Proof: "Gay Marriage" Still NOT Legal in Massachusetts (July 2009)

Today (July 14, 2009), the Massachusetts Judiciary Committee will consider the bill to legalize "gay marriage". That's right -- "gay marriage" is still NOT LEGAL in Massachusetts!

The current Massachusetts marriage statute allows only man/woman, husband/wife couples. So Rep. Byron Rushing has filed a bill, every session since 2004, to change the law to allow same-sex couples to marry. His bill reads:

H1708: Chapter 207 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.

Why has the Legislature never voted on this? Why has the press never recognized that the law was never changed?

Legal means permitted by law.

Rep. Byron Rushing smiles as he sponsors the most radical bills

in the Mass. legislature, including legalization of "gay marriage"

and decriminalization of sodomy.

Even the Supreme Judicial Court recognized that, and told the Legislature to change the marriage statute back in 2003, which it never did. Only because of Mitt Romney's promise to the Log Cabin Republicans do we have phony "gay marriage" -- now celebrated by 16,000 couples. Romney's orders to his executive branch officials to implement such "marriages" was unconstitutional, lacking statutory authority. So those "marriage" licenses aren't worth the paper they're printed on.

One reason MassResistance is so hated by the GLBT movement is that we've pointed this out for years. And the 16,000 "married" same-sex couples just don't want to admit that they're part of a Big Lie.

Note: The law criminalizing sodomy has still not been overturned either. Since sodomy is the basis for "gay marriage," the GLBT lobby's bill to decriminalize sodomy will also be heard today. Can't have a "marriage" without consummation!

Sodomy:
- Anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex.
- Copulation with a member of the same sex.
- Bestiality.
- Any of various forms of sexual intercourse held to be unnatural or abnormal, especially anal intercourse or bestiality.

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.

Obama Fully Supports "Transgender Rights"

WorldNetDaily is reporting on Obama's promise of his support to the whole GLBT community. He brags that he supports a "fully inclusive" ENDA (i.e., including transgenders), and that he co-sponsored "gender identity" legislation in Illinois. We wonder if he's been tutored by his buddy Deval Patrick, who promised in 2006 to support "transgender rights," even though Patrick had no idea what "transgenderism" was all about.

Will Obama's health care plan cover all of the trans demands for bizarre hormone injections, surgeries, and devices? (Why is no one else asking these questions?)

Obama lobbies 'gays' for edge over Hillary; Letter to 'LGBT community' affirms he'd dump Defense of Marriage Act
WorldNetDaily (3-7-08)

It's not easy to find on his campaign website, but Sen. Barack Obama has issued an open letter to the "LGBT community" assuring them he believes in "full equality" for homosexuals and stating that, unlike Sen. Hillary Clinton, he advocates the complete repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act.

In the letter, published on a campaign blog, Obama says he's "running for president to build an America that lives up to our founding promise of equality for all – a promise that extends to our gay brothers and sisters." Pointing out that throughout his career he's "fought to eliminate discrimination against LGBT (Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) Americans," Obama lists some of his specific accomplishments.

In the Illinois legislature, he "co-sponsored a fully inclusive bill that prohibited discrimination on the basis of both sexual orientation and gender identity, extending protection to the workplace, housing and places of public accommodation." As president, he says, "I will place the weight of my administration behind the enactment of the Matthew Shepard Act to outlaw hate crimes and a fully inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act to outlaw workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity."

... Obama says he will also use the presidency's bully pulpit to "urge states to treat same-sex couples with full equality in their family and adoption laws." The candidate for the White House says he would not prevent legalization of same-sex marriage. "I personally believe that civil unions represent the best way to secure that equal treatment," he sayes. "But I also believe that the federal government should not stand in the way of states that want to decide on their own how best to pursue equality for gay and lesbian couples whether that means a domestic partnership, a civil union or a civil marriage." ...

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.

"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.

Gov. Patrick Official and MassEquality Activist McGee Charged with Sexual Battery on Minor

McGee (left) and Conley (right): Separated at birth?

Wow, missed this when we were out of town last week! Carl Stanley McGee, a top homosexual activist and office holder in Gov. Patrick's administration, is caught in the act. This story is reminiscent of another MassEquality figure caught up in perversion with young people: Top lobbyist Bill Conley (now fighting for the Transgender Rights Bill H1722), who was arrested in July 2006 for soliciting college boys for oral sex.

