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.

Mitt Romney, His Dog & His Wife

Everyone's up in arms over Mitt Romney's treatment of his dog back in the '80s: strapping him on the top of the family car for a 12-hour trip to their vacation home. The poor creature had a bout of diarrhea, due very possibly due to the undue stress of his travel circumstances. Why, we wonder, didn't he travel inside the car with the boys?

The Boston Globe has thrown a lot of dirt out there in the last seven days' series on Mitt, waiting to see what sticks. The pet-lover nation was aroused by Seamus the Dog's ordeal.

But we were struck (and noted earlier) that AMBITION seems to roll over people as well as dogs. Back in February, we noted that Ann Romney's diagnosis with multiple sclerosis made most puzzling Mitt's decision to go forward with his presidential run. MS is a lot more serious than a dog with diarrhea jitters. Why is no one commenting on it?

In the Globe's Friday Romney report, "Taking office while remaining an outsider," we read this:

Ann Romney's health was a factor in the decision [to run for Governor]. A day before returning to Massachusetts, she told a Globe reporter that she had reservations about the move [from Utah] because her multiple sclerosis symptoms had abated during three years in Utah. ''It's the one thing that's keeping us .....'' she said before her husband interjected: ''Careful. Hold it. Don't finish that sentence .....'' But she did, saying she had ''huge qualms because I've been healthy out here.'' The next day, March 17, the Romneys flew to Massachusetts, met at the airport by reporters and a Boston Herald poll that showed Romney crushing Swift by a 75 percent to 12 percent in a race for the GOP nomination.

Now we think MS is a lot more serious than a dog's travelling conditions.

The same Globe series also notes that after the 2004 rout of Republican state legislature candidates in Massachusetts, Romney told the Globe editorial board he was tired of trying to promote the Republican Party here. ''From now on, it's me-me-me,'' he said. ("Ambitious goals, shifting stances"). Of course the Globe didn't report that one reason the Republicans did so poorly in that state election is that Romney ordered that the issue of "gay marriage" not be brought up in the local campaigns!

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]

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?

Slick Willard Romney's "Conservative" Resume

By John Haskins

Here's Mitt Romney's "social conservative" resume that Jay Sekulow (ACLJ), David French (Evangelicals for Mitt), Hugh Hewitt (TownHall.com, Salem Radio), Jim Bopp (Romney pro-life advisor), et al. are boasting about. He accomplished more than our new communist governor --Deval "Baby Doc" Patrick (Janet Reno's accomplice in the Ruby Ridge massacre aftermath) --could have fantasized about accomplishing.

Romney's "Conservative" Resume

* Compulsory government-run central heath care system, with ... massive boost in funding for abortions, and ... a new and unconstitutional role for Planned Parenthood as a permanent and unelected voice in our government.

* Looking the other way as an extra-constitutional fourth branch of government called the "Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth" was set up with no accountability to the people.

* Refusal to enforce the parents' rights law when hardened criminal David Parker (really just a regular parent protecting his rights as a father) was taken in handcuffs to a jail cell. Parker's crime: daring to say to the sodomy brainwashers: "Not to my little boy, you don't!" (Come to think of it, not once did Slick Willard enforce the parents' rights law.)

* Increased state funding for pro-homosexuality lessons starting in kindergarten.

* Turning a deaf ear to protests of massive irregularities at the Department of Social Services, which takes children from their parents on the basis of unsubstantiated charges, routinely ignores constitutional rights and due process, places children with homosexuals, and has recklessly put a child in a situation where he or she was killed.

* Ignored fathers' rights activists who are defending men being treated by the courts and the bureacracy like Blacks were treated under Jim Crow laws.

* Illegally "legalized" the sodomy-based family.

So, our new communist governor starts off with most of his objectives already accomplished by Slick Willard (the "pro-family, constitutionalist" Republican). So Gov. Patrick can now turn the political, social, and constitutional ratchets even further to the left than the Founding Fathers ever could have imagined in their wildest nightmares.

