Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Romney's 2004 Letter: Part II - Analysis
MassResistance's statement at Romney's Photo-Op Rally,
Mass. State House, Nov. 2006 [MassResistance photo]
(1) defy the Court ruling, as it is only an illegitimate opinion and there is no new law for him to enforce;
(2) issue an Executive Order barring issuance of homosexual “marriage” licenses starting May 17, 2004; and
(3) support the Bill of Address to remove the four errant Judges.
And here is the response they received from Romney, dated April 15, 2004:
Thank you for your letter regarding same-sex marriage. Over the past several months, many people have taken the time to contact my office with their thoughts and concerns on this issue. I am happy to have this opportunity to respond.
Recently, the State Legislature met in a rare joint session and passed an amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution that defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman. For this amendment to become part of our Constitution, it must be passed by the Legislature again and then be approved by the people of Massachusetts in November 2006.
As you know, the definition of marriage is of great concern to many citizens. On a matter of such significance and with such tender sentiment involved, we must show respect and consideration for those with different opinions. There are real people, including traditional couples, gay couples and children, who are deeply affected by this issue.
But, even as we disagree, we must not forget that at the core of American democracy is the principle that the most fundamental decisions in society should ultimately be decided by the people themselves. I support giving the people the opportunity to decide this issue.
Again, thank you for taking the time to contact my office.
Its historical context is all-important. It was written at the same time that Romney’s Executive branch officers were traveling around the state conducting training sessions for Town Clerks and Justices of the Peace, and his Department of Public Health printing presses were churning out illegitimate “marriage” licenses reading “Party A & Party B” -- with bare notice by the public.
Romney’s letter reveals his blindness to the most outrageous instance of judicial tyranny since Roe v. Wade, his incomprehensible spirit of resignation in face of the Court’s activism, his utter disregard for the Massachusetts Constitution, his ignorance of the meaning of “the rule of law” (i.e., existing statutes), and an almost breezy attitude towards the looming disaster in his state – and all of America.
Ruling Null & Void -- Remove the Judges
He implies that his only recourse for preserving real marriage was to pass a constitutional amendment, which could only have taken effect long after the looming date of May 17, 2004. He says nothing about what constituents might expect on that date, just a month away, neglecting to mention that he was in fact facilitating a cataclysmic event for all of America.
In this April 2004 letter, Romney seems like a sleepwalker traversing a minefield. Was he really so ignorant of his proper Constitutional role as Governor? Or was there something deeper, even unethical, going on? Was he hoping we all wouldn’t notice that he was, in fact, implementing the unconstitutional Court ruling – perhaps in order to keep his promise to homosexual activists?
A recent article in the New York Times ("Romney’s Tone on Gay Rights Is Seen as Shift," Sept. 8, 2007) may shed light on Romney’s bizarre actions (and vacuous letter) during early 2004. The article reveals that in 2002, he had actually promised his “Log Cabin Republican” (homosexual activist) friends that he would
…obey the courts’ ultimate ruling and not champion a fight on either side of the issue. “I’ll keep my head low,” he said, making a bobbing motion with his head like a boxer … And, in the aftermath of the Massachusetts court decision, Mr. Romney, though aligning himself with the supporters of a constitutional amendment, did order town clerks to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Some members of Log Cabin Republicans say that in doing so, he ultimately fulfilled his promise to them despite his own moral objections.
Another Log Cabin member said Romney did not “[carry] the flag with missionary zeal” for either side of the issue. That describes a man without principle on the crucial issues of judicial activism and marriage. And it squares with his statement to the Log Cabin Republicans “that his perspective on gay rights had been largely shaped by his experience in the private sector where, he said, discrimination was frowned upon.” His approach to “gay rights” was thus apparently not a moral issue for him, but shaped by his business interests.
(Earlier, in 1994 when running for the Senate, he had promised the Log Cabin Republicans: “… as we seek to establish full equality for America's gay and lesbian citizens, I will provide more effective leadership than my opponent” – which, as a Republican and Mormon, he would be able to get away with better than Kennedy.)
In his April 2004 letter, Romney equates natural families with unnatural families (headed by same-sex couples), uses the word “gay” and the squishy phrase “tender sentiment.” He instructs us to tread lightly around the “tender sentiment” of “gay couples” -- which could mean that society should never ban “gay marriage” because it would upset some people -- so we should let anyone who says the word “love” do anything they want. And, if two sodomites feel “tender sentiment” towards each other, that means they can be “married”!
