There will be a picket of Catholic Charities annual dinner, for its choice to honor Boston Mayor Tom Menino, on Friday, Dec. 9, 5:15-6:45 p.m. at the Boston Harbor Hotel, 70 Rowes Wharf (big archway) on Atlantic Ave.
For more information, see Operation Rescue's web site, www.ORBoston.org.
C. J. Doyle of the Catholic Action League of Massachusetts has catalogued Thomas M. Menino's adversarial role towards the Catholic Church, as an opponent of Catholic morality and a supporter of the culture of death: He's pro-abortion, pro-homosexual "marriage", pro-domestic partners, sponsors a "gay" prom for teenagers, marches in the annual "Gay Pride" parade, etc. Menino "has carried on a campaign of aggressive de-Christianization in the municipal government of Boston," said Doyle.
Friday, December 02, 2005
Thursday, December 01, 2005
LGBT Activist Bans Pilgrim Painting in P'town
It's offensive. It's disturbing. It's sexist. (But wait...are there two sexes, or more? What exactly is meant by "sexist" these days? Who cares... just...) BAN IT!
Sarah Peake, openly lesbian losing candidate for State Rep in 2004, was disturbed by a painting in her town hall in Provincetown depicting the Pilgrims landing there. This very "Selectwoman" (isn't that sexist? shouldn't it be "Selectperson"?) was so disturbed she got the painting removed.
First noted by Brian McGrory in the Boston Globe, Brit Hume also reported this story tonight on Fox News Special Report:
Sexist Painting?
A century-old painting commemorating the Pilgrims' landing in Provincetown, Massachusetts, no longer hangs in the town hall after city officials voted that it was discriminatory against women. The Boston Globe reports that town Selectwoman Sarah Peake said she found it "disturbing" that the large oil painting — depicting the Pilgrims voting on the Mayflower Compact — didn't include a single woman. Despite the fact that only male colonists actually signed the historic document, three of the four selectmen agreed to remove the painting, which had hung in the town hall for at least 60 years.
Now we recall something about this same "Selectwoman" advocating nudism on the public beaches on byways of P'town. So it figures that she just can't stand the sight of clothed male Pilgrims.
From McGrory's column:
[W]hat Peake didn't like was that the painting didn't include any women. That and the fact that the painting's only Indian -- Native American, I'd better call him -- wasn't holding a ballot like everyone else.
If you don't believe me, let's go straight to Cheryl Andrews, the chairwoman of the Board of Selectmen. She also happened to cast the only vote against the painting's removal, making her a rare voice of sanity on the board.
''There's this lovely oil painting," she said yesterday. ''The thing is huge. It's been up there since forever. It was painted by Max Bohm, who's considered quite something in local art circles.
''And Sarah Peake turns around and faces it, and it's government. They're voting. She says, 'I'd like to talk about this painting. I find this painting disturbing.' That's a quote. She said it's disturbing to her because there are no women in the painting and the only one not holding a ballot is the Native American Indian. And I thought, 'Here we go.' "
Sarah Peake, openly lesbian losing candidate for State Rep in 2004, was disturbed by a painting in her town hall in Provincetown depicting the Pilgrims landing there. This very "Selectwoman" (isn't that sexist? shouldn't it be "Selectperson"?) was so disturbed she got the painting removed.
First noted by Brian McGrory in the Boston Globe, Brit Hume also reported this story tonight on Fox News Special Report:
Sexist Painting?
A century-old painting commemorating the Pilgrims' landing in Provincetown, Massachusetts, no longer hangs in the town hall after city officials voted that it was discriminatory against women. The Boston Globe reports that town Selectwoman Sarah Peake said she found it "disturbing" that the large oil painting — depicting the Pilgrims voting on the Mayflower Compact — didn't include a single woman. Despite the fact that only male colonists actually signed the historic document, three of the four selectmen agreed to remove the painting, which had hung in the town hall for at least 60 years.
Now we recall something about this same "Selectwoman" advocating nudism on the public beaches on byways of P'town. So it figures that she just can't stand the sight of clothed male Pilgrims.
From McGrory's column:
[W]hat Peake didn't like was that the painting didn't include any women. That and the fact that the painting's only Indian -- Native American, I'd better call him -- wasn't holding a ballot like everyone else.
If you don't believe me, let's go straight to Cheryl Andrews, the chairwoman of the Board of Selectmen. She also happened to cast the only vote against the painting's removal, making her a rare voice of sanity on the board.
''There's this lovely oil painting," she said yesterday. ''The thing is huge. It's been up there since forever. It was painted by Max Bohm, who's considered quite something in local art circles.
''And Sarah Peake turns around and faces it, and it's government. They're voting. She says, 'I'd like to talk about this painting. I find this painting disturbing.' That's a quote. She said it's disturbing to her because there are no women in the painting and the only one not holding a ballot is the Native American Indian. And I thought, 'Here we go.' "
Wednesday, November 30, 2005
Disinvite Menino! Contact Info
The call has gone out to faithful Catholics: Work to DISINVITE Menino!
You can thank Archibishop O'Malley for bowing out of the Catholic Charities dinner (because of Catholic Charities' plans to honor Menino). But also ask the Archbishop to use his influence to get Menino DISINVITED!
We are happy to lend our friends at Catholic Action League and Faithful Voice a hand. Let's force Mayor Menino to go out to Wendy's for dinner on December 9, instead of disgracing the Catholic Charities dinner with his presence. Here is helpful contact info:
Archbishop O'Malley at the Boston Archidiocese office:
phone 617-782-2544
fax 617-782-8358
2121 Commonwealth Ave., Boston 02135
Also, contact Catholic Charities and tell them to DISINVITE Menino!
phone 617-482-5440
fax 617-451-0337
You can thank Archibishop O'Malley for bowing out of the Catholic Charities dinner (because of Catholic Charities' plans to honor Menino). But also ask the Archbishop to use his influence to get Menino DISINVITED!
We are happy to lend our friends at Catholic Action League and Faithful Voice a hand. Let's force Mayor Menino to go out to Wendy's for dinner on December 9, instead of disgracing the Catholic Charities dinner with his presence. Here is helpful contact info:
Archbishop O'Malley at the Boston Archidiocese office:
phone 617-782-2544
fax 617-782-8358
2121 Commonwealth Ave., Boston 02135
Also, contact Catholic Charities and tell them to DISINVITE Menino!
phone 617-482-5440
fax 617-451-0337
Tuesday, November 29, 2005
Just a Few More Years Before We're Jailed for Hate Crimes?
Well, maybe we have just a few years of religious freedom yet. At least the Swedish pastor charged with hate crimes for preaching against homosexuality has been acquitted. But it was a close call. The prosecuting attorney had the gall to challenge the pastor's interpretation of the Bible in court! (This is reminiscent of the Boston Globe and Herald challenging the Archibishop on Catholic doctrine!)
