Can you imagine pro-lifers having a "Respect Life" office in the State House? How about using a Department of Public Health email address for personal activism promoting abstinence education? Or Article 8 Alliance using the shield of Massachusetts as its logo for the group's letterhead ("Protecting the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts").
Compare this with the special privileges given to the radical homosexual activists:
GLBTQI radical activists have office space, phones and a mailbox at our State House: Governor's Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth, State House, Room 280, Boston, MA 02133, 617-725-4000 ext. 35312
The Mass. Lesbian and Gay Bar Association (www.MLGBA.org) former chairman and newsletter editor gets to use his Attorney General's office phone and email for radical activism: Robert.Quinan@ago.state.ma.us; 617-727-2200 x2554 (he's on leave till September).
A new radical group is using the official Commonwealth of Massachusetts shield for its logo: "Friends of the Governor's Commission for Gay and Lesbian Youth". Bay Windows reports that this group raised extra funds for the terribly underfunded commission ($30,000 by last December) and is disbursing checks to gay-straight alliance clubs in high schools across the state.
These are just the more OPEN radicals who've taken over our state government. Can you imagine how many others are working behind the scenes? Time to expose them, and strip them of special privileges. And time for Governor Romney to eliminate the Governor's Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth by executive order.
Sunday, July 31, 2005
Intellectual Underpinnings of "Trans" Activisim
Why is the "T" included in "GLBT"? The radical transgender/transsexual and homosexual movements share the goal of negating or overturning the traditional understanding of our God-given, natural biological gender. These extremists are engaged in an all-out effort to "normalize so-called sex change operations [and other deviant behaviors] and to deconstruct the reality of male and female in our culture." (See Traditional Values Coalition for more readings on the "trans" activist world.)
It's hard to take this topic seriously, until you see the photos of teenage boys in fishnet stockings and short dresses on parade at the Governor's "Youth Pride" parade in Boston; or read about boys going to their high school or college prom as a "queen"; or see the photos from Boston's Gay Pride events of the young women baring their scarred chests, with breasts removed; or hear about the push on college campuses to demand unisex bathrooms; or see the agenda for your local high school "awareness" days. This is what "gender identity" and "gender expression" include.
So we thought it might be interesting to look into the brains of these people. Here is an example of the "scholarship" supporting the transgenderl/transsexual revolution (out of Berkeley --
where else!):
www.genderf***.me:
cultivating transsexuality with the internet as a technology of the self
Jaime R. Balboa, Doctoral Candidate, Graduate Theological Union, Berkeley
Email: jaime@iglhrc.org
Queer theorists such as Judith Butler and Michel Foucault argue for or assume the amorphousness of human sexual desire and identity(ies)--an amorphousness which is staunchly regulated by hegemonic ideologies (i.e., compulsory patriarchal heterosexuality) and their concomitant technologies of the self. In this paper I shall explore the ways in which cyber-narratives, cyber-identities, and cybersex constitute a Foucauldian technology of the self which enables the cultivation of a transsexual sexual desire and identity. Correlatively, I shall argue that the fictive realm of the internet offers a means by which traditional (fictive) categories for being sexual, i.e., straight, gay, bisexual, are vigorously contested, indeed, deconstructed, by the performance of cybersex in its counter-hegemonic narrative frames. The internet, as a technology of the self, can provide a site for continual self-construction and deconstruction, providing for both (1) outlets of transgressive sexual desires and (2) the construction of transsexuality. I shall also argue that the effects of the internet on sexual identity are not entirely new. Rather, when understood through Butler's theory of gender performativity, it will become clear that the enactment of cybersex in the malleable context of the internet is a hyperbolic and deconstructive repetition of traditional sexual narratives.
It's hard to take this topic seriously, until you see the photos of teenage boys in fishnet stockings and short dresses on parade at the Governor's "Youth Pride" parade in Boston; or read about boys going to their high school or college prom as a "queen"; or see the photos from Boston's Gay Pride events of the young women baring their scarred chests, with breasts removed; or hear about the push on college campuses to demand unisex bathrooms; or see the agenda for your local high school "awareness" days. This is what "gender identity" and "gender expression" include.
So we thought it might be interesting to look into the brains of these people. Here is an example of the "scholarship" supporting the transgenderl/transsexual revolution (out of Berkeley --
where else!):
www.genderf***.me:
cultivating transsexuality with the internet as a technology of the self
Jaime R. Balboa, Doctoral Candidate, Graduate Theological Union, Berkeley
Email: jaime@iglhrc.org
Queer theorists such as Judith Butler and Michel Foucault argue for or assume the amorphousness of human sexual desire and identity(ies)--an amorphousness which is staunchly regulated by hegemonic ideologies (i.e., compulsory patriarchal heterosexuality) and their concomitant technologies of the self. In this paper I shall explore the ways in which cyber-narratives, cyber-identities, and cybersex constitute a Foucauldian technology of the self which enables the cultivation of a transsexual sexual desire and identity. Correlatively, I shall argue that the fictive realm of the internet offers a means by which traditional (fictive) categories for being sexual, i.e., straight, gay, bisexual, are vigorously contested, indeed, deconstructed, by the performance of cybersex in its counter-hegemonic narrative frames. The internet, as a technology of the self, can provide a site for continual self-construction and deconstruction, providing for both (1) outlets of transgressive sexual desires and (2) the construction of transsexuality. I shall also argue that the effects of the internet on sexual identity are not entirely new. Rather, when understood through Butler's theory of gender performativity, it will become clear that the enactment of cybersex in the malleable context of the internet is a hyperbolic and deconstructive repetition of traditional sexual narratives.
Friday, July 29, 2005
"By flagrant ardour inflamed" ... Clear Channel's "Gay" Porn Billboard
Our homosexual activist lurker critics (Hi to Gaston, Patrick, MassMarrier!) often accuse us of being obsessed with homosexual sex acts. Well, our answer to that is the usual: No, YOU're obsessed. Obsessed to the point that you make us look at it on the streets when we're just innocently walking or driving down Massachusetts Avenue pondering deep Cantabrigian thoughts.
We are referring, of course, to Clear Channel's "gay" porn advertisement for a hook-up website exposed by Article 8 Alliance.
A friend informed MassResistance that the photo of these two naked men hugging goes beyond suggestive. It's actually showing an "act in progress", in "standing doggie style". (Thought we'd better run this by Gaston. Was our informant correct?) Those of us familiar primarily with the missionary position and a few modest heterosexual variants were taken aback. Jeez, they are "by flagrant ardour inflamed"!
And we're obsessed? No we're upset. What is this doing on a billboard on a street anywhere in the country??? Maybe our friends at MassResistanceWatch will explain.
We are referring, of course, to Clear Channel's "gay" porn advertisement for a hook-up website exposed by Article 8 Alliance.
A friend informed MassResistance that the photo of these two naked men hugging goes beyond suggestive. It's actually showing an "act in progress", in "standing doggie style". (Thought we'd better run this by Gaston. Was our informant correct?) Those of us familiar primarily with the missionary position and a few modest heterosexual variants were taken aback. Jeez, they are "by flagrant ardour inflamed"!
And we're obsessed? No we're upset. What is this doing on a billboard on a street anywhere in the country??? Maybe our friends at MassResistanceWatch will explain.
Wednesday, July 27, 2005
New Sponsors of Dangerous "Lifestyle"
We're adding a few new names to the Hall of Shame, in light of the vile billboard near MIT and the announcement of the gay tourism push by the Greater Boston Convention and Visitors Bureau. (Also included are a few new advertisers seen in Bay Windows.) They are all making money by supporting depravity and a dangerous "lifestyle":
American Express, Avis, ClearChannel Communications, Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Jury's Boston Hotel, Poirier Appliances (Newton, Norwood), Stolichnaya Vodka.
It's not surprising that these companies and organizations are vying for GLBT money. We came across a report that explains it all:
GAY BUYING POWER PROJECTED AT $610 BILLION IN 2005
Latest Analysis by Witeck-Combs Communications and Packaged Facts
Washington, D.C. – January 31, 2005 –
The total buying power of the U.S. gay, lesbian and bisexual (GLB) adult population in 2005 is projected to be $610 billion, according to the latest analysis by Witeck-Combs Communications and Packaged Facts (a division of MarketResearch.com). The estimate was originally derived in a joint study by both organizations entitled, “The U.S. Gay and Lesbian Market.” In 2004, the gay buying power projection was estimated at $580 billion.
American Express, Avis, ClearChannel Communications, Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Jury's Boston Hotel, Poirier Appliances (Newton, Norwood), Stolichnaya Vodka.
It's not surprising that these companies and organizations are vying for GLBT money. We came across a report that explains it all:
GAY BUYING POWER PROJECTED AT $610 BILLION IN 2005
Latest Analysis by Witeck-Combs Communications and Packaged Facts
Washington, D.C. – January 31, 2005 –
The total buying power of the U.S. gay, lesbian and bisexual (GLB) adult population in 2005 is projected to be $610 billion, according to the latest analysis by Witeck-Combs Communications and Packaged Facts (a division of MarketResearch.com). The estimate was originally derived in a joint study by both organizations entitled, “The U.S. Gay and Lesbian Market.” In 2004, the gay buying power projection was estimated at $580 billion.
