National "Coming Out Day" was last Tuesday, October 11. We knew we could count on Lexington High School to lead their students into a dangerous, sad, and unhealthy lifestyle on this special day... And we're sure that the scene at Lexington High was replicated all over the state.
A friend in Lexington informed us that students had a table in the Lexington High School cafeteria that day, urging students to "come out" and "declare their sexual identity" by signing something (we're not sure exactly what). Promotional literature was handed out. Some teachers were wearing rainbows on their name tags that day, urging students to follow the Pied Piper they've let into their school.
Would Lexington High School let students set up a table in the cafeteria for a pro-life cause? An abstinence program? A Bible study? We don't think so. But they can set up a table about sexual perversion, and tell fellow students that it's cool, awesome, bangin' !
Check out how a Newton, Mass. MIDDLE school newspaper informed its students a few years ago that the day was a national holiday.
Wednesday, October 19, 2005
Tuesday, October 18, 2005
Hate Mail, Hate Speech: Part III -- Media Intimidation Tactics
[See "Hate Mail or Criminal Harassment?" Part I and Part II below.)
Next in our little saga of hate speech, Gaston28@aol.com apparently teamed up with Boston media figures to try to intimidate Article 8 and MassResistance. This is the next level: hate speech by "respected" Boston media personalities.
The mainstream media in Massachusetts includes a filthy rag called the Boston Phoenix. We had a little fun a few months ago cataloguing the sins of their media writer, Dan Kennedy, as he aided and abetted the queer activists, such as the hate mailer Gaston.
Gaston didn't stop with his harassment at the Article 8 office. He sent comments to Dan Kennedy's media column, and apparently fed Dan's frenzy against Article 8 and MassResistance. (See Dan Kennedy's Hateful Rant, 4-20-05.)
(Dan is now Professor of Journalism at Northeastern University, where they hire only the best. He's also a commentator on WGBH-TV's "Greater Boston with Emily Rooney", and he has a brand new blog where you can reach him at da.kennedy@neu.edu.)
Dan was simply outraged back in April that anyone would object to the homosexual paper Bay Windows being handed out for free in neighborhood supermarkets. Don't we all want our young children to be able to pick up cover stories on the Pope's penis, or art reviews on lesbian anal sex, or advertisements concerning anal lubricants? Only homophobes would object! Here's what Dan said about Article 8 and MassResistance, when they did object:
"HOMOPHOBIA ON (AND OFF) THE RACKS. Brian Camenker and his merry band of hatemongers at the Article 8 Alliance are at it again. For weeks, they've been pushing for a ban on the gay-and-lesbian newspaper Bay Windows at local supermarkets.... The Article 8 folks, bless their twisted little hearts, have also included a link to this Washington Blade article about what you can do to get Bay Windows back on the racks. Thanks, Brian. And here's a gutless anonymous homophobe [that's me!] with a blog who's getting involved in the action. Good grief. I need a shower."
Gaston piled on in Dan's media column comments, for instance his April 20 entry:
["Ms. Massresistance"] is a coward. She's the worse [sic] the internet has to offer. She types insane diatribes and hate speech and takes no responsibility. Then she screams about freedom of speech while she keeps herself anomymous [sic]. All those Article 8 people are pretty scarey [sic]. I went down to Fenueil [sic] Hall last year when they brought in Family Values person Alan Keyes (yes, the family values man who cut off his daughter when he found out he [sic] was gay.) The [sic] lot of the people attending looked like the villians [sic] from Deliverance, i.e., his father is his brother is his grandfather, etc. They still don't get it that same sex couples can marry in this state. I recommend they go back to south [sic] where bigotry is not only tolerated but codified in law." (Submitted two days in a row, with different names.)
Dan let run other hate-filled comments, like this one from "Anonymous":
MassResistance: "She wants to spew hate and venom but not take responsibility for the damage her actions cause. She is truly an evil woman not unlike the Nazis. Why is she so obsessed with gay people?" or "this woman needs psychiatric help. So does Camenker..."
Then Dan co-hosted on WRKO 680AM's morning drive-time show (April 22), with Scott Allen Miller. Out of the blue, a whole half hour of the show was devoted to nasty name-calling directed at MassResistance! (How odd they should focus on this little tiny blog.) Dan claimed to be "almost 100% certain" of the identity of the "gutless anonymous homophobe" behind MassResistance, but since he wasn't absolutely certain, he would not reveal a name. (Such high journalistic standards... that must be how he got to be a professor.) Dan's never talked to us. How would he have any idea who we are? Well, we suspect Gaston gave him his idea.
Scott Allen Miller, host on the WRKO show (who is pro "gay marriage"), agreed with Dan and Gaston, and made his own snide remarks about our stone-age attitudes. (See MassResistance Under Attack by Boston Phoenix; Attacker to Co-Host AM680 radio morning show Friday! 4-21-05; Dan Kennedy & WRKO AM680 Slam MassResistance 4-22-05. Also, Dan Kennedy, Scorekeeping, Stop & Shop, etc. 4-29-05.)
(Coming soon: Part IV in our Hate Speech/Hate Crimes series.)
Next in our little saga of hate speech, Gaston28@aol.com apparently teamed up with Boston media figures to try to intimidate Article 8 and MassResistance. This is the next level: hate speech by "respected" Boston media personalities.
The mainstream media in Massachusetts includes a filthy rag called the Boston Phoenix. We had a little fun a few months ago cataloguing the sins of their media writer, Dan Kennedy, as he aided and abetted the queer activists, such as the hate mailer Gaston.
Gaston didn't stop with his harassment at the Article 8 office. He sent comments to Dan Kennedy's media column, and apparently fed Dan's frenzy against Article 8 and MassResistance. (See Dan Kennedy's Hateful Rant, 4-20-05.)
(Dan is now Professor of Journalism at Northeastern University, where they hire only the best. He's also a commentator on WGBH-TV's "Greater Boston with Emily Rooney", and he has a brand new blog where you can reach him at da.kennedy@neu.edu.)
Dan was simply outraged back in April that anyone would object to the homosexual paper Bay Windows being handed out for free in neighborhood supermarkets. Don't we all want our young children to be able to pick up cover stories on the Pope's penis, or art reviews on lesbian anal sex, or advertisements concerning anal lubricants? Only homophobes would object! Here's what Dan said about Article 8 and MassResistance, when they did object:
"HOMOPHOBIA ON (AND OFF) THE RACKS. Brian Camenker and his merry band of hatemongers at the Article 8 Alliance are at it again. For weeks, they've been pushing for a ban on the gay-and-lesbian newspaper Bay Windows at local supermarkets.... The Article 8 folks, bless their twisted little hearts, have also included a link to this Washington Blade article about what you can do to get Bay Windows back on the racks. Thanks, Brian. And here's a gutless anonymous homophobe [that's me!] with a blog who's getting involved in the action. Good grief. I need a shower."
Gaston piled on in Dan's media column comments, for instance his April 20 entry:
["Ms. Massresistance"] is a coward. She's the worse [sic] the internet has to offer. She types insane diatribes and hate speech and takes no responsibility. Then she screams about freedom of speech while she keeps herself anomymous [sic]. All those Article 8 people are pretty scarey [sic]. I went down to Fenueil [sic] Hall last year when they brought in Family Values person Alan Keyes (yes, the family values man who cut off his daughter when he found out he [sic] was gay.) The [sic] lot of the people attending looked like the villians [sic] from Deliverance, i.e., his father is his brother is his grandfather, etc. They still don't get it that same sex couples can marry in this state. I recommend they go back to south [sic] where bigotry is not only tolerated but codified in law." (Submitted two days in a row, with different names.)
Dan let run other hate-filled comments, like this one from "Anonymous":
MassResistance: "She wants to spew hate and venom but not take responsibility for the damage her actions cause. She is truly an evil woman not unlike the Nazis. Why is she so obsessed with gay people?" or "this woman needs psychiatric help. So does Camenker..."
Then Dan co-hosted on WRKO 680AM's morning drive-time show (April 22), with Scott Allen Miller. Out of the blue, a whole half hour of the show was devoted to nasty name-calling directed at MassResistance! (How odd they should focus on this little tiny blog.) Dan claimed to be "almost 100% certain" of the identity of the "gutless anonymous homophobe" behind MassResistance, but since he wasn't absolutely certain, he would not reveal a name. (Such high journalistic standards... that must be how he got to be a professor.) Dan's never talked to us. How would he have any idea who we are? Well, we suspect Gaston gave him his idea.
Scott Allen Miller, host on the WRKO show (who is pro "gay marriage"), agreed with Dan and Gaston, and made his own snide remarks about our stone-age attitudes. (See MassResistance Under Attack by Boston Phoenix; Attacker to Co-Host AM680 radio morning show Friday! 4-21-05; Dan Kennedy & WRKO AM680 Slam MassResistance 4-22-05. Also, Dan Kennedy, Scorekeeping, Stop & Shop, etc. 4-29-05.)
(Coming soon: Part IV in our Hate Speech/Hate Crimes series.)
New stuff coming!!
We've been down for a few days, but look for more by the end of today (Tuesday)!!
Thanks for your loyal readership!
Thanks for your loyal readership!
Sunday, October 16, 2005
Shaw's, Stop & Shop Supermarkets Against Family Values?
We now read in the Massachusetts Family Institute (MFI) email alert (10-14-05) that some Shaw's and Stop & Shop supermarkets (as well as Home Depot stores) are refusing to allow signature gatherers outside their stores for the VoteOnMarriage petition.
MassResistance readers will remember that these supermarket chains are also involved in distributing the vile homosexual rag Bay Windows free at their front doors. There, children can find out all they need to know about how to get involved in this destructive lifestyle. And they can read stories on the "Pope's penis" or lesbian anal sex , see ads for research into anal lubricants, etc.
So what sort of values do Shaw's and Stop & Shop supermarkets stand for? Certainly not traditional family values. They are embracing the culture of death, the dark side. Contact their management!
From the MFI email alert:
"It has come to our attention that several Shaws, Stop & Shop, and Home Depot stores have not allowed canvassers of the marriage petition to collect signatures outside of their stores. While they are private businesses and reserve the right determine the nature of activities allowed on their property, we believe they have unfairly targeted our group and in doing so have sent the message that it is OK to curtail speech when it is pro-family in nature. (The Massachusetts Secretary of State has issued guidance on this issue that explains that stores must allow canvassers to collect signatures on their property. You can download this two-page document by clicking here.).... [T]hey have not allowed circulators of the marriage petition to collect signatures outside the store, but have let circulators of other petition drives do so."
MassResistance readers will remember that these supermarket chains are also involved in distributing the vile homosexual rag Bay Windows free at their front doors. There, children can find out all they need to know about how to get involved in this destructive lifestyle. And they can read stories on the "Pope's penis" or lesbian anal sex , see ads for research into anal lubricants, etc.
So what sort of values do Shaw's and Stop & Shop supermarkets stand for? Certainly not traditional family values. They are embracing the culture of death, the dark side. Contact their management!
From the MFI email alert:
"It has come to our attention that several Shaws, Stop & Shop, and Home Depot stores have not allowed canvassers of the marriage petition to collect signatures outside of their stores. While they are private businesses and reserve the right determine the nature of activities allowed on their property, we believe they have unfairly targeted our group and in doing so have sent the message that it is OK to curtail speech when it is pro-family in nature. (The Massachusetts Secretary of State has issued guidance on this issue that explains that stores must allow canvassers to collect signatures on their property. You can download this two-page document by clicking here.).... [T]hey have not allowed circulators of the marriage petition to collect signatures outside the store, but have let circulators of other petition drives do so."
