"First gay couple marries in Spain", according to the AP story in the Boston Globe (July 12, 2005). The Socialists and United Left party celebrated.
"The ruling Socialist Party's top official for social issues, attended. The town council is run by the conservative Popular Party, which voted against the law when it went before Spain's Parliament on June 30. The ceremony was presided over by a town councilor from the United Left party, which voted in favor. It was not immediately known whether the conservative mayor refused to do so. On the day Parliament voted, the Roman Catholic Church in Spain issued a veiled call for civil authorities who opposed gay marriage to refuse to preside over same-sex weddings.
"Since the law took effect July 3, about 50 couples are believed to have filed papers seeking to get married. The Justice Ministry estimates about 10 percent of Spain's population of 43 million people is homosexual."
Let's see: 10%, or 4.3 million, of Spain's population is "gay", but only 50 couples in the whole country have filed papers to "marry" in the last two weeks, and only one couple has actually "married". Where are all those loving, committed "gay" couples who've been waiting so long to tie the knot?
Speaking of the Boston Globe, don't miss Brian McGrory's hit piece on Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania. Sorry, Mr. McGrory, but secular humanist institutions like Harvard do have something to do with the political-moral climate here in Massachusetts. Ultimately, their road leads to the nasty place we're in now.
And as for the "priest abuse" scandal in the Catholic church, Senator Santorum doesn't state the problem boldy enough. As MassResistance has pointed out before: The radical homosexuals demand access to minors. See item #State-7 in the Gay Rights Platform of 1972: "Repeal of all laws governing the age of sexual consent."
There must be a reason they demand this.... The priests who abused minors were homosexuals who infiltrated the church, and did not hold to their vows of celibacy. It was not a child abuse scandal; it was a homosexual scandal. And how can Mr. McGrory deny that Boston Mayor Thomas Menino is a big promoter of all things "gay"?
Tuesday, July 12, 2005
Monday, July 11, 2005
Resistance Alive and Well at Tufts University
A headline in today's Boston Globe ("Students press to end ban on gay male blood donors") reminded me of a skirmish we'd heard about at Tufts University this past year.
It seems that Tufts is an especially fertile breeding ground for homosexual extremists. Remember Carl Sciortino, recent Tufts grad, defiler of the Boston Cathedral, activist extraordinaire ... and now State Representative for Medford and Somerville?
[Hey, Carl. We're wondering when your wedding is going to take place. The one you agitated for while a student at Tufts. Maybe there was a private ceremony?]
MassResistance was happy to learn that there is a feisty resistance cell at Tufts: The Primary Source journal. What a great group of right thinking young people, fighting the good fight on a hideously liberal campus! The outgoing editor recently wrote:
"Tufts claims to promote tolerance and understanding, but it actually promotes shockingly extreme levels of intolerance and bigotry. In my four years here, I have witnessed more hatred-driven aggression and fear than in the rest of my life. I have been threatened, spit at, harassed, labeled a racist, a fascist, a homophobe, a hate-monger, and regularly defamed on campus.... If only they had warned me on the admissions website, 'Conservatives need not apply...' "
"As a computer engineer, I managed to eke out a decent education from an institution that is otherwise barren of learning. Others were not so fortunate.... [T]he ability to reason and communicate should be the measure of a successful liberal artist's [education]. In reality, when Tufts liberal artists encounter criticism of their opinions or actions (usually for the first time in the pages of this magazine), they become so personally insulted they immediately resort to name-calling."
For a good example of the craziness at Tufts, look at the radical homosexual activist of the year at Tufts, one Mr. Matthew Pohl. He was awarded the "Fool on the Hill" acclamation in the commencement issue of The Primary Source (May 22, 2005; not yet online). Mr. Pohl did just what the Boston Globe headline screamed: he demanded!! that the Red Cross stop discriminating against gay men when taking blood donations. But that's not all...
Mr. Pohl demanded!! that Tufts include "gender identity" and "sexual expression" in its non-discrimination policy. He demanded!! that academic freedom be denied to the conservative viewpoints in the college's classroom. He demanded!! that ROTC be banned from campus, because of the military's "Don't ask, don't tell" policy regarding homosexuals. And he was outraged!! at the thought that anyone would support George W. Bush for re-election.
Make checks payable to The Primary Source, Mayer Campus Center, Tufts University, Medford, MA 02155. They could use your help.
It seems that Tufts is an especially fertile breeding ground for homosexual extremists. Remember Carl Sciortino, recent Tufts grad, defiler of the Boston Cathedral, activist extraordinaire ... and now State Representative for Medford and Somerville?
[Hey, Carl. We're wondering when your wedding is going to take place. The one you agitated for while a student at Tufts. Maybe there was a private ceremony?]
MassResistance was happy to learn that there is a feisty resistance cell at Tufts: The Primary Source journal. What a great group of right thinking young people, fighting the good fight on a hideously liberal campus! The outgoing editor recently wrote:
"Tufts claims to promote tolerance and understanding, but it actually promotes shockingly extreme levels of intolerance and bigotry. In my four years here, I have witnessed more hatred-driven aggression and fear than in the rest of my life. I have been threatened, spit at, harassed, labeled a racist, a fascist, a homophobe, a hate-monger, and regularly defamed on campus.... If only they had warned me on the admissions website, 'Conservatives need not apply...' "
"As a computer engineer, I managed to eke out a decent education from an institution that is otherwise barren of learning. Others were not so fortunate.... [T]he ability to reason and communicate should be the measure of a successful liberal artist's [education]. In reality, when Tufts liberal artists encounter criticism of their opinions or actions (usually for the first time in the pages of this magazine), they become so personally insulted they immediately resort to name-calling."
For a good example of the craziness at Tufts, look at the radical homosexual activist of the year at Tufts, one Mr. Matthew Pohl. He was awarded the "Fool on the Hill" acclamation in the commencement issue of The Primary Source (May 22, 2005; not yet online). Mr. Pohl did just what the Boston Globe headline screamed: he demanded!! that the Red Cross stop discriminating against gay men when taking blood donations. But that's not all...
Mr. Pohl demanded!! that Tufts include "gender identity" and "sexual expression" in its non-discrimination policy. He demanded!! that academic freedom be denied to the conservative viewpoints in the college's classroom. He demanded!! that ROTC be banned from campus, because of the military's "Don't ask, don't tell" policy regarding homosexuals. And he was outraged!! at the thought that anyone would support George W. Bush for re-election.
Make checks payable to The Primary Source, Mayer Campus Center, Tufts University, Medford, MA 02155. They could use your help.
Sunday, July 10, 2005
Governor Romney and Gay "Marriage"
Back in April, MassResistance pointed out that gay "marriage" still isn't, and never has been, legal in Massachusetts. That's why Article 8 Alliance asked Rep. Goguen to file bill #654 in the Mass. legislature declaring the same-sex "marriages" null and void. We printed some of the testimony about that bill after the "surprise" hearing before the Judiciary Committee on April 12.
Along those same lines, National Review just printed a great letter from one Mr. Goulding of Lancaster (July 18 issue). He makes these same points, and asks people to take another look at Presidential candidate Mitt Romney's role in this disaster. He asks: Why did Gov. Romney say he had to "uphold the law" when there was no law? And to what extent is Romney responsible for the mess we're in? Herewith, the letter:
MITT ’N’ MARRIAGE
In light of John J. Miller’s article on Mitt Romney (“Matinee Mitt,” June 20), I believe it is appropriate to recognize that, in his capacity as head of the executive branch of Massachusetts, Romney seems to be enforcing a non-existent same-sex-marriage law. If this is true, Romney is at least as responsible for the existence of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts as chief justice Margaret Marshall of the supreme judicial court.
As most are aware, the Goodridge decision that Marshall wrote announced a requirement for same-sex marriage. What many do not know is that the Goodridge decision did not actually create same-sex marriage. To the contrary, Justice Marshall left the task of reforming the law to the appropriate branch of government: the legislature. She merely said that the absence of same-sex marriage violated the Massachusetts constitution.
At the outset of the Goodridge decision, Marshall correctly declined to interpret the law to provide explicitly for same-sex marriage. But she then considered the constitutionality of the absence of same-sex marriage. In a feat of seemingly impossible proportions, the absence itself was deemed unconstitutional. She ordered that the decision be delayed for 180 days — allowing the legislature sufficient time to provide for same-sex marriage (because it was absent) and thereby to avoid a constitutional impasse. The court later stated that the reason for the delay in Goodridge had been “to afford the Legislature an opportunity to conform the existing statutes to the provisions of the Goodridge decision.” The decision, then, was clearly not intended to self-execute.
Aside from dickering around with a proposed constitutional amendment, the legislature has yet to address same-sex marriage in Massachusetts: The laws remain unchanged. This, in conjunction with the Goodridge court’s observation that there is an absence of a same-sex-marriage provision in the law, compels the unremarkable conclusion that even today same-sex marriage does not properly exist in Massachusetts.
Mitt Romney, however, has taken it upon himself to fashion a remedy to the court’s decision. Given the separation of powers set forth clearly in the Massachusetts constitution, that remedy properly lies with the legislature — a point the court repeatedly made.
This is more than quibbling over semantics. The executive branch wields the power of the sword, and that power must be tied to the will of the people. It is true that if Mitt Romney were to decline to enforce a non-existent same-sex-marriage law, the legislature would likely create some version of same-sex marriage. But at least the people, through their representatives, would have a say in the matter. And that is no small thing.
--Jonathan Goulding
Lancaster, Mass.
Along those same lines, National Review just printed a great letter from one Mr. Goulding of Lancaster (July 18 issue). He makes these same points, and asks people to take another look at Presidential candidate Mitt Romney's role in this disaster. He asks: Why did Gov. Romney say he had to "uphold the law" when there was no law? And to what extent is Romney responsible for the mess we're in? Herewith, the letter:
MITT ’N’ MARRIAGE
In light of John J. Miller’s article on Mitt Romney (“Matinee Mitt,” June 20), I believe it is appropriate to recognize that, in his capacity as head of the executive branch of Massachusetts, Romney seems to be enforcing a non-existent same-sex-marriage law. If this is true, Romney is at least as responsible for the existence of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts as chief justice Margaret Marshall of the supreme judicial court.
As most are aware, the Goodridge decision that Marshall wrote announced a requirement for same-sex marriage. What many do not know is that the Goodridge decision did not actually create same-sex marriage. To the contrary, Justice Marshall left the task of reforming the law to the appropriate branch of government: the legislature. She merely said that the absence of same-sex marriage violated the Massachusetts constitution.
At the outset of the Goodridge decision, Marshall correctly declined to interpret the law to provide explicitly for same-sex marriage. But she then considered the constitutionality of the absence of same-sex marriage. In a feat of seemingly impossible proportions, the absence itself was deemed unconstitutional. She ordered that the decision be delayed for 180 days — allowing the legislature sufficient time to provide for same-sex marriage (because it was absent) and thereby to avoid a constitutional impasse. The court later stated that the reason for the delay in Goodridge had been “to afford the Legislature an opportunity to conform the existing statutes to the provisions of the Goodridge decision.” The decision, then, was clearly not intended to self-execute.
Aside from dickering around with a proposed constitutional amendment, the legislature has yet to address same-sex marriage in Massachusetts: The laws remain unchanged. This, in conjunction with the Goodridge court’s observation that there is an absence of a same-sex-marriage provision in the law, compels the unremarkable conclusion that even today same-sex marriage does not properly exist in Massachusetts.
Mitt Romney, however, has taken it upon himself to fashion a remedy to the court’s decision. Given the separation of powers set forth clearly in the Massachusetts constitution, that remedy properly lies with the legislature — a point the court repeatedly made.
This is more than quibbling over semantics. The executive branch wields the power of the sword, and that power must be tied to the will of the people. It is true that if Mitt Romney were to decline to enforce a non-existent same-sex-marriage law, the legislature would likely create some version of same-sex marriage. But at least the people, through their representatives, would have a say in the matter. And that is no small thing.
