tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7703913.post111710870607747051..comments2023-10-02T04:41:34.722-04:00Comments on Marry in Massachusetts: New Boston Mugwumpmassmarrierhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02358207247771711952noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7703913.post-1117203712581109462005-05-27T10:21:00.000-04:002005-05-27T10:21:00.000-04:00Maybe we can keep our perspective by looking at th...Maybe we can keep our perspective by looking at the 1675 ban on Native Americans entering Boston. It took only 238 years and change for that to be repealed. <BR/><BR/>That's something useful the courts could have attended to. However, the procedure was for the city to pass the law, and the colonial General Court (legislature) to approve it on October 13, 1675. Then all those old laws came over when Massachusetts became a commonwealth as part of the new United States. Now for centuries, not just decades, people would look at such laws and say, "That's wrong. It doesn't belong on the books." Finally, Mayor Tommy Menino gets around to getting a vote to repeal it from the City Council, signs it, and has to send it to the legislature for approval.<BR/><BR/>This home-rule thing is pretty weird too. Because the state capital is here, Boston, like the District of Columbia, has to get approval of the legislature to change any laws.<BR/><BR/>Maybe that should be the next thing that changes.massmarrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02358207247771711952noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7703913.post-1117115210659471142005-05-26T09:46:00.000-04:002005-05-26T09:46:00.000-04:00Reilly certainly has his faults, I'll be the firt ...Reilly certainly has his faults, I'll be the firt to admit. However, I blame the legislature for keeping this law on the books after they've had a year to do something about it. Just for once, I'd like to see them tackle this issue rather than leave it up to the courts.scohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07187650451734147902noreply@blogger.com