Tuesday, July 26, 2005
Governor Romney's Gay Judicial Appointments
Governor Romney has created some more problems for his Presidential campaign. His opportunity to pick decent conservative judges has gone largely unfulfilled. Only one quarter of his appointments have been Republicans (as if that meant anything in this state!).
Romney has, however, appointed two pro-gay "marriage" judges, one of whom is openly homosexual and was on the board of the Massachusetts Lesbian and Gay Bar Association! From the Boston Globe (7-25-05):
Romney said Friday that he has not paid a moment's notice to his nominees' political leanings or sexual orientation -- or to the impact his choices might have on a future presidential run. He said he has focused on two factors: their legal experience and whether the nominees would be tough on crime. He said most of the nominees have prosecutorial experience.
''People on both sides of the aisle want to put the bad guys away," Romney said....
Observers in the Bay State legal community, meanwhile, said they see a contradiction between Romney's judicial choices and his conservative rhetoric, including his stated opposition to same-sex marriage....
Romney, despite his opposition to same-sex marriage, in May selected for a district court judgeship Stephen S. Abany, a former board member of the Massachusetts Lesbian and Gay Bar Association who organized the group's opposition to a 1999 bill to outlaw same-sex marriage. Just two days before the nomination, Romney was lamenting the liberal tilt of the state's bench, telling Fox News that ''our courts have a record here in Massachusetts, don't they, of being a little blue and being Kerry-like."
Another Romney choice for the bench is Marianne C. Hinkle, a registered Democrat who worked as an aide to Governor Michael S. Dukakis in the late 1970s and prosecuted John C. Salvi III in the 1994 Brookline abortion clinic shootings. Hinkle, in her application for the bench, describes herself as a longtime active member of Dignity/USA, a group that advocates for expanded gay rights in the Catholic Church and society generally....
Romney has faced criticism from Governor's Councilors and some bar associations for failing to nominate more women, minorities, and defense attorneys to the bench. Seeking to counter such attacks, Romney's appointee to the chairmanship of the Judicial Nominating Commission, Boston lawyer Christopher D. Moore, has reached out to minority and women's bar associations to encourage members to apply. He's done the same with the state lesbian and gay bar association, which also has a seat on Romney's joint bar committee.
Romney has, however, appointed two pro-gay "marriage" judges, one of whom is openly homosexual and was on the board of the Massachusetts Lesbian and Gay Bar Association! From the Boston Globe (7-25-05):
Romney said Friday that he has not paid a moment's notice to his nominees' political leanings or sexual orientation -- or to the impact his choices might have on a future presidential run. He said he has focused on two factors: their legal experience and whether the nominees would be tough on crime. He said most of the nominees have prosecutorial experience.
''People on both sides of the aisle want to put the bad guys away," Romney said....
Observers in the Bay State legal community, meanwhile, said they see a contradiction between Romney's judicial choices and his conservative rhetoric, including his stated opposition to same-sex marriage....
Romney, despite his opposition to same-sex marriage, in May selected for a district court judgeship Stephen S. Abany, a former board member of the Massachusetts Lesbian and Gay Bar Association who organized the group's opposition to a 1999 bill to outlaw same-sex marriage. Just two days before the nomination, Romney was lamenting the liberal tilt of the state's bench, telling Fox News that ''our courts have a record here in Massachusetts, don't they, of being a little blue and being Kerry-like."
Another Romney choice for the bench is Marianne C. Hinkle, a registered Democrat who worked as an aide to Governor Michael S. Dukakis in the late 1970s and prosecuted John C. Salvi III in the 1994 Brookline abortion clinic shootings. Hinkle, in her application for the bench, describes herself as a longtime active member of Dignity/USA, a group that advocates for expanded gay rights in the Catholic Church and society generally....
Romney has faced criticism from Governor's Councilors and some bar associations for failing to nominate more women, minorities, and defense attorneys to the bench. Seeking to counter such attacks, Romney's appointee to the chairmanship of the Judicial Nominating Commission, Boston lawyer Christopher D. Moore, has reached out to minority and women's bar associations to encourage members to apply. He's done the same with the state lesbian and gay bar association, which also has a seat on Romney's joint bar committee.
Are Same-Sex Couples Anti-Diversity?
Our friend Bruce makes a good point about "diversity". While the other side preaches it, traditionalists practice it. He writes:
Our Constitution is already against gay marriage: "Equality under the law shall not be denied or abridged because of sex." (www.Constitution.MA*) The Constitution is about gender equality, about being inclusive, like the uniquely inclusive equality and gender diversity of one man + one woman!
In contrast, gay men categorically exclude women, just because women are different, in the name of "love" (and vice-versa). In fact, they say it is genetic. Imagine a genetic defect that biases a person to always be partial to one's own gender and denies and abridges gender equality, when it comes to 'love"! This is why homosexual "love" is called a perversion. This is gender-bias discrimination. This is diversity intolerance. This is unconstitutional gender bigotry.
*Note from MassResistance: If you search the Mass. Constitution, it doesn't mention "same-sex marriage". It does, however, mention "marriage" once, and says that only the Governor and Legislature (NOT the Supreme Judicial Court) have the authority to address matters of marriage:
Article V. All causes of marriage, divorce, and alimony, and all appeals from the judges of probate shall be heard and determined by the governor and council, until the legislature shall, by law, make other provision.
Our Constitution is already against gay marriage: "Equality under the law shall not be denied or abridged because of sex." (www.Constitution.MA*) The Constitution is about gender equality, about being inclusive, like the uniquely inclusive equality and gender diversity of one man + one woman!
In contrast, gay men categorically exclude women, just because women are different, in the name of "love" (and vice-versa). In fact, they say it is genetic. Imagine a genetic defect that biases a person to always be partial to one's own gender and denies and abridges gender equality, when it comes to 'love"! This is why homosexual "love" is called a perversion. This is gender-bias discrimination. This is diversity intolerance. This is unconstitutional gender bigotry.
*Note from MassResistance: If you search the Mass. Constitution, it doesn't mention "same-sex marriage". It does, however, mention "marriage" once, and says that only the Governor and Legislature (NOT the Supreme Judicial Court) have the authority to address matters of marriage:
Article V. All causes of marriage, divorce, and alimony, and all appeals from the judges of probate shall be heard and determined by the governor and council, until the legislature shall, by law, make other provision.
Monday, July 25, 2005
Gay Tourism in Boston
It was a bit of a secret when Rosie O'Donnell's two-mommies cruise ship docked in Boston two weeks ago (an "RFamily" tour). Now we'll see events like that more often, given the new $100,000 advertising campaign to promote Boston to the worldwide homosexual tourism market.
Our tourism official says that "transgender" tourists will be welcome as well. Does that mean you won't have to go to Provincetown to see men in skirts, fishnets, and high heels?
Homosexual tourism is about sex, but it's also about money. MassResistance addressed this topic several months ago. It underscores that there's little evidence of discrimination against the "gay" community, if they have such high incomes as a group that high-end advertising targets them.
Boston and Cambridge are rolling out the rainbow carpet (Boston Herald, July 20, 2005):
Tourism officials hope to lure more gay and lesbian travelers through a new $100,000 advertising and marketing campaign.
The Greater Boston Convention & Visitors Bureau has teamed with Man Around - a U.K. company billed as the world's largest long-distance gay-tour operator - to market Boston and Cambridge as gay-friendly destinations.
Gay and lesbian travelers are an attractive market for the tourism industry, according to Pat Moscaritolo, the convention bureau's chief.
"Because they have higher income, they have a propensity or ability to travel,'' Moscaritolo said. "They also have an affinity to support destinations and companies that support the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community.''
Those who book trips will receive a new eight-page gay and lesbian visitors guide to Boston and Cambridge, along with other promotional material. The guide touts Boston and Cambridge as having a "vibrant, creative and professional openly gay population, with many gays and lesbians active in cultural organizations and city, county and state politics.''
Do advertisements targeting any other segment of the touring population focus on the sexuality of the inhabitants at the destination? Maybe we should compare this to "sex tourism" in places like Thailand. Is this really so different? Granted, Thailand is known specifically for child prostitution. -- But isn't that where this slippery slope will take us? If the "gay" tourists are led by our tourism agency to the best "gay" nightclubs in Boston, how long before some of them take the next step? (Activists are already working to lower the age of sexual consent, and decriminalize prostitution. Then who can object to child prostitution, as long as the kid is over 12?... or 11? or 10?)
Our tourism official says that "transgender" tourists will be welcome as well. Does that mean you won't have to go to Provincetown to see men in skirts, fishnets, and high heels?
Homosexual tourism is about sex, but it's also about money. MassResistance addressed this topic several months ago. It underscores that there's little evidence of discrimination against the "gay" community, if they have such high incomes as a group that high-end advertising targets them.
Boston and Cambridge are rolling out the rainbow carpet (Boston Herald, July 20, 2005):
Tourism officials hope to lure more gay and lesbian travelers through a new $100,000 advertising and marketing campaign.
The Greater Boston Convention & Visitors Bureau has teamed with Man Around - a U.K. company billed as the world's largest long-distance gay-tour operator - to market Boston and Cambridge as gay-friendly destinations.
Gay and lesbian travelers are an attractive market for the tourism industry, according to Pat Moscaritolo, the convention bureau's chief.