--Jonathan Goulding
Lancaster, Mass.
Saturday, July 09, 2005
Massachusetts Bishops, Gay "Marriage", and the Vatican
Had an interesting conversation with an older Massachusetts Catholic yesterday. She didn't even want to discuss the new Mass. marriage amendment proposed by Mass. Family Institute and the Mass. Catholic Conference of Bishops -- because if the Bishops told her to support it, she'll support it. But she did seem troubled, and her stubbornness indicated a sense on her part that something wasn't quite right.
MassResistance asks: Why on earth are the Catholic Bishops supporting this wrongheaded amendment? Where are they leading their flock? It would allow homosexual "marriages" (performed before the amendment takes effect) to stand as legal, and thereby also validate the invalid SJC Goodridge ruling. (See text of amendment and analysis on Article 8 website.)
Let's see. The Vatican has just issued a new document for all the bishops to consider at their worldwide meeting coming up in October. It singles out "divorced people who remarry and Roman Catholic politicians who support abortion..., in criticizing church members who continue to receive Holy Communion while in a sate the church describes as mortal sin." (Boston Globe: "Vatican issues Eucharist draft", July 8, 2005.) Also, "the document criticize[s] the faithful who support Catholic politicians who back abortion and other policies, contrary to church teaching."
We understand that homosexual "marriage" is contrary to Catholic teaching. So ... might the Mass. Catholic Conference of Bishops have made a slight error in supporting this proposed new amendment??? And will the Vatican notice?
The Bishops, and the Vatican, need to understand that what is in question is not the overturning of any LEGAL marriages ... because homosexual "marriages" are still not legal in Massachusetts. They are without statutory basis. They are a fanciful notion of four twisted minds on the Mass. Supreme Judicial Court. They are based only on an illegitimate court ruling.
So why do the Mass. Bishops think they had to allow these "marriages" to stand in their amendment? They only need 25% of the legislature to approve a citizens' petition amendment, so it's hard to believe their "political necessity" argument.
In a state where the majority of legislators are nominal Catholics, we wonder why the Church hierarchy doesn't show a little more muscle. Is the lavender mafia still that powerful? Will all those Mass. legislators who voted for homosexual "marriage" be denied Holy Communion? (That is, if they even go to Mass...) And what about all those Catholic voters who keep electing them?
Will the Vatican take note, please?
MassResistance asks: Why on earth are the Catholic Bishops supporting this wrongheaded amendment? Where are they leading their flock? It would allow homosexual "marriages" (performed before the amendment takes effect) to stand as legal, and thereby also validate the invalid SJC Goodridge ruling. (See text of amendment and analysis on Article 8 website.)
Let's see. The Vatican has just issued a new document for all the bishops to consider at their worldwide meeting coming up in October. It singles out "divorced people who remarry and Roman Catholic politicians who support abortion..., in criticizing church members who continue to receive Holy Communion while in a sate the church describes as mortal sin." (Boston Globe: "Vatican issues Eucharist draft", July 8, 2005.) Also, "the document criticize[s] the faithful who support Catholic politicians who back abortion and other policies, contrary to church teaching."
We understand that homosexual "marriage" is contrary to Catholic teaching. So ... might the Mass. Catholic Conference of Bishops have made a slight error in supporting this proposed new amendment??? And will the Vatican notice?
The Bishops, and the Vatican, need to understand that what is in question is not the overturning of any LEGAL marriages ... because homosexual "marriages" are still not legal in Massachusetts. They are without statutory basis. They are a fanciful notion of four twisted minds on the Mass. Supreme Judicial Court. They are based only on an illegitimate court ruling.
So why do the Mass. Bishops think they had to allow these "marriages" to stand in their amendment? They only need 25% of the legislature to approve a citizens' petition amendment, so it's hard to believe their "political necessity" argument.
In a state where the majority of legislators are nominal Catholics, we wonder why the Church hierarchy doesn't show a little more muscle. Is the lavender mafia still that powerful? Will all those Mass. legislators who voted for homosexual "marriage" be denied Holy Communion? (That is, if they even go to Mass...) And what about all those Catholic voters who keep electing them?
Will the Vatican take note, please?
Friday, July 08, 2005
Supreme Court Fight: It's Not Just about Abortion
The radical homosexuals are worried about their "right to privacy" being taken away, should a strict constructionist or two be appointed to the Supreme Court. They want their "anything goes" society protected -- going beyond abortion "rights" to include any imaginable perverted sexual behavior. Their praise goes to Justice Kennedy's ludicrous opinion in the ruling overturning the Texas sodomy law (Lawrence v. Texas, 2003):
"Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom."
This is the kind of "thinking" the radicals want to preserve in our courts! Think of the possibilities this legal philosophy opens up, beyond state-sanctioned sodomy:
Polygamy -- It may be a new generation's "greater freedom".
Lowering the age of sexual consent -- Children need "greater freedom", too. Who's to say 12 is too young to consent? We wouldn't want kids to be "oppressed", or suppress their sexual feelings.
And who's to deny NAMBLA members their "greater freedom", their absolute need, to do it with young boys? We should not "oppress" their minority view.
Sexual domestic violence -- It's not hard to imagine boundaries coming down here.... One person's sexual abuse may be another person's sadistic sexual pleasure. Can the sadist be denied his "greater freedom"? How will the line be drawn, if both parties entered the relationship willingly? (Remember, first-class Boston hotels are already hosting "leather & bondage" conventions.)
"Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom."
This is the kind of "thinking" the radicals want to preserve in our courts! Think of the possibilities this legal philosophy opens up, beyond state-sanctioned sodomy:
Polygamy -- It may be a new generation's "greater freedom".
Lowering the age of sexual consent -- Children need "greater freedom", too. Who's to say 12 is too young to consent? We wouldn't want kids to be "oppressed", or suppress their sexual feelings.
And who's to deny NAMBLA members their "greater freedom", their absolute need, to do it with young boys? We should not "oppress" their minority view.
Sexual domestic violence -- It's not hard to imagine boundaries coming down here.... One person's sexual abuse may be another person's sadistic sexual pleasure. Can the sadist be denied his "greater freedom"? How will the line be drawn, if both parties entered the relationship willingly? (Remember, first-class Boston hotels are already hosting "leather & bondage" conventions.)
Thursday, July 07, 2005
New Lexington Superintendent "Embraces Diversity"
The Lexington Minuteman reports that its new school superintendent, Paul Ash, fits right into a town which "embraces diversity". We hope that means he'll respect parents who ask him to follow the law, and recognize their legal rights to keep their children out of homosexual indoctrination sessions. But somehow we doubt it...
"With his involvement with Lexington through the hiring of the central office staff, Ash is very aware of the challenges faced by the schools toward the end of the academic year. Ash said he was 'outraged' by the arrival of the Westboro Baptist Church from Kansas who picketed with anti-gay and anti-American signs outside Lexington High School graduation and the Estabrook Elementary School, adding he felt the town was being used by outside organizations to push a political point. He said Lexington is a town which 'embraces diversity.' "
Note the use of the plural: "outside organizations". Now, who do you think he's lumping together with the predestinationist Phelps group?? (Guilt by association: an old fascist/leftist/socialist device.)
A coalition of Massachusetts parents concerned about parents' rights and our children's education are an "outside group"?? Exactly! Parents ARE the outsiders now; children are now wards of the state.
"With his involvement with Lexington through the hiring of the central office staff, Ash is very aware of the challenges faced by the schools toward the end of the academic year. Ash said he was 'outraged' by the arrival of the Westboro Baptist Church from Kansas who picketed with anti-gay and anti-American signs outside Lexington High School graduation and the Estabrook Elementary School, adding he felt the town was being used by outside organizations to push a political point. He said Lexington is a town which 'embraces diversity.' "
Note the use of the plural: "outside organizations". Now, who do you think he's lumping together with the predestinationist Phelps group?? (Guilt by association: an old fascist/leftist/socialist device.)
A coalition of Massachusetts parents concerned about parents' rights and our children's education are an "outside group"?? Exactly! Parents ARE the outsiders now; children are now wards of the state.
Wednesday, July 06, 2005
Ex-Gay Group Exodus International Has a Better Idea
The United Church of Christ has decided that that to be "welcoming" they must allow homosexuals to "marry". But an ex-gay group, Exodus International, has a better idea.
(From "OK'ing 'gay' unions'not true compassion':Leading network of former homosexuals criticizes United Church's new resolution", WorldNetDaily, July 5, 2005) :
A network of Christian groups that minister to homosexuals says the United Church of Christ's decision to endorse same-sex marriage lacks a truly compassionate approach to the issue. ...
The evangelical network Exodus International believes churches must do more to reach out to homosexuals who feel alienated and excluded, but the United Church of Christ's decision is not the answer.
"Embracing homosexual unions, but abandoning the very truth that could change lives may be politically correct, but it is not true compassion," said Alan Chambers, a former homosexual who served as an associate pastor before becoming President of Exodus International.
"Homosexuals need to know they are welcome at their local church, but they also need to know that hundreds of thousands of us have found freedom from the isolation and emptiness we experienced in gay life through the power of Jesus Christ," he said.
Chambers added, "Our existence as ex-gays is additional proof that homosexuality is not an immutable trait and therefore, marriage is not a civil right to be extended to any group of individuals who demand it. Preserving the public purpose of marriage sets a higher standard for future generations and defines its biblical intention to those who are confused and questioning their sexuality. As a former homosexual who is now happily married, I am grateful for the laws that protected and esteemed this life-preserving, authentic union."
(From "OK'ing 'gay' unions'not true compassion':Leading network of former homosexuals criticizes United Church's new resolution", WorldNetDaily, July 5, 2005) :
A network of Christian groups that minister to homosexuals says the United Church of Christ's decision to endorse same-sex marriage lacks a truly compassionate approach to the issue. ...
The evangelical network Exodus International believes churches must do more to reach out to homosexuals who feel alienated and excluded, but the United Church of Christ's decision is not the answer.
"Embracing homosexual unions, but abandoning the very truth that could change lives may be politically correct, but it is not true compassion," said Alan Chambers, a former homosexual who served as an associate pastor before becoming President of Exodus International.
"Homosexuals need to know they are welcome at their local church, but they also need to know that hundreds of thousands of us have found freedom from the isolation and emptiness we experienced in gay life through the power of Jesus Christ," he said.
Chambers added, "Our existence as ex-gays is additional proof that homosexuality is not an immutable trait and therefore, marriage is not a civil right to be extended to any group of individuals who demand it. Preserving the public purpose of marriage sets a higher standard for future generations and defines its biblical intention to those who are confused and questioning their sexuality. As a former homosexual who is now happily married, I am grateful for the laws that protected and esteemed this life-preserving, authentic union."
Tuesday, July 05, 2005
"Gays" Charge Conservative Watchdogs with Repressed Homoerotic Desires
In a hilarious article in Bay Windows ( "Would the real pervert please stand up?" ), we read about how we activist defenders of traditional values are really just obsessed with homosexual sex acts. The only explanation for our research and work is that we are repressing our own homoerotic desires, says the article.
Interesting that Bay Windows would even accept the concept of "pervert".... We thought there was no such thing as "perverts" in their world, only different "lifestyles", "preferences", and identities". So the whole premise of their faulting anyone else for suspected perversion is ludicrous. Why would they be at all bothered by someone else's "obsessions" or "preferences"? We thought their philosophy was "anything goes".
So -- the homosexual radicals push their ordure in our faces all day long, and then tell us to pretend we don't smell it! If our olfactory nerves are working normally, we're the ones labeled "sick". Truly Orwellian!
One telling passage faults those reporting on the dark underbelly of the "gay" world for "reduc[ing] the debate to potty talk worthy of a seventh grader." The author seems to miss the fact that activities recommended in, for instance, the Little Black Book, are in fact related to potty substances such as urine and feces (and oral contact with same).