Is Romney saying sentiment should rule, not what’s best for society, children, or the public health? If someone, somewhere is “deeply affected” by something, should this overrule rational, principled, moral discourse and lawmaking? “Tender sentiment” is highlighted, but the Constitution is only indirectly referenced in the context of a proposed amendment, and there is no reference to existing law.
Romney avoids mention of the flawed, compromised nature of the proposed amendment, which would have codified same-sex “civil unions” in the Mass. Constitution at the same time that it defined marriage as “one man + one woman.” He blissfully ignores the fact that many in the state knew that final passage of that amendment was highly unlikely, in part because true pro-family forces (as well as die-hard homosexual activists unwilling to settle for civil unions) would not support it. For him to portray this amendment (which still had to pass two more big hurdles)as the only possible solution to the “marriage” crisis was dishonest. Feb. 2004 outside Mass. State House. Mass. Family Institute president Kris Mineau, in trench coat, apparently opposed civil unions at that time, though MFI's later VoteOnMarriage amendment proposal intentionally would not have outlawed civil unions. Romney would twist Republican legislators' arms at the Constitutional Convention in March to support the "compromise" amendment, which would have embedded civil unions in our Constitution if it had eventually passed.
Romney ends his letter with the sop that it’s all about our “democracy.” Leaving aside the issue of republic vs. democracy, why didn’t Romney say that at the core of our government is the Constitutional basis on which it stands? Shouldn’t his first point of reference be the Massachusetts Constitution, his oath to preserve the separation of powers, and his required enforcement of existing law (not imaginary, Court-invented “law”)? He could not bring this up, because that would have exposed that his ongoing implementation of homosexual “marriage” was illegitimate.
Romney’s focus on “giving the people the opportunity to decide this issue” was a ploy to deflect attention from the larger issues of activist judges (whom he should have opposed), and his responsibility as Chief Executive to enforce only actual law (the marriage statute as it existed then). Since the Legislature had not changed the marriage statute after the 2003 ruling, one-man/one-woman marriage was still clearly the only form allowed in May 2004! (And the law still hasn’t changed. The homosexual lobby has a bill pending to allow homosexual “marriage” – House Bill #1710 .)
For sources, see our reports: How Mitt Romney brought "gay marriage" to Massachusetts and The Mitt Romney Deception Report.
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Letter from Mitt Romney on Eve of "Gay Marriage" - April 2004
Left: Governor Mitt Romney's letter to constituents on "homosexual marriage" in April 2004; read in PDF here.
In April 2004, just one month before "homosexual marriages" were to begin in Massachusetts by order of Gov. Mitt Romney, he sent this appalling letter to concerned constituents. They had written him pleading that he issue an Executive Order to his departments not to allow any such "marriages" to go forward, and to support the effort underway to remove the four errant judges behind the Goodridge ruling. The constituents pointed out to the Governor that there was no new "law" for him to uphold! And this was his empty response. [Read Romney's letter here.]
Over the next few days, we will print our analysis of this letter. For now, read it yourself and ponder that this is how a man who would be president "thinks" about the most profoundly illegitimate court ruling since Roe v. Wade, and how he condescendingly responded to his constituents while failing to address their concerns. Romney seems like a sleepwalker traversing a minefield in this letter.
First ask: How serious is Mitt Romney about reigning in bad judges, upholding Constitutions, and blocking “homosexual marriage”? His record in Massachusetts is revealing, as much through his silence and inaction as through his sparse and mystifying actions. In the end, he totally failed to lead as a conservative on these issues, but rather was complicit in foisting on our state a most radical, destructive social experiment called “homosexual marriage” -- while pretending to defend the natural family.
MassResistance demonstration outside Supreme Judicial Court in Feb. 2004 upholding the separation of powers written into the Mass. Constitution by John Adams.
Mitt Romney recently called for one of his own Massachusetts judge appointees to resign, after she released a convicted murderer who went on to murder again. But when Romney had the chance -- and constitutional duty -- to call for the dismissal of four rogue Massachusetts Supreme Court justices who ruled “homosexual marriage” was protected by the Massachusetts constitution, he did nothing! He refused to join the effort to remove the judges by Constitutional means (the Bill of Address, eventually sponsored by 25 Legislators), and never even commented on the effort until asked at a press conference in June 2005. And while the Constitution required the Governor to enforce only laws passed by the Legislature, Romney chose to “enforce” a pseudo-law pronounced by four unelected judges. (And the Legislature to this date has not changed the marriage statute in Massachusetts!)Demonstration banner from Spring of 2004, made by MassResistance (then Article 8 Alliance) activist
Romney violated the Massachusetts Constitution when he started “homosexual marriages” here. So can he be trusted with the United States Constitution? Can his complaints about judicial activism be sincere? Can anything he says about his commitment to preserve marriage be believed?
