Activity during 2008;
Predictions for the future

Kris Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute, a conservative Christian group that supports special marriage rights for heterosexual couples, said that the Massachusetts law is in sync with federal constitutional protections guaranteeing individual states the right to define marriage. He said: "It is an issue of one state honoring the rights of other states. ... The green light has been given to try to export this radical social experiment from coast to coast."

Governor Patrick said that the 1913 law has "... outlived its usefulness. ...It seems to have derived at a time when lawful discrimination based on race was at large here in the commonwealth and elsewhere." ₅

Some advocates for SSM noted that if the racist law is repealed, out of state same-sex couples would get married in Massachusetts, return home, and launch court cases in their states of origin to have their rights recognized. The advocates are concerned that such attempts would mainly fail and could establish court precedents against SSM that could take years to overcome.
 

	State Senator Mark Montigny, (D-New Bedford) said: "There are very few laws on the books that I can say that I'm ashamed that they're on the books. ... This is a very simple law, contrived in shame, and it exists in shame and we ought to wipe it off the books."
	Senator Harriette Chandler, (D-Worcester) said: The 1913 law is a shadow, a terrible shadow. It represents a segregationist past that is best put to rest and put to rest quickly."
	Kris Mineau, president of Massachusetts Family Institute -- an agency that wants to ban SSM -- said: "The Massachusetts Senate has no right to infringe on the internal issues of how other states define marriage but that's exactly what they voted today to do."

OneNewsNow, a conservative information source, commented:

"Brian Camenker, president of the anti-SSM group MassResistance, is still somewhat shell-shocked by how the vote occurred. 'It's one thing to lose a vote, but it's certainly horrible the way they did it. It was cowardly. It was undemocratic. It was obscene the way it was handled,' he argues. Four lawmakers spoke briefly in favor of repealing the law and none spoke against the proposal. Then in less than one minute, says Camenker, the presiding officer called for a voice vote and announced that the repeal had passed."
 
" 'I've never seen anything like that,' Camenker exclaims. 'Nobody, obviously, nobody wanted their name in front of this. Nobody was willing to get up and say anything,' he continues. 'You know, somebody could have at least called for a roll call vote. But it was...as cowardly as anything I've ever seen. This was completely choreographed by the gay movement,' Camenker concludes. He adds that calling the process 'sleazy doesn't even do it justice'."

The bill then proceeded to the state House where it faced stiffer opposition.

"In five years now, the sky has not fallen, the earth has not opened to swallow us all up, and more to the point, thousands and thousands of good people -- contributing members of our society -- are able to make free decisions about their personal future, and we ought to seek to affirm that every chance we can,"

His 18-year-old daughter recently revealed that she is a lesbian.

The Star-Tribune in Minneapolis, MN, reported how Joy Spring of Middletown, NY will be affected by the repeal of the law. She was scheduled to marry her partner of seven years, Carla Barbano, on AUG-01. Spring was concerned about their 11-year-old daughter, saying:

"We're being recognized as a married couple. ... It's extremely important. If something happened to one of us she'd always be taken care of."

Kris Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute -- a group that opposes marriage equality -- said:

"This is a clarion call for the rest of the nation on the dangers of this radical social experiment, and also the essential need for a federal marriage amendment to clearly define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. ...Same-sex marriage is a social experiment, and it certainly will have an impact on the culture, particularly the children, where we already see that in Massachusetts, children are being educated on the efficacy of same-sex marriage and the irrelevance of fatherhood and motherhood." ₇

One News Now, a conservative Christian news source, posted an article about the Senate's approval of the bill's repeal and invited comments from their site visitors. The first eight comments posted were:

	"Cowardly is right on the money. There are three obvious reasons 1.the presiding officer called for a voice vote and announced that the repeal had passed 2. Nobody, obviously, nobody wanted their name in front of this. 3. You know, somebody could have at least called for a roll call vote. Those three reasons say it all nobody wanted to even have their name associated with it. The terms Camenker used fit it perfectly. You are either for Jesus Christ or you are against him, pro-life or pro-abortion, for traditional marriage or for gay counterfeit marriage."
	" 'As for characterizing homosexuals as the good guys, God will have the final say on that one and I know I wouldn't want to be in their shoes.' Speaking personally, I don't think I would want to be in yours, either."
	"This law was originally used to keep interracial couples from marrying. It's about time it got repealed... equal rights for everyone!"
	"How is it cowardly? No one had anything to say against it. Unless Camenker has proof that at least one senator wanted to speak against it but was afraid, then this is a ridiculous charge."
	"State sanctioning of marriage has to stop! The State is twisting the meaning of marriage to further political ends and promote social engineering towards a godless society. Marriage belongs to God and to the Church. We need to take it back."
	"Massachusetts has degenerated into one of the worst states in the union. I will be staying far away from it. Homosexuality is an abomination to God, and common sense and observation tells one that it's a disease-ridden, death-dealing addiction---the majority of homosexuals having hundreds, or even thousands of sexual 'partners,' despite some of them being 'married'."
	"If you really want to talk about sleazy, let's talk about how Arizona Republicans violated their own rules and the rules of procedure in the Senate to jam a marriage amendment down the throats of a state that already voted AGAINST the amendment. If Massachusetts wants to change its marriage laws, good for them."
	"'Sleezy' seems like a bit of the pot calling the kettle black, doesn't it? Those MA state senators did the right thing for fairness for all. This is significant because it means that US gay marriages no longer are held by the thread of what will happen with the proposed gay marriage ban on the ballot in California. At present they can marry in CA but if the proposed Constitutional Amendment to ban their marriages passes, they would be back to square one. Another win for the good guys."

We have corrected grammar and spelling errors in the above postings.