Our very existence is "offensive" to homosexuals. Not -- as they say -- because we are "Nazis, haters, homophobes." But simply because we are normal. We are heterosexual. How much more offensive could we be? We remind them of their abnormality, and their unhappiness. So --we must be silenced, shunned, and put out of their sight.
This article in WorldNetDaily says it all:
"Wedding painting 'too hetero' for homosexuals: Image of bride, groom signing register deemed offensive to 'gays'." In question is a lovely a Victorian painting of a bride in white about to marry -- horrors! -- a groom.
And this bunch claims to believe in "tolerance".
Monday, November 14, 2005
Sunday, November 13, 2005
Mass. Legislators Warm Up to Bestiality
What is with our Mass. legislators??? Last week's Judicary Committee reviewed a bill, S938, which would lessen penalties for bestiality, and remove a phrase penalizing human-human sodomy from current Mass. statute (Sec. 6, ch. 272).
It seems that Senators Cynthia Stone Creem and Robert O'Leary, and Representatives Michael Festa and David Linsky (all recipients of homosexual PAC $), believe that NOTHING should be forbidden any more. Their bill would reduce punishments for acts of bestiality, eliminate penalities for sodomy, decriminalize adultery, and strike down statutes against advertising for abortion and contraception. It would also throw out statutes keeping beggars, vagrants, pickpockets, and tramps off our streets. Now that's an odd combination.
The Weekly Dig newspaper alerted us to this bill. And if they are somewhat taken aback, things have got to be BAD.
From "MAN ON DOG? Lawmakers move to lower penalty for bestiality … seriously," by Paul McMorrow, in last week's Weekly Dig :
More than two and a half years ago, the nation laughed as pro-family crusader Rick Santorum predicted the consequences of legalized gay marriage: If man-on-man marriage was sanctified, man-on-child and man-on-dog unions might not be far behind. Those who jeered Santorum were silenced last Tuesday. Man-on-dog isn’t legal just yet, but if the Massachusetts State Legislature has its way, it might be soon.
On November 1, cheerleading for bestiality was just one of a string of stunning pieces of legislation that converged on the legislature’s judiciary committee in a bizarre, post-Halloween orgy. The imminent collapse of the state cannot be far behind.
Sponsored by Senators Cynthia Creem and Robert O’Leary, and Representatives Michael Festa and David Linsky, the bestiality measure was buried in a packaged assault on morality, disguised as “An Act Relative to Archaic Crimes.” The bill would strike down several sections of the current penal code criminalizing adultery, fornication and the advertisement of abortion. It also repeals what appears to be a sodomy statute forbidding “abominable and detestable crime against nature, either with mankind or with a beast.”
Archaic, indeed. The new law would continue to forbid “a sexual act on an animal,” but reduce possible penalties for committing such a crime, making it decidedly less illegal. Whereas the old law punished doggie-diddling and the like with hard time (a maximum sentence of 20 years) in state prison, the new measure would give activist judges the option of slapping perps with a mere two and a half years in plush local jails, or even letting zoophiliacs walk with a $5,000 fine.
How badly has Massachusetts’ moral compass suffered since dudes started honeymooning with dudes? Not one legislator, nor a single member of the God-fearing public, appeared before the judiciary committee to denounce the proposed changes.
Hey, MassResistance can't be everywhere!
It seems that Senators Cynthia Stone Creem and Robert O'Leary, and Representatives Michael Festa and David Linsky (all recipients of homosexual PAC $), believe that NOTHING should be forbidden any more. Their bill would reduce punishments for acts of bestiality, eliminate penalities for sodomy, decriminalize adultery, and strike down statutes against advertising for abortion and contraception. It would also throw out statutes keeping beggars, vagrants, pickpockets, and tramps off our streets. Now that's an odd combination.
The Weekly Dig newspaper alerted us to this bill. And if they are somewhat taken aback, things have got to be BAD.
From "MAN ON DOG? Lawmakers move to lower penalty for bestiality … seriously," by Paul McMorrow, in last week's Weekly Dig :
More than two and a half years ago, the nation laughed as pro-family crusader Rick Santorum predicted the consequences of legalized gay marriage: If man-on-man marriage was sanctified, man-on-child and man-on-dog unions might not be far behind. Those who jeered Santorum were silenced last Tuesday. Man-on-dog isn’t legal just yet, but if the Massachusetts State Legislature has its way, it might be soon.
On November 1, cheerleading for bestiality was just one of a string of stunning pieces of legislation that converged on the legislature’s judiciary committee in a bizarre, post-Halloween orgy. The imminent collapse of the state cannot be far behind.
Sponsored by Senators Cynthia Creem and Robert O’Leary, and Representatives Michael Festa and David Linsky, the bestiality measure was buried in a packaged assault on morality, disguised as “An Act Relative to Archaic Crimes.” The bill would strike down several sections of the current penal code criminalizing adultery, fornication and the advertisement of abortion. It also repeals what appears to be a sodomy statute forbidding “abominable and detestable crime against nature, either with mankind or with a beast.”
Archaic, indeed. The new law would continue to forbid “a sexual act on an animal,” but reduce possible penalties for committing such a crime, making it decidedly less illegal. Whereas the old law punished doggie-diddling and the like with hard time (a maximum sentence of 20 years) in state prison, the new measure would give activist judges the option of slapping perps with a mere two and a half years in plush local jails, or even letting zoophiliacs walk with a $5,000 fine.
How badly has Massachusetts’ moral compass suffered since dudes started honeymooning with dudes? Not one legislator, nor a single member of the God-fearing public, appeared before the judiciary committee to denounce the proposed changes.
Hey, MassResistance can't be everywhere!
Saturday, November 12, 2005
Romney on "Gay" Marriage Ruling: Too little, too late
Gov. Mitt Romney tried last week to sound principled on the homosexual "marriage" ruling. In two separate speeches, he questioned the Supreme Judicial Court justices' motives, and their lack of grounding in the constitution and precedent. But it didn't come off -- because he was too soft on this issue in the beginning. It's two years too late for him to be taking a stand.
It won't work with informed conservatives, who lobbied him just after the ruling to stand up to the court. He should have pointed out then, in 2003 and 2004, that the SJC had no Constitutional authority to speak on matters of marriage. He should have ordered his Dept. of Public Health and Justices of the Peace NOT to perform homosexual "marriages" then. He had the authority, and chose not to use it. (For that matter, he could still use this authority!) So why should we listen to these pretty speeches now?
All he accomplished in the last few days was to give the homosexual lobby/Boston Globe crowd a new occasion to plaster their silly arguments all over. Sure enough, they dragged out the idea that "marriages" based on unnatural sexuality have to do with "human rights", and praised Empress Margaret's great wisdom in denying that moral codes have anything to do with the law.
Romney's criticism of SJC marriage ruling, "Romney rips SJC's justices on values; Says personal views swayed marriage ruling" (Globe, Nov. 11)
Boston Globe lead editorial, "Romney's Rant" (Nov. 12)
"Romney tempers criticism of justices" (Globe, Nov. 12)
It won't work with informed conservatives, who lobbied him just after the ruling to stand up to the court. He should have pointed out then, in 2003 and 2004, that the SJC had no Constitutional authority to speak on matters of marriage. He should have ordered his Dept. of Public Health and Justices of the Peace NOT to perform homosexual "marriages" then. He had the authority, and chose not to use it. (For that matter, he could still use this authority!) So why should we listen to these pretty speeches now?
All he accomplished in the last few days was to give the homosexual lobby/Boston Globe crowd a new occasion to plaster their silly arguments all over. Sure enough, they dragged out the idea that "marriages" based on unnatural sexuality have to do with "human rights", and praised Empress Margaret's great wisdom in denying that moral codes have anything to do with the law.
Romney's criticism of SJC marriage ruling, "Romney rips SJC's justices on values; Says personal views swayed marriage ruling" (Globe, Nov. 11)
Boston Globe lead editorial, "Romney's Rant" (Nov. 12)
"Romney tempers criticism of justices" (Globe, Nov. 12)
Friday, November 11, 2005
Rep. O'Flaherty: So Young, So Weary
Rep. Eugene O'Flaherty (Chelsea) is going over to the dark side. He's just too tired to continue the battle to preserve traditional marriage. The "gays" have succeeded in wearing him down.
What's with these men in our Mass. Legislature? Are they all getting female hormone injections? Where are the real men?
O'Flaherty just had a lovely vacation in Europe. But he's still too exhausted to deal with the biggest issue facing our society since abortion and Muslim terrorist attacks. In his position as House Chair of the Judiciary Committee, this has some significance.
Could it be that the gays smelled blood in the water after O'Flaherty's recent drunk driving bill fiasco, and tempted him with their $upport in exchange for this change of heart? Will the recently announced homosexual challenger for his seat back out of the race now?
Bay Windows is happy:
State Rep. Eugene O'Flaherty, an influential opponent of civil marriage rights for same-sex couples, now says that he is opposed to the current effort to put a gay marriage ban on the 2008 ballot. During a lengthy interview with Bay Windows, O'Flaherty also says that as House chair of the legislature's Joint Committee on the Judiciary he will recommend that the legislation not be passed should it come before his committee, as it likely will....
As one longtime State House observer says of O'Flaherty, "He hasn't [just] opposed the gay community, he has led the fight against the gay community viciously and vociferously."
But a number of factors have convinced the five-term legislator to change his position. The lengthy debate on marriage, O'Flaherty says, has consumed too much of his time as a legislator. "I want to try to dispose of this issue," he says. "It's occupied the last three years of my life; a lot of time, a lot of energy and I'd like to apply that to healthcare. I'd like to apply that to some of the other issues that we have in front of us, that as far as I'm concerned, are much more important to our constituents at this point."
He also says he's been influenced by his constituents, most notably Charlestown political activist Ken Stone, a gay man whose wedding O'Flaherty attended last year.
What's with these men in our Mass. Legislature? Are they all getting female hormone injections? Where are the real men?
O'Flaherty just had a lovely vacation in Europe. But he's still too exhausted to deal with the biggest issue facing our society since abortion and Muslim terrorist attacks. In his position as House Chair of the Judiciary Committee, this has some significance.
Could it be that the gays smelled blood in the water after O'Flaherty's recent drunk driving bill fiasco, and tempted him with their $upport in exchange for this change of heart? Will the recently announced homosexual challenger for his seat back out of the race now?
Bay Windows is happy:
State Rep. Eugene O'Flaherty, an influential opponent of civil marriage rights for same-sex couples, now says that he is opposed to the current effort to put a gay marriage ban on the 2008 ballot. During a lengthy interview with Bay Windows, O'Flaherty also says that as House chair of the legislature's Joint Committee on the Judiciary he will recommend that the legislation not be passed should it come before his committee, as it likely will....
As one longtime State House observer says of O'Flaherty, "He hasn't [just] opposed the gay community, he has led the fight against the gay community viciously and vociferously."
