Homofascist Intimidation HQ "Villa" Celebrated in Boston Globe

Hey, Prez-Elect Obama! Time to spread around some wealth! Take a look at this palace. And to think only two guys, Tom Lang and Alex Westerhoff, live here. It doesn't seem quite fair.

And what a couple they are. Thanks to the Boston Globe Magazine, we get a peak at their "villa" -- the chicest location for radical leftist fundraisers. (Just imagine what else goes on in these rooms.*)
One thing is for sure: The palace has been a base for harassing opponents of "homosexual marriage". One of its owners, Tom Lang, is the infamous cyber-bully behind the "KnowThyNeighbor" web site, which published the names of anyone who signed the pro-marriage referendum petition in Massachusetts a few years back.

Here's nice guy Lang in December 2006, shouting down a pro-marriage rally (which held a permit for the space) in Worcester. MassResistance posted a video of his vile disruption, where he screams at the participants that they're "bigots". He’s the chubby guy in glasses.

It is our opinion that Tom Lang of Manchester-by-the-Sea should be prosecuted for violating the constitutional rights of citizens of Massachusetts who simply signed a petition to get a ballot question on marriage. Lang's goal was to intimidate anyone who questions homosexual marriage or homosexuality (then or in the future). Such intimidation is illegal in Massachusetts. Just look at what's happening to signers in California after the passage of Prop 8, banning homosexual "marriage". Lang provided the model for this tactic.

Mass. General Laws, Ch. 12, Sec. 11H:
Whenever any person or persons, whether or not acting under color of law, interfere by threats, intimidation or coercion, or attempt to interfere by threats, intimidation or coercion, with the exercise or enjoyment by any other person or persons of rights secured by the constitution or laws of the United States, or of rights secured by the constitution or laws of the commonwealth, the attorney general may bring a civil action for injunctive or other appropriate equitable relief in order to protect the peaceable exercise or enjoyment of the right or rights secured.... [emphasis added]

Lang and Westerhoff were often seen at demonstrations and State House events. Here they are at a recent State House event -- in their usual position -- celebrating the corrupt action of the Legislature which had just denied the people their right to vote on sodomy "marriage":

The Boston press has gushed over the Lang-Westerhoff palace before. In 2007, we posted Boston Herald columnist Margery Eagan's 2004 excrescence over their lavish "wedding" and home. Eagan was apparently a guest. See our June 2007 post on the "Finneran-Lang-Eagan Axis of Evil":

[MassResistance blog:] 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 [former Speaker of the House] 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):

[Eagan wrote:] ... 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....

In 2006, a gala fundraiser for then candidate Gov. Deval Patrick (friend to Barack Obama) was held at the Lang-Westerhoff palace. InNews Weekly (a homosexual newspaper) reported:

Rev. Gomes endorses Patrick for Mass. Gov. -- Endorsement came at Manchester-by-the-Sea fund raiser jointly hosted by Alexander Westerhoff and Tom Lang (of Know Thy Neighbor) and the Freedom to Marry PAC

The Reverend Professor Peter J. Gomes, [openly homosexual] (D.D., Honorary Fellow of the College, Plummer Professor of Christian Morals at Harvard University, and Pusey Minister in the Memorial Church, Harvard), provided a rare public endorsement on behalf of Deval Patrick at a Manchester-by-the-Sea fundraiser jointly hosted by Alexander Westerhoff and Tom Lang of Manchester and the Freedom to Marry PAC....

Alex Westerhoff and Tom Lang, whose Manchester-by-the-Sea "Villa in Construction" hosted the Deval Patrick for Governor fundraiser, have been close friends with the Reverend Gomes since Westerhoff immigrated to the United States from Germany in 1988. Westerhoff says that the attendees were in excess of 150 people in total and drew from a wide range of bi-partisan support from the Northshore and Boston who came out to hear and meet Deval Patrick. "I am honored that Reverend Gomes chose our joint event with Freedom to Marry in which to endorse Deval Patrick for Governor. Peter's words express, as only Peter can, the feelings of so many in Massachusetts as to the current administration and politicians in general, and how we need a leader like Patrick in the corner office," said Westerhoff. Reverend Gomes officiated at Westerhoff and Lang's marriage ceremony on May 17, 2004.
(InNews Weekly, 8-5-06)

_________________
*Hmm... Now it seems Mr. Lang had decided to protect HIS privacy a little more (a right he denies others), and has had the Globe remove the link to more photos of his palace.

