"The Underground Journal" Exposes Betrayal by "Pro-Family" Leadership

With all the rumors of Romney becoming a Vice Presidential nominee, it's time for everyone to review his impeachable crimes against the Massachusetts Constitution. Check out John Haskins' and Gregg Jackson's 3-part series, "It's Not a Conspiracy. It's Just a Cover-Up" in The Underground Journal.

The Underground Journal understands what few have yet grasped, that "pro-life, pro-family conservatism has been hijacked by 'leaders' obsessed with money and power." And yes, that includes some of the "pro-family" groups here in Massachusetts, such as the Massachusetts Family Institute (MFI), which eagerly joined in the cover-up of Romney's constitutional violations (in his implementing homosexual "marriage").

MFI also sold out in its compromise on the VoteOnMarriage amendment wording (even claiming we could "dialogue" with MassEquality!); its failure to support the removal of the Goodridge-majority judges; its failure to support bills filed by MassResistance (including the Parents' Rights bill); and its pattern of hijacking work and research from MassResistance without accreditation, while publicly denouncing our "tone".

From the Underground Journal:

FACT: People We Trusted Are Lying To Us.

The Cover-Up for Mitt Romney Is One of the Biggest Scandals Of Our Lifetimes.

Distrust and anger toward the "conservative" elites are building among American conservatives. Donors to conservative groups, conservative talk radio audiences and voters who identify as Republicans are dwindling. Who can blame them? The "conservative" elites are failing to defend any boundary in the culture war or in our constitutions.

Grassroots conservatives sense that their real agenda is to defend their own perks. Real pro-family, moral conservative candidates are being undermined. Politicians who stand for nothing but pretend to stand for everything buy endorsements from trusted "conservatives." The grassroots are figuring out why election victories turn into betrayals on policy. There has been no greater betrayal in our lifetime than in the cover-up of Mitt Romney's actions in Massachusetts:

*Today, foster and adoptive children are given to homosexuals, and mother-father families are turned away because of Romney's blatant lie about the law.

*Romney also lies when he claims judges "forced" him to order local officials to perform homosexual "marriages." Americans needn't blindly trust Romney's lawyers. They can read the plain English that we are quoting directly from the Massachusetts Constitution. To fulfill his 2002 campaign promises to the homosexual Republican elites of Massachusetts, Romney flagrantly violated the Supreme Law of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts that he had sworn to defend.

*Romney boasts: "Every bill that crossed my desk I came down on the side of life." However, photos of him signing his health care law – after his "conversion" -- reveal a happy Ted Kennedy and the godfathers of the Democrat mafia of Massachusetts drooling with delight.

We are witnessing a massive cover-up. But the grassroots are figuring it out: Romney seduced and outright bought the "conservative" establishment. If you have not yet figured this out you are dangerously misinformed. Three articles just posted on UndergroundJournal.net will prove all this to you and much more.

Part 1 reveals how the Reagan revolution and much of the pro-family establishment have been taken over by mercenaries and opportunists who are cashing in and surrendering parents' rights and religious freedom to liberals and the powerful homosexual movement. In Parts 2 and 3, at the impeachment trial of Governor Willard Mitt Romney, our Founding Fathers John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and Massachusetts Court Justice Robert Paine ask Romney the shocking questions you are entitled to hear answered -- but which the conservative elites refuse to mention.

What they haven't told you WILL hurt you, your children and your grandchildren! Click here to read the rest at the UndergroundJournal.net.

It's Not a Conspiracy. It's Just a Cover-Up

By John Haskins and Gregg Jackson

Part 1: What are Limbaugh, Hannity, Ingraham and Coulter hiding about Romney? And Why?

Part 2: Impeachment of Willard Mitt Romney: Adams, Jefferson & Paine ask Romney what Rush, Sean, Laura and Ann won't

Part 3: The Impeachment of Willard Mitt Romney: Adams, Jefferson and Madison ask what Rush, Sean, Laura and Ann won't.

Romney Learning that Money Won't Buy Him Love

$10 million spent by Mitt Romney in Iowa. (Outspending Huckabee 10 to 1.) For what? Ambition, power. And a big loss.