But a number of factors have convinced the five-term legislator to change his position. The lengthy debate on marriage, O'Flaherty says, has consumed too much of his time as a legislator. "I want to try to dispose of this issue," he says. "It's occupied the last three years of my life; a lot of time, a lot of energy and I'd like to apply that to healthcare. I'd like to apply that to some of the other issues that we have in front of us, that as far as I'm concerned, are much more important to our constituents at this point."
He also says he's been influenced by his constituents, most notably Charlestown political activist Ken Stone, a gay man whose wedding O'Flaherty attended last year.
Thursday, November 10, 2005
Level of Discourse, Part II
A while back, we reported a typical email from a queer activist, received by a pro-family legislator. To complement that, we now post a recent voice mail left on Lexington father David Parker's home phone, immediately after ABC World News Tonight ran a story on his arrest. Here's the report from Article 8 Alliance, that includes this rancid and vile message:
In case you ever wondered how disgusting the homosexual activists can get when they don't like you, here's just a little taste of it.
As we mentioned in a recent email, a few weeks back David Parker appeared on the national "ABC World News Tonight" program being interviewed about his stand in Lexington for parental notification. Within fifteen seconds of the four-minute segment's completion, a terrifying call came to his house that was left on his answering machine. (He and his family were watching the show and didn't pick up the phone). Since it came so quickly, it was clear that it was planned (probably from the teaser broadcast the day before on the program) and meant to terrorize him.
WARNING: THIS IS VERY DISGUSTING AND OBSCENE. But this is the kind of thing that's being dished out behind the scenes by this "tolerant and welcoming" movement against parents and others they don't like. Click here if you wish to listen to it.
We keep saying this: in a few years you may not be able to stop this. This is why every one of us must get involved now.
(Click here for David Parker background.)
Click here to view the ABC News clip. (Windows Media Viewer format)
In case you ever wondered how disgusting the homosexual activists can get when they don't like you, here's just a little taste of it.
As we mentioned in a recent email, a few weeks back David Parker appeared on the national "ABC World News Tonight" program being interviewed about his stand in Lexington for parental notification. Within fifteen seconds of the four-minute segment's completion, a terrifying call came to his house that was left on his answering machine. (He and his family were watching the show and didn't pick up the phone). Since it came so quickly, it was clear that it was planned (probably from the teaser broadcast the day before on the program) and meant to terrorize him.
WARNING: THIS IS VERY DISGUSTING AND OBSCENE. But this is the kind of thing that's being dished out behind the scenes by this "tolerant and welcoming" movement against parents and others they don't like. Click here if you wish to listen to it.
We keep saying this: in a few years you may not be able to stop this. This is why every one of us must get involved now.
(Click here for David Parker background.)
Click here to view the ABC News clip. (Windows Media Viewer format)
Wednesday, November 09, 2005
Maine Will Not Discriminate Between Good and Evil
Following yesterday's election, the state of Maine will no longer discriminate between good and evil, right and wrong on the issue of homosexual perversion. We hope Mainers are prepared for the deluge of lawsuits, demonstrations outside of churches, transsexual teachers, indoctrination in the schools, and ultimately "same-sex marriage" that will soon come to their state.
The Portland Press Herald reports this morning that the effort to overturn the law which will permit, and encourage, all such insanity went down to defeat, 56% - 44%. It also reports that the forces promoting perversion outspent the forces for morality and common sense, by 3 to 1:
Four political action committees that urged voters to keep the law had raised almost $930,000 by late last month, compared with less than $336,000 in receipts for two PACs that opposed the gay rights law.
The law prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation in employment, housing, public accommodations, credit and education. It defines sexual orientation as "a person's actual or perceived heterosexuality, bisexuality, homosexuality or gender identity or expression."
The law says it is not intended to redefine marriage, which a separate state law defines as the union of a man and a woman. But opponents of the law, led by the Christian Civic League of Maine and the Maine Grassroots Coalition, argued during the campaign that keeping the gay rights law on the books would pave the way for legalizing same-sex marriage.
As we said yesterday, pray for Maine.
The Portland Press Herald reports this morning that the effort to overturn the law which will permit, and encourage, all such insanity went down to defeat, 56% - 44%. It also reports that the forces promoting perversion outspent the forces for morality and common sense, by 3 to 1:
Four political action committees that urged voters to keep the law had raised almost $930,000 by late last month, compared with less than $336,000 in receipts for two PACs that opposed the gay rights law.
Michael Heath, Executive Director of the Christian Civic League of Maine, says their side was outspent 10 to 1:
What is surprising however is the magnificent effort made by those who worked to repeal this ill-advised and dangerous law. Their time to collect signatures to repeal the law was reduced from six months to three. They were outspent ten to one, and their opponents enjoyed a great advantage in radio and TV coverage. Worst of all, they lacked the help of a fair and impartial media to referee the contest fairly.
The language now carrying the full force of law in Maine goes farther than any other in the country: Its definition of "sexual orientation" includes "gender identity or expression", as well as the words "actual or perceived":The law prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation in employment, housing, public accommodations, credit and education. It defines sexual orientation as "a person's actual or perceived heterosexuality, bisexuality, homosexuality or gender identity or expression."
The law says it is not intended to redefine marriage, which a separate state law defines as the union of a man and a woman. But opponents of the law, led by the Christian Civic League of Maine and the Maine Grassroots Coalition, argued during the campaign that keeping the gay rights law on the books would pave the way for legalizing same-sex marriage.
As we said yesterday, pray for Maine.
Boston Globe Pushes Homosexual Priest
Another gratuitous story in Sunday's Boston Globe (11-6-05), pushing the normalization of homosexuality. This time the focus is an "openly gay priest" in a Catholic parish in Utica, New York. Utica?! The story begins:
The folks on Hospitality Row do not mind talking about the fact that the Rev. Fred Daley of St. Francis de Sales Church is openly gay. They know that is why Daley is in the spotlight at a time when some leaders of the Roman Catholic Church are blaming homosexuals for its sexual abuse scandals, and possibly preparing to bar gays from the priesthood.
But they would prefer to talk about Daley's 13 years of service to their impoverished Corn Hill neighborhood, and how he established one sorely needed social service after another: opening refugee housing in the former convent, a shelter for girls from the streets in the former rectory, a soup kitchen in a former crack house across the street from his imposing red brick church, and affordable day care in the former Catholic school....
This story got our friend Joe's attention. He is fed up with such propganda pieces in the Globe, and writes to MassResistance:
This is deliberate confusion and more praise and glory for another gay/hero.
The very first sentence is an outright lie. The journalist cites an amorphous neighborhood group as being very happy with the "openly gay" priest Fred Daley. Anyone reading the first sentence would immediately assume that the Catholic Church now promotes and accepts priests living an active gay lifestyle. The explicit lie of the first sentence is subtly modified later in the article when it states Daley mentions being a "celibate gay priest."
These terms are meant to confuse. As a Catholic I am highly offended at the constant use of the term "gay Catholic." It is the theological equivalent of saying you are a "Nazi/Jew". The two terms are mutually exclusive. It's actually a testament to gay activists that we can't use these terms together because they have been so successful at defining in a euphemistic way what "gay" means.
The actual correct interpretation of these facts is that Fred Daley is a same-sex attracted celibate priest. However, they would never state that up front because it does not advance their cause.
The journalist also implies that the Roman Catholic Church is scapegoating gays for the scandals. I believe research will prove that most of the abuse was done by priests with sexually mature victims and that much of the abuse was male-to-male. (The constant refrain we hear is, "Oh, that's different, those priests weren't gay -- they were pedophiles.") I believe most of those responsible for the abuse can be classified as gay. If this is the case the Church should be heralded for rooting out this problem.
Also, the article mentions Fred Daley as being a celibate priest. Isn't this proof that the church is compassionate and welcomes those with same-sex attractions? Another confusing term is presented. How can Fred Daley "come out" as a gay priest when he is not living the gay lifestyle? He also states that the Church oppresses those who are gay or transgendered. Again, right out of the standard gay playbook, Daley paints himself as a poor persecuted victim. " I know what it's like to be excluded, marginalized, rejected, dismissed and considered immoral and evil." Isn't he living proof that the Catholic Church is accepting and tolerant?
The article also cites an immigrant from the Sudan, Grace Sunday, who says "you'd be isolated if you said you were gay, and stoned to death...but in the United States it's normal." The implication is that "abnormal" Americans who don't agree with the gay lifestyle would stone the priest to death. This cleverly disguised hate and intolerance gets a total pass by the pro-gay journalist. Anyone living a Catholic or Christian life is vilified for "hating" gays. The extreme word play and twisted meanings could be straight out of the playbook of Joseph Goebbels.
Later in the article a parishioner asks, "Why is it necessary for them to talk about their sexuality?" Bingo! Exactly right. OK -- so Daley sleeps better at night and has advanced the gay agenda. I suppose someone will send him some medals now.
The folks on Hospitality Row do not mind talking about the fact that the Rev. Fred Daley of St. Francis de Sales Church is openly gay. They know that is why Daley is in the spotlight at a time when some leaders of the Roman Catholic Church are blaming homosexuals for its sexual abuse scandals, and possibly preparing to bar gays from the priesthood.
But they would prefer to talk about Daley's 13 years of service to their impoverished Corn Hill neighborhood, and how he established one sorely needed social service after another: opening refugee housing in the former convent, a shelter for girls from the streets in the former rectory, a soup kitchen in a former crack house across the street from his imposing red brick church, and affordable day care in the former Catholic school....
This story got our friend Joe's attention. He is fed up with such propganda pieces in the Globe, and writes to MassResistance:
This is deliberate confusion and more praise and glory for another gay/hero.
The very first sentence is an outright lie. The journalist cites an amorphous neighborhood group as being very happy with the "openly gay" priest Fred Daley. Anyone reading the first sentence would immediately assume that the Catholic Church now promotes and accepts priests living an active gay lifestyle. The explicit lie of the first sentence is subtly modified later in the article when it states Daley mentions being a "celibate gay priest."
These terms are meant to confuse. As a Catholic I am highly offended at the constant use of the term "gay Catholic." It is the theological equivalent of saying you are a "Nazi/Jew". The two terms are mutually exclusive. It's actually a testament to gay activists that we can't use these terms together because they have been so successful at defining in a euphemistic way what "gay" means.
The actual correct interpretation of these facts is that Fred Daley is a same-sex attracted celibate priest. However, they would never state that up front because it does not advance their cause.
The journalist also implies that the Roman Catholic Church is scapegoating gays for the scandals. I believe research will prove that most of the abuse was done by priests with sexually mature victims and that much of the abuse was male-to-male. (The constant refrain we hear is, "Oh, that's different, those priests weren't gay -- they were pedophiles.") I believe most of those responsible for the abuse can be classified as gay. If this is the case the Church should be heralded for rooting out this problem.
Also, the article mentions Fred Daley as being a celibate priest. Isn't this proof that the church is compassionate and welcomes those with same-sex attractions? Another confusing term is presented. How can Fred Daley "come out" as a gay priest when he is not living the gay lifestyle? He also states that the Church oppresses those who are gay or transgendered. Again, right out of the standard gay playbook, Daley paints himself as a poor persecuted victim. " I know what it's like to be excluded, marginalized, rejected, dismissed and considered immoral and evil." Isn't he living proof that the Catholic Church is accepting and tolerant?