"Transgender Rights & Hate Crimes" Bill Must Be Defeated

Oppose Bill H1722, the “Transgender Rights and Hate Crimes” bill. The Judiciary Committee will decide before March 19 whether to pass this bill onto the legislature for a vote. Go to our action page to contact the members of the Committee.

Bill H1722 would add the essentially undefined phrase "gender identity or expression" to many existing Mass. statutes, opening the door to unimaginable perversions played out in public – and the public will have no right to object. H1722 would:

• add a new category of persons (falling under the undefined phrase “gender identity or expression”) to those receiving special protection under Massachusetts “hate crimes” statutes.
• make it a "civil right" to cross-dress in public places or on the job, and a "civil right" to receive sex-change procedures in all hospitals;
• open up restrooms and locker rooms everywhere (including public schools) to persons of the opposite sex;
• force all businesses to accept cross-dressing and transgenderism (including sex-change transitions) among their employees (or clients), and eventually to include bizarre "health coverage" in employee benefits packages;
• force public schools to include "transgender" education at all levels, and make any complaints criminal (as incitements to discriminate);
• make it criminal discrimination to refuse to rent to a transsexual-related business or transgender person in your own property, or even to speak out against this in your own neighborhood (even if next to a church or school);
• make it criminal discrimination for a financial organization to refuse a loan to a transsexual-related business;
• give state sanction to dangerous surgical mutilations and hormonal manipulations of people suffering from a recognized psychiatric disorder, with unknown long-term health consequences;
• deny religious exemption except for an organization "which limits it membership, enrollment, admission, or participation to members of that religion" (thereby not exempting most religious schools, or businesses owned by individuals with sincerely held religious beliefs, etc.)

Judiciary Committee Hearing Will Expose Lies by Mass. Family Institute, Romney, and Mainstream Media

But will the mainstream media report it? Of course not, because they don't want their LIE exposed, that "same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts."

See Gregg Jackson's excellent blog on this today at Pundit Review: Who’s Delusional Mitt?

How revealing: Massachusetts Family Institute (MFI) contradicts itself on two bills regarding "homosexual marriage" before the Judiciary Committee tomorrow:

• The first, Bill H1720 (also S918) filed by the homosexual lobby, would legalize “homosexual marriages” (changing the marriage statute to allow two people of either gender to marry) -- something never done after the SJC’s Goodridge ruling made that suggestion in November 2003.
• The second, Bill S926, filed by MassResistance, would declare all supposed “homosexual marriages,” contracted from May 17, 2004 on, “NULL & VOID” -- since there was never any change in the statutes to permit such “marriages.”

While MFI tells its people to oppose the legalization of "homosexual marriage" in the first bill, it doesn't tell them to support the MassResistance bill. Why not?

Logically, if you oppose the first bill, you would also support the second. Clearly, if “homosexual marriage” was never legalized, such supposed “marriages” in Massachusetts have not been legal. So why not so declare them “NULL & VOID” as the bill says?

Sadly, Massachusetts Family Institute (MFI) has tied itself up in knots on this one. They admit the first bill exists, and therefore they must understand that “homosexual marriage” is still not legal. So why did their hero Mitt Romney issue fraudulent “marriage licenses” to homosexual couples (starting May 2004), and order state office holders to comply? Romney was violating the Constitution by ordering his executive branch to implement a fantasy that was never made law. Only the Legislature can rewrite the marriage statute, and that was necessary before the Governor could constitutionally change the marriage licenses!

Yet MFI refuses to support the second bill, filed by MassResistance, which recognizes this reality. Don’t they want clarity in the Massachusetts marriage laws? The problem is, they can't have that -- and defend Romney's actions too.

MFI supporters must realize that they've been lied to and misled by that organization. It's a disgrace.