MassResistance (then Article 8 Alliance) demonstration at State House, after Romney implemented unconstitutional "homosexual marriages," calling for removal of the four judges:
"Remove the SJC4" & "Courts are not Legislatures"
For more on Romney's betrayal of pro-family values and constitutional principles: See Part II and Part III in this series.
For sources, see our reports: How Mitt Romney brought "gay marriage" to Massachusetts and The Mitt Romney Deception Report.
More on Bork Endorsement of Romney
Objectively Unfit Mitt Romney’s Bork Endorsement: A Very Painful Critique
Threats to Natural Family Threaten Peace
... the pope said the fact that a strong, healthy family is the basis of a healthy society is not simply a slogan.
"In a healthy family life we experience some of the fundamental elements of peace: justice and love between brothers and sisters; the role of authority expressed by parents; loving concern for the members who are weaker because of youth, sickness or old age; mutual help in the necessities of life; readiness to accept others and, if necessary, to forgive them....
"Everything that serves to weaken the family based on the marriage of a man and a woman, everything that directly or indirectly stands in the way of its openness to the responsible acceptance of a new life, everything that obstructs its right to be primarily responsible for the education of its children, constitutes an obstacle on the road to peace.
"The first form of communion between persons is that born of the love of a man and a woman who decide to enter a stable union in order to build together a new family. But the peoples of the earth, too, are called to build relationships of solidarity and cooperation among themselves, as befits members of the one human family.... [The family] is in effect the primary agency of peace ...
Monday, December 17, 2007
Judge Bork's Unfathomable Endorsement of Romney
Here's Romney's web site on Bork's unfathomable endorsement:
"I greatly admired his leadership in Massachusetts in the way that he responded to the activist court's ruling legalizing same-sex 'marriage.' His leadership on the issue has served as a model to the nation on how to respect all of our citizens while respecting the rule of law at the same time."
How old is Bork now? What is the average mandatory retirement age around the country for judges? How could this be the same man who wrote Slouching towards Gomorrah?)
Here's Judge Bork ruminating on judicial tyranny back in November 1996 (the good old days) in First Things magazine. (Thanks to BizzyBlog for digging this up.) --
Only a change in our institutional arrangements can halt the transformation of our society and culture by judges. Decisions of courts might be made subject to modification or reversal by majority vote of the Senate and the House of Representatives. Alternatively, courts might be deprived of the power of constitutional review. Either of those solutions would require a constitutional amendment. Perhaps an elected official will one day simply refuse to comply with a Supreme Court decision.
That suggestion will be regarded as shocking, but it should not be. To the objection that a rejection of a court's authority would be civil disobedience, the answer is that a court that issues orders without authority engages in an equally dangerous form of civil disobedience. The Taney Court that decided Dred Scott might well have decided, if the issue had been presented to it, that the South had a constitutional right to secede. Would Lincoln have been wrong to defy the Court's order and continue the Civil War? Some members of the Supreme Court were edging towards judging the constitutionality of the war in Vietnam. Surely, we do not want the Court to control every major decision and leave only the minutiae for democratic government.
Calling for a "Mea Culpa" from Mitt Romney
Please Mitt, at least a mea culpa
An open letter to our former Massachusetts governor
By R.T. Neary (12-17-07)
... On the campaign trail, you're asserting that you are "pro-life" because you are now in favor of overturning Roe v Wade. Are you asking us to believe that this posture is tantamount to being Pro-Life? Your current stance, which is the same as some of your competitors, is a states' rights position which doesn't interfere at all with the right to abort the life of a newly created human being. Why don't you make a firm pronouncement in favor of a Human Life Amendment, an uncompromising call for the protection of all innocent human life? This would be a genuine Pro-life position — and there's still time.
For decades, there has been a culture war raging nationally, and this state where you governed has been the site of major battles. During your tenure, over 100,000 of our future citizens were legally destroyed in this so-called commonwealth. Close to 10,000 couples of the same gender were issued "marriage" licenses, children were subjected to the vilest of sexual practices in tax-funded public schools, and one parent was jailed for voicing objections to it. Mitt, were you blind to all of this?
