Everyone's up in arms over Mitt Romney's treatment of his dog back in the '80s: strapping him on the top of the family car for a 12-hour trip to their vacation home. The poor creature had a bout of diarrhea, due very possibly due to the undue stress of his travel circumstances. Why, we wonder, didn't he travel inside the car with the boys?
The Boston Globe has thrown a lot of dirt out there in the last seven days' series on Mitt, waiting to see what sticks. The pet-lover nation was aroused by Seamus the Dog's ordeal.
But we were struck (and noted earlier) that AMBITION seems to roll over people as well as dogs. Back in February, we noted that Ann Romney's diagnosis with multiple sclerosis made most puzzling Mitt's decision to go forward with his presidential run. MS is a lot more serious than a dog with diarrhea jitters. Why is no one commenting on it?
In the Globe's Friday Romney report, "Taking office while remaining an outsider," we read this:
Ann Romney's health was a factor in the decision [to run for Governor]. A day before returning to Massachusetts, she told a Globe reporter that she had reservations about the move [from Utah] because her multiple sclerosis symptoms had abated during three years in Utah. ''It's the one thing that's keeping us .....'' she said before her husband interjected: ''Careful. Hold it. Don't finish that sentence .....'' But she did, saying she had ''huge qualms because I've been healthy out here.'' The next day, March 17, the Romneys flew to Massachusetts, met at the airport by reporters and a Boston Herald poll that showed Romney crushing Swift by a 75 percent to 12 percent in a race for the GOP nomination.
Now we think MS is a lot more serious than a dog's travelling conditions.
The same Globe series also notes that after the 2004 rout of Republican state legislature candidates in Massachusetts, Romney told the Globe editorial board he was tired of trying to promote the Republican Party here. ''From now on, it's me-me-me,'' he said. ("Ambitious goals, shifting stances"). Of course the Globe didn't report that one reason the Republicans did so poorly in that state election is that Romney ordered that the issue of "gay marriage" not be brought up in the local campaigns!
Saturday, June 30, 2007
Friday, June 29, 2007
Mass. House of Reps in May 2004: No Vote Will Overturn Marriage Ruling
Did you get that? The Massachusetts House of Representatives, under Tom Finneran's leadership, issued a proclamation on May 17, 2004 PLEDGING NO VOTE WOULD OVERTURN THE GOODRIDGE SODOMY "MARRIAGE" RULING. This proclamation specifically congratulated one of the most radical homosexual activists in the state on the occasion of his "wedding". And no, this was not an occasion for a tongue-in-cheek pronouncement.
"What the SJC has granted, let no vote put asunder."
(This assumes that columnist Margery Eagan was reporting accurately --a bit risky.)
"What the SJC has granted, let no vote put asunder."
(This assumes that columnist Margery Eagan was reporting accurately --a bit risky.)
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Finneran-Lang-Eagan Axis of Evil
Came across an amazing column by one of our least favorites, the lisping Margery Eagan. This lovely little piece from May 18, 2004, easily missed in the surreal events surrounding the total breakdown of constitutional government in Massachusetts -- brings together convicted felon/former House Speaker Tom Finneran, Holocaust perverter/KnowThyNeighbor intimidator-in-chief Tom Lang, and Mizz Eagan, Boston Herald columnist. A true rogue's gallery. The column brings home the extent of the conspiracy pushing sodomy "marriage". Mr. Speaker Finneran -- supposedly totally against this travesty -- was ready and eager to congratulate Lang and his "husband" on their "wedding".How long have we heard over and over that Finneran opposed "gay marriage"? But what did he really do to halt it in 2004? He could have led the Legislature to defy the SJC ruling (just as Gov. Romney could have done with his Executive branch). But he did NOTHING. Stayed behind closed doors and pretended to be working for a constitutional amendment. If you review all the stories from November 2003 through May 2004, you'll be struck by how many times "Finneran had no comment". Reading this column, we realize he was just as much a turncoat as the recent legislators who voted against marriage.
Lang's "wedding" was one of the first after the phony, illegal "gay marriages" began. He married his lovely bride -- oops, "husband" -- Alex, in a rose-bedecked church in Manchester-By-The-Sea. Eagan was apparently a guest of the two grooms. And Finneran issued a proclamation celebrating this sanctification of sodomy. The "husbands" seem to be very wealthy and well-connected, the event complete with bejeweled guests, opera singers, and a mansion to go home to. (Has Eagan returned for a party recently?)
Within two years of his glorious "wedding", Lang went on to publish the names of all who signed the VoteOnMarriage referendum petition on his KnowThyNeighbor site, and become a leading spewer of heterophobic hate speech. Watch him and his friends in this video (he's the chubby guy with glasses), revealing his intention to shut down any speech opposing his. And now how amazing is it that both Eagan and Finneran host talk radio shows? (This used to be the only outlet for conservatives in this state; now station managements are giving it over to the leftists.) From Eagan's column,"Same-Sex Marriage: Ordinary ceremony turns unique" (Boston Herald, 5-18-04).
... Five minutes after Alexander Westerhoff and Thomas Lang, in tails and tux, walked down a white-carpeted aisle here last night, their wedding became not about same-sex or any sex, but about two people promising their lives to each other.
In many respects this wedding is "like any wedding," said officiating minister the Rev. Peter J. Gomes of Harvard University . "Preservice jitters . . . anxiety . . . confusion," he said. "And so we celebrate the ordinariness of the occasion."
But Gomes also said there's "something quite unique and special" happening in this small chapel.
You expected Gomes then to speak of history: Yesterday, for the first time, homosexual couples could wed in Massachusetts . Before yesterday this union would have been illegal. Instead, Gomes referred to the two men before him as "unique" in their love. Men who put "16 years' worth of thought and care and consideration" into getting married.
And so it was in many ways a traditional marriage. Each pew a garland of baby roses. Best man Alex Filias handing over the rings. Traditional vows: "I give you this ring as a symbol of my promise," said Westerhoff. "All that I am is yours, as long as we both shall live," said Lang.
Here's what was different: As the couples joined hands, Gomes pronounced them, not man and wife, but "partners for life" and "truly married in the sight of God and man." Lang and Westerhoff kissed twice - very quickly - then they received a proclamation of congratulations from the Massachusetts House of Representatives, signed by Speaker Thomas Finneran, who has long opposed gay marriage. It read: "What the SJC has granted, let no vote put asunder."
... last night in Manchester-by-the-Sea, about 100 guests - men in black ties and women in bejeweled gowns - celebrated their marriage with them. Singers from the Boston Lyric Opera sang arias by Puccini and Lehar. Lang and Westerhoff marched out of the church to a gospel rendition of "Oh, Happy Day," sung by the red-robed Majestic Ensemble. Westerhoff was occasionally in tears as the wedding party adjourned to the massive home the couple just built together.
Missing from the party, however, was Alex's mother, who disowned him, the couple said, after their Vermont civil union....
Monday, June 25, 2007
CNN Joins Transsexual Propaganda Push
Right: Patrick Guerriero, former Mass. pol and now Executive Director of Gill Foundation's Action Fund, doling out millions in Massachusetts State House. On left: Arline Isaacson, chief GLBT lobbyist.
Below: Mara Keisling, "male-to-female" transsexual "personal mentor" of Patrick Guerriero, addressing trans rally at Harvard. [photo credits: InNews Weekly]
First we had ABC and Barbara Walters telling us that little children -- whose apparently unbalanced mothers give them (at the very earliest ages) haircuts, clothes, and toys of the opposite sex --are really "transgender" from birth. And last night on CNN, reporter Rick Sanchez hits us with another all-out assault on biological sexual reality. The dinner-hour show was chock full of fawning discussion of "transgenderism" and how people are born that way. (So how come every time we see one of these shows, we hear the mothers talk about how they encouraged their very young child in this bizarre direction?)This is clearly part of a national media push to pass "transgender rights and hate crimes" bills, both at the federal and state levels. The Boston Globe magazine hit us on Easter Sunday with a piece on college girls removing their breasts. And Newsweek had a huge spread in May pushing transgender propaganda.
Reporter Sanchez interviewed a doctor from Children's Hospital in Los Angeles (Dr. Marvin Belzer) who subscribes to the Dr. Spack school of medicating "transgender" children prior to puberty in order to ease their sex change operations later. The report did mention that the American Academy of Pediatrics has no guidelines drawn up on this practice.
Reporter Sanchez interviewed a doctor from Children's Hospital in Los Angeles (Dr. Marvin Belzer) who subscribes to the Dr. Spack school of medicating "transgender" children prior to puberty in order to ease their sex change operations later. The report did mention that the American Academy of Pediatrics has no guidelines drawn up on this practice.
CNN also spoke with Mara Keisling (director of the National Center for Transgender Equality), a man dressing as a woman with his deep male voice intact. Why this person is given any credence is unimaginable. His challenge to biological reality and demands for special rights are over the top. But remember that Patrick Guerriero, recently spreading around the Gill Foundation millions in the Mass. State House, called Keisling his "personal mentor"! That is surely a sign that there will be ample funding to push for the passage of Bill #H1722, the "Transgender Rights and Hate Crimes" bill, currently in the Massachusetts legislature. Gov. Deval Patrick has pledged his support to whatever the transgender group demands.
From our posting on September 4, 2006:
A few months ago, while still head of the National Log Cabin Republicans, Guerriero signaled his commitment to the trans cause, and named the "male-to-female" leader of the National Center for Transgender Equality as his "personal mentor": Coalitions with choice and environmental groups and hot button issues like the Schiavo matter represent an evolution in Log Cabin strategy. So too is a stronger focus on transgender rights that Guerriero has introduced in Log Cabin since he took over in 2002. “I have actually brought a level of discussion of that issue to the organization over the past couple of years,” he explained, saying that Mara Keisling, executive director of the National Center for Transgender Equality, has served as “a personal mentor” to him.“I think we need us all to move forward and we should be wary of leaving anyone behind,” Guerriero said.
Is the American public really buying this trans propaganda? How can the reporters buy into this? Do transgenders throw really good parties, or what?