So much money, so little conviction. And that's the key. All that money couldn't make up for Romney's lack of conviction ... which the voters could SMELL a mile away.

It wasn't that voters resented Romney's wealth. There would have been a very different reaction if he had used it to underwrite conservative convictions in previous years. His only small (public) donations to Mass. Family Institute and Mass. Citizens for Life came very recently, when he wanted their support for his Presidential run.

What Romney really needed to do as Governor was give us REAL CONSERVATIVES a little face time, and listen to what we had to say. (We barely got an hour-long appointment with his Deputy Chief of Staff, Peter Flaherty, who will remember that event -- which we'll write about in detail in the near future.) Romney didn't have any problem finding time to meet with the Log Cabin (homosexual) Republicans, or even the editorial staff of the extremist GLBT Boston newspaper, Bay Windows. (And oh yes, he apparently was scheming with "moderates" to cook up a compromised marriage amendment back in 2005.)

State Rep. Puppolo Paying Price for Lying to Voters

Whether one supported the recent VoteOnMarriage amendment or not (and we didn't for reasons elaborated on this blog), we still believe that voters who did should not have been lied to by their State Rep candidate in the last election.

Freshman Rep. Angelo Puppolo of Springfield promised prominent constituents that he would vote for the amendment when it came before the Legislature. He lied. And now a national pro-marriage group has put up a huge billboard on I-91 calling him a traitor. (Check out the web site behind the billboard here.)

There has been much outrage around the state over the flippers in the Legislature, including Sen. Candaras and Reps. Loscocco and Ross. How easily our elected representatives have been corrupted by money and perks from the homosexual lobby! Puppolo has joined their name-calling bandwagon: those behind the billboard are "hateful" and "small-minded." (A radical leftist blog run by Frederick Clarkson that focuses on the dangerous "Christian right" has now taken up Puppolo's cause in response to the billboard, and is urging its readers to contribute to Puppolo's campaign fund!)

From the Springfield Republican (10-6-07):

Billboard attacks gay marriage vote
By Dan Ring

BOSTON - A New Jersey group yesterday unveiled a massive billboard in Springfield that compares a local legislator to Judas Iscariot and Benedict Arnold for switching his vote on gay marriage.

Called "Betrayed," the billboard, posted on Interstate 91 near the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame, targets state Rep. Angelo J. Puppolo Jr., a freshman Democrat from Springfield.
Puppolo changed his position on gay marriage and voted "no" to placing a question on next year's statewide ballot that sought to amend the state constitution to ban same-sex unions, legal in Massachusetts since May 2004. During the campaign last year, Puppolo said he would support the ballot question.

"Tactics like this reinforce my belief that I did the right thing," Puppolo said. "I voted to keep discrimination off the ballot and out of the Massachusetts constitution."

Brian S. Brown, director of the newly created National Organization for Marriage, of Princeton, N.J., which financed the billboard, said yesterday Puppolo betrayed marriage and the public trust. ...

Puppolo said the billboard is hateful and offensive.... Puppolo, 38, said the billboard goes too far. "It's unfortunate that small-minded groups like this from out of the area come in and spread this kind of hate and inflammatory statements," he said.

Iowa Patriots Seek to Remove "Gay Marriage" Judge; Romney Ignored Similar Mass. Effort in 2004

It's great to see that Iowa patriots have stepped forward to preserve their Constitution, and impeach the county judge who ruled that two sodomites could be joined in "marriage". This is what should have happened in Massachusetts in 2004-5.

We at MassResistance (then Article 8 Alliance) led that effort. See "It's Crunch Time in Boston" by John Haskins, WorldNetDaily (4-11-05):

Though their oaths of office compel them to declare the ruling null and void and to remove the four judges, the executive and legislative branches in this "separate but equal" farce clearly believe that their oaths, too, have been struck down. Gov. Mitt Romney – Republican and practicing Mormon – while posing in the Bible Belt as a pro-family conservative, has taken to sponsoring homosexual youth parades in Boston. Chief Justice Margaret Marshall is now running the state, when she's not fund-raising for homosexual organizations and otherwise mocking rules about judicial neutrality. Feeling powerless as governor, Romney is wondering if he can be our next president....