Thursday, October 13, 2005
Don Feder: Polite Approach Is a Loser
Don Feder's recent column, "THE HATE CRIMES AMENDMENT AND LOSING THE MARRIAGE WAR" (from GrasstopsUsa.com, Oct. 10), speaks to an issue we live with daily: hate speech (directed at us, that is).
But "hate crimes" laws are being passed to protect the homosexual radicals, not us, and eventually to prosecute anyone who dares to speak out against their perverted assault on our country and families.
Especially pertinent to our situation in Massachusetts is Feder's conclusion. If you've been following state politics on this issue, you'll understand that one reason we've been losing is that some conservative pro-family groups have consciously adopted a "nice guy" approach to this issue: "Don't talk about homosexuality, or what they do. Just talk about families." Sadly, these people just don't understand the enemy they're fighting. They didn't seem to realize that the enemy could throw that word "family" right back at them. That they could talk about their "rights" too.
What the problem really comes down to is that homosexuality is morally wrong, and it's an unnatural perversion (and a very unhealthy one at that). If we can't talk about this openly in the press or with our elected officials and the voters, we'll lose the battle.
From Feder's column:
The coalition of national pro-family groups that’s pushing the Federal Marriage Amendment [and the new Massachusetts amendment, we might add] has determined that success hinges on scrupulously avoiding any public discussion of homosexuality. They seek to stop a thing without naming it – always a difficult proposition.
The coalition decided that a direct challenge to the homosexual ethos (that same-sex couples are equal in dignity and worth to a father and mother working to ensure society’s future) would allow them to be cast as bigots.
Hence, their argument boils down to “do it for the kids” (truly, a courageous stand). Traditional marriage must be preserved because it’s the best way to raise children, they plead. While indisputably true, by defaulting on the more fundamental point – why two men who are sodomizing each other are not the moral equivalent of a man and a woman joined in a monogamous relationship, sanctified by faith and tradition – they have allowed the social acceptance of homosexuality to advance unhindered. To win a battle, they are ceding ultimate victory.
Thus, while our side wins state marriage referendums, theirs continues to tighten its iron grip on the culture....
[W]e must somehow muster the courage to brave charges of bigotry. Ultimately, we must admit that a man who’s into schtuping other men is not a worthy object of veneration.
But "hate crimes" laws are being passed to protect the homosexual radicals, not us, and eventually to prosecute anyone who dares to speak out against their perverted assault on our country and families.
Especially pertinent to our situation in Massachusetts is Feder's conclusion. If you've been following state politics on this issue, you'll understand that one reason we've been losing is that some conservative pro-family groups have consciously adopted a "nice guy" approach to this issue: "Don't talk about homosexuality, or what they do. Just talk about families." Sadly, these people just don't understand the enemy they're fighting. They didn't seem to realize that the enemy could throw that word "family" right back at them. That they could talk about their "rights" too.
What the problem really comes down to is that homosexuality is morally wrong, and it's an unnatural perversion (and a very unhealthy one at that). If we can't talk about this openly in the press or with our elected officials and the voters, we'll lose the battle.
From Feder's column:
The coalition of national pro-family groups that’s pushing the Federal Marriage Amendment [and the new Massachusetts amendment, we might add] has determined that success hinges on scrupulously avoiding any public discussion of homosexuality. They seek to stop a thing without naming it – always a difficult proposition.
The coalition decided that a direct challenge to the homosexual ethos (that same-sex couples are equal in dignity and worth to a father and mother working to ensure society’s future) would allow them to be cast as bigots.
Hence, their argument boils down to “do it for the kids” (truly, a courageous stand). Traditional marriage must be preserved because it’s the best way to raise children, they plead. While indisputably true, by defaulting on the more fundamental point – why two men who are sodomizing each other are not the moral equivalent of a man and a woman joined in a monogamous relationship, sanctified by faith and tradition – they have allowed the social acceptance of homosexuality to advance unhindered. To win a battle, they are ceding ultimate victory.
Thus, while our side wins state marriage referendums, theirs continues to tighten its iron grip on the culture....
[W]e must somehow muster the courage to brave charges of bigotry. Ultimately, we must admit that a man who’s into schtuping other men is not a worthy object of veneration.
Hate Mail or Criminal Harassment? Part II
So were there any legal consequences for Gaston28@aol.com for his barrage of personalized hate mail and threats? Article 8 email alert tells what the Massachusetts Attorney General's office did about it (... nothing!). This was after the A-G attorney explained that just three personalized harassing communications would trigger "criminal harassment" charges. From Article 8 Alliance email alert, 10-12-05:
Hate crimes protection? It's a one-way street in Massachusetts. Attorney General brushes aside threats by homosexual activist.
Recently there's been a lot of talk about "hate crimes" legislation. We can tell you from experience what that's all about -- and it's NOT about protecting you.
Several months back, a homosexual activist happened to get the office email address of a female volunteer working at the Article 8 office. He also went to the trouble to find out where she lived, her family, etc. What followed was a long series of horrible, personally threatening emails. This person, who identified himself as a homosexual activist who also works for the government, threatened to go to her house, threatened her children, and said he would do to her what some people had done to abortion doctors (implying that he would shoot her).
All we had about this person was his email address: Gaston28@aol.com. We couldn't find anything else.
See the emails posted on the MassResistance blog.
We went to the police, who said to go to the Massachusetts Attorney General. Denise Barton, a staff attorney who runs their "computer crimes" division at the Attorney General's office, at first acknowledged that this is clearly a criminal act. But when she realized who WE were, and that the perpetrator was a gay activist, Barton became very difficult and condescending.
This is how your Attorney General, Tom Reilly, operates when the criminal is a gay activist. It shouldn't surprise you, since one of Reilly's top staff members, Assistant Attorney General Robert Quinan, is very active in the Mass. Lesbian and Gay Bar Association, co-wrote a paper on "gay students' rights", and was recently featured in the newspaper for marrying. . .another man!
With tremendous difficulty, we finally got Barton to subpoena AOL and get the name and address of this person. (AOL protects harassers, unless you get a subpoena. They're actually proud of that.) We thought we were on the way to justice. But Barton would still not cooperate with the victim at all. No charges were filed, and she would not divulge the man's identity so our volunteer could get a civil restraining order. Barton said the man was simply "exercising his free speech rights." Instead, Barton told us she had a state trooper "visit" him and "warn" him. But that "warning" certainly didn't stop this guy's venom; in fact it got worse.
And our volunteer was -- and is -- still living in fear, while this person continues to taunt her via the Internet. Luckily, our volunteer is not letting this stop her work, which she considers too valuable to be stopped by intimidation.
By the way, if you ever need help, the Massachusetts Attorney General's office is at 617-727-2200. On the other hand, don't bother.
This is the same Tom Reilly who wants to be your next Governor. If that happens, the horror show will really start.
Hate crimes protection? It's a one-way street in Massachusetts. Attorney General brushes aside threats by homosexual activist.
Recently there's been a lot of talk about "hate crimes" legislation. We can tell you from experience what that's all about -- and it's NOT about protecting you.
Several months back, a homosexual activist happened to get the office email address of a female volunteer working at the Article 8 office. He also went to the trouble to find out where she lived, her family, etc. What followed was a long series of horrible, personally threatening emails. This person, who identified himself as a homosexual activist who also works for the government, threatened to go to her house, threatened her children, and said he would do to her what some people had done to abortion doctors (implying that he would shoot her).
All we had about this person was his email address: Gaston28@aol.com. We couldn't find anything else.
See the emails posted on the MassResistance blog.
We went to the police, who said to go to the Massachusetts Attorney General. Denise Barton, a staff attorney who runs their "computer crimes" division at the Attorney General's office, at first acknowledged that this is clearly a criminal act. But when she realized who WE were, and that the perpetrator was a gay activist, Barton became very difficult and condescending.
This is how your Attorney General, Tom Reilly, operates when the criminal is a gay activist. It shouldn't surprise you, since one of Reilly's top staff members, Assistant Attorney General Robert Quinan, is very active in the Mass. Lesbian and Gay Bar Association, co-wrote a paper on "gay students' rights", and was recently featured in the newspaper for marrying. . .another man!
With tremendous difficulty, we finally got Barton to subpoena AOL and get the name and address of this person. (AOL protects harassers, unless you get a subpoena. They're actually proud of that.) We thought we were on the way to justice. But Barton would still not cooperate with the victim at all. No charges were filed, and she would not divulge the man's identity so our volunteer could get a civil restraining order. Barton said the man was simply "exercising his free speech rights." Instead, Barton told us she had a state trooper "visit" him and "warn" him. But that "warning" certainly didn't stop this guy's venom; in fact it got worse.
And our volunteer was -- and is -- still living in fear, while this person continues to taunt her via the Internet. Luckily, our volunteer is not letting this stop her work, which she considers too valuable to be stopped by intimidation.
By the way, if you ever need help, the Massachusetts Attorney General's office is at 617-727-2200. On the other hand, don't bother.
This is the same Tom Reilly who wants to be your next Governor. If that happens, the horror show will really start.
Wednesday, October 12, 2005
Definition of Marriage Should Not Be Voted On
It just hit us again today, when we got the email alert from the Massachusetts Family Institute. (They are behind the new VoteOnMarriage.org effort to get a marriage amendment on the ballot.) All along their cry has been, "Let the People Vote!" Their email states:
"A radical societal change such as expanding the definition of marriage is not something to be taken lightly and most definitely not something that should be decided by four unelected judges. The people of Massachusetts deserve the right to vote on marriage."
But we must confess, we never joined that chant, "Let the People Vote." Because the definition of "marriage" is NOT something that should ever be voted on.
It's not just that we distrust the people in Massachusetts, who've been more subject than the rest of the nation to an incredible barrage of powerful propaganda for the past decade or so. (We're not PC on anything else, why should we be on this?)
But we will not be bullied by the MassEquality queer activists into this corner. Calling for a vote means you've capitulated to some extent. Certain societal norms, religious truths, age-old traditions, and definitional standards should be beyond debate, and not put up to a vote.
What will we vote on next? The definition of "parent"? (Actually, we're in conflict over that one too: That's what David Parker v. Lexington Schools is all about.)
The answer is not to call for a vote to define "marriage", but to fight the tyranny of the judges who helped the queer activists push us into this corner.
"A radical societal change such as expanding the definition of marriage is not something to be taken lightly and most definitely not something that should be decided by four unelected judges. The people of Massachusetts deserve the right to vote on marriage."
But we must confess, we never joined that chant, "Let the People Vote." Because the definition of "marriage" is NOT something that should ever be voted on.
It's not just that we distrust the people in Massachusetts, who've been more subject than the rest of the nation to an incredible barrage of powerful propaganda for the past decade or so. (We're not PC on anything else, why should we be on this?)
But we will not be bullied by the MassEquality queer activists into this corner. Calling for a vote means you've capitulated to some extent. Certain societal norms, religious truths, age-old traditions, and definitional standards should be beyond debate, and not put up to a vote.