McGee was rated one of Boston's 25 most stylish people by the Boston Globe last November. Former State Senator Jarrett Barrios performed a sodomy "marriage" ceremony between McGee and Rev. John H. Finley (now an Episcopal priest) in 2005. See Howie Carr's column in the Boston Herald: "Allegations vs. Dem hack fly under the radar" (2-13-08).

From LifeSiteNews:

Top Level Mass. Official and Homosexual "Marriage" Activist Charged with Sexual Battery

BOSTON, MA, February 13, 2008 - Carl Stanley McGee, 38, a top-level aide in the administration of Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick has been charged with sexually assaulting a 12-15 year old boy. The incident occurred in late December, but has only been made public in the past several days.

McGee allegedly assaulted the boy at a resort on the Gulf Coast in Florida, the prestigious Gasparilla Inn & Club. The day after meeting the boy at the resort and exchanging a few words with him, McGee allegedly entered the steam room where the boy was sitting, removed the boy's towel, massaged his shoulders, and performed oral sex on him. The victim subsequently told his father about the incident, who then reported McGee to the police. McGee was arrested, held overnight and released on $300,000 bond.

According to reports McGee, whose makes approximately $115,000/year, has been put on unpaid leave, and still officially retains his position, pending trial. He is scheduled to be arraigned in Lee County, Florida next week.

McGee is the assistant secretary of policy and planning in the Massachusetts Executive Office of Housing and Economic Development. Besides being one of the leading figures in the push for homosexual marriage in Massachusetts, he has also reportedly been instrumental in the drafting of Governor Patrick's life science legislation. Patrick's life science efforts seek, amongst various other things, to overturn former governor Mitt Romney's prohibition on embryonic stem cell research, and to pour millions of dollars into the unethical research.

McGee has been heavily involved in the organization MassEquality.... McGee and his homosexual partner were listed as "patrons" at the 2007 MassEquality gala dinner, second only to "founders", having donated at least $2500 to the organization. The former Rhodes Scholar and Harvard Law school graduate also served as the director of the civic and business outreach efforts of MassEquality, according to the Boston Globe....

Read more...

And see Boston Globe, "Key Aide to Patrick Accused of Sex Assult," 2-7-08.

Romney's Temper Flairs When Challenged by Inconvenient Facts

Yesterday, Mitt Romney lost it when an AP reporter challenged him on his statement that he didn't have Washington lobbyists running his campaign. In fact, he does: Ron Kaufman and Vin Weber. See "Romney, reporter tussle over truth" in today's Boston Herald. Don't miss his spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom's arrogant tongue-lashing of the reporter at the end. The video is very revealing.

We've documented another incident when Romney totally lost it with Chicago talk show host, Sandy Rios, at an event in that city some months back. Rios challenged his illegal implementation of "homosexual marriage" in Massachusetts. Rios had spent a lot of time closely monitoring the developments here from the Goodridge ruling on, as President of Concerned Women for America, and she knew what she was talking about. Hear the audio broadcast from WYLL radio in Chicago, March 9, as Sandy Rios explains what happened.

And then there's the tape from Romney's appearance on the Howie Carr show on WRKO in December, where he not only changed the subject when he couldn't answer honestly, but insulted Gregg Jackson, host of another WRKO show, calling him "delusional." See our report, and listen to the audio.

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.)

Romney's FlipFlop on Civil Unions

Here's a Romney flip-flop we need to revisit now: His position on "civil unions."

Romney is busy in New Hampshire bad-mouthing the newly legal civil unions there. (The NH Legislature actually voted for them, unlike the mythical "homosexual marriages" here.)

But while Governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney worked for civil unions.

Check the news from late 2003 (just after the Goodridge marriage ruling) and early 2004 (during the Legislature's phony attempt to come up with a marriage amendment to send to the voters). Romney wanted to be able to say later that he fought for real marriage, and claimed that only a constitutional amendment could solve the problem. He joined Legislative leaders pushing an unrealistic, doomed compromise: the absurd Travaglini-Lees amendment (proposed in early 2004), which would have banned homosexual "marriage" while writing civil unions into the Mass. constitution!

Surely, Romney knew this proposal was doomed to failure. But it allowed him to take everyone's eyes off the real constitutional issues while he illegally implemented homosexual "marriage" behind the scenes. So in March 2004 (according to the Boston Globe), he twisted the arms of hesitant Republican legislators, and convinced them to vote for the phony amendment (which would have established civil unions)!

If that's not supporting civil unions, what is?