The article also cites an immigrant from the Sudan, Grace Sunday, who says "you'd be isolated if you said you were gay, and stoned to death...but in the United States it's normal." The implication is that "abnormal" Americans who don't agree with the gay lifestyle would stone the priest to death. This cleverly disguised hate and intolerance gets a total pass by the pro-gay journalist. Anyone living a Catholic or Christian life is vilified for "hating" gays. The extreme word play and twisted meanings could be straight out of the playbook of Joseph Goebbels.
Later in the article a parishioner asks, "Why is it necessary for them to talk about their sexuality?" Bingo! Exactly right. OK -- so Daley sleeps better at night and has advanced the gay agenda. I suppose someone will send him some medals now.
Tuesday, November 08, 2005
Do We Live in a "Post-Constitutional" Era?
Our friend John Haskins, at Article 8 and Parents' Rights Coalition, just
published a provocative piece in The American Spectator online. His analysis of judicial tyranny and activism really lays it on the line. Here are excerpts from "No More Striking Down Constitutions":
Absurd though it is, only "constitutional" conservatives honor precedent. The Liberal "mainstream" savors precedents they've shot down -- or will next chance. Their favorite rulings violate centuries of precedent.... Even "all star" conservative constitutionalists steer a careful course between the Constitution and what the establishment will tolerate.
Righteous refinement obliges conservatives (holy and secular) to treat these points as uncouth. They are not. They address why Republicans are winning elections and "conservatives" are losing the Culture War, waiting for strict constructionists to fix everything. If we want to preserve for our children what was handed to us we'll need to stop describing things in grays that are actually black and white.
Let's drop the talking points about "conservative," "constructionist" and "originalist" nominees. Such language obscures what's going on. These nuances are a polite way of pretending that the mainstream in law and government interprets the Constitution differently than we do. No. They are oblivious to the actual content of the Constitution, or they are anti-constitutional. A polite term would be "post-constitutional." ...
If constitutions count, homosexual marriage remains illegal in Massachusetts. John Adams's constitution says explicitly the people are "not bound" by any law not ratified by their Legislature. Four Boston judges struck down a constitution that stood in their way -- one they've sworn to uphold. The word "treason" comes to mind -- a strong word that Liberals would use lustily if they could, but then the Left is all about winning and conservatives are about slowing them down.
Has "conservative" governor Mitt Romney refused to enforce a ruling dissenting justices and Harvard law professors say is bogus? His oath compels him to refuse the court its pleasure. He pleads impotence. Do constitutionalists demand that the outlaw justices resign? Silence. Or Romney? No, they fancy him in the White House. At what point will "constitutionalists" stop siding with the establishment against the Constitution?
CONSERVATIVES JUST don't get it. In a republic judges don't get to make laws and others are sworn to stop them when they try. Yet we speak as if this is splitting hairs. Jefferson wrote that an unconstitutional ruling is null and void. What part of "void" can't we understand? Why are "conservative" presidents, governors, legislatures, mayors, sheriffs and school committees siding with Laurence Tribe against Jefferson and Lincoln?
Law schools haven't taught the Constitution for years. They teach precedent. Conservatives dignify mockery of the Constitution by pretending it's a matter of dueling legal theories. "We respectfully disagree with the court's interpretation..."
No. That ain't interpretation. "Impeachable" is what it is -- prestigious degrees notwithstanding. Respect swindlers in high places? ...
Read the complete article...
published a provocative piece in The American Spectator online. His analysis of judicial tyranny and activism really lays it on the line. Here are excerpts from "No More Striking Down Constitutions":
Absurd though it is, only "constitutional" conservatives honor precedent. The Liberal "mainstream" savors precedents they've shot down -- or will next chance. Their favorite rulings violate centuries of precedent.... Even "all star" conservative constitutionalists steer a careful course between the Constitution and what the establishment will tolerate.
Righteous refinement obliges conservatives (holy and secular) to treat these points as uncouth. They are not. They address why Republicans are winning elections and "conservatives" are losing the Culture War, waiting for strict constructionists to fix everything. If we want to preserve for our children what was handed to us we'll need to stop describing things in grays that are actually black and white.
Let's drop the talking points about "conservative," "constructionist" and "originalist" nominees. Such language obscures what's going on. These nuances are a polite way of pretending that the mainstream in law and government interprets the Constitution differently than we do. No. They are oblivious to the actual content of the Constitution, or they are anti-constitutional. A polite term would be "post-constitutional." ...
If constitutions count, homosexual marriage remains illegal in Massachusetts. John Adams's constitution says explicitly the people are "not bound" by any law not ratified by their Legislature. Four Boston judges struck down a constitution that stood in their way -- one they've sworn to uphold. The word "treason" comes to mind -- a strong word that Liberals would use lustily if they could, but then the Left is all about winning and conservatives are about slowing them down.
Has "conservative" governor Mitt Romney refused to enforce a ruling dissenting justices and Harvard law professors say is bogus? His oath compels him to refuse the court its pleasure. He pleads impotence. Do constitutionalists demand that the outlaw justices resign? Silence. Or Romney? No, they fancy him in the White House. At what point will "constitutionalists" stop siding with the establishment against the Constitution?
CONSERVATIVES JUST don't get it. In a republic judges don't get to make laws and others are sworn to stop them when they try. Yet we speak as if this is splitting hairs. Jefferson wrote that an unconstitutional ruling is null and void. What part of "void" can't we understand? Why are "conservative" presidents, governors, legislatures, mayors, sheriffs and school committees siding with Laurence Tribe against Jefferson and Lincoln?
Law schools haven't taught the Constitution for years. They teach precedent. Conservatives dignify mockery of the Constitution by pretending it's a matter of dueling legal theories. "We respectfully disagree with the court's interpretation..."
No. That ain't interpretation. "Impeachable" is what it is -- prestigious degrees notwithstanding. Respect swindlers in high places? ...
Read the complete article...
Pray for Maine
Michael Heath is a hero for the whole country, not just Maine. Here's from his blog today, as Maine voters go to the polls. Let's hope they'll overturn the hideous "queer rights" law, which if left standing will promote unimaginable forms of sexual perversion and indoctrination, while ending freedom of religion and speech on the issue. It's a long piece, but a must-read. A warning to the whole country. Wake up America!
Today is the day we decide
Today is election day 2005. The people of Maine will vote about sex, again. Many don't know this is the subject they are deciding -- sexual morality. They have believed the dark lies about our state. They think we are a state of bigots who hate homosexuals. This deception is made possible by the institutions of Maine. The media, the political parties, the government and even the Catholic Diocese of Maine. The responsibility for the corruption of our youth will lie with them.
The hands of the Christian Civic League of Maine, Coalition for Marriage, Maine Grassroots Coalition and every YES voter today will be mercifully clean. God has washed them. He is the only one with enough power to scrape away the evil filth that is now known in the west as the left.
To continue with the hand metaphor -- support for homosexuality is like creating a cake you plan to eat with your bare hands using mud from a pig sty while recognizing the evil of this ideology is like raising undefiled hands to heaven thankful for His miraculous salvation.
Regardless of the outcome today it is only a matter of time before things will become crystal clear for everyone. Either the truths of God and nature will prevail, or the utopian anarchistic fantasies of the "queers" and their ilk will prevail. They will strip our laws of obvious concepts and truths like the words "mother" and "father." They will tell very young girls that they indeed may be a little boy trapped in a little girl's body. And they will do all of this without parental involvement -- unless the parents agree with the goals and views of the government.
It is already happening.
And you know what, in the face of this dark evil Maine Republican legislators choose to do little more than vote right (some of them.) And even here they are so significantly split and weak that they allowed Ted O'Meara to go unscathed through this Question 1 campaign. Maine Won't Discriminate silenced the Maine GOP by dredging up an old past chairman of the party. That is all it took. Amazing, and pathetic.
Why didn't the Maine GOP help with the fund raising? Why didn't the Maine GOP endorse the YES vote? Why didn't the Maine GOP meet with the leadership of the Coalition for Marriage and offer to assist? Why did the Maine GOP commit to making the petition names available to us in an electronic form, and then fail to even do that? I'll tell you why.
Their hearts are not with us. They want us for our votes, and that is all. They have become masters at silencing the voice of the Christian, especially after he/she becomes a candidate. Entry into the Maine GOP, especially leadership, requires skills in pragmatism, deal making and negotiation that pale in comparison to what is required in most endeavors. The Maine GOP is incapable of leading on social issues. They are totally corrupt.
I learned this one day shortly after becoming executive director of the Christian Civic League of Maine. This was back in the mid 1990s. While standing in the Senate Republican office with a few Republicans the leader of the Senate Republicans approached me and placed her face right next to my left ear. She whispered, "F**k you" and backed away maintaining eye contact while sporting a gleeful smile on her face. I was there on official League business working on the abortion issue. She was a rabid pro abortion politician.
I have, of course, grown accustomed to this form of intimidation over the years. I witnessed it most powerfully on Maine's college campuses and at Cape Elizabeth High School this fall.
If you wish to see Maine remain free from slot machines. If you are serious about your pro life and pro family convictions. If you want to protect future generations from "queer" indoctrination in our public schools then you have two choices. You can force change on the Maine GOP or you can participate in a third party. Many good people have been sitting on their hands for years. That is why the Republican Party is out of power in the Maine State House.
In the meantime the "gay" lobby is thoroughly Democrat. The lesbians are the front line shock troops for the Democrats. Their passionate appeal for acceptance is the religion of the Maine Democratic Party. They pretend it is civil rights for all. We all know now that it is really the overturning of civilization as we have known it since the beginning of Maine -- including the complete corruption of family life and the destruction of innocence in childhood.
I am thankful for the Christian Civic League of Maine. We will continue to support all Christians who choose active involvement in either political party, or no political party. Our concern is good citizenship. Good citizens support life and family. Apathetic and evil citizens support homosexuality and abortion.
--Michael Heath, Executive Director
Christian Civic League of Maine
Today is the day we decide
Today is election day 2005. The people of Maine will vote about sex, again. Many don't know this is the subject they are deciding -- sexual morality. They have believed the dark lies about our state. They think we are a state of bigots who hate homosexuals. This deception is made possible by the institutions of Maine. The media, the political parties, the government and even the Catholic Diocese of Maine. The responsibility for the corruption of our youth will lie with them.
The hands of the Christian Civic League of Maine, Coalition for Marriage, Maine Grassroots Coalition and every YES voter today will be mercifully clean. God has washed them. He is the only one with enough power to scrape away the evil filth that is now known in the west as the left.
To continue with the hand metaphor -- support for homosexuality is like creating a cake you plan to eat with your bare hands using mud from a pig sty while recognizing the evil of this ideology is like raising undefiled hands to heaven thankful for His miraculous salvation.
Regardless of the outcome today it is only a matter of time before things will become crystal clear for everyone. Either the truths of God and nature will prevail, or the utopian anarchistic fantasies of the "queers" and their ilk will prevail. They will strip our laws of obvious concepts and truths like the words "mother" and "father." They will tell very young girls that they indeed may be a little boy trapped in a little girl's body. And they will do all of this without parental involvement -- unless the parents agree with the goals and views of the government.