"Because they have higher income, they have a propensity or ability to travel,'' Moscaritolo said. "They also have an affinity to support destinations and companies that support the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community.''
Those who book trips will receive a new eight-page gay and lesbian visitors guide to Boston and Cambridge, along with other promotional material. The guide touts Boston and Cambridge as having a "vibrant, creative and professional openly gay population, with many gays and lesbians active in cultural organizations and city, county and state politics.''
Do advertisements targeting any other segment of the touring population focus on the sexuality of the inhabitants at the destination? Maybe we should compare this to "sex tourism" in places like Thailand. Is this really so different? Granted, Thailand is known specifically for child prostitution. -- But isn't that where this slippery slope will take us? If the "gay" tourists are led by our tourism agency to the best "gay" nightclubs in Boston, how long before some of them take the next step? (Activists are already working to lower the age of sexual consent, and decriminalize prostitution. Then who can object to child prostitution, as long as the kid is over 12?... or 11? or 10?)
Sunday, July 24, 2005
Canada's Corrupted Legislators
Canada is the fourth country to fall for the homosexual extremists' propaganda that their demands are all about their "civil rights". On July 19, Canada's upper house voted to approve same-sex "marriage". The vote was 47-21, with 3 of 95 senators abstaining. (It's over now, as the lower house already approved the bill.)
How could this happen? Same way it does in the corrupted Massachusetts legislature. Most legislators don't have the moral fiber to stand up to the temptations of power and prestige, committee appointments, fancy trips, and of course the extra money they somehow get as one of the in-crowd. The other device: push the bill through fast, shutting down normal debate. (Sound familiar?) Here's how it worked in the latest Canadian vote:
"Canadian Senators Ordered to Vote in Favour of Gay "Marriage" Bill" (LifeSiteNews.com, July 18):
"Sources in Canada's parliament have revealed to LifeSiteNews.com that Liberal Senators have received a letter ordering them to be present for the vote on the same-sex 'marriage' bill C-38 and to vote in favour of it. The source indicated that the letter was followed up with direct phone calls to Senators. "I have never seen this degree of instruction and pressure," said one source.
"A source in the Senate confirmed the 'whipped' vote noting that going against the Liberal Government's expressed wishes could result in loss of perks and future opportunities. Opportunities such as international travel and important positions such as chairing committees can easily be withheld by the Leader of the Government in the Senate who is currently BC Liberal Senator Jack Austin.
"The homosexual 'marriage' bill C-38 will be brought back to the full Senate from committee without amendments tonight. Given a normal hearing, a bill of this magnitude could be debated at third reading for months, however, as the Liberals have shown they are ready to force the bill through, [in] an extremely expedited process..."
How could this happen? Same way it does in the corrupted Massachusetts legislature. Most legislators don't have the moral fiber to stand up to the temptations of power and prestige, committee appointments, fancy trips, and of course the extra money they somehow get as one of the in-crowd. The other device: push the bill through fast, shutting down normal debate. (Sound familiar?) Here's how it worked in the latest Canadian vote:
"Canadian Senators Ordered to Vote in Favour of Gay "Marriage" Bill" (LifeSiteNews.com, July 18):
"Sources in Canada's parliament have revealed to LifeSiteNews.com that Liberal Senators have received a letter ordering them to be present for the vote on the same-sex 'marriage' bill C-38 and to vote in favour of it. The source indicated that the letter was followed up with direct phone calls to Senators. "I have never seen this degree of instruction and pressure," said one source.
"A source in the Senate confirmed the 'whipped' vote noting that going against the Liberal Government's expressed wishes could result in loss of perks and future opportunities. Opportunities such as international travel and important positions such as chairing committees can easily be withheld by the Leader of the Government in the Senate who is currently BC Liberal Senator Jack Austin.
"The homosexual 'marriage' bill C-38 will be brought back to the full Senate from committee without amendments tonight. Given a normal hearing, a bill of this magnitude could be debated at third reading for months, however, as the Liberals have shown they are ready to force the bill through, [in] an extremely expedited process..."
Saturday, July 23, 2005
Our Right to Our Biological Heritage
In our last post, we wrote off the cuff about children's need and desire to know both biological parents. As more wacky ideas surface (e.g., creating egg cells from male stem cells so two male partners can "procreate"; two mommies but no daddy identified on birth certificates, etc.), we need to pay attention to the scholarly debate that's opened up on this. From our friend John:
So now [another] scholar writes that people should only be created by combining an egg and a sperm. Do you agree? There is no law against Same-Sex Procreation right now. After the law, a person won't have the right to procreate with someone of their same sex, but they will with someone of the other sex. We need everyone to back these ... proposals.... They are the answer to stopping Same-Sex Marriage.
David Blankenhorn is now saying that "Every child has the right to a natural biological heritage, defined as the union of the father’s sperm and the mother’s egg." [He also says, "Every child has the right, in so far as society can make it possible, to know and be raised by its two natural biological parents." And, "Every child has the right to know his or her biological origins. Individuals and society should typically refrain from creating genetic orphans." And "Children have the right to be heard. Today, the rights claims of adults tend to come through loud and clear. Children's voices are much harder to hear."]
This echoes Margaret Somerville's children's rights column. [Check out her musings in defense of hetero parenting too.]
So now [another] scholar writes that people should only be created by combining an egg and a sperm. Do you agree? There is no law against Same-Sex Procreation right now. After the law, a person won't have the right to procreate with someone of their same sex, but they will with someone of the other sex. We need everyone to back these ... proposals.... They are the answer to stopping Same-Sex Marriage.
David Blankenhorn is now saying that "Every child has the right to a natural biological heritage, defined as the union of the father’s sperm and the mother’s egg." [He also says, "Every child has the right, in so far as society can make it possible, to know and be raised by its two natural biological parents." And, "Every child has the right to know his or her biological origins. Individuals and society should typically refrain from creating genetic orphans." And "Children have the right to be heard. Today, the rights claims of adults tend to come through loud and clear. Children's voices are much harder to hear."]
This echoes Margaret Somerville's children's rights column. [Check out her musings in defense of hetero parenting too.]
And it echoes the President's Council on Bioethics, who over a year ago recommended that Congress "prohibit attempts to conceive a child by any means other than the union of egg and
And by way of contrast, let me link you to a LGBT group that insists on unfettered acccess to any and all reproductive technologies that a gay couple might want to use, and insists that they be safe and affordable, to boot.
We can start the fight against this stuff by enacting an egg-and-sperm law, and then work on donor conception and surrogacy. It will be much easier to fight those if we are able to point out that they are adultery, and that only married couples have the right to contribute gametes to create children. (We don't have to ban donor conception or surrogacy if it would create a backlash among hetero marriages that want to use sperm donation. We can just ban non-egg-and-sperm procreation.)
Go to John's blog for more discussion.
Friday, July 22, 2005
Birth Certificates: No, A Baby Can't Have Two Mommies
Things have gone too far: The inmates are running the asylum, and they are still complaining. They still don't have everything they can imagine. Meanwhile, the Governor only quibbles over minor details, but still gives in on the big stuff. (See "Birth certificate policy draws fire; change affects same-sex couples", Boston Globe, 7-22-05):
"Governor Mitt Romney's administration is advising hospitals to cross out the word father on birth certificates for the children of same-sex couples and instead write the phrase ''second parent," angering gay and lesbian advocates and city and town clerks who warn that the altered documents could be legally questionable.
"Eric Fehrnstrom, Romney's spokesman, said yesterday that the Department of Public Health, which the governor oversees, has been has been advising hospitals to alter the documents since last year, when the first children were born to same-sex married couples were born.
"Fehrnstrom insisted that the practice is legal. But city and town clerks, who register and store birth records, argue that the cross-outs on the birth certificates could make them open to challenges by passport agents, foreign governments, and other officials. They have repeatedly asked Romney to create a new birth certificate for the children of same-sex parents that would include gender-neutral nomenclature.
"But Romney has resisted, arguing that the Legislature must first pass a law authorizing such a change."
Time for a reality check for the "homosexual parenting" crowd. No, a baby CAN'T have two mommies. It's biologically and socially impossible. And Governor Romney is right to say our certificates should not be officially changed to read "Mother" and "Second Parent". Too bad he doesn't realize that this nonsense shouldn't even be hand-written in!
But Romney's lesbian-mommy critics are correct that his administration is inconsistent: They changed marriage licenses in May 2004 to read "Party A" and "Party B", instead of "Husband" and "Wife". So why can't they change birth certificates now? The same argument that the Governor is using to stop short of reprinting the birth certificates applies to marriage certificates too: Neither same-sex parent status nor same-sex "marriage" was ever made law, is without statutory basis, and is still not legal. So why did the Governor change the marriage certificates?
It's time for Gov. Romney to face up to his BIG MISTAKE in May 2004. He could have halted same-sex "marriage", but didn't. It was within his power to just say NO. He could have ordered the Department of Public Health and town offices NOT to issue "marriage" certificates to same-sex couples. But he wasn't a candidate for President then.
There's another very disturbing aspect to this story. All this sperm-bank, anonymous cellular-level parenting is creating a "brave new world" difficult for the child (and everyone else) to navigate. Children DO want and need to know who their biological fathers are. Adoptive parents know this very well. Adopted children yearn to know as many details about both biological parents as possible. Children in fatherless homes know in their guts something is missing. But the homosexual activists will answer that we just need to re-educate these children and society.