• AP (11-20-03), "Massachusetts governor urges gay civil unions, not marriage" -- ... Romney said Wednesday he believes the state could adopt civil unions similar to those allowed in Vermont -- then continue working toward a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages.... "I believe their [the Court's] decision indicates that a provision which provides that benefits, obligations, rights and responsibilities which are consistent with marriage but perhaps could be called by a different name would be in conformity with their decision," Romney said. "Under that opinion, I believe a civil-union type provision would be sufficient."
  
• Boston Globe (3-30-04), "In crucial shift, governor sways 15 in GOP to support measure" Through all the twists and shifts during the gay-marriage debate this year, there was one constant: 22 Republicans in the House of Representatives opposed every measure that would grant gay couples civil unions in the constitution. That all changed yesterday, however, when 15 of that 22-member bloc broke away at the urging of Governor Mitt Romney and voted in favor of a proposed amendment that would ban gay marriage but create Vermont-style civil unions. Those 15 members provided the margin of victory, observers from both camps said yesterday after the measure passed by just five votes.... it was clear that the Republican governor had a major effect on the fracturing of the 22-member bloc....


• Letter from Mitt Romney in April 2004, praising the Travaglini-Lees compromise amendment (which would have written civil unions into the Mass. constitution), reported on MassResistance blog (12-07).


• Boston Globe (2-25-05), "Romney's stance on civil unions draws fire; Activists accuse governor of 'flip-flopping' on issue" -- ... Yesterday the Log Cabin Republicans sharply rebuked the Massachusetts governor, saying his remarks indicate he is backsliding on his 2002 campaign commitment to support some benefits for gay couples. He had also urged GOP lawmakers to vote for a proposed constitutional amendment last spring that would ban same-sex marriage but allow gay couples to enter into civil unions.... A review of Romney's remarks shows that at an October 2002 campaign debate, he said: "Call me old fashioned, but I don't support gay marriage nor do I support civil union." Then, after the SJC decision legalizing same-sex marriage, he told WCVB on Dec. 17, 2003, that if he had to choose, he would favor civil unions over full-fledged gay marriage. However, he added: "But that is not my preference overall. My preference overall would be neither civil union or marriage." Last March, Romney's staff told House Republicans he supported the proposed constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage but allow civil unions....


• Chris Matthews, MSNBC "Hardball" (8-26-05): "Romney plays 'Hardball' on gay marriage; Mass. governor discusses civil unions..." [a must-read interview, as Romney is incoherent] -- ... MATTHEWS: Help me understand Massachusetts politics here.... Why doesn't the state of Massachusetts, through its elected officials, simply overrule the Supreme Court up there and say, there's not going to be any gay marriage; I don't care what some judge says about the Constitution written 200 years ago? Why don't they just do that?
  ROMNEY: Well, well, as you know, it's not that easy. When a court overreaches its bounds and decides to legislate from the bench, it's pretty hard to overturn that. In our case, we have to pass a constitutional amendment. And my legislature is in, some respects, liberal. It has a conservative wing as well. But the liberal wing is fighting very hard for same-sex marriage or its legal equivalent, civil union. And so, as this has gone before the legislature in the past, they've said that the people ought to decide. I agree with them. Let's let the people decide. So, we will have a constitutional convention this year. Hopefully, the decision of our legislature will be to let the people decide. And, specifically, I hope that people will be able to decide that neither civil union, nor same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts.... Of course, if we find ourselves in a setting where the only choice is between civil union and marriage, I will prefer civil union. But I would prefer neither. [This is right after he says same-sex marriage and civil unions are legally equivalent!]


• New York Sun, 4-27-07 --Mr. Giuliani's position on the New Hampshire law [to legalize civil unions] puts him in the company of the former governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney, the only other major presidential candidate from either party who opposes the New Hampshire law. "Governor Romney opposes the New Hampshire bill," Mr. Romney's campaign said yesterday. "He is a champion of traditional marriage. As governor of Massachusetts, he has a clear record opposing same sex marriage and civil unions."

Romney's Endorsements Reveal Uncomfortable Truth

By John Haskins
Parents' Rights Coalition

Slick Willard's endorsements come from the strangest places. Consider the extreme cognitive dissonance in the following:

Romney has been endorsed by self-styled "evangelicals" like Jay Sekulow, "Evangelical" radio lawyer-pundit Hugh Hewitt, the Alliance Defense Fund's David French, and Right to Life's Jim Bopp -- all ambitious lawyers from the judicial-supremacy wing of "conservatism" who have actively betrayed Judge Roy Moore, Dr. Alan Keyes and many others. Add, Rev. Bob Jones and, shockingly, Paul Weyrich, to Romney's endorsers.