Gov. Romney and the Legislature need to be made the laughingstock of the nation for not standing up to the self-appointed politburo that has reduced them to mindless puppets. We need all the help we can get here because removing judges is now a do-or-die effort for constitutional self-government, and not only for Massachusetts. For the entire country, a great deal depends on our scaring the Massachusetts political establishment back into at least faintly constitutional parameters. If we fail to remove the four outlaw justices, Americans may well look back at the Massachusetts homosexual marriage ruling as "the one that ate the rule of law," to borrow a recent phrase from U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

But our Governor, Mitt Romney, declined to support the effort. So did the Massachusetts Family Institute and the Massachusetts Catholic Conference. And so did conservative advocacy groups around the country, including the vaunted ACLJ and Alliance Defense Fund (ADF). Why? In the case of the ADF, they thought they could compromise with the homosexual extremists, hand them civil unions and benefits, and allow their early "marriages" to stand untouched, then (with a wink from the homosexual thugs) pass their terribly flawed VoteOnMarriage amendment. We've seen where that strategy led.

At a June 2005 press conference, Romney gave no reason for his opposition to the effort to remove of the four sodomy "marriage" judges. Could his inaction be explained by his promise to the homosexual activist Log Cabin Republicans in 2002, not to interfere with the Mass. Supreme Judicial Court's anticipated ruling for sodomy "marriage" (as recently reported in the New York Times)?

Q: Governor, what about the broader issue of judicial acitivism? Do you support or oppose the Bill of Address movement to recall the judges?

Gov. Romney: I'm not looking to recall the judges. I do however believe that justices should not legislate from the bench any more than legislators should adjudicate from the legislature. And I believe that there should be a separation of powers and responsibilities, and I believe that in this case that the Supreme Judicial Court engaged in legislating. I believe it was an improper decision on their part, and that's why I believe that ultimately the citizens should have the opportunity to make this choice, or their elected representatives.

When are Republican primary voters around the country going to wake up to Romney's deception? He never worked to preserve real marriage, but rather did all he could to implement it -- even without any errant court order! Romney also violated the Constitution by ordering the new "Party A/Party B" marriage licenses (while Mass. statutes STILL allow only man/woman marriage), and by ordering Justices of the Peace and Town Clerks to implement sodomy "marriages".

Here's the Iowa story:
Group wants judge impeached in same-sex marriage case
By Rod Boshart
The Gazette, September 12. 2007

DES MOINES - A nonprofit group calling itself Everyday America began a petition drive Wednesday aimed at pressuring state lawmakers to impeach and remove a district judge who issued a ruling declaring Iowa's same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional.

Bill Salier, a former Republican U.S. Senate candidate from Nora Springs and one of the group's founders, said Everyday America is seeking support for an impeachment petition that states Judge Robert Hanson "knowingly violated the bounds of the Iowa Constitution" in issuing the controversial opinion, which also violated his judicial oath.

"The people of this state must take a stand to stop government officials from overstepping the Constitution in order to change society as they see fit. It is time we must start holding our government to account," the online petition states."Some government officials will continue to overstep their authority unless 'We the People.' demand it stop," according to the petition. [Read more...]

Rep. Loscocco's Vote Worth Lots to Homo Lobby

We thought $125 was a little too low a price for vote-switching Rep. Paul Loscocco. We figured he must have made a deal for lots more . . . Sure enough, Bay Windows reports today that all the stars of the homosexual lobby were at his Tuesday fundraiser at Boston's Union Club! That would include Bill Conley (he's back!), infamous for his solicitation of college boys for "oral relief" last summer. Also present: Jarrett Barrios, Carl Sciortino, Marc Solomon. And "Republicans [RINOs] like Senate Minority Leader Richard Tisei and House Minority Leader Brad Jones, both of whom support marriage equality...." Did Tim Gill cover the catering?