Meltdown in Massachusetts

Check out the Boston Herald's photo gallery from the ConCon on June 15. Our favorites:
This photo says it all. VoteOnMarriage, partner in the grand Romney/Focus on the Family/Alliance Defense Fund/Mass. Family Institute compromise approach, goes down in ignominious defeat. Dejection in the grassroots. All those sincere, regular people taken down this path in pursuit of an amendment which would have allowed civil unions and left intact the homosexual "marriages" before enactment of the amendment. Yet their amendment was still portrayed as "hateful" by the homosexual lobby VoteOnMarriage hoped to appease.
A sensual kiss by two men on the State House steps. What's next? If the "transgender rights and hate crimes bill" is passed, undefined "gender expression" will be protected. Does that mean we'll see acts of live sodomy on the State House steps? (If that seems far-fetched, ask yourself who imagined just a decade ago that sodomy would be enshrined as a basis for "marriage".) What could be a more perfect expression of "gay" male sexuality than the act of sodomy? And given many homosexuals' desire to flaunt their sexuality in public ... Who's to object? Rather, it seems that 3/4 of our legislators would be ready to celebrate it. It's all about preserving others' "rights" to "happiness", isn't it?
Note the banner in the background: "Church of the Sacred Earth - A Union of Pagan Congregations." We've said all along that the pagans were a big part of this movement. And all those GLBT activists posing as Christians? Don't be fooled.

Foul Speech from Romney Campaign

Great stuff on EyeOn08 on our least favorite Republican presidential candidate, Mitt Romney. A Romney campaign official has called Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas a "bottom feeder" and posted a photo of an ugly bottom-feeding fish alongside the silly commentary. This from one Jason Bonham (Illinois State Director, Legacy Law Foundation, Illinois), who is allied with the infamous David French, a Senior Counsel with the nominally conservative Alliance Defense Fund and "Evangelicals for Mitt". (Legacy Law is a Mormon group based in Utah, and is linked to VoteOnMarriage through Romney.)

(Some of these "conservative" legal foundations are becoming a joke, ready to give in on crucial principles. For instance, the Alliance Defense Fund is behind the wording of the compromised and failed VoteOnMarriage amendment here in Massacusetts. See our posting from October 2005: "Amateur Hour: Immigrant Law Student Behind Flawed "VoteOnMarriage" Research". ADF and Romney like civil unions -- not a conservative position.)

See also EyeOn08 "Romney on His 2002 Campaign Promise" -- to uphold abortion "rights" in Massachusetts. Excellent analysis and links.

Back to the mess Romney left for us here in Massachusetts, the homosexual "marriages" he ESTABLISHED through his Legal Counsel's office. Romney says he's disappointed in the outcome of Friday's marriage amendment vote, because the people are denied a say in defining marriage.

What a sham! Romney single-handedly implemented an illegitimate Court ruling, violated the Constitution by changing the marriage licenses, and ordered Justices of the Peace and Town Clerks to follow a "law" that's now a law. (Remember that all the Court said was that the Legislature should act, which it had not right to tell them, and the Legislature did not act to change the statutes.) Why did Romney implement the "marriages"? Yet now he pretends to care so much about protecting marriage and the people's voice. Does anyone really believe him?

[Boston Globe, 6-15-07:] "Unfortunately, our elected representatives decided that the voice of the people did not need to be heard in this debate," he said in a statement. Romney reiterated his call for Congress to pass a federal constitutional amendment banning gay marriage ... The vote yesterday helps Romney, West [Brown U political scientist] said. "It gives him credibility in other parts of the country as something other than a Massachusetts politician."

As we've said all along, Romney should have no credibility when people hear the truth about his role in the marriage debacle here in Massachusetts. BTW, why does Romney think a federal amendment is needed for marriage, but that it's OK to leave abortion laws up to the states? If something is wrong, shouldn't it be wrong in every state?

Boston Archdiocese Failed the People on Marriage

The Boston Archidiocese shares the responsibility for yesterday's debacle at the State House, as they were part of the VoteOnMarriage organization that failed the people:

"It's clear that the archdiocese is not serious about this issue. There is no real penalty being exacted on people who are in support of same sex marriage."
- Phil Lawler, Catholic World News editor

Most of the Legislators here are nominally Catholic, so why were they not concerned about their standing in the Church? and before God? We note that we saw NOT ONE Catholic priest outside the State House yesterday (though there were a few Franciscan brothers). There were plenty of pseudo-Christian "clerics" on the other side.

Remember that neither Mass. Family Institute nor the Archdiocese helped push the first (and better) marriage amendment back in 2001 and 2002 (the one the Legislature and Acting Governor Jane Swift unconstitutionally threw in the trash, refusing to take a vote). That was the time for action that could have succeeded -- prior to the seduction of many of our legislators by the wealthy sodomy lobby, and prior to the insane Supreme Judicial Court ruling (which they knew was in the works).