But nestled among them is the unabashedly militant pro-abortion, pro-homosexuality, pro-homosexual "marriage" former Massachusetts governor, William Weld. Weld appointed Margaret Marshall, the driving force behind the Goodridge decision. Romney publicly asked for Weld's endorsement, just as he twice sought the endorsements of the homosexual "Log Cabin" Republicans and the militant abortion lobby.

As governor, Weld not only appointed the most radical, post-constitutional, tyrannical liberal judges in the nation, he backed partial-birth abortion, and poured taxpayer funding into militant gay groups and into pro-homosexuality brainwashing of other people's children.

Weld's lieutenant governor Paul Cellucci, who succeeded him, was identified by James Dobson as someone who opposes "virtually everything we believe in." George Bush's nomination of Cellucci as U. S. Ambassador to Canada provoked perhaps the greatest uprising against any presidential appointment ever, easily exceeding the manufactured "resistance" to Clarence Thomas and Attorney General John Ashcroft. The media mostly refused to report that some fifty U.S. and some fifteen Canadian groups bombarded the White House and the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee with outrage. I know about it because I wrote the petition and built the U.S. Canadian coalition and led the resistance with Peter LaBarbera in 2001. Nevertheless, Romney publicly recently ridiculed the opposition to Cellucci and asked former Governor Paul Cellucci for his endorsement!

But Romney is apparently too untrustworthy and too liberal socially for Cellucci, which says quite a bit, because Cellucci gave Margaret Marshall a promotion to Chief Justice, he boosted government spending on gay propaganda to levels unmatched by any governor until Romney, and he put a Planned Parenthood lawyer on the Supreme Judicial Court.

Instead, Cellucci has endorsed Rudy Giuliani. Romney currently "positions" himself to the right of Giuliani on social issues, but his actual record is even more left-wing than Giuliani's and Cellucci's. Cellucci has privately told people that Romney cleverly imposed gay marriage unnecessarily, and that he (Cellucci) does not support same-sex "marriage" because it will weaken and harm the traditional family. A lawyer himself, Cellucci is aware that Romney used the Goodridge decision and the willing gullibility of "conservatives" to push an agenda he couldn't otherwise have gotten away with.

How do Paul Weyrich, Bob Jones, Jay Sekulow, Hugh Hewitt, David French, Jim Bopp and Rev. Bob Jones feel about being on a list of endorsers with Bill Weld -- the man who appointed the judge who crafted the Goodridge decision, helped illegally impose homosexual adoption and many radical pro-abortion rulings?

Politics do make strange bedfellows.

See "Former Mass. governor endorses Romney," Boston Globe, 12-4-07.

For enlightening background on the legacy of Weld and Cellucci see several of my articles:
Insight magazine: "It's 1984 In Massachusetts -- And Big Brother Is Gay"
WorldNetDaily: "Cellucci: wrong man for the job"
WorldNetDaily: "Read Our Lips, Mr. President"

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.

Threats to Natural Family Threaten Peace

The Culture of Life, including the natural family, promotes peace. This is an obvious truth which many in this wacky state deny. Most on the dark side have been overtaken by emotion and passion, can't think straight, are in denial, or for some reason just won't give this idea fair consideration. But we offer this New Year's message from the Pope for those in the middle, and to encourage those of us already on board with God's plan. Excerpts from the Pope's speech to be given on New Year's Day, 2008 [from CNS News, 12-11-07]:

... the pope said the fact that a strong, healthy family is the basis of a healthy society is not simply a slogan.

"In a healthy family life we experience some of the fundamental elements of peace: justice and love between brothers and sisters; the role of authority expressed by parents; loving concern for the members who are weaker because of youth, sickness or old age; mutual help in the necessities of life; readiness to accept others and, if necessary, to forgive them....

"Everything that serves to weaken the family based on the marriage of a man and a woman, everything that directly or indirectly stands in the way of its openness to the responsible acceptance of a new life, everything that obstructs its right to be primarily responsible for the education of its children, constitutes an obstacle on the road to peace.

"The first form of communion between persons is that born of the love of a man and a woman who decide to enter a stable union in order to build together a new family. But the peoples of the earth, too, are called to build relationships of solidarity and cooperation among themselves, as befits members of the one human family.... [The family] is in effect the primary agency of peace ...