It is already happening.
And you know what, in the face of this dark evil Maine Republican legislators choose to do little more than vote right (some of them.) And even here they are so significantly split and weak that they allowed Ted O'Meara to go unscathed through this Question 1 campaign. Maine Won't Discriminate silenced the Maine GOP by dredging up an old past chairman of the party. That is all it took. Amazing, and pathetic.
Why didn't the Maine GOP help with the fund raising? Why didn't the Maine GOP endorse the YES vote? Why didn't the Maine GOP meet with the leadership of the Coalition for Marriage and offer to assist? Why did the Maine GOP commit to making the petition names available to us in an electronic form, and then fail to even do that? I'll tell you why.
Their hearts are not with us. They want us for our votes, and that is all. They have become masters at silencing the voice of the Christian, especially after he/she becomes a candidate. Entry into the Maine GOP, especially leadership, requires skills in pragmatism, deal making and negotiation that pale in comparison to what is required in most endeavors. The Maine GOP is incapable of leading on social issues. They are totally corrupt.
I learned this one day shortly after becoming executive director of the Christian Civic League of Maine. This was back in the mid 1990s. While standing in the Senate Republican office with a few Republicans the leader of the Senate Republicans approached me and placed her face right next to my left ear. She whispered, "F**k you" and backed away maintaining eye contact while sporting a gleeful smile on her face. I was there on official League business working on the abortion issue. She was a rabid pro abortion politician.
I have, of course, grown accustomed to this form of intimidation over the years. I witnessed it most powerfully on Maine's college campuses and at Cape Elizabeth High School this fall.
If you wish to see Maine remain free from slot machines. If you are serious about your pro life and pro family convictions. If you want to protect future generations from "queer" indoctrination in our public schools then you have two choices. You can force change on the Maine GOP or you can participate in a third party. Many good people have been sitting on their hands for years. That is why the Republican Party is out of power in the Maine State House.
In the meantime the "gay" lobby is thoroughly Democrat. The lesbians are the front line shock troops for the Democrats. Their passionate appeal for acceptance is the religion of the Maine Democratic Party. They pretend it is civil rights for all. We all know now that it is really the overturning of civilization as we have known it since the beginning of Maine -- including the complete corruption of family life and the destruction of innocence in childhood.
I am thankful for the Christian Civic League of Maine. We will continue to support all Christians who choose active involvement in either political party, or no political party. Our concern is good citizenship. Good citizens support life and family. Apathetic and evil citizens support homosexuality and abortion.
--Michael Heath, Executive Director
Christian Civic League of Maine
Monday, November 07, 2005
Answer to Mayor Menino's Charge of "Hate" at "Love Won Out" Conference
The following letter was sent today by Michael Heath of the Christian Civic League of Maine, to Mayor Tom Menino of Boston. Menino made false and base charges -- for his own financial and political gain -- calling the "Love Won Out" conference (sponsored by Focus on the Family in Boston on Oct. 29) a hate-filled event. Menino made this charge in his speech at the radical Human Rights Campaign dinner in Boston, and is quoted in Bay Windows. Here is Heath's letter:
Mayor Menino,
I understand that you spoke to a group of homosexuals and their supporters recently. You are quoted saying of Focus on the Family, “"We believe that their message is hate, not love. We also know that same-sex marriages are pro-family." That morning the president of our ministry was told by police officers who work for you to remain in the Tremont Temple Church. He was attending the “Love Won Out” conference that caused you to make this untoward comment about Focus on the Family. Your police officers feared for his safety. He simply wanted to walk peaceably among the protestors.
Mayor, I have worked with Focus on the Family for almost two decades. They do not hate people. But then, you know that already. You are choosing to hitch your political wagon to the homosexual rights cause, and this is a good way to win their loyalty, to fire them up to support you as Mayor.
You also know that “same sex marriages” are not pro family. I am saddened to see the City of our great Puritan forefathers choose the side of Sodom over that of Jerusalem. There is no doubt in my mind what side John and Abigail Adams are on. I assure you, Mr. Mayor, you are not on their side. For political gain, you have sided with forces that will ultimately destroy your once great city.
Until then, we will pray for you and the good people of Boston. We will continue to enjoy the rich Christian history and heritage of our great New England, including Boston. And we will do everything in our power to stop you politically and persuade you spiritually.
Sincerely,
Michael S. Heath, executive director
Christian Civic League of Maine
Mayor Menino,
I understand that you spoke to a group of homosexuals and their supporters recently. You are quoted saying of Focus on the Family, “"We believe that their message is hate, not love. We also know that same-sex marriages are pro-family." That morning the president of our ministry was told by police officers who work for you to remain in the Tremont Temple Church. He was attending the “Love Won Out” conference that caused you to make this untoward comment about Focus on the Family. Your police officers feared for his safety. He simply wanted to walk peaceably among the protestors.
Mayor, I have worked with Focus on the Family for almost two decades. They do not hate people. But then, you know that already. You are choosing to hitch your political wagon to the homosexual rights cause, and this is a good way to win their loyalty, to fire them up to support you as Mayor.
You also know that “same sex marriages” are not pro family. I am saddened to see the City of our great Puritan forefathers choose the side of Sodom over that of Jerusalem. There is no doubt in my mind what side John and Abigail Adams are on. I assure you, Mr. Mayor, you are not on their side. For political gain, you have sided with forces that will ultimately destroy your once great city.
Until then, we will pray for you and the good people of Boston. We will continue to enjoy the rich Christian history and heritage of our great New England, including Boston. And we will do everything in our power to stop you politically and persuade you spiritually.
Sincerely,
Michael S. Heath, executive director
Christian Civic League of Maine
Putting a Face on It
We talk and write so much about homosexual "marriage", we thought it would help to put a face on it! So -- here's a "wedding" photo of two of the poster boys for MassEquality and Bay Windows.Emanuel ("Buddy") and Patrick were united in sodomitic bliss, sanctioned by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, on June 4, 2005 in a seaside ceremony. After their "wedding", they travelled to New York City, where they were thrilled to find chocolates on their pillows when they retired on their honeymoon night.
(Photo credit: Bay Windows)
Buddy works for the EPA as a specialist in drinking water, solid waste, and rats. In his spare time he enjoys acting in amateur theatricals, some of his favorites being "Jack the Ripper" and the video "Hooking Up". He's also an activist in the federal employees' "gay rights" organization. Patrick is a self-employed real estate attorney, who likes cuddling up with his cat and weekending in Maine.
They're looking forward to redecorating their kitchen in their South End home this fall, and have recently become very active in the blogosphere. They also enjoy keeping their eye on the radical right, often attending their functions where they take photos to share with their friends.
Sunday, November 06, 2005
Pseudo Church Leads GLBTQIP War on Judeo-Christian Values
Some of the signs at the assault on the "Love Won Out" conference in Boston last Saturday (Oct. 29) advertised "MCCBoston.org". That stands for the "Metropolitan Community Church", a front set up by GLBTQIP activists to promote their extremist demands. The "church" describes itself as a "Church of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual & Transgendered Community -- Open to All!"
The new national "presiding bishop" of this church, the "Reverend" Nancy Wilson, was installed on the very same day as the Boston disruption. She even referenced it in her remarks that day in Washington. Note the MCC people call their riot a "prayer vigil". (See the full story in WorldNetDaily.)
Wilson, in her sermon at the installation service referenced Dobson's organization by reading a message from a MCC pastor in Boston, Michael Cooper. "While our denomination is gathered in Washington, D.C., today, several of us from MCC Boston are joining with others to hold a prayer vigil outside Focus on the Family's program "Love Won Out" – an ex-gay conference here in Boston. ... Please remember us today as we continue the struggle here in Boston against religious homophobia and discrimination."
WorldNetDaily also reports that the national office of this "church" tried to pervert James Dobson's "Focus on the Family" trademarked name for its own use, for a time using "Focus on the Human Family" on its website. But after Focus on the Family threatened legal action, MCC stopped using their own twisted phrase. "Bishop" Wilson said,
"Even though many of our views are diametrically opposed, apparently Dobson's organization feels the name of Metropolitan Community Church's new campaign [called "Focus on the Human Family"] could create confusion for people." ... However, it seems MCC had intentionally chosen the name as an ironic play on Dobson's organization. Ekklesia, a newssite focusing on religion and church issues, reported the unveiling of MCC's new program as "an initiative to combat spiritual violence against gays and lesbians. ... especially ... to challenge the hostile stance of groups like Dr James Dobson's Focus on the Family."
MCC Boston's website reads:
The Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches ... was founded in 1968 as a faith community of gay, lesbian, transgendered, and bisexual people; based on the precept that "God has no step-children." We affirm both our spirituality and our sexuality. If you are seeking such affirmation, we welcome you to be our guest during our Sunday worship celebration.
It seems their political activist links page is missing their obvious connection with QueerToday.com (organizer of the assault on the Love Won Out conference).
The new national "presiding bishop" of this church, the "Reverend" Nancy Wilson, was installed on the very same day as the Boston disruption. She even referenced it in her remarks that day in Washington. Note the MCC people call their riot a "prayer vigil". (See the full story in WorldNetDaily.)
Wilson, in her sermon at the installation service referenced Dobson's organization by reading a message from a MCC pastor in Boston, Michael Cooper. "While our denomination is gathered in Washington, D.C., today, several of us from MCC Boston are joining with others to hold a prayer vigil outside Focus on the Family's program "Love Won Out" – an ex-gay conference here in Boston. ... Please remember us today as we continue the struggle here in Boston against religious homophobia and discrimination."
WorldNetDaily also reports that the national office of this "church" tried to pervert James Dobson's "Focus on the Family" trademarked name for its own use, for a time using "Focus on the Human Family" on its website. But after Focus on the Family threatened legal action, MCC stopped using their own twisted phrase. "Bishop" Wilson said,
"Even though many of our views are diametrically opposed, apparently Dobson's organization feels the name of Metropolitan Community Church's new campaign [called "Focus on the Human Family"] could create confusion for people." ... However, it seems MCC had intentionally chosen the name as an ironic play on Dobson's organization. Ekklesia, a newssite focusing on religion and church issues, reported the unveiling of MCC's new program as "an initiative to combat spiritual violence against gays and lesbians. ... especially ... to challenge the hostile stance of groups like Dr James Dobson's Focus on the Family."
MCC Boston's website reads:
The Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches ... was founded in 1968 as a faith community of gay, lesbian, transgendered, and bisexual people; based on the precept that "God has no step-children." We affirm both our spirituality and our sexuality. If you are seeking such affirmation, we welcome you to be our guest during our Sunday worship celebration.
It seems their political activist links page is missing their obvious connection with QueerToday.com (organizer of the assault on the Love Won Out conference).
Saturday, November 05, 2005
Gender Identity & Gender Expression Legislation
Rep. Carl Sciortino of Somerville has big plans to push the Massachusetts legislature into the very deepest pit of sexual perversion. He plans to file legislation to protect "gender-variant" or "trans" people, specifically to ban discrimination on the basis of "gender identity" or "gender expression".