Common sense and everyday observation tells us that a father's absence is emotionally harmful to the child. Also, the medical history of the biological father would benefit the child, even if he is absent. As far as we know, this "brave new world" (including required identities and biological histories of sperm and egg donors) is an unregulated mess. And it's just going to get messier. There will be crazy custody battles when couples split, problems with recognition of legal parent when the family or one of the "mommies" moves out of Massachusetts, etc. The children of these unions will surely be harmed.
Governor Romney and the Mass. Legislature are complicit, along with the Mass. Supreme Judicial Court, in creating this disaster.
"Governor Mitt Romney's administration is advising hospitals to cross out the word father on birth certificates for the children of same-sex couples and instead write the phrase ''second parent," angering gay and lesbian advocates and city and town clerks who warn that the altered documents could be legally questionable.
"Eric Fehrnstrom, Romney's spokesman, said yesterday that the Department of Public Health, which the governor oversees, has been has been advising hospitals to alter the documents since last year, when the first children were born to same-sex married couples were born.
"Fehrnstrom insisted that the practice is legal. But city and town clerks, who register and store birth records, argue that the cross-outs on the birth certificates could make them open to challenges by passport agents, foreign governments, and other officials. They have repeatedly asked Romney to create a new birth certificate for the children of same-sex parents that would include gender-neutral nomenclature.
"But Romney has resisted, arguing that the Legislature must first pass a law authorizing such a change."
Time for a reality check for the "homosexual parenting" crowd. No, a baby CAN'T have two mommies. It's biologically and socially impossible. And Governor Romney is right to say our certificates should not be officially changed to read "Mother" and "Second Parent". Too bad he doesn't realize that this nonsense shouldn't even be hand-written in!
But Romney's lesbian-mommy critics are correct that his administration is inconsistent: They changed marriage licenses in May 2004 to read "Party A" and "Party B", instead of "Husband" and "Wife". So why can't they change birth certificates now? The same argument that the Governor is using to stop short of reprinting the birth certificates applies to marriage certificates too: Neither same-sex parent status nor same-sex "marriage" was ever made law, is without statutory basis, and is still not legal. So why did the Governor change the marriage certificates?
It's time for Gov. Romney to face up to his BIG MISTAKE in May 2004. He could have halted same-sex "marriage", but didn't. It was within his power to just say NO. He could have ordered the Department of Public Health and town offices NOT to issue "marriage" certificates to same-sex couples. But he wasn't a candidate for President then.
There's another very disturbing aspect to this story. All this sperm-bank, anonymous cellular-level parenting is creating a "brave new world" difficult for the child (and everyone else) to navigate. Children DO want and need to know who their biological fathers are. Adoptive parents know this very well. Adopted children yearn to know as many details about both biological parents as possible. Children in fatherless homes know in their guts something is missing. But the homosexual activists will answer that we just need to re-educate these children and society.
Common sense and everyday observation tells us that a father's absence is emotionally harmful to the child. Also, the medical history of the biological father would benefit the child, even if he is absent. As far as we know, this "brave new world" (including required identities and biological histories of sperm and egg donors) is an unregulated mess. And it's just going to get messier. There will be crazy custody battles when couples split, problems with recognition of legal parent when the family or one of the "mommies" moves out of Massachusetts, etc. The children of these unions will surely be harmed.
Governor Romney and the Mass. Legislature are complicit, along with the Mass. Supreme Judicial Court, in creating this disaster.
Thursday, July 21, 2005
Lemmings in the Mass. Legislature
Supposedly there's such a thing as socially conservative Democrats, even in Massachusetts. The sponsors of the Bill of Address (H652, to remove the four SJC judges who ruled for same-sex "marriage") are all Democrats. But every one of them (who was present on July 14) voted to increase funding for the homosexual propaganda programs in our public schools.
So here is MassResistance's question to our friends, Reps. Goguen (D), Nangle (D), Parente (D), Travis (D): Don't you see the connection between the homosexual propaganda in our schools and same-sex "marriage"? Haven't you noticed that the majority of recent high school graduates thinks that male-to-male "fisting" is on a moral par with heterosexual missionary-position intercourse ... and should receive the state sanctioning of legal "marriage"? Do you really want to help fund the gay clubs in our high schools, which lead our children to the GLSEN conference, which handed out the Little Black Book and told them to consider sex-change operations???
What matters to these Dems??? Party loyalty above preserving civilization??? Spending your tax dollars on whatever their leadership proposes, because that's what Dems do???
MassResistance sends a special THANK YOU, hugs, and kisses (though we don't want to sound too "gay") to our Republicans (not-in-name-only) friends in the House: Reps. Jones, Peterson, deMacedo, Evangelidis, Gifford, Hargraves, Loscocco, Perry, Poirier, Polito, Pope, Smola, and Webster. (And let's hope that these Republicans didn't stick with the Governor from purely fiscally conservative motives!)
Reprimands are in order for the following apparent RINOs (NO, it's NOT a "big tent"), Reps. Rogeness, Lepper, Frost, Gomes, Hill, and Ross. (Rep. Ross, we had high hopes for you. What happened?)
So here is MassResistance's question to our friends, Reps. Goguen (D), Nangle (D), Parente (D), Travis (D): Don't you see the connection between the homosexual propaganda in our schools and same-sex "marriage"? Haven't you noticed that the majority of recent high school graduates thinks that male-to-male "fisting" is on a moral par with heterosexual missionary-position intercourse ... and should receive the state sanctioning of legal "marriage"? Do you really want to help fund the gay clubs in our high schools, which lead our children to the GLSEN conference, which handed out the Little Black Book and told them to consider sex-change operations???
What matters to these Dems??? Party loyalty above preserving civilization??? Spending your tax dollars on whatever their leadership proposes, because that's what Dems do???
MassResistance sends a special THANK YOU, hugs, and kisses (though we don't want to sound too "gay") to our Republicans (not-in-name-only) friends in the House: Reps. Jones, Peterson, deMacedo, Evangelidis, Gifford, Hargraves, Loscocco, Perry, Poirier, Polito, Pope, Smola, and Webster. (And let's hope that these Republicans didn't stick with the Governor from purely fiscally conservative motives!)
Reprimands are in order for the following apparent RINOs (NO, it's NOT a "big tent"), Reps. Rogeness, Lepper, Frost, Gomes, Hill, and Ross. (Rep. Ross, we had high hopes for you. What happened?)
Wednesday, July 20, 2005
"Urinegate"; or Exposing the Total Depravity of the Mass. Legislature
What has “gay marriage” brought to Massachusetts? Liberals running wild in the Massachusetts Legislature, for one thing. The Chief of Staff of our Ways & Means Committee chairman saying he’s not at all bothered that our teenagers are being taught about homosexual “water sports”, i.e. urinating on each other for “sexual pleasure”. Read on...
Article 8 Alliance found out that the gay lobby had voted a 70% increase in funding for homosexual propaganda programs in our public schools through the “Governor’s Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth”. This Commission is behind the “Gay-Straight Alliance” clubs, “Day of Silence” events, and other twisted homosexual programs aimed at teens … including the event where the “Little Black Book” on homosexual sex acts (like “water sports”) was passed out to kids. Governor Romney vetoed the funding increase, responding to hundreds of calls from Article 8 supporters.
Article 8 then contacted the Ways & Means Committee office, chaired by Rep. Robert DeLeo of Winthrop, left a voice mail and sent an email to his legislative aide, asking about the override process and calendar. (Both messages clearly said it was Article 8 wanting the information.) DeLeo’s aide called Article 8’s office after hours (and heard the identifying message, “You have reached Article 8…”), then left a message. The aide said he intended to put the homosexual program funding items in his report, and onto the list to be overridden. (He clearly did not understand where Article 8 was coming from, though a little web check could have answered any doubts!) The aide's message:
“The gay and lesbian youth programs, the chair strongly supports, and as far as the public health funding, for the line items 4590 and 7010 -- both of those are obviously of great importance to him as well. So I think there's a good chance they will be taken up in an override...The chair is very, very, very supportive of these programs and sees a great deal of importance in them. So you can rest assured on that.”
On July 14, DeLeo sent the first part of the two vetoed budget increases to the floor for an override. And the override got passed “by the (apparently) brain-dead full House and Senate, which was more interested in getting to the Cape early than any serious debate.” (-- Article 8 email alert)
Then, DeLeo’s office got wind of Article 8’s report of his aide’s voice mail. They clearly didn’t like being exposed. DeLeo’s Chief of Staff, one Mr. Eisenberg, complained to MassNews:
++++++++++++++++++
From: Eisenberg, James (HWM) [mailto:James.Eisenberg@state.ma.us]
Sent: Monday, July 18, 2005 4:38 PM
To: editor@massnews.com
Subject: erroneous report
To the Editor:
Please remove or correct the story on your website entitled, “House Ways and Means Chairman, Legislators Must be Called.” It states that the Article 8 Alliance received a voice mail from an aide to State Representative Robert A. DeLeo. Such a voice-mail, and therefore its contents, were never proffered to the Article 8 Alliance. No aide of Representative DeLeo ever contacted the Alliance and no voice-mail was left. The report by the Article 8 Alliance is false.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
James C. Eisenberg, Chief of Staff
House Committee on Ways and Means
Chairman Robert A. DeLeo
State House, Boston, Massachusetts 02133
++++++++++++++++
Dear Mr. Eisenberg,
I was forwarded [your] email from MassNews.