Calling for a "Mea Culpa" from Mitt Romney

An excellent summary of Mitt Romney's failure to act as a conservative when he was Governor here. Listen up, New Hampshire and Iowa!!! You cannot trust this guy. Posted on Renew America, by R. T. Neary, Director of Pro-Life Massachusetts and past president of Massachusetts Citizens for Life. (Excerpts:)

Please Mitt, at least a mea culpa
An open letter to our former Massachusetts governor
By R.T. Neary (12-17-07)

... On the campaign trail, you're asserting that you are "pro-life" because you are now in favor of overturning Roe v Wade. Are you asking us to believe that this posture is tantamount to being Pro-Life? Your current stance, which is the same as some of your competitors, is a states' rights position which doesn't interfere at all with the right to abort the life of a newly created human being. Why don't you make a firm pronouncement in favor of a Human Life Amendment, an uncompromising call for the protection of all innocent human life? This would be a genuine Pro-life position — and there's still time.

For decades, there has been a culture war raging nationally, and this state where you governed has been the site of major battles. During your tenure, over 100,000 of our future citizens were legally destroyed in this so-called commonwealth. Close to 10,000 couples of the same gender were issued "marriage" licenses, children were subjected to the vilest of sexual practices in tax-funded public schools, and one parent was jailed for voicing objections to it. Mitt, were you blind to all of this?

Are you still blind to the fact that to allow parents to donate embryos for scientific stem cell research is to sanction the willful destruction of an innocent human being? Yet, you're trying to make a fine point that you are opposed to "creating" embryos for scientific stem cell research. Sorry, it skirts the moral issue and doesn't wash. Even the scientists involved in the research have not denied to us that an embryo has all its DNA in place. All that is needed for him or her to breath like you or I do is that two conditions be met: provide the proper environment and the necessary time....

With regard to your opposition on the presidential campaign trail to same-sex "marriage," as Governor of Massachusetts, you literally had your finger on the switch. And you pushed the full speed ahead, rather than locking in the stop lever. You, as a Harvard Law School graduate, knew that the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) had no authority under the Massachusetts constitution to pervert this millennia-old cornerstone of our society....

I reflect on the many calls I made under that Golden Dome on Beacon Hill, attempting to get support from your office for Pro-Life bills and especially a bill which would require advance parental permission for subjecting children to gross perversion in Sex Education in public schools. Never once could we get beyond the lowest contact level. Nor could we get even a discussion about the need for curriculum transparency, and the need for signed parental approval before subjecting children's minds to psychologically damaging material....

Read more ...

Roe v Wade and Fuzzy Thinking on the "Rule of Law"

Matt Barber of Concerned Women for America has another good piece in WorldNetDaily: "Do You Really Know Roe"? The better people understand what this 35-year-old ruling actually said, the more likely they are to oppose it, he explains. But here's another point Barber does not make:

This horrible Supreme Court ruling did not actually "legalize" abortion, but in fact just ushered in an era of fuzzy "thinking" across America about the power of the Court and the true meaning of words. A whole nation (in including nominal Republicans and "conservatives") has been trained by the media to say and believe that "a woman's right to choose" to murder her own child is the "law of the land."

Roe v. Wade laid the groundwork for the public's acceptance of future outrageous court rulings, including the Goodridge homosexual "marriage" ruling here in Massachusetts. It allowed former Gov. Mitt Romney to enact this radical social plan now transforming all of America -- while claiming he was just "following the law."

From Barber's article:

Due to circumstances beyond our control, the term "September 11th" almost instantly became a household phrase. It represents a day of great tragedy and outrage wherein over 3,000 people were murdered at the hands of Islamic extremists who callously chose to sacrifice innocent human life to further a narrow and selfish political agenda.
But another date, Jan. 22, which is not so well-known, signifies an equally outrageous and solemn occasion. Jan. 22, 2008, marks the 35th anniversary of what is, unquestionably, one of the U.S. Supreme Court's most highly controversial and divisive rulings in its 200-plus year history – Roe v. Wade.
The Roe decision, authored by Justice Harry Blackmun, found for the first time that the U.S. Constitution somehow guaranteed the phantom "right" for a mother to have the innocent child which grew within her summarily killed.
Since that time, what seems an endless string of misguided women and innocent children have been victimized by this much more subtle, yet equally deadly form of politically motivated violence. And those to blame are, once again, extremists with an almost religious zeal who callously "choose" to sacrifice innocent human life to further a narrow and selfish political agenda. ...
The number of those slaughtered as a direct result of Roe far exceeds that of Americans killed in all U.S. wars combined. Yet, in this war – the war for our culture – it is innocent children whose bodies are strewn across the battlefield, buried – unceremoniously – in mass graves behind the local Planned Parenthood. ...
Matt Barber is one of the "like-minded men" with Concerned Women for America. He is an attorney concentrating in constitutional law and serves as CWA's policy director for cultural issues.