Rep. Loscocco Took Money from Homosexual Lobby

According to posted reports, State Representative Paul Loscocco [R - Hopkinton, Holliston], one-time defender of traditional values and real marriage, took a very dirty $125 from the Mass. Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus in October 2006. (See Mass. Elections Division, Office of Campaign and Political Finance.) Loscocco shocked conservatives and Republicans around the state when he flipped on the marriage amendment at the June 14 Constitutional Convention. Loscocco has also refused to support our parents' rights bills.

Will the bag lady, Arline Isaacson, be attending Rep. Loscocco's fundraiser at the Union Club on Park Street this evening at 5:30? Since her 2006 donation was rather small, we wouldn't be surprised to see more donations coming his way tonight from the homosexual lobby. It's a convenient location for State House "special interests". We're sure Messrs. Gill and Guerriero can find people to celebrate with Loscocco tonight. Maybe the Mass Federation of Teachers will attend (they gave him $100 in November 2006).

Or did the Rep really sell his soul for only $125?

Tim Gill's Donations to Mass. Legislators in 2004

Above: Multimillionaire Tim Gill is funding the homo/transsexual assault on America's state legislatures [photo: Atlantic Monthly]

Below: Patrick Guerriero (on right), Executive Director of Gill's PAC which bought the vote against the marriage amendment on June 14; with Arline Isaacson of Mass. Gay & Lesbian Political Caucus (center) [photo: In NewsWeekly]

Tim Gill of the Gill Foundation was still into open donations to state legislators and candidates in 2004. But since that time, after the establishment of his Gill Action Fund PAC -- with former Mass. pol Patrick Guerriero at its head -- he's been funneling his money more secretively. How many little MassEquality activists have volunteered to launder his funds (and for sure, activists outside the state as well)?

Look at this list of 2004 recipients of Gill's largesse [click on "search contributions" then enter name of donor and dates]. Why don't we see Gill's name any more on the Secretary of State's records? We do, however, see his operative Guerriero running the show at the June 14 Constitutional Convention (photo above), where they buried VoteOnMarriage's amendment with Gill's money. (In the Mass. Elections Division report, Gill variously identifies his employer as: retired; philanthropist; attorney; investor; unemployed; self-employed; Quark Express, and Gill Foundation. In one entry, he is listed as Tina Gill. Maybe that explains his support of tranny causes?)

GILL, TIM
461 RACE STREET DENVER, CO 80206
9/14/2004 $500.00 Resor, Pamela P.
10/19/2004 $500.00 O'Leary, Robert
10/28/2004 $500.00 Augustus, Edward M.
12/11/2004 $500.00 DiMasi, Salvatore F.
09/01/2004 $500.00 Fargo, Susan C.
09/01/2004 $500.00 Stanley, Thomas M.
09/01/2004 $500.00 Palacios-Boyce, Monica
09/01/2004 $500.00 Turner, Cleon H.
09/01/2004 $500.00 Canessa, Stephen R.
09/07/2004 $500.00 Sannicandro, Tom
09/08/2004 $500.00 Meoni, Paul J.
09/10/2004 $500.00 McQuilken, Angus
09/10/2004 $500.00 Sheehan Jr., Kenneth
09/10/2004 $500.00 Mazza-Moriarty, Rosemarie
09/12/2004 $500.00 Patrick, Matthew C.
09/15/2004 $500.00 Sciortino, Carl
10/20/2004 $500.00 Purinton, Timothy A.
10/20/2004 $500.00 Peake, Sarah K.
10/20/2004 $500.00 Thomas, John
10/21/2004 $500.00 McFeeley, John J.
10/22/2004 $500.00 Teahan, Kathleen M.
10/22/2004 $500.00 Peisch, Alice Hanlon
10/30/2004 $500.00 Howitt, Steven
10/12/2006 $500.00 D'Amico, Steven J.
10/20/2006 $500.00 Smith, Stephen Stat
10/12/2006 $500.00 Sandlin, Rosemary
10/20/2004 $500.00 Speliotis, Theodore C.