CNN links:
http://www.cnn.com/video/player/player.html?url=/video/us/2007/06/24/sanchez.what.is.transgender.NY1&wm=10
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2007/lgbt.america/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/video/player/player.html?url=/video/world/2007/06/07/rao.indonesia.transgender.cnn
A few months ago, while still head of the National Log Cabin Republicans, Guerriero signaled his commitment to the trans cause, and named the "male-to-female" leader of the National Center for Transgender Equality as his "personal mentor": Coalitions with choice and environmental groups and hot button issues like the Schiavo matter represent an evolution in Log Cabin strategy. So too is a stronger focus on transgender rights that Guerriero has introduced in Log Cabin since he took over in 2002. “I have actually brought a level of discussion of that issue to the organization over the past couple of years,” he explained, saying that Mara Keisling, executive director of the National Center for Transgender Equality, has served as “a personal mentor” to him.“I think we need us all to move forward and we should be wary of leaving anyone behind,” Guerriero said.
Is the American public really buying this trans propaganda? How can the reporters buy into this? Do transgenders throw really good parties, or what?
CNN links:
http://www.cnn.com/video/player/player.html?url=/video/us/2007/06/24/sanchez.what.is.transgender.NY1&wm=10
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2007/lgbt.america/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/video/player/player.html?url=/video/world/2007/06/07/rao.indonesia.transgender.cnn
Sunday, June 24, 2007
Time to Get Married?
Is there a "husband" in the house? Bay Windows reports that MassEquality director Marc Solomon may be in the "marrying" mode. The party crowd at the Club Cafe, celebrating their victory for sodomy on June 14, are planning to give Mr. Solomon a little help finding Mr. Right.May we suggest some of the eligible bachelors in the State House? There are some cute aides in Senate President Murray's office. And what about those (RINO) legislators who've otherwise inexplicably voted solidly for "gay marriage"? But seriously, this brings up the question -- Why are so few of the stars of the homosexual lobby "married"?
From Bay Windows:
Meanwhile, MassEquality threw its own after party at Club Café. ... By the time the newscast ended most of the marriage equality advocates had arrived, along with many of the lawmakers who helped organize the ConCon victory including Sens. Barrios, Stan Rosenberg and Bob Havern and Reps. Festa, Byron Rushing and Barbara L’Italien. Gathering in the back room of Club Café, the crowd listened as Solomon praised each of the members of MassEquality’s leadership team and the key lawmakers in attendance for the role they played in defeating the amendment.
The mood of the party was festive, loose and more than a bit lubricated by the ample drinks flowing from the bar. But during the round of speeches in the back room MassEquality political director Matt McTighe had a serious message for the crowd, which he delivered after one member of the audience shouted at him to take off his shirt (McTighe declined). McTighe warned the crowd that “the fight isn’t over.” He continued, “Now that the right to marry is protected, we have to find Marc Solomon a husband.”
Isn't that sweet?
[photo credit: InNews Weekly]
How Gill Foundation Buys Votes
More on the corruption of the Massachusetts Legislature by homofascist money. We've posted on these two articles before, but it's time to review them. First, the piece in Atlantic Monthly, "They Won't Know What Hit Them," on the Gill Foundation's tactics for taking over state legislatures. Note that Patrick Guerriero is clearly in charge. In Iowa:
Over the summer, [pro-family incumbent who lost] Carroll’s opponent started receiving checks from across the country—significant sums for a statehouse race, though none so large as to arouse suspicion (the gifts topped out at $1,000). Because they came from individuals and not from organizations, nothing identified the money as being “gay,” or even coordinated. Only a very astute political operative would have spotted the unusual number of out-of-state donors and pondered their interest in an obscure midwestern race. And only someone truly versed in the world of gay causes would have noticed a $1,000 contribution from Denver, Colorado, and been aware that its source, Tim Gill, is the country’s biggest gay donor, and the nexus of an aggressive new force in national politics.
Scrolling through the thirty-two-page roster of campaign contributors revealed plenty of $25 and $50 donations from nearby towns like Oskaloosa and New Sharon. But a $1,000 donation from California stood out on page 2, and, several pages later, so did another $1,000 from New York City. “I’ll be darned,” said Carroll. “That doesn’t make any sense.” As we kept scrolling, Carroll began reading aloud with mounting disbelief as the evidence passed before his eyes. “Denver … Dallas … Los Angeles … Malibu … there’s New York again … San Francisco! I can’t—I just cannot believe this,” he said, finally....
Gill’s decision to shift away from national politics seems dictated even more by his philosophy about how to engage most effectively in politics than by the mediocre gains chalked up during the Clinton years. “If your objective is to innovate and take risks, you move faster with a small group,” Gill’s political director, Guerriero, told me. “If Columbus had needed a conference call before setting sail for America, he’d still be at the dock.”...
One component of Gill’s strategy includes courting that element of the Republican Party that’s open to compromise, while at the same time making clear that gay bashing will now come at a price. “You have to create an atmosphere of fear and respect,” said Trimpa, “and set up the proper context for them to do the right thing.”
Also, National Review exposed the takeover of the Colorado state house as more of Gill's handiwork. (See "The Color Purple: how liberal millionaires are buying Colorado's politics" by John J. Miller.):
A large number of Republicans believe that their hard times ultimately come down to a single factor: money. "We haven't seen anything like this before," says Katy Atkinson, a longtime GOP consultant. "The money factor is absolutely enormous." ... Three millionaire liberals are working the state's electoral levers. "They're trying to buy the political structure of the state," says Governor Owens. "Everywhere we look, we see their money and their resources." The ringleader is Tim Gill, the founder of Quark, a software firm; over the last decade, he has donated tens of millions to gay and lesbian causes. ...
Two years ago, Ray Martinez learned firsthand what their money can do. He was a former police sergeant and a popular three-term mayor of Fort Collins. When a state senator retired in his district, he threw his hat in the ring. "We thought he would win easily," says [former Gov.] Owens. The district is home to about one-third more registered Republicans than Democrats. But then Colorado's liberal millionaires swooped in, bankrolling slash-and-burn ads about Martinez. Many of them aired in Denver's pricey TV market--an extravagance previously unheard of in state-senate races. "You know how you hear about elections that are bought? That's what happened to me--my opponent's election was bought," says Martinez. "My campaign cost about $350,000, and the other side spent as much as $1.7 million against me."
Over the summer, [pro-family incumbent who lost] Carroll’s opponent started receiving checks from across the country—significant sums for a statehouse race, though none so large as to arouse suspicion (the gifts topped out at $1,000). Because they came from individuals and not from organizations, nothing identified the money as being “gay,” or even coordinated. Only a very astute political operative would have spotted the unusual number of out-of-state donors and pondered their interest in an obscure midwestern race. And only someone truly versed in the world of gay causes would have noticed a $1,000 contribution from Denver, Colorado, and been aware that its source, Tim Gill, is the country’s biggest gay donor, and the nexus of an aggressive new force in national politics.
Scrolling through the thirty-two-page roster of campaign contributors revealed plenty of $25 and $50 donations from nearby towns like Oskaloosa and New Sharon. But a $1,000 donation from California stood out on page 2, and, several pages later, so did another $1,000 from New York City. “I’ll be darned,” said Carroll. “That doesn’t make any sense.” As we kept scrolling, Carroll began reading aloud with mounting disbelief as the evidence passed before his eyes. “Denver … Dallas … Los Angeles … Malibu … there’s New York again … San Francisco! I can’t—I just cannot believe this,” he said, finally....
Gill’s decision to shift away from national politics seems dictated even more by his philosophy about how to engage most effectively in politics than by the mediocre gains chalked up during the Clinton years. “If your objective is to innovate and take risks, you move faster with a small group,” Gill’s political director, Guerriero, told me. “If Columbus had needed a conference call before setting sail for America, he’d still be at the dock.”...
One component of Gill’s strategy includes courting that element of the Republican Party that’s open to compromise, while at the same time making clear that gay bashing will now come at a price. “You have to create an atmosphere of fear and respect,” said Trimpa, “and set up the proper context for them to do the right thing.”
Also, National Review exposed the takeover of the Colorado state house as more of Gill's handiwork. (See "The Color Purple: how liberal millionaires are buying Colorado's politics" by John J. Miller.):
A large number of Republicans believe that their hard times ultimately come down to a single factor: money. "We haven't seen anything like this before," says Katy Atkinson, a longtime GOP consultant. "The money factor is absolutely enormous." ... Three millionaire liberals are working the state's electoral levers. "They're trying to buy the political structure of the state," says Governor Owens. "Everywhere we look, we see their money and their resources." The ringleader is Tim Gill, the founder of Quark, a software firm; over the last decade, he has donated tens of millions to gay and lesbian causes. ...
Two years ago, Ray Martinez learned firsthand what their money can do. He was a former police sergeant and a popular three-term mayor of Fort Collins. When a state senator retired in his district, he threw his hat in the ring. "We thought he would win easily," says [former Gov.] Owens. The district is home to about one-third more registered Republicans than Democrats. But then Colorado's liberal millionaires swooped in, bankrolling slash-and-burn ads about Martinez. Many of them aired in Denver's pricey TV market--an extravagance previously unheard of in state-senate races. "You know how you hear about elections that are bought? That's what happened to me--my opponent's election was bought," says Martinez. "My campaign cost about $350,000, and the other side spent as much as $1.7 million against me."
Saturday, June 23, 2007
Did Gill Foundation's Millions Defeat Marriage Amendment?
From last week's Constitutional Convention on June 14:Here is Arline Isaacson (center), chief lobbyist for the Mass. Gay & Lesbian Political Caucus, with her close ally Patrick Guerriero, former Massachusetts pol, more recently head of national Log Cabin Republicans, and now Executive Director of the Gill Foundation Action Fund. We've pointed out for a year now that Guerriero was going to be spreading around Gill's millions to our Mass. legislators and organizations. Well, looks like we were right. Hard to trace though.
Coming Repeal of 1913 Law & Legalizing Still Illegal "Gay Marriage"
The leftist media campaign is on to dismiss the importance of the plot to overturn Massachusetts' "1913 law" regulating out-of-state couples marrying here. Ellen Goodman leads the way in her column, "The Vegas of same-sex marriage" (Boston Globe, 6-22-07).