The AIDS Action Committee, in its Little Black Book, treats us to definitions and descriptions of potty practices: anal f'ing, watersports ("p--s play"), spit vs. swallow, rimming, fisting. We just happened to come across their opus as it was being handed out to young people. Yes, that upset us traditional types, so we're talking about it a lot -- but that doesn't mean we're fantasizing about fisting all day long.
We also learn in this article how psychologists and sociologists have totally bought into the fantasy concept of "homophobia": "Lending credence to that assertion are the results of a study published in the American Psychological Association's Journal of Abnormal Psychology in 1996. Researchers at the University of Georgia conducted an experiment involving 35 homophobic men and 29 nonhomophobic men as determined by the Index of Homophobia scale, a 25-item test used by sociologists and psychologists to determine levels of homophobia." Index of Homophobia scale?!!
Looks like the "gays" are upset that their filthy practices are being exposed after decades of polite silence and averted eyes on the part of us regular people. They can't handle it when the truth gets out, and are struggling to figure out how to answer us. So we're seeing this new tactic of calling us repressed homosexuals a lot lately. The article concludes:
[A]s syndicated 'Savage Love' sex columnist Dan Savage says, "I think part of the backlash right now is the sense of loss that these people who are afraid of sex are going to lose their bogeyman if we all just show up at PTA meetings and appear to be as boring as they are." ...
"Part of the screaming and yelling about all the sleazy things we do is that that's what they want us to do," Savage also says. "That's the role they need us to play so that we can be the sexual scary other and the bogeyman and all these things. They're more threatened by us being boring and paired off and married off and living in the suburbs, ironically enough, than they are threatened by all these crazy sex things we're supposedly up to all the time."
If that's the case, then given the continued forward push by the GLBT rights movement it's unlikely that right-wing extremists will abandon their use of sex as a weapon anytime soon. Savage suggests that the best defense is to turn the tables. He points to the closeted [Spokane Mayor] West's public opposition to gay rights legislation as an example of fodder that can be used to quell the right-wing sex panic. "It gives us an opening to say that anybody who opposes gay rights measures is secretly a closeted homosexual who's cruising online for 18 year old boys. And we should do that. 'Got a problem with homosexuality? Oh, that's proof that you're gay.' We should promote the hell out of that. It's like owning a poodle or wearing lavender trousers - it's just a sign that you're a homo."
Let us assure our many homosexual readers that the MassResistance crowd is not repressed in any way. Very healthy here, grateful for our normal sexual desires. And especially thankful for our intact sense of smell.
Interesting that Bay Windows would even accept the concept of "pervert".... We thought there was no such thing as "perverts" in their world, only different "lifestyles", "preferences", and identities". So the whole premise of their faulting anyone else for suspected perversion is ludicrous. Why would they be at all bothered by someone else's "obsessions" or "preferences"? We thought their philosophy was "anything goes".
So -- the homosexual radicals push their ordure in our faces all day long, and then tell us to pretend we don't smell it! If our olfactory nerves are working normally, we're the ones labeled "sick". Truly Orwellian!
One telling passage faults those reporting on the dark underbelly of the "gay" world for "reduc[ing] the debate to potty talk worthy of a seventh grader." The author seems to miss the fact that activities recommended in, for instance, the Little Black Book, are in fact related to potty substances such as urine and feces (and oral contact with same).
The AIDS Action Committee, in its Little Black Book, treats us to definitions and descriptions of potty practices: anal f'ing, watersports ("p--s play"), spit vs. swallow, rimming, fisting. We just happened to come across their opus as it was being handed out to young people. Yes, that upset us traditional types, so we're talking about it a lot -- but that doesn't mean we're fantasizing about fisting all day long.
We also learn in this article how psychologists and sociologists have totally bought into the fantasy concept of "homophobia": "Lending credence to that assertion are the results of a study published in the American Psychological Association's Journal of Abnormal Psychology in 1996. Researchers at the University of Georgia conducted an experiment involving 35 homophobic men and 29 nonhomophobic men as determined by the Index of Homophobia scale, a 25-item test used by sociologists and psychologists to determine levels of homophobia." Index of Homophobia scale?!!
Looks like the "gays" are upset that their filthy practices are being exposed after decades of polite silence and averted eyes on the part of us regular people. They can't handle it when the truth gets out, and are struggling to figure out how to answer us. So we're seeing this new tactic of calling us repressed homosexuals a lot lately. The article concludes:
[A]s syndicated 'Savage Love' sex columnist Dan Savage says, "I think part of the backlash right now is the sense of loss that these people who are afraid of sex are going to lose their bogeyman if we all just show up at PTA meetings and appear to be as boring as they are." ...
"Part of the screaming and yelling about all the sleazy things we do is that that's what they want us to do," Savage also says. "That's the role they need us to play so that we can be the sexual scary other and the bogeyman and all these things. They're more threatened by us being boring and paired off and married off and living in the suburbs, ironically enough, than they are threatened by all these crazy sex things we're supposedly up to all the time."
If that's the case, then given the continued forward push by the GLBT rights movement it's unlikely that right-wing extremists will abandon their use of sex as a weapon anytime soon. Savage suggests that the best defense is to turn the tables. He points to the closeted [Spokane Mayor] West's public opposition to gay rights legislation as an example of fodder that can be used to quell the right-wing sex panic. "It gives us an opening to say that anybody who opposes gay rights measures is secretly a closeted homosexual who's cruising online for 18 year old boys. And we should do that. 'Got a problem with homosexuality? Oh, that's proof that you're gay.' We should promote the hell out of that. It's like owning a poodle or wearing lavender trousers - it's just a sign that you're a homo."
Let us assure our many homosexual readers that the MassResistance crowd is not repressed in any way. Very healthy here, grateful for our normal sexual desires. And especially thankful for our intact sense of smell.
Another "Church" Falls Away from Truth
Now we read the United Church of Christ has jumped off the cliff. ("United Church of Christ backs gay nuptials", AP, 7-5-05)
ATLANTA -- The United Church of Christ's rule-making body voted overwhelmingly Monday to approve a resolution endorsing same-sex marriage, making it the largest Christian denomination to do so. The vote is not binding on individual churches, but could cause some congregations to leave the fold. Roughly 80 percent of the representatives on the church's 884-member General Synod voted to approve the resolution Monday, a day after a smaller committee recommended it. The Rev. John H. Thomas, president of the United Church of Christ, said with the vote on Independence Day, the rule-making body "acted courageously to declare freedom."
How are they defining "freedom"? Freedom from the word of God? Freedom from rational standards? Freedom from concerns about the public health? Freedom from concern about the well-being of children?
ATLANTA -- The United Church of Christ's rule-making body voted overwhelmingly Monday to approve a resolution endorsing same-sex marriage, making it the largest Christian denomination to do so. The vote is not binding on individual churches, but could cause some congregations to leave the fold. Roughly 80 percent of the representatives on the church's 884-member General Synod voted to approve the resolution Monday, a day after a smaller committee recommended it. The Rev. John H. Thomas, president of the United Church of Christ, said with the vote on Independence Day, the rule-making body "acted courageously to declare freedom."
How are they defining "freedom"? Freedom from the word of God? Freedom from rational standards? Freedom from concerns about the public health? Freedom from concern about the well-being of children?
Monday, July 04, 2005
Thank God for Independence Day
Happy Independence Day!
The Declaration of Independence states that GOD gave us our human and civil rights; they were not invented or granted by courts or rulers. And it states that we, the people, hold the power He gave us through our consent; the ultimate power is not held by the courts, Empress Margaret of Massachusetts, or the senate president.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed . . ."
The Declaration of Independence states that GOD gave us our human and civil rights; they were not invented or granted by courts or rulers. And it states that we, the people, hold the power He gave us through our consent; the ultimate power is not held by the courts, Empress Margaret of Massachusetts, or the senate president.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed . . ."
Sunday, July 03, 2005
Lexington Radicals Still Calling Names
We know how popular MassResistance is among the homosexual radicals and their fellow-traveller allies in Lexington. So we thought we'd respond to their most recent name-calling in the Lexington Minuteman (June 30).
Brian Camenker (director of Article 8 Alliance) had a guest commentary in the June 23 issue of the Lexington Minuteman, which answered their nonsensical earlier attacks on traditional moral values defended by his group. He wrote:
"They harangue that Article 8 is a 'hate group' because we oppose homosexual marriage. Across America, this is a mainstream position. Last November, 11 states voted that way, and [the] gay lobby in Massachusetts is afraid of a vote here. We're also critical of homosexuality being presented in schools, and of homosexual behavior in general. That's also a legitimate point of view, arguably supported by a majority of parents in this country."
Oh, the horror! How could he say there's something objectionable in homosexual behavior?!! This especially angered one Susan Cyr of Revere Street, who continued to try to link Camenker with the predestinationists from Kansas, and racists during the civil rights struggle:
"So thanks for helping clarify their [Article 8, David Parker, Rev. Snyder] positions as well. I'd like to use your quote to illustrate your position, 'We're also critical .... of homosexual behavior in general. That's also a legitimate point of view.' Thanks for that information. I think this quote speaks volumes about what you represent and I think Fred Phelps would agree with your position. So you are saying it's not really about school programs, families or marriage — it is about being gay. You are critical of people just because they are gay. You said you don't think this position is similar to racists in the Civil Rights struggle. Again, thanks for shining this very bright light on who you are!"
Ms. Cyr, think about this: Most Americans (including most of those who object to homosexual behavior) would say that what homosexuals do in the privacy of their own homes is their own business. At the same time, most Americans still believe that not only is homosexual behavior objectionable morally, it is against nature, it is perverted, and it is a grave concern for the public health. (People are just more hesitant to say so now, because they don't like being called "homophobes".)
But when homosexuals push their behavior in our faces, promote it, and demand societal approval, it's an altogether different thing. That's the problem now: homosexuals' sexuality is no longer a private matter. The homosexual radicals have politicized it and now brazenly insist:
"We will do it in our bedrooms, AND ... we will label our homosexuality a 'right' in the State House, we will proclaim it moral in your churches, we will publish it in your newspaper wedding pages, we will exhibit it on the sidewalks, we will throw out first pitches and cruise at Fenway Park, and WE WILL INDOCTRINATE YOUR CHILDREN IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND BRING AS MANY OF THEM INTO THE LIFESTYLE AS POSSIBLE."
But, according to Ms. Cyr, to object is hateful and equivalent to racism!
Getting back to Camenker's guest opinion, he also wrote:
"There's the Orwellian comparison, constantly repeated, describing the school's imposition of homosexuality on David Parker's child as 'inclusive' but Parker's concerns as 'divisive' and similar to racists in the Civil Rights struggle.
"They wail that Article 8 is an 'outside group.' That's where the real hypocrisy sets in. From the beginning, everything they've done has had the fingerprints of outsiders, from the ADL [Anti-Defamation League, connected to 'No Place for Hate'] to Human Rights Campaign to GLSEN to Freedom to Marry Coalition. It's everywhere.
"For example, Meg Soens claims she's just a concerned parent. But she taught a workshop, sponsored by the national homosexual organization GLSEN, titled, 'Getting Gay and Lesbian Issues Included in Elementary School Staff Development, Curriculum Development, and the PTA.' Earlier this year a GLSEN representative gave a presentation at the middle school. And isn't Carol Rose [who wrote a guest commentary against Parker and appeared on Boston TV criticizing him] the executive director of the Mass. ACLU?"