What will we vote on next? The definition of "parent"? (Actually, we're in conflict over that one too: That's what David Parker v. Lexington Schools is all about.)
The answer is not to call for a vote to define "marriage", but to fight the tyranny of the judges who helped the queer activists push us into this corner.
Tuesday, October 11, 2005
Hate Mail or Criminal Harassment? Part I
Many of the homosexual activists are hurt, broken, and angry people. Those of us who've been at the State House for recent big events have seen this up close, and we certainly sense their pain.
But their level of discourse reveals the unbalanced, obsessive quality of their lives. We truly wish these people well. And there are many ex-gay ministries made up of people who've been there and done that, who can help them.
Sadly, our good will is not reciprocated. Recently, the Boston Herald reported on a public, well-orchestrated effort to intimidate the leaders of the VoteOnMarriage petition campaign. And the people at Article 8 Alliance are under a constant barrage of hate emails. Some of these communications have arguably crossed the line into criminal harassment.
Below are examples from one Gaston28@aol.com to the Article 8 office. Note his personal harassment of an individual, and his obsessive, frightening focus on personal details. (A psychologist has told us, on the basis of these emails, that this is not a well person, and very concerning.)
Three such incidents from the same person directed to one target equals criminal harassment, according to Massachusetts Attorney General's office....That is, unless it's a homosexual activist harassing pro-family people. Then the Mass. A-G backs off.
The homo activists seem to have special rights and protections, and are seemingly above the law. "Hate crimes" only apply in one direction. (Attorney General Reilly is running for Governor, after all, and needs this powerful lobby's support. There are also powerful queer activists in high places in the A-G's office.)
Article 8 documented this harassment, but then the the rules of the game had changed. After earlier explaining the law on criminal harassment, once the Attorney-General's office identified the perpetrator, they decided to call these abusive and possibly threatening emails simply "free speech"! (By the way, "Gaston" claims to have a high position in a government office. Hmm...)
Meanwhile, Congress is busy passing "hate crimes" laws targeting our side, but letting the homo activists say anything and do anything they want. Soon, our side will be arrested for "hate speech". But they imply threats to your family and children without consequence.
Here are just six emails (there were more) received by our friend at Article 8 from Gaston28@aol.com:
But their level of discourse reveals the unbalanced, obsessive quality of their lives. We truly wish these people well. And there are many ex-gay ministries made up of people who've been there and done that, who can help them.
Sadly, our good will is not reciprocated. Recently, the Boston Herald reported on a public, well-orchestrated effort to intimidate the leaders of the VoteOnMarriage petition campaign. And the people at Article 8 Alliance are under a constant barrage of hate emails. Some of these communications have arguably crossed the line into criminal harassment.
Below are examples from one Gaston28@aol.com to the Article 8 office. Note his personal harassment of an individual, and his obsessive, frightening focus on personal details. (A psychologist has told us, on the basis of these emails, that this is not a well person, and very concerning.)
Three such incidents from the same person directed to one target equals criminal harassment, according to Massachusetts Attorney General's office....That is, unless it's a homosexual activist harassing pro-family people. Then the Mass. A-G backs off.
The homo activists seem to have special rights and protections, and are seemingly above the law. "Hate crimes" only apply in one direction. (Attorney General Reilly is running for Governor, after all, and needs this powerful lobby's support. There are also powerful queer activists in high places in the A-G's office.)
Article 8 documented this harassment, but then the the rules of the game had changed. After earlier explaining the law on criminal harassment, once the Attorney-General's office identified the perpetrator, they decided to call these abusive and possibly threatening emails simply "free speech"! (By the way, "Gaston" claims to have a high position in a government office. Hmm...)
Meanwhile, Congress is busy passing "hate crimes" laws targeting our side, but letting the homo activists say anything and do anything they want. Soon, our side will be arrested for "hate speech". But they imply threats to your family and children without consequence.
Here are just six emails (there were more) received by our friend at Article 8 from Gaston28@aol.com:
#1 "You know you people are really disgusting. Intimidating gay kids, wow, you must feel great. Why is X hiding behind Article 8? We know where she lives and we are planning a picket line outside her house. I wonder if her neighbors know what kind of bigot she is? We are going to use the same tactics that the abortion protesters use on the doctors. You made this issue personal when it has nothing at all to do with you or X. But it affects us, you are trying to take away our rights. Well it isn't going to work. Our marriages are legal whether you like it or not and more of us are getting married. Deal with the reality. Bigots like you are becoming extinct. You are all nut jobs."
#2 "So you finally show your true colors. You are for censorship. You are modern day Nazis. You do not want anyone to call attention to the discrimination that people like you ane Article 8 are trying to impose on society. I clearly hope you do not have children because I shutter [sic] to think of the damage you are causing to them emotionally and mentally. You are an evil nasty woman. I saw a picture of you and wondered if you were a closeted lesbian which would explain your venomous attacks on out gays and lesbians."
#3 "You people are so pathetic. You try and make it seem like people really care about you. What about the harm you are doing to children and adults alike. While I don't agree with what you do, I do agree that you have the right to say whatever it is you like, as long as I am standing there refuted [sic] your responses since you tend to tell lies. X is no such person... she puts forth venon [sic] at people she knows nothing about. I can almost bet her son is gay. I saw the pictures at [names his college, obviously researched] and he doesn't look to [sic] masculine to me is that what she is afraid of? I hope she still loves her son when he does come out. I really think she should be taking more care of her husband and daughter than trying to split apart my family. When you really look at it, you are about hate and censorship."
#4 "Yep, you really showed how much of a bigot you really are and it's captured on video. You will be aligned with the prejudice that went on during the 70's when southie didn't want the blacks in their schools. You should be proud.... Unfortunately, your two children will bear the emotional scar that you have burdened them with. Oh the harm you are causing them, they should be taken away from you for preaching such hate to young minds. You are no different from the KKK and Nazi's [sic]. You are in good company."
#5 "There's really nothing more to say. You talk about AIDS like it was invented for gay people. Are you stupid? It was found in Africa. AIDS has decimated the population of Africa and you treat is [sic] with a trite and stupid remark. You are seriously mentally ill. Your two children should be taken away from you before they end up in jail."
#6 "you poor stupid woman. Didn't you learn anything in high school civics class? I am assuming that you graduated from high school (Big assumption on my part I know).... You don't need to put quotes around same sex marriages because the are MARRIAGES whether you like it or not...Now if one of your children wanted to get married to a person of the same sex they could.... I would only put quotes around marriage when I use it to describe things like [you] and Article 8 are in a "marriage" with the Klux [sic] Klux Klan since they have the same concerns. X, please stop spreading the hate, your two children will be grateful in the long run since they will be burdened with a mother who is a bigot and obsessed with gay people. It won't be pretty.
Monday, October 10, 2005
Amateur Hour: Immigrant Law Student Behind Flawed "VoteOnMarriage" Research
In Massachusetts we are on the very front lines of the culture war. So you'd expect the powerful, well-funded groups behind the new VoteOnMarriage.org marriage initiative would have hired top-notch constitutional legal researchers and consultants to design their legal and political strategy. But no, it turns out an immigrant law student and political novice played a large role in the VoteOnMarriage plan.
Many pro-marriage conservatives in Massachusetts wondered where the odd ideas behind the VoteOnMarriage plan came from, especially its "grandfathering" of existing homosexual "marriages". Why didn't they propose a "clean" definition of marriage which would of also ban "civil unions"? (Such wording had already been devised: See House Bill #H653.) Especially bizarre and flawed are VoteOnMarriage's claims that:
-- the already existing homosexual "marriages" had been "legally granted";
-- that these "marriages" should be considered a "substantive right" that could not be taken away;
-- that such an act (declaring the existing "marriages" null and void) would be an ex post facto action contrary to Article I of the U.S. Constitution.
Now we learn from the Massachusetts Family Institute (MFI) -- which along with the Mass. Catholic Conference is behind the marriage initiative -- that an immigrant law student intern (funded by the Alliance Defense Fund) is behind the flawed research and strategic recommendations. From MFI's September/October 2005 newsletter:
"Sergei's [Semyrog, an immigrant from the Ukraine] delved into Article I of the U.S. Constitution to determine whether existing homosexual marriages could be rendered null and void by a state constitutional amendment implementing a traditional definition of marriage. He concluded that 'if we were to try to repeal the prior marriages, we would be defeated quite easily.' He added, however, that an amendment to the U.S. Constitution defining marriage would rise above a constitutional challenge."
MFI also believes that the "reciprocal benefits" legislation (akin to "civil unions") which they plan to file would defuse homosexual demands for government goodies ... though the homosexual activists have already publicly ridiculed this strategy. Well, the intern also was involved in this part of their plan. The MFI newsletter continues:
"Sergei's main assignment this past summer was to draft reciprocal beneficiary legislation. This bill, referred to as the Massachusetts Reciprocal Beneficiary Contracts Act, will enable two unmarried individuals to enter a contractual relationship in which they are able to share certain benefits. He patterned the bill in part after legislation that Hawaii passed in 1997 ... 'We don't want this relationship equal to marriage,' explains Sergei, noting that he painstakingly tried to distinguish between this relationship and marriage. Writing legislation is a particularly tedious task that requires one to identify and review every existing law that will be affected."
Does this strike you as authoritative legal and political thinking? (Yes, we know we've broken our promise not to comment further on this fiasco. But this revelation was just too much.)
Many pro-marriage conservatives in Massachusetts wondered where the odd ideas behind the VoteOnMarriage plan came from, especially its "grandfathering" of existing homosexual "marriages". Why didn't they propose a "clean" definition of marriage which would of also ban "civil unions"? (Such wording had already been devised: See House Bill #H653.) Especially bizarre and flawed are VoteOnMarriage's claims that:
-- the already existing homosexual "marriages" had been "legally granted";
-- that these "marriages" should be considered a "substantive right" that could not be taken away;
-- that such an act (declaring the existing "marriages" null and void) would be an ex post facto action contrary to Article I of the U.S. Constitution.
Now we learn from the Massachusetts Family Institute (MFI) -- which along with the Mass. Catholic Conference is behind the marriage initiative -- that an immigrant law student intern (funded by the Alliance Defense Fund) is behind the flawed research and strategic recommendations. From MFI's September/October 2005 newsletter:
"Sergei's [Semyrog, an immigrant from the Ukraine] delved into Article I of the U.S. Constitution to determine whether existing homosexual marriages could be rendered null and void by a state constitutional amendment implementing a traditional definition of marriage. He concluded that 'if we were to try to repeal the prior marriages, we would be defeated quite easily.' He added, however, that an amendment to the U.S. Constitution defining marriage would rise above a constitutional challenge."
MFI also believes that the "reciprocal benefits" legislation (akin to "civil unions") which they plan to file would defuse homosexual demands for government goodies ... though the homosexual activists have already publicly ridiculed this strategy. Well, the intern also was involved in this part of their plan. The MFI newsletter continues:
"Sergei's main assignment this past summer was to draft reciprocal beneficiary legislation. This bill, referred to as the Massachusetts Reciprocal Beneficiary Contracts Act, will enable two unmarried individuals to enter a contractual relationship in which they are able to share certain benefits. He patterned the bill in part after legislation that Hawaii passed in 1997 ... 'We don't want this relationship equal to marriage,' explains Sergei, noting that he painstakingly tried to distinguish between this relationship and marriage. Writing legislation is a particularly tedious task that requires one to identify and review every existing law that will be affected."