Phil Lawler, a Massachusetts resident, is editor of Catholic World News, and was Constitution Party candidate against Ted Kennedy in 2000. He spoke with LifeSite News yesterday about the failure of the Church to hold Catholic legislators feet to the fire. (The LifeSite article ends by urging its readers to contact Cardinal O'Malley.)

Key Advisor to Cardinal O'Malley Writes Pro-Gay 'Marriage' Column in Boston Newspaper
By Peter J. Smith and John-Henry Westen
BOSTON, June 14, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com)

... Phil Lawler, the editor and founder of Catholic World News who has an upcoming book called The Faithful Departed on the collapse of Catholic influence in the Boston area, commented to LifeSiteNews.com about the situation in light of today's vote loss.

"It's clear that the archdiocese is not serious about this issue," said Lawler. "There is no real penalty being exacted on people who are in support of same sex marriage."Lawler explained, "People who are supporting traditional marriage, who supported the marriage amendment were going to have to pay a pretty heavy price in terms of the wrath of the gay rights lobby, of Governor Patrick, of the editorial writers all around the state. But people who abandoned the cause, people who supported same sex marriage, and opposed this amendment were not going to face any real problems with the leadership of the Catholic Church."He concluded, "And that's really in my mind the biggest reason for today's outcome." ...

The LifeSite article also discusses Peter Meade's article in the Boston Herald:

Gay marriage is just another step in "natural social evolution" writes a high profile lay advisor to Boston Archbishop Cardinal O'Malley. The advisor, Peter Meade--one of seven members of Catholic Charities in Boston who resigned over the Archdiocese's decision to ban same-sex couples from adopting--maintains his position on the committee O'Malley appointed to recommend which parishes in the Archdiocese ought to be closed."

On May 17, 2004, the day marriage was made legal for everyone in Massachusetts, we looked out our window to see - contrary to apocalyptic predictions - that the sun had actually risen," wrote Meade and his wife Rosanne Bacon Meade in a column published Tuesday by the Boston Herald. "Life went on quite normally not only that day, but every day since." ... Before his resignation over the Church's refusal to allow homosexual adoption, Meade was the Chair of Catholic Charities in Boston....

See Meade's column in the Boston Herald here.

VoteOnMarriage Failed the People

The VoteOnMarriage amendment went down in flames today, with an even more appalling result than anyone could have imagined. Prayers without compromising the truth may work. Prayers when the truth is compromised cannot.

VoteOnMarriage's campaign failed because the debate was boiled down to "letting the people vote" and ensuring "children have both a mother and a father." But it left out the important truth about homosexual "marriage": It's based on immoral and unhealthy sexual perversions. Morality and public health needed to be part of the debate.

But VoteOnMarriage (and its prime actor, Massachusetts Family Institute) never spoke about these issues. Why didn't they say plainly that disordered sexuality cannot become an accepted basis for "marriage"? And after compromising with Mitt Romney, they could hardly address preserving the integrity of our constitution, and the common accepted meaning of the words therein.

VoteOnMarriage depleted our side's energy and financial resources in pursuit of a terribly flawed amendment. We've warned about their failing strategy ("Be polite! Dialogue with the other side!") and compromised amendment wording for two years now. We said: "Don't feed the bears! They'll just come back for more and more. They'll smell your weakness. And they'll eat you alive."

But VoteOnMarriage said they had a good relationship with MassEquality. They spoke to the homosexual newspaper Bay Windows, badmouthed MassResistance to them and to people on Beacon Hill (including the last several governors) and to pro-family conservatives around the nation. They rigidly controlled what people said in their demonstrations, including their signs. It was a top-down movement, no real grassroots sentiments allowed. Time and again, as we walked through the VoteOnMarriage demonstrators, we would hear individuals corrected if they stepped out of line, said something "inappropriate" or with a little too much emotion.

Their strategy of endless compromise with evil, their attempted appeasement of those destroying the minds of children, and their puerile censorship of pro-family rhetoric has no origin in the Old or New Testament, and anyone who thinks otherwise has subconsciously blacked out the most powerful parts of the Holy Scriptures.

We hear from an MFI insider that they plan to regroup! How do you regroup with failed leadership, and a failed vision? Just a week ago, we heard that another MFI insider said the homosexual lobby was tiring out! They are detached from reality. They don't understand the foe we're facing.

When leaders fail to achieve their goal, they should be fired. VoteOnMarriage and the Massachusetts Family Institute have been discredited, they have failed the faithful pro-family people of Massachusetts. So we say to them: Don't ask for another penny, another drop of our blood and sweat.