A current law (dating from 1913) bars marriages here which would be illegal in a couple's (or eventually, a group's) home state. H1728 would overturn this law. We've been pointing out for some time that a companion bill filed by the homosexual lobby, H1710, would LEGALIZE still illegal HOMOSEXUAL "MARRIAGE". (The statutes never changed after the Goodridge ruling.)
There will probably be an attempt to rush these two bills through at midnight sometime in August when most normal people are vacationing. So stay in touch with the Judiciary Committee and watch the hearings schedule, especially for Bill H1710, which states:
Chapter 207 [marriage statutes] is hereby amended by adding the following new section:--
Section 37A. Any person who otherwise meets the eligibility requirements of this chapter may marry any other eligible person regardless of gender.
[Note the word "gender" is used instead of "sex". The GLBT groups behind this bill live in the Brave New World of "gender" fluidity, where biological sex and its implications are a politically incorrect concept.]
We suspect that the homosexual lobby realizes the news profile is a bit too elevated on the subject of the 1913 law, and they also want to deflect attention from this companion bill to legalize homosexual/transsexual/pansexual "marriage". Only MassResistance has pointed out that the H1710 even exists! The mainstream media have never mentioned it.
Back to the 1913 law: Marc Solomon of MassEquality was quoted (the day after the VoteOnMarriage amendment defeat) on how he is working with Governor Patrick and legislative leaders on the schedule to overturn it. The homosexual lobby now has more than 3/4 of the state legislators in their pocket. From the Boston Globe (6-16-07):
Proponents [of sodomy "marriage"] said they will also eventually look to open the door to couples from other states to marry in Massachusetts. Solomon said there is overwhelming support in the Legislature to repeal the 1913 law that prohibits couples from out of state from marrying in Massachusetts if the union would not be legal in their own state. "The next step is to sit down with legislative leaders and the governor's people and talk about when it makes sense to advance that piece of legislation," said Solomon, adding that there are no immediate plans for such a meeting.
But maybe they decided after this comment that they need to tamp down public scrutiny on this. So along comes Ellen Goodman. In her Boston Globe column yesterday, she made light of concerns that we'd become the "Las Vegas" of homosexual "marriage" if that law is overturned. She said that other states' bans on homosexual "marriage" will prevent its exportation from Massachusetts. If that's the case, why does the homosexual lobby here want so desperately to overturn the 1913 law? We know that the national homosexual groups (e.g., the Gill Foundation Action Fund) are pouring millions into Massachusetts. Why would they care about this 1913 law, except that they know what happens here will migrate to every other state? Goodman dishonestly writes:
But some are saying that if we overturn the 1913 law, the marrying hordes will come and go back home with a license and a lawsuit. Whether you like or loathe the idea, repealing the 1913 law isn't likely to have much effect. There are at least 44 states with no chance of recognition because of statutes or constitutional amendments against same-sex marriage. As Joanna Grossman, a family law professor at Hofstra who has written extensively on this subject, says, "There's nothing much one state can do to change the national landscape."...
"What makes marriage legally important is recognition by the jurisdiction in which you live," says Grossman. "There's the chance that couples would use this to litigate in a handful of other states like New York. There is the chance that, in a few states, a court might rule that even though we don't permit same-sex marriage, we recognize it if valid elsewhere." But by and large, "Massachusetts would suffer a brief economic boom and that would be the end of it."
Hmm. Doesn't sound like the end of it to us. What about the "full faith and credit" clause of the federal constitution? What about the hyper-aggressive advocacy groups like GLAD and ACLU, and their allies in the federal courts (the 9th District, for instance)? What about the the 14th Amendment which guarantees equal protection under the law -- so some federal court will say we can't have some homosexuals allowed to marry, and some not?
A current law (dating from 1913) bars marriages here which would be illegal in a couple's (or eventually, a group's) home state. H1728 would overturn this law. We've been pointing out for some time that a companion bill filed by the homosexual lobby, H1710, would LEGALIZE still illegal HOMOSEXUAL "MARRIAGE". (The statutes never changed after the Goodridge ruling.)
There will probably be an attempt to rush these two bills through at midnight sometime in August when most normal people are vacationing. So stay in touch with the Judiciary Committee and watch the hearings schedule, especially for Bill H1710, which states:
Chapter 207 [marriage statutes] is hereby amended by adding the following new section:--
Section 37A. Any person who otherwise meets the eligibility requirements of this chapter may marry any other eligible person regardless of gender.
[Note the word "gender" is used instead of "sex". The GLBT groups behind this bill live in the Brave New World of "gender" fluidity, where biological sex and its implications are a politically incorrect concept.]
We suspect that the homosexual lobby realizes the news profile is a bit too elevated on the subject of the 1913 law, and they also want to deflect attention from this companion bill to legalize homosexual/transsexual/pansexual "marriage". Only MassResistance has pointed out that the H1710 even exists! The mainstream media have never mentioned it.
Back to the 1913 law: Marc Solomon of MassEquality was quoted (the day after the VoteOnMarriage amendment defeat) on how he is working with Governor Patrick and legislative leaders on the schedule to overturn it. The homosexual lobby now has more than 3/4 of the state legislators in their pocket. From the Boston Globe (6-16-07):
Proponents [of sodomy "marriage"] said they will also eventually look to open the door to couples from other states to marry in Massachusetts. Solomon said there is overwhelming support in the Legislature to repeal the 1913 law that prohibits couples from out of state from marrying in Massachusetts if the union would not be legal in their own state. "The next step is to sit down with legislative leaders and the governor's people and talk about when it makes sense to advance that piece of legislation," said Solomon, adding that there are no immediate plans for such a meeting.
But maybe they decided after this comment that they need to tamp down public scrutiny on this. So along comes Ellen Goodman. In her Boston Globe column yesterday, she made light of concerns that we'd become the "Las Vegas" of homosexual "marriage" if that law is overturned. She said that other states' bans on homosexual "marriage" will prevent its exportation from Massachusetts. If that's the case, why does the homosexual lobby here want so desperately to overturn the 1913 law? We know that the national homosexual groups (e.g., the Gill Foundation Action Fund) are pouring millions into Massachusetts. Why would they care about this 1913 law, except that they know what happens here will migrate to every other state? Goodman dishonestly writes:
But some are saying that if we overturn the 1913 law, the marrying hordes will come and go back home with a license and a lawsuit. Whether you like or loathe the idea, repealing the 1913 law isn't likely to have much effect. There are at least 44 states with no chance of recognition because of statutes or constitutional amendments against same-sex marriage. As Joanna Grossman, a family law professor at Hofstra who has written extensively on this subject, says, "There's nothing much one state can do to change the national landscape."...
"What makes marriage legally important is recognition by the jurisdiction in which you live," says Grossman. "There's the chance that couples would use this to litigate in a handful of other states like New York. There is the chance that, in a few states, a court might rule that even though we don't permit same-sex marriage, we recognize it if valid elsewhere." But by and large, "Massachusetts would suffer a brief economic boom and that would be the end of it."
Hmm. Doesn't sound like the end of it to us. What about the "full faith and credit" clause of the federal constitution? What about the hyper-aggressive advocacy groups like GLAD and ACLU, and their allies in the federal courts (the 9th District, for instance)? What about the the 14th Amendment which guarantees equal protection under the law -- so some federal court will say we can't have some homosexuals allowed to marry, and some not?
Friday, June 22, 2007
Multiple Surrenders on Marriage Issue in Mass.
Great piece by R. T. Neary of ProLife Massachusetts on the meaning of the VoteOnMarriage amendment defeat last week at the State House -- and Mitt Romney's earlier surrender which paved the way. See Renew America's site: "Reflections on Flag Day 2007 in Massachusetts: John Adams RIP." Neary is past president of Massachusetts Citizens for Life. He gets the big picture on the flawed amendment, and Mitt Romney's constitutional violations in implementing homosexual "marriage" in 2004.
Neary was at the State House on June 14, when ...
Only 45 legislators of the 50 necessary voted to continue moving the issue to this vote. The process died in its tracks! In the wake, however, I wonder how many interpret the Constitutional Convention's brazen action as one of Divine Providence. I do.
The amendment's wording would allow 99 percent of the camel into the tent by permitting what would be a "marriage" arrangement under a different label. Then, in only a short period of time, it would morph legally into the same relationship that has been preserved for millennia, one involving only one man and one woman. But above and beyond this gaping flaw, worse still was a grandfather clause which would allow and affirm 10,000-plus "marriages" which would have been performed up to Nov. 4, 2008--and then deny any after that date. A prompt challenge would have ipso facto relegated the dual status to the legal trash bin. And then folks: Go back to Square One!
What also has been sadly overlooked in the surreal political world in which we have been living is that "Same Sex Marriage" still does not exist in this once-proud Commonwealth. And yes, we do owe a monumental apology to John Adams for these last few years. In the Goodridge decision on Nov. 18, 2003, the Supreme Judicial Court never established SSM; they ruled that the Legislature had the right to do so, but that was never done. The Legislature knew that it did not have the votes to pass SSM into law in 2003-04, so the 180 days the SJC gave to them came and went on May 17, 2004.
Herein started the legal tailspin that gave us the pseudo-marriage situation which exists today. Governor Mitt Romney, a Harvard Law School graduate, tacked 180 degrees off course as he instructed Town Clerks and Justices of the Peace to start issuing "marriage licenses" to applicants of the same gender. What he clearly should have done at this point was exercise bold leadership by issuing an Executive Order prohibiting any such action until the Legislature took appropriate constitutional steps. Herein lies the genesis of this unconstitutional tailspin, one which has started rapidly to re-design the social, political, and religious underpinnings of our society from early education throughout our entire social framework.
READ MORE...
Neary was at the State House on June 14, when ...
Only 45 legislators of the 50 necessary voted to continue moving the issue to this vote. The process died in its tracks! In the wake, however, I wonder how many interpret the Constitutional Convention's brazen action as one of Divine Providence. I do.
The amendment's wording would allow 99 percent of the camel into the tent by permitting what would be a "marriage" arrangement under a different label. Then, in only a short period of time, it would morph legally into the same relationship that has been preserved for millennia, one involving only one man and one woman. But above and beyond this gaping flaw, worse still was a grandfather clause which would allow and affirm 10,000-plus "marriages" which would have been performed up to Nov. 4, 2008--and then deny any after that date. A prompt challenge would have ipso facto relegated the dual status to the legal trash bin. And then folks: Go back to Square One!