The voice mail in question was most certainly left on our office phone system. If you care to call our office at 781-899-4905 I would be happy to play it for you.
I cannot believe that you would actually lie about something like this. But on the other hand, the fact that you people are behaving so dishonorably about this whole business of funding homosexuality in the public schools is an indicator that you've been on Beacon Hill far too long.
Brian Camenker
Article 8 Alliance
+++++++++++++++++++++++
Eisenberg spoke with Camenker and heard the voice mail from the aide. Then he wrote this letter to MassNews:
7-20-05 Letters to the Editor
To the Editor:
Please disregard my prior e-mail. Mr. Camenker replayed the voice-mail message for me and it indeed has the voice of a member of our staff. While my previous e-mail was not a lie, it was an error based on incomplete information on my part.
I apologize to Mr. Camenker for the mistake. As for the Chairman’s position on these budget line-items, as I indicated to Mr. Camenker, our office will soon be forwarding a position statement to the Article 8 Alliance which I will also forward to your news organization. Thank you for your attention to this manner and I again apologize for my error.
Sincerely,James C. Eisenberg, Chief of Staff
House Committee on Ways and Means
Chairman Robert A. DeLeo
State House, Boston, Massachusetts 02133
[MassNews] Editor's Note:
Thank you for your acknowledgement. We presume it was an honest mistake.
=== 3. A very chilling experience – just how bad it is on Beacon Hill. ===
I got a call yesterday morning from James Eisenberg, chief of staff of Rep. Robert DeLeo, chairman of the powerful Ways & Means Committee of the Massachusetts House of Representatives.
DeLeo is orchestrating an override of Gov. Romney's veto of a 70% increase of state funding for homosexual programs in the public schools. Parents across the state are livid, but DeLeo doesn't seem fazed.
I asked Eisenberg why DeLeo was willing to take so much heat for something as bad as this - money for homosexual programs in the schools. I just can't understand it, I said. This money goes for such poisonous things. Is he familiar with the "Little Black Book", I asked.
Yes, he knows about "The Little Black Book", he told me. Then he said something that completely floored me.
He mentioned the part where it discusses urination, as an example. He said he has no problem with it, or any other part of that book, as long as it's "clinically correct."
Clinically correct? First of all, it's not clinically or medically correct at all, I said. We've posted a letter by a physician that describes in detail the massive mis-information this book contains.
But wait a minute. Urination? I reminded Eisenberg what we're talking about here: the book (given to kids) describes people urinating on each other, and cautions its readers to be careful not to accidentally drink any of it. There's nothing medically or clinically correct about this. It's depraved. The book should say that to people.
"We have a difference of opinion," was Eisenberg's reply.
He went on to say that these programs are about saving lives. The proponents (the homosexual lobby) report that when the funding for these programs goes down, gay teen suicides go up. That's why they need to give them more money, so suicides will go back down.
I was stunned. These are complete lies, I said. I asked him if he'd actually looked at the statistics, or examined what these programs actually are. No, he hadn't personally done that. This is completely bogus, I told him. This is simply an excuse to get into the schools by the homosexuals. The State of Massachusetts, in its suicide statistics and records, does not keep track of "reasons" why anyone commits suicide. And has he looked at the "Youth Risk Behavior Surveys" given out in the schools, which they use to for their claims, I asked? These surveys are completely phony, and they ask all kinds of leading questions to impressionable kids. Any actual statistician would laugh at these surveys.
But worse than that, I said, these programs are not run by anyone with any medical qualifications, or legitimate experience in suicide prevention, such as the Samaritans. It's just homosexual activists pushing programs to normalize homosexuality in the minds of kids. In fact, these programs can be very destructive emotionally to kids who are at a vulnerable time in their lives emotionally.
"Well, we have a difference of opinion," he said again.
Why don't you people look at any of this with a critical eye? You don't question anything they tell you. Why do you just hand them money? He didn't respond to that.
He said he lived in the same town I do, and he knew about me, and my activities on these issues. So what does he think about that, I asked him. You people act as if you're "under siege," he told me.
I asked him if he has kids in the schools. He said no, he doesn't. I talked to him about the homosexual programs in the local schools - the transgender assemblies, the pamphlets asking if kids "if they hadn't had same-gender sex, how do they know they wouldn't like it", and the counseling sessions I'd witnessed, telling kids that if they feel "different" maybe they're really gay. Has he seen our postings about this on our web site? Yes, he had. But beyond that he didn't have any comment, except "We have a difference of opinion."
He reiterated that this is his personal opinion, but that he definitely supported these programs. He admitted that Rep. DeLeo could stop the veto of the funding increase from being overridden if he wanted to. But he did not dispute the observation from the other aide that DeLeo "Is very, very, very supportive of these programs and sees a great deal of importance in them. So you can rest assured on that."
So there you have it. Whatever Rep. Robert DeLeo once was - pro-life, pro-family - this is the person he's chosen to have as his chief of staff. A man who has no trouble with the state funding a book about people urinating on each other for sexual pleasure.
And Eisenberg's not at all alone. From what we've been told, he's more the rule than the exception among Legislative staff on Beacon Hill. This is absolutely beyond belief, but in 2005 this is what is actually happening, the force behind our legal process.
This is why the we all have to do the hard work of taking back control of our government. That's what Article 8 Alliance is dedicated to. That's why we're here.
Article 8 Alliance found out that the gay lobby had voted a 70% increase in funding for homosexual propaganda programs in our public schools through the “Governor’s Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth”. This Commission is behind the “Gay-Straight Alliance” clubs, “Day of Silence” events, and other twisted homosexual programs aimed at teens … including the event where the “Little Black Book” on homosexual sex acts (like “water sports”) was passed out to kids. Governor Romney vetoed the funding increase, responding to hundreds of calls from Article 8 supporters.
Article 8 then contacted the Ways & Means Committee office, chaired by Rep. Robert DeLeo of Winthrop, left a voice mail and sent an email to his legislative aide, asking about the override process and calendar. (Both messages clearly said it was Article 8 wanting the information.) DeLeo’s aide called Article 8’s office after hours (and heard the identifying message, “You have reached Article 8…”), then left a message. The aide said he intended to put the homosexual program funding items in his report, and onto the list to be overridden. (He clearly did not understand where Article 8 was coming from, though a little web check could have answered any doubts!) The aide's message:
“The gay and lesbian youth programs, the chair strongly supports, and as far as the public health funding, for the line items 4590 and 7010 -- both of those are obviously of great importance to him as well. So I think there's a good chance they will be taken up in an override...The chair is very, very, very supportive of these programs and sees a great deal of importance in them. So you can rest assured on that.”
On July 14, DeLeo sent the first part of the two vetoed budget increases to the floor for an override. And the override got passed “by the (apparently) brain-dead full House and Senate, which was more interested in getting to the Cape early than any serious debate.” (-- Article 8 email alert)
Then, DeLeo’s office got wind of Article 8’s report of his aide’s voice mail. They clearly didn’t like being exposed. DeLeo’s Chief of Staff, one Mr. Eisenberg, complained to MassNews:
++++++++++++++++++
From: Eisenberg, James (HWM) [mailto:James.Eisenberg@state.ma.us]
Sent: Monday, July 18, 2005 4:38 PM
To: editor@massnews.com
Subject: erroneous report
To the Editor:
Please remove or correct the story on your website entitled, “House Ways and Means Chairman, Legislators Must be Called.” It states that the Article 8 Alliance received a voice mail from an aide to State Representative Robert A. DeLeo. Such a voice-mail, and therefore its contents, were never proffered to the Article 8 Alliance. No aide of Representative DeLeo ever contacted the Alliance and no voice-mail was left. The report by the Article 8 Alliance is false.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
James C. Eisenberg, Chief of Staff
House Committee on Ways and Means
Chairman Robert A. DeLeo
State House, Boston, Massachusetts 02133
++++++++++++++++
Dear Mr. Eisenberg,
I was forwarded [your] email from MassNews.
The voice mail in question was most certainly left on our office phone system. If you care to call our office at 781-899-4905 I would be happy to play it for you.
I cannot believe that you would actually lie about something like this. But on the other hand, the fact that you people are behaving so dishonorably about this whole business of funding homosexuality in the public schools is an indicator that you've been on Beacon Hill far too long.
Brian Camenker
Article 8 Alliance
+++++++++++++++++++++++
Eisenberg spoke with Camenker and heard the voice mail from the aide. Then he wrote this letter to MassNews:
7-20-05 Letters to the Editor
To the Editor:
Please disregard my prior e-mail. Mr. Camenker replayed the voice-mail message for me and it indeed has the voice of a member of our staff. While my previous e-mail was not a lie, it was an error based on incomplete information on my part.
I apologize to Mr. Camenker for the mistake. As for the Chairman’s position on these budget line-items, as I indicated to Mr. Camenker, our office will soon be forwarding a position statement to the Article 8 Alliance which I will also forward to your news organization. Thank you for your attention to this manner and I again apologize for my error.