Sodomy "Marriage" Not a Civil Right

Last week's editorial in The Pilot rationally explained why homosexual "marriage" is not about civil rights. ("Marriage is not a civil right", 6-8-07) But then, rationality and facts don't seem to count for much any more. Today's Globe makes it clear that "wavering" legislators are not rational, but swayed by emotional stories by lesbian "married" couples. ("A legislator finds himself tugged in two directions")

Sadly, even if it passes, the VoteOnMarriage amendment would not prevent the state's descent into lunacy. It would keep the "marriage" squabble alive, allowing current "homosexual marriages" (existing before the new amendment would take effect) to stand as valid. But then, MassEquality would argue -- rationally --that there can't be two classes of homosexuals: some allowed to marry, some not, because that would be a violation of federally guaranteed equality under the law.

Nevertheless, the Pilot editorial editorial is good as far as it goes:

Marriage is not a civil right
...[MassEquality's slogan is] “It’s wrong to vote on rights.” The underlying message is that since two people with homosexual orientation may love each other, they have the right to marriage.

First, we note that the very premise of the campaign is ludicrous. Let us not forget that the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights were ratified through the votes of state legislatures. The very statement “It’s wrong to vote on rights” flies in the face of our entire system of government.

More importantly, however, marriage is not a right. Even civil marriage is a very restrictive contract that provides benefits for certain people expected to contribute to society in a particular way -- procreating and raising children. But even that is restricted for the good of society. A mother does not have the right to marry her son. Siblings cannot marry. Married persons cannot marry again without first obtaining a divorce. There is no civil right to marry anyone, at any time.

The consequences of separating marriage from procreation and redefining it as a civil right are far-reaching and catastrophic for the institution of marriage and for society at large. Once marriage becomes a personal right, the institution of marriage fades. It is only a matter of time before polygamy, polyandry, incestuous relations and all other manner of partnerships will be accepted as marriage. And why shouldn’t they be? After all, those engaged in those relationships will surely claim they are as much “loving partners” as anyone else and that they deserve to have their relationships legally recognized.

Another very real consequence of the judicial decision that legalized same-sex marriage in Massachusetts in 2004 is the presumption that all sexual lifestyles are equal. If gay couples can marry, the obvious conclusion -- already evident by recent court decisions -- is that schools should teach that homosexual behavior is fully equivalent to heterosexual behavior. Children will have to learn, as they already are in some school districts, that all lifestyle choices are equal....

Will Children Be Safe at State House?

The Globe reports that our Secretary of State is worried about the safety of children on field trips at the State House tomorrow, during the Constitutional Convention on the marriage amendment. See "Pupil tours to feature democracy in action: But steps planned to skirt protesters" (6-13-07).

The unexpected confluence has prompted Secretary of State William Galvin to take steps to ensure that the impressionable youngsters will not be exposed to any mischief or chaos that may erupt during the intense debates and large demonstrations. Unlike most other State House visitors tomorrow, the children will enter the building through a rear door and be greeted by park rangers who will provide security and shepherd them through the building ...

"I do think it can be a constructive lesson, if both sides, the activists for and against gay marriage, are civil to one another," Galvin said. "We anticipate that the adults involved in the debate will be respectful to each other and also to the guests at the State House who are students. ... It's a classic, classic example of free speech and action on a controversial issue, no matter which side you are looking at," said a statement he issued yesterday.

Now this seems very odd to us. First, why are passions so high on the street? We don't see anything like this surrounding budget debates, do we? It's not a "classic example of free speech and action on a controversial issue." Our society has never seen anything so lunatic and perverted parading as legitimate political speech. (But the students will not be exposed to that viewpoint.)

This is really about a fringe minority forcing an insane change of the definition of marriage on society. That is what's dangerous to children. It's the people with the rainbow flags and the damage they are doing to society. Yet the Globe story makes it sound like bad things could emanate from either side in this "debate" tomorrow.

Maybe the schools should have cancelled their field trips. Would we want kids observing demonstrations for the legalization of polygamy and prostitution, or lowering the age of sexual consent? Surely those issues will all be pushed by the rainbow-flag group in the next few years. (See the Gay Rights Platform from 1972, which calls for all of these goals.) We already have a lobby for "transgender" rights. But just now, most Massachusetts citizens, asleep as they are, might still object to their kids being immersed in demonstrations for those "rights".

