by the time they’re done with soccer practice, piano lessons, ballet, and what-have-you, if they’re anything like other married couples, they’ll be too tired to have sex!

                • As my husband once said after listening to a rant on “forcing the gay agenda” – that it seemed that the gay agenda was to get married, join the military and join the boy scouts – what could be a more socially conservatiev agenda and it should be supported by all conservatives!!

                  <

                  p>I mean seriously – what could be less “scary”  and good for Massachusetts to undertand that.

                  <

                  p>

            • These citations have risen over the last 3 to 5 years. So there is a direct correlation with the advent of gay marriage.

              <

              p>”Last year, Seashore rangers issued 132 citations for public sex acts, compared with about 70 annually from 2003 to 2006, and about 40 citations annually in prior years, Thatcher said. The Seashore does not specifically track and categorize complaints about public sex acts, he said.”

              <

              p>Why is it ok to tout all the so called “benefits” of gay marriage – like tourism and weddings etc for the state – but not talk about the downside?

              <

              p>Is it because the left wants us to believe their incesssant “the sky isn’t falling” line about how nothing has changed in MA?

              <

              p>WE KNOW WHY – AND INSTEAD OF SLANDERING ME AND CALLING ME A “TROLL” LET’S HAVE A REASONABLE DISCUSSION ABOUT IT.

              <

              p>”Politically correct sex on the beach
              David Paulin

              <

              p>It’s amusing to see how politically correct newspapers invariably tiptoe around certain aspects of certain gay lifestyles. Consider, for example, an article in Monday’s Boston Herald about how angry officials with the Cape Cod National Seashore are cracking down on public sex on the beach.

              <

              p>What kinds of sex might this be?

              <

              p>It’s toward the bottom of the Herald’s story that George Price, superintendent of the Cape Cod National Seashore, says:

              <

              p>”The majority is gay, but we’ve had issues with hetero sex as well. Families are upset and outraged.”

              <

              p>Interestingly, Price apparently didn’t say how many heterosexual couples were involved — or whether these couples were engaged in one-on-one sex or in group sex. But that information might be interesting. It’s tempting to think that Price added the part about heterosexual misconduct as a concession to politically correctness; or perhaps the Herald’s reporter steered the interview in that direction, prodded Price into suggesting that that men and women also were a significant part of the problem.

              <

              p>The Boston Herald, for its part, strove to point out,

              <

              p>”many gay community members are also appalled about the recent surge in public sex, which is illegal under federal and state laws and can incur heavy fines.”

              <

              p>The paper also noted that the “number of citations for public sex acts more than tripled, from an average of 40 to 132 last year.” However, it failed to provide a breakdown of how many of those public sex acts involved heterosexual verses gay couples. It’s not hard to read between the lines, however, thanks to some interesting anecdotes that the paper provided toward the midpoint of the story:

              <

              p>Complaints have included whale-watchers sailing past large groups of nude men, and families stumbling upon people engaged in sex acts on the pristine national shore that attracts tens of thousands of vacationers from throughout the world each year.

              <

              p>One complaint, issued in 2007, was from a New Jersey family walking in the dunes who encountered couples and a large group of men having “sex in the nude, including oral and anal sex right out in the open,” the Cape Cod Times reported last week.

              <

              p>Sometimes, newspaper readers cannot even read between the lines when they read about issues involving homosexual sexual misconduct. In Texas not long ago, the Austin American-Statesman ran a brief article about a police raid on a nearby rest stop where a number of arrests were made for “lewd and lascivious” behavior. Curiously, the paper did not elaborate. What was going on? I had to asked my brother-in-law, who lives near the area.  “Oh, it’s a big gay hangout,” he explained.

              <

              p>Why did the paper fail to mention this interesting detail? No doubt due to political correctness, the desire not to offend any well-organized gay activists who would be upset over any unflattering portrayal of an unmentionable aspect of some gay lifestyles — sexual promiscuity in public places, on levels and a scale that simply do not exist among the most promiscuous of heterosexuals, who lack a large and assertive movement enjoying media protection.

              <

              p>

        • there is no reason other than bigotry to oppose the repeal of this noxious law.

          <

          p>Bigotry is a big reason, though.  Of course bigots are deeply concerned about preventing the repeal of this bigoted law.

        • Once again, there’s a clear distinction because causation and correlation.  Do you know the difference?

        • There’s an easy fix for that.  It involves cameras and a local newspaper willing to publish photos (some blacking out involved) with witty captions.  

        • you’ve raised this “point” so many times and had adequate responses from many able bmg commenters.  and still you just keep asking the question as if you’ve never gotten a response.  this tells me that you don’t care about any possible answer other than your own peculiar homophobic conclusions. you just want to ask a hopefully incriminating question over and over, as if asking the question repeatedly will make your silly assertions true.  well look around – it hasn’t worked.  back to the drawing board for you!  or better yet, maybe you should spend some quality time thinking about why you wallow in the basest of sexual thoughts about strangers.

        • I know that all my gay friends in committed relationships from out of state who want to get married can’t wait to come to Massachusetts to have orgies on the beaches. And they don’t want to just do it on the beaches of P-Town, they want to take it to the entire coast. From Salisbury to the Vineyard.

          <

          p>Oh yeah, Patar, you forgot to mention – Gay marriage is also responsible for the housing crisis too. And the wars in the Middle East. And high gas prices.

          <

          p>Gay marriage, however, played no part in your tax rebate stimulus check. Surprising, i know!

          • have really lost the old traditions, such as the multi-tiered wedding cake, assigned seating via place-card, the family-friendly toast, the formal introduction of the new couple, the first formal dance, and the strict prohibition of orgies.

            <

            p>I guess these young kids just have a whole other notion of what might be a good wedding favor.

  3. They’re great at funny little scams in the House.  I bet they’ll drone along for a bit to lull the opposition.  Then call for passage by acclamation, and it’ll be over before Brian Camenker can say “what the f—?”

  5. Good grief.  I’m watching the webcast.  Can’t they get those gerbils to run any faster?  Are we paying for that?  It catches every 4 seconds.

  6. Lipper of Attleboro rises in support of MA being the nanny state for all other states in the union.  must be a republican…

  7. Lipper of Attleboro rises in support of MA being the nanny state for all other states in the union.  must be a republican…

  8. i refreshed my window, and get a roll call board.  did it go to roll call after Nanny Lipper?

    • A legislative proposal that has been prepared in a final form for its submission to a vote of the law-making body after it has undergone discussion and been approved by the appropriate committees.

    • but seriously, i think that that means that the bill passed over from the senate (s 800) has been passed.  in other words, i think this means it’s headed for the governor’s desk.  

Archives