What also has been sadly overlooked in the surreal political world in which we have been living is that "Same Sex Marriage" still does not exist in this once-proud Commonwealth. And yes, we do owe a monumental apology to John Adams for these last few years. In the Goodridge decision on Nov. 18, 2003, the Supreme Judicial Court never established SSM; they ruled that the Legislature had the right to do so, but that was never done. The Legislature knew that it did not have the votes to pass SSM into law in 2003-04, so the 180 days the SJC gave to them came and went on May 17, 2004.
Herein started the legal tailspin that gave us the pseudo-marriage situation which exists today. Governor Mitt Romney, a Harvard Law School graduate, tacked 180 degrees off course as he instructed Town Clerks and Justices of the Peace to start issuing "marriage licenses" to applicants of the same gender. What he clearly should have done at this point was exercise bold leadership by issuing an Executive Order prohibiting any such action until the Legislature took appropriate constitutional steps. Herein lies the genesis of this unconstitutional tailspin, one which has started rapidly to re-design the social, political, and religious underpinnings of our society from early education throughout our entire social framework.
READ MORE...
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Unannounced Hearing at State House on Second Amendment Rights
And yes, these are rights specifically named in our U.S. Constitution (not phony "rights"): the right to possess and bear arms. But in Massachusetts, they keep chipping away at these rights.
And here's just another example of the total lack of transparency at our State House... There's a web page that announces hearings several days in advance. Well, some times it does, and sometimes it doesn't. Today, we found out from a friend in the State House that the Judiciary Committee would be holding a last-minute hearing this Thursday at 1:00. (But it's not included on the web page for Thursday's hearings.) If you care about your Second Amendment rights, check out the Gun Owners' Action League of Mass. web site, with more information about the bills to be heard Thursday:
Gun Owners' Action League was informed on Tuesday afternoon that the Joint Committee on the Judiciary is going to hold a public hearing on Thursday, June 21, 2007 at 1:00 pm in room A-1. There are several bills of interest that will be heard, including the Governor's H3991. (There is currently no online version of this bill available so we are forced to use what was in the original press release.)
GOAL urges all our members to immediately contact their legislators and ask them to oppose the Governor's H3991. It is very important to tell your legislators that the Governor has already stated that he has no evidence to support restricting lawful gun owners. (To see GOAL's report on this, click here.)
We do ask that everyone contacting their legislators ask them to support GOAL's bill H1694 "The Deceptive Weapons Device Bill".
And here's just another example of the total lack of transparency at our State House... There's a web page that announces hearings several days in advance. Well, some times it does, and sometimes it doesn't. Today, we found out from a friend in the State House that the Judiciary Committee would be holding a last-minute hearing this Thursday at 1:00. (But it's not included on the web page for Thursday's hearings.) If you care about your Second Amendment rights, check out the Gun Owners' Action League of Mass. web site, with more information about the bills to be heard Thursday:
Gun Owners' Action League was informed on Tuesday afternoon that the Joint Committee on the Judiciary is going to hold a public hearing on Thursday, June 21, 2007 at 1:00 pm in room A-1. There are several bills of interest that will be heard, including the Governor's H3991. (There is currently no online version of this bill available so we are forced to use what was in the original press release.)
GOAL urges all our members to immediately contact their legislators and ask them to oppose the Governor's H3991. It is very important to tell your legislators that the Governor has already stated that he has no evidence to support restricting lawful gun owners. (To see GOAL's report on this, click here.)
We do ask that everyone contacting their legislators ask them to support GOAL's bill H1694 "The Deceptive Weapons Device Bill".
Monday, June 18, 2007
Romney's Socialist Health Care Starts in Mass.
Romney is no conservative. He is, in fact, a big-government Socialist. Proof: Look at his mandatory health insurance law, which goes into effect July 1. This is the plan that guarantees abortion coverage, and gives Planned Parenthood a role in managing that coverage. From today's Boston Globe:
Countdown to coverage: On July 1, state law requires every adult to have health insurance if affordable plans are available. There are many options. The following is a guide to those choices.
More than 135,000 Massachusetts residents who were previously uninsured have gotten free or subsidized coverage under the state's landmark health insurance law. The initiative established Massachusetts as the first state to require every resident to have coverage. An estimated 250,000 to 350,000 people remain uninsured. The law mandated the expansion of Medicaid and the establishment of new state-subsidized insurance and lower-cost private plans. It also pressed businesses to provide insurance for their workers. Here are answers to some key questions about the insurance requirement. ... [Read more...]
Also in today's Globe, a Swiss advocate for socialized medicine reviews the failings of Switzerland's mandatory health insurance, instituted in 1996. ("The Swiss example on health insurance reform.") This provides a preview of the problems Romney's law will bring to Massachusetts. While "[e]veryone has access to the same comprehensive health insurance coverage, at the same premiums, and to the same quality of medical care" in Switzerland, the author continues:
So, why did a coalition of stakeholders -- mainly the Socialist Party and the Popular Group of Families -- propose in March to vote on a radical restructuring of the system: the adoption of a single payer system?
First, affordability of health coverage has become a major issue, particularly for middle income people who do not qualify for government subsidies. Some Swiss families are paying as much as 16 percent of household income for health coverage.
Second, the availability of high-deductible health plans, promoted as a panacea to the problem of affordability for middle income people by the right wing of the Swiss parliament, has brought no relief from rising health insurance premiums. Premium rates for all types of health insurance, including high-deductible plans, have continued to rise at rates that far exceed general inflation. There is growing concern that people enrolled in these plans are more likely to avoid, skip, or delay needed care because of costs.
Finally, there is growing public concern and distrust of private non profit health insurers. Swiss citizens believe that insurers have profited unduly from the individual mandate, in part by adopting a range of pernicious practices to hunt for good insurance risks and avoid people in poorer health, in violation of Swiss law.
Countdown to coverage: On July 1, state law requires every adult to have health insurance if affordable plans are available. There are many options. The following is a guide to those choices.
More than 135,000 Massachusetts residents who were previously uninsured have gotten free or subsidized coverage under the state's landmark health insurance law. The initiative established Massachusetts as the first state to require every resident to have coverage. An estimated 250,000 to 350,000 people remain uninsured. The law mandated the expansion of Medicaid and the establishment of new state-subsidized insurance and lower-cost private plans. It also pressed businesses to provide insurance for their workers. Here are answers to some key questions about the insurance requirement. ... [Read more...]
Also in today's Globe, a Swiss advocate for socialized medicine reviews the failings of Switzerland's mandatory health insurance, instituted in 1996. ("The Swiss example on health insurance reform.") This provides a preview of the problems Romney's law will bring to Massachusetts. While "[e]veryone has access to the same comprehensive health insurance coverage, at the same premiums, and to the same quality of medical care" in Switzerland, the author continues:
So, why did a coalition of stakeholders -- mainly the Socialist Party and the Popular Group of Families -- propose in March to vote on a radical restructuring of the system: the adoption of a single payer system?
First, affordability of health coverage has become a major issue, particularly for middle income people who do not qualify for government subsidies. Some Swiss families are paying as much as 16 percent of household income for health coverage.
Second, the availability of high-deductible health plans, promoted as a panacea to the problem of affordability for middle income people by the right wing of the Swiss parliament, has brought no relief from rising health insurance premiums. Premium rates for all types of health insurance, including high-deductible plans, have continued to rise at rates that far exceed general inflation. There is growing concern that people enrolled in these plans are more likely to avoid, skip, or delay needed care because of costs.
Finally, there is growing public concern and distrust of private non profit health insurers. Swiss citizens believe that insurers have profited unduly from the individual mandate, in part by adopting a range of pernicious practices to hunt for good insurance risks and avoid people in poorer health, in violation of Swiss law.
"Hate Crime" on Esplanade?
The Boston Globe reported a hate crime on the Esplanade. A woman jogger was sexually assaulted by a large, unknown male. ("Sexual assault on Esplanade reported" 6-18-07)
Oh, wait a minute. That's not a "hate crime". She wasn't a member of a victimized group. In fact, the man may turn out to be innocent. Maybe he was just "expressing his gender identity."
Oh, wait a minute. That's not a "hate crime". She wasn't a member of a victimized group. In fact, the man may turn out to be innocent. Maybe he was just "expressing his gender identity."
Sunday, June 17, 2007
Another Video on Romney's Pro-Choice Stance
LifeSiteNews.com has another good report on Romney's posturing as a pro-life candidate:
Youtube Video Questions Romney’s Pro-Life Conversion Story: Romney said he was "absolutely committed" towards keeping pro-abortion laws, six months after his alleged pro-life conversion
ALEXANDRIA, Va., June 15, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) — While presidential candidate Mitt Romney is appearing today at a National Right to Life Conference, a new YouTube video released a few days ago appears to show that Romney's alleged pro-life conversion story is chronologically false and misleading. (See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxV-QNXoRIc) ... Read more.
Earlier, LifeSite News issued The Romney Report: An Analysis of Republican Mitt Romney’s Legacy on Life and Family and The Romney Report: Part II. One of our pet peeves with Romney is his "federalist" approach on abortion, i.e. that it's OK for each state to decide whether or not it will allow abortions. From LifeSite's Romney Report:
However Romney’s “federalist approach” has been criticized as more of an “anti-Roe” position, rather than the position of a leader championing pro-life federal laws. Romney again reiterated his “federalist approach” in a Feb. 10 interview with the National Journal in which he declined to go on the record to support the Human Life Amendment, a key feature of the Republican Party platform since 1980 ...
Youtube Video Questions Romney’s Pro-Life Conversion Story: Romney said he was "absolutely committed" towards keeping pro-abortion laws, six months after his alleged pro-life conversion
ALEXANDRIA, Va., June 15, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) — While presidential candidate Mitt Romney is appearing today at a National Right to Life Conference, a new YouTube video released a few days ago appears to show that Romney's alleged pro-life conversion story is chronologically false and misleading. (See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxV-QNXoRIc) ... Read more.