This case is a wake-up call. Now that "homosexual marriage" is supposedly legal in Massachusetts, the activists can claim that it must be taught in the public schools and preached from pulpits, and anyone objecting -- whether parent, religious leader, writer, or elected official -- is guilty of "hate speech"! Churches daring to hold seminars on the Christian message on homosexuality are already harassed by permitless demonstrators (with police complicity). How much longer do we have before "hate crimes" prosecution is turned on us dissenters here in Massachusetts?
From WorldNetDaily:
The Swedish Supreme Court has acquitted a pentecostal minister of charges he violated the nation's hate-speech laws when he labeled homosexuality a "deep cancer tumor" on society during a sermon two years ago.
The court ruled Ake Green was free to espouse his religious views even if they were deemed offensive by some, though prosecutors said the high court's decision will not lead to acceptance of "gay bashing." ... [How is that defined?]
They noted the court recognized Green's comments were made during a religious sermon and did not incite others to take harmful actions against homosexuals....
Green, pastor of a Swedish Pentecostal Church congregation in Kalmar, Sweden, initially was convicted by a lower court for violating the country's laws against hate speech in 2004. Green, 64, was the first pastor to be convicted under the new laws, which were amended in 2003 to include homosexuals....
In testimony before the Supreme Court, Green said his sermon was meant as a warning to homosexuals that if they continued their lifestyle they would suffer "eternal divorce" from God. "If two men sleep with each other, or if two women do so, it is abnormal, just like pedophilia," he said.
This case is a wake-up call. Now that "homosexual marriage" is supposedly legal in Massachusetts, the activists can claim that it must be taught in the public schools and preached from pulpits, and anyone objecting -- whether parent, religious leader, writer, or elected official -- is guilty of "hate speech"! Churches daring to hold seminars on the Christian message on homosexuality are already harassed by permitless demonstrators (with police complicity). How much longer do we have before "hate crimes" prosecution is turned on us dissenters here in Massachusetts?
From WorldNetDaily:
The Swedish Supreme Court has acquitted a pentecostal minister of charges he violated the nation's hate-speech laws when he labeled homosexuality a "deep cancer tumor" on society during a sermon two years ago.
The court ruled Ake Green was free to espouse his religious views even if they were deemed offensive by some, though prosecutors said the high court's decision will not lead to acceptance of "gay bashing." ... [How is that defined?]
They noted the court recognized Green's comments were made during a religious sermon and did not incite others to take harmful actions against homosexuals....
Green, pastor of a Swedish Pentecostal Church congregation in Kalmar, Sweden, initially was convicted by a lower court for violating the country's laws against hate speech in 2004. Green, 64, was the first pastor to be convicted under the new laws, which were amended in 2003 to include homosexuals....
In testimony before the Supreme Court, Green said his sermon was meant as a warning to homosexuals that if they continued their lifestyle they would suffer "eternal divorce" from God. "If two men sleep with each other, or if two women do so, it is abnormal, just like pedophilia," he said.
Monday, November 28, 2005
Boston Globe and Herald: More Catholic Than the Archbishop?
It's hilarious that the Boston Globe and Boston Herald think their editorial pages have a role in the Catholic argument over Mayor Menino's invitation to the Catholic Charities dinner, and the Archbishop's decision not to attend. They charge that the Archbishop doesn't see the big picture! The Globe editorial states:
By snubbing the annual Christmas dinner for Catholic Charities, Archbishop Sean O'Malley seems to be saying that believers like himself must sometimes turn their backs on the common good if there is conflict with the church's strict religious tenets. Such a narrow, polarizing view could hardly serve the city well and is especially disappointing during a season associated with tolerance and good will. [emphasis added]
So the Archbishop is the one with the "narrow, polarizing view"?! As we see it, it is the faithful Catholics have the broad view and get the big picture. There's more to be concerned about than hunger, poverty, and material well-being. Of course those issues are important. But equally important are the Church's moral teachings on life and sexuality. Combine all these issues, and you get the real big picture.
Who's the most Catholic here? The Globe and Herald Editorial boards, or the Archibishop? Now if some non-Catholic group wants to honor Menino for feeding the poor, fine. But true Catholics have to look at the whole package. And Menino is one ugly package.
A column by Frank Mazzaglia in the Metrowest Daily News ("Rein in rebellious Catholic Charities") yesterday provides some balance:
The problem, in a nutshell, is this: Catholic Charities exists as an arm of the Archdiocese of Boston. Somehow, its governing body seems to have reached the pompous point where it now believes that the Archdiocese is an arm of Catholic Charities. It has an agenda which is not always in harmony with the Roman Catholic faith.
The latest flap is the strange decision to invite Mayor Thomas Menino to be guest speaker at an important fund-raising event. Menino likes to begin his most controversial public policy positions by claiming to be a Catholic. He then launches into his own version of faith by contradicting some of the most basic precepts of Catholic doctrine including, but not limited to, his support for abortion and same-sex marriage.
For weeks, leaders of the Catholic Action League and Faithful Voice pleaded with Catholic Charities to re-think their invitation to Menino. They might as well have been talking to a brick wall. Finally, Archbishop Sean O'Malley had no choice but to step away from the event.
This is hardly the first time that Catholic Charities has deliberately placed the Archdiocese in an awkward position. So what's to be done?
The Board of Directors of Catholic Charities reads like a virtual Who's Who. All of them hold distinguished reputations for public service. However, it is now clear that the majority of the governing body of Catholic Charities does not care one whit about the doctrines of the church to which it is connected.
Surely then, there is a choice to be made. If the members of the governing body of Catholic Charities cannot be loyal to the Archdiocese, there must be other ways that these wonderful people could continue to perform their good works outside of their participation as members of the governing body of Catholic Charities. In such a strongly Catholic Boston Archdiocese, there must be equally successful men and women who could replace them. The difference being that the replacements would be expected to remain loyal to central precepts of the Catholic Church in matters of faith and morals....
The Archdiocese is reluctant to take on Catholic Charities directly. It's not because of the money, but rather because of the good that money can do for the desperately poor.
Sooner or later, Catholic Charities is a problem that cries out for resolution. Let's hope it's sooner.
By snubbing the annual Christmas dinner for Catholic Charities, Archbishop Sean O'Malley seems to be saying that believers like himself must sometimes turn their backs on the common good if there is conflict with the church's strict religious tenets. Such a narrow, polarizing view could hardly serve the city well and is especially disappointing during a season associated with tolerance and good will. [emphasis added]
So the Archbishop is the one with the "narrow, polarizing view"?! As we see it, it is the faithful Catholics have the broad view and get the big picture. There's more to be concerned about than hunger, poverty, and material well-being. Of course those issues are important. But equally important are the Church's moral teachings on life and sexuality. Combine all these issues, and you get the real big picture.
Who's the most Catholic here? The Globe and Herald Editorial boards, or the Archibishop? Now if some non-Catholic group wants to honor Menino for feeding the poor, fine. But true Catholics have to look at the whole package. And Menino is one ugly package.