Does this strike you as authoritative legal and political thinking? (Yes, we know we've broken our promise not to comment further on this fiasco. But this revelation was just too much.)
Homosexual Activist behind Time Magazine Gay Teens Story
Are we surprised? Traditional Values Coalition reveals that the recent Time Magazine cover story on "gay teens" was written by a homosexual activist:
John Cloud, a writer for Time magazine has just written a lengthy cover story for the October 10 edition that cleverly promotes the homosexual agenda. Though not mentioned in the article, Cloud is a long-time homosexual journalist and activist who has been given several awards by homosexual organizations for his “gay” affirmative reporting.
In September, 2005, Cloud was given a second place award for “The Governor’s Secret Life” by the National Lesbian & Gay Journalists Association. And, in 2004, he was given an award by the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) for his article, “The New Face Of Gay Power.” And, in a Columbia Journalism Review weblog (April 21, 2005), Cloud admits to having a “boy friend.”
In 2000, Cloud wrote an article on the Boy Scouts, comparing them to the KKK and asking whether or not the Boy Scouts had the right to freedom of association. The Media Research Center reported on Cloud’s homosexual activism disguised as journalism in its April, 25, 2000 issue....
As we've said in the past, Traditional Values Coalition has a great website. Here are some more of their suggestions:
Read and distribute TVC’s report, “Homosexuals Recruit Public School Children” and access TVC’s GLSEN-Watch web site. Write a letter to Time magazine and use the statistics and information in these reports to tell the truth about homosexual recruitment on campuses. Ask why Cloud’s history of homosexual advocacy was not mentioned in the article.
John Cloud, a writer for Time magazine has just written a lengthy cover story for the October 10 edition that cleverly promotes the homosexual agenda. Though not mentioned in the article, Cloud is a long-time homosexual journalist and activist who has been given several awards by homosexual organizations for his “gay” affirmative reporting.
In September, 2005, Cloud was given a second place award for “The Governor’s Secret Life” by the National Lesbian & Gay Journalists Association. And, in 2004, he was given an award by the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) for his article, “The New Face Of Gay Power.” And, in a Columbia Journalism Review weblog (April 21, 2005), Cloud admits to having a “boy friend.”
In 2000, Cloud wrote an article on the Boy Scouts, comparing them to the KKK and asking whether or not the Boy Scouts had the right to freedom of association. The Media Research Center reported on Cloud’s homosexual activism disguised as journalism in its April, 25, 2000 issue....
As we've said in the past, Traditional Values Coalition has a great website. Here are some more of their suggestions:
Read and distribute TVC’s report, “Homosexuals Recruit Public School Children” and access TVC’s GLSEN-Watch web site. Write a letter to Time magazine and use the statistics and information in these reports to tell the truth about homosexual recruitment on campuses. Ask why Cloud’s history of homosexual advocacy was not mentioned in the article.
Sunday, October 09, 2005
"Coming Out" at Ten or Twelve?
More mainstream media propagandizing for the homosexual movement: last week's cover article on Time magazine, The Battle Over Gay Teens. What is really striking about this article is its total, unquestioning acceptance of the idea that teens, and even pre-teens, can in fact already "be gay." We're even told by an academic expert that many boys are "coming out" at 10, many girls at 12. Nowhere is it clearly defined in the article (or in the gays' own literature) what exactly "being gay" means or entails at such an early age.
Robert Knight (of CWA) discusses the Time article ("Time Magazine, School Event Expose Massive Cultural Campaign to Promote Homosexuality to Kids", Oct. 7), as well as the yearlong radical homosexual assault on our children in the schools. He lists "National Ally Week" in September, "No Name Calling Week" in January, "Day of Silence" in April, the new "Safe Zone" campaign, along with other events organized by individual school Gay-Straight Alliances or GSAs (with the support of school administrations). All these events are pushed by GLSEN.
And don't forget, Tuesday, October 11 is "National Coming Out Day." (Is it just a coincidence that Time ran its cover story just before this event?)
Knight shares some resources from GLSEN promoting the latest trendy perversion, "transgenderism" and "transsexuality":
GLSEN encourages teachers to organize and participate in GSA events. The group provides a web link that supplies educators with pro-LGBT resources. These include “gender liberation” coloring books; “gay” cartoon posters; and several posters challenging traditional views of gender. Teachers can download signs with inverted, rainbow-colored triangles proclaiming “Safe Zone” to put on their classroom door. They can also print off discussion kits on how to organize gender education sessions and start conversations about homosexuality with the children.
One poster, titled, “Things you can do to eradicate gender or multiply it exponentially,” features cross-dressing, and has these suggestions:
• “Think twice before you ask people if their child is a boy or a girl.
• Spend a day in drag.
• Refer to everyone by the incorrect pronoun.
• Challenge binary gender paradigms over Thanksgiving dinner.
• Hang out with children and teach them how to cross dress Barbie and G.I. Joe.
• Refuse to check off your sex when filling out forms.”
Robert Knight (of CWA) discusses the Time article ("Time Magazine, School Event Expose Massive Cultural Campaign to Promote Homosexuality to Kids", Oct. 7), as well as the yearlong radical homosexual assault on our children in the schools. He lists "National Ally Week" in September, "No Name Calling Week" in January, "Day of Silence" in April, the new "Safe Zone" campaign, along with other events organized by individual school Gay-Straight Alliances or GSAs (with the support of school administrations). All these events are pushed by GLSEN.
And don't forget, Tuesday, October 11 is "National Coming Out Day." (Is it just a coincidence that Time ran its cover story just before this event?)
Knight shares some resources from GLSEN promoting the latest trendy perversion, "transgenderism" and "transsexuality":
GLSEN encourages teachers to organize and participate in GSA events. The group provides a web link that supplies educators with pro-LGBT resources. These include “gender liberation” coloring books; “gay” cartoon posters; and several posters challenging traditional views of gender. Teachers can download signs with inverted, rainbow-colored triangles proclaiming “Safe Zone” to put on their classroom door. They can also print off discussion kits on how to organize gender education sessions and start conversations about homosexuality with the children.
One poster, titled, “Things you can do to eradicate gender or multiply it exponentially,” features cross-dressing, and has these suggestions:
• “Think twice before you ask people if their child is a boy or a girl.
• Spend a day in drag.
• Refer to everyone by the incorrect pronoun.
• Challenge binary gender paradigms over Thanksgiving dinner.
• Hang out with children and teach them how to cross dress Barbie and G.I. Joe.
• Refuse to check off your sex when filling out forms.”
Friday, October 07, 2005
Expect More Nonsense from Mass. Court
Yesterday, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court heard arguments from the queer activist bar challenging the 1913 state law which prevents out-of-staters from marrying in Massachusetts, if that marriage would not be recognized as legal in their home state. For example, a man couldn't marry a girl considered under age in their home state, even if she were of age in Massachusetts. (SJC hears challenge to marriage law, Boston Globe, Oct. 7, 2005)
The "Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders" (GLAD) say this 1913 law is only being applied now to prevent out-of-state homosexual couples from marrying. But "Attorney General Tom Reilly, who says he personally supports same-sex marriage, but must defend the law," says "that Massachusetts is applying it both to gay and straight couples" and that "Massachusetts would infringe on the laws and practices of other states if it ignored their marriage statutes."
Once again, the Boston Globe lies: "The SJC's landmark 2003 decision legalizing same-sex marriage ..." No, it did not "legalize" anything. That is constitutionally impossible. Massachusetts' constitution leaves all matters of marriage in the hands of the legislature and governor. Note that our own Attorney General refers to the sanctity of "laws" and "marriage statutes" in other states. We ask: Where is the Massachusetts marriage law or statute saying sodomy can be the basis for "marriage"?
The Globe writes, "If the SJC struck down the 1913 law, out-of-state same-sex couples who married in Massachusetts might return to their home states and demand marriage rights there." Might? What a joke. That's their whole plan. It's been in the works for many years. How stupid do they think we are?
Obviously, the queer activists around the country want to use the supposedly "legal" homosexual "marriages" performed in Massachusetts as a wedge to challenge every state's laws. Their "equal protection under the law" is being violated, if they can be considered "married" in Massachusetts but in no other state in the country. That is, every other state in the country is WRONG. (Never would it occur to these people that maybe something is wrong with them.)
Empress Margaret has already used the gimmick of issuing a destructive, society-shattering ruling on an historical anniversary (Nov. 18, 2003 was the 50th anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education). Maybe she'll pick that date to announce that Massachusetts must allow homosexual "marriages" for couples -- or trios or quartets -- from all over the country. Then they can go back to their home states and create legal chaos.
The Globe predicts a ruling in about four months.
The "Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders" (GLAD) say this 1913 law is only being applied now to prevent out-of-state homosexual couples from marrying. But "Attorney General Tom Reilly, who says he personally supports same-sex marriage, but must defend the law," says "that Massachusetts is applying it both to gay and straight couples" and that "Massachusetts would infringe on the laws and practices of other states if it ignored their marriage statutes."
Once again, the Boston Globe lies: "The SJC's landmark 2003 decision legalizing same-sex marriage ..." No, it did not "legalize" anything. That is constitutionally impossible. Massachusetts' constitution leaves all matters of marriage in the hands of the legislature and governor. Note that our own Attorney General refers to the sanctity of "laws" and "marriage statutes" in other states. We ask: Where is the Massachusetts marriage law or statute saying sodomy can be the basis for "marriage"?
The Globe writes, "If the SJC struck down the 1913 law, out-of-state same-sex couples who married in Massachusetts might return to their home states and demand marriage rights there." Might? What a joke. That's their whole plan. It's been in the works for many years. How stupid do they think we are?
Obviously, the queer activists around the country want to use the supposedly "legal" homosexual "marriages" performed in Massachusetts as a wedge to challenge every state's laws. Their "equal protection under the law" is being violated, if they can be considered "married" in Massachusetts but in no other state in the country. That is, every other state in the country is WRONG. (Never would it occur to these people that maybe something is wrong with them.)
Empress Margaret has already used the gimmick of issuing a destructive, society-shattering ruling on an historical anniversary (Nov. 18, 2003 was the 50th anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education). Maybe she'll pick that date to announce that Massachusetts must allow homosexual "marriages" for couples -- or trios or quartets -- from all over the country. Then they can go back to their home states and create legal chaos.
The Globe predicts a ruling in about four months.
Thursday, October 06, 2005
Mission America Nails It
Our friends at Mission America understand very well where this society is going if we don't say "halt" to the "pansexual" insanity. Here's their comment on a story from the Des Moines Register, about a female toddler who was assaulted in a library. Apparently, the molester had earlier had sex with a man, and then robbed him.
Sex offender accused of robbery (October 6, 2005). "A homeless Des Moines sex offender accused of molesting a toddler in a library restroom robbed a man of $400 last month after the two had sex at a motel, police reports allege."
Mission America writes: "What does this tell us about how we identify sex offenders as homosexual or heterosexual? This guy is all over the map. It's the danger of 'pansexuality.' When unleashed, there are no more neat categories of 'gay' or 'straight.' It's only anarchy and ultimately, violence."
Sex offender accused of robbery (October 6, 2005). "A homeless Des Moines sex offender accused of molesting a toddler in a library restroom robbed a man of $400 last month after the two had sex at a motel, police reports allege."