Earlier, LifeSite News issued The Romney Report: An Analysis of Republican Mitt Romney’s Legacy on Life and Family and The Romney Report: Part II. One of our pet peeves with Romney is his "federalist" approach on abortion, i.e. that it's OK for each state to decide whether or not it will allow abortions. From LifeSite's Romney Report:
However Romney’s “federalist approach” has been criticized as more of an “anti-Roe” position, rather than the position of a leader championing pro-life federal laws. Romney again reiterated his “federalist approach” in a Feb. 10 interview with the National Journal in which he declined to go on the record to support the Human Life Amendment, a key feature of the Republican Party platform since 1980 ...
Slick Willard Romney's "Conservative" Resume
By John Haskins
Here's Mitt Romney's "social conservative" resume that Jay Sekulow (ACLJ), David French (Evangelicals for Mitt), Hugh Hewitt (TownHall.com, Salem Radio), Jim Bopp (Romney pro-life advisor), et al. are boasting about. He accomplished more than our new communist governor --Deval "Baby Doc" Patrick (Janet Reno's accomplice in the Ruby Ridge massacre aftermath) --could have fantasized about accomplishing.
Romney's "Conservative" Resume
Here's Mitt Romney's "social conservative" resume that Jay Sekulow (ACLJ), David French (Evangelicals for Mitt), Hugh Hewitt (TownHall.com, Salem Radio), Jim Bopp (Romney pro-life advisor), et al. are boasting about. He accomplished more than our new communist governor --Deval "Baby Doc" Patrick (Janet Reno's accomplice in the Ruby Ridge massacre aftermath) --could have fantasized about accomplishing.
Romney's "Conservative" Resume
* Compulsory government-run central heath care system, with ... massive boost in funding for abortions, and ... a new and unconstitutional role for Planned Parenthood as a permanent and unelected voice in our government.
* Looking the other way as an extra-constitutional fourth branch of government called the "Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth" was set up with no accountability to the people.
* Refusal to enforce the parents' rights law when hardened criminal David Parker (really just a regular parent protecting his rights as a father) was taken in handcuffs to a jail cell. Parker's crime: daring to say to the sodomy brainwashers: "Not to my little boy, you don't!" (Come to think of it, not once did Slick Willard enforce the parents' rights law.)
* Increased state funding for pro-homosexuality lessons starting in kindergarten.
* Turning a deaf ear to protests of massive irregularities at the Department of Social Services, which takes children from their parents on the basis of unsubstantiated charges, routinely ignores constitutional rights and due process, places children with homosexuals, and has recklessly put a child in a situation where he or she was killed.
* Ignored fathers' rights activists who are defending men being treated by the courts and the bureacracy like Blacks were treated under Jim Crow laws.
* Illegally "legalized" the sodomy-based family.
So, our new communist governor starts off with most of his objectives already accomplished by Slick Willard (the "pro-family, constitutionalist" Republican). So Gov. Patrick can now turn the political, social, and constitutional ratchets even further to the left than the Founding Fathers ever could have imagined in their wildest nightmares.
Meltdown in Massachusetts
Check out the Boston Herald's photo gallery from the ConCon on June 15. Our favorites:
This photo says it all. VoteOnMarriage, partner in the grand Romney/Focus on the Family/Alliance Defense Fund/Mass. Family Institute compromise approach, goes down in ignominious defeat. Dejection in the grassroots. All those sincere, regular people taken down this path in pursuit of an amendment which would have allowed civil unions and left intact the homosexual "marriages" before enactment of the amendment. Yet their amendment was still portrayed as "hateful" by the homosexual lobby VoteOnMarriage hoped to appease.
A sensual kiss by two men on the State House steps. What's next? If the "transgender rights and hate crimes bill" is passed, undefined "gender expression" will be protected. Does that mean we'll see acts of live sodomy on the State House steps? (If that seems far-fetched, ask yourself who imagined just a decade ago that sodomy would be enshrined as a basis for "marriage".) What could be a more perfect expression of "gay" male sexuality than the act of sodomy? And given many homosexuals' desire to flaunt their sexuality in public ... Who's to object? Rather, it seems that 3/4 of our legislators would be ready to celebrate it. It's all about preserving others' "rights" to "happiness", isn't it?
Note the banner in the background: "Church of the Sacred Earth - A Union of Pagan Congregations." We've said all along that the pagans were a big part of this movement. And all those GLBT activists posing as Christians? Don't be fooled.
This photo says it all. VoteOnMarriage, partner in the grand Romney/Focus on the Family/Alliance Defense Fund/Mass. Family Institute compromise approach, goes down in ignominious defeat. Dejection in the grassroots. All those sincere, regular people taken down this path in pursuit of an amendment which would have allowed civil unions and left intact the homosexual "marriages" before enactment of the amendment. Yet their amendment was still portrayed as "hateful" by the homosexual lobby VoteOnMarriage hoped to appease.
A sensual kiss by two men on the State House steps. What's next? If the "transgender rights and hate crimes bill" is passed, undefined "gender expression" will be protected. Does that mean we'll see acts of live sodomy on the State House steps? (If that seems far-fetched, ask yourself who imagined just a decade ago that sodomy would be enshrined as a basis for "marriage".) What could be a more perfect expression of "gay" male sexuality than the act of sodomy? And given many homosexuals' desire to flaunt their sexuality in public ... Who's to object? Rather, it seems that 3/4 of our legislators would be ready to celebrate it. It's all about preserving others' "rights" to "happiness", isn't it?
Note the banner in the background: "Church of the Sacred Earth - A Union of Pagan Congregations." We've said all along that the pagans were a big part of this movement. And all those GLBT activists posing as Christians? Don't be fooled.
Saturday, June 16, 2007
Medical Facts Not "Hate Speech"
Now that the Sodomy Lobby has taken control of the Massachusetts State House, it may be time to review some of the public health concerns homosexual practices entail, before such a discussion is punished as "hate speech". The leftist response to the nomination of Dr. James Holsinger for U.S. Surgeon General is a warning that such intolerance is gaining faster than anyone could have predited.
"The rectum is incapable of mechanical protection against abrasion and severe damage to the colonic mucosa can result if objects that are large, sharp, or pointed are inserted into the rectum." Medical fact, or "hate speech"?
That is from Holsinger's review of medical facts on homosexual health risks, written in 1991 for his church. But this is now considered controversial and hateful by the left. Why? Does anyone disagree that smoking is a health threat? Why is it doubted that rectosigmoid tearing characteristic of anal intercourse, fisting, and other practices (involving insertion of large objects into the anus) is unhealthy? Soon only the "gay" pornography sold in Borders bookstores will be allowed to reference such practices.
See Americans for Truth on the controversy over Dr. James Holsinger's nomination, and read his paper, "Pathophysiology of Male Homosexuality," written in 1991. Excerpt:
From the perspective of pathology and pathophysiology, the varied sexual practices of homosexual men have resulted in a diverse and expanded concept of sexually transmitted disease and associated trauma. “Four general groups of conditions may be encountered in homosexually active men: classical sexually transmitted diseases (gonorrhea, infections with chlamydia trachomatis, syphilis, herpes simplex infections, genital warts, pubic lice, scabies); enteric diseases (infections with hig gel la species, Campylobacter jejuni, Entamoeba histolytica, Giardia lamblia, hepatitis A, hepatitis B, hepatitis non-A, non-B, and cytomegalovirus); trauma (fecal incontinence, hemorrhoids, anal fissure, foreign bodies, rectosigmoid tears, allergic proctitis, penile edema, chemical sinusitis, inhaled nitrite burns, and sexual assault of the male patient); and the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS)” (Owen, 1985).
"The rectum is incapable of mechanical protection against abrasion and severe damage to the colonic mucosa can result if objects that are large, sharp, or pointed are inserted into the rectum." Medical fact, or "hate speech"?
That is from Holsinger's review of medical facts on homosexual health risks, written in 1991 for his church. But this is now considered controversial and hateful by the left. Why? Does anyone disagree that smoking is a health threat? Why is it doubted that rectosigmoid tearing characteristic of anal intercourse, fisting, and other practices (involving insertion of large objects into the anus) is unhealthy? Soon only the "gay" pornography sold in Borders bookstores will be allowed to reference such practices.
See Americans for Truth on the controversy over Dr. James Holsinger's nomination, and read his paper, "Pathophysiology of Male Homosexuality," written in 1991. Excerpt:
From the perspective of pathology and pathophysiology, the varied sexual practices of homosexual men have resulted in a diverse and expanded concept of sexually transmitted disease and associated trauma. “Four general groups of conditions may be encountered in homosexually active men: classical sexually transmitted diseases (gonorrhea, infections with chlamydia trachomatis, syphilis, herpes simplex infections, genital warts, pubic lice, scabies); enteric diseases (infections with hig gel la species, Campylobacter jejuni, Entamoeba histolytica, Giardia lamblia, hepatitis A, hepatitis B, hepatitis non-A, non-B, and cytomegalovirus); trauma (fecal incontinence, hemorrhoids, anal fissure, foreign bodies, rectosigmoid tears, allergic proctitis, penile edema, chemical sinusitis, inhaled nitrite burns, and sexual assault of the male patient); and the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS)” (Owen, 1985).
Foul Speech from Romney Campaign
Great stuff on EyeOn08 on our least favorite Republican presidential candidate, Mitt Romney. A Romney campaign official has called Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas a "bottom feeder" and posted a photo of an ugly bottom-feeding fish alongside the silly commentary. This from one Jason Bonham (Illinois State Director, Legacy Law Foundation, Illinois), who is allied with the infamous David French, a Senior Counsel with the nominally conservative Alliance Defense Fund and "Evangelicals for Mitt". (Legacy Law is a Mormon group based in Utah, and is linked to VoteOnMarriage through Romney.)
(Some of these "conservative" legal foundations are becoming a joke, ready to give in on crucial principles. For instance, the Alliance Defense Fund is behind the wording of the compromised and failed VoteOnMarriage amendment here in Massacusetts. See our posting from October 2005: "Amateur Hour: Immigrant Law Student Behind Flawed "VoteOnMarriage" Research". ADF and Romney like civil unions -- not a conservative position.)
See also EyeOn08 "Romney on His 2002 Campaign Promise" -- to uphold abortion "rights" in Massachusetts. Excellent analysis and links.
Back to the mess Romney left for us here in Massachusetts, the homosexual "marriages" he ESTABLISHED through his Legal Counsel's office. Romney says he's disappointed in the outcome of Friday's marriage amendment vote, because the people are denied a say in defining marriage.