For the radical queer activists, it wasn't enough to ban discrimination on the basis of "sexual orientation" (nowhere defined) back in 1989. This opened the door to the homosexual "marriage" ruling (though at the time no one would admit that was the intention or even possible). But we must go even further, they believe.
What a Pandora's Box will be opened by these new undefined terms -- "gender identity" and "gender expression"! Say goodbye to free speech, freedom of religion, the right to run one's own business, and the right to control our children's education on this issue. Soon, if you dare object (or even make a face), you'll be charged with a hate crime.
Boys will be able to go to school dressed as girls, and no one will be able to complain or halt it. Crossdressers and transsexuals will demand to use whichever restroom fits their "identity" or "expression" that day. Teachers will be able to "transform" themselves over summer vacation and come back as the opposite sex (as happened last year in a New Jersey junior high school) -- and parents or school officials will not be able to terminate the teacher's contract. Business owners will not be able to reject a transgender or transsexual job candidate for fear of a lawsuit.
Already in Massachusetts, we've noted these examples on our streets, and it will only get worse: teenage boys in fishnet stockings and short dresses on parade at the Governor's "Youth Pride" parade in Boston; boys going to their high school or college prom as a "queen"; young women ("Tranny Bois") baring their scarred chests, with breasts removed at Gay Pride parades in Boston; college queer activists demanding unisex bathrooms; high school "transgender awareness" days.
As we travel further down this road, these phrases ("gender identity", "gender expression", and "sexual orientation") will be interpreted to allow basically anything imaginable, truly way-out behaviors (as Professor Rob Gagnon warns us): Eventually [there will be] special civil rights protection for other "sexual minorities" who can claim oppression for their "orientation": 'polysexuals' (those who are in multiple partner unions), participants in adult consensual incest, and perhaps even 'pedosexuals' (persons sexually oriented toward young adolescents or children).
Who are we to object? After all, these people are just expressing their sexuality and gender -- which they can define however they want (depending on how they feel that day -- after all, gender is "fluid").
For the radical queer activists, it wasn't enough to ban discrimination on the basis of "sexual orientation" (nowhere defined) back in 1989. This opened the door to the homosexual "marriage" ruling (though at the time no one would admit that was the intention or even possible). But we must go even further, they believe.
What a Pandora's Box will be opened by these new undefined terms -- "gender identity" and "gender expression"! Say goodbye to free speech, freedom of religion, the right to run one's own business, and the right to control our children's education on this issue. Soon, if you dare object (or even make a face), you'll be charged with a hate crime.
Boys will be able to go to school dressed as girls, and no one will be able to complain or halt it. Crossdressers and transsexuals will demand to use whichever restroom fits their "identity" or "expression" that day. Teachers will be able to "transform" themselves over summer vacation and come back as the opposite sex (as happened last year in a New Jersey junior high school) -- and parents or school officials will not be able to terminate the teacher's contract. Business owners will not be able to reject a transgender or transsexual job candidate for fear of a lawsuit.
Already in Massachusetts, we've noted these examples on our streets, and it will only get worse: teenage boys in fishnet stockings and short dresses on parade at the Governor's "Youth Pride" parade in Boston; boys going to their high school or college prom as a "queen"; young women ("Tranny Bois") baring their scarred chests, with breasts removed at Gay Pride parades in Boston; college queer activists demanding unisex bathrooms; high school "transgender awareness" days.
As we travel further down this road, these phrases ("gender identity", "gender expression", and "sexual orientation") will be interpreted to allow basically anything imaginable, truly way-out behaviors (as Professor Rob Gagnon warns us): Eventually [there will be] special civil rights protection for other "sexual minorities" who can claim oppression for their "orientation": 'polysexuals' (those who are in multiple partner unions), participants in adult consensual incest, and perhaps even 'pedosexuals' (persons sexually oriented toward young adolescents or children).
Who are we to object? After all, these people are just expressing their sexuality and gender -- which they can define however they want (depending on how they feel that day -- after all, gender is "fluid").
Sciortino is an openly homosexual legislator who was a GLBTQIP activist leader while an undergraduate at Tufts, then a manager of anal lubricant research projects at Fenway Community Health Center. He also took part in a disruptive QueerToday demonstration inside the Cathedral of the Holy Cross in Boston, protesting Catholic teaching against homosexual "marriage".
According to Bay Windows, Sciortino is now working closely with the Mass. Transgender Political Coalition and the Mass. Gay & Lesbian Political Caucus to draft this proposed legislation. On November 1, these people got together at a forum at Suffolk University Law School to discuss "Legal Protections for Gender-Variant People: Challenging Discrimination." This is serious business.
Sodom Redux?
Responding to the queer fiasco outside the Tremont Temple Baptist Church during the "Love Won Out" Conference last Saturday, our friend Lance has commented:
"Sodom redux"
Reading the story and viewing the pictures of homosexuals gathering outside a church to frighten those inside, I am reminded of what happened when Lot entertained angels in Sodom. There, the original Sodomites gathered outside the home of Lot and demanded the visitors be turned over so that they could molest them. Modern Sodomites just molest Christians and children now, all in the name of "tolerance."
[Letter published in WorldNetDaily, which also ran a good article last week on the near-riot.]
"Sodom redux"
Reading the story and viewing the pictures of homosexuals gathering outside a church to frighten those inside, I am reminded of what happened when Lot entertained angels in Sodom. There, the original Sodomites gathered outside the home of Lot and demanded the visitors be turned over so that they could molest them. Modern Sodomites just molest Christians and children now, all in the name of "tolerance."
[Letter published in WorldNetDaily, which also ran a good article last week on the near-riot.]
Thursday, November 03, 2005
Mayor Menino: "Love Won Out" Conference about Hate
Boston Mayor Tom Menino is a disgrace. Read this quote from Bay Windows' endorsement of him in light of the scandalous disruption of the Love Won Out conference last Saturday. Is it any wonder that QueerToday radicals run wild in the streets with this man as mayor?
In the race for Mayor, Bay Windows endorses incumbent Tom Menino. With the exception of San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, who made his mark, obviously, by opening up San Francisco City Hall to same-sex couples who wanted to marry, it's hard to think of another big-city mayor who is more supportive of LGBT rights than Menino....The city is one of a handful in the nation that expressly forbids discrimination on the basis of gender identity....
At last weekend's Human Rights Campaign dinner he showed why the LGBT community has supported him so fiercely: in talking about the ex-gay Love Won Out conference that had taken place in the city earlier in the day, he dismissed it disdainfully. There was no pretense that religion offers an escape clause when it comes to supporting civil rights. "We believe that their message is hate, not love," the Mayor told attendees of the dinner. "We also know that same-sex marriages are pro-family."
In the race for Mayor, Bay Windows endorses incumbent Tom Menino. With the exception of San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, who made his mark, obviously, by opening up San Francisco City Hall to same-sex couples who wanted to marry, it's hard to think of another big-city mayor who is more supportive of LGBT rights than Menino....The city is one of a handful in the nation that expressly forbids discrimination on the basis of gender identity....
At last weekend's Human Rights Campaign dinner he showed why the LGBT community has supported him so fiercely: in talking about the ex-gay Love Won Out conference that had taken place in the city earlier in the day, he dismissed it disdainfully. There was no pretense that religion offers an escape clause when it comes to supporting civil rights. "We believe that their message is hate, not love," the Mayor told attendees of the dinner. "We also know that same-sex marriages are pro-family."
"Gay" Reporter Shocked by Vicious Hatred on His Own Side
Once in a while, the opposition is honest. There's surprising coverage by "gay" reporter Ethan Jacobs in today's Bay Windows on the near-riot -- or was it a riot? -- that never happened (according to the mainstream media). The rage by the queer extremists (and their anti-war allies) against the Love Won Out conference frightened even Mr. Jacobs. Here are some excerpts from "My Day with the Ex-Gays":
Christians and the lions
The anti-war protest threw a bit of a monkey wrench into the plans for Love Won Out. The march was expected to wind its way down Tremont Street at around noon, just when conference attendees were due to go on their lunch break. To shelter the attendees from the protestors Focus on the Family decided to bring in boxed lunches for everyone so no one would have to leave the building. The impression given by conference organizers was that the church would be under siege from rabid LGBT activists and their allies. And they were right.
The anti-war march arrived late, but at 2 p.m., just as the day's freak snow storm was picking up, the marchers could be seen, and heard, in the distance. Before they arrived the street was filled with cops, some on bikes, some on foot, who moved the 30 or so protestors from that morning out of the street to make way for the march. The nearly 2000 marchers began to pour down the street, and towards the front was a small flat-bed truck. In the back of that truck stood Mark Snyder, founder of the activist group QueerToday.com, which arranged for the anti-war march to join the ex-gay protest. Snyder shouted into a megaphone, "Focus on the Family! Shut it down! James Dobson! Shut it down! Homophobia! Shut it down! Karl Rove! Shut it down!" Many in the crowd joined the chant, and the sound was nearly deafening.
When the truck had positioned itself squarely in front of the church, the entire 2000-person march stopped in place. The chanting continued, and up near the church entrance another group of marchers began chanting, "Get the f*** out of Boston!" The protestors got louder and louder with every passing second.
A phalanx of cops lined up in front of the door, and others worked to keep the marchers in the streets. From my own perspective, sandwiched between the thousands of protestors and the police in riot gear, I was more than a little scared, and these were supposedly my people protesting. Most of the conference attendees were inside listening to Fryrear's personal testimony, but the few who were at the door looked on in horror. The prevailing mood of the protest was hatred, and whether that hatred was mostly aimed at Love Won Out or the war in Iraq made little difference. To the evangelical Christians watching the fiasco, the protestors looked an awful lot like lions, and it was feeding time.
After a couple minutes the march resumed, and things went back to normal. But for the rest of the day several speakers made reference to the protest, and it helped feed into the persecution complex that has been one of the fixtures of the ex-gay movement. Ex-gays have long argued that the gay community has been intolerant of Christians, and the march only helped them buttress their argument.
Christians and the lions
The anti-war protest threw a bit of a monkey wrench into the plans for Love Won Out. The march was expected to wind its way down Tremont Street at around noon, just when conference attendees were due to go on their lunch break. To shelter the attendees from the protestors Focus on the Family decided to bring in boxed lunches for everyone so no one would have to leave the building. The impression given by conference organizers was that the church would be under siege from rabid LGBT activists and their allies. And they were right.
The anti-war march arrived late, but at 2 p.m., just as the day's freak snow storm was picking up, the marchers could be seen, and heard, in the distance. Before they arrived the street was filled with cops, some on bikes, some on foot, who moved the 30 or so protestors from that morning out of the street to make way for the march. The nearly 2000 marchers began to pour down the street, and towards the front was a small flat-bed truck. In the back of that truck stood Mark Snyder, founder of the activist group QueerToday.com, which arranged for the anti-war march to join the ex-gay protest. Snyder shouted into a megaphone, "Focus on the Family! Shut it down! James Dobson! Shut it down! Homophobia! Shut it down! Karl Rove! Shut it down!" Many in the crowd joined the chant, and the sound was nearly deafening.