A column by Frank Mazzaglia in the Metrowest Daily News ("Rein in rebellious Catholic Charities") yesterday provides some balance:
The problem, in a nutshell, is this: Catholic Charities exists as an arm of the Archdiocese of Boston. Somehow, its governing body seems to have reached the pompous point where it now believes that the Archdiocese is an arm of Catholic Charities. It has an agenda which is not always in harmony with the Roman Catholic faith.
The latest flap is the strange decision to invite Mayor Thomas Menino to be guest speaker at an important fund-raising event. Menino likes to begin his most controversial public policy positions by claiming to be a Catholic. He then launches into his own version of faith by contradicting some of the most basic precepts of Catholic doctrine including, but not limited to, his support for abortion and same-sex marriage.
For weeks, leaders of the Catholic Action League and Faithful Voice pleaded with Catholic Charities to re-think their invitation to Menino. They might as well have been talking to a brick wall. Finally, Archbishop Sean O'Malley had no choice but to step away from the event.
This is hardly the first time that Catholic Charities has deliberately placed the Archdiocese in an awkward position. So what's to be done?
The Board of Directors of Catholic Charities reads like a virtual Who's Who. All of them hold distinguished reputations for public service. However, it is now clear that the majority of the governing body of Catholic Charities does not care one whit about the doctrines of the church to which it is connected.
Surely then, there is a choice to be made. If the members of the governing body of Catholic Charities cannot be loyal to the Archdiocese, there must be other ways that these wonderful people could continue to perform their good works outside of their participation as members of the governing body of Catholic Charities. In such a strongly Catholic Boston Archdiocese, there must be equally successful men and women who could replace them. The difference being that the replacements would be expected to remain loyal to central precepts of the Catholic Church in matters of faith and morals....
The Archdiocese is reluctant to take on Catholic Charities directly. It's not because of the money, but rather because of the good that money can do for the desperately poor.
Sooner or later, Catholic Charities is a problem that cries out for resolution. Let's hope it's sooner.
Sunday, November 27, 2005
"Rent" -- The Latest Hollywood Propaganda
Popular entertainment plays a huge role in romanticizing homosexuality for the younger generation. The latest craze at the movies is "Rent" (from the long-running Broadway show). High school chorus directors across the country promote this musical by programming its theme song, "Seasons of Love". (Get the kids so worked up they just have to see the movie!)
Supposedly a take-off on Puccini's opera "La Boheme", "Rent" employs the cheap emotion of doomed, dying lovers -- all that's needed to wrench young people's hearts in the cause of "homosexual rights". In "Rent", the characters are drug addicts, strippers, drag queens, and lesbians dying of AIDS. It goes beyond romanticizing AIDS victims, however. The drinking song, "La Vie Boheme", has upbeat lyrics praising "leather, dildos, masturbation, bisexuals, trisexuals, sodomy, S&M". Fun fun fun! Can't wait to go to New York and be part of that scene...
The Boston Globe's review is critical only of the lighting and the staging of the production numbers in the movie. The Globe seems to miss the hideous transformation of a classic love story (between a seamstress dying from consumption and a poor poet, in the original) into needless, preventable deaths resulting from drug use and sexual perversion. From the Globe review:
It's taken them nine years to get there, but the award-winning collection of junkies, drag queens, and activist urchins from the East Village have finally made it to Hollywood. And in the movie version of ''Rent," they are such a cute and cuddly bunch it's easy to leave the theater thinking you've just seen ''Muppets Take Manhattan," instead....
Holding the story lines together are Mark ... and Roger ..., roommates in an illegal industrial loft. One's a filmmaker, the other an ex-junkie rock songwriter. Their professor friend, Collins ..., gets mugged and is rescued by Angel ..., a benevolent drag queen. They both happen to be HIV-positive and fall in love.
Mimi is the stripper junkie who lives downstairs from Roger. They fall in love, too. Also in love are Mark's ex, Maureen ..., and Joanne.... People bicker, they dance, they die.
Excerpts from lyrics to one of the songs in "Rent", "La Vie Boheme" (and we've read this was a toned-down version!):
Wine and beer!
To hand-crafted beers made in local breweries
To yoga, to yogurt, to rice and beans and cheese
To leather, to dildos, to curry vindaloo
Emotion, devotion, to causing a commotion
Creation, vacation
Mucho masturbation
Compassion, to fashion, to passion when it's new
To Sontag
To Sondheim
To anything taboo...
La vie Boheme
Bisexuals, trisexuals, homo sapiens,
Carcinogens, hallucinogens, men,
Pee Wee Herman...
To apathy, to entropy, to empathy, ecstasy ...
The Sex Pistols, 8BC,
To no shame - never playing the Fame Game
To marijuana
To sodomy,
It's between God and me
To S & M ...
Supposedly a take-off on Puccini's opera "La Boheme", "Rent" employs the cheap emotion of doomed, dying lovers -- all that's needed to wrench young people's hearts in the cause of "homosexual rights". In "Rent", the characters are drug addicts, strippers, drag queens, and lesbians dying of AIDS. It goes beyond romanticizing AIDS victims, however. The drinking song, "La Vie Boheme", has upbeat lyrics praising "leather, dildos, masturbation, bisexuals, trisexuals, sodomy, S&M". Fun fun fun! Can't wait to go to New York and be part of that scene...
The Boston Globe's review is critical only of the lighting and the staging of the production numbers in the movie. The Globe seems to miss the hideous transformation of a classic love story (between a seamstress dying from consumption and a poor poet, in the original) into needless, preventable deaths resulting from drug use and sexual perversion. From the Globe review:
It's taken them nine years to get there, but the award-winning collection of junkies, drag queens, and activist urchins from the East Village have finally made it to Hollywood. And in the movie version of ''Rent," they are such a cute and cuddly bunch it's easy to leave the theater thinking you've just seen ''Muppets Take Manhattan," instead....
Holding the story lines together are Mark ... and Roger ..., roommates in an illegal industrial loft. One's a filmmaker, the other an ex-junkie rock songwriter. Their professor friend, Collins ..., gets mugged and is rescued by Angel ..., a benevolent drag queen. They both happen to be HIV-positive and fall in love.
Mimi is the stripper junkie who lives downstairs from Roger. They fall in love, too. Also in love are Mark's ex, Maureen ..., and Joanne.... People bicker, they dance, they die.
Excerpts from lyrics to one of the songs in "Rent", "La Vie Boheme" (and we've read this was a toned-down version!):
Wine and beer!
To hand-crafted beers made in local breweries
To yoga, to yogurt, to rice and beans and cheese
To leather, to dildos, to curry vindaloo
Emotion, devotion, to causing a commotion
Creation, vacation
Mucho masturbation
Compassion, to fashion, to passion when it's new
To Sontag
To Sondheim
To anything taboo...
La vie Boheme
Bisexuals, trisexuals, homo sapiens,
Carcinogens, hallucinogens, men,
Pee Wee Herman...
To apathy, to entropy, to empathy, ecstasy ...