Mission America writes: "What does this tell us about how we identify sex offenders as homosexual or heterosexual? This guy is all over the map. It's the danger of 'pansexuality.' When unleashed, there are no more neat categories of 'gay' or 'straight.' It's only anarchy and ultimately, violence."
Parents: Say No to Student Surveys
Article 8 Alliance is reporting on a recent Education Committee hearing on a bill which would give parents the right to say "No" to their child’s participation in intrusive, suggestive surveys in our schools. Check out the whole report here: "Parents across the state are fighting for the School Survey Consent Bill (S316)."
The testimony brought out many serious problems with these surveys, including: leading questions; emotional exploration of children's' minds, with unknown effects, or no follow-up if children are upset; questions asked in a moral vacuum; unreliable answers; statistically flawed results which can be put to almost any use.
"Earlier this year, Mark Fisher, a father from Shrewsbury, made national news when his 12-year-old daughter's sixth-grade class was asked in a classroom survey: "Have you ever given or received oral sex?" Mr. Fisher also demanded to see the other questions, and the school refused to comply until great pressure was brought on them by the publicity."
Would you want your child answering these questions from the "Youth Risk Behavior Survey (2005)" ?
10. Which of the following best describes you?
a. Heterosexual (straight)
b. Gay or lesbian
c. Bisexual
d. Not sure
...The next 6 questions ask about deliberately hurting yourself, sad feelings, and attempted suicide. Sometimes people feel so depressed about the future that they may consider attempting suicide, that is, taking some action to end their own life.
29. During the past 12 months, how many times did you hurt or injure yourself on purpose without wanting to die? (For example, by cutting, burning, or bruising yourself on purpose.) [Possible answers: from 0 - 20 times]
30. During the past 12 months, did you ever feel so sad or hopeless almost every day for two weeks or more in a row that you stopped doing some usual activities?
31. During the past 12 months, did you ever seriously consider attempting suicide?
32. During the past 12 months, did you make a plan about how you would attempt suicide?
33. During the past 12 months, how many times did you actually attempt suicide? [Possible answers: 0-6 times]
34. If you attempted suicide during the past 12 months, did any attempt result in an injury, poisoning, or overdose that had to be treated by a doctor or nurse?
...69. Have you ever had sexual intercourse?
70. How old were you when you had sexual intercourse for the first time?
71. During your life, with how many people have you had sexual intercourse?
72. During the past 3 months, with how many people did you have sexual intercourse?
73. During your life, the person(s) with whom you have had sexual contact is (are)…
a. I have not had sexual contact with anyone
b. Female(s)
c. Male(s)
d. Female(s) and male(s)
74. Did you drink alcohol or use drugs before you had sexual intercourse the last time?
75. The last time you had sexual intercourse, did you or your partner use a condom?
76. The last time you had sexual intercourse, what one method did you or your partner use to prevent pregnancy? (Select only one response.)
The testimony brought out many serious problems with these surveys, including: leading questions; emotional exploration of children's' minds, with unknown effects, or no follow-up if children are upset; questions asked in a moral vacuum; unreliable answers; statistically flawed results which can be put to almost any use.
"Earlier this year, Mark Fisher, a father from Shrewsbury, made national news when his 12-year-old daughter's sixth-grade class was asked in a classroom survey: "Have you ever given or received oral sex?" Mr. Fisher also demanded to see the other questions, and the school refused to comply until great pressure was brought on them by the publicity."
Would you want your child answering these questions from the "Youth Risk Behavior Survey (2005)" ?
10. Which of the following best describes you?
a. Heterosexual (straight)
b. Gay or lesbian
c. Bisexual
d. Not sure
...The next 6 questions ask about deliberately hurting yourself, sad feelings, and attempted suicide. Sometimes people feel so depressed about the future that they may consider attempting suicide, that is, taking some action to end their own life.
29. During the past 12 months, how many times did you hurt or injure yourself on purpose without wanting to die? (For example, by cutting, burning, or bruising yourself on purpose.) [Possible answers: from 0 - 20 times]
30. During the past 12 months, did you ever feel so sad or hopeless almost every day for two weeks or more in a row that you stopped doing some usual activities?
31. During the past 12 months, did you ever seriously consider attempting suicide?
32. During the past 12 months, did you make a plan about how you would attempt suicide?
33. During the past 12 months, how many times did you actually attempt suicide? [Possible answers: 0-6 times]
34. If you attempted suicide during the past 12 months, did any attempt result in an injury, poisoning, or overdose that had to be treated by a doctor or nurse?
...69. Have you ever had sexual intercourse?
70. How old were you when you had sexual intercourse for the first time?
71. During your life, with how many people have you had sexual intercourse?
72. During the past 3 months, with how many people did you have sexual intercourse?
73. During your life, the person(s) with whom you have had sexual contact is (are)…
a. I have not had sexual contact with anyone
b. Female(s)
c. Male(s)
d. Female(s) and male(s)
74. Did you drink alcohol or use drugs before you had sexual intercourse the last time?
75. The last time you had sexual intercourse, did you or your partner use a condom?
76. The last time you had sexual intercourse, what one method did you or your partner use to prevent pregnancy? (Select only one response.)
Tuesday, October 04, 2005
Promoting Unhealth at Fenway Community Health
We've written quite a bit about the filth in Bay Windows. This homosexual "newspaper" is available free for you and your children at your neighborhood Stop & Shop, or Shaw's/Star Markets! Some of the worst items tend to appear in the Arts section, or in advertisements.
Some time ago, we reported on the Fenway Community Health Center 's "Tops and Bottoms Wanted" ad for HIV vaccine research. That was bad enough. Now we see this ad (half-page on p. 2 in the Arts section, September 29, 2005):
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Some time ago, we reported on the Fenway Community Health Center 's "Tops and Bottoms Wanted" ad for HIV vaccine research. That was bad enough. Now we see this ad (half-page on p. 2 in the Arts section, September 29, 2005):
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
One more GREAT
reason to have SEX
as if you needed another ...
Fenway Community Health is conducting a
study to help researchers who are developing a rectal
microbicide -- an experimental gel for HIV preven-
tion that works like a lube. But we're not
there yet. To find out what YOU like best in
a lube, we need YOUR input. The lube
used in this phase of the study DOES
NOT offer HIV protection, but this study is
the first step toward new gels that will.
For this study we're seeking men who:
- are 18 years or older
- are currently sexually active
- are HIV-negative
- have been a bottom in the past year
For more information call 617-927-6450
Fenway Community Health
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Of course this reminds us of the poster boy of the queer activist movement here in Massachusetts, State Rep. Carl Sciortino of Somerville. He used to be director of research projects at Fenway Community Health, so is probably quite familiar with this type of research. And before that, he was head of the queer activists at Tufts University, where among other things he ran seminars on anal lubricants and proper use of sex toys.
Let's keep our eye on state funding for Fenway Community Health Center.
Monday, October 03, 2005
Yes, The Sky IS Falling in Massachusetts
There's a nice little article circulating by Alan Sears, "The sky doesn't fall in a day" from TownHall.com. Sears points out that the queer activists have set up a "straw man":
In the arena of political discourse, a “straw man” is often a weak or extreme argument one side in a debate falsely attributes to their opponents. It’s an age-old tactic that presents a nice-sounding argument that is, in reality, easily refuted or “knocked down.” That is the tactic now being used to defend the court-ordered legalization of same-sex “marriage” in Massachusetts last year.
With over 6,000 same-sex couples “wedding” in the Bay State since May 2004, proponents of this change are crying, “See, the sky didn’t fall. The world hasn’t come to an end. And everything is just lovely!”
However, virtually no one in support of authentic marriage ever said that marriage would be destroyed or the country would fall into anarchy the moment same-sex “marriage” in one corner of our nation became a temporary reality.
It's not that we disagree with the basic point of Sears' argument. Major societal disruptions can take decades or longer to manifest. Look at welfare or no-fault divorce. They didn't seem like such big deals in the year or two after they began.
But Sears misses what's happening on the ground here, and really bad things ARE happening. Maybe he should come visit our public places and observe all the same-sex couples brazenly making out, see "gay" men doing it wrapped inside an American flag on our billboards, or pick up filthy homosexual "newspapers" on the freebie shelves in our neighborhood supermarkets and in front of our post offices (where children can get them). All this has greatly accelerated in the last year and a half.
Churches are being picketed by other "ministers" if they dare to say homosexuality is immoral. A website has sprung up to intimidate anyone who signs the new marriage amendment petition. Rowdy, juvenile parties are being held in the State House by queer activists. Trans workshops were held and the vile, pornographic Little Black Book was distributed at a GLSEN conference attended by young teenagers at Brookline High School.
Maybe Sears should talk to Lexington father David Parker about his arrest for daring to object to homosexual "marriages" being presented to his kindergartner as they way things are. "It's legal now; you have to let us tell your children about it, since you won't." School superintendents are violating parental notification law more flagrantly than ever, while pretending to enforce it. Police departments and school board members openly take the sides against Mr. Parker and what he stands for.
We've written about all this over the past year on this blog. Yes, things HAVE changed for the worse.
In the arena of political discourse, a “straw man” is often a weak or extreme argument one side in a debate falsely attributes to their opponents. It’s an age-old tactic that presents a nice-sounding argument that is, in reality, easily refuted or “knocked down.” That is the tactic now being used to defend the court-ordered legalization of same-sex “marriage” in Massachusetts last year.
With over 6,000 same-sex couples “wedding” in the Bay State since May 2004, proponents of this change are crying, “See, the sky didn’t fall. The world hasn’t come to an end. And everything is just lovely!”
However, virtually no one in support of authentic marriage ever said that marriage would be destroyed or the country would fall into anarchy the moment same-sex “marriage” in one corner of our nation became a temporary reality.
It's not that we disagree with the basic point of Sears' argument. Major societal disruptions can take decades or longer to manifest. Look at welfare or no-fault divorce. They didn't seem like such big deals in the year or two after they began.
But Sears misses what's happening on the ground here, and really bad things ARE happening. Maybe he should come visit our public places and observe all the same-sex couples brazenly making out, see "gay" men doing it wrapped inside an American flag on our billboards, or pick up filthy homosexual "newspapers" on the freebie shelves in our neighborhood supermarkets and in front of our post offices (where children can get them). All this has greatly accelerated in the last year and a half.
Churches are being picketed by other "ministers" if they dare to say homosexuality is immoral. A website has sprung up to intimidate anyone who signs the new marriage amendment petition. Rowdy, juvenile parties are being held in the State House by queer activists. Trans workshops were held and the vile, pornographic Little Black Book was distributed at a GLSEN conference attended by young teenagers at Brookline High School.
Maybe Sears should talk to Lexington father David Parker about his arrest for daring to object to homosexual "marriages" being presented to his kindergartner as they way things are. "It's legal now; you have to let us tell your children about it, since you won't." School superintendents are violating parental notification law more flagrantly than ever, while pretending to enforce it. Police departments and school board members openly take the sides against Mr. Parker and what he stands for.
We've written about all this over the past year on this blog. Yes, things HAVE changed for the worse.