MassEquality Shifting Focus to "Trans Rights & Hate Crimes" Bill

Bay Windows has a long piece on MassEquality's future focus, now that they believe homosexual marriage" is secured. It is clear that they'll be helping the Mass. Transgender Political Caucus pass its "transgender rights and hate crimes" bill (H1722). Remember that the Gill Foundation's Patrick Guerriero -- who brought in millions to secure defeat of the marriage amendment -- is also committed to the "trans rights" cause. So we're sure that MassEquality -- which also benefits from Gill's largesse -- is clearly on that bandwagon, more than they're publicly acknowledging. From "MassEquality plots its future," Bay Windows (7-25-07):

The Massachusetts Transgender Political Coalition (MTPC) of which MassEquality is a member organization, on July 17 sent a letter to the MassEquality board of directors asking that the organization step up to the plate on the effort to pass a bill that would outlaw discrimination based on gender identity or expression and enhance penalties against perpetrators of crimes motivated by the victim’s gender identity or expression....

Ryan [MTPC co-chair; a "transwoman"] said that this is the first time MTPC has reached out to the MassEquality board for help on the transgender rights bill. Both she and fellow MTPC Co-Chair Gunner Scott ["transman"] said that though they have long had conversations with MassEquality staff members about the bill, they recognized that the organization’s primary focus was on securing marriage equality. Now, said Scott, “If they’re going to continue as a GLBT equality organization we’d like, of course, for them to focus on the trans bill that’s currently pending.” Solomon [MassEquality director] agreed that the LGBT community must turn its attention to securing protections for transgender people. “Passing an aggressive transgender civil rights bill that protects transgender people from hate crimes and discrimination has got to be a top community priority,” he said. [emphasis added]

Not mentioned in the Bay Windows article: MassEquality is also now quietly working hard to be sure they have the votes to actually LEGALIZE "gay marriage" -- with an actual LAW! Though why they think the law is important, we don't know. They certainly don't want the public to know about this little glitch -- that Mass. statutes still don't allow same-sex "marriage"! While he didn't mention that issue, Marc Solomon of MassEquality did say (immediately after the defeat of the marriage amendment on June 14) that he was working on the best timing to overturn the 1913 law barring out-of-state same-sex couples from marrying here. Though we're not sure why they need to do that either, since Massachusetts bureaucrats claim they are now empowered to tell other states what to do. (See yesterday's news on the Mass. DPH bureaucrat who issued a fiat allowing New Mexico homosexual couples to marry here.) MassEquality and the Trans Caucus have a sure ally in Gov. Deval Patrick for these bills, which will probably all be heard by the Judiciary Committee in the Fall:

• legalizing their same-sex "marriages" H1710, S918


• overturning the 1913 law barring marriages by out-of-state same-sex couples S800, S1029


• "transgender rights and hate crimes" H1722.

The Bay Windows article also describes some of the payback going on with the vote switchers on the marriage amendment:

As the MassEquality board weighs the organization’s future, daily work continues. Most importantly, the organization has set about offering support to the nine legislators who switched from supporting to opposing the amendment between the Jan. 2 ConCon and the June 14 session and the two freshman lawmakers who had campaigned on support for the amendment last fall but ultimately decided to vote against it. To that end, MassEquality Development Director Scott Gortikov [who once donated to MassResistance in an attempt to get on our email alert list] has been working with some of the organization’s major donors — gay and straight — to steer campaign contributions to the newest crop of pro-equality legislators, who may be vulnerable in next year’s elections because of their vote switch. Gortikov declined to name specific legislators who have benefited from his work thus far. ...

Besides steering major donors toward potentially imperiled pro-equality legislators, MassEquality is also encouraging its members to attend fundraisers for their respective lawmakers. On July 12, for example, members of the affiliate group Quincy for Marriage Equality were a visible presence at Sen. Michael Morrissey’s annual fundraiser at Waterworks, a Quincy nightspot. ... Beyond campaign contributions, MassEquality members are making their support for vote switchers visible in other ways, said Solomon. For instance, in a Fourth of July parade in state Sen. Gale Candaras’s Western Mass. district, a crowd of marriage equality supporters turned up waving signs thanking Candaras for coming around to the cause of equality after several years of anti-equality votes.

Pro-Life Activists Who Don't Hold Back the Truth

The Minnesota Supreme Court has ruled that pro-life protesters were exercising their First Amendment rights in showing a graphic photo of an aborted baby. (It's encouraging to hear about a good ruling once in a while!) But the attorney for the defendants noted that, "Graphic photos are controversial even among pro-lifers," and urged "they be used prudently and sparingly – with warning signs wherever possible."