The Sex Pistols, 8BC,
To no shame - never playing the Fame Game
To marijuana
To sodomy,
It's between God and me
To S & M ...
Saturday, November 26, 2005
Archbishop O'Malley Scrutinizes Mayor Menino's Public Sins
The Boston Globe reported on Thanksgiving some news to be thankful for: Archbishop Sean "O'Malley won't attend charities' dinner", specifically the Catholic Charities Christmas dinner honoring Boston's Mayor Tom Menino. Menino, though nominally Catholic, supports abortion and the radical homosexual agenda.
In addition to asking the Archbishop not to attend this function, C. J. Doyle of the Catholic Action of League of Massachusetts has been urging Catholics to boycott the event . Faithful Catholics are also demanding that Catholic Charities disinvite Menino, or feel the consequences.
The weekend before O'Malley's announcement, Doyle appeared on the MassResistance radio show on WTTT 1150 AM to alert the Catholic faithful to call the Archdiocese. Doyle is scheduled to be on the show again this weekend (Dec. 3 & 4) for an update. (MassResistance radio is heard Saturdays at 10:00 a.m. and Sundays at 7:00 p.m. on WTTT 1150 AM.)
Menino is in tight with the queer activists in Boston, most recently letting them run wild (without a permit) on Tremont Street, disrupting a Focus on the Family religious event at the Tremont Temple on October 29. He's raised the rainbow flag over Boston City Hall, hosts a youth queer prom each year in May, and declared a "Queer Eye" day in Boston last spring. That's just a taste of his perfidy.
For a great catalog of Mayor Tom Menino's anti-Catholic public sins, we are printing a letter from C. J. Doyle to Archbishop O'Malley. Long, but worth it.
Friday, November 18, 2005 :::
From the Catholic Action League:
On Friday, December 9th, Catholic Charities will be honoring Boston Mayor Thomas Menino at its Annual Christmas Dinner for Catholic Charities.
The following is a memo, written by the Catholic Action League of Massachusetts, which was hand delivered to His Excellency, Archbishop O'Malley, this morning during a meeting. The memo details relevant information concerning Mayor Thomas Menino concerning why he is a highly inappropriate honoree at any Catholic event, particularly one in which the Archbishop has been invited.
After reading this memo, please call the Chancery office and urge His Excellency NOT TO ATTEND this event. The Chancery office phone # is (617) 782-2544. If you care to write or fax him, the fax # is (617) 782-8358, and the mailing address is 2121 Commonwealth Avenue, Brighton, MA 02135.
Ideally, Mayor Menino should be disinvited from this event. If not, however, His Excellency should not be giving scandal by his presence. In addition, if you have been invited to attend this fundraiser for Catholic Charities, please read the memo and then decide if, as a faithful Catholic, you should attend either.
FROM: C. Joseph Doyle, Executive Director, Catholic Action League of Massachusetts
SUBJECT: Mayor Thomas M. Menino
DATE: 17 November 2005
Per your request, I submit the following information on Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino and the Catholic Church.
It would be difficult to identify another nominally Catholic political figure in the United States who, on such a broad range of issues, has, in both his rhetoric and public policy decisions, engaged in such relentless opposition to the moral teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. A compilation of Mayor Menino's positions on Catholic questions includes, but is not limited to the following:
Since an abortive run for Congress in 1992 while still a City Councillor, Thomas Menino has supported legal abortion and the public funding of abortion. In his first campaign for Mayor in 1993, he indicated that he would continue the practice of taxpayer financed abortions at Boston City Hospital.
On May 17, 2004, the first day that same-gender marriage ceremonies could be legally performed in the Commonwealth, Mayor Menino, a supporter of same-sex marriage, personally welcomed homosexual and lesbian couples to Boston City Hall amid much fanfare and media attention.
From 1996 to 1998, Mayor Menino lobbied the Massachusetts Legislature to pass a home rule petition which would allow the Boston City Council to enact a domestic partners ordinance. In August, 1998, when Acting Governor A. Paul Cellucci vetoed the measure, Mayor Menino, against the advice of his own corporation counsel, arbitrarily and unlawfully instituted a domestic partners benefits program for municipal employees by executive order. This order was challenged in Suffolk County Superior Court by the American Center for Law and Justice and the Catholic Action League of Massachusetts. On July 8, 1999, the Supreme Judicial Court of the Commonwealth, in a unanimous decision written by then-Associate Justice Margaret Marshall, overturned the executive order in Connors vs. the City of Boston.
Since 1994, Mayor Menino has boycotted Boston's Saint Patrick's Day Parade because the organizers, the South Boston Allied War Veterans Council, have refused to allow a militant homosexual group, including participants in the infamous 1990 condom throwing incident at Holy Cross Cathedral, to march in the parade. Mayor Menino has also in the past forbidden Boston Police officers, firefighters, and emergency medical technicians from marching in the parade, describing it as "a discriminatory event."
In June of each year, Mayor Menino leads Boston's Gay Pride Parade, welcomes marchers to Boston, and allows Boston Police officers, in uniform, to march in the parade.
In 2001, Mayor Menino;s Fire Commissioner, Paul Christian, ordered the Boston Fire Department to remove all shamrocks and other expressions of Irish-Catholic identity from Boston fire apparatus, deriding them as "symbols of tribalism."
Each year in June, Mayor Menino allows the pink triangle homosexual flag to be flown over Boston City Hall Plaza as part of Gay Pride celebrations, often personally participating in the flag raising ceremony.
Each year during Gay Pride Week, Mayor Menino sponsors a gay prom for teenagers at Boston City Hall, where condoms have been distributed.
In January 1994, Thomas Menino became the first Boston Mayor to appoint the members of the Boston School Committee. Among his initial appointees was Dr. Elizabeth Reilinger, President and Chief Executive Officer of Crittenton Hastings House, then a major Massachusetts abortuary, which performed over 4000 abortions per year. Since 1998, Dr. Reilinger has been the Chairwoman of the School Committee. Another original appointeee by Mayor Menino was the pro-abortion left-wing activist Felix Arroyo, now a member of the Boston City Council.
In March 1994, in its first significant order of public business, Mayor Menino' appointed School Committee instituted a condom distribution program in the Boston Public Schools.
Under Mayor Menino's appointed School Committee, the Boston School Department has embraced such homosexual programs as the Safe School Initiative and Gay/Straight Alliances, which teach that homosexual relationships ought to be affirmed. During this same period, the School Department reprimanded and eventually terminated former Boston Latin School teacher Owen O'Malley, a Catholic critic of homosexual ideology.
Mayor Menino is a supporter of needle exchange programs.
Mayor Menino declared June 3, 2005 to be Queer Eye Day in the City of Boston.
Mayor Menino is a supporter of both gay rights and transgendered rights, whereby sexual orientation and identity are included in the protected categories of civil rights legislation. In 2002, Mayor Menino signed into law a City Council ordinance which would force homeowners, including Catholics with children, to rent apartments in their homes to transvestites and persons who have surgically mutilated themselves through so-called sex change operations.