Mitt Romney Favors Overturning Laws against Sodomy

In January 2002, early in his run for Governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney told the extremist homosexual publication Bay Windows that he favored overturning laws criminalizing sodomy. (That Romney would even grant an interview to this publication is telling.) Romney's position on sodomy laws, an issue of morality as well as public health, is clearly not conservative.

Romney answered a questionnaire from Bay Windows, so this was not an off-the-cuff answer:

“19 questions for Mitt Romney” January 1, 2002
Bay Windows asked: “What is your position on each of the following issues? … Repeal of sodomy laws -- ”
Romney answered: “I don’t think government should interfere in the private lives of consenting adults.”

Does Romney consider sodomy laws to concern just what goes on in private? Does Romney also believe that the state has no interest in outlawing other “private” sexual behaviors such as prostitution, incest, bigamy, or polygamy -- if they are between “consenting adults”?

When the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against the Texas law that criminalized sodomy in Lawrence v. Texas, Justice Antonin Scalia recognized in his dissent the far-reaching impact that ruling would have: “Scalia … averred that, State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of [previous ruling] Bowers' validation of laws based on moral choices…. The Court has not ruled on statutes prohibiting adult incest, polygamy, adultery, prostitution, and other forms of sexual intimacy between consenting adults. Lawrence may have created a slippery slope for these laws to eventually fall.” (Wikipedia)

Scalia was right. Just months later, the Goodridge ruling in Massachusetts (which said that it was unconstitutional to ban homosexual “marriage”) cited the Lawrence sodomy ruling as precedent.

Not only is decriminalizing sodomy serious as a legal precedent, it also has public health ramifications Romney apparently wishes to ignore. It is established fact that the high-risk behavior of anal intercourse (sodomy) plays a huge role in the spread of AIDS and other sexually-transmitted diseases.

In Massachusetts, sodomy is still on the books as a "crime against nature":
Ch 272, Section 34: Crime against nature. Whoever commits the abominable and detestable crime against nature, either with mankind or with a beast, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than twenty years.

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.

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?

Gregg Jackson on Homofascism in Massachusetts

Gregg Jackson, talk show host on WRKO's "Pundit Review" (AM680), just published this column on the homofascist victory in Massachusetts. June 14 confirmed of the total corruption of the Massaachusetts Legislature. Whether one supported the weak marriage amendment voted on that day or not, 3/4 of our Legislators have betrayed Christian morality and common sense.

"Tyranny Rears Its Head: In the Birthplace of Liberty Gay Bullies Prove They Rule The Puritan State"
GrassTopsUSA Guest Commentary
By Gregg Jackson (7-2-07)

... The legislature's tyranny is more outrageous and destructive than what the colonists faced. Twenty days before July 4, 2007 your Cradle of Liberty became, officially, the Test Tube of Totalitarianism. The American Revolution began here in a revolt against a tyrannical monarchy. But now a New American Revolution has begun in the land of the Minutemen. The revolt against America's ultimate "founding Father," the Creator referenced throughout the Declaration of Independence occurred 36 hours before Fathers Day. Is that coincidence or design? Is it coincidence that it happened 20 days before the annual celebration of the birth of Democracy? Is it coincidence that just before the 4th of July, the city once called "The New Jerusalem" has become what Massachusetts' founders would call "The New Sodom?" ...

Puritan State lawmakers legalized lawlessness, brash rebellion against the man on whom Western Civilization bases time. Contrary to liberal theologians' repeated twisting of Scripture, Jesus never condoned homosexuality, as they do. Homosexuals are not exempt from the love of Jesus, but homosexual marriage mocks Him, God's law and all those who have died defending God's nation in the modern world.

The Cradle of Liberty is now the Cradle of American Fascism. Persecution of Christians is the next step. People who believe the Bible and don't accept the doctrine that homosexuality is normal and natural began years ago. Brian Camenker, the main Massachusetts critic of the gay agenda, has been viciously persecuted for years. His radio program was taken off the air a few weeks before the legislature's tyrannical vote. ... Funny. That's exactly what the communists do when they takeover a country: silence critics....

Read the whole article...

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.

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.)