This same Meg Soens [click here for wedding photo] had a letter in the recent Minuteman which mentioned her wife's name twice. (Repetition is a key device in de-sensitizing the masses.) And she went on about how happy they were with the wonderful Lexington schools (where Soens wields tremendous influence), where their children are so fortunate to be enrolled. (It's all about happy children and families. Repeat that over and over. Also be sure to insinuate that those hateful people are trying to break up families!) She worries this paradise is threatened by evil forces:
"Celia and I moved here for the public schools , and we continue to appreciate what the school system and the town provides for our entire family. What has been a great year for our children, however, could easily have been tarnished by the recent effort to make our town’s public elementary school classrooms less safe and welcoming for children like our own, kids who have two moms, kids whose parents are gay or lesbian. Fortunately, the interim superintendent supported the school staff as they worked together to keep Estabrook’s classrooms safe and inclusive to all kids, regardless of what kind of family they come from."
So, she asserts David Parker and Brian Camenker wanted to make the schools "less safe" for her children! Camenker had answered that the week before:
"All David Parker asks is to be notified when adults discuss homosexual relationships or transgenderism with his 6-year-old son, and to be able to opt his son out of such discussions. That's it. By any objective measure, his requests are completely valid. And the Lexington parents who came to his side are serious and thoughtful. I had worked with these kinds of situations in Newton, so last January David called me for some advice. He needed some support, especially since so much of this emanates from national groups. Article 8 Alliance agreed to work with him."
Not a good enough explanation for the arrogant and condescending activists in Lexington. Reaching a new low, The Minuteman even published a reprimand from a 15-year-old calling Camenker immature!
Brian Camenker (director of Article 8 Alliance) had a guest commentary in the June 23 issue of the Lexington Minuteman, which answered their nonsensical earlier attacks on traditional moral values defended by his group. He wrote:
"They harangue that Article 8 is a 'hate group' because we oppose homosexual marriage. Across America, this is a mainstream position. Last November, 11 states voted that way, and [the] gay lobby in Massachusetts is afraid of a vote here. We're also critical of homosexuality being presented in schools, and of homosexual behavior in general. That's also a legitimate point of view, arguably supported by a majority of parents in this country."
Oh, the horror! How could he say there's something objectionable in homosexual behavior?!! This especially angered one Susan Cyr of Revere Street, who continued to try to link Camenker with the predestinationists from Kansas, and racists during the civil rights struggle:
"So thanks for helping clarify their [Article 8, David Parker, Rev. Snyder] positions as well. I'd like to use your quote to illustrate your position, 'We're also critical .... of homosexual behavior in general. That's also a legitimate point of view.' Thanks for that information. I think this quote speaks volumes about what you represent and I think Fred Phelps would agree with your position. So you are saying it's not really about school programs, families or marriage — it is about being gay. You are critical of people just because they are gay. You said you don't think this position is similar to racists in the Civil Rights struggle. Again, thanks for shining this very bright light on who you are!"
Ms. Cyr, think about this: Most Americans (including most of those who object to homosexual behavior) would say that what homosexuals do in the privacy of their own homes is their own business. At the same time, most Americans still believe that not only is homosexual behavior objectionable morally, it is against nature, it is perverted, and it is a grave concern for the public health. (People are just more hesitant to say so now, because they don't like being called "homophobes".)
But when homosexuals push their behavior in our faces, promote it, and demand societal approval, it's an altogether different thing. That's the problem now: homosexuals' sexuality is no longer a private matter. The homosexual radicals have politicized it and now brazenly insist:
"We will do it in our bedrooms, AND ... we will label our homosexuality a 'right' in the State House, we will proclaim it moral in your churches, we will publish it in your newspaper wedding pages, we will exhibit it on the sidewalks, we will throw out first pitches and cruise at Fenway Park, and WE WILL INDOCTRINATE YOUR CHILDREN IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND BRING AS MANY OF THEM INTO THE LIFESTYLE AS POSSIBLE."
But, according to Ms. Cyr, to object is hateful and equivalent to racism!
Getting back to Camenker's guest opinion, he also wrote:
"There's the Orwellian comparison, constantly repeated, describing the school's imposition of homosexuality on David Parker's child as 'inclusive' but Parker's concerns as 'divisive' and similar to racists in the Civil Rights struggle.
"They wail that Article 8 is an 'outside group.' That's where the real hypocrisy sets in. From the beginning, everything they've done has had the fingerprints of outsiders, from the ADL [Anti-Defamation League, connected to 'No Place for Hate'] to Human Rights Campaign to GLSEN to Freedom to Marry Coalition. It's everywhere.
"For example, Meg Soens claims she's just a concerned parent. But she taught a workshop, sponsored by the national homosexual organization GLSEN, titled, 'Getting Gay and Lesbian Issues Included in Elementary School Staff Development, Curriculum Development, and the PTA.' Earlier this year a GLSEN representative gave a presentation at the middle school. And isn't Carol Rose [who wrote a guest commentary against Parker and appeared on Boston TV criticizing him] the executive director of the Mass. ACLU?"
This same Meg Soens [click here for wedding photo] had a letter in the recent Minuteman which mentioned her wife's name twice. (Repetition is a key device in de-sensitizing the masses.) And she went on about how happy they were with the wonderful Lexington schools (where Soens wields tremendous influence), where their children are so fortunate to be enrolled. (It's all about happy children and families. Repeat that over and over. Also be sure to insinuate that those hateful people are trying to break up families!) She worries this paradise is threatened by evil forces:
"Celia and I moved here for the public schools , and we continue to appreciate what the school system and the town provides for our entire family. What has been a great year for our children, however, could easily have been tarnished by the recent effort to make our town’s public elementary school classrooms less safe and welcoming for children like our own, kids who have two moms, kids whose parents are gay or lesbian. Fortunately, the interim superintendent supported the school staff as they worked together to keep Estabrook’s classrooms safe and inclusive to all kids, regardless of what kind of family they come from."
So, she asserts David Parker and Brian Camenker wanted to make the schools "less safe" for her children! Camenker had answered that the week before:
"All David Parker asks is to be notified when adults discuss homosexual relationships or transgenderism with his 6-year-old son, and to be able to opt his son out of such discussions. That's it. By any objective measure, his requests are completely valid. And the Lexington parents who came to his side are serious and thoughtful. I had worked with these kinds of situations in Newton, so last January David called me for some advice. He needed some support, especially since so much of this emanates from national groups. Article 8 Alliance agreed to work with him."
Not a good enough explanation for the arrogant and condescending activists in Lexington. Reaching a new low, The Minuteman even published a reprimand from a 15-year-old calling Camenker immature!
Saturday, July 02, 2005
Convicted Child Molesters Run San Diego Gay Pride Event
We learn from our friends at Traditional Values Colation that convicted child molesters are helping to run the San Diego "Gay Pride" celebration. And their governor sends his best wishes for their continued success.
This makes us ponder recent events at Brookline High School (the GLSEN conference), "Youth Pride" day in Boston, and the BAGLY gay prom, where the young people of our state were drawn into, perhaps, similar circles of adults. (And don't forget the regular meetings and special events run by the gay clubs in our high schools.) Do we really know who organizes and shows up at these events, besides our children?
Here is Traditional Values Coalition's June 30 press release:
COALITION URGES TWO SAN DIEGO SEX OFFENDERS:
SURRENDER TO AUTHORITIES
Gov. Schwarzenegger Sent Endorsement Letter to Pedophiles’ Event
Washington, DC – The Traditional Values Coalition urged two convicted child molesters who are officials of the upcoming San Diego ”Gay Pride” celebration to surrender to authorities for violating the federal Megan’s law.
The two men, Warren Patrick Derichsweiler also known as Ric Derichsweiler and Daniel Reiger, are both listed as supervisors or coordinators in the official program of the July 29-31 San Diego Gay Pride Parade and Festival, according to the James Hartline Report.
The San Diego Gay Pride organization is also the sponsor of the recent San Diego Gay Youth Pride event.
“We believe these men have violated the federal Megan’s law by working directly with minors who are involved in the Gay Pride event,” said TVC Chairman Rev. Louis P. Sheldon. “We urged them to surrender to local authorities and cooperate with any investigation.”
“Of course, we are disappointed but not surprised at Governor Schwarzenegger’s clumsy endorsement of this event. Mr. Schwarzenegger told one interviewer during his campaign that he did not give a ---- about homosexuality and has regularly proven that as our governor. He is an embarrassment to law-abiding Californians and the conservative movement.”
Governor Schwarzenegger sent a letter of commendation to the Gay Pride Parade and Festival sending the event “my best wishes for every continued success.”
“California is proud to host events that celebrate diversity and support active civic participation,” the Governor’s letter stated. “I applaud your efforts to foster ties within your community and to promote cultural and social acceptance in our Golden State.”
Megan’s Law (U.S. Penal Code 290.95) states: “Sex offender registrants whose sex crime was against a victim under age 16 are prohibited from working, as an employee or volunteer, with minors, if the registrant would be working with minors directly and in an unaccompanied setting on more than incident or occasional basis or would have supervisory or disciplinary power over the child.”
According to the Megan’s Law website (www.meganslaw.ca.gov/), Derichsweiler has been convicted of Crimes against Children/Lewd or Lascivious and Lewd or Lascivious Acts with a Child Under 14 Years with Force. Reiger has been convicted of committing oral copulation with a person under 16 years of age.
This makes us ponder recent events at Brookline High School (the GLSEN conference), "Youth Pride" day in Boston, and the BAGLY gay prom, where the young people of our state were drawn into, perhaps, similar circles of adults. (And don't forget the regular meetings and special events run by the gay clubs in our high schools.) Do we really know who organizes and shows up at these events, besides our children?
Here is Traditional Values Coalition's June 30 press release:
COALITION URGES TWO SAN DIEGO SEX OFFENDERS:
SURRENDER TO AUTHORITIES
Gov. Schwarzenegger Sent Endorsement Letter to Pedophiles’ Event
Washington, DC – The Traditional Values Coalition urged two convicted child molesters who are officials of the upcoming San Diego ”Gay Pride” celebration to surrender to authorities for violating the federal Megan’s law.
The two men, Warren Patrick Derichsweiler also known as Ric Derichsweiler and Daniel Reiger, are both listed as supervisors or coordinators in the official program of the July 29-31 San Diego Gay Pride Parade and Festival, according to the James Hartline Report.
The San Diego Gay Pride organization is also the sponsor of the recent San Diego Gay Youth Pride event.
“We believe these men have violated the federal Megan’s law by working directly with minors who are involved in the Gay Pride event,” said TVC Chairman Rev. Louis P. Sheldon. “We urged them to surrender to local authorities and cooperate with any investigation.”
“Of course, we are disappointed but not surprised at Governor Schwarzenegger’s clumsy endorsement of this event. Mr. Schwarzenegger told one interviewer during his campaign that he did not give a ---- about homosexuality and has regularly proven that as our governor. He is an embarrassment to law-abiding Californians and the conservative movement.”
Governor Schwarzenegger sent a letter of commendation to the Gay Pride Parade and Festival sending the event “my best wishes for every continued success.”
“California is proud to host events that celebrate diversity and support active civic participation,” the Governor’s letter stated. “I applaud your efforts to foster ties within your community and to promote cultural and social acceptance in our Golden State.”
Megan’s Law (U.S. Penal Code 290.95) states: “Sex offender registrants whose sex crime was against a victim under age 16 are prohibited from working, as an employee or volunteer, with minors, if the registrant would be working with minors directly and in an unaccompanied setting on more than incident or occasional basis or would have supervisory or disciplinary power over the child.”
According to the Megan’s Law website (www.meganslaw.ca.gov/), Derichsweiler has been convicted of Crimes against Children/Lewd or Lascivious and Lewd or Lascivious Acts with a Child Under 14 Years with Force. Reiger has been convicted of committing oral copulation with a person under 16 years of age.
Thursday, June 30, 2005
Romney: Why Not Eliminate Gov's Commission on Gay & Lesbian Youth?
Governor Romney has a big opportunity to ingratiate himself with the majority of voters across America. All he has to do is ELIMINATE the "Governor's Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth". We understand he's pondering a veto of its proposed budget increase this week. That's good. But MassResistance asks: Why does this Commission exist at all?
