Posted on 02/12/2005 5:30:29 PM PST by Unam Sanctam
BOSTON - The state attorney general, who played a key role in state efforts to fight the legalization of gay marriage a year ago, now says he favors same-sex marriage and will oppose any efforts to ban it.
Thomas Reilly, an unannounced Democratic candidate for governor, said he would vote against a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage if it reaches the 2006 state ballot.
"Once rights are given, they should not be taken away," Reilly told The Boston Globe for Saturday's editions.
Reilly fought gay marriage supporters in the case that led the Supreme Judicial Court to rule that it was unconstitutional to bar same-sex couples from marrying. On May 17, Massachusetts became the first state to recognize same-sex weddings.
Reilly said he concluded "no one has been hurt" by the same-sex marriages that have taken place. He added, "You couldn't help but be moved by the commitments and marriages that people have entered into."
Tim O'Brien, the executive director of the state Republican Party, said Reilly has "completely flip-flopped" because he needs to answer to a special-interest group within the Democratic Party.
Members of the state's gay and lesbian communities remain "furious" with Reilly, said Susan Ryan-Vollmar, editor of Bay Windows, New England's largest gay and lesbian newspaper.
"When the subject comes up of Reilly running for governor, it runs from, 'Over my dead body' to 'He is going to have to really grovel,'" she said.
Ah, yes, the Democrats have added another litmus test ~ not only do you have to favor killng babies, you have to favor marrying homosexuals.
So the state "gives" rights, according to this clown?
Very sad to hear this. Reilly is a decent guy. Misguided Democrat, but decent. Somebody must have pictures.
By his logic, once the Dred Scott decision had been given enshrining the rights of slaveholders to take and capture slave property in free states in the Constitution, then those rights can't be taken away. Also, the right to drink alcohol was quite legally and constitutionally taken away, and then given back again with the enactment and repeal of prohibition.
And the AG a lawyer! +Thomas Moore would be so ashamed that a Catholic lawyer would deny Natural Law like this. What are the odds the Archbishop of Boston does nothing to this "good Catholic" pol?
While I see many people arguing that rights are solely bestowed by their creator, I would argue that a government is very important in securing those rights. For instance, suppose there was general anarchy: you would be able to do anything you wanted, so long as you weren't killed or captured first. Eventually, there would be people who had plenty of rights, but at the expense of enslaving or killing others.
A government's job is to step in and make sure that everyone has certain rights. Fundamental to these are life and liberty. However, if someone breaks a law, we see that the government can take them away. On this forum, it seems that people in general would like the government to be very strict in those two regards.
But, really, these are all semantics. Whether you are given rights by the government or whatever is not the issue. My question is how does Reilly stand on gun rights? I see a strong correlation between gay rights and firearm regulation, and I wonder where this fellow stands. I always get kicks out of pointing out a blatant hypocrisy.
Yeah, like these clowns.
Tom Reilly is desperate to be Governor. Never met a camera he didn't love.
Big difference between bestowing and securing.
I'm not calling them clowns (them being the Founding Fathers, although that particularly document was penned by only one of them), but I don't agree with them, and I find them to be quite hypocritical. For instance, the Declaration of Independence states that "all men are created equal." Did this apply to the Founding Father's slaves? Or were they not men? Also, if people are granted with "unalienable Rights," how is it that they are so easily taken away?
Furthermore, that very same document backs up what I said: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men." To me, it is simply a matter of semantics to say that rights are given by a higher being and that a government simply secures them, or to say that a government bestows rights. The effect, in the end is the same. Thomas Reilly states that a government shouldn't take away rights; in your language, that would be the same as saying that a government shouldn't stop securing rights.
I beg to differ. See post #12.
For a government to say that it's granting rights is to say that it can dictate the rules of morality. That's a very dangerous notion for government to adopt.
Gotta disagree with ya here...and strongly,at that.If there ever was a decent democrat office holder in Mass, he/she/it has long been dead and buried.There is a rot occurring in the Party that is far advanced and is highly unlikely to ever be reversed.
I know this from having lived most of my life in the very Belly Of The Beast,Newton....proud home of Barney Frank!
That is too vague a definition. What if someone's morals are different. Does that alter a persons rights? My guess is that it does by your definition, which would explain the absense of certain rights in Muslim countries.
For a government to say that it's granting rights is to say that it can dictate the rules of morality.
I would say that a for a government to not grant rights is also to say that it can dictate the rules of morality. By not allowing gay marriage, the US government pretty clearly states it's morals on the issue. While I may not look favorably on homosexuality, I see no reason why my morals should impede those who are gay.
We'll start with something basic, like the right to life. The fact that it's wrong to kill means that there's a right to life. Governments may kill nonetheless, but the right still exists.
"Very sad to hear this. Reilly is a decent guy."
Sorry, gotta disagree as well. Remember when he announced he wouldn't report illegal aliens to the feds?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.