National Review's Romney Endorsement -- Our Challenge

After their fawning endorsement of their donor, Mitt Romney, we sent this note to the National Review Online editors (for whom we had emails):

You have a whole blog dedicated to judicial activism … yet your magazine just endorsed Mitt Romney, who is guilty of causing the worst incidence of judicial activism since Roe v Wade to be treated as “law”. Professor Hadley Arkes even wrote an important piece in NATIONAL REVIEW highly critical of Romney on the day the “homosexual marriages” began in Massachusetts (thanks to Romney’s orders): "The Missing Governor" by Hadley Arkes (May 17, 2004). Arkes asked: "Have Republican leaders lost their confidence on moral matters?"

Does no one remember that prominent conservatives pleaded with Romney in 2003-4 to uphold the Mass. Constitution, and defy the illegitimate Court ruling on homosexual "marriage"? Phyllis Schlafly, Pat Buchanan, Mat Staver (Liberty Counsel), and even HUGH HEWITT (Weekly Standard, 11-20-03) told Romney to stand up against judicial tyranny. But Romney ignored them and singlehandedly began homosexual "marriage" in Mass. (The Legislature still has not changed our statutes to allow it, as ordered by the Court...which didn't even tell Romney to do anything!)

Why did Romney issue orders to his executive branch officials to change the marriage licenses and perform the marriages? There was no new LAW to enforce! If we couldn't trust Romney with the Mass. Constitution, how can we trust him with the U.S. Constitution? See our report: http://massresistance.org/docs/marriage/romney/

Only one of the 19 editors contacted, Jim Geraghty of their "Campaign Spot" blog, has responded: "Mass e-mailing editors who had nothing to do with the endorsement just pisses them off."

We answered: "I would love to know how NR arrived at a decision to endorse, if the editors weren't involved? Seriously, what was the process? (P.S. I don't appreciate language like "p off" – lots of us regular people still don't talk like that.)"

He then said: "I think I don't appreciate mass e-mails berating me for a decision I had no role in about as much as you don't appreciate the term 'pisses them off.' " (He just had to repeat that.) And then he sent us to his earlier post:

Wednesday, December 12, 2007
MIKE HUCKABEE, MITT ROMNEY
Another Thought On The Endorsement [by Jim Geraghty, on NRO's Campaign Spot]
Last night Rich [Lowry, editor-in-chief] explained a bit about NR's endorsement process to Hugh Hewitt:
HH: Take me inside first the process by which National Review arrived at its endorsement.
RL: (laughing) I don’t know, Hugh. It’s a really tightly held process here. It’s like selecting the Pope. We can’t reveal too much, but…
HH: How many people got a say in this?
RL: Well, it’s our senior editors, our publisher, our president and our Washington editor and myself. And we’ve been talking about it the last two weeks or so, just because this is our, through the quirks of our publication schedule, this is our last issue before people vote in Iowa and New Hampshire.
[Geraghty continues:]
So complaining to anybody else at NR or NRO is not really going to do any good. In fact, complaining won't do any good, period. If the magazine endorsed somebody besides your guy, you say, "I disagree," you hope it does Romney as much good as it did Phil Gramm, and then life goes on....

In other words, no feedback, no discussion welcome. The court has ruled, and that's that. (And he even continues with silly putdowns of Ron Paul's and Mike Huckabee's campaigns.) But these people rarely answer the substance of the question. Maybe Geraghty could do a little research on this all-important fact in Romney's record as Governor, then get back to us with a little more thoughtful response. He is the editor of NR's Campaign blog, after all.

Rhode Island Gets It: Laws Are Passed by Legislatures Only

Rhode Island's high court has just ruled that a lesbian couple supposedly "married" in Massachusetts may not be granted a divorce in Rhode Island, because R.I. does not recognize the validity of their "marriage."

The only thing missing from this story is the recognition, by Alliance Defense Fund attorneys involved (and other "conservatives") that this "marriage" wasn't valid in Massachusetts either, for the same reason it wasn't valid in Rhode Island: THE LEGISLATURE NEVER CHANGED THE LAW to allow same-sex "marriage" here!

The majority on the R.I. Court, the R.I. Governor, and even the attorney for GLAD (Gay & Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, who pushed "homosexual marriage" in Massachusetts), understood that only the R.I. legislature could change the law there.