Unfortunately for Romney, he inherited it from previous liberal governors. But he could at least try to change the landscape here in Massachusetts, and set an example for the rest of the country.
Does the Governor's Commission oversee and implement suicide prevention programs for our troubled young people? No. (The myth that "GLBTQI youth" are more prone to suicide is the excuse for having homosexuality promotion clubs and events in our schools.)
The Governor's Commission does, however, sponsor gay clubs and parades, and leads kids to the annual BAGLY prom at Boston City Hall. (BAGLY is a big promoter of transgenderism, transsexualism, intersex issues, and youth "questioning" of their normal sexuality.)
Presidential ambitions are running high. And the patience of average American voters with the radical homosexual agenda is running low. Governor Romney could score big by leading the country on this issue. Get the propaganda out of our schools!
From the Boston Globe, "Romney takes aim with veto pen" (June 30, 2005):
The Romney officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, declined to say what Romney will do about a 70 percent increase in spending on the Governor's Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth. That increase, to $425,000 from $250,000, has sparked the ire of a group that opposes gay rights and it presents a quandary for Romney as he mulls a presidential bid.
''If the governor does have national aspirations, the rest of the country doesn't buy this stuff," said Brian Camenker, director of the Article 8 Alliance. ''The governor has to decide where he stands on some of these issues."
The commission, created by Governor William F. Weld in 1992, is supposed to help prevent teen suicides and combat harassment of gay and lesbian youths. In talking about his opposition to gay marriage around the country, Romney has been careful to note that he does not condone discrimination against gays and lesbians.
Unfortunately for Romney, he inherited it from previous liberal governors. But he could at least try to change the landscape here in Massachusetts, and set an example for the rest of the country.
Does the Governor's Commission oversee and implement suicide prevention programs for our troubled young people? No. (The myth that "GLBTQI youth" are more prone to suicide is the excuse for having homosexuality promotion clubs and events in our schools.)
The Governor's Commission does, however, sponsor gay clubs and parades, and leads kids to the annual BAGLY prom at Boston City Hall. (BAGLY is a big promoter of transgenderism, transsexualism, intersex issues, and youth "questioning" of their normal sexuality.)
Presidential ambitions are running high. And the patience of average American voters with the radical homosexual agenda is running low. Governor Romney could score big by leading the country on this issue. Get the propaganda out of our schools!
From the Boston Globe, "Romney takes aim with veto pen" (June 30, 2005):
The Romney officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, declined to say what Romney will do about a 70 percent increase in spending on the Governor's Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth. That increase, to $425,000 from $250,000, has sparked the ire of a group that opposes gay rights and it presents a quandary for Romney as he mulls a presidential bid.
''If the governor does have national aspirations, the rest of the country doesn't buy this stuff," said Brian Camenker, director of the Article 8 Alliance. ''The governor has to decide where he stands on some of these issues."
The commission, created by Governor William F. Weld in 1992, is supposed to help prevent teen suicides and combat harassment of gay and lesbian youths. In talking about his opposition to gay marriage around the country, Romney has been careful to note that he does not condone discrimination against gays and lesbians.
In Their Own Words: GLBT Youth "Safety" Issue a Sham
How did GLSEN (Gay Lesbian Straight Education Network) get its foothold in our schools?
Kevin Jennings, founder & executive director of GLSEN, admitted in 1995 that the "safety" issue for "GLBT youth" was a ruse for getting their propaganda into our schools. The Massachusetts legislature and governor fell for it then. And sadly, the whole country followed suit. Here are Jennings' exact words:
“In Massachusetts, the effective reframing of this issue was the key to the success of the Governor’s Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth. We immediately seized upon the opponent’s calling card – safety – and explained how homophobia represents a threat to students’ safety by creating a climate where violence, name-calling, health problems, and suicide are common. Titling our report “Making Schools Safe for Gay and Lesbian Youth,” we automatically threw our opponents onto the defensive and stole their best line of attack. This framing short-circuited their arguments and left them back-pedaling from day one.”
A most clever strategy.
(6-30-05 pm: Sorry to our fans for forgetting the links earlier!)
Kevin Jennings, founder & executive director of GLSEN, admitted in 1995 that the "safety" issue for "GLBT youth" was a ruse for getting their propaganda into our schools. The Massachusetts legislature and governor fell for it then. And sadly, the whole country followed suit. Here are Jennings' exact words:
“In Massachusetts, the effective reframing of this issue was the key to the success of the Governor’s Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth. We immediately seized upon the opponent’s calling card – safety – and explained how homophobia represents a threat to students’ safety by creating a climate where violence, name-calling, health problems, and suicide are common. Titling our report “Making Schools Safe for Gay and Lesbian Youth,” we automatically threw our opponents onto the defensive and stole their best line of attack. This framing short-circuited their arguments and left them back-pedaling from day one.”
A most clever strategy.
(6-30-05 pm: Sorry to our fans for forgetting the links earlier!)
Wednesday, June 29, 2005
Canada's House Votes: Sodomy Is Good Basis for Marriage
The Canadian House of Commons yesterday gave its approval to sodomite unions as the basis of some sort of "family". As soon as the Canadian Senate formally approves same-sex "marriage", probably by the end of July, all appears lost in Canada. It will join Belgium, the Netherlands, and Massachusetts in the lunatic asylum of suicidal societies.
The AP story says "there are an estimated 34,000 gay and lesbian couples in Canada, according to government statistics." As if that somehow makes this vote reasonable. There are also hundreds of thousands of drug addicts in Canada. So should heroin be made legal?
Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin said, "We are a nation of minorities. And in a nation of minorities, it is important that you don't cherry-pick rights." Martin, identified as a Roman Catholic, "has said that despite anyone's personal beliefs, all Canadians should be granted the same rights to marriage." So why not let the polygamists and polyamorists have their rights too, Mr. Prime Minister? (Remember, we shouldn't "cherry pick rights"!)
"The debate in Canada began in December, when the Supreme Court ruled that passage of same-sex marriage legislation would not violate the constitution." No, only common-sense, morally-based legislation violates constitutions these days.
The cruel jokes about our northern neighbors may have some substance after all.
The AP story says "there are an estimated 34,000 gay and lesbian couples in Canada, according to government statistics." As if that somehow makes this vote reasonable. There are also hundreds of thousands of drug addicts in Canada. So should heroin be made legal?
Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin said, "We are a nation of minorities. And in a nation of minorities, it is important that you don't cherry-pick rights." Martin, identified as a Roman Catholic, "has said that despite anyone's personal beliefs, all Canadians should be granted the same rights to marriage." So why not let the polygamists and polyamorists have their rights too, Mr. Prime Minister? (Remember, we shouldn't "cherry pick rights"!)
"The debate in Canada began in December, when the Supreme Court ruled that passage of same-sex marriage legislation would not violate the constitution." No, only common-sense, morally-based legislation violates constitutions these days.
The cruel jokes about our northern neighbors may have some substance after all.
Tuesday, June 28, 2005
Transgenderism, Sexual Perversion, and the Fall of Rome
Many shocking and sad pictures appear in the June 16-22 issue of Bay Windows, puportedly celebrating "Gay Pride 2005" in Boston. Not least of which is the "Tranny Bois" photo (page 18 ... not published online... wonder why?) The tranny bois are exposing their scarred chests, where their breasts have apparently been surgically removed.
A historical parallel is found in ancient Rome, writes Leland D. Peterson (Emeritus Professor of English and Latin at Old Dominion Univeristy) in The New Oxford Review (June 2005). The editors warn that "this article may make you throw up, in which case YOU SHOULD NOT READ IT. If you do read it, don't send us any letter of complaint." (Sounds like a warning we should print for the readers of MassResistance.)
Getting back to sexual perversion and mutilation, Peterson claims that gay "intellectuals" like Andrew Sullivan are wrong to ignore or deny the connection between perverted sexual practices, gay "marriage", and a society's decline. "Gay marriage" was "a key element in the collapse of the Roman Empire," he says. "Something very much like the AIDS epidemic that has been the scourge of such 'gay' meccas as San Francisco, and now a worldwide epidemic, can be identified in the second century A.D."
"Same-sex 'marriage' was the invention of the Emperor Nero in the first-century A.D. In a comparatively long reign among the first-century Caesars (A.D. 54-68), he began as a talented and generous though youthful friend of the people, but degenerated in a mere 14 years to become the prototype of Lord Acton's axiom: Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
"Suetonius, a second-century Roman historian, began 'to list his follies and crimes,' which included at least three same-sex 'marriages.' Nero's first same-sex 'marriage' was preceded by a transgendering operation on his intended bride that was thought to be successful:
Having tried to turn the boy Sporus into a girl by castration, he went through a wedding ceremony with him — dowry, bridal veil and all — which the whole Court attended; then brought him home, and treated him as a wife. He dressed Sporus in the fine clothes normally worn by an Empress and took him in his own litter not only to every Greek assize and fair, but actually through the Street of Images at Rome, kissing him amorously now and then."
Read more, but have the barf bag ready.
A historical parallel is found in ancient Rome, writes Leland D. Peterson (Emeritus Professor of English and Latin at Old Dominion Univeristy) in The New Oxford Review (June 2005). The editors warn that "this article may make you throw up, in which case YOU SHOULD NOT READ IT. If you do read it, don't send us any letter of complaint." (Sounds like a warning we should print for the readers of MassResistance.)
Getting back to sexual perversion and mutilation, Peterson claims that gay "intellectuals" like Andrew Sullivan are wrong to ignore or deny the connection between perverted sexual practices, gay "marriage", and a society's decline. "Gay marriage" was "a key element in the collapse of the Roman Empire," he says. "Something very much like the AIDS epidemic that has been the scourge of such 'gay' meccas as San Francisco, and now a worldwide epidemic, can be identified in the second century A.D."
"Same-sex 'marriage' was the invention of the Emperor Nero in the first-century A.D. In a comparatively long reign among the first-century Caesars (A.D. 54-68), he began as a talented and generous though youthful friend of the people, but degenerated in a mere 14 years to become the prototype of Lord Acton's axiom: Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
"Suetonius, a second-century Roman historian, began 'to list his follies and crimes,' which included at least three same-sex 'marriages.' Nero's first same-sex 'marriage' was preceded by a transgendering operation on his intended bride that was thought to be successful:
Having tried to turn the boy Sporus into a girl by castration, he went through a wedding ceremony with him — dowry, bridal veil and all — which the whole Court attended; then brought him home, and treated him as a wife. He dressed Sporus in the fine clothes normally worn by an Empress and took him in his own litter not only to every Greek assize and fair, but actually through the Street of Images at Rome, kissing him amorously now and then."
Read more, but have the barf bag ready.
Sunday, June 26, 2005
ACLU: Will they demand marriage "rights" for polygamists next?
It's not just the Unitarians who like the idea of polygamous unions. Agape Press reports that the national head of the ACLU likes the idea too:
ACLU Now Defends Polygamy, Further Eroding Traditional Marriage
By James L. Lambert
June 24, 2005
(AgapePress) - In comments at an Ivy League school, the president of the American Civil Liberties Union has indicated that among the "fundamental rights" of people is the right to polygamous relationships -- and that the ACLU has defended and will continue to defend that right.
In a little-reported speech offered at Yale University earlier this year, ACLU president Nadine Strossen stated that her organization has "defended the right of individuals to engage in polygamy." Yale Daily News says Strossen was responding to a "student's question about gay marriage, bigamy, and polygamy." She continued, saying that her legal organization "defend[s] the freedom of choice for mature, consenting individuals," making the ACLU "the guardian of liberty ... defend[ing] the fundamental rights of all people."
The ACLU's newly revealed defense of polygamy may weaken the pro-homosexual argument for changing the traditional definition of marriage. Proponents of same-sex "marriage" have long insisted that their effort to include homosexual couples in that definition would only be that. However, conservative and traditional marriage advocates predict "other shoes will drop" if homosexual marriage is legalized -- perhaps including attempts to legalize polygamy and to changed current legal definitions of child-adult relationships.