Mayor Menino has maintained at public expense a gay and lesbian liaison office at Boston City Hall.
In 2005, Mayor Menino castigated th Archdiocese of Boston for the closing of Our Lady of Presentation School in Brighton, calling the actions of the Archdiocese "unconscionable" and "reprehensible." Mayor Menino went on to hold a sham graduation cermeony for Our Lady of Presentation students at Faneuil Hall.
Mayor Menino is a longstanding opponent of tuition tax credits and publicly funded tuition vouchers for the parents of Catholic school students.
Mayor Menino's spouse, Mrs. Angela Menino, has publicly criticized the Catholic Church, telling The Boston Globe that she opposes what she describes as the Church's "unjust treatment of women."
Thomas M. Menino is an adversary of the Catholic Church, an opponent of Catholic morality, and a supporter of the culture of death, who has carried on a campaign of aggressive de-Christianization in the municipal government of Boston. Under Mayor Menino's anti-Catholic and family-unfriendly policies, the flight of the Catholic middle class and the Catholic working class from Boston has continued. By the time Mayor Menino completes his fourth full term in January 2010, the Catholics of Boston, who once comprised a 72% majority, will likely be reduced, for the first time in more than a century, to the status of a minority in this historically Catholic city.
Why any organization which bears the name Catholic would wish to honor such an apostate is as incomprehensible as it is outrageous. In my judgement, it would be a grave scandal, profoundly demoralizing to faithful Catholics, for the Archbishop of Boston, particularly one known for his pro-life commitment, to participate even passively in an event in which Catholic principles are to be so shamefully betrayed.
--CJD
In addition to asking the Archbishop not to attend this function, C. J. Doyle of the Catholic Action of League of Massachusetts has been urging Catholics to boycott the event . Faithful Catholics are also demanding that Catholic Charities disinvite Menino, or feel the consequences.
The weekend before O'Malley's announcement, Doyle appeared on the MassResistance radio show on WTTT 1150 AM to alert the Catholic faithful to call the Archdiocese. Doyle is scheduled to be on the show again this weekend (Dec. 3 & 4) for an update. (MassResistance radio is heard Saturdays at 10:00 a.m. and Sundays at 7:00 p.m. on WTTT 1150 AM.)
Menino is in tight with the queer activists in Boston, most recently letting them run wild (without a permit) on Tremont Street, disrupting a Focus on the Family religious event at the Tremont Temple on October 29. He's raised the rainbow flag over Boston City Hall, hosts a youth queer prom each year in May, and declared a "Queer Eye" day in Boston last spring. That's just a taste of his perfidy.
For a great catalog of Mayor Tom Menino's anti-Catholic public sins, we are printing a letter from C. J. Doyle to Archbishop O'Malley. Long, but worth it.
Friday, November 18, 2005 :::
From the Catholic Action League:
On Friday, December 9th, Catholic Charities will be honoring Boston Mayor Thomas Menino at its Annual Christmas Dinner for Catholic Charities.
The following is a memo, written by the Catholic Action League of Massachusetts, which was hand delivered to His Excellency, Archbishop O'Malley, this morning during a meeting. The memo details relevant information concerning Mayor Thomas Menino concerning why he is a highly inappropriate honoree at any Catholic event, particularly one in which the Archbishop has been invited.
After reading this memo, please call the Chancery office and urge His Excellency NOT TO ATTEND this event. The Chancery office phone # is (617) 782-2544. If you care to write or fax him, the fax # is (617) 782-8358, and the mailing address is 2121 Commonwealth Avenue, Brighton, MA 02135.
Ideally, Mayor Menino should be disinvited from this event. If not, however, His Excellency should not be giving scandal by his presence. In addition, if you have been invited to attend this fundraiser for Catholic Charities, please read the memo and then decide if, as a faithful Catholic, you should attend either.
FROM: C. Joseph Doyle, Executive Director, Catholic Action League of Massachusetts
SUBJECT: Mayor Thomas M. Menino
DATE: 17 November 2005
Per your request, I submit the following information on Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino and the Catholic Church.
It would be difficult to identify another nominally Catholic political figure in the United States who, on such a broad range of issues, has, in both his rhetoric and public policy decisions, engaged in such relentless opposition to the moral teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. A compilation of Mayor Menino's positions on Catholic questions includes, but is not limited to the following:
Since an abortive run for Congress in 1992 while still a City Councillor, Thomas Menino has supported legal abortion and the public funding of abortion. In his first campaign for Mayor in 1993, he indicated that he would continue the practice of taxpayer financed abortions at Boston City Hospital.
On May 17, 2004, the first day that same-gender marriage ceremonies could be legally performed in the Commonwealth, Mayor Menino, a supporter of same-sex marriage, personally welcomed homosexual and lesbian couples to Boston City Hall amid much fanfare and media attention.
From 1996 to 1998, Mayor Menino lobbied the Massachusetts Legislature to pass a home rule petition which would allow the Boston City Council to enact a domestic partners ordinance. In August, 1998, when Acting Governor A. Paul Cellucci vetoed the measure, Mayor Menino, against the advice of his own corporation counsel, arbitrarily and unlawfully instituted a domestic partners benefits program for municipal employees by executive order. This order was challenged in Suffolk County Superior Court by the American Center for Law and Justice and the Catholic Action League of Massachusetts. On July 8, 1999, the Supreme Judicial Court of the Commonwealth, in a unanimous decision written by then-Associate Justice Margaret Marshall, overturned the executive order in Connors vs. the City of Boston.
Since 1994, Mayor Menino has boycotted Boston's Saint Patrick's Day Parade because the organizers, the South Boston Allied War Veterans Council, have refused to allow a militant homosexual group, including participants in the infamous 1990 condom throwing incident at Holy Cross Cathedral, to march in the parade. Mayor Menino has also in the past forbidden Boston Police officers, firefighters, and emergency medical technicians from marching in the parade, describing it as "a discriminatory event."
In June of each year, Mayor Menino leads Boston's Gay Pride Parade, welcomes marchers to Boston, and allows Boston Police officers, in uniform, to march in the parade.
In 2001, Mayor Menino;s Fire Commissioner, Paul Christian, ordered the Boston Fire Department to remove all shamrocks and other expressions of Irish-Catholic identity from Boston fire apparatus, deriding them as "symbols of tribalism."
Each year in June, Mayor Menino allows the pink triangle homosexual flag to be flown over Boston City Hall Plaza as part of Gay Pride celebrations, often personally participating in the flag raising ceremony.
Each year during Gay Pride Week, Mayor Menino sponsors a gay prom for teenagers at Boston City Hall, where condoms have been distributed.
In January 1994, Thomas Menino became the first Boston Mayor to appoint the members of the Boston School Committee. Among his initial appointees was Dr. Elizabeth Reilinger, President and Chief Executive Officer of Crittenton Hastings House, then a major Massachusetts abortuary, which performed over 4000 abortions per year. Since 1998, Dr. Reilinger has been the Chairwoman of the School Committee. Another original appointeee by Mayor Menino was the pro-abortion left-wing activist Felix Arroyo, now a member of the Boston City Council.