Sincerely,James C. Eisenberg, Chief of Staff
House Committee on Ways and Means
Chairman Robert A. DeLeo
State House, Boston, Massachusetts 02133
[MassNews] Editor's Note:
Thank you for your acknowledgement. We presume it was an honest mistake.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
And now, we get to the most appalling part, the “water sports” exchange. Camenker reports in an email to Article 8 supporters the content of his discussion with Eisenberg [from Camenker’s Article 8 email alert, 7-20-05]:=== 3. A very chilling experience – just how bad it is on Beacon Hill. ===
I got a call yesterday morning from James Eisenberg, chief of staff of Rep. Robert DeLeo, chairman of the powerful Ways & Means Committee of the Massachusetts House of Representatives.
DeLeo is orchestrating an override of Gov. Romney's veto of a 70% increase of state funding for homosexual programs in the public schools. Parents across the state are livid, but DeLeo doesn't seem fazed.
I asked Eisenberg why DeLeo was willing to take so much heat for something as bad as this - money for homosexual programs in the schools. I just can't understand it, I said. This money goes for such poisonous things. Is he familiar with the "Little Black Book", I asked.
Yes, he knows about "The Little Black Book", he told me. Then he said something that completely floored me.
He mentioned the part where it discusses urination, as an example. He said he has no problem with it, or any other part of that book, as long as it's "clinically correct."
Clinically correct? First of all, it's not clinically or medically correct at all, I said. We've posted a letter by a physician that describes in detail the massive mis-information this book contains.
But wait a minute. Urination? I reminded Eisenberg what we're talking about here: the book (given to kids) describes people urinating on each other, and cautions its readers to be careful not to accidentally drink any of it. There's nothing medically or clinically correct about this. It's depraved. The book should say that to people.
"We have a difference of opinion," was Eisenberg's reply.
He went on to say that these programs are about saving lives. The proponents (the homosexual lobby) report that when the funding for these programs goes down, gay teen suicides go up. That's why they need to give them more money, so suicides will go back down.
I was stunned. These are complete lies, I said. I asked him if he'd actually looked at the statistics, or examined what these programs actually are. No, he hadn't personally done that. This is completely bogus, I told him. This is simply an excuse to get into the schools by the homosexuals. The State of Massachusetts, in its suicide statistics and records, does not keep track of "reasons" why anyone commits suicide. And has he looked at the "Youth Risk Behavior Surveys" given out in the schools, which they use to for their claims, I asked? These surveys are completely phony, and they ask all kinds of leading questions to impressionable kids. Any actual statistician would laugh at these surveys.
But worse than that, I said, these programs are not run by anyone with any medical qualifications, or legitimate experience in suicide prevention, such as the Samaritans. It's just homosexual activists pushing programs to normalize homosexuality in the minds of kids. In fact, these programs can be very destructive emotionally to kids who are at a vulnerable time in their lives emotionally.
"Well, we have a difference of opinion," he said again.
Why don't you people look at any of this with a critical eye? You don't question anything they tell you. Why do you just hand them money? He didn't respond to that.
He said he lived in the same town I do, and he knew about me, and my activities on these issues. So what does he think about that, I asked him. You people act as if you're "under siege," he told me.
I asked him if he has kids in the schools. He said no, he doesn't. I talked to him about the homosexual programs in the local schools - the transgender assemblies, the pamphlets asking if kids "if they hadn't had same-gender sex, how do they know they wouldn't like it", and the counseling sessions I'd witnessed, telling kids that if they feel "different" maybe they're really gay. Has he seen our postings about this on our web site? Yes, he had. But beyond that he didn't have any comment, except "We have a difference of opinion."
He reiterated that this is his personal opinion, but that he definitely supported these programs. He admitted that Rep. DeLeo could stop the veto of the funding increase from being overridden if he wanted to. But he did not dispute the observation from the other aide that DeLeo "Is very, very, very supportive of these programs and sees a great deal of importance in them. So you can rest assured on that."
So there you have it. Whatever Rep. Robert DeLeo once was - pro-life, pro-family - this is the person he's chosen to have as his chief of staff. A man who has no trouble with the state funding a book about people urinating on each other for sexual pleasure.
And Eisenberg's not at all alone. From what we've been told, he's more the rule than the exception among Legislative staff on Beacon Hill. This is absolutely beyond belief, but in 2005 this is what is actually happening, the force behind our legal process.
This is why the we all have to do the hard work of taking back control of our government. That's what Article 8 Alliance is dedicated to. That's why we're here.
Tuesday, July 19, 2005
Why Do "Gays" Hate Ex-Gays?
Here are three websites that guaranteed to boil the blood of radical homosexuals:
www.exodus-international.org
www.sbministries.org
http://couragerc.net/ (See the recent article in MichNews.)
Why? Because they challenge the notion that people are born homosexual, or that people with same-sex attractions can't change. They all minister to homosexuals who are unhappy enough with their lives to at least entertain the idea of leaving the lifestyle; or support those who already have left; or support those who are struggling with same-sex attraction but know in their hearts it's wrong.
The hatred in the "gay" press towards these groups is evident in a recent editorial in the Washington Blade (a homosexual paper), "Lock up the 'ex-gays' ". Last week's Bay Windows had another attack piece challenging reparative therapy for gays. They're in denial that "ex-gays" can even exist, holding dearly to the concept that homosexuals are born that way and can't change. According to the Washington Blade:
"THE DAMAGE CAUSED to young gays by the views of “ex-gays” should not be underestimated. The two greatest weapons that opponents of gay rights wield against us are charges that gay men are pedophiles and that homosexuality is a choice. Overcoming those two obstacles would mean instant victory for the movement."
The Washington Blade points to the "reputable institutions", such as the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association and the American Medical Association, which have "repudiated reparative therapies as dangerous. As the [NY] Times story points out, the American Psychiatric Association actually endorsed gay marriage in the interest of promoting mental health."
Of course, there's another side to the story. These professional organizations have been co-opted by the radical homosexual movement (no one ever said that homosexual activists weren't smart strategists). There's a new book dealing with this problem: Destructive Trends in Mental Health, The Well Intentioned Path to Harm, by Rogers H. Wright, Ph.D., Nicholas A. Cummings, Ph.D., Sc.D.(March 1, 2005). From a review:
"Buttressed and burnished by a glittering Who's Who in scientific and professional psychology, Wright and Cummings persuasively and forcefully dramatize how the mental health professions will enhance patient benefits by removing from the therapeutic process such destructive barriers as political correctness and intrusive ideologies."- Robert Perloff, Ph.D., Distinguished Service Professor, Katz Graduate School of Business, University of Pittsburgh, and Former President, American Psychological Association.
"According to the editors of the new book DESTRUCTIVE TRENDS IN MENTAL HEALTH ... the fields of psychology, psychiatry, and social work have been hijacked by special interest groups who appeal to political correctness rather than science, to defend and promote their agendas.... And yet, in this unique instance, the accusations, questions, doubts and call-to-arms come from insiders, indeed central players, within the very organizations they attack.
"Operating under the premise that special interest groups have used faulty—even false—science to promote political agendas, contributing authors critically examine contemporary issues such as homophobia, the psychology of victimhood, cultural sensitivity... Controversial chapters challenge the APA's recent politically motivated stances on gay marriage, paedophilia, abortion, and boxing, exposing a disturbing trend in which ideology trumps science at the highest levels of a supposedly empirically based professional organization. "
www.exodus-international.org
www.sbministries.org
http://couragerc.net/ (See the recent article in MichNews.)
Why? Because they challenge the notion that people are born homosexual, or that people with same-sex attractions can't change. They all minister to homosexuals who are unhappy enough with their lives to at least entertain the idea of leaving the lifestyle; or support those who already have left; or support those who are struggling with same-sex attraction but know in their hearts it's wrong.
The hatred in the "gay" press towards these groups is evident in a recent editorial in the Washington Blade (a homosexual paper), "Lock up the 'ex-gays' ". Last week's Bay Windows had another attack piece challenging reparative therapy for gays. They're in denial that "ex-gays" can even exist, holding dearly to the concept that homosexuals are born that way and can't change. According to the Washington Blade:
"THE DAMAGE CAUSED to young gays by the views of “ex-gays” should not be underestimated. The two greatest weapons that opponents of gay rights wield against us are charges that gay men are pedophiles and that homosexuality is a choice. Overcoming those two obstacles would mean instant victory for the movement."
The Washington Blade points to the "reputable institutions", such as the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association and the American Medical Association, which have "repudiated reparative therapies as dangerous. As the [NY] Times story points out, the American Psychiatric Association actually endorsed gay marriage in the interest of promoting mental health."
Of course, there's another side to the story. These professional organizations have been co-opted by the radical homosexual movement (no one ever said that homosexual activists weren't smart strategists). There's a new book dealing with this problem: Destructive Trends in Mental Health, The Well Intentioned Path to Harm, by Rogers H. Wright, Ph.D., Nicholas A. Cummings, Ph.D., Sc.D.(March 1, 2005). From a review:
"Buttressed and burnished by a glittering Who's Who in scientific and professional psychology, Wright and Cummings persuasively and forcefully dramatize how the mental health professions will enhance patient benefits by removing from the therapeutic process such destructive barriers as political correctness and intrusive ideologies."- Robert Perloff, Ph.D., Distinguished Service Professor, Katz Graduate School of Business, University of Pittsburgh, and Former President, American Psychological Association.