When the truck had positioned itself squarely in front of the church, the entire 2000-person march stopped in place. The chanting continued, and up near the church entrance another group of marchers began chanting, "Get the f*** out of Boston!" The protestors got louder and louder with every passing second.
A phalanx of cops lined up in front of the door, and others worked to keep the marchers in the streets. From my own perspective, sandwiched between the thousands of protestors and the police in riot gear, I was more than a little scared, and these were supposedly my people protesting. Most of the conference attendees were inside listening to Fryrear's personal testimony, but the few who were at the door looked on in horror. The prevailing mood of the protest was hatred, and whether that hatred was mostly aimed at Love Won Out or the war in Iraq made little difference. To the evangelical Christians watching the fiasco, the protestors looked an awful lot like lions, and it was feeding time.
After a couple minutes the march resumed, and things went back to normal. But for the rest of the day several speakers made reference to the protest, and it helped feed into the persecution complex that has been one of the fixtures of the ex-gay movement. Ex-gays have long argued that the gay community has been intolerant of Christians, and the march only helped them buttress their argument.
Wednesday, November 02, 2005
More Queer Chants
Article 8 has reported on some of what we heard and saw at the queer protest outside the Love Won Out conference in Boston last Saturday. Here is bit more . Get ready. They're coming to your church and neighborhood soon!
QueerToday ringleader Mark breathlessly announced:
"I just spoke at the anti-war rally [on the Boston Common]. You won't believe the chants I heard down there! 'Racist, sexist, anti-gay!' They're chanting the same thing down there that we're chanting up here!! They stand in solidarity with us! And there was thunderous applause when I talked about the anti-war movement coming up here and protesting this conference!! They can't wait! They're so excited to march past here and protest with us! Hang in there!"
Young woman calling out for attention:
"Free will equals free sexuality! Get it right here!"
Group chants:
"Our hands are cold, are feet are sore.
But we are fighting hate and war."
"Hate is not a Boston value."
"Gay, straight, black, white --
Equal protection, equal rights!"
"Hey Hey, Ho Ho. Homophobia's got to go!"
A young woman held this sign:
"I love ME"
QueerToday ringleader Mark breathlessly announced:
"I just spoke at the anti-war rally [on the Boston Common]. You won't believe the chants I heard down there! 'Racist, sexist, anti-gay!' They're chanting the same thing down there that we're chanting up here!! They stand in solidarity with us! And there was thunderous applause when I talked about the anti-war movement coming up here and protesting this conference!! They can't wait! They're so excited to march past here and protest with us! Hang in there!"
Young woman calling out for attention:
"Free will equals free sexuality! Get it right here!"
Group chants:
"Our hands are cold, are feet are sore.
But we are fighting hate and war."
"Hate is not a Boston value."
"Gay, straight, black, white --
Equal protection, equal rights!"
"Hey Hey, Ho Ho. Homophobia's got to go!"
A young woman held this sign:
"I love ME"
"Gay" Protesters' Anger, Rage, & Hatred Indescribable
Here is another report on the violent, hateful demonstration against the "Love Won Out" conference led by ex-gays and Focus on the Family last Saturday in Boston (Oct. 29 at the Tremont Temple Baptist Church). Are the churches of America ready for more of this? It's coming their way soon.
Click here for photos taken by Christian Civic League of Maine President, Pastor Dallas Henry.
From the Christian Civic League of Maine report (Nov. 1):
IN THEIR OWN WORDS
Conference Meets Behind Police Lines As Antiwar Pro-gay Rally Shouts Obscenities and Demands “Shut it Down! Shut it Down!”
The scene outside the Tremont Temple in Boston last Saturday was one of tumult and confusion as an angry crowd vented their rage at evangelicals attending a conference on the compassionate treatment of homosexuals. In the words of one attendee at the conference, “The anger, rage, and hatred were indescribable.”
The conference entitled “Love Won Out” was sponsored by Dr. James Dobson’s Focus on the Family. The organizers of the conference had been warned to expect a crowd of 6,000 protestors. Most of the crowd was drawn from an anti-war rally on Boston Commons which featured Cindy Sheehan. The anti-war rally, organized by a group calling itself “The October 29th Coalition,” then joined forces with a gay rights group called “The Stonewall Warriors.” The name “Stonewall” of course, is taken from the “Stonewall Riot” in Greenwich Village in Manhattan, which launched the gay rights movement.
On Saturday morning, the antiwar protestors gathered outside Tremont Temple where the conference was underway, and using PA systems, shouted obscenities and yelled “Shut it down! Shut it down!” for almost 45 minutes.
When one pastor went outside to photograph the “protest march,” he saw a crowd which filled the block and stretched in a long line down both ends of the street. The pastor was warned by the police to go inside and not come out again, for his own protection.
Inside Tremont Temple, there was an atmosphere of quiet respect and compassion for homosexuals, and a great deal of prayer, as former homosexuals told how Christ had changed their lives, and Christians shared how people can find compassionate answers to the problems of homosexuality.
Click here for photos taken by Christian Civic League of Maine President, Pastor Dallas Henry.
From the Christian Civic League of Maine report (Nov. 1):
IN THEIR OWN WORDS
Conference Meets Behind Police Lines As Antiwar Pro-gay Rally Shouts Obscenities and Demands “Shut it Down! Shut it Down!”
The scene outside the Tremont Temple in Boston last Saturday was one of tumult and confusion as an angry crowd vented their rage at evangelicals attending a conference on the compassionate treatment of homosexuals. In the words of one attendee at the conference, “The anger, rage, and hatred were indescribable.”
The conference entitled “Love Won Out” was sponsored by Dr. James Dobson’s Focus on the Family. The organizers of the conference had been warned to expect a crowd of 6,000 protestors. Most of the crowd was drawn from an anti-war rally on Boston Commons which featured Cindy Sheehan. The anti-war rally, organized by a group calling itself “The October 29th Coalition,” then joined forces with a gay rights group called “The Stonewall Warriors.” The name “Stonewall” of course, is taken from the “Stonewall Riot” in Greenwich Village in Manhattan, which launched the gay rights movement.
On Saturday morning, the antiwar protestors gathered outside Tremont Temple where the conference was underway, and using PA systems, shouted obscenities and yelled “Shut it down! Shut it down!” for almost 45 minutes.
When one pastor went outside to photograph the “protest march,” he saw a crowd which filled the block and stretched in a long line down both ends of the street. The pastor was warned by the police to go inside and not come out again, for his own protection.
Inside Tremont Temple, there was an atmosphere of quiet respect and compassion for homosexuals, and a great deal of prayer, as former homosexuals told how Christ had changed their lives, and Christians shared how people can find compassionate answers to the problems of homosexuality.
Tuesday, November 01, 2005
Senator Havern: Laughing All the Way to the Bank
This is what it's all about: MONEY! ... and the craving to appear "progressive".
State Senator Robert Havern of Arlington was "honored" by the GLBTQIP community last week. They held a fundraiser for this very funny senator, who keeps them all in stitches by calling us "bigots".
It's truly amazing that Senator Havern thinks that granting special rights for GLBTQIP's is an issue anyone can be lighthearted about. Too bad he wasn't with us at the Love Won Out conference last Saturday, to observe the true character of this movement he's been duped into supporting. In the leadership as Assistant Majority Whip, he's among the worst the Massachusetts legislature has to offer.
From Bay Windows:
Despite 18 years as one of the LGBT community's most committed legislative allies, it's hard to believe that the gay political establishment has never, not once, held a fundraiser for Sen. Robert Havern (D-Arlington), a fact not lost on the man himself. "How's that, huh?" muses the Assistant Majority Whip. "I'm a virgin," he deadpans. "So to speak." ...
Through the years, Havern, who was elected to the Senate in 1990, has been a key supporter "on every single GLBT issue there is," says Arline Isaacson [chief GLBTQIP lobbyist]. Beyond opposing attempts to ban gay foster parenting and adoption in the late 80s, Havern filed domestic partnership bills throughout the 1990s...,in addition to supporting hate crimes legislation and the Safe Schools Program. In pre-Goodridge 2003 he sponsored a civil union bill. At the start of the 2004 legislative session, Havern filed a bill to amend the state's marriage laws to conform to the Goodridge ruling.
But Havern's most important pro-gay work on behalf of the LGBT community, says Isaacson, has been behind the scenes, where his off-beat sense of humor has disarmed even the most ardent gay rights foes. "He could talk to them and could get them laughing at their own bigotry," says Isaacson, "which is a very unusual skill." It's a talent that was in full swing during last year's constitutional convention, when Havern famously urged those who are uncomfortable with gay sex to support same-sex marriage because, as everyone knows, "After marriage there is no sex."
State Senator Robert Havern of Arlington was "honored" by the GLBTQIP community last week. They held a fundraiser for this very funny senator, who keeps them all in stitches by calling us "bigots".
It's truly amazing that Senator Havern thinks that granting special rights for GLBTQIP's is an issue anyone can be lighthearted about. Too bad he wasn't with us at the Love Won Out conference last Saturday, to observe the true character of this movement he's been duped into supporting. In the leadership as Assistant Majority Whip, he's among the worst the Massachusetts legislature has to offer.
From Bay Windows:
Despite 18 years as one of the LGBT community's most committed legislative allies, it's hard to believe that the gay political establishment has never, not once, held a fundraiser for Sen. Robert Havern (D-Arlington), a fact not lost on the man himself. "How's that, huh?" muses the Assistant Majority Whip. "I'm a virgin," he deadpans. "So to speak." ...
Through the years, Havern, who was elected to the Senate in 1990, has been a key supporter "on every single GLBT issue there is," says Arline Isaacson [chief GLBTQIP lobbyist]. Beyond opposing attempts to ban gay foster parenting and adoption in the late 80s, Havern filed domestic partnership bills throughout the 1990s...,in addition to supporting hate crimes legislation and the Safe Schools Program. In pre-Goodridge 2003 he sponsored a civil union bill. At the start of the 2004 legislative session, Havern filed a bill to amend the state's marriage laws to conform to the Goodridge ruling.
But Havern's most important pro-gay work on behalf of the LGBT community, says Isaacson, has been behind the scenes, where his off-beat sense of humor has disarmed even the most ardent gay rights foes. "He could talk to them and could get them laughing at their own bigotry," says Isaacson, "which is a very unusual skill." It's a talent that was in full swing during last year's constitutional convention, when Havern famously urged those who are uncomfortable with gay sex to support same-sex marriage because, as everyone knows, "After marriage there is no sex."