ACLU Now Defends Polygamy, Further Eroding Traditional Marriage
By James L. Lambert
June 24, 2005
(AgapePress) - In comments at an Ivy League school, the president of the American Civil Liberties Union has indicated that among the "fundamental rights" of people is the right to polygamous relationships -- and that the ACLU has defended and will continue to defend that right.
In a little-reported speech offered at Yale University earlier this year, ACLU president Nadine Strossen stated that her organization has "defended the right of individuals to engage in polygamy." Yale Daily News says Strossen was responding to a "student's question about gay marriage, bigamy, and polygamy." She continued, saying that her legal organization "defend[s] the freedom of choice for mature, consenting individuals," making the ACLU "the guardian of liberty ... defend[ing] the fundamental rights of all people."
The ACLU's newly revealed defense of polygamy may weaken the pro-homosexual argument for changing the traditional definition of marriage. Proponents of same-sex "marriage" have long insisted that their effort to include homosexual couples in that definition would only be that. However, conservative and traditional marriage advocates predict "other shoes will drop" if homosexual marriage is legalized -- perhaps including attempts to legalize polygamy and to changed current legal definitions of child-adult relationships.
Friday, June 24, 2005
School Officials Can't Define "Diversity" in Sturbridge
They push "diversity" -- but they can't define it! What a surprise.
In the Worcester Telegram & Gazette, we read about the propaganda film "The Laramie Project" being force-fed to high school students at the Tantasqua Regional High School -- without parents being informed or given the chance to opt their children out. (This is the film which portrays Matthew Shepard's murder in Wyoming as a "hate crime", when in fact the murderers were thieving thugs on drugs.)
[from Worcester Telegram & Gazette, June 23. 2005]
Diversity issue roils Tantasqua
By James F. Russell
STURBRIDGE — The Tantasqua Regional School administration cannot say what the meaning of diversity is. The surprise admission by School Superintendent Kathleen H. Reynolds came during Tuesday’s school board meeting and has fanned the controversy that became public May 17 when some school board members criticized the administration’s decision to screen “The Laramie Project” during Tantasqua’s annual Diversity Week exercises in April.
School Committee members had questioned how the assembly promoted diversity and objected that parents were neither informed of the movie’s showing nor given the opportunity to decide whether their children should have watched the movie.
Reflecting public dissatisfaction with the school not notifying parents, Brimfield resident Ginger Rousseau read a statement at Tuesday’s meeting. She asked the school to provide “written notification to parents/guardians of all students at Tantasqua Senior High School detailing the substance and purpose of any assembly or program” and “that all students be allowed, with parental permission, to decline to attend.”
“The Laramie Project” depicts the 1998 murder of 21-year-old Matthew Shepard in Laramie, Wyo. New York Times theater critic Ben Brantley wrote that Mr. Shepard “in death has become the poster boy for the casualties of antigay violence.”
Ms. Rousseau handed school board Chairman Ronald Levine a petition signed by almost 100 district parents saying that they, “for various reasons, have become concerned about the amount of time spent on extracurricular assemblies.”
The movie screening was part of a mandatory student assembly during Diversity Week that was sponsored by the Gay-Straight Alliance at Tantasqua, according to school board member Susan Hilker of Brimfield. During Tuesday’s meeting, committee member Michael Kennedy of Holland said to Ms. Reynolds, “I asked you at the last meeting (May 17) for a definition of the word diversity; I am prepared to hear it.”
“Unfortunately, we failed to get a definition of diversity,” Ms. Reynolds replied. “You have been teaching it for seven years now. I would think, as an educator, you would be able to define what you taught,” Mr. Kennedy said, referring to the Diversity Week programs that the school has held since 1999.
High School Principal James White said the school should acquaint students with “sexual preference issues” and “people who are not mainstream, so you can appreciate people” and their “different modes of diversity.” “That concerns me a great deal,” Mr. Kennedy said.
After Tuesday’s meeting, committee member Kathleen M. Neal of Sturbridge said some committee members are “stepping on toes” and interfering with the “prerogatives of the high school principal.”
“The logical extension of this is parents telling teachers what to teach,” she said. Meanwhile, Mr. Kennedy, Ms. Hilker and committee member William Gillmeister of Brookfield said the school has confounded the issue of diversity by weaving it to sexuality and that the school has no business encouraging minors to identify with forms of sexuality.
“For me, the overarching issue is about the school assembly promoting the normalcy of homosexuality,” Mr. Gillmeister said after the meeting. “Because Diversity Week and the Gay-Straight Student Alliance are promoting homosexuality at Tantasqua, parents want to know when such subjects are going to be covered at the high school, especially mandatory assemblies, so they can get their children excused from those discussions.”
At Tuesday’s meeting, the board voted 10-4 to approve a motion by James Cooke of Brookfield to request the curriculum subcommittee “to consider policy regarding assemblies”. Mr. Levine said he wants the subcommittee report by February. Last month, the School Committee rejected Mr. Gillmeister’s motion that would have directed the policy subcommittee to come up with a parental notification policy on “human sexuality assemblies in school.”
In the Worcester Telegram & Gazette, we read about the propaganda film "The Laramie Project" being force-fed to high school students at the Tantasqua Regional High School -- without parents being informed or given the chance to opt their children out. (This is the film which portrays Matthew Shepard's murder in Wyoming as a "hate crime", when in fact the murderers were thieving thugs on drugs.)
[from Worcester Telegram & Gazette, June 23. 2005]
Diversity issue roils Tantasqua
By James F. Russell
STURBRIDGE — The Tantasqua Regional School administration cannot say what the meaning of diversity is. The surprise admission by School Superintendent Kathleen H. Reynolds came during Tuesday’s school board meeting and has fanned the controversy that became public May 17 when some school board members criticized the administration’s decision to screen “The Laramie Project” during Tantasqua’s annual Diversity Week exercises in April.
School Committee members had questioned how the assembly promoted diversity and objected that parents were neither informed of the movie’s showing nor given the opportunity to decide whether their children should have watched the movie.
Reflecting public dissatisfaction with the school not notifying parents, Brimfield resident Ginger Rousseau read a statement at Tuesday’s meeting. She asked the school to provide “written notification to parents/guardians of all students at Tantasqua Senior High School detailing the substance and purpose of any assembly or program” and “that all students be allowed, with parental permission, to decline to attend.”
“The Laramie Project” depicts the 1998 murder of 21-year-old Matthew Shepard in Laramie, Wyo. New York Times theater critic Ben Brantley wrote that Mr. Shepard “in death has become the poster boy for the casualties of antigay violence.”
Ms. Rousseau handed school board Chairman Ronald Levine a petition signed by almost 100 district parents saying that they, “for various reasons, have become concerned about the amount of time spent on extracurricular assemblies.”
The movie screening was part of a mandatory student assembly during Diversity Week that was sponsored by the Gay-Straight Alliance at Tantasqua, according to school board member Susan Hilker of Brimfield. During Tuesday’s meeting, committee member Michael Kennedy of Holland said to Ms. Reynolds, “I asked you at the last meeting (May 17) for a definition of the word diversity; I am prepared to hear it.”
“Unfortunately, we failed to get a definition of diversity,” Ms. Reynolds replied. “You have been teaching it for seven years now. I would think, as an educator, you would be able to define what you taught,” Mr. Kennedy said, referring to the Diversity Week programs that the school has held since 1999.
High School Principal James White said the school should acquaint students with “sexual preference issues” and “people who are not mainstream, so you can appreciate people” and their “different modes of diversity.” “That concerns me a great deal,” Mr. Kennedy said.
After Tuesday’s meeting, committee member Kathleen M. Neal of Sturbridge said some committee members are “stepping on toes” and interfering with the “prerogatives of the high school principal.”
“The logical extension of this is parents telling teachers what to teach,” she said. Meanwhile, Mr. Kennedy, Ms. Hilker and committee member William Gillmeister of Brookfield said the school has confounded the issue of diversity by weaving it to sexuality and that the school has no business encouraging minors to identify with forms of sexuality.
“For me, the overarching issue is about the school assembly promoting the normalcy of homosexuality,” Mr. Gillmeister said after the meeting. “Because Diversity Week and the Gay-Straight Student Alliance are promoting homosexuality at Tantasqua, parents want to know when such subjects are going to be covered at the high school, especially mandatory assemblies, so they can get their children excused from those discussions.”
At Tuesday’s meeting, the board voted 10-4 to approve a motion by James Cooke of Brookfield to request the curriculum subcommittee “to consider policy regarding assemblies”. Mr. Levine said he wants the subcommittee report by February. Last month, the School Committee rejected Mr. Gillmeister’s motion that would have directed the policy subcommittee to come up with a parental notification policy on “human sexuality assemblies in school.”
Wednesday, June 22, 2005
Episcopalians & Unitarians: Pro-Gay All the Way--and Beyond
Bay Windows (June 16-22) reports on their fun fun fun Gay Pride parade last week. The "religious" underpinnings for their celebration were provided by the American Episcopal Church and the Unitarian Universalists.
American Episcopalians, renowned for their openly gay bishop in New Hampshire, now parade their Massachusetts Bishop Thomas Shaw at Gay Pride. He was so excited to be participating in his first Pride event! (And let's not forget the Globe recently ran the wedding photo of two brides, one of whom is the Episcopal priest from Bedford's St. Paul's Church.)
Bishop Shaw explained his theology: "You know that, the pope is wrong.... And the Christian fundamentalists are wrong. They think that they know about scripture but they don't -- at least not around the issue of who God loves and who God cherishes."
He said that Jesus was constantly "having the circle enlarged. What he'd known to be religious truth about who was acceptable and who wasn't acceptable, he let it be enlarged and enlarged and enlarged until with his offering on the cross and his death he says no one is outside the circle of God's love. That every one of us is embraced and loved by God." Shaw seems to be saying that Jesus was a bit confused and had limited understanding at first, but learned and grew as he experienced more of the human condition and saw more of the world! [Does Shaw believe Jesus was God and man?]
The "anything-goes" Unitarians have a long track record on homosexual "marriage". So it was only fitting that "they were hands down the largest contingent at Pride." The nearly 1000 UU marchers from congregations all around the state "filled several city blocks and created a sea of pink streamers." UUs have been "marrying" homosexual couples in their churches for 30 years. So keep your eyes and ears open for their next crusade, Polyamory.
Polyamory: group unions, or "marriages". This is where the Unitarians are taking us next. The age of the participants doesn't seem to be a factor in these group unions. Don't believe us? Check it out. Here's an excerpt from their statement:
"We, the member congregations of the Unitarian Universalist Association, covenant to affirm and promote ... The inherent worth and dignity of every person; Justice, equity and compassion in human relations; These two principles are a cornerstone of Polyamory Awareness."
"UUs for Polyamory Awareness defines polyamory as the philosophy and practice of loving or relating intimately to more than one other person [does not say adult] at a time with honesty and integrity. We advocate for any form of relationship or family structure -- whether monogamous or multi-partner -- which is characterized by free and responsible choice, mutual consent of all involved, and sincere adherence to personal philosophical values. We believe that honesty, integrity, and consent in personal relationships are essential to the affirmation of the inherent worth and dignity of one's partners."
They must come out of the closet: "Spiritual growth requires integration of one's relationships and one's religion, and Polyamory Awareness within UUism promotes this integration for polyamorous UUs. The closet can be a difficult place to live, and leaving a part of oneself behind when crossing the threshold of one's church can interfere significantly with one's spiritual search. Polyamorists need to bring our entire beings, including our relationships, into our religious homes, in order to pursue spiritual growth." ...
"Monogamy freely chosen is healthy. Compulsory monogamy for every person is idolatry. Visibility of an ethical alternative lifts monogamy out of idolatry into free choice."
As we will continue to point out, the radical homosexual movement opens up all these doors. Do you really want them opened?