Sunday, October 02, 2005
Homosexual Indoctrination an Old Story in Lexington
A friend reminded us of a story by Ed Oliver from five years ago (back when MassNews actually had some good reporting). He covered a meeting of 250 very angry parents at the Bridge School) on October 4, 2000). Swirling about town at the time was the busing and forced march of junior-high students to an "artsy" photo display of "diverse families" ("Love Makes a Family") at the Unitarian church by the Battle Green. And just the previous spring, the Fistgate scandal had awakened parents to the dangers in our schools.
Well, MassResistance was there with friends, leading a demonstration in front of the church on another occastion later that October, when Lexington's guest of honor, Rep. Barney Frank, showed up for their "Respecting Differences" forum (co-sponsored by the Lexington public schools). Needless to say, Frank responded most rudely to our cheerful greeting and outspoken signs:
"Don't Violate Our Parental Rights!"
"Diversity??? or... Thought Control?"
"Mom and Dad Know Best"
"Tolerance, Not Acceptance"
[Rep. Jay] "Kaufman protects Judge Lopez ... Not Our Kids!"
As you read about the Bridge School meeting, "Lexington Parents crowd curriculum meeting", note the typical stonewalling technique used by the school officials: Collect cards with questions from the concerned parents, but only answer the softballs. Excerpts:
Inquiring parents became further alarmed after their children brought home bulletins announcing that the Lexington Schools are co-sponsoring a pro-homosexual seminar called "Respecting Differences," which will be held October 14th and 15th. After that, Superintendent Pat Ruane announced at a September 12th School Committee meeting that the schools would "expand the notion of what diversity is all about" by training teachers to handle questions and issues about gay families.
One parent asked what a teacher would do if a child declared to his classmates that only a mother and father can be a family. What if he said his parents told him it was so. Would the child be told he is wrong, thereby undermining parental teaching? "That is not a thing we could ignore," the parent was told. "The teacher would tell the child there are all types of families.'"
Ruane told the standing room only crowd that the schools are looking at the reality of an increasingly diverse society through the "formal and informal curriculum." She explained that the books, materials and teachers on hand last night were to help them understand the formal curriculum. "There is no mandated curriculum around issues that are sensitive," she said. However, the informal curriculum is "teaching to the moment." She told the crowd that there is a need for teachers to "be on the same page" regarding homosexual issues and they would have to be trained to be a "partner to the community." Ruane commented, "This is new territory."
Helen Cohen, former pastor at the First Parish Unitarian church who now chairs the Lexington School Committee [thought we couldn't "mix church and state"?] played a big role in the indoctrination plans back in 2000 (as she still does):
[Lexington resident Lorraine Fournier] told Ruane that homosexual education went against what she was taught. Fournier wrote that the Superintendent told her, “There is a separation of church and state.”
Massachusetts News showed Fournier’s letter to Ruane and asked if it was true she told Fournier that there is a separation of church and state. Ruane said she did and strongly voiced her opinion again that there is a separation of church and state.
Massachusetts News asked Ruane, “Why then are the Lexington Schools co-sponsoring the ‘Respecting Differences’ activities along with the lead sponsor, Lexington’s Unitarian Church?” Rather than address the obvious double standard, Ruane could only respond with, “That’s how Lexington does things, as a community.”
A further illustration of church-state coordination, besides the professional credits teachers can accrue for participating in the Unitarian-sponsored activity, occurred when the Unitarian pastor, Helen Cohen, wrote an essay which was published right beside Superintendent Ruane’s opinion piece in the Lexington Minuteman on September 28.
Both articles touted the “Respecting Differences” weekend. Pastor Cohen wrote in her article that she thinks homosexuality is natural, has a biological basis and that Jesus was “inclusive.” The Lexington schools are paying to help promote the Unitarian humanist view, while Fournier and other parents say that their religious views are not even tolerated.
Well, MassResistance was there with friends, leading a demonstration in front of the church on another occastion later that October, when Lexington's guest of honor, Rep. Barney Frank, showed up for their "Respecting Differences" forum (co-sponsored by the Lexington public schools). Needless to say, Frank responded most rudely to our cheerful greeting and outspoken signs:
"Don't Violate Our Parental Rights!"
"Diversity??? or... Thought Control?"
"Mom and Dad Know Best"
"Tolerance, Not Acceptance"
[Rep. Jay] "Kaufman protects Judge Lopez ... Not Our Kids!"
As you read about the Bridge School meeting, "Lexington Parents crowd curriculum meeting", note the typical stonewalling technique used by the school officials: Collect cards with questions from the concerned parents, but only answer the softballs. Excerpts:
Inquiring parents became further alarmed after their children brought home bulletins announcing that the Lexington Schools are co-sponsoring a pro-homosexual seminar called "Respecting Differences," which will be held October 14th and 15th. After that, Superintendent Pat Ruane announced at a September 12th School Committee meeting that the schools would "expand the notion of what diversity is all about" by training teachers to handle questions and issues about gay families.
One parent asked what a teacher would do if a child declared to his classmates that only a mother and father can be a family. What if he said his parents told him it was so. Would the child be told he is wrong, thereby undermining parental teaching? "That is not a thing we could ignore," the parent was told. "The teacher would tell the child there are all types of families.'"
Ruane told the standing room only crowd that the schools are looking at the reality of an increasingly diverse society through the "formal and informal curriculum." She explained that the books, materials and teachers on hand last night were to help them understand the formal curriculum. "There is no mandated curriculum around issues that are sensitive," she said. However, the informal curriculum is "teaching to the moment." She told the crowd that there is a need for teachers to "be on the same page" regarding homosexual issues and they would have to be trained to be a "partner to the community." Ruane commented, "This is new territory."
Helen Cohen, former pastor at the First Parish Unitarian church who now chairs the Lexington School Committee [thought we couldn't "mix church and state"?] played a big role in the indoctrination plans back in 2000 (as she still does):
[Lexington resident Lorraine Fournier] told Ruane that homosexual education went against what she was taught. Fournier wrote that the Superintendent told her, “There is a separation of church and state.”
Massachusetts News showed Fournier’s letter to Ruane and asked if it was true she told Fournier that there is a separation of church and state. Ruane said she did and strongly voiced her opinion again that there is a separation of church and state.
Massachusetts News asked Ruane, “Why then are the Lexington Schools co-sponsoring the ‘Respecting Differences’ activities along with the lead sponsor, Lexington’s Unitarian Church?” Rather than address the obvious double standard, Ruane could only respond with, “That’s how Lexington does things, as a community.”
A further illustration of church-state coordination, besides the professional credits teachers can accrue for participating in the Unitarian-sponsored activity, occurred when the Unitarian pastor, Helen Cohen, wrote an essay which was published right beside Superintendent Ruane’s opinion piece in the Lexington Minuteman on September 28.
Both articles touted the “Respecting Differences” weekend. Pastor Cohen wrote in her article that she thinks homosexuality is natural, has a biological basis and that Jesus was “inclusive.” The Lexington schools are paying to help promote the Unitarian humanist view, while Fournier and other parents say that their religious views are not even tolerated.
Saturday, October 01, 2005
The Battle for Maine
You might want to read up on the current battle raging in Maine over the legislature's repeated attempts to write perversion into their laws, over the express wish of the voters. A special vote is coming up on November 8 to repeal a recently enacted bill which purports to protect certain citizens from discrimination. But protecting "sexual orientation and sexual expression" will play out in a very destructive way.
The excerpts below explain what's really at stake. It's also obvious that if the current Maine law stands, sodomitic and lesbian "marriage" will be the next demand of the queer activists. After all, the law says "no discrimination", and "sexual expression" could include the need to be "married".
From the Maine Coalition for Marriage site:
If sexual orientation is added to Maine's legal code it will start the implementation of policies that discriminate against people with traditional views of morality.
Sexual orientation is often taken to mean homosexuality, however, the two words constitute an umbrella term for numerous sexual behaviors. If Maine society rewards homosexual behavior, more young people will experiment and other sexual orientations and abhorrent sexual behaviors will be normalized. Maine society has an obligation to institute policies that promote the health and well-being of its citizens.
One problem in codifying sexual orientation is that unlike sex or race, gender identity, perception or expression has no concrete limits. In effect, this kind of provision in regard to employment eliminates at-will employment. Anyone who is terminated without cause can attribute the termination to gender identity, perception or expression.
Are you willing to sit by while our Legislature and ultra-liberal Governor say that all forms of sexual deviance are welcome everywhere in Maine no matter how bizarre? Are you willing to sit by, while the Boy Scouts are labeled as haters, and cross-dressers, nudists, and pedophiles are praised as heroes? Are you willing to see the words FATHER and HUSBAND written out of the law as hateful and bigoted, as has already happened in Canada?
The hidden agenda is the normalization of homosexuality in the public schools through books such as “Heather has Two Mommies” and “Daddy Has a Roommate”. Every child deserves a healthy and safe environment at school. Sexual deviance has no place in a school system that is already falling way behind in the teaching of basic subjects. The classroom is not a place to experiment with a redefinition of marriage and the family. Under the current law, a pedophile cannot be barred from a job as a public school teacher on the basis of his sexual orientation.
The Christian Civic League of Maine also puts out a daily alert. Wednesday's picks up on a piece by Rich Lowry (editor of National Review) which correctly links radical feminism with the sexual free-for-all we now find ourselves in.
COLUMNIST CLAIMS FEMINISTS HAVE UNLEASHED ‘RAUNCH CULTURE’, by Fritz Spencer
A recent column by Rich Lowry claims that feminism has been one of the principal forces which have “unleashed raunch culture” on our society. Lowry says that feminists have contributed to the vulgarization of our society by insisting that women act like men, thus turning women into mere objects – which is nearly the point the Christian Civic League has been trying to make all along.
The current push for gay rights and same-sex marriage would have been unthinkable in early times, when the sanctity of the home was honored and respected. “Gay rights” and “gay marriage” can only be understood in the context of an ever-worsening climate of sexual permissiveness, which includes a toleration of pornography which would have been unthinkable a generation ago.
If homosexual practices are tolerated, or worse yet, put on a par with marriage, radicals will seek the approval of society for even worse forms of sexual deviance. Many on the left are now advocating that marriage be replaced by legal unions between three or more people, in arrangements called “polyamory” or “polyfidelity.” At a recent speech by Mike Heath at Bowdoin College, one student stood up and identified himself as a “polyamourous socialist.”
If one unwritten, universal law – that is the natural law which prohibits sodomy – can be replaced on the basis of an appeal to “rights” and “equality” why not all other natural laws pertaining to sexual morality? The only possible outcome from the overthrow of all laws pertaining to sexual morality, is the death of the institution of the family.
The excerpts below explain what's really at stake. It's also obvious that if the current Maine law stands, sodomitic and lesbian "marriage" will be the next demand of the queer activists. After all, the law says "no discrimination", and "sexual expression" could include the need to be "married".
From the Maine Coalition for Marriage site:
If sexual orientation is added to Maine's legal code it will start the implementation of policies that discriminate against people with traditional views of morality.
Sexual orientation is often taken to mean homosexuality, however, the two words constitute an umbrella term for numerous sexual behaviors. If Maine society rewards homosexual behavior, more young people will experiment and other sexual orientations and abhorrent sexual behaviors will be normalized. Maine society has an obligation to institute policies that promote the health and well-being of its citizens.