Are you still blind to the fact that to allow parents to donate embryos for scientific stem cell research is to sanction the willful destruction of an innocent human being? Yet, you're trying to make a fine point that you are opposed to "creating" embryos for scientific stem cell research. Sorry, it skirts the moral issue and doesn't wash. Even the scientists involved in the research have not denied to us that an embryo has all its DNA in place. All that is needed for him or her to breath like you or I do is that two conditions be met: provide the proper environment and the necessary time....
With regard to your opposition on the presidential campaign trail to same-sex "marriage," as Governor of Massachusetts, you literally had your finger on the switch. And you pushed the full speed ahead, rather than locking in the stop lever. You, as a Harvard Law School graduate, knew that the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) had no authority under the Massachusetts constitution to pervert this millennia-old cornerstone of our society....
I reflect on the many calls I made under that Golden Dome on Beacon Hill, attempting to get support from your office for Pro-Life bills and especially a bill which would require advance parental permission for subjecting children to gross perversion in Sex Education in public schools. Never once could we get beyond the lowest contact level. Nor could we get even a discussion about the need for curriculum transparency, and the need for signed parental approval before subjecting children's minds to psychologically damaging material....
Read more ...
Romney's Bargain Abortions
Romney supposedly became pro-life long before signing the Massachusetts health care law --which offers baby-killing services for a mere $50.
Romney -- $50 Abortions in Massachusetts
Contact: Press Office, 571-730-1010; www.Fred08.com
MC LEAN, Va., Dec. 12 /Christian Newswire/ -- Romney claims to be pro-life. But under his health care plan, Massachusetts residents now have access to taxpayer-funded abortions for $50.
Romney's Health Care Plan:
Provides Taxpayer-Funded Abortions. Abortions are covered in the Commonwealth Care program that Romney created as Governor. Under the program, abortions are available for a copay of $50. (Menu of Health Care Services: www.mass.gov/Qhic/docs/cc_benefits1220_pt234.pdf)
Guarantees Planned Parenthood A Seat At The Table. Romney's legislation created an advisory board and guarantees, by law, that Planned Parenthood has a seat at the table. Romney's plan established a MassHealth payment policy advisory board, and one member of the Board must be from Planned Parenthood. No pro-life organization is represented. (Chapter 58 Section 3 (q) Section 16M (a), www.mass.gov/legis/laws/seslaw06/sl060058.htm)
Romney used his line-item veto authority to strike eight sections of the bill that he found objectionable, including the expansion of dental benefits to Medicaid recipients. Yet, he did not strike Planned Parenthood's guaranteed Board representation and he did nothing to prohibit taxpayer-funded abortions as part of his plan. ("Romney's Health Care Vetoes," Associated Press, 4/12/06)
Friday, December 14, 2007
Roe v Wade and Fuzzy Thinking on the "Rule of Law"
This horrible Supreme Court ruling did not actually "legalize" abortion, but in fact just ushered in an era of fuzzy "thinking" across America about the power of the Court and the true meaning of words. A whole nation (in including nominal Republicans and "conservatives") has been trained by the media to say and believe that "a woman's right to choose" to murder her own child is the "law of the land."
Roe v. Wade laid the groundwork for the public's acceptance of future outrageous court rulings, including the Goodridge homosexual "marriage" ruling here in Massachusetts. It allowed former Gov. Mitt Romney to enact this radical social plan now transforming all of America -- while claiming he was just "following the law."
From Barber's article:
Due to circumstances beyond our control, the term "September 11th" almost instantly became a household phrase. It represents a day of great tragedy and outrage wherein over 3,000 people were murdered at the hands of Islamic extremists who callously chose to sacrifice innocent human life to further a narrow and selfish political agenda.
But another date, Jan. 22, which is not so well-known, signifies an equally outrageous and solemn occasion. Jan. 22, 2008, marks the 35th anniversary of what is, unquestionably, one of the U.S. Supreme Court's most highly controversial and divisive rulings in its 200-plus year history – Roe v. Wade.
The Roe decision, authored by Justice Harry Blackmun, found for the first time that the U.S. Constitution somehow guaranteed the phantom "right" for a mother to have the innocent child which grew within her summarily killed.
Since that time, what seems an endless string of misguided women and innocent children have been victimized by this much more subtle, yet equally deadly form of politically motivated violence. And those to blame are, once again, extremists with an almost religious zeal who callously "choose" to sacrifice innocent human life to further a narrow and selfish political agenda. ...