American Episcopalians, renowned for their openly gay bishop in New Hampshire, now parade their Massachusetts Bishop Thomas Shaw at Gay Pride. He was so excited to be participating in his first Pride event! (And let's not forget the Globe recently ran the wedding photo of two brides, one of whom is the Episcopal priest from Bedford's St. Paul's Church.)
Bishop Shaw explained his theology: "You know that, the pope is wrong.... And the Christian fundamentalists are wrong. They think that they know about scripture but they don't -- at least not around the issue of who God loves and who God cherishes."
He said that Jesus was constantly "having the circle enlarged. What he'd known to be religious truth about who was acceptable and who wasn't acceptable, he let it be enlarged and enlarged and enlarged until with his offering on the cross and his death he says no one is outside the circle of God's love. That every one of us is embraced and loved by God." Shaw seems to be saying that Jesus was a bit confused and had limited understanding at first, but learned and grew as he experienced more of the human condition and saw more of the world! [Does Shaw believe Jesus was God and man?]
The "anything-goes" Unitarians have a long track record on homosexual "marriage". So it was only fitting that "they were hands down the largest contingent at Pride." The nearly 1000 UU marchers from congregations all around the state "filled several city blocks and created a sea of pink streamers." UUs have been "marrying" homosexual couples in their churches for 30 years. So keep your eyes and ears open for their next crusade, Polyamory.
Polyamory: group unions, or "marriages". This is where the Unitarians are taking us next. The age of the participants doesn't seem to be a factor in these group unions. Don't believe us? Check it out. Here's an excerpt from their statement:
"We, the member congregations of the Unitarian Universalist Association, covenant to affirm and promote ... The inherent worth and dignity of every person; Justice, equity and compassion in human relations; These two principles are a cornerstone of Polyamory Awareness."
"UUs for Polyamory Awareness defines polyamory as the philosophy and practice of loving or relating intimately to more than one other person [does not say adult] at a time with honesty and integrity. We advocate for any form of relationship or family structure -- whether monogamous or multi-partner -- which is characterized by free and responsible choice, mutual consent of all involved, and sincere adherence to personal philosophical values. We believe that honesty, integrity, and consent in personal relationships are essential to the affirmation of the inherent worth and dignity of one's partners."
They must come out of the closet: "Spiritual growth requires integration of one's relationships and one's religion, and Polyamory Awareness within UUism promotes this integration for polyamorous UUs. The closet can be a difficult place to live, and leaving a part of oneself behind when crossing the threshold of one's church can interfere significantly with one's spiritual search. Polyamorists need to bring our entire beings, including our relationships, into our religious homes, in order to pursue spiritual growth." ...
"Monogamy freely chosen is healthy. Compulsory monogamy for every person is idolatry. Visibility of an ethical alternative lifts monogamy out of idolatry into free choice."
As we will continue to point out, the radical homosexual movement opens up all these doors. Do you really want them opened?
Monday, June 20, 2005
What's Wrong with this "Wedding" Picture?
How can we help doing a second take when the Boston Sunday Globe heading is "Brides" and "Weddings" (p. H56, June 19, 2005). ... And there, among the 17 photos of bride/groom couples, we see the "wedding" photo of Charles a Frates III and Francis Fornaro? It would have been helpful if their paragraph had informed us which of them is the "bride". Maybe they're both "brides"? (Or maybe the Globe made an error? -- impossible!)
One of the brides, "Rev." Francis Fornaro, is priest and rector at St. Paul's Church in Bedford. Both brides have connections to Lexington (where they live) and Bedford, where the Rev. Fornaro ministers to his flock. Think of the fun they must be having in Lexington, piling on David Parker. And we have no doubt they helped hand out pink triangles at the "diversity vigil" a few weeks back in Bedford. Here is their "wedding" notice:
Charles A. Frates III and the Rev. Francis Fornaro were married at St. Paul's Episcopal Church in Bedford. Frates is the son of Frances Frates of New Bedford and the late Charles Frates Jr. Retired after 36 years as a teacher and special education administrator in the Boston Public Schools, he is on the faculty of the Academy of Performing Arts in Orleans and the Dance Inn in Lexington. Rev. Fornaro, formerly a teacher and principal in the Boston Public Schools, is priest and rector at St. Paul's Church. He is the son of Grace and the late Sam Fornaro of Roxbury. The couple live in Lexington and Orleans.
One of the brides, "Rev." Francis Fornaro, is priest and rector at St. Paul's Church in Bedford. Both brides have connections to Lexington (where they live) and Bedford, where the Rev. Fornaro ministers to his flock. Think of the fun they must be having in Lexington, piling on David Parker. And we have no doubt they helped hand out pink triangles at the "diversity vigil" a few weeks back in Bedford. Here is their "wedding" notice:
Charles A. Frates III and the Rev. Francis Fornaro were married at St. Paul's Episcopal Church in Bedford. Frates is the son of Frances Frates of New Bedford and the late Charles Frates Jr. Retired after 36 years as a teacher and special education administrator in the Boston Public Schools, he is on the faculty of the Academy of Performing Arts in Orleans and the Dance Inn in Lexington. Rev. Fornaro, formerly a teacher and principal in the Boston Public Schools, is priest and rector at St. Paul's Church. He is the son of Grace and the late Sam Fornaro of Roxbury. The couple live in Lexington and Orleans.
Sunday, June 19, 2005
Canadian Bishop Harassed by Government for Opposition to Same-Sex "Marriage"
From Canada, we read that Bishop Fred Henry of Calgary is being harassed by the Canadian equivalent of the IRS in an attempt to intimidate and silence him for his opposition to same-sex "marriage". His gave testimony earlier this month before a Canadian legislative committee on the growing religious intolerance in that country. His comments on the twisting of our language and phony "rights" claims are to the point:
Religious freedom is central to the current debate about the re-invention of marriage. There is a growing spirit of religious intolerance in Canada and an inability to think critically. ...
Two individuals have filed a complaint against the Roman Catholic Diocese of Calgary and myself on the ground of sexual orientation in the area of "goods/services refused and terms of goods/services", and in the area of "publications, notices, signs and statements," based on my January 2005 Pastoral Letter.
These complaints are an attempt to intimidate and silence me and are without any foundation in fact. As a matter of fact, lodging these complaints constitutes a violation of my right of freedom of expression and freedom of religion guaranteed by the [Canadian] Charter [of Rights and Freedoms]....
Particular circumstances might lead to some future court legitimately trying to force religious officials to perform these [same-sex "marriage"] ceremonies against their conscience, though the justices decline to speculate on what those circumstances might be. It is disquieting that the Court would even raise the possibility.
Justice Minister Irwin Cotler has been quoted as saying that " a right is a right is a right." Although not a lawyer, but rather as philosopher-theologian, I would point out that his simple approach ignores two key facts.
Ordinary dictionary definitions of rights have a variety of options and there are vast differences between varied notions of rights, merely asserted, conventional, legal and natural. Governments may euphemistically call mass destruction of civilians "collateral damage." Such definitions misuse language. Definitions of marriage can be misused as well.
Varied uses and notions of rights reflect essential conceptual distinctions. Asserting that I have the right to fly the Concorde to Paris does not establish the right. Legally, I have no right to a university degree unless I meet certain legal University Senate requirements. Claiming the natural right to equality in income with Supreme Court justices does not establish the right. Rights are of various kinds and the application of racial models for same-sex rights claims conflicts in many ways with logical uses of analogies.
Claims of a "right" to same-sex-marriage are not the slam dunk Cotler thinks. The so-called "marriage act" as understood in ordinary language, refers to the unique act of sexual intimacy involving intercourse between a man and a woman.
In spite of Clintonesque interpretations of sexual acts, the ordinary usage remains entrenched in language. The so-called "marriage act" is not possible in same-sex relations. The acts in these relations are vastly different in origin, in real experience, and in goals.
The radical re-definition affects every order of human life from uses of logic to healthy moral and cultural life. This radical cultural shift accounts for the resistance of the majority of Canadians to redefinition of marriage on both religious and rational grounds. It is a mystery to the majority of Canadians as to why parliamentarians just don't seem to get it.
Religious freedom is central to the current debate about the re-invention of marriage. There is a growing spirit of religious intolerance in Canada and an inability to think critically. ...
Two individuals have filed a complaint against the Roman Catholic Diocese of Calgary and myself on the ground of sexual orientation in the area of "goods/services refused and terms of goods/services", and in the area of "publications, notices, signs and statements," based on my January 2005 Pastoral Letter.
These complaints are an attempt to intimidate and silence me and are without any foundation in fact. As a matter of fact, lodging these complaints constitutes a violation of my right of freedom of expression and freedom of religion guaranteed by the [Canadian] Charter [of Rights and Freedoms]....
Particular circumstances might lead to some future court legitimately trying to force religious officials to perform these [same-sex "marriage"] ceremonies against their conscience, though the justices decline to speculate on what those circumstances might be. It is disquieting that the Court would even raise the possibility.
Justice Minister Irwin Cotler has been quoted as saying that " a right is a right is a right." Although not a lawyer, but rather as philosopher-theologian, I would point out that his simple approach ignores two key facts.
Ordinary dictionary definitions of rights have a variety of options and there are vast differences between varied notions of rights, merely asserted, conventional, legal and natural. Governments may euphemistically call mass destruction of civilians "collateral damage." Such definitions misuse language. Definitions of marriage can be misused as well.
Varied uses and notions of rights reflect essential conceptual distinctions. Asserting that I have the right to fly the Concorde to Paris does not establish the right. Legally, I have no right to a university degree unless I meet certain legal University Senate requirements. Claiming the natural right to equality in income with Supreme Court justices does not establish the right. Rights are of various kinds and the application of racial models for same-sex rights claims conflicts in many ways with logical uses of analogies.
Claims of a "right" to same-sex-marriage are not the slam dunk Cotler thinks. The so-called "marriage act" as understood in ordinary language, refers to the unique act of sexual intimacy involving intercourse between a man and a woman.
In spite of Clintonesque interpretations of sexual acts, the ordinary usage remains entrenched in language. The so-called "marriage act" is not possible in same-sex relations. The acts in these relations are vastly different in origin, in real experience, and in goals.
The radical re-definition affects every order of human life from uses of logic to healthy moral and cultural life. This radical cultural shift accounts for the resistance of the majority of Canadians to redefinition of marriage on both religious and rational grounds. It is a mystery to the majority of Canadians as to why parliamentarians just don't seem to get it.
Friday, June 17, 2005
First Person Account: Homosexual Parenting Harms Children
A brave voice from Canada warns us that homosexual parenting is profoundly harmful to children. This is part of the dark truth that our politicians, media, and "progressive" citizenry don't want to hear. The author of the article below, Dawn Stefanowicz, lived the lifestyle with her father. She travelled the world, saw and experienced -- and was deeply wounded -- by it all. You can hear the travail in her voice when you speak with her.
We've communicated with her often, and she is most distressed to see what is happening in Massachusetts. She wants to be sure we're aware of the very serious threats to free speech already shutting down any dissent in Canada on homosexual issues. And she is warning us about the dangers to the children in many homosexual households. Read her first-person account [excerpts]:
"My name is Dawn Stefanowicz, I grew up in a homosexual household during the 60s and 70s in Toronto, exposed to many different people, the GLBT subcultures, and explicit sexual practices. I am currently writing a book, soon to be published, on this experience. As well, I was a witness at the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs on Bill C-250 (hate crimes), and I have presented at the local school board.
"My biggest concern is that children are not being discussed in this same-sex marriage debate. Yet, won't the next step for some gay activists be to ask for legal adoption of children if same-sex marriage is legalized? I have considered some of the potential physical and psychological health risks for children raised in this situation. I was at high risk of exposure to contagious STDs due to sexual molestation, my father's high-risk sexual behaviors, and multiple partners. Even when my father was in what looked like monogamous relationships, he continued cruising for anonymous sex.