What a sham! Romney single-handedly implemented an illegitimate Court ruling, violated the Constitution by changing the marriage licenses, and ordered Justices of the Peace and Town Clerks to follow a "law" that's now a law. (Remember that all the Court said was that the Legislature should act, which it had not right to tell them, and the Legislature did not act to change the statutes.) Why did Romney implement the "marriages"? Yet now he pretends to care so much about protecting marriage and the people's voice. Does anyone really believe him?
[Boston Globe, 6-15-07:] "Unfortunately, our elected representatives decided that the voice of the people did not need to be heard in this debate," he said in a statement. Romney reiterated his call for Congress to pass a federal constitutional amendment banning gay marriage ... The vote yesterday helps Romney, West [Brown U political scientist] said. "It gives him credibility in other parts of the country as something other than a Massachusetts politician."
As we've said all along, Romney should have no credibility when people hear the truth about his role in the marriage debacle here in Massachusetts. BTW, why does Romney think a federal amendment is needed for marriage, but that it's OK to leave abortion laws up to the states? If something is wrong, shouldn't it be wrong in every state?
(Some of these "conservative" legal foundations are becoming a joke, ready to give in on crucial principles. For instance, the Alliance Defense Fund is behind the wording of the compromised and failed VoteOnMarriage amendment here in Massacusetts. See our posting from October 2005: "Amateur Hour: Immigrant Law Student Behind Flawed "VoteOnMarriage" Research". ADF and Romney like civil unions -- not a conservative position.)
See also EyeOn08 "Romney on His 2002 Campaign Promise" -- to uphold abortion "rights" in Massachusetts. Excellent analysis and links.
Back to the mess Romney left for us here in Massachusetts, the homosexual "marriages" he ESTABLISHED through his Legal Counsel's office. Romney says he's disappointed in the outcome of Friday's marriage amendment vote, because the people are denied a say in defining marriage.
What a sham! Romney single-handedly implemented an illegitimate Court ruling, violated the Constitution by changing the marriage licenses, and ordered Justices of the Peace and Town Clerks to follow a "law" that's now a law. (Remember that all the Court said was that the Legislature should act, which it had not right to tell them, and the Legislature did not act to change the statutes.) Why did Romney implement the "marriages"? Yet now he pretends to care so much about protecting marriage and the people's voice. Does anyone really believe him?
[Boston Globe, 6-15-07:] "Unfortunately, our elected representatives decided that the voice of the people did not need to be heard in this debate," he said in a statement. Romney reiterated his call for Congress to pass a federal constitutional amendment banning gay marriage ... The vote yesterday helps Romney, West [Brown U political scientist] said. "It gives him credibility in other parts of the country as something other than a Massachusetts politician."
As we've said all along, Romney should have no credibility when people hear the truth about his role in the marriage debacle here in Massachusetts. BTW, why does Romney think a federal amendment is needed for marriage, but that it's OK to leave abortion laws up to the states? If something is wrong, shouldn't it be wrong in every state?
Friday, June 15, 2007
Boston Archdiocese Failed the People on Marriage
The Boston Archidiocese shares the responsibility for yesterday's debacle at the State House, as they were part of the VoteOnMarriage organization that failed the people:
"It's clear that the archdiocese is not serious about this issue. There is no real penalty being exacted on people who are in support of same sex marriage."
- Phil Lawler, Catholic World News editor
Most of the Legislators here are nominally Catholic, so why were they not concerned about their standing in the Church? and before God? We note that we saw NOT ONE Catholic priest outside the State House yesterday (though there were a few Franciscan brothers). There were plenty of pseudo-Christian "clerics" on the other side.
Remember that neither Mass. Family Institute nor the Archdiocese helped push the first (and better) marriage amendment back in 2001 and 2002 (the one the Legislature and Acting Governor Jane Swift unconstitutionally threw in the trash, refusing to take a vote). That was the time for action that could have succeeded -- prior to the seduction of many of our legislators by the wealthy sodomy lobby, and prior to the insane Supreme Judicial Court ruling (which they knew was in the works).
Phil Lawler, a Massachusetts resident, is editor of Catholic World News, and was Constitution Party candidate against Ted Kennedy in 2000. He spoke with LifeSite News yesterday about the failure of the Church to hold Catholic legislators feet to the fire. (The LifeSite article ends by urging its readers to contact Cardinal O'Malley.)
Key Advisor to Cardinal O'Malley Writes Pro-Gay 'Marriage' Column in Boston Newspaper
By Peter J. Smith and John-Henry Westen
BOSTON, June 14, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com)
... Phil Lawler, the editor and founder of Catholic World News who has an upcoming book called The Faithful Departed on the collapse of Catholic influence in the Boston area, commented to LifeSiteNews.com about the situation in light of today's vote loss.
"It's clear that the archdiocese is not serious about this issue," said Lawler. "There is no real penalty being exacted on people who are in support of same sex marriage."Lawler explained, "People who are supporting traditional marriage, who supported the marriage amendment were going to have to pay a pretty heavy price in terms of the wrath of the gay rights lobby, of Governor Patrick, of the editorial writers all around the state. But people who abandoned the cause, people who supported same sex marriage, and opposed this amendment were not going to face any real problems with the leadership of the Catholic Church."He concluded, "And that's really in my mind the biggest reason for today's outcome." ...
The LifeSite article also discusses Peter Meade's article in the Boston Herald:
"It's clear that the archdiocese is not serious about this issue. There is no real penalty being exacted on people who are in support of same sex marriage."
- Phil Lawler, Catholic World News editor
Most of the Legislators here are nominally Catholic, so why were they not concerned about their standing in the Church? and before God? We note that we saw NOT ONE Catholic priest outside the State House yesterday (though there were a few Franciscan brothers). There were plenty of pseudo-Christian "clerics" on the other side.
Remember that neither Mass. Family Institute nor the Archdiocese helped push the first (and better) marriage amendment back in 2001 and 2002 (the one the Legislature and Acting Governor Jane Swift unconstitutionally threw in the trash, refusing to take a vote). That was the time for action that could have succeeded -- prior to the seduction of many of our legislators by the wealthy sodomy lobby, and prior to the insane Supreme Judicial Court ruling (which they knew was in the works).
Phil Lawler, a Massachusetts resident, is editor of Catholic World News, and was Constitution Party candidate against Ted Kennedy in 2000. He spoke with LifeSite News yesterday about the failure of the Church to hold Catholic legislators feet to the fire. (The LifeSite article ends by urging its readers to contact Cardinal O'Malley.)
Key Advisor to Cardinal O'Malley Writes Pro-Gay 'Marriage' Column in Boston Newspaper
By Peter J. Smith and John-Henry Westen
BOSTON, June 14, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com)
... Phil Lawler, the editor and founder of Catholic World News who has an upcoming book called The Faithful Departed on the collapse of Catholic influence in the Boston area, commented to LifeSiteNews.com about the situation in light of today's vote loss.
"It's clear that the archdiocese is not serious about this issue," said Lawler. "There is no real penalty being exacted on people who are in support of same sex marriage."Lawler explained, "People who are supporting traditional marriage, who supported the marriage amendment were going to have to pay a pretty heavy price in terms of the wrath of the gay rights lobby, of Governor Patrick, of the editorial writers all around the state. But people who abandoned the cause, people who supported same sex marriage, and opposed this amendment were not going to face any real problems with the leadership of the Catholic Church."He concluded, "And that's really in my mind the biggest reason for today's outcome." ...
The LifeSite article also discusses Peter Meade's article in the Boston Herald:
Gay marriage is just another step in "natural social evolution" writes a high profile lay advisor to Boston Archbishop Cardinal O'Malley. The advisor, Peter Meade--one of seven members of Catholic Charities in Boston who resigned over the Archdiocese's decision to ban same-sex couples from adopting--maintains his position on the committee O'Malley appointed to recommend which parishes in the Archdiocese ought to be closed."
On May 17, 2004, the day marriage was made legal for everyone in Massachusetts, we looked out our window to see - contrary to apocalyptic predictions - that the sun had actually risen," wrote Meade and his wife Rosanne Bacon Meade in a column published Tuesday by the Boston Herald. "Life went on quite normally not only that day, but every day since." ... Before his resignation over the Church's refusal to allow homosexual adoption, Meade was the Chair of Catholic Charities in Boston....
See Meade's column in the Boston Herald here.
Thursday, June 14, 2007
VoteOnMarriage Failed the People
The VoteOnMarriage amendment went down in flames today, with an even more appalling result than anyone could have imagined. Prayers without compromising the truth may work. Prayers when the truth is compromised cannot.
VoteOnMarriage's campaign failed because the debate was boiled down to "letting the people vote" and ensuring "children have both a mother and a father." But it left out the important truth about homosexual "marriage": It's based on immoral and unhealthy sexual perversions. Morality and public health needed to be part of the debate.
But VoteOnMarriage (and its prime actor, Massachusetts Family Institute) never spoke about these issues. Why didn't they say plainly that disordered sexuality cannot become an accepted basis for "marriage"? And after compromising with Mitt Romney, they could hardly address preserving the integrity of our constitution, and the common accepted meaning of the words therein.
VoteOnMarriage depleted our side's energy and financial resources in pursuit of a terribly flawed amendment. We've warned about their failing strategy ("Be polite! Dialogue with the other side!") and compromised amendment wording for two years now. We said: "Don't feed the bears! They'll just come back for more and more. They'll smell your weakness. And they'll eat you alive."
But VoteOnMarriage said they had a good relationship with MassEquality. They spoke to the homosexual newspaper Bay Windows, badmouthed MassResistance to them and to people on Beacon Hill (including the last several governors) and to pro-family conservatives around the nation. They rigidly controlled what people said in their demonstrations, including their signs. It was a top-down movement, no real grassroots sentiments allowed. Time and again, as we walked through the VoteOnMarriage demonstrators, we would hear individuals corrected if they stepped out of line, said something "inappropriate" or with a little too much emotion.
Their strategy of endless compromise with evil, their attempted appeasement of those destroying the minds of children, and their puerile censorship of pro-family rhetoric has no origin in the Old or New Testament, and anyone who thinks otherwise has subconsciously blacked out the most powerful parts of the Holy Scriptures.