"According to the editors of the new book DESTRUCTIVE TRENDS IN MENTAL HEALTH ... the fields of psychology, psychiatry, and social work have been hijacked by special interest groups who appeal to political correctness rather than science, to defend and promote their agendas.... And yet, in this unique instance, the accusations, questions, doubts and call-to-arms come from insiders, indeed central players, within the very organizations they attack.
"Operating under the premise that special interest groups have used faulty—even false—science to promote political agendas, contributing authors critically examine contemporary issues such as homophobia, the psychology of victimhood, cultural sensitivity... Controversial chapters challenge the APA's recent politically motivated stances on gay marriage, paedophilia, abortion, and boxing, exposing a disturbing trend in which ideology trumps science at the highest levels of a supposedly empirically based professional organization. "
Monday, July 18, 2005
GLBT Reproduction
GLBT parents: How do they reproduce? Many children are products of earlier hetero relationships, adoption, or surrogate parenting. And now, they hope for stem cell/test tube solutions.
It's a good question: How the "GLBT community" plans to biologically sustain itself, since they can't naturally reproduce. Maybe the "Bisexuals" will lend a hand? (Is that why they've included the B in GLBT?) We are told that "sexual identity" is fluid for many in the "GLBT community", so maybe they become "Bi" for a few days or months, so they can reproduce? (Though this conflicts with the claim that they're "born that way". ) It's all so confusing!
We know that the surrogacy business is doing doing well with GLBTs. Recently, "Growing Generations" (a GLBT surrogacy company) donated $50,000 to Family Pride Coalition. (Family Pride is organizing the huge GLBT family fair in Provincetown next week. In attendance will surely by the new director of Family Pride, Jennifer Chrisler, "wife" of former State Senator and briefly head of the "Human Rights" Campaign, Cheryl Jacques and their twin boys. Don't miss this event!)
Now, the GLBT community is excited about some new stem cell research which could be used to generate eggs from a man's (adult) cells. So homosexual couples could have children genetically related to both. (Still have to implant that embryo in a surrogate.) We assume this could be applied to two women as well. From ProudParenting.com:
Stem Cell Research May Provide Hope to Gay Couples (Copenhagen) - Stem cell research by British scientists shows that cells extracted from human embryos can develop in the laboratory into the early forms of cells that become eggs or sperm.
The research increases the likelihood that one day eggs and sperm needed for infertility treatment could be grown in a dish, huge news for the gay and lesbian community. Preliminary experiments also suggest that scientists may eventually be able to use the technique to create a supply of eggs for cloning.... The findings were presented Monday in Copenhagen at the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology....
Stem cells are the master cells of the body, appearing when embryos are just a few days old and developing into every type of cell and tissue in the body, including sperm and eggs.
For infertile couples, that approach would eliminate the need for donor sperm or eggs. But any treatment using eggs and sperm grown from stem cells, let alone from stem cells extracted from a cloned embryo, may be many years away...
"It opens new and challenging possibilities: because the technique can be used to generate eggs from a man's (adult) cells, gay couples could have children genetically related to both," said Anna Smajdor, a medical ethicist at Imperial College in London. "These possibilities raise new questions about how we define parenthood and about how we decide who has access to these new technologies," she said.
It's a good question: How the "GLBT community" plans to biologically sustain itself, since they can't naturally reproduce. Maybe the "Bisexuals" will lend a hand? (Is that why they've included the B in GLBT?) We are told that "sexual identity" is fluid for many in the "GLBT community", so maybe they become "Bi" for a few days or months, so they can reproduce? (Though this conflicts with the claim that they're "born that way". ) It's all so confusing!
We know that the surrogacy business is doing doing well with GLBTs. Recently, "Growing Generations" (a GLBT surrogacy company) donated $50,000 to Family Pride Coalition. (Family Pride is organizing the huge GLBT family fair in Provincetown next week. In attendance will surely by the new director of Family Pride, Jennifer Chrisler, "wife" of former State Senator and briefly head of the "Human Rights" Campaign, Cheryl Jacques and their twin boys. Don't miss this event!)
Now, the GLBT community is excited about some new stem cell research which could be used to generate eggs from a man's (adult) cells. So homosexual couples could have children genetically related to both. (Still have to implant that embryo in a surrogate.) We assume this could be applied to two women as well. From ProudParenting.com:
Stem Cell Research May Provide Hope to Gay Couples (Copenhagen) - Stem cell research by British scientists shows that cells extracted from human embryos can develop in the laboratory into the early forms of cells that become eggs or sperm.
The research increases the likelihood that one day eggs and sperm needed for infertility treatment could be grown in a dish, huge news for the gay and lesbian community. Preliminary experiments also suggest that scientists may eventually be able to use the technique to create a supply of eggs for cloning.... The findings were presented Monday in Copenhagen at the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology....
Stem cells are the master cells of the body, appearing when embryos are just a few days old and developing into every type of cell and tissue in the body, including sperm and eggs.
For infertile couples, that approach would eliminate the need for donor sperm or eggs. But any treatment using eggs and sperm grown from stem cells, let alone from stem cells extracted from a cloned embryo, may be many years away...
"It opens new and challenging possibilities: because the technique can be used to generate eggs from a man's (adult) cells, gay couples could have children genetically related to both," said Anna Smajdor, a medical ethicist at Imperial College in London. "These possibilities raise new questions about how we define parenthood and about how we decide who has access to these new technologies," she said.
Saturday, July 16, 2005
Massachusetts Leftists' Plan to End Ballot Initititives
It's truly amazing how the Leftists get away with portraying themselves as "Progressives" when they're really just working to consolidate their own power -- that is, the Leftist elite's power. A century ago, Progressives worked to secure a greater voice for the regular citizen in the political process. Now our "Progressives" are on the verge of passing a law in Massachusetts which will essentially kill the initiative process. ("Ballot initiative limits sought; Gay marriage foes seen as target", Boston Globe, July 16.)
Massachusetts is already the hardest state in the country for getting a question on the ballot through a citizens' initiative, requiring a large number of voter signatures gathered in a very short period. Now, the Leftists are proposing even tougher requirements on the process, and would "make it possible for groups opposing ballot questions to gain almost immediate access to the names and addresses of the people who signed the petitions, providing them an opportunity to persuade signatories to retract their support." This would really just be another intimidation tool, and possibly a means of tying up their opponent with lawsuits. The Lefitsts also want to toughen requirements on paid signature gatherers.
MassResistance does not even support Mass. Family Institute's new ballot question initiative, which seems to have prompted this rush to pass this hideous legislation. But we do support representative government, and hate to see it end this way. It's bad enough we live in a state where the Legislature and Governor didn't follow the Constitution last time a citizens' petition on marriage was brought in 2001... They just threw it in the trash, without even voting! Now, the Leftists are intent on keeping citizens from even knocking on the State House door.
Barbara Anderson of Citizens for Limited Taxation said, ''This Election Laws bill is a weak and phony front for hatred of the petition process that brings issues into the public arena for debate. The gay marriage issue, and all issues, would be better served by both sides expressing confidence in their position and trusting themselves to sell it to the voters, instead of expending resources preventing the campaign debate and driving a stake through the heart of the last best vox populi."
Massachusetts is already the hardest state in the country for getting a question on the ballot through a citizens' initiative, requiring a large number of voter signatures gathered in a very short period. Now, the Leftists are proposing even tougher requirements on the process, and would "make it possible for groups opposing ballot questions to gain almost immediate access to the names and addresses of the people who signed the petitions, providing them an opportunity to persuade signatories to retract their support." This would really just be another intimidation tool, and possibly a means of tying up their opponent with lawsuits. The Lefitsts also want to toughen requirements on paid signature gatherers.
MassResistance does not even support Mass. Family Institute's new ballot question initiative, which seems to have prompted this rush to pass this hideous legislation. But we do support representative government, and hate to see it end this way. It's bad enough we live in a state where the Legislature and Governor didn't follow the Constitution last time a citizens' petition on marriage was brought in 2001... They just threw it in the trash, without even voting! Now, the Leftists are intent on keeping citizens from even knocking on the State House door.
Barbara Anderson of Citizens for Limited Taxation said, ''This Election Laws bill is a weak and phony front for hatred of the petition process that brings issues into the public arena for debate. The gay marriage issue, and all issues, would be better served by both sides expressing confidence in their position and trusting themselves to sell it to the voters, instead of expending resources preventing the campaign debate and driving a stake through the heart of the last best vox populi."
Friday, July 15, 2005
Massachusetts Family Institute: Do They Or Don't They?
In April, the Massachusetts Family Institute (MFI) said that same-sex "marriages" were "unacceptable", now it says some of them are acceptable. In April, MFI said that same-sex "marriages" should be declared "null and void", as they are without legal basis; now it says we must respect the legality of existing same-sex "marriages". How can they have it both ways?