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....

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."

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?

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.

Maine Adds "Domestic Partner" Benefits to Law

Maine has come up with a weird definition of "domestic partner" to ensure that homosexual couples can share employment benefits. Questions about the definition: How will gay couples (and others) prove that one of them is the "sole partner of the employee and expects to remain so"? Siblings are excluded from being considered domestic partners, but apparently not other relatives. What about just plain roommates -- two could be "domestic partners", but not three? From the Christian Civic League of Maine:

Homosexual Welfare Bill Awaits Governor's Signature
by Mike Hein, Christian Civic League of Maine
May 25, 2007

After four months of intense lobbying, the Maine Legislature voted overwhelmingly in favor of a bill on May 23 and 24 that will extend significant employment benefits to homosexuals. The bill, LD 375 "An Act To Amend the Family Medical Leave Laws," was sponsored by Senator Dennis Damon of Hancock County , and co-sponsored by nine other homosexual-friendly legislators.

The bill has been this session's legislative priority for the Maine homosexual lobby, led by homosexual lobbying groups EqualityMaine, the Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD), the Maine Women's Lobby, and the Maine Civil Liberties Union. All four groups submitted written public testimony at the bill's February 28 public hearing before the Labor Committee.

The bill will add a formal definition of "domestic partner" to the Maine state statutes. "Domestic partner" is clearly defined in the bill as a partner of an employee who "...has been legally domiciled with the employee for at least 12 months, is not legally married to or legally separated from another individual, is the sole partner of the employee and expects to remain so, is not a sibling of the employee, and is jointly responsible with the employee for each other's common welfare as evidenced by joint living arrangements, joint financial arrangements or joint ownership of real or personal property."

If homosexual couples meet the 'domestic partner' definition requirements, they will be granted up to ten weeks of leave from their employment under Maine 's current Family Medical Leave laws.

Q & A on Massachusetts "Trans Rights" Bill

Recently, we were asked by a college journalism student to respond to these questions on the "Transgender Rights and Hate Crimes Bill," H1722, filed this past January in the Massachusets legislature. Here are our answers. (The fact that anyone even discusses this topic seriously says a lot about where society has gone!)

Q: In January 2007, legislation to outlaw gender-based discrimination and hate crimes in the state of Massachusetts was introduced. Do you think this law WILL pass and do you think this law SHOULD pass, why or why not?

A: The Massachusetts Legislature can be outrageous at times. But we don't think this will pass. And it should not pass. It's complete lunacy. It's a bill that would institutionalize and codify depraved and destructive behavior.

Transgenderism and transsexuality are considered disorders by the American Psychiatric Association (which bowed to homosexual radical pressure in the 1970s and removed homosexuality from its list of disorders -- see their diagnostic manual, DSM-IV). That is one indication of how truly disordered so-called “transgender/transsexual” people are – that even the APA still considers their condition a disorder. It's really very sad: “Trans” people wish to deny their God-given, natural bodies and psyches, but through cross-dressing, hormonal manipulation, and genital mutilation pretend they are something or someone they are not. (They will always have the DNA of their natural sex.) This should not be encouraged by government in any way, which this bill would do by normalizing such disordered and inherently unhealthy behaviors. Transsexuals have the highest incidence of HIV/AIDS measured in any vulnerable sub-group. (Just Google this.)

The larger population would be forced to approve of any imaginable manifestation of "gender identity and expression", since these terms are not clearly defined in the bill. (Nor has "sexual orientation" ever been defined in Mass. law.) For example, naked sex in public could be considered "gender expression", and so could prostitution, and even pederasty. Who knows? It's not defined. Wacky judges could let this go anywhere if it becomes law. (See Traditional Values Coalition paper on the many possible sexual behaviors this law could protect: http://www.traditionalvalues.org/print.php?sid=3062)

Also, freedom of speech will be curtailed by this law. Any speech or even facial expression that could be considered by the alleged victim as intimidating or discriminatory would be open to possible prosecution. If a "transman" (a woman pretending to be a man) is addressed as a female by a waiter in a restaurant, and is offended by such "discrimination", the restaurant or waiter could be sued. This is insanity, not reasonable law.