We hear from an MFI insider that they plan to regroup! How do you regroup with failed leadership, and a failed vision? Just a week ago, we heard that another MFI insider said the homosexual lobby was tiring out! They are detached from reality. They don't understand the foe we're facing.
When leaders fail to achieve their goal, they should be fired. VoteOnMarriage and the Massachusetts Family Institute have been discredited, they have failed the faithful pro-family people of Massachusetts. So we say to them: Don't ask for another penny, another drop of our blood and sweat.
VoteOnMarriage's campaign failed because the debate was boiled down to "letting the people vote" and ensuring "children have both a mother and a father." But it left out the important truth about homosexual "marriage": It's based on immoral and unhealthy sexual perversions. Morality and public health needed to be part of the debate.
But VoteOnMarriage (and its prime actor, Massachusetts Family Institute) never spoke about these issues. Why didn't they say plainly that disordered sexuality cannot become an accepted basis for "marriage"? And after compromising with Mitt Romney, they could hardly address preserving the integrity of our constitution, and the common accepted meaning of the words therein.
VoteOnMarriage depleted our side's energy and financial resources in pursuit of a terribly flawed amendment. We've warned about their failing strategy ("Be polite! Dialogue with the other side!") and compromised amendment wording for two years now. We said: "Don't feed the bears! They'll just come back for more and more. They'll smell your weakness. And they'll eat you alive."
But VoteOnMarriage said they had a good relationship with MassEquality. They spoke to the homosexual newspaper Bay Windows, badmouthed MassResistance to them and to people on Beacon Hill (including the last several governors) and to pro-family conservatives around the nation. They rigidly controlled what people said in their demonstrations, including their signs. It was a top-down movement, no real grassroots sentiments allowed. Time and again, as we walked through the VoteOnMarriage demonstrators, we would hear individuals corrected if they stepped out of line, said something "inappropriate" or with a little too much emotion.
Their strategy of endless compromise with evil, their attempted appeasement of those destroying the minds of children, and their puerile censorship of pro-family rhetoric has no origin in the Old or New Testament, and anyone who thinks otherwise has subconsciously blacked out the most powerful parts of the Holy Scriptures.
We hear from an MFI insider that they plan to regroup! How do you regroup with failed leadership, and a failed vision? Just a week ago, we heard that another MFI insider said the homosexual lobby was tiring out! They are detached from reality. They don't understand the foe we're facing.
When leaders fail to achieve their goal, they should be fired. VoteOnMarriage and the Massachusetts Family Institute have been discredited, they have failed the faithful pro-family people of Massachusetts. So we say to them: Don't ask for another penny, another drop of our blood and sweat.
Sodomy "Marriage" Not a Civil Right
Last week's editorial in The Pilot rationally explained why homosexual "marriage" is not about civil rights. ("Marriage is not a civil right", 6-8-07) But then, rationality and facts don't seem to count for much any more. Today's Globe makes it clear that "wavering" legislators are not rational, but swayed by emotional stories by lesbian "married" couples. ("A legislator finds himself tugged in two directions")
Sadly, even if it passes, the VoteOnMarriage amendment would not prevent the state's descent into lunacy. It would keep the "marriage" squabble alive, allowing current "homosexual marriages" (existing before the new amendment would take effect) to stand as valid. But then, MassEquality would argue -- rationally --that there can't be two classes of homosexuals: some allowed to marry, some not, because that would be a violation of federally guaranteed equality under the law.
Nevertheless, the Pilot editorial editorial is good as far as it goes:
Marriage is not a civil right
...[MassEquality's slogan is] “It’s wrong to vote on rights.” The underlying message is that since two people with homosexual orientation may love each other, they have the right to marriage.
First, we note that the very premise of the campaign is ludicrous. Let us not forget that the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights were ratified through the votes of state legislatures. The very statement “It’s wrong to vote on rights” flies in the face of our entire system of government.
More importantly, however, marriage is not a right. Even civil marriage is a very restrictive contract that provides benefits for certain people expected to contribute to society in a particular way -- procreating and raising children. But even that is restricted for the good of society. A mother does not have the right to marry her son. Siblings cannot marry. Married persons cannot marry again without first obtaining a divorce. There is no civil right to marry anyone, at any time.
The consequences of separating marriage from procreation and redefining it as a civil right are far-reaching and catastrophic for the institution of marriage and for society at large. Once marriage becomes a personal right, the institution of marriage fades. It is only a matter of time before polygamy, polyandry, incestuous relations and all other manner of partnerships will be accepted as marriage. And why shouldn’t they be? After all, those engaged in those relationships will surely claim they are as much “loving partners” as anyone else and that they deserve to have their relationships legally recognized.
Another very real consequence of the judicial decision that legalized same-sex marriage in Massachusetts in 2004 is the presumption that all sexual lifestyles are equal. If gay couples can marry, the obvious conclusion -- already evident by recent court decisions -- is that schools should teach that homosexual behavior is fully equivalent to heterosexual behavior. Children will have to learn, as they already are in some school districts, that all lifestyle choices are equal....
Sadly, even if it passes, the VoteOnMarriage amendment would not prevent the state's descent into lunacy. It would keep the "marriage" squabble alive, allowing current "homosexual marriages" (existing before the new amendment would take effect) to stand as valid. But then, MassEquality would argue -- rationally --that there can't be two classes of homosexuals: some allowed to marry, some not, because that would be a violation of federally guaranteed equality under the law.
Nevertheless, the Pilot editorial editorial is good as far as it goes:
Marriage is not a civil right
...[MassEquality's slogan is] “It’s wrong to vote on rights.” The underlying message is that since two people with homosexual orientation may love each other, they have the right to marriage.
First, we note that the very premise of the campaign is ludicrous. Let us not forget that the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights were ratified through the votes of state legislatures. The very statement “It’s wrong to vote on rights” flies in the face of our entire system of government.
More importantly, however, marriage is not a right. Even civil marriage is a very restrictive contract that provides benefits for certain people expected to contribute to society in a particular way -- procreating and raising children. But even that is restricted for the good of society. A mother does not have the right to marry her son. Siblings cannot marry. Married persons cannot marry again without first obtaining a divorce. There is no civil right to marry anyone, at any time.
The consequences of separating marriage from procreation and redefining it as a civil right are far-reaching and catastrophic for the institution of marriage and for society at large. Once marriage becomes a personal right, the institution of marriage fades. It is only a matter of time before polygamy, polyandry, incestuous relations and all other manner of partnerships will be accepted as marriage. And why shouldn’t they be? After all, those engaged in those relationships will surely claim they are as much “loving partners” as anyone else and that they deserve to have their relationships legally recognized.
Another very real consequence of the judicial decision that legalized same-sex marriage in Massachusetts in 2004 is the presumption that all sexual lifestyles are equal. If gay couples can marry, the obvious conclusion -- already evident by recent court decisions -- is that schools should teach that homosexual behavior is fully equivalent to heterosexual behavior. Children will have to learn, as they already are in some school districts, that all lifestyle choices are equal....
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Sex Offender in "Friends of the Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth"
Last summer, State House homosexual lobbyist Bill Conley (right at Youth Pride 2005 parade) was arrested for soliciting
college boys at UMass Amherst.
The Governor's Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth is supported by a "Friends" group, whose purpose is to raise money to support the gay/straight alliance clubs in high schools around the state, and put on the "Youth Pride" event each year. The "Friends of the Governor's Commission" allowed a convicted sex offender on its fundraising committee. Bill Berggren, (currently employed at the radical GLBT newspaper In Newsweekly, and recently resigned from Boston Pride's committee after his conviction was revealed) was listed on the Third Annual [2005] "Sunnyside Up Brunch Committee" as both a Table Captain and a Volunteer.
How many young people did he get to rub shoulders with there? Mind you, this was not a group of adults running Boston Pride. This was an organization that works with high school kids, "mentoring" and supporting their Gay/Straight Alliance clubs, etc. (See the "Friends" 2006 list of volunteering possibilities for adults who want to work with children.) We even asked in an old posting if such groups were doing the legally required background checks on their adult volunteers ... long before we heard about Mr. Berggren. Since then, MassResistance has continued to document these continuing dangerous liaisons, such as Youth Pride 2007, and the BAGLY prom.
Here's the list of 2005 committee members for the "Friends of the Governor's Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth" fundraiser [web page no longer posted]:
Third Annual Sunnyside Up Brunch Committee (2005)
Joblin C. Younger, Chair
Joblin C. Younger, Chair
Vincent McCarthy, Honorary Chair
TABLE CAPTAINS: Cheryl A. Giles, Gerald James, Tim Fink, Kathleen Henry & Kim Marrkand, Jean Chapin Smith, Pierce Durkin & Rob Lowell, Jane Cotter & Barb Cocci, Project 10 East (Ashlee Reed, Executive Director), Mitch Adams & Kevin Smith, Grace Sterling Stowell, Trevor Wright, Bill Berggren, Nick Dennis, Gary Cohen, Michael Motzkin, Paul Hempel, Russ Aims, Sydney Mason-Barrett, AIDS Action Committee (Rebecca Haag, Executive Director).
VOLUNTEERS: Kathleen Henry, Ian J. Snape, Kelly Lydon, Michael Kerkorian, Nick Dennis, Mark Taggart, Jean Chapin Smith, Gerald James, Peter Baker, Rod Ferguson, John Acres, Paige Kruza, Bernie Gardella, James Bryant, Michael Motzkin, Jason Smith, Bill Berggren, Alex Morash, Robert Lowell, Tim Fink, Sylvain Bruni, Trevor Wright, William Rojas, Keri Aulita, Patricia Curran, Derrick Cheeseboro-Weaver.
Will Children Be Safe at State House?
The Globe reports that our Secretary of State is worried about the safety of children on field trips at the State House tomorrow, during the Constitutional Convention on the marriage amendment. See "Pupil tours to feature democracy in action: But steps planned to skirt protesters" (6-13-07).
The unexpected confluence has prompted Secretary of State William Galvin to take steps to ensure that the impressionable youngsters will not be exposed to any mischief or chaos that may erupt during the intense debates and large demonstrations. Unlike most other State House visitors tomorrow, the children will enter the building through a rear door and be greeted by park rangers who will provide security and shepherd them through the building ...