Huh? One reason we still have millions of abortions is that such truthful images are used TOO SPARINGLY! In a somewhat contradictory statement, the attorney goes on to admit that "... our society has to confront the brutal, bloody realities of this murderous atrocity, as mere abstract rhetoric too often fails to trigger the deep, visceral reaction needed to overcome contemporary America's bland indifference to this carnage."

That's what we often say about homosexuality and transsexuality: The reality of the sexual perversions needs to be discussed, or there will be a failure to "trigger the deep, visceral reaction needed to overcome" this harmful movement. But the establishment "conservative" groups definitely want to stay away from "the ick factor" -- this is equivalent to not showing photos of ripped up babies -- and they've essentially complied with the radical homosexual plan to enforce silence concerning homosexual practices and health risks.

The establishment "conservatives" have allowed the debate to move to abstract, positive emotional issues like "families" and "love" and "rights". For example, VoteOnMarriage never said homosexual "marriage" was wrong because it sanctioned sodomy and spread dangerous disease; just that every child needed a father and mother, and the people should be allowed to vote.

See the WorldNetDaily article, "Court allows display of 'bloody' aborted babies; Case addresses 'America's bland indifference to this carnage' " (7-19-07).

... The decision reversed the criminal convictions of pro-life protesters Ron Rudnick and Luke Otterstad, who displayed the signs on an overpass in the Twin Cities suburb of Anoka during the run-up to the 2004 national elections. One sign displayed a large color photograph of an aborted infant; the other branded a local congressional candidate as "pro-abortion." The two were jailed by police, their signs were taken away, and they were convicted of causing a "criminal nuisance." But the state's highest court unanimously reversed the convictions, determining that prosecutors simply failed to prove their case: that the signs created any danger to the public. ...

... But the court's conclusion in the case said the prosecution hadn't proven the signs were a criminal "nuisance" or that the city's sign ordinance even applied. Two other justices agreed with former NFL star-turned-judge Alan Page that the defendants' First Amendment rights were violated because the prosecution was "content-based," or targeting the pro-life message. "[A]bove all else, the First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content," the concurrence said. ... In Page's concurring opinion, he noted that "it is clear on this record that the state's prosecution of appellants under that statute was content-based and therefore barred by the First Amendment."

Boston Parents' Paper Normalizing GLBT "Families" -- Part II

The July issue of the Boston Parents' Paper (PP) uses a typical propaganda ploy in its attempt to normalize homosexual "parenting": It focuses on the innocent beauty of children, and the child's emotions regarding his "parents." The PP starts with the glowing face of a strawberry blonde imp on their cover, whose sideways smile leads your eye directly to the feature headline, "Gay Parenting: 'See Us as Family'." And whose heart wouldn't go out to the smiling boy "who is happy his parents got married" in a half-page color photo of a smiling "family" -- two men and a boy -- on the beach. We learn the boy was adopted from Russia. And we respond: "What a wonderful thing!"

But who are the "parents"? One assumes the two men partake of anal intercourse. If they were habitual smokers, or drug users, what would the PP say? Would they hold them up as model "parents"? Yet it is medical fact that anal intercourse and other typical homosexual sex practices are inherently unhealthy, even if the couple is monogamous and "committed." And the boy will of course accept it as normal, and perhaps be drawn into the very unhealthy and dangerous GLBT world. (Studies show children of homosexual parents are more likely to identify as homosexual themselves.) What sort of role models are they for the boy?

State Senator Jarrett Barrios, who has adopted two sons with "his spouse," Democrat consultant Doug Hattaway, is quoted. Why didn't the PP say "his husband"? Would that be unpalatable to most of their readership? Somehow the word "spouse" softens the conjured image a bit ... And there is no challenge to Barrios' claim that homosexual "marriage" is about "civil rights." This after the editor carefully states the PP takes no stand on "gay marriage."