So why is it any different in Massachusetts??? That's the question we've been asking for three years now. Our legislature NEVER changed our law, which clearly recognizes marriage as between a man and a woman. Why did the Alliance Defense Fund not point that out in this case? Could it have something to do with some of their members' support for Presidential candidate Mitt Romney, who sneaked "homosexual marriage" through here without it ever being legalized?

See the Boston Globe, "R.I. won't let gay couple divorce" (12-8-07; emphasis added):

... The court concluded that a key 1961 Rhode Island law defines marriage as an legal union between a man and a woman, not same-sex couples. Unless and until the Legislature changes the wording, same-sex couples married in Massachusetts cannot get divorced in Rhode Island family courts, it said.

Cassandra Ormiston, who married Margaret Chambers in Fall River in 2004 after Massachusetts became the first state in the country to legalize same-sex marriages, denounced the ruling, saying it discriminates against same-sex couples....

In a statement, Governor Donald L. Carcieri of Rhode Island and at least one group that opposes gay marriage praised the ruling. "I believe this is the appropriate result based on Rhode Island law," Carcieri said. "It has always been clear to me that Rhode Island law was designed to permit marriage, and therefore divorce, only between a man and a woman."

The lawyer for the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian-based group, said the ruling affirms that marriage is between a man and woman and anything else is "counterfeit." "Not only is today's ruling a victory for marriage, it's also a tremendous step forward against judicial activism," Austin R. Nimocks, a lawyer for the Arizona group, said in a statement....

Karen Loewy, a staff lawyer with GLAD, which filed an amicus brief siding with the couple, said she was "incredibly distressed" for them. Short of persuading the Rhode Island General Assembly to legalize gay marriage, she said, the only certain way the couple can get a divorce is for one of the spouses to move to Massachusetts and establish legal residency....

The court's majority said the Legislature, not the courts, should change state law.

Bishop Gene Robinson: "I always wanted to be a June bride!"

"I always wanted to be a June bride," gushed Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson of New Hampshire recently at a speech in Florida. Robinson is going to be legally joined to his long-time sodomy partner next June. New Hampshire legalized "civil unions" there starting this January.

Unlike New Hampshire, Massachusetts has still not legalized either "civil unions" or "homosexual marriage." They're just a fiction of some GLBT activists, four judges, and a former Massachusetts governor named Romney. So Bishop Robinson must be thanking his god that he's in a state where he can legally become a bride this June.

(photo source: Nova Southeastern Shepard Broad Law Center)

Gay Episcopal Bishop Prepares for June Wedding

by Priscilla Greear

U/Miami News Service

Tuesday Dec 4, 2007

The nation’s first openly gay Episcopal bishop told a crowd of about 200 that come June he’s marching down the aisle with his longtime male partner Mark Andrew. "I always wanted to be a June bride," said Bishop Gene Robinson at a talk on Nov. 27 at Nova Southeastern University.

"It may take many years for religious institutions to add their blessing for same-sex marriages and no church, mosque or synagogue should be forced to do so. But that should not slow down progress for the full civil right to marry," Robinson said. "Because New Hampshire will have legal unions beginning in January, my partner of 20 years and I will enter into such a legal union next June." ...

Wearing a raspberry clergy shirt with a cleric collar and pectoral cross, Robinson characterized the "religious right" as close-minded, taking a literal interpretation of Bible condemnation of homosexuality."The greatest single hindrance to achievement of full rights for gays and lesbians can be laid at the doorstep of the three Abrahamic faiths-- Judaism, Christianity and Islam. It’s going to take people of faith to end discrimination," said Robinson, who was invested as the ninth bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of New Hampshire in 2004.... [emphasis added]

Now if an Episcopal Bishop slams the supposed foundation of his own faith ("the three Abrahamic faiths -- Judaism, Christianity and Islam"), to what faith does he now plan to appeal to bolster his belief in sodomy "marriage"?

Radio Interviews with John Haskins on Romney's Violation of Mass. Constitution

Do the people have a right to know who is selling off their state and federal constitutions -- and their right of self-government? The process of outing the "social conservatives," "pro-family" leaders, pundits, lawyers and law professors who are busy covering up Mitt Romney's dirty deed continues apace! Outed in Haskins' interview are: Mass. Family Institute, Mass. Citizens for Life, and Jay Sekulow of the ACLJ (American Center for Law & Justice).

Sandy Rios (Culture Campaign), Gregg Jackson (Pundit Review), and WorldNetDaily are some of the rare media personalities and outlets with the courage to speak the truth on Romney.