In March 1994, in its first significant order of public business, Mayor Menino' appointed School Committee instituted a condom distribution program in the Boston Public Schools.
Under Mayor Menino's appointed School Committee, the Boston School Department has embraced such homosexual programs as the Safe School Initiative and Gay/Straight Alliances, which teach that homosexual relationships ought to be affirmed. During this same period, the School Department reprimanded and eventually terminated former Boston Latin School teacher Owen O'Malley, a Catholic critic of homosexual ideology.
Mayor Menino is a supporter of needle exchange programs.
Mayor Menino declared June 3, 2005 to be Queer Eye Day in the City of Boston.
Mayor Menino is a supporter of both gay rights and transgendered rights, whereby sexual orientation and identity are included in the protected categories of civil rights legislation. In 2002, Mayor Menino signed into law a City Council ordinance which would force homeowners, including Catholics with children, to rent apartments in their homes to transvestites and persons who have surgically mutilated themselves through so-called sex change operations.
Mayor Menino has maintained at public expense a gay and lesbian liaison office at Boston City Hall.
In 2005, Mayor Menino castigated th Archdiocese of Boston for the closing of Our Lady of Presentation School in Brighton, calling the actions of the Archdiocese "unconscionable" and "reprehensible." Mayor Menino went on to hold a sham graduation cermeony for Our Lady of Presentation students at Faneuil Hall.
Mayor Menino is a longstanding opponent of tuition tax credits and publicly funded tuition vouchers for the parents of Catholic school students.
Mayor Menino's spouse, Mrs. Angela Menino, has publicly criticized the Catholic Church, telling The Boston Globe that she opposes what she describes as the Church's "unjust treatment of women."
Thomas M. Menino is an adversary of the Catholic Church, an opponent of Catholic morality, and a supporter of the culture of death, who has carried on a campaign of aggressive de-Christianization in the municipal government of Boston. Under Mayor Menino's anti-Catholic and family-unfriendly policies, the flight of the Catholic middle class and the Catholic working class from Boston has continued. By the time Mayor Menino completes his fourth full term in January 2010, the Catholics of Boston, who once comprised a 72% majority, will likely be reduced, for the first time in more than a century, to the status of a minority in this historically Catholic city.
Why any organization which bears the name Catholic would wish to honor such an apostate is as incomprehensible as it is outrageous. In my judgement, it would be a grave scandal, profoundly demoralizing to faithful Catholics, for the Archbishop of Boston, particularly one known for his pro-life commitment, to participate even passively in an event in which Catholic principles are to be so shamefully betrayed.
--CJD
Thursday, November 24, 2005
Thanksgiving
"It is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the Providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and to humbly implore His protection and favor."
--George Washington, October 3, 1789
Proclaiming a National Day of Prayer and Thanksgiving
HAPPY THANKSGIVING!
MassResistance will return in a few days.
--George Washington, October 3, 1789
Proclaiming a National Day of Prayer and Thanksgiving
HAPPY THANKSGIVING!
MassResistance will return in a few days.
MassResistance: The Radio Show
Don't miss our new MassResistance radio hour.
It's broadcast twice every weekend on WTTT 1150 AM, Saturdays at 10:00 a.m. and Sundays at 7:00 p.m.
It's broadcast twice every weekend on WTTT 1150 AM, Saturdays at 10:00 a.m. and Sundays at 7:00 p.m.
Monday, November 21, 2005
You're Only Catholic if You're Catholic
Dissenting "Catholics" from a Newton parish demand their dissenting liberal priest Walter Cuenin be returned to their church. They make their dissenting views and protest the focus of a mass at the Cathedral of the Holy Cross in Boston. Next, they'll be throwing condoms at the Archbishop.
It's fine with these protesters that Fr. Cuenin takes part in "gay pride" marches and "gay awareness day" at the local high school. The Boston Herald plays right along with them, and refers to them as "Catholic". (How many of the protesters weren't even parishioners, we wonder?) From the Herald, "Cloaked in red, Catholics protest ouster":
Hundreds of Newton Catholics – already seeing red over the ouster of their popular priest – yesterday tried wearing it.
Several busloads of Our Lady Help of Christians parishioners, outraged by the removal last month of their pastor, the Rev. Walter Cuenin, showed up for Mass at the Cathedral of the Holy Cross in Boston decked out in scarlet outfits in protest.
The contingent of about 200 people sat quietly, allowing their crimson clothes to shout defiance.
Archbishop Sean O’Malley asked for Cuenin’s resignation in September after an audit revealed he took a leased Honda Accord and a $500-a-month stipend from the church.
“He clearly violated archdiocese policy,” church spokesman Terrence Donlan said, adding, “We certainly appreciate the heartache people are feeling. He was a beloved pastor.”
But outraged parishioners claim Cuenin got the heave-ho for signing a letter critical of the archdiocese’s handling of the clergy abuse scandal and because he openly ministered to gays.
It's fine with these protesters that Fr. Cuenin takes part in "gay pride" marches and "gay awareness day" at the local high school. The Boston Herald plays right along with them, and refers to them as "Catholic". (How many of the protesters weren't even parishioners, we wonder?) From the Herald, "Cloaked in red, Catholics protest ouster":
Hundreds of Newton Catholics – already seeing red over the ouster of their popular priest – yesterday tried wearing it.
Several busloads of Our Lady Help of Christians parishioners, outraged by the removal last month of their pastor, the Rev. Walter Cuenin, showed up for Mass at the Cathedral of the Holy Cross in Boston decked out in scarlet outfits in protest.
The contingent of about 200 people sat quietly, allowing their crimson clothes to shout defiance.
Archbishop Sean O’Malley asked for Cuenin’s resignation in September after an audit revealed he took a leased Honda Accord and a $500-a-month stipend from the church.
“He clearly violated archdiocese policy,” church spokesman Terrence Donlan said, adding, “We certainly appreciate the heartache people are feeling. He was a beloved pastor.”
But outraged parishioners claim Cuenin got the heave-ho for signing a letter critical of the archdiocese’s handling of the clergy abuse scandal and because he openly ministered to gays.
Sunday, November 20, 2005
"Straight Talk Radio" with Stephen Bennett
Check out ex-gay Stephen Bennett's new radio show, "Straight Talk Radio", which he produces with his wife Irene. You can play archived shows right from their website. Also check out their other site, Stephen Bennett Ministries.
Subjects of recent programs include David Parker; the untold story of a "hate crime" murder a Christian woman in Chicago (and the truth about the Matthew Shepard case); "Seven Myths about Homosexuality"; and "Children and Gender Confusion".