But tomorrow we'll see school officials blinking at -- or speaking favorably for -- sodomy-based marriage. They believe it's perfectly OK for the kids to think about what a same-sex "marriage" bed is all about. This is just a normal day at the State House, the schools will tell their pupils -- it's just a debate about "love" and "equal rights". The colorful rainbow flags will draw the kids in. And our Secretary of State pretends to be worried about the safety of children.

More Romney Doublespeak on Homosexual Parenting

Mitt Romney constantly repeats that every child needs a mother and a father, and that's the only reason he gives for protecting marriage between a man and a woman. (He never says anything about the moral or health issues of homosexuality, or homosexual behaviors by adults before children.) If he really believes heterosexual married parents is the ideal circumstance, then logically he must think other circumstances are not as good, and also not "normal". So why did he praise the family circumstances of lesbian mother, when she questioned him on his support of real marriage?

It's a classic case of Romney trying to have it both ways. He says he supports the traditional family, but he supports homosexual parenting too. Both are "the American way" for him! See the AP story:

"N.H. woman challenges Romney on gay marriage" (6-6-07):

... Romney paused, asked [the woman] about her children and then praised her. "Wonderful," Romney said. "I’m delighted that you have a family and you’re happy with your family. That’s the American way. ... People can live their lives as they choose and children can be a great source of joy, as you know. And I welcome that."

But then Romney repeated his view of marriage. "Marriage is an institution which is designed to bring a man and woman together to raise a child and that the ideal setting for society at large is where there is a male and a female are associated with the development and nurturing a child," Romney said.

The former Massachusetts governor acknowledged other scenarios that raise children. "There are other ways to raise kids that’s fine: single moms, grandparents raising kids, gay couples raising kids. That’s the American way, to have people have their freedom of choice," he said.

Third Anniversary of Nothing Real -- Just the Fiction of "Legal" Homosexual Marriage

(Source: Boston Globe, 5-17-07)

The Boston Globe is just bursting with excitement that MassEquality may be only four votes away from blocking the marriage amendment. Thanks to $millions flowing in from somewhere (the Gill Foundation?) enabling them to hire 13 new operatives. And thanks to a totally corrupt legislative leadership and Governor, buying votes with patronage jobs.

Note the Globe's usual erroneous statement that "the nation's first legal same-sex weddings took place in Massachusetts" in May 2004. No, not legal. There was only a Court opinion, followed by Romney's unconstitutional reprinting of the marriage licenses and orders to Justices of the Peace and Town Clerks.

Also, note the tiny numbers of homosexual couples "marrying" last year (1472) and since January (only 87). That's really not what homosexuality is about -- monogamous commitment. So after the first flurry, we see this huge drop-off.

Boston Globe: Civil Unions = Homophobia

Today's Boston Globe editorial on New Hampshire's recent legislative approval of civil unions admits what everyone should realize by now: "Civil unions" are just a way station on the road to full-fledged sodomy "marriage". To paraphrase the Globe: Civil unions are insulting to "gays", and nothing short of sodomy "marriage" will do. State bans on sodomy "marriage" are shameful. Civil unions are demeaning and insulting to "gays". Therefore, civil unions are a form of homophobia.

(We've noted that GLAD, Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, is arguing in Connecticut that civil unions are bad because they render homosexual couples second-class citizens -- but at the same time, Connecticut's legalization of civil unions is an argument for homosexual "marriage". So how can anyone still fall for the line the legalization of civil unions protects real marriage?)

From the Globe:

"Live free and civilly united" (4-28-07)
The circle of tolerance widened Thursday, as the New Hampshire Legislature gave final passage to a bill authorizing civil unions in that state. The state's Democratic governor, John Lynch, has vowed to sign the measure, which will take effect in January....

Civil unions are an awkward creation. It is demeaning to gay couples to recognize by law that they are fit for most or all of the rights of marriage -- and then deny them the single word that best describes their partnership....

In time, we believe, people in states with laws or constitutional amendments banning gay marriage will come to see those provisions as a mark of shame. States that offer marriage to straight couples and marriage-lite to gays will recognize the absurdity of the situation -- and the insult to gay couples inherent in it.

New Hampshire Tyranny

After the New Hampshire House rushed a civil unions bill through with hardly any notice to the citizenry, voters are now being told they can't observe from the Gallery this Thursday morning as the Senate is expected to vote for homosexual "marriage" (by another name). The Governor is expected to sign the bill immediately. From Cornerstone Policy Research in New Hampshire:

UPDATE ON “CIVIL UNIONS” = SAME SEX MARRIAGE 04-19-07
GOVERNOR LYNCH SHOVES CIVIL UNIONS/SAME SEX MARRIAGE FORWARD!!!