Q: Do you think sex-change surgery should be required for the law to recognize a person as transgender? Why or why not?

A: No one should be recognized by law as "transgender" as there is in reality no such thing. Every person is biologically the person he was born as, according to his DNA.

Q: Do you think that changing laws to make it easier for transgender people to be recognized under the law as the gender they feel they are - even if they have not had sex-change surgery - will open doors for criminals to commit identity fraud?

A: This is a red herring. This would be the least of society's problems if this becomes law.

Q: Do gender-neutral bathrooms compromise the safety of women?

Absolutely. And they also offend the normal person's sense of decency and sanity, as well as one's sense of order and common sense. Why is there no law proposed to protect the normal person's feelings of intimidation or threat? It's not just that a man is wearing a woman's clothes. It's the normal person's recognition that such behavior is so unbalanced that anything might be possible on the part of this person. Why is only the "trans" person's perception important here? Why is the normal woman's perception no longer important? This is a classic case of special rights -- for people who are not different because they were born that way, but are making a choice to be perverted and abnormal.

Q: Some states use dollars from taxpayers to fund sex-change surgeries for transgender people who cannot afford the surgery on their own. Do you think taxpayer money should be used for this, why or why not?

A: Absurd. Taxpayer money should not be used to undermine anyone's health, or the health of the larger society.

Gov. Patrick's and the Globe's NewSpeak on "Legal Marriages"

The Boston Globe reported today that Gov. Deval Patrick ordered his new Commissioner of Public Health (a man "married" to a man) to record 26 "gay marriages" for out-of-state couples. This despite the FACT that there is still a law on the books barring marriages from taking place in Massachusetts which would not be legal in the state where the couple are residents.

But you'd never really understand what's going on if you read the Globe's twisted reporting, which claims former Gov. Romney was responsible for blocking the supposed marriages "from being entered into the state's vital records." But it wasn't Romney standing in the way, it was the law! There is one line in the Globe story that almost tells the truth:

The issue is largely symbolic; neither Romney's refusal to record the marriages nor Patrick's reversal of that order affects the legal status of the marriages.

But this line is immediately followed by this absurd, contradictory quote:

"There was no legal basis for separating these certificates in the first place," said Kyle Sullivan, a spokesman for Patrick. "It appears like the prior administration was politicizing a routine administrative function."

The Globe always gets it wrong when it says "May 17, 2004, the date gay marriage became legal in Massachusetts." Of course the Globe doesn't report the fact that there's been no change in Mass. laws, to either permit Mass. homosexual couples to "marry", or to allow out-of-state couples to have their Mass. "marriages" recorded here. (That's why the homosexual lobby has filed bills to do both these things.)

But the Globe is doing its propaganda best to change everyone's perceptions by repeating its lies over and over. Note the story never refers to the statutes in question by Mass. General Laws chapter and section. So how's the average Joe going to check?

Sen. Susan Fargo & Breast Confusion

Senator Susan Fargo is confused about the female breast. She has filed conflicting bills. On the one hand she supports breastfeeding as a glory of nature and public health. On the other hand, she supports a bill that would declare it normal for women to surgically remove their breasts.

Two of her bills recognize and praise nature: one providing educational information to the public on the health benefits of breastfeeding (S1223), and another declaring breastfeeding most healthy for mother and child, as well as society, and therefore allowing public breastfeeding (S78).

But if Sen. Fargo believes in the goodness of the breast and its place in the natural scheme of things, why is she also sponsoring a loony bill (H1722) which would deny nature, and promote and protect "transgenderism" and so-called "gender expression"? We have learned that in quite a few cases, women "identifying" as males choose to remove their breasts. (To say nothing of the men who "grow" breasts through hormone injections.) Is this also part of the natural scheme of things? Is this good for the public health? Sen. Fargo seems to think so. Here's some of the public "gender expression" Sen. Fargo wants to protect:

"Tranny Bois" marching at a Boston Pride event [Bay Windows photo].

Sen. Fargo: Should female breasts be used as God intended them, or removed? Should male-to-female transsexuals be allowed to breastfeed in public?