One problem in codifying sexual orientation is that unlike sex or race, gender identity, perception or expression has no concrete limits. In effect, this kind of provision in regard to employment eliminates at-will employment. Anyone who is terminated without cause can attribute the termination to gender identity, perception or expression.
Are you willing to sit by while our Legislature and ultra-liberal Governor say that all forms of sexual deviance are welcome everywhere in Maine no matter how bizarre? Are you willing to sit by, while the Boy Scouts are labeled as haters, and cross-dressers, nudists, and pedophiles are praised as heroes? Are you willing to see the words FATHER and HUSBAND written out of the law as hateful and bigoted, as has already happened in Canada?
The hidden agenda is the normalization of homosexuality in the public schools through books such as “Heather has Two Mommies” and “Daddy Has a Roommate”. Every child deserves a healthy and safe environment at school. Sexual deviance has no place in a school system that is already falling way behind in the teaching of basic subjects. The classroom is not a place to experiment with a redefinition of marriage and the family. Under the current law, a pedophile cannot be barred from a job as a public school teacher on the basis of his sexual orientation.
The Christian Civic League of Maine also puts out a daily alert. Wednesday's picks up on a piece by Rich Lowry (editor of National Review) which correctly links radical feminism with the sexual free-for-all we now find ourselves in.
COLUMNIST CLAIMS FEMINISTS HAVE UNLEASHED ‘RAUNCH CULTURE’, by Fritz Spencer
A recent column by Rich Lowry claims that feminism has been one of the principal forces which have “unleashed raunch culture” on our society. Lowry says that feminists have contributed to the vulgarization of our society by insisting that women act like men, thus turning women into mere objects – which is nearly the point the Christian Civic League has been trying to make all along.
The current push for gay rights and same-sex marriage would have been unthinkable in early times, when the sanctity of the home was honored and respected. “Gay rights” and “gay marriage” can only be understood in the context of an ever-worsening climate of sexual permissiveness, which includes a toleration of pornography which would have been unthinkable a generation ago.
If homosexual practices are tolerated, or worse yet, put on a par with marriage, radicals will seek the approval of society for even worse forms of sexual deviance. Many on the left are now advocating that marriage be replaced by legal unions between three or more people, in arrangements called “polyamory” or “polyfidelity.” At a recent speech by Mike Heath at Bowdoin College, one student stood up and identified himself as a “polyamourous socialist.”
If one unwritten, universal law – that is the natural law which prohibits sodomy – can be replaced on the basis of an appeal to “rights” and “equality” why not all other natural laws pertaining to sexual morality? The only possible outcome from the overthrow of all laws pertaining to sexual morality, is the death of the institution of the family.
Friday, September 30, 2005
Hmm...This Is News?
"Consensus Growing that Homosexuality is at Root of Priest Sexual Abuse Scandal", reports LifeSiteNews. This is not a surprise, but few in the MSM have dealt with this obvious fact. Some excerpts:
September 29: The release of the Grand Jury Report on the sexual abuse of minors by clergy in the Philadelphia Diocese highlights the danger of having homosexuals serving in the ministry, a pro-family group said today.
The American Family Association of Pennsylvania (AFA of PA) reviewed the over 400-page report and found that of the 28 'Selected Case Studies" listed in the report the victims of 23 priests were males ranging in age from 11-18 and the victims of two priests were both male and female. This review also reveals the efforts by media to downplay the overall presence of male victims and concentrate on the three priests whose victims were strictly female and the two that victimized both male and female teens....
Rod Dreher, editor of National Review Online writes: "Dr. Richard Fitzgibbons, an eminent Catholic psychiatrist who has treated scores of victims and priest-perpetrators, says 90% of his patients were either teen male victims or priests, or priests who abused teen boys." Because the victims are teenagers, this shows that the issue is not one of pedophilia as much as it is one of homosexuality.
Father Donald Cozzens, an author, psychologist, and Catholic seminary president says that there is such a high percentage of gay priests in the church that he is concerned that "the priesthood is or is becoming a gay profession."
A 2004 survey by John Jay College of Criminal Justice found that, of 10,667 individuals abused by priests between 1950 and 2002, 81 percent were male.
September 29: The release of the Grand Jury Report on the sexual abuse of minors by clergy in the Philadelphia Diocese highlights the danger of having homosexuals serving in the ministry, a pro-family group said today.
The American Family Association of Pennsylvania (AFA of PA) reviewed the over 400-page report and found that of the 28 'Selected Case Studies" listed in the report the victims of 23 priests were males ranging in age from 11-18 and the victims of two priests were both male and female. This review also reveals the efforts by media to downplay the overall presence of male victims and concentrate on the three priests whose victims were strictly female and the two that victimized both male and female teens....
Rod Dreher, editor of National Review Online writes: "Dr. Richard Fitzgibbons, an eminent Catholic psychiatrist who has treated scores of victims and priest-perpetrators, says 90% of his patients were either teen male victims or priests, or priests who abused teen boys." Because the victims are teenagers, this shows that the issue is not one of pedophilia as much as it is one of homosexuality.
Father Donald Cozzens, an author, psychologist, and Catholic seminary president says that there is such a high percentage of gay priests in the church that he is concerned that "the priesthood is or is becoming a gay profession."
A 2004 survey by John Jay College of Criminal Justice found that, of 10,667 individuals abused by priests between 1950 and 2002, 81 percent were male.
Thursday, September 29, 2005
Dangers of "Hate Crimes" Legislation
Robert Knight of Concerned Women for America has written the best summary of the dangers of the so-called "hate crimes legislation" we've seen. It is clear that such legislation is only intended as a tool for silencing all opposition to the homosexual agenda. Too bad so many of our Congressmen are clueless. Excerpts:
"Hate crime" laws pose a danger to civil liberties in three ways:
They pave the way for suppression of the freedoms of speech, association and religion.
They violate the concept of equal protection under the law.
They introduce the un-American concept of "thought crime," in which someone's actions are "more" illegal based on their thoughts or beliefs....
A grandmother walking down the street should have at least as much protection under the law as someone who is leaving a "gay" bar. But under "hate crimes" laws that include "sexual orientation," the same assault would be punished with greater penalties if the victim were perceived as homosexual.
There is no evidence that victims of "hate crimes" are receiving any less protection than victims of other crimes. To suggest otherwise insults the men and women of the nation's law enforcement community.
Homosexual activists often exaggerate the incidence of "hate crimes," which make up less than 1 percent of all crimes. Over the past several years, even with more law enforcement agencies reporting, the number of "hate crimes" based on "sexual orientation" has dropped....
Liberal activists increasingly invoke such phrases as "hostile speech" and a "climate of violence" to describe pro-family opinion on homosexual issues. The net effect is to reclassify legitimate opinion and free speech as "hate speech" that can be censored....
As the definition of "hate crimes" expands, practitioners of traditional religion and those who support policies favoring the traditional family increasingly will face legal sanctions.... Will recognition of marriage someday be a "hate crime" in America? Yes, if "hate crime" laws continue to be enacted by well-meaning but misinformed legislators.
Read more...
"Hate crime" laws pose a danger to civil liberties in three ways:
They pave the way for suppression of the freedoms of speech, association and religion.
They violate the concept of equal protection under the law.
They introduce the un-American concept of "thought crime," in which someone's actions are "more" illegal based on their thoughts or beliefs....
A grandmother walking down the street should have at least as much protection under the law as someone who is leaving a "gay" bar. But under "hate crimes" laws that include "sexual orientation," the same assault would be punished with greater penalties if the victim were perceived as homosexual.
There is no evidence that victims of "hate crimes" are receiving any less protection than victims of other crimes. To suggest otherwise insults the men and women of the nation's law enforcement community.
Homosexual activists often exaggerate the incidence of "hate crimes," which make up less than 1 percent of all crimes. Over the past several years, even with more law enforcement agencies reporting, the number of "hate crimes" based on "sexual orientation" has dropped....
Liberal activists increasingly invoke such phrases as "hostile speech" and a "climate of violence" to describe pro-family opinion on homosexual issues. The net effect is to reclassify legitimate opinion and free speech as "hate speech" that can be censored....
As the definition of "hate crimes" expands, practitioners of traditional religion and those who support policies favoring the traditional family increasingly will face legal sanctions.... Will recognition of marriage someday be a "hate crime" in America? Yes, if "hate crime" laws continue to be enacted by well-meaning but misinformed legislators.
Read more...
Two Daddies, One Baby, No Mommy!
Our friend John has alerted us to the latest unnatural buzz in the LBGTQIP "parenting" community. Surely the spawn of the genetic-engineering experimenters of the ugly past (you know who we mean), queer activists and their mad scientist allies think that two daddies can now make their own baby -- without the contamination of a woman's DNA. And two mommies who just hate the thought of a man defiling them can now imagine a baby unpolluted by male cooties.
John asks why the Massachusetts homosexual "marriage" justices ignored the issue of same-sex couples' procreation "rights". For more, see his website, eggandsperm.org, "dedicated to enacting the proposal by the President's Council on Bioethics that Congress should "prohibit attempts to conceive a child by any means other than the union of egg and sperm."
Here are excerpts from this disturbing article, "Science’s Hope of Two Genetic Dads: Stem cell research could soon enable both partners in gay, lesbian couples to pitch in," in Gay City News (Sept. 8-14, 2005):
Gay and lesbian couples may one day be able to have children that share both of their genetic make up. On June 20, at the annual conference of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) in Copenhagen, scientists announced a development in stem cell research that could allow gay couples to have children that share both of their genetic make-up, instead of just one partner sharing a genetic link.
Researchers discovered that they could develop primordial germ cells (PGC) from embryonic stem cells. 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.
PCGs [thought it was PGC?] are present during the fetal stage and then develop into either sperm or eggs. By gaining the ability to engineer changes in the PCGs [sic], scientists could develop an egg from the PCGs [sic] of a man wishing to pair his genetic material with his partner’s sperm. Similarly, a woman’s PCG [sic] could be developed into sperm cells that could be used to fertilize her partner’s eggs. In either case, a unique embryo could then naturally form with the genetics of both same-sex partners.
The technique, announced at ESHRE in June, was discovered by scientists at the University of Sheffield in England. However, research on this is being done all over the world.
John asks why the Massachusetts homosexual "marriage" justices ignored the issue of same-sex couples' procreation "rights". For more, see his website, eggandsperm.org, "dedicated to enacting the proposal by the President's Council on Bioethics that Congress should "prohibit attempts to conceive a child by any means other than the union of egg and sperm."
Here are excerpts from this disturbing article, "Science’s Hope of Two Genetic Dads: Stem cell research could soon enable both partners in gay, lesbian couples to pitch in," in Gay City News (Sept. 8-14, 2005):
Gay and lesbian couples may one day be able to have children that share both of their genetic make up. On June 20, at the annual conference of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) in Copenhagen, scientists announced a development in stem cell research that could allow gay couples to have children that share both of their genetic make-up, instead of just one partner sharing a genetic link.
Researchers discovered that they could develop primordial germ cells (PGC) from embryonic stem cells. 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.
PCGs [thought it was PGC?] are present during the fetal stage and then develop into either sperm or eggs. By gaining the ability to engineer changes in the PCGs [sic], scientists could develop an egg from the PCGs [sic] of a man wishing to pair his genetic material with his partner’s sperm. Similarly, a woman’s PCG [sic] could be developed into sperm cells that could be used to fertilize her partner’s eggs. In either case, a unique embryo could then naturally form with the genetics of both same-sex partners.