We've been rereading some of our email alerts from MFI, to try to get a handle on its new Mass. marriage amendment, and were reminded of this blatant contradiction. In April, MFI urged its supporters to attend the surprise Judiciary Committee hearing on the marriage bills filed by Article 8 Alliance. (The e-alert was sent out after Article 8 discovered the secretive Judiciary Committee hearing at the last minute. Of course, it's nowhere mentioned in its e-alert that Article 8 filed these bills to protect marriage:)
"Massachusetts Family Institute Special Alert April 8, 2005 Legislative Alert...
"Massachusetts Family Institute is asking our supporters to come to the State House on Tuesday for a legislative hearing on several bills pertaining to the issue of same-sex marriage. It is unfortunate that the Legislature has given only four days notice about a hearing on a policy issue as important as the definition of marriage, but we must not allow the short notice to prevent us from being there.
Last year you turned out by the thousands to send a loud and clear message to legislators that court-imposed homosexual marriage was unacceptable [emphasis added] and that they must act to remedy the situation. We must keep the pressure on them, and remind them that we have not gone away and that we have not given up the fight. ...
"HB652 [Bill of Address to remove the four SJC judges.]...
"HB653 Relating to a legislative amendment to the Constitution for the definition of marriage... [Note: Article 8 filed this as a BILL, not an amendment. Somehow, through apparent special privileges for a special guy, openly homosexual "married" State Senator Barrios managed to turn this House bill into a constitutional amendment, without its House sponsors ever being informed of the change! They make up the rules as they go along...]
"HB654 Relating to same sex marriages. This bill would declare same-sex marriage[s] null and void since state laws were never changed to permit same-sex marriage. (PRO-MARRIAGE)...
"Please join us on Tuesday and encourage others to do the same as we once again show our legislators that homosexual marriage is unacceptable and the definition of marriage must be restored for the good of children and society." [Emphasis added.]
Note that homosexual "marriage" was unacceptable to Mass. Family Institute in April. BUT NOW MFI is willing to ACCEPT same-sex "marriages" in its new citizens' petition amendment, which would grandfather in such "marriages" (existing prior to the amendment taking effect).
MFI has yet to explain how it could have supported H654 on April 12, but is now willing to compromise with the "unacceptable". In April, MFI seemed to understand there was no law supporting same-sex "marriage". Now MFI says it can't deny the legality of such "marriages".
There is no truth without consistency.
We've been rereading some of our email alerts from MFI, to try to get a handle on its new Mass. marriage amendment, and were reminded of this blatant contradiction. In April, MFI urged its supporters to attend the surprise Judiciary Committee hearing on the marriage bills filed by Article 8 Alliance. (The e-alert was sent out after Article 8 discovered the secretive Judiciary Committee hearing at the last minute. Of course, it's nowhere mentioned in its e-alert that Article 8 filed these bills to protect marriage:)
"Massachusetts Family Institute Special Alert April 8, 2005 Legislative Alert...
"Massachusetts Family Institute is asking our supporters to come to the State House on Tuesday for a legislative hearing on several bills pertaining to the issue of same-sex marriage. It is unfortunate that the Legislature has given only four days notice about a hearing on a policy issue as important as the definition of marriage, but we must not allow the short notice to prevent us from being there.
Last year you turned out by the thousands to send a loud and clear message to legislators that court-imposed homosexual marriage was unacceptable [emphasis added] and that they must act to remedy the situation. We must keep the pressure on them, and remind them that we have not gone away and that we have not given up the fight. ...
"HB652 [Bill of Address to remove the four SJC judges.]...
"HB653 Relating to a legislative amendment to the Constitution for the definition of marriage... [Note: Article 8 filed this as a BILL, not an amendment. Somehow, through apparent special privileges for a special guy, openly homosexual "married" State Senator Barrios managed to turn this House bill into a constitutional amendment, without its House sponsors ever being informed of the change! They make up the rules as they go along...]
"HB654 Relating to same sex marriages. This bill would declare same-sex marriage[s] null and void since state laws were never changed to permit same-sex marriage. (PRO-MARRIAGE)...
"Please join us on Tuesday and encourage others to do the same as we once again show our legislators that homosexual marriage is unacceptable and the definition of marriage must be restored for the good of children and society." [Emphasis added.]
Note that homosexual "marriage" was unacceptable to Mass. Family Institute in April. BUT NOW MFI is willing to ACCEPT same-sex "marriages" in its new citizens' petition amendment, which would grandfather in such "marriages" (existing prior to the amendment taking effect).
MFI has yet to explain how it could have supported H654 on April 12, but is now willing to compromise with the "unacceptable". In April, MFI seemed to understand there was no law supporting same-sex "marriage". Now MFI says it can't deny the legality of such "marriages".
There is no truth without consistency.
Wednesday, July 13, 2005
Sen. Santorum Viciously Attacked by Massachusetts Delegation
WOULD ANYONE DENY THAT HOMOSEXUAL "MARRIAGE" HAPPENED HERE IN MASSACHUSETTS BECAUSE IT'S A VERY "LIBERAL" PLACE? We don't think so. Can we blame it partly on the cultures of Boston, Harvard and the other universities, and the Jesuit Theological Seminary? Sure we can.
So why the sudden rage over a 2002 column by Senator Rick Santorum (Catholic Online), where he makes a connection between the sick culture here and the huge scale of the priest sex (read: homosex) abuse scandal in Massachusetts? Cultural relativism is the culprit, according to Santorum. It just so happens that Boston is a leading center and exporter of cultural relativism. Here's the larger context of Santorum's jab at Boston:
"Like most American Catholics, I have followed the recent sex scandals in the Church with profound sympathy for victims, revulsion over priests who prey on minors and frustration at the absence of hierarchical leadership.... The most obvious change must occur within American seminaries, many of which demonstrate the same brand of cultural liberalism plaguing our secular universities....
"It is startling that those in the media and academia appear most disturbed by this aberrant behavior, since they have zealously promoted moral relativism by sanctioning 'private' moral matters such as alternative lifestyles. Priests, like all of us, are affected by culture. When the culture is sick, every element in it becomes infected. While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at the center of the storm....
"A renewed, united effort of clergy and laity will transform the Church. That this does not already occur belies the greatest systemic failure of the Church in America where so many cradle Catholics have left the Church or go 'unchurched' because of exposure to uninspired, watered down versions of our faith by those with deficient seminary training. In light of recent events, the laity must guide them back."
The vicious attacks on Santorum by our beloved Massachusetts delegation demonstrate, once again, that the HATE is on the left. Sen. Teddy made a scene in the Senate, calling Santorum irresponsible and insensitive. Rep. Barney Frank (who fixed parking tickets for his male lover who turned Frank's home into a homosexual brothel) called Santorum a "jerk". Rep. Marty Meehan said Santorum is "encourag[ing] hatred for fellow human beings." Sen. Kerry, Rep. Tierney, and others piled on, including even Gov. Romney.
This should not come down to a numbers game on which city had the most abusive priests. But even the Boston Globe said that Mass. Attorney General Reilly's 2003 report showed 235 priests and church workers abused children. Compare this to Philadelphia's Archdiocese report of 44 abusive priests. That's because Harvard's here in Mass., and we all know that the University of Pennsylvania (in Philadelphia) doesn't hold a candle to Harvard.
So why the sudden rage over a 2002 column by Senator Rick Santorum (Catholic Online), where he makes a connection between the sick culture here and the huge scale of the priest sex (read: homosex) abuse scandal in Massachusetts? Cultural relativism is the culprit, according to Santorum. It just so happens that Boston is a leading center and exporter of cultural relativism. Here's the larger context of Santorum's jab at Boston:
"Like most American Catholics, I have followed the recent sex scandals in the Church with profound sympathy for victims, revulsion over priests who prey on minors and frustration at the absence of hierarchical leadership.... The most obvious change must occur within American seminaries, many of which demonstrate the same brand of cultural liberalism plaguing our secular universities....
"It is startling that those in the media and academia appear most disturbed by this aberrant behavior, since they have zealously promoted moral relativism by sanctioning 'private' moral matters such as alternative lifestyles. Priests, like all of us, are affected by culture. When the culture is sick, every element in it becomes infected. While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at the center of the storm....
"A renewed, united effort of clergy and laity will transform the Church. That this does not already occur belies the greatest systemic failure of the Church in America where so many cradle Catholics have left the Church or go 'unchurched' because of exposure to uninspired, watered down versions of our faith by those with deficient seminary training. In light of recent events, the laity must guide them back."
The vicious attacks on Santorum by our beloved Massachusetts delegation demonstrate, once again, that the HATE is on the left. Sen. Teddy made a scene in the Senate, calling Santorum irresponsible and insensitive. Rep. Barney Frank (who fixed parking tickets for his male lover who turned Frank's home into a homosexual brothel) called Santorum a "jerk". Rep. Marty Meehan said Santorum is "encourag[ing] hatred for fellow human beings." Sen. Kerry, Rep. Tierney, and others piled on, including even Gov. Romney.
This should not come down to a numbers game on which city had the most abusive priests. But even the Boston Globe said that Mass. Attorney General Reilly's 2003 report showed 235 priests and church workers abused children. Compare this to Philadelphia's Archdiocese report of 44 abusive priests. That's because Harvard's here in Mass., and we all know that the University of Pennsylvania (in Philadelphia) doesn't hold a candle to Harvard.
Tuesday, July 12, 2005
Socialism, Humanism, Gay "Marriage" -- Natural Bedfellows
"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"?
"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"?
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."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)