The number of those slaughtered as a direct result of Roe far exceeds that of Americans killed in all U.S. wars combined. Yet, in this war – the war for our culture – it is innocent children whose bodies are strewn across the battlefield, buried – unceremoniously – in mass graves behind the local Planned Parenthood. ...
Matt Barber is one of the "like-minded men" with Concerned Women for America. He is an attorney concentrating in constitutional law and serves as CWA's policy director for cultural issues.
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Mass. Commission on Gay & Lesbian Youth Designing "Safe Schools" Programs
Grace Sterling Stowell, Vice Chairman of the Commmission on Gay and Lesbian Youth, and Executive Director of BAGLY (Boston Alliance of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Youth), which puts on the annual Queer/Trans prom at Boston City Hall, ending the Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth's Pride Day celebration every May. Until we brought attention to it, Stowell directed youth to a "male-to-female" surgery web site on the BAGLY resource page.
Gunner Scott, founder of GenderCrash and trans activist about town, is pushing hard for the "Transgender Rights and Hate Crimes" Bill H1722 now filed in the Mass. Legislature. Here's Scott, profiled in Bay Windows: Scott believes that there is a whole group of people who are trans amorous (even if those individuals don’t comprise an identifiable community) and these “transam” folks also face transphobia. Scott, who now identifies as a genderqueer female-to-masculine person, speaks from experience on both sides of that romantic situation. “Before I came out as trans I was partnered with a transwoman. I was lesbian-identified and I lost more [queer] friends being with her than I did when I first came out [as trans].” Scott hopes that his trans activism will help create a world in which all people feel free to live in the identity that they most relate to....
Now, the Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth is looking for new members. Their plan is to increase the number of youth members and "transgender" commissioners. The new transgender members will probably be in addition to the four openly trans members already on the Commission.
We're not sure if the Commission has re-defined "youth" yet, as Scott proposed at a meeting last March, to include ALL public school students, grades K-12. But possibly we'll soon be seeing a kindergartner or 1st-grader on the Commission! We're sure his contributions will be on a par with the current members' thoughtful ideas for inclusive, diverse, and safe schools.
Here's a list of current Commission members.
[From Bay Windows:] Mass. Youth Commission to meet in Brockton (12-12-07)
The Massachusetts Commission on GLBT Youth will meet Dec. 17 at the Holiday Inn in Brockton , the latest in a series of meetings held in different regions of the state to conduct commission business and meet with local youth and advocates to assess the situation of LGBT youth in Massachusetts. Thus far the commission has held meetings in Boston, Hyannis and Worcester, and in March the commission will hold a meeting in Springfield.
Jason Smith, chair of the commission, said a group of local youth will address the commission at the Brockton meeting and talk about the issues facing LGBT youth in their city. Prior to the public meeting the commission will also hold a private discussion forum with local LGBT and allied youth to hear firsthand about their experiences at schools, in their families and in their neighborhoods. The commission held a similar event at the Worcester meeting in October that brought out about 20 young people involved in local gay/straight alliances....
The meeting will include discussion of LGBT youth funding in the fiscal year 2009 budget and the state of the Department of Education’s Safe Schools program. Commissioners will also vote on a slate of new candidates to fill the slots of commissioners who have resigned. Smith said he was unsure how many prospective commissioners were on the slate, but many of them help the commission achieve its goal of increasing representation of various communities, including LGBT youth themselves.
"Most of the commissioners that have applied and that we’re looking at are youth or potential commissioners who are transgender, and there’s also a lot of people representing Western Mass," said Smith, who added that there are commissioners from southern Mass. and Cape Ann as well. "We’re definitely looking to regionalize." [emphasis added]
The Commission's next meeting (open to the public) is taking place at the Holiday Inn in Brockton next Monday, Dec. 17, from 7-9 p.m.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
National Review's Romney Endorsement -- Our Challenge
You have a whole blog dedicated to judicial activism … yet your magazine just endorsed Mitt Romney, who is guilty of causing the worst incidence of judicial activism since Roe v Wade to be treated as “law”. Professor Hadley Arkes even wrote an important piece in NATIONAL REVIEW highly critical of Romney on the day the “homosexual marriages” began in Massachusetts (thanks to Romney’s orders): "The Missing Governor" by Hadley Arkes (May 17, 2004). Arkes asked: "Have Republican leaders lost their confidence on moral matters?"