"I do think it can be a constructive lesson, if both sides, the activists for and against gay marriage, are civil to one another," Galvin said. "We anticipate that the adults involved in the debate will be respectful to each other and also to the guests at the State House who are students. ... It's a classic, classic example of free speech and action on a controversial issue, no matter which side you are looking at," said a statement he issued yesterday.
Now this seems very odd to us. First, why are passions so high on the street? We don't see anything like this surrounding budget debates, do we? It's not a "classic example of free speech and action on a controversial issue." Our society has never seen anything so lunatic and perverted parading as legitimate political speech. (But the students will not be exposed to that viewpoint.)
This is really about a fringe minority forcing an insane change of the definition of marriage on society. That is what's dangerous to children. It's the people with the rainbow flags and the damage they are doing to society. Yet the Globe story makes it sound like bad things could emanate from either side in this "debate" tomorrow.
Maybe the schools should have cancelled their field trips. Would we want kids observing demonstrations for the legalization of polygamy and prostitution, or lowering the age of sexual consent? Surely those issues will all be pushed by the rainbow-flag group in the next few years. (See the Gay Rights Platform from 1972, which calls for all of these goals.) We already have a lobby for "transgender" rights. But just now, most Massachusetts citizens, asleep as they are, might still object to their kids being immersed in demonstrations for those "rights".
But tomorrow we'll see school officials blinking at -- or speaking favorably for -- sodomy-based marriage. They believe it's perfectly OK for the kids to think about what a same-sex "marriage" bed is all about. This is just a normal day at the State House, the schools will tell their pupils -- it's just a debate about "love" and "equal rights". The colorful rainbow flags will draw the kids in. And our Secretary of State pretends to be worried about the safety of children.
The unexpected confluence has prompted Secretary of State William Galvin to take steps to ensure that the impressionable youngsters will not be exposed to any mischief or chaos that may erupt during the intense debates and large demonstrations. Unlike most other State House visitors tomorrow, the children will enter the building through a rear door and be greeted by park rangers who will provide security and shepherd them through the building ...
"I do think it can be a constructive lesson, if both sides, the activists for and against gay marriage, are civil to one another," Galvin said. "We anticipate that the adults involved in the debate will be respectful to each other and also to the guests at the State House who are students. ... It's a classic, classic example of free speech and action on a controversial issue, no matter which side you are looking at," said a statement he issued yesterday.
Now this seems very odd to us. First, why are passions so high on the street? We don't see anything like this surrounding budget debates, do we? It's not a "classic example of free speech and action on a controversial issue." Our society has never seen anything so lunatic and perverted parading as legitimate political speech. (But the students will not be exposed to that viewpoint.)
This is really about a fringe minority forcing an insane change of the definition of marriage on society. That is what's dangerous to children. It's the people with the rainbow flags and the damage they are doing to society. Yet the Globe story makes it sound like bad things could emanate from either side in this "debate" tomorrow.
Maybe the schools should have cancelled their field trips. Would we want kids observing demonstrations for the legalization of polygamy and prostitution, or lowering the age of sexual consent? Surely those issues will all be pushed by the rainbow-flag group in the next few years. (See the Gay Rights Platform from 1972, which calls for all of these goals.) We already have a lobby for "transgender" rights. But just now, most Massachusetts citizens, asleep as they are, might still object to their kids being immersed in demonstrations for those "rights".
But tomorrow we'll see school officials blinking at -- or speaking favorably for -- sodomy-based marriage. They believe it's perfectly OK for the kids to think about what a same-sex "marriage" bed is all about. This is just a normal day at the State House, the schools will tell their pupils -- it's just a debate about "love" and "equal rights". The colorful rainbow flags will draw the kids in. And our Secretary of State pretends to be worried about the safety of children.
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Former Gov. Bill Weld, Mentor to Romney, Will Make Calls vs. Marriage Amendment
We continue to wonder why the supposed pro-real-marriage crowd (Mass. Family Institute, Mass. Catholic Conference, Mass. Citizens for Life) didn't stand up for the first and BETTER* marriage amendment, instead of letting the Legislature and acting Gov. Swift throw it in the trash in 2002?
And why didn't our supposedly pro-marriage former Governor, Mitt Romney, ever address the issue when he took office in January 2003? The first marriage amendment was arguably still alive then, but Romney said it was "too extreme" -- because it banned civil unions! (Romney went on to twist arms among Republican legislators, getting them to vote for the failed Travaglini-Lees amendment which would have created civil unions.)
Romney's mentor, former Gov. Bill Weld, has decided to stick his nose into the current marriage amendment mess. State House News reports:
Former Gov. Bill Weld held an afternoon visit with House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi, whose chamber is home to the vast majority of the pro-amendment votes. The two-term Republican governor said he might call legislators Wednesday in an effort to influence votes against the ban, which was generated by about 170,000 Bay State citizens' signatures. ...
Weld said he hopes the measure doesn't advance to the popular ballot because "I think it's going be a distraction for the next 18 months if it does get put on the ballot, and I think the best way to handle it is just to get rid of it right now." Weld infuriated gay marriage supporters two years ago when he was running for governor of New York by saying he opposed the expansion of gay marriage outside Massachusetts. Making at least his second appearance in the State House in the last week, Weld said he was in the capitol on behalf of Lehman Brothers, the global finance firm, but said it was not to lobby. In 2003, shortly after the state Supreme Judicial Court delivered the ruling that led to the practice of gay marriage here, Weld endorsed the decision, and later officiated at a same-sex marriage.
Why would a nominal Republican be concerned if the amendment were still an issue for the next 18 months? We thought it was just the Democrats who wanted it to go away, so as not to hurt their vote in the 2008 election.
Meanwhile, Senate President Murray is still counting heads, and won't decide until Thursday morning whether or not to hold the vote.
State House News reports (June 12):
Murray said she expected to vote Thursday, but didn't know whether the gay marriage proponents have swayed the handful of votes needed to draw support for the amendment below the 50-vote threshold. ...
Asked if she would still call for a vote if she were unsure of the result, Murray replied, "We'll decide on Thursday." In May, Murray, responding to reporters' questions about whether she thought there would be a vote on the amendment in June, said, "Well, we're going to ask for one." Asked about the discrepancy, Murray spokeswoman Samantha Dallaire said, "The decision is up to the membership" on how to proceed Thursday.
And why didn't our supposedly pro-marriage former Governor, Mitt Romney, ever address the issue when he took office in January 2003? The first marriage amendment was arguably still alive then, but Romney said it was "too extreme" -- because it banned civil unions! (Romney went on to twist arms among Republican legislators, getting them to vote for the failed Travaglini-Lees amendment which would have created civil unions.)
Romney's mentor, former Gov. Bill Weld, has decided to stick his nose into the current marriage amendment mess. State House News reports:
Former Gov. Bill Weld held an afternoon visit with House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi, whose chamber is home to the vast majority of the pro-amendment votes. The two-term Republican governor said he might call legislators Wednesday in an effort to influence votes against the ban, which was generated by about 170,000 Bay State citizens' signatures. ...
Weld said he hopes the measure doesn't advance to the popular ballot because "I think it's going be a distraction for the next 18 months if it does get put on the ballot, and I think the best way to handle it is just to get rid of it right now." Weld infuriated gay marriage supporters two years ago when he was running for governor of New York by saying he opposed the expansion of gay marriage outside Massachusetts. Making at least his second appearance in the State House in the last week, Weld said he was in the capitol on behalf of Lehman Brothers, the global finance firm, but said it was not to lobby. In 2003, shortly after the state Supreme Judicial Court delivered the ruling that led to the practice of gay marriage here, Weld endorsed the decision, and later officiated at a same-sex marriage.
Why would a nominal Republican be concerned if the amendment were still an issue for the next 18 months? We thought it was just the Democrats who wanted it to go away, so as not to hurt their vote in the 2008 election.
Meanwhile, Senate President Murray is still counting heads, and won't decide until Thursday morning whether or not to hold the vote.
State House News reports (June 12):
Murray said she expected to vote Thursday, but didn't know whether the gay marriage proponents have swayed the handful of votes needed to draw support for the amendment below the 50-vote threshold. ...
Asked if she would still call for a vote if she were unsure of the result, Murray replied, "We'll decide on Thursday." In May, Murray, responding to reporters' questions about whether she thought there would be a vote on the amendment in June, said, "Well, we're going to ask for one." Asked about the discrepancy, Murray spokeswoman Samantha Dallaire said, "The decision is up to the membership" on how to proceed Thursday.
[*Our position on the current VoteOnMarriage amendment: We DON'T like the wording (allowing current homosexual "marriages" to stand; not banning civil unions). But we DO respect the process: The Constitution provides for referendum petitions, VoteOnMarriage got the signatures, and the legislators are required to vote. And bribery is against the law. But its passage would not solve our problem. We'd still have "homosexual marriages" recognized by the Mass. Constitution, and civil unions could follow.]
Monday, June 11, 2007
Shame on Gov. Deval Patrick
Watch this video of Governor Deval Patrick mingling with the crowds after he marched in the Pride parade on Saturday. Then he posed for a picture by the BAGLY banner. He did promise during the campaign to do whatever the homosexuals and transsexuals wanted.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3413868453541066974&hl=en
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3413868453541066974&hl=en
Polluted Streets of Boston Pride
(c) 2007 MassResistance
Left: At "Boston Dyke March". Does D.O.E. stand for Department of Education?
Right: "Transwoman" looking his best.
Here are some of the proud participants in "Boston Pride" this past weekend. There were many children on the parade route who viewed this -- most were probably children of "GLBT parents".
If you don't like this, take it up with Mayor Thomas Menino and Governor Deval Patrick.
Right: "Transwoman" looking his best.
Here are some of the proud participants in "Boston Pride" this past weekend. There were many children on the parade route who viewed this -- most were probably children of "GLBT parents".
If you don't like this, take it up with Mayor Thomas Menino and Governor Deval Patrick.
Saturday, June 09, 2007
Mass. Gov. Deval Patrick Celebrating Porn, Risky Sex & Depravity at Boston Pride
This summary is not available. Please
click here to view the post.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)