From Stephen's website:
Stephen Bennett Ministries, Inc. (SBM) has several purposes. First and foremost, SBM encourages men and women to successfully and permanently overcome their unwanted same-sex attraction (SSA.) SBM firmly believes no one is born homosexual; that unnatural homosexual attractions tragically develop early on in the childhood; and by biblically dealing with the root cause(s) of one's same-sex attraction, homosexuality can be completely overcome - just as drug addiction, alcoholism or any other sinful behavior. Men and women can then effectively move on to healthy heterosexuality - as part of God's natural, perfect design and plan for man and woman....
Stephen’s story and music have touched the hearts of millions worldwide - offering a real message of hope and love to those struggling with same-sex attraction, as well as family and friends of those who are involved in or struggling with homosexuality. If you are not familiar with Stephen Bennett's story, we ask that you first read it by clicking here.
Stephen Bennett struggled with homosexuality until he was 28 years old. Alcoholic, bulimic and a drug addict, his destructive life style nearly killed him. Over 11 years actively as a promiscuous homosexual man with countless male partners, many of Stephen's homosexual partners and friends are tragically dead from AIDS. Finally, one day while happily involved in a long term, committed relationship with a man he was in love with, Stephen was confronted by a Christian woman knocking at his door with a Bible in her hand. He would never be the same again.
Subjects of recent programs include David Parker; the untold story of a "hate crime" murder a Christian woman in Chicago (and the truth about the Matthew Shepard case); "Seven Myths about Homosexuality"; and "Children and Gender Confusion".
From Stephen's website:
Stephen Bennett Ministries, Inc. (SBM) has several purposes. First and foremost, SBM encourages men and women to successfully and permanently overcome their unwanted same-sex attraction (SSA.) SBM firmly believes no one is born homosexual; that unnatural homosexual attractions tragically develop early on in the childhood; and by biblically dealing with the root cause(s) of one's same-sex attraction, homosexuality can be completely overcome - just as drug addiction, alcoholism or any other sinful behavior. Men and women can then effectively move on to healthy heterosexuality - as part of God's natural, perfect design and plan for man and woman....
Stephen’s story and music have touched the hearts of millions worldwide - offering a real message of hope and love to those struggling with same-sex attraction, as well as family and friends of those who are involved in or struggling with homosexuality. If you are not familiar with Stephen Bennett's story, we ask that you first read it by clicking here.
Stephen Bennett struggled with homosexuality until he was 28 years old. Alcoholic, bulimic and a drug addict, his destructive life style nearly killed him. Over 11 years actively as a promiscuous homosexual man with countless male partners, many of Stephen's homosexual partners and friends are tragically dead from AIDS. Finally, one day while happily involved in a long term, committed relationship with a man he was in love with, Stephen was confronted by a Christian woman knocking at his door with a Bible in her hand. He would never be the same again.
Saturday, November 19, 2005
Dear LBGTQIP Readers: Come Join Me at My Church Tomorrow
Note 11-20-05:
The letter below was posted last night in the hopes that the criminals who broke into my home, stealing my privacy and credit card, would feel some remorse for their vile act. Are we surprised they did not respond? Their criminal behavior reveals the true nature of the radical "gay" movement.
Dear "Gay" Activist Friends,
We thought liberals believed in the right of privacy. So I'm very puzzled by your recent behavior.
Instead of breaking and entering into my home, going through my personal belongings, and taking who knows what private information and photographs, why not just give me a call and arrange to meet for coffee or lunch?
Better yet, why not come to meet my at my welcoming church tomorrow morning at 9:30 (stay for coffee!). We are a welcoming congregation. We welcome all. We are all sinners, seeking the grace and forgiveness of God. You are welcome. You know where I go to church, since you have alerted the press...
We'd really like you to come ... and repent your evil deeds of this past week. As I will try to forgive you, and will pray for you.
In Christ,
A. Mann
The letter below was posted last night in the hopes that the criminals who broke into my home, stealing my privacy and credit card, would feel some remorse for their vile act. Are we surprised they did not respond? Their criminal behavior reveals the true nature of the radical "gay" movement.
Dear "Gay" Activist Friends,
We thought liberals believed in the right of privacy. So I'm very puzzled by your recent behavior.
Instead of breaking and entering into my home, going through my personal belongings, and taking who knows what private information and photographs, why not just give me a call and arrange to meet for coffee or lunch?
Better yet, why not come to meet my at my welcoming church tomorrow morning at 9:30 (stay for coffee!). We are a welcoming congregation. We welcome all. We are all sinners, seeking the grace and forgiveness of God. You are welcome. You know where I go to church, since you have alerted the press...
We'd really like you to come ... and repent your evil deeds of this past week. As I will try to forgive you, and will pray for you.
In Christ,
A. Mann
Lt. Gov. Kerry Healey Both Against and For "Gay Marriage"
Lt. Governor Kerry Healey announced on Friday that she supports the proposed constitutional ban on "gay marriage". But she also supports "civil unions" and says she will work to implement them if the amendment is passed in 2008. (Gov. Romney promised to work for "reciprocal benefits" for "gay" couples -- unclear how they differ from "civil unions" -- and believes that "gay marriages" existing prior to the amendment's 2008 effective date should be allowed to stand!)
Doesn't Lt. Gov. Healey realize that her stand against "gay marriage", but for "civil unions" (really the equivalent of "gay marriage"), runs afoul of the pronouncement of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court? Remember that Empress Margaret told the Legislature that "civil unions" would not satisfy her, since "separate is not equal"! Only full "marriage" status would do for the sodomitally conjoined, declared Empress Margaret.
So ... what will Lt. Gov. Healey do, if elected Governor, to stand up to the SJC? If the new amendment is passed in 2008, will she stand up to the Court when it declares the amendment invalid or unconstitutional? (Who cares what Attorney General Tom Reilly ruled when allowing the petition to go foward!)
The Globe reported:
Healey, who intends to run for governor if Mitt Romney decides not to seek reelection, said that she would vote for the gay-marriage ban if it appears on the ballot. But she also said she would work to authorize civil unions if the ballot initiative passes in 2008.
Yesterday Healey and Romney recommended that the state party's platform encourage a public referendum on matters of dramatic social importance such as legalizing gay marriage, rather than allowing appointed judges to make the decision. But they did not call for the party platform to endorse a ban.
Currently, the state party platform does not mention same-sex marriage or voter initiatives. By contrast, the Republican National Committee platform supports President Bush's call for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage ... The state Republican committee has not voted on the issue, leading some in the gay rights movement to criticize the committee's involvement in the petition drive.
On Thursday, the Boston Globe reported a rift in the Mass. Republican Party over the proposed amendment banning "gay marriage". A curious statement was that the Party's support for traditional marriage signals a "rightward shift":
Signaling a rightward shift under the leadership of Governor Mitt Romney, Republican strategists have sent numerous e-mails since September to party members asking them to help opponents of same-sex marriage collect signatures for the proposed ban. Sponsors of the ban are due to turn over the names to city and town clerks next week.
Romney has repeatedly emphasized his opposition to gay marriage as he prepares for a potential run for president, but the Massachusetts Republican Party platform, drafted in 2002 before same-sex marriage was legalized, does not address the subject. A state committeewoman complained yesterday that members were not consulted on the party's involvement, but the state GOP's executive director emphasized that the party's strategy should not be read as an endorsement of the ban.