Monday, October 31, 2005
Prof. Rob Gagnon Lists Dangers of "Hate Crimes" Bill
We've just added a new link (in our recommended sites column) to a rich website by Professor Rob Gagnon, which offers a Christian perspective on homosexual issues. As just one example of his thorough approach, here is his list of what he predicts will follow if our federal government passes "hate crimes" legislation. A VERY SCARY AND BELIEVABLE LIST. This is from Prof. Gagnon's "Open Letter Regarding the Current Hate Crimes Amendment" (Oct. 20, 2005):
Here is a sample of twenty-five things that are likely to happen if "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" are made specially protected civil rights classifications in the legal code:
1. Large fines and eventually jail time for anyone who publicly speaks out against homosexual activity or transgenderism, even as a minister, if the state determines that one's message arouses people to hate homosexual or transgendered persons. This includes messages that cite Scripture or refer to studies that show higher incidences of promiscuity and disease among homosexually active men.
2. Suspension without pay from one's place of employment and even outright termination if one declares in any way one's opposition to homosexual practice or transgenderism, even if, as a white-collar employee, one makes such a declaration in a "letter to an editor" outside the domain of the workplace; moreover, one will have to pay the court costs of his persecutors.
3. Termination from one's job if one does not support "coming out" celebrations or "gay pride" observances in the workplace, or if one does not attend mandatory "sensitivity" or "diversity" training sessions that espouse acceptance of homosexuality.
4. Large fines if one owns a business and does not allow GLBT ("gay," lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered) activists to make use of the business's services to advance the GLBT agenda (e.g., if a privately owned print shop refuses to print materials for homosexual advocacy); moreover, having to pay the court costs of the government agency that prosecutes the case.
5. Corporations having to institute affirmative-hire programs for GLBTs as a necessary precaution against potential federal or civil lawsuits for "sexual orientation" discrimination.
6. Forced indoctrination of children as young as kindergarten in the public school systems into the acceptability of homosexual and transgendered behavior and the labeling of their parents' contrary religious views as "bigotry" and "hatred," through required readings, "GLBT studies," and mandatory attendance at special diversity convocations or diversity workshops; also, mandatory "sensitivity training" for all teachers on the value of sexual orientation diversity.
7. Even parochial schools being required to accept "gay prom dates" and "gay clubs."
8. Home-schooled children not being allowed to receive certification if their parents do not teach a curriculum that incorporates appreciation for "sexual diversity."
9. Loss of federal funds, including hundreds of thousands of dollars in federal funds for student loans, for any Christian college or seminary that does not hire homosexually active teachers, or that forbids students to engage in homosexual practice, or that allows a teacher at its institution to speak against homosexual practice.
10. Ultimately, the threat of loss of accreditation for Christian colleges that do not condone homosexual behavior and transgenderism.
11. Students and employees required to get counseling for the alleged mental health condition of "homophobia" or risk expulsion.
12. Imposition of national gay marriage by the courts, through appeal to this newly formed federal civil liberties category of "sexual orientation."
13. Being forbidden by a judge in a separation or divorce settlement from ever speaking against homosexual practice to one's child if one's ex-partner or spouse is openly homosexual.
14.Having one's child (whether a foster child, adopted child, or, eventually, one's biological child) removed from one's house if the parent opposes the child's declaration of homosexual identity and activity.
15. Private civic organizations, as well as Christian camps and retreat centers, being fined or shut down if they do not allow their facilities to be used by persons or groups for homosexual activities (e.g., to host a "wedding" by a homosexual couple or for a meeting of a "gay choir").
16. Fines for any person responsible for a newspaper ad critical of homosexual practice or transgenderism, even if the advertisement merely quotes Scripture; also, fines for the newspaper that prints it.
17. Fines for any persons with rooms for rent in their home (e.g. a bed & breakfast) if they refuse to rent to a homosexual couple intent on having homosexual sex on the premises.
18. Mayors taken to court for refusing to declare Gay Pride Days in their cities and being forced to declare such celebrations.
19. Loss of charitable status for churches that seek to influence their members to oppose pro-homosex legislation or that refuse to marry homosexual persons.
20. Fines and/or loss of license for any broadcasting corporation that criticizes, or allows its broadcasting facilities to be used for criticism of, homosexual practice over the airwaves.
21. Adoption and foster agencies forbidden to give any priority to heterosexual married couples over homosexual couples on the grounds that such priority would be discriminatory.
22. Refusing the Boy Scouts and Salvation Army the use of public facilities because of their opposition to homosexual practice and transgenderism; moreover, censuring professionals who support such organizations in their private lives (e.g., prohibiting judges from involvement in any organization that "discriminates" on the basis of "sexual orientation").
23. Banning from university campuses Christian organizations that disapprove of homosexual practice (e.g., Intervarsity Christian Fellowship, Campus Crusade).
24. Making it illegal for members of mental health professions to counsel persons against a homosexual life.
25. Eventually special civil rights protection for other "sexual minorities" who can claim oppression for their "orientation": 'polysexuals' (those who are in multiple partner unions), participants in adult consensual incest, and perhaps even 'pedosexuals' (persons sexually oriented toward young adolescents or children).
Here is a sample of twenty-five things that are likely to happen if "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" are made specially protected civil rights classifications in the legal code:
1. Large fines and eventually jail time for anyone who publicly speaks out against homosexual activity or transgenderism, even as a minister, if the state determines that one's message arouses people to hate homosexual or transgendered persons. This includes messages that cite Scripture or refer to studies that show higher incidences of promiscuity and disease among homosexually active men.
2. Suspension without pay from one's place of employment and even outright termination if one declares in any way one's opposition to homosexual practice or transgenderism, even if, as a white-collar employee, one makes such a declaration in a "letter to an editor" outside the domain of the workplace; moreover, one will have to pay the court costs of his persecutors.
3. Termination from one's job if one does not support "coming out" celebrations or "gay pride" observances in the workplace, or if one does not attend mandatory "sensitivity" or "diversity" training sessions that espouse acceptance of homosexuality.
4. Large fines if one owns a business and does not allow GLBT ("gay," lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered) activists to make use of the business's services to advance the GLBT agenda (e.g., if a privately owned print shop refuses to print materials for homosexual advocacy); moreover, having to pay the court costs of the government agency that prosecutes the case.
5. Corporations having to institute affirmative-hire programs for GLBTs as a necessary precaution against potential federal or civil lawsuits for "sexual orientation" discrimination.
6. Forced indoctrination of children as young as kindergarten in the public school systems into the acceptability of homosexual and transgendered behavior and the labeling of their parents' contrary religious views as "bigotry" and "hatred," through required readings, "GLBT studies," and mandatory attendance at special diversity convocations or diversity workshops; also, mandatory "sensitivity training" for all teachers on the value of sexual orientation diversity.
7. Even parochial schools being required to accept "gay prom dates" and "gay clubs."
8. Home-schooled children not being allowed to receive certification if their parents do not teach a curriculum that incorporates appreciation for "sexual diversity."
9. Loss of federal funds, including hundreds of thousands of dollars in federal funds for student loans, for any Christian college or seminary that does not hire homosexually active teachers, or that forbids students to engage in homosexual practice, or that allows a teacher at its institution to speak against homosexual practice.
10. Ultimately, the threat of loss of accreditation for Christian colleges that do not condone homosexual behavior and transgenderism.
11. Students and employees required to get counseling for the alleged mental health condition of "homophobia" or risk expulsion.
12. Imposition of national gay marriage by the courts, through appeal to this newly formed federal civil liberties category of "sexual orientation."
13. Being forbidden by a judge in a separation or divorce settlement from ever speaking against homosexual practice to one's child if one's ex-partner or spouse is openly homosexual.
14.Having one's child (whether a foster child, adopted child, or, eventually, one's biological child) removed from one's house if the parent opposes the child's declaration of homosexual identity and activity.
15. Private civic organizations, as well as Christian camps and retreat centers, being fined or shut down if they do not allow their facilities to be used by persons or groups for homosexual activities (e.g., to host a "wedding" by a homosexual couple or for a meeting of a "gay choir").
16. Fines for any person responsible for a newspaper ad critical of homosexual practice or transgenderism, even if the advertisement merely quotes Scripture; also, fines for the newspaper that prints it.
17. Fines for any persons with rooms for rent in their home (e.g. a bed & breakfast) if they refuse to rent to a homosexual couple intent on having homosexual sex on the premises.
18. Mayors taken to court for refusing to declare Gay Pride Days in their cities and being forced to declare such celebrations.
19. Loss of charitable status for churches that seek to influence their members to oppose pro-homosex legislation or that refuse to marry homosexual persons.
20. Fines and/or loss of license for any broadcasting corporation that criticizes, or allows its broadcasting facilities to be used for criticism of, homosexual practice over the airwaves.
21. Adoption and foster agencies forbidden to give any priority to heterosexual married couples over homosexual couples on the grounds that such priority would be discriminatory.
22. Refusing the Boy Scouts and Salvation Army the use of public facilities because of their opposition to homosexual practice and transgenderism; moreover, censuring professionals who support such organizations in their private lives (e.g., prohibiting judges from involvement in any organization that "discriminates" on the basis of "sexual orientation").
23. Banning from university campuses Christian organizations that disapprove of homosexual practice (e.g., Intervarsity Christian Fellowship, Campus Crusade).
24. Making it illegal for members of mental health professions to counsel persons against a homosexual life.
25. Eventually special civil rights protection for other "sexual minorities" who can claim oppression for their "orientation": 'polysexuals' (those who are in multiple partner unions), participants in adult consensual incest, and perhaps even 'pedosexuals' (persons sexually oriented toward young adolescents or children).
Sunday, October 30, 2005
"QueerToday" Protesters Get Special Privileges
MassResistance attended the Love Won Out conference in Boston yesterday, and witnessed first hand the special privileges extended to the "QueerToday" protesters. They were trying to silence the message of the conference (run by Focus on the Family and ex-gay ministries) that there is a way out of their unhappy state.
After what we saw, we say: It's time for a buffer-zone law for queer activist demonstrators!
Imagine an anti-abortion group wanting to demonstrate in front of an abortion clinic. They have baby-sized coffins as props. They're chanting, "Stop murdering babies!" They have placards showing baby bodies ripped apart, saying "Abortion is murder." They circle around in the middle of street, seriously disrupting traffic, chanting loudly to intimidate people going in or out.
At one point a truck parks for an extended time in front of the clinic, with loudspeakers blaring "Shut it down! Shut it down!" To top it all off, they do this WITHOUT A PERMIT to hold a demonstration. What do you think the police would do?
The QueerToday demonstrators did all this and more (throw in some profanity hurled at conference participants) yesterday in front of the Tremont Temple ex-gay conference. They charged James Dobson (head of Focus on the Family) and the Love Won Out program with causing "gay teen deaths", and set up coffins for props in the street. Loud chanting disrupted the conference. A truck parked in front of the church blasted "SHUT IT DOWN!" for at least 10 or 15 minutes, but the many police lining the street did nothing to move it along, or tell them to turn the loudspeakers off. (Did they have the special permit needed for that sound system?) No -- The police did nothing to disperse the demonstrators who were there without a permit (according to the Boston Globe).
Well, as we all know, abortion protesters are subject to a targeted "abortion clinic buffer zone" law limiting their free speech in Massachusetts. Maybe it's time to extend such a law to queer harassment specialists. No ... Better yet, how about repealing the abortion clinic buffer zone altogether, along with special rights for homosexuals?