"I came to deeply care for, love and compassionately understand my dad. He shared his life regrets with me. Unfortunately, my father, as a child, was sexually and physically abused by older males. Due to this, he lived with depression, control issues, anger outbursts, suicidal tendencies, and sexual compulsions. He tried to fulfill his legitimate needs for his father's affirmation, affection and attention with transient and promiscuous relationships. He and his partners were exposed to various contagious STD's as they traveled across North America. My father's (ex)partners, whom I had deep caring feelings for and associated with, had drastically shortened lives due to suicide, contracting HIV or Aids. Sadly, my father died of AIDS in 1991.
"Are my childhood experiences unique? According to a growing number of personal testimonies, experts, and organizations, there is mounting evidence of strong commonalities to my personal experiences."
Click here to READ MORE...
We've communicated with her often, and she is most distressed to see what is happening in Massachusetts. She wants to be sure we're aware of the very serious threats to free speech already shutting down any dissent in Canada on homosexual issues. And she is warning us about the dangers to the children in many homosexual households. Read her first-person account [excerpts]:
"My name is Dawn Stefanowicz, I grew up in a homosexual household during the 60s and 70s in Toronto, exposed to many different people, the GLBT subcultures, and explicit sexual practices. I am currently writing a book, soon to be published, on this experience. As well, I was a witness at the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs on Bill C-250 (hate crimes), and I have presented at the local school board.
"My biggest concern is that children are not being discussed in this same-sex marriage debate. Yet, won't the next step for some gay activists be to ask for legal adoption of children if same-sex marriage is legalized? I have considered some of the potential physical and psychological health risks for children raised in this situation. I was at high risk of exposure to contagious STDs due to sexual molestation, my father's high-risk sexual behaviors, and multiple partners. Even when my father was in what looked like monogamous relationships, he continued cruising for anonymous sex.
"I came to deeply care for, love and compassionately understand my dad. He shared his life regrets with me. Unfortunately, my father, as a child, was sexually and physically abused by older males. Due to this, he lived with depression, control issues, anger outbursts, suicidal tendencies, and sexual compulsions. He tried to fulfill his legitimate needs for his father's affirmation, affection and attention with transient and promiscuous relationships. He and his partners were exposed to various contagious STD's as they traveled across North America. My father's (ex)partners, whom I had deep caring feelings for and associated with, had drastically shortened lives due to suicide, contracting HIV or Aids. Sadly, my father died of AIDS in 1991.
"Are my childhood experiences unique? According to a growing number of personal testimonies, experts, and organizations, there is mounting evidence of strong commonalities to my personal experiences."
Click here to READ MORE...
Thursday, June 16, 2005
Anti-Military, Pro-Gay Lexington High School At It Again!
You'd never know it was the birthplace of American liberty, where armed Minutemen once walked. Now, friends in Lexington have alerted us to the most recent skirmish in that hopelessly p-c town. From a concerned parent:
"We just received a letter from Michael Jones, Principal of the high school, informing us about how to opt-out from having our child's name given to armed forces recruiters, which is provided for as part of the No Child Left Behind Act....
"Very interesting that the school is sending this information and opt-out form to the families of every junior and senior, just to keep from getting on a list for possible solicitation by our armed forces recruiters vs. providing similar information for the Mass. Parental Notification Law !!"
Another parent writes:
"It baffles my mind, why I can't do the same thing with the homosexual recruiters. Jones is a Gay Activist supporter - without a doubt. His '... as soon as possible...' plea made me sick."
Here's the letter from the Principal:
[postmarked June 10th, 2005]
Lexington High School
251 Waltham Street, Lexington, Massachusetts 02421
Michael P. Jones, Ph.D. 781- 861-2320, ext.1000 Principal
email: mjones@sch.ci.lexington.ma. us
fax: 781-861-2440
June 2005
Dear Parents of Seniors and Juniors:
On January 8, 2002, President George Bush signed into law the "No Child Left Behind Act of 2001." Part of the law -" Armed Forces Recruiter Access to Students and Student Recruiting Information" -requires that we give names, addresses, and phone numbers of seniors and juniors unless parents give us written instructions not to do so. Please complete the form below and return it to me as soon as possible if you do NOT want your child's name given to recruiters for the armed services.
Sincerely,
Michael P. Jones
"We just received a letter from Michael Jones, Principal of the high school, informing us about how to opt-out from having our child's name given to armed forces recruiters, which is provided for as part of the No Child Left Behind Act....
"Very interesting that the school is sending this information and opt-out form to the families of every junior and senior, just to keep from getting on a list for possible solicitation by our armed forces recruiters vs. providing similar information for the Mass. Parental Notification Law !!"
Another parent writes:
"It baffles my mind, why I can't do the same thing with the homosexual recruiters. Jones is a Gay Activist supporter - without a doubt. His '... as soon as possible...' plea made me sick."
Here's the letter from the Principal:
[postmarked June 10th, 2005]
Lexington High School
251 Waltham Street, Lexington, Massachusetts 02421
Michael P. Jones, Ph.D. 781- 861-2320, ext.1000 Principal
email: mjones@sch.ci.lexington.ma. us
fax: 781-861-2440
June 2005
Dear Parents of Seniors and Juniors:
On January 8, 2002, President George Bush signed into law the "No Child Left Behind Act of 2001." Part of the law -" Armed Forces Recruiter Access to Students and Student Recruiting Information" -requires that we give names, addresses, and phone numbers of seniors and juniors unless parents give us written instructions not to do so. Please complete the form below and return it to me as soon as possible if you do NOT want your child's name given to recruiters for the armed services.
Sincerely,
Michael P. Jones
Tuesday, June 14, 2005
Judge Moore May Challenge Wimpy Republicans
Judge Roy Moore of Alabama, famous for his refusal to obey a federal court order to remove a Ten Commandments monument from the state courthouse, may run for governor in that state. This could bring on a big confrontation between Moore and President Bush, according to the Boston Globe ("Conservatives' popularity may be a problem for GOP"). We say, bring it on!
"If [Moore] wins, some party strategists speculate, he could defy a federal court order again by erecting a religious monument outside the Alabama state Capitol building. With the 2008 presidential race looming, President Bush would then face a no-win decision: either call out the National Guard to enforce a court order against a religious display on state grounds or allow a fellow born-again Christian to defy the courts.
"The pitched political warfare over the direction of the nation's courts has energized many GOP voters, but it has also produced a restless Christian right movement that contends Bush has been too moderate on issues ranging from gay marriage to judicial nominations to the Terri Schiavo case. These conservatives want Moore to run for president as a platform for their cause."
Here in Massachusetts, conservatives' frustration with supposed Republicans has become old-hat. Governor Romney has disappointed again and again, when even without the legislature behind him, he could have made many bold moves. (Ever hear of an Executive Order?)
We would love to see Republicans brought back to where they should be on the religious basis of our legal system and government . Maybe a Moore candidacy will accomplish that.
"If [Moore] wins, some party strategists speculate, he could defy a federal court order again by erecting a religious monument outside the Alabama state Capitol building. With the 2008 presidential race looming, President Bush would then face a no-win decision: either call out the National Guard to enforce a court order against a religious display on state grounds or allow a fellow born-again Christian to defy the courts.
"The pitched political warfare over the direction of the nation's courts has energized many GOP voters, but it has also produced a restless Christian right movement that contends Bush has been too moderate on issues ranging from gay marriage to judicial nominations to the Terri Schiavo case. These conservatives want Moore to run for president as a platform for their cause."
Here in Massachusetts, conservatives' frustration with supposed Republicans has become old-hat. Governor Romney has disappointed again and again, when even without the legislature behind him, he could have made many bold moves. (Ever hear of an Executive Order?)
We would love to see Republicans brought back to where they should be on the religious basis of our legal system and government . Maybe a Moore candidacy will accomplish that.
Monday, June 13, 2005
The Ruse of "Sexual Identity"
MassEquality, a homosexual lobbying group worried that their "right to marry" might be lost, recently sent out an email to their supporters. What struck us about their letter is MassEquality's use of the "sexual identity" concept:
"We have to face facts. Today, there are people who want to arrest us not because of what we do, but simply because of who we are." *
They claim that there is some distinct, inborn identity that makes one a homosexual ("who we are"). This is a ruse by the homosexual activists to squelch any objection to granting them the "rights" they demand. After all, if they are "born that way", how can we deny them anything they "need" in order to be self-actualized and confirmed? This "sexual identity" claim is important, because it's the basis of their portrayal of homosexual "marriage" as a "civil rights" issue.
At the Boston Marathon, we had a canvasser holding a small MassEquality sign and a clipboard to gather supporters' names. A woman came up and asked if the sign was about "gay marriage." Our canvasser politely explained our role in opposing the antigay amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution.
"That's disgusting!" the woman said. "I have children here. I'm calling the police."
And she did.
A policeman came, and said there was nothing he could do. Why? Because right now, the law is on our side. But it may not be for long.
We have to face facts. Today, there are people who want to arrest us not because of what we do, but simply because of who we are....
"We have to face facts. Today, there are people who want to arrest us not because of what we do, but simply because of who we are." *
They claim that there is some distinct, inborn identity that makes one a homosexual ("who we are"). This is a ruse by the homosexual activists to squelch any objection to granting them the "rights" they demand. After all, if they are "born that way", how can we deny them anything they "need" in order to be self-actualized and confirmed? This "sexual identity" claim is important, because it's the basis of their portrayal of homosexual "marriage" as a "civil rights" issue.
Dr. John Diggs points out that we are all born either male or female, period. He employs the analogy of a hockey player who is not born a hockey player, but becomes one through inclination, which in turn leads him to learn and practice hockey-playing behaviors. Note that this analogy does not deny the inclination some may possess to engage in homosexual behavior.
"Homosexuals" are not a separate class of human beings, but are just men and women who choose to engage in homosexual behaviors. They claim their identity is homosexual, but what they are really talking about is a chosen behavior.
Take another example: an adult heterosexual male who likes sex with as many young teenage girls as he can get his hands on. That's his inclination. What is his "sexual identity"? Serial statutory rapist? Is this a chosen behavior, or an inborn identity? If he claims it as his "sexual identity", should we then allow him free reign to engage in it, because it's "who he is"?
Or an adult heterosexual male who has sex only within the confines of a monogamous marriage to a woman. This may or may not be his inclination. (How often do we hear, from men especially, how difficult it is to be faithful?) What is his "sexual identity"? Faithful husband? Is this a chosen behavior, or an inborn identity?
Other questions arise from within the "GLBTQI family":
"Bi-sexuals" include sex with both same-sex and opposite-sex partners in their repertoire. To say that "bi-sexuality" is an "identity", an inborn trait, is therefore laughable, since it includes almost any sexual behavior imaginable. This is a contradiction, since identity as a concept is limiting, not all-inclusive.
The "trans" community themselves say their "identities" are "fluid". If an identity is fluid, isn't it meaningless?
One last example: Ex-gays, or former homosexuals, will tell you that for a period in their lives they engaged in homosexual sex and other "gay" behaviors. That is what they did. But they changed their behaviors. Their homosexuality was not an unchangeable, inborn "identity". This is why practicing homosexuals want to deny the very existence of ex-gays: They give the lie to the concept of inborn "sexual identity".
[*Let's leave aside their silly accusation that people are advocating arresting homosexuals on sidewalks. Their story below doesn't ring true; something seems to be missing. Here's an excerpt from the MassEquality email:]At the Boston Marathon, we had a canvasser holding a small MassEquality sign and a clipboard to gather supporters' names. A woman came up and asked if the sign was about "gay marriage." Our canvasser politely explained our role in opposing the antigay amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution.
"That's disgusting!" the woman said. "I have children here. I'm calling the police."
And she did.
A policeman came, and said there was nothing he could do. Why? Because right now, the law is on our side. But it may not be for long.
We have to face facts. Today, there are people who want to arrest us not because of what we do, but simply because of who we are....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)