Governor John Lynch chooses to ignore the will of the people and will side with the radical left wing of the Democrat party to sign “civil unions=same sex marriage legislation. In just four short months, Governor Lynch and the Democrat Party will turn independent New Hampshire into a mirror image of her liberal neighboring states. The Governor says he is against same sex marriage, but civil unions is same sex marriage under another label.

HB 437 is scheduled for a vote in the full Senate for on Thursday, April 26, 2007. Click here to read the Rules of the Senate. State House Security contacted Cornerstone Policy Research today to warn that citizens will not be allowed to stand in the gallery. It seems that the State House does not want the citizens to appear for the Senate vote....

NH Governor John Lynch:
phone 603-271-2121
Office of the Governor, State House, Concord, NH 03301

Homosexual Lobby's Latest Plan to Scuttle Marriage Amendment?

VoteOnMarriage had better listen up. A recent opinion piece in the radical homosexual newspaper, Bay Windows -- by the simpering house-"husband" ("married" to a man) who writes Boston Globe magazine articles about buying pink dresses for "their" baby daughter -- floats the latest idea on how to block the marriage amendment.

As VoteOnMarriage prepares for the next Constitutional Convention (which could come as early as May 9), where their amendment needs to be approved for a second time by at least 50 legislators before moving on to the voters, they should ready their arguments against the Bay Windows crowd, who say:

The following section (4) of the article [Article 48, outlining the procedure for citizen-initiated amendemt proposals] notes that upon receiving affirmative votes from one-fourth of the representatives [which happened on Jan. 2, 2007], the initiative “shall be referred to the next general court,” as it has been.

But this is the catch: in section 5, the final step of the process, there is no similar stated requirement for a second vote. Instead, there is only the conditionally-worded provision, that the initiative shall go before voters “if [it] shall again receive the affirmative votes…” The lack of a call for a second vote is not a mere technicality; or, I should say, in the law, there are no “mere” technicalities. Judges and legislators alike continually turn their eyes to the letter of the law, not the romantic or impassioned interpretations thereof, to settle questions of legal merit.

One might argue that the second vote is implicit, and that its omission from the text is a word-saving device by the amendment’s authors. But this seems unlikely when one reads the entire text; the article goes to great and somewhat linguistically unwieldy lengths to include all necessary factors, like the allowance for a submission of an amended version of the initiative’s wording. In terms of this debate, then, Article 48 is quite explicit about what is required: one vote on the initiative. For legislators who wish to be seen as towing the line, forcing upon the text an imagined requirement for a second vote is to then trump the actual law in favor of appearing to obey it. And to what end? Our legislators have already fulfilled their duties. They can now stand proud before the citizenry, able to state without hesitation that they took the job seriously and got it done.

Bay Windows also kindly provides the text of Article 48 at the end of this opinion piece. Of course, liberals only refer to original documents if they see an opening to manipulate some unintended loophole.

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?

Jeff Jacoby's Heteronormative Propaganda

Dear Jeff Jacoby,

In your "Messages to my son" column (3-28-07), you clearly have not gotten the message from the Massachusetts powers-that-be, including a federal judge: Your son will never grow up to be a good citizen unless he learns to view homosexual "marriages" as a perfectly good option. And you are teaching him that he must marry a woman and have children! Horrors!

Don't you realize that you are spewing heteronormative propaganda? Why, it could even be considered hate speech. Bad enough that you say these things behind closed doors, but to publish these ideas in a public forum? How dare you! Don't you realize that implying something (such as heterosexual marriage, or being a father to children) is to be preferred, or is a norm, is hateful to others who don't share your sexual orientation, your outlook on family life? Don't you realize that as a good citizen (you say you want to be "good") you should be presenting your son with all possible options for his adult life? You need to apologize for writing these hate-filled words:

I want you and Micah [his younger brother] to become loving fathers and husbands, so I make sure that open affection is something you see and get a lot of. Some men are inhibited about kissing or hugging their wives, or addressing them with terms of endearment; you're growing up in an environment where your father makes no secret of his love for your mother. I hope your children will grow up in a similar environment. Speaking of your children, I have been shamelessly propagandizing you for years on the advantages of marrying early and having lots of kids -- two things I didn't do but wish I had....

Jeff, don't you know that you should leave it up to the state to disseminate proper values to your sons? We hope you've received a stern warning from your editors at the Boston Globe. And you'd better watch out: We may have to report you to the Dept. of Social Services for emotional abuse of your son.