From yesterday's Boston Globe ("Rally and protests both hit city today"):
The city will close Tremont, Park, Beacon, Bowdoin, Cambridge, and Court streets near the Common beginning at noon, transportation officials said. Police plan an increased presence to monitor the scheduled noon anti-war rally.
Officials will also be monitoring a conference at Tremont Temple Baptist Church called ''Love Won Out," which focuses on the theory that homosexuals can convert to heterosexual lives through a relationship with God.
The conference has incited many in the gay community, who have picketed at the church and are expected to gather in protest today.
''We are aware of the events that will be in the area and will be monitoring the area to ensure public safety and maintain order," said Sergeant Thomas Sexton, a police department spokesman. ''We can't get into it too much because we don't know what will happen."
Tracey Ganiatsos, a spokeswoman for the Transportation Department, said conference protesters had not requested a permit to march from the city.
''When we hear stories about the possibility of a protest, but no one requests a permit, usually the police will keep an eye on the area and make sure things remain in order," she said.
After what we saw, we say: It's time for a buffer-zone law for queer activist demonstrators!
Imagine an anti-abortion group wanting to demonstrate in front of an abortion clinic. They have baby-sized coffins as props. They're chanting, "Stop murdering babies!" They have placards showing baby bodies ripped apart, saying "Abortion is murder." They circle around in the middle of street, seriously disrupting traffic, chanting loudly to intimidate people going in or out.
At one point a truck parks for an extended time in front of the clinic, with loudspeakers blaring "Shut it down! Shut it down!" To top it all off, they do this WITHOUT A PERMIT to hold a demonstration. What do you think the police would do?
The QueerToday demonstrators did all this and more (throw in some profanity hurled at conference participants) yesterday in front of the Tremont Temple ex-gay conference. They charged James Dobson (head of Focus on the Family) and the Love Won Out program with causing "gay teen deaths", and set up coffins for props in the street. Loud chanting disrupted the conference. A truck parked in front of the church blasted "SHUT IT DOWN!" for at least 10 or 15 minutes, but the many police lining the street did nothing to move it along, or tell them to turn the loudspeakers off. (Did they have the special permit needed for that sound system?) No -- The police did nothing to disperse the demonstrators who were there without a permit (according to the Boston Globe).
Well, as we all know, abortion protesters are subject to a targeted "abortion clinic buffer zone" law limiting their free speech in Massachusetts. Maybe it's time to extend such a law to queer harassment specialists. No ... Better yet, how about repealing the abortion clinic buffer zone altogether, along with special rights for homosexuals?
From yesterday's Boston Globe ("Rally and protests both hit city today"):
The city will close Tremont, Park, Beacon, Bowdoin, Cambridge, and Court streets near the Common beginning at noon, transportation officials said. Police plan an increased presence to monitor the scheduled noon anti-war rally.
Officials will also be monitoring a conference at Tremont Temple Baptist Church called ''Love Won Out," which focuses on the theory that homosexuals can convert to heterosexual lives through a relationship with God.
The conference has incited many in the gay community, who have picketed at the church and are expected to gather in protest today.
''We are aware of the events that will be in the area and will be monitoring the area to ensure public safety and maintain order," said Sergeant Thomas Sexton, a police department spokesman. ''We can't get into it too much because we don't know what will happen."
Tracey Ganiatsos, a spokeswoman for the Transportation Department, said conference protesters had not requested a permit to march from the city.
''When we hear stories about the possibility of a protest, but no one requests a permit, usually the police will keep an eye on the area and make sure things remain in order," she said.
QueerToday Shows True Nature of Movement
QueerToday.com tells the truth about who they are, and who their allies are. There is a split in the homosexual movement: This younger set doesn't want to play along with the pretense that "queers" are in any way mainstream, while the older homosexual activists is worried about being too open about their perversion. (From their Oct. 30 posting:)
Most people in our community are glad we are asking the gay establishment to broaden their agendas to create a truly queer social justice movement....
There are others in our community who do not understand why we are not single-issue focused. They send us emails complaining that we show up at pro-choice rallies, anti-war marches, etc. I hope that after they saw the awesome protest we created with the October 29th Coalition they will see the importance and effectiveness of true coalition building.
Still there are others in the gay community who sent us emails and complaints about being too radical, too outraged, too in-your-face. They are mostly adults who are worried we will seem too bizarre or angry in the news, thus ruining the "mainstream" image they wish the gay community would show the world.
Let me be very clear to the gay community of Boston: QueerToday will continue to express our outrage against all forms of injustice. We do not care if the news captures us in drag protesting on the streets in the spirit of Stonewall. We do not care if we threaten your obsession with presenting the gay community as "mainstream." We know that being queer is innately NOT mainstream, and it never will be....
Queers Fight Back!
Most people in our community are glad we are asking the gay establishment to broaden their agendas to create a truly queer social justice movement....
There are others in our community who do not understand why we are not single-issue focused. They send us emails complaining that we show up at pro-choice rallies, anti-war marches, etc. I hope that after they saw the awesome protest we created with the October 29th Coalition they will see the importance and effectiveness of true coalition building.
Still there are others in the gay community who sent us emails and complaints about being too radical, too outraged, too in-your-face. They are mostly adults who are worried we will seem too bizarre or angry in the news, thus ruining the "mainstream" image they wish the gay community would show the world.
Let me be very clear to the gay community of Boston: QueerToday will continue to express our outrage against all forms of injustice. We do not care if the news captures us in drag protesting on the streets in the spirit of Stonewall. We do not care if we threaten your obsession with presenting the gay community as "mainstream." We know that being queer is innately NOT mainstream, and it never will be....
Queers Fight Back!
Friday, October 28, 2005
Leftist America-Haters, All
Should be quite a scene tomorrow on the Boston Common. The queers will try to silence the message that they can be helped, joining forces with anti-warrior Cindy Sheehan. Since these people can't hold a logical conversation, they plan to drown out their opposition with chanting outside the "Love Won Out" conference at the Tremont Temple. From the QueerToday blog:
When QueerToday.com and Stonewall Warriors protest the Focus on the Family's "Love Won Out" conference in Boston on Oct. 29 we will be doing so in concert with the massive regional Anti-War March happening at the same time on Boston Common. For us, Focus on the Family and the Bush war machine march in lockstep every day against the LGBT community and all oppressed people of the world.
7:30 AM 88 Tremont Street Protest anti-lgbtq... Love Won Out Conference. Sign Ideas: "It's OK 2 be Gay!" "American Psychological Association: ex-gay ministries don't work." "Protect Queer Youth From Focus On The Family!" "Happy Healthy Queer & Proud" "Proud Queer & (paste your religion here)!" "Separate Church & State!"
11 AM Boston Common Anti-war rally featuring Cindy Sheehan emceed by QueerToday.com founder Mark Snyder.
Afternoon Huge anti-war march stops at 88 Tremont Street to create a massive protest against James Dobson/Focus On The Family and their anti-gay radical right-wing agenda! QueerToday.com leads the crowd in chants.
Will the Log Cabin Republicans join in, we wonder?
When QueerToday.com and Stonewall Warriors protest the Focus on the Family's "Love Won Out" conference in Boston on Oct. 29 we will be doing so in concert with the massive regional Anti-War March happening at the same time on Boston Common. For us, Focus on the Family and the Bush war machine march in lockstep every day against the LGBT community and all oppressed people of the world.
7:30 AM 88 Tremont Street Protest anti-lgbtq... Love Won Out Conference. Sign Ideas: "It's OK 2 be Gay!" "American Psychological Association: ex-gay ministries don't work." "Protect Queer Youth From Focus On The Family!" "Happy Healthy Queer & Proud" "Proud Queer & (paste your religion here)!" "Separate Church & State!"
11 AM Boston Common Anti-war rally featuring Cindy Sheehan emceed by QueerToday.com founder Mark Snyder.
Afternoon Huge anti-war march stops at 88 Tremont Street to create a massive protest against James Dobson/Focus On The Family and their anti-gay radical right-wing agenda! QueerToday.com leads the crowd in chants.
Will the Log Cabin Republicans join in, we wonder?
Boston Globe: Afraid to Say "Wife & Wife"?
The Boston Globe Northwest Weekly article on the David Parker case ("School dispute persists after plea deal struck") strangely calls lesbian activist Meg Soens' "wife" her "partner". We find this most curious. We know that Meg is very proud of her marriage to Olivia.
Why would the Globe not say "Soens and her wife"? Could it be that the Globe has figured out that using "wife and wife" does not sit well with its readers, and makes all to obvious the insanity of "homosexual marriage"?
Why would the Globe not say "Soens and her wife"? Could it be that the Globe has figured out that using "wife and wife" does not sit well with its readers, and makes all to obvious the insanity of "homosexual marriage"?
Homosexual Parenting: Playing with Fire
From our friend John:
"Okay, I dare you. Read this entire article and then try to defend the 'diversity and tolerance game' on homosexual adoption. There is a stunning collection of research information here that debunks virtually every Orwellian lie of the Left on homosexuality."
The article referenced is "Gender Complementarity and Child-rearing: Where Tradition and Science Agree," by A. Dean Byrd, Ph.D. MBA, MPH. It's available on NARTH's web site (National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality). Excerpt:
"A most alarming report recently appeared in a popular magazine about a group of gay men identified as bug chasers, or those who consciously seek the AIDS virus (Freeman. 2003). Freeman reported an interview with Dr. Robert Cabaj, the Director of Behavioral Health Services for San Francisco County, who suggested that bug chasers are alarmingly common. Cahaj estimates that at least one-fourth of newly infected gay men may have sought out the fatal disease. The article centered around Carlos who estimated that he has already had several hundred sex partners and that he eagerly awaits for the day when he tests HIV positive and will turn toward infecting another person. The process is referred to as "gift-giving." Carlos noted that "as sick as it sounds, killing another man slowly ... is exciting." (p. 48)
Do we really want to gamble on placing children with such "parents"?
"Okay, I dare you. Read this entire article and then try to defend the 'diversity and tolerance game' on homosexual adoption. There is a stunning collection of research information here that debunks virtually every Orwellian lie of the Left on homosexuality."
The article referenced is "Gender Complementarity and Child-rearing: Where Tradition and Science Agree," by A. Dean Byrd, Ph.D. MBA, MPH. It's available on NARTH's web site (National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality). Excerpt:
"A most alarming report recently appeared in a popular magazine about a group of gay men identified as bug chasers, or those who consciously seek the AIDS virus (Freeman. 2003). Freeman reported an interview with Dr. Robert Cabaj, the Director of Behavioral Health Services for San Francisco County, who suggested that bug chasers are alarmingly common. Cahaj estimates that at least one-fourth of newly infected gay men may have sought out the fatal disease. The article centered around Carlos who estimated that he has already had several hundred sex partners and that he eagerly awaits for the day when he tests HIV positive and will turn toward infecting another person. The process is referred to as "gift-giving." Carlos noted that "as sick as it sounds, killing another man slowly ... is exciting." (p. 48)
Do we really want to gamble on placing children with such "parents"?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)