Come to think of it, the Globe may be right. Even though 70%+ of American voters oppose "gay marriage", this pitiful action of gathering signatures IS a rightward shift for Massachusetts "Republicans"! They have been spineless on the most important social issue since abortion, even telling their 2004 legislative candidates to avoid addressing the issue at all costs!
Doesn't Lt. Gov. Healey realize that her stand against "gay marriage", but for "civil unions" (really the equivalent of "gay marriage"), runs afoul of the pronouncement of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court? Remember that Empress Margaret told the Legislature that "civil unions" would not satisfy her, since "separate is not equal"! Only full "marriage" status would do for the sodomitally conjoined, declared Empress Margaret.
So ... what will Lt. Gov. Healey do, if elected Governor, to stand up to the SJC? If the new amendment is passed in 2008, will she stand up to the Court when it declares the amendment invalid or unconstitutional? (Who cares what Attorney General Tom Reilly ruled when allowing the petition to go foward!)
The Globe reported:
Healey, who intends to run for governor if Mitt Romney decides not to seek reelection, said that she would vote for the gay-marriage ban if it appears on the ballot. But she also said she would work to authorize civil unions if the ballot initiative passes in 2008.
Yesterday Healey and Romney recommended that the state party's platform encourage a public referendum on matters of dramatic social importance such as legalizing gay marriage, rather than allowing appointed judges to make the decision. But they did not call for the party platform to endorse a ban.
Currently, the state party platform does not mention same-sex marriage or voter initiatives. By contrast, the Republican National Committee platform supports President Bush's call for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage ... The state Republican committee has not voted on the issue, leading some in the gay rights movement to criticize the committee's involvement in the petition drive.
On Thursday, the Boston Globe reported a rift in the Mass. Republican Party over the proposed amendment banning "gay marriage". A curious statement was that the Party's support for traditional marriage signals a "rightward shift":
Signaling a rightward shift under the leadership of Governor Mitt Romney, Republican strategists have sent numerous e-mails since September to party members asking them to help opponents of same-sex marriage collect signatures for the proposed ban. Sponsors of the ban are due to turn over the names to city and town clerks next week.
Romney has repeatedly emphasized his opposition to gay marriage as he prepares for a potential run for president, but the Massachusetts Republican Party platform, drafted in 2002 before same-sex marriage was legalized, does not address the subject. A state committeewoman complained yesterday that members were not consulted on the party's involvement, but the state GOP's executive director emphasized that the party's strategy should not be read as an endorsement of the ban.
Come to think of it, the Globe may be right. Even though 70%+ of American voters oppose "gay marriage", this pitiful action of gathering signatures IS a rightward shift for Massachusetts "Republicans"! They have been spineless on the most important social issue since abortion, even telling their 2004 legislative candidates to avoid addressing the issue at all costs!
Friday, November 18, 2005
Illegal Demonstrations: Illegal in D.C. But Not Boston
The D.C. Park Police arrested and fined Cindy Sheehan and her antiwar buddies for demonstrating without a permit near the White House. Good to see our Capitol police are still enforcing the law.
But in Boston, demonstrators without permits can get away with anything: place coffins in the middle of streets and sidewalks, intimidate conference attendees, chant loudly all day, halt a march for a half hour or more in front of the church and blast it with loudspeakers, and have police stand by doing nothing. This is what happened at the ex-gay conference sponsored by Focus on the Family on October 29 in Boston.
While the antiwar group had a permit for their event on the Boston Common that day, the queer demonstrators who were outside the church all day did not. Nor did anyone have permission to halt a thousand or more marchers outside the church and blast thunderous, amplified threats at the conference.
This sort of outrage is becoming common in Boston, because Mayor Menino has sold his soul to the dark side. Don't ask him to explain why he supports this evil movement. He'll only mumble something incomprehensible. (Check out Howie Carr's "Mumbles Menino" web site!)
But in Boston, demonstrators without permits can get away with anything: place coffins in the middle of streets and sidewalks, intimidate conference attendees, chant loudly all day, halt a march for a half hour or more in front of the church and blast it with loudspeakers, and have police stand by doing nothing. This is what happened at the ex-gay conference sponsored by Focus on the Family on October 29 in Boston.
While the antiwar group had a permit for their event on the Boston Common that day, the queer demonstrators who were outside the church all day did not. Nor did anyone have permission to halt a thousand or more marchers outside the church and blast thunderous, amplified threats at the conference.
This sort of outrage is becoming common in Boston, because Mayor Menino has sold his soul to the dark side. Don't ask him to explain why he supports this evil movement. He'll only mumble something incomprehensible. (Check out Howie Carr's "Mumbles Menino" web site!)
Thursday, November 17, 2005
Mass. Legislature "Losing Its Moral Compass"
Rep. Phil Travis (D-Rehoboth) announced yesterday that he will not run for re-election. This is a real pity, as he was one of the few reliable, courageous voices in the Mass. legislature, defending common sense and traditional values. At 65, he said he wants to pursue other interests and spend more time with his family. According to the Boston Globe ("Gay marriage opponent decides he won't seek another term"):
[Travis] added that he fears Massachusetts is becoming more liberal than it already is, and contended that the House has moved too far to the left under Speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi.
"I just think that we're losing our moral compass," Travis, one of the most conservative Democrats in the House, said in an interview at his State House office.
Travis has been an important leader in the legislative battle against homosexual "marriage". He's strongly anti-abortion, and just last week spoke up against the legalized sale of hypodermic needles. He's now serving his 12th term.
Oh well, we do favor the idea of term limits. But it's no good when only the good guys leave.
[Travis] added that he fears Massachusetts is becoming more liberal than it already is, and contended that the House has moved too far to the left under Speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi.
"I just think that we're losing our moral compass," Travis, one of the most conservative Democrats in the House, said in an interview at his State House office.
Travis has been an important leader in the legislative battle against homosexual "marriage". He's strongly anti-abortion, and just last week spoke up against the legalized sale of hypodermic needles. He's now serving his 12th term.
Oh well, we do favor the idea of term limits. But it's no good when only the good guys leave.
Wednesday, November 16, 2005
Spreading Gender Confusion
The national popular press -- in this case GQ (Gentleman's Quarterly) -- is in on the GLBTQIP game. It's playing with gender identity confusion by naming actress Jennifer Anniston "Man of the Year" . This sort of thing just isn't cute -- in fact, it's getting tiresome. UPI reports:
Jennifer Aniston has become GQ magazine's first (Wo)Man of the Year. The magazine's 10th annual Man of the Year cover is a topless Aniston, with her womanly parts discretely obscured, Zap2it.com reported Tuesday. The magazine said it decided to forgo the Y gene and chose Aniston this year for her "poise, grace and humor" during the scandal involving her now ex-husband Brad Pitt...
Are the words "