It seems very wrong that a state like Massachusetts that passed a state law back in the first half of the 19th century that says that “all persons within the commonwealth….shall have the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property”, is being asked by a certain group with the agenda of forcing their religious beliefs with the help of out of state organization on the people of the Bay State, to institute Jim Crow here.
The history of Massachusetts, especially its larger towns and cities is a record of those groups of people from other places who, not knowing they already had full equal rights, worked to that end and had them recognized. From the Irish to the Italians, then on to Jews, Blacks, and Hispanics, the history of the state’s relations to “others” has been to accept the equality of all persons within the commonwealth and not the removal of their rights.
Now for political reasons and to force their version of religion on all of us, there are those with the help of outside agents attempting to have abandon who we are in favor of who they want us to be. And their models are states with very sketchy racial histories.
One of the groups promoting Jim Crow is the Massachusetts Family Institute (MFI) which claims it is dedicated to strengthening the family and affirming the Judeo-Christian values. They say outright that they are only dealing with families by promoting one viewpoint, and in spite of many citizens of the state not holding to their Judeo-Christian world view, they want all of us to abide by it
While claiming to be an independent, not-for-profit organization and supported through the generosity of our contributors, it is a member of the Renew Massachusetts Coalition whose objective is moving Massachusetts to the right.
As a member of the coalition, this independent group partners with:
Focus on the Family, a global Christian ministry dedicated to helping families thrive and headquartered in Colorado Springs, Colorado, and is not a Massachusetts organization, is attempting to influence our lives here. According to their own website, its primary reason for existence is to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ through the Bible and the Judeo-Christian ethic.
Alliance defending freedom out of Scottsdale, Arizona was launched on January 31, 1994 to ensure that religious freedom, which comes down to supporting the recriminalization of homosexuality in the U.S. and promoting criminalization abroad, has defended state-sanctioned sterilization of trans people abroad, has linked homosexuality to pedophilia, and claims that a “homosexual agenda” will destroy Christianity and society. It also works to develop “religious liberty” legislation and case law that will allow the denial of goods and services to LGBT people on the basis of religion.
While the vision statement of the Family Research Council states it wants “to establish a culture in which all human life is valued. families flourish, and religious liberty thrives,” it opposes the rights and equality of Transgender individuals which would seem to contradict this.
And its mission statement says its goal is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and culture from a Christian worldview.
Its headquarters are in Washington D.C.
This is not a Massachusetts agenda. This is a religious recruitment of the unwilling agenda.
In the Massachusetts Constitution, the oldest such constitution in the world, John Adams wrote in the Preamble that the purpose of it and government is “to furnish the individuals [who compose the body politic] with the power of enjoying in safety and tranquility their natural rights, and the blessings of life”.
And he included in Article I:
“All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.”
This was later amended to
Article CVI.
“All people are born free and equal and have certain natural, essential and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness. Equality under the law shall not be denied or abridged because of sex, race, color, creed or national origin.”
When a person suffers a traffic accident, this causes him some type of injury that entails the necessity of some type of rehabilitation exercises. generika levitra There comes a situation where the man is best female viagra http://raindogscine.com/anina-gana-en-la-plata-y-conquista-londres/ unable to have intercourse due to ED can take a part in this test. Hence it is a prominent drug which is completely danger-free levitra pills for the eye sight and the heart, lungs etc . Persistent trauma causes social withdrawal, cheapest prices on cialis isolation and wreck in relationships. The attempt was made to make it clear that everyone has rights and to clarify what at the time that meant.
On January 12, 1773 a decision by a committee of eleven local citizens of Sheffield, as a way to deal with expressed anger at how Great Britain was treating her subjects in the colony of Massachusetts, known as the Sheffield Declaration, resolved
“[t]hat mankind in a state of nature are equal, free, and independent of each other, and have a right to the undisturbed enjoyment of their lives, their liberty and property.”
A 1781 Berkshire county case of Brom and Bett v. Ashley, involving a slave who left her master’s employ because of mistreatment, was heard less than one year after the adoption of the Massachusetts Constitution before the County Court of Common Pleas in Great Barrington, and the jury determined that Mum Bett was not Ashley’s property. The court set Mum Bett free. The strongest argument was that slavery was not constitutional in Massachusetts after the adoption of the new constitution.
In 1781, at the age of 28, Quock Walker fled from his master but was recaptured, beaten, and re-enslaved. Suing because he had been the victim assault and battery, a jury in the Worcester County Court of Common Pleas found “that the said Quork is a Freeman and not the proper Negro slave of Nathaniel Jennison (the master who upon marrying the widow of James Caldwell had inherited him from his deceased master who had declared he would free Walker at age 25),” and awarded him damages.
when Jennison appealed the decision maintaining ownership, which would not have held the beating to be assault and battery, Supreme Judicial Court Chief Justice William Cushing announced that slavery was incompatible with the new Massachusetts Constitution:
. . . [T]hese sentiments [that are favorable to the natural rights of mankind] led the framers of our constitution of government – by which the people of this commonwealth have solemnly bound themselves to each other – to declare – that all men are born free and equal; and that every subject is entitled to liberty, and to have it guarded by the laws as well as his life and property. In short, without resorting to implication in constructing the constitution, slavery is in my judgment as effectively abolished as it can be by the granting of rights and privileges wholly incompatible and repugnant to its existence. The court are therefore fully of the opinion that perpetual servitude can no longer be tolerated in our government, and that liberty can only be forfeited by some criminal conduct or relinquished by personal consent or contract. And it is therefore unnecessary to consider whether the promises of freedom to Quaco, on the part of his master and mistress, amounted to a manumission or not.”
In 1803, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court recognized the supremacy of the Massachusetts Constitution, and that it “justified and indeed compelled” judges to act so as to enforce its provisions over laws and customs that otherwise conflicted with it.
Forty years later the Massachusetts law referred to above made the intent of the Massachusetts Constitution very clear.
And to anticipate the argument that gender identity was not included then so, therefore, should not be now, it should be remembered that when the Second Amendment was written it dealt with weaponry that existed at the time and conservatives who defend the right to own any weapon now claim we should allow inclusion because it was implied. The founders were people of their times and held to the beliefs on human sexuality that existed then just as they did to weaponry that existed then, but weaponry and our knowledge of human sexuality has grown.
This is Massachusetts with a constitution and case law and legislation that supports its holding that
“All people are born free and equal and have certain natural, essential and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness. Equality under the law shall not be denied or abridged because of sex, race, color, creed or national origin.”
Limiting the rights of any persons within the commonwealth by introducing Jim Crow and doing so by promoting one religion’s beliefs, and to have that done by organizations from out of state fronted by one or two from within, is not who we are.
Massachusetts history and law reinforce the rights of its people. It does not have a history of taking rights away.
Jim Crow has no place here.
Vote YES on Question 3.