Don't miss this interview from the Sandy Rios show out of Chicago:
Download MP3 Tue 11/06/2007 Hour #2: John Haskins of the Parents' Rights Coalition re: Paul Weyrich endorsement of Mitt Romney, GOP presidential candidate.

And from Pundit Review Radio, with Gregg Jackson (on Boston's WRKO AM680):

Posted by Gregg on Dec 4, 2007 @ 09:00
John Haskins of the Parents Rights Coalition
I had the pleasure of speaking with pro-family activist and political analyst for the Parents’ Rights Coalition Mr. John Haskins regarding how Mitt Romney shredded the Massachusetts’ Constitution by illegally imposing same sex marriage on the citizens of the Commonwealth and how he signed a healtcare bill that included tax payer subsidized abortion after his supposed “pro-life epiphany.” ...

Hugh Hewitt Told Romney to Defy Mass. Marriage Ruling in 2003, Now Fully Backs Romney

[photo: BizzyBlog.com]

So ... in November 2003, Hugh Hewitt, pseudo-conservative talk show host and columnist, told then Governor Mitt Romney to defy the unconstitutional Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court homosexual "marriage" ruling.

Could this be the same Hewitt who has written a fawning biography of Romney (which for some reason is not on his list of books on his TownHall site)? The same Hewitt who constantly sings his praises? The same Hewitt who has demeaned the MassResistance "Romney Deception" report? What could po$$ibly have changed hi$ mind on $omething a$ ba$ic a$ whether a pre$idential candidate re$pect$ and uphold$ the Constitution he $wore to uphold? Maybe Hewitt doesn't think constitutions matter any more?

It's always fun going through old files. Here's what we found, written just two days after the Goodridge ruling from the Massachusetts Court. (Excerpts; emphasis added:)

Just Say "No": Calling Governor Romney and the elected representatives of Massachusetts
by Hugh Hewitt
The Weekly Standard
11/20/2003

"JOHN MARSHALL has made his decision," Andrew Jackson is said to have remarked in the aftermath of a Supreme Court decision he disliked, "now let him enforce it."

Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney would be well advised to ponder that line long and hard over the Thanksgiving holidays.

It is an interesting time for the Massachusetts Supreme Court to have seized control of the elected branches in its state, given the connection between Thanksgiving and the Bay State....Now, in the aftermath of Tuesday's radical diktat from four justices to Massachusetts' elected representatives, Americans are interested in the state's future as well.

Romney should seriously consider indifference. The governor noted that the ruling declaring same-sex marriage a mandate of the Massachusetts constitution is contrary to the sweep of recorded history, but it is more than that. The ruling is also absurd in its reasoning and breathtaking in its arrogance....
The decision is illegitimate, and the appropriate response will be to ignore it.... Editorial writers will shout. Senator Kennedy may even brand Romney a Neanderthal, as he did Justices Brown, Owen, and Judge Kuhl earlier this month.

But the storm will pass and the people of Massachusetts will applaud. They didn't sign up for a banana republic run by pretenders in robes, and no one in the state's illustrious history ever sacrificed life or limb--from Boston Harbor to Concord, Antietam or the battlefields of Europe and Asia--for the proposition that four judges get to change everything when they decide to conjure up a reason for doing so.

Romney and the legislature ought to stand back and say no. In fact, if the court threatens with penalties, they ought to threaten back. An outrageous overreach is only as strong as the passivity with which it is greeted.

This isn't primarily about gay marriage, and it isn't primarily about Massachusetts. It is primarily about self-government and limiting courts to their constitutional duties. And Massachusetts, again, has a central role to play.

New Web Site: Republicans for Family Values

From Peter LaBarbera's new web site, Republicans for Family Values:

John Haskins Discusses Gov. Mitt Romney’s ‘Unconstitutional’ Order to Award ‘Gay Marriage’ Licenses in Mass.

Listen HERE to John Haskins of the Parents Rights Coalition in Massachusetts explain how then-Mass. Gov. Mitt Romney made the unnecessary and, according to Haskins, illegal decision to pass out “same-sex marriage” licenses. Haskins says Romney’s “gay marriage” act violated the state constitution and, perhaps most shockingly, fulfilled a 2002 campaign promise he made to Massachusetts Log Cabin Republican activists not to lead the charge against homosexual “marriage” — as the New York Times reports HERE. (The New York Times story is a devastating revelation of Romney’s late conversion to crusader against “same-sex marriage”/”civil unions.”)

To listen to Chicago talk show host and FOX News contributor Sandy Rios’ interview with Haskins, click HERE. Parents Rights Coalition is affiliated with MassResistance.