The technique, announced at ESHRE in June, was discovered by scientists at the University of Sheffield in England. However, research on this is being done all over the world.
Wednesday, September 28, 2005
"Human Rights Campaign" in Boston
The so-called "Human Rights Campaign" is busy in Boston! Tonight there's a Harvard-sponsored forum at the Kennedy School: "Being Young & Gay in America". Well, we know Harvard abandoned critical thinking decades ago, so we're not surprised to see this.
And a gala, festive event not to be missed is the 24th annual (yes, they got quite a head start on us!) "Human Rights Campaign" fundraiser dinner. You can go for only $200 a plate! (The circles we travel in only charge $30-$50 a plat. Shows how well-off this repressed minority really is...)
The dinner's theme is "Leading the way: Ensuring that Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender [what happened to Questioning, Intersex, and Polyamorous?? -- dare we charge discrimination, or at the least, insensitivity?] Americans can be open, honest, and safe at home, at work, and in the community."
"...the largest annual LGBT event in New England is a night to remember. Your support is critical - especially in the historic and challenging times we find ourselves in these days." Marty Rouse, Campaign Director of MassEquality, is receiving a special award for knowing how to throw really great parties in the State House.
Corporate sponsors of the dinner include:
Accenture, Corners, Cingular, Comcast, CVS Pharmacy, Ernst & Young, Evergreen Investments, Gillette, Kimpton Hotels, Mellon New England, Pride Mortgage, Saab Nashua North, SBC Communications, Staples, Verizon.
And a gala, festive event not to be missed is the 24th annual (yes, they got quite a head start on us!) "Human Rights Campaign" fundraiser dinner. You can go for only $200 a plate! (The circles we travel in only charge $30-$50 a plat. Shows how well-off this repressed minority really is...)
The dinner's theme is "Leading the way: Ensuring that Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender [what happened to Questioning, Intersex, and Polyamorous?? -- dare we charge discrimination, or at the least, insensitivity?] Americans can be open, honest, and safe at home, at work, and in the community."
"...the largest annual LGBT event in New England is a night to remember. Your support is critical - especially in the historic and challenging times we find ourselves in these days." Marty Rouse, Campaign Director of MassEquality, is receiving a special award for knowing how to throw really great parties in the State House.
Corporate sponsors of the dinner include:
Accenture, Corners, Cingular, Comcast, CVS Pharmacy, Ernst & Young, Evergreen Investments, Gillette, Kimpton Hotels, Mellon New England, Pride Mortgage, Saab Nashua North, SBC Communications, Staples, Verizon.
Tuesday, September 27, 2005
Oregon Marriage Amendment Challenged in Courts
Why anyone would still think that marriage amendments will halt the assault on traditional marriage is beyond us. Focus on the Family's Citizen Link (and AP) reported yesterday that queer activists are bringing a court challenge to Oregon's voter-approved amendment to their state constitution (which defined marriage as between one man and one woman):
Oregon Court Considers Gay Marriage
The issue of Oregon's law banning same-sex marriage went to court today, as homosexual advocates challenged the law, The Associated Press reported.
Marion County Circuit Judge Joseph Guimond was to hear arguments that the state's voter-approved constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman is unconstitutional.
Basic Rights Oregon, the homosexual advocacy group that filed the lawsuit, is arguing that the law affects multiple rights, violating a state law that restricts numerous changes on one ballot measure.
Supporters say the one-sentence change to the constitution is straightforward, stating that the only marriages recognized in the state will be those between one man and one woman.
Tim Nashif, political director of the Oregon Family Council, said the amendment was simpler and clearer than amendments passed in other states.
"It appears they're searching for a judge who will overturn the measure for them," Nashif said. The court battle is expected to take at least two years and to ultimately wind up before the state Supreme Court.
Oregon Court Considers Gay Marriage
The issue of Oregon's law banning same-sex marriage went to court today, as homosexual advocates challenged the law, The Associated Press reported.
Marion County Circuit Judge Joseph Guimond was to hear arguments that the state's voter-approved constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman is unconstitutional.
Basic Rights Oregon, the homosexual advocacy group that filed the lawsuit, is arguing that the law affects multiple rights, violating a state law that restricts numerous changes on one ballot measure.
Supporters say the one-sentence change to the constitution is straightforward, stating that the only marriages recognized in the state will be those between one man and one woman.
Tim Nashif, political director of the Oregon Family Council, said the amendment was simpler and clearer than amendments passed in other states.
"It appears they're searching for a judge who will overturn the measure for them," Nashif said. The court battle is expected to take at least two years and to ultimately wind up before the state Supreme Court.
Monday, September 26, 2005
Celebrating Diversity? Or a Public Health Crisis?
We thought the Boston Globe just blindly "celebrated diversity", but today the business section reports, "Sex drugs called avenue to HIV; misuse of sex drugs studied." Now what group do you suppose is misusing Viagra and contributing to the spread of AIDS?
Yes, even the Globe has to deal with the reality that it's homosexual men involved here. While Pfizer Inc., manufacturer of Viagra, publishes "safe sex" information, it is "more tailored to the general population than to gay men who have high-risk sex." The Globe admitting that homosexual male sex is "high risk"? Wow. (Should we keep celebrating diversity?)
The problem is seen especially in the PNP ("party and play") set. First they pop crystal methamphetamine, which reduces their inhibitions, but also is a downer for you-know-what. So to regain "their ability to have sex," the PNP set next pops Viagra. "That worries public health officials who say the drug combination promotes risky, unprotected sex with multiple partners." And the drugs together "are also potentially deadly."
According to the Globe, ED dysfunction drugs "might be contributing to the transmission of HIV and other diseases." Oh really? Here we must disagree with the Globe. We think the problem is the behavior of the person taking the drugs, not the drugs.
Excerpts from the Globe article:
WASHINGTON -- Richard Gallo's experience is shared by thousands of men who sometimes find other men through e-mail messages that read: ''Do you want to PNP?" It stands for ''party and play." To party, they take crystal methamphetamine, which reduces inhibitions but also their ability to have sex. To play, they pop Viagra at the same time. Gallo, a 28-year-old Boston resident, said he had many such sexual encounters.
That worries public health officials who say the drug combination promotes risky, unprotected sex with multiple partners....
In cities across the nation, including Boston, reports of new cases of sexually transmitted diseases between men are on the rise. One reason, some health officials say, is the misuse of Viagra.
Dr. Jeffrey D. Klausner of the San Francisco Department of Public Health said that city was poised to eliminate syphilis in 2000. Now, there are thousands of new cases. He said gay men seeking treatment for sexually transmitted diseases report an average of 18 partners in the prior two months.
His research also links erectile dysfunction drugs with risky sexual behavior and an increase in sexually transmitted diseases in Chicago, Los Angeles, and New York. Klausner said drug companies should curb free samples and limit refills of erectile dysfunction drugs, which are used by more than 20 million American men.
Yes, even the Globe has to deal with the reality that it's homosexual men involved here. While Pfizer Inc., manufacturer of Viagra, publishes "safe sex" information, it is "more tailored to the general population than to gay men who have high-risk sex." The Globe admitting that homosexual male sex is "high risk"? Wow. (Should we keep celebrating diversity?)
The problem is seen especially in the PNP ("party and play") set. First they pop crystal methamphetamine, which reduces their inhibitions, but also is a downer for you-know-what. So to regain "their ability to have sex," the PNP set next pops Viagra. "That worries public health officials who say the drug combination promotes risky, unprotected sex with multiple partners." And the drugs together "are also potentially deadly."
According to the Globe, ED dysfunction drugs "might be contributing to the transmission of HIV and other diseases." Oh really? Here we must disagree with the Globe. We think the problem is the behavior of the person taking the drugs, not the drugs.
Excerpts from the Globe article:
WASHINGTON -- Richard Gallo's experience is shared by thousands of men who sometimes find other men through e-mail messages that read: ''Do you want to PNP?" It stands for ''party and play." To party, they take crystal methamphetamine, which reduces inhibitions but also their ability to have sex. To play, they pop Viagra at the same time. Gallo, a 28-year-old Boston resident, said he had many such sexual encounters.
That worries public health officials who say the drug combination promotes risky, unprotected sex with multiple partners....
In cities across the nation, including Boston, reports of new cases of sexually transmitted diseases between men are on the rise. One reason, some health officials say, is the misuse of Viagra.
Dr. Jeffrey D. Klausner of the San Francisco Department of Public Health said that city was poised to eliminate syphilis in 2000. Now, there are thousands of new cases. He said gay men seeking treatment for sexually transmitted diseases report an average of 18 partners in the prior two months.
His research also links erectile dysfunction drugs with risky sexual behavior and an increase in sexually transmitted diseases in Chicago, Los Angeles, and New York. Klausner said drug companies should curb free samples and limit refills of erectile dysfunction drugs, which are used by more than 20 million American men.
Sunday, September 25, 2005
Keeping Current: It's Now "LGBTQIP etc."
We' e been reading some oldies on the web, and couldn't help noticing how the queer activist acronym keeps growing.
Back in 2003 (when Carl Sciortino and his queer boyfriends disrupted Mass at the Cathedral of the Holy Cross in Boston, where they held hands, kissed, hugged, demanded sodomitic unions be blessed by God, etc.) ... well, back then, QueerToday's website referred to their movement as just "LGBT".
Now in 2005, only two years later,
"QueerToday.com represents the queer voice of the gay liberation movement. We advocate for equality for all LGBTQIP...etc. people."
Could our queer readers please inform us what the "P" stands for? Could it possibly have to do with the subject of our last posting? Maybe P is just for generalized Perversion, so it will cover whatever they think of next and they won't have to add another letter? (We don't want to imagine what that "etc." might include.)
(We understand that T was for transgender, but then sometimes also transsexual as sex-reassignment surgery started being covered by health insurance. Then we found out that even the queers are confused, so they've started saying T stands just for "trans". We think Q means "questioning", and I is "intersex".)
It seems the descent into this filthy whirlpool of depravity is swirling faster than they can handle ...
These are the people planning a huge demonstration against "Love Won Out" , the ex-gay ministry seminar planned for October 29 in Boston.
Back in 2003 (when Carl Sciortino and his queer boyfriends disrupted Mass at the Cathedral of the Holy Cross in Boston, where they held hands, kissed, hugged, demanded sodomitic unions be blessed by God, etc.) ... well, back then, QueerToday's website referred to their movement as just "LGBT".
Now in 2005, only two years later,
"QueerToday.com represents the queer voice of the gay liberation movement. We advocate for equality for all LGBTQIP...etc. people."
Could our queer readers please inform us what the "P" stands for? Could it possibly have to do with the subject of our last posting? Maybe P is just for generalized Perversion, so it will cover whatever they think of next and they won't have to add another letter? (We don't want to imagine what that "etc." might include.)
(We understand that T was for transgender, but then sometimes also transsexual as sex-reassignment surgery started being covered by health insurance. Then we found out that even the queers are confused, so they've started saying T stands just for "trans". We think Q means "questioning", and I is "intersex".)
It seems the descent into this filthy whirlpool of depravity is swirling faster than they can handle ...
These are the people planning a huge demonstration against "Love Won Out" , the ex-gay ministry seminar planned for October 29 in Boston.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)