Does no one remember that prominent conservatives pleaded with Romney in 2003-4 to uphold the Mass. Constitution, and defy the illegitimate Court ruling on homosexual "marriage"? Phyllis Schlafly, Pat Buchanan, Mat Staver (Liberty Counsel), and even HUGH HEWITT (Weekly Standard, 11-20-03) told Romney to stand up against judicial tyranny. But Romney ignored them and singlehandedly began homosexual "marriage" in Mass. (The Legislature still has not changed our statutes to allow it, as ordered by the Court...which didn't even tell Romney to do anything!)
Why did Romney issue orders to his executive branch officials to change the marriage licenses and perform the marriages? There was no new LAW to enforce! If we couldn't trust Romney with the Mass. Constitution, how can we trust him with the U.S. Constitution? See our report: http://massresistance.org/docs/marriage/romney/
Only one of the 19 editors contacted, Jim Geraghty of their "Campaign Spot" blog, has responded: "Mass e-mailing editors who had nothing to do with the endorsement just pisses them off."
We answered: "I would love to know how NR arrived at a decision to endorse, if the editors weren't involved? Seriously, what was the process? (P.S. I don't appreciate language like "p off" – lots of us regular people still don't talk like that.)"
He then said: "I think I don't appreciate mass e-mails berating me for a decision I had no role in about as much as you don't appreciate the term 'pisses them off.' " (He just had to repeat that.) And then he sent us to his earlier post:
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
MIKE HUCKABEE, MITT ROMNEY
Another Thought On The Endorsement [by Jim Geraghty, on NRO's Campaign Spot]
Last night Rich [Lowry, editor-in-chief] explained a bit about NR's endorsement process to Hugh Hewitt:
HH: Take me inside first the process by which National Review arrived at its endorsement.
RL: (laughing) I don’t know, Hugh. It’s a really tightly held process here. It’s like selecting the Pope. We can’t reveal too much, but…
HH: How many people got a say in this?
RL: Well, it’s our senior editors, our publisher, our president and our Washington editor and myself. And we’ve been talking about it the last two weeks or so, just because this is our, through the quirks of our publication schedule, this is our last issue before people vote in Iowa and New Hampshire.
So complaining to anybody else at NR or NRO is not really going to do any good. In fact, complaining won't do any good, period. If the magazine endorsed somebody besides your guy, you say, "I disagree," you hope it does Romney as much good as it did Phil Gramm, and then life goes on....
In other words, no feedback, no discussion welcome. The court has ruled, and that's that. (And he even continues with silly putdowns of Ron Paul's and Mike Huckabee's campaigns.) But these people rarely answer the substance of the question. Maybe Geraghty could do a little research on this all-important fact in Romney's record as Governor, then get back to us with a little more thoughtful response. He is the editor of NR's Campaign blog, after all.
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Polyamory On the Way
Valerie White (see her web site) is an activist for "alternative sexual expression" -- including polygamy, polyamory, and BDSM (torture, sadomasochism, dangerous sexual perversions, etc.). She's a board member of the Unitarian pro-polyamory group called "Unitarian Universalists for Polyamory Awareness," and an ordained "Humanist" minister. (Now recall that the Unitarians have been a huge prime mover for "homosexual marriage." Their national headquarters building is immediately adjacent to the Mass. State House; how convenient!) White has set up a legal foundation to defend practitioners of "alternative sexual expression," including BDSM, the Sexual Freedom Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc. (See "BDSM & the law" ...)
Recently, NARTH (Nat'l Assoc for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality) brought our attention to "Poly Pride Week" in New York last October. Polyamorous NYC ("Expanding the depth of human relationships with strength in numbers") hosted a big event in Central Park including a huge "cuddle party" for "all orientations and genders." (The Massachusetts activist noted above, Valerie White, is also associated with the NY group.)
Polyamorous NYC will host the 7th Annual Poly Pride Day on Great Hill in Central Park, Sat., Oct. 6th from Noon to 6 p.m. The organizers are planning multiple polyamorous events for the entire weekend. All poly-friendly, poly-curious and polyamorous people welcome! "Nuclear families are beginning to disappear. Non-traditional relationships, often involving three or more consenting adults are taking their place" says Polyamorous NYC member, Barbara Foster. "Poly Pride Day gives us an opportunity to publicly celebrate these non-traditional families."
Resources on Polyamorous NYC's web site -- all available on Amazon -- include:
The Ethical Slut: A Guide to Infinite Sexual Possibilities
Polyamory: The New Love Without Limits: Secrets of Sustainable Relationships
Redefining Our Relationships: Guidelines for Responsible Open Relationships