Then we get to the part about special support groups for "gay and lesbian parents," sponsored by Beth Israel Deaconess Hospital, Jewish Family & Children's Service, and Fenway Community Health Services. PFLAG and COLAGE are listed as resources. But PP wouldn't dare mention the support groups for "poly" parented families ... at least not for a few years!

What's really going on here is a propaganda assault on hetero parents, because the "gay and lesbian parents" already know about their special support groups! There is no need for the PP to write about these for that limited, already informed audience. You don't go through an adoption process without already knowing all the support systems available for your special case! This is also just a lot of whining from the "gay and lesbian parents" who are facing many of the same emotional issues heterosexual adoptive parents face. But this article is all about building sympathy for the former.

We read about the Home for Little Wanderers in Boston, which places many children with homosexual couples. But nothing is said about its "Waltham House," which actually encourages transgenderism in teenagers. It's well known that the Dept. of Social Services, also connected to Waltham House, favors placement of children including those without special needs with homosexual couples. Adoptions to "gay and lesbian parents" have been going on for many years, and gave a major political weapon to homosexual activists, who could then lobby in the State House with babies and children in tow: "You can't break up our family by banning gay marriage!" (Even VoteOnMarriage bought this line.)

Last but not least, the article errs in saying that "gay marriage" was "legalized" in Massachusetts. Governor Romney issued Partner A/Partner B marriage licenses, but no laws changed to allow for this alteration of the marriage statutes.

[Coming soon: Part III on the PP article's sidebars: parents' rights, and resources.]

Contacts page: http://boston.parenthood.com/articles.html?article_id=8872
Editor: alison.murray@parenthood.com
Publisher: deirdre.wilson@parenthood.com
Email: boston.parentspaper@parenthood.com

VoteOnMarriage Continues to Consort with Enemy

Last week, we were surprised to see that one of VoteOnMarriage's spokespersons agreed to be interviewed by the extremist homosexual newspaper, Bay Windows. ["VoteOnMarriage.org spokeswoman says another ballot campaign unlikely," 6-22-07.] One Ms. Barstow said another marriage amendment campaign is unlikely. (Though we've heard VOM is still seriously considering one.)

Speaking with Bay Windows is in line with VOM's thinking --that it's possible to dialogue with these people, that MassEquality's Marc Solomon is an honorable man, and all that. But wait -- we're confused: Didn't we just read immediately after VOM's defeat that Kris Mineau, main spokesman for VOM, was accusing legislators of taking bribes? And where did those bribes come from? The very close-knit radical homosexual community, led by MassEquality and rallied by Bay Windows? Yet Barstow complimented MassEquality on doing a great job defeating her amendment! And bared her supporters' emotions to Bay Windows. Unbelievable.

VoteOnMarriage.org spokeswoman Lisa Barstow chalked up the reversal of fortune to being outmatched both financially and politically by the pro-equality team. She emphasized the changed political landscape, which saw newly elected leaders Gov. Deval Patrick and Senate President Therese Murray align with House Speaker Sal DiMasi to defeat the amendment. “And I think that frankly, MassEquality did a great job,” said Barstow. “I think we did a great job.”

The difference, she said, is that in addition to having the bully pulpit on three fronts, MassEquality had the financial resources to better organize to defeat the amendment. “Within the resources we had to work with … we feel like we did everything we could do,” said Barstow, noting that volunteers “poured out their hearts” working long days on the campaign. “It’s a campaign so people really take it to heart. So obviously the loss has been crushing.” Barstow was quick to note that, “Folks haven’t given up overall. But what the next phase will look like is still under consideration.”

Barstow did say that going forward, the organization will be examining ethical questions about the impact the political support of the state’s three most powerful leaders had on defeating the amendment. Said Barstow, “What swayed those nine [legislators]? … Was it pure persuasion of the speaker or was it the dangling jobs? Was it facing life in the basement of the State House or a potential chairmanship? The Democrat Party effort poured into this — statewide and national — was just unbelievable,” she said.

And the gullibility of some on the pro-family side is just unbelievable.

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.

[photo credit: InNews Weekly. Don't miss our favorite Bay Windows reporter, Ethan Jacobs, on the far left.]

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?

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...

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.

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?

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:

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.

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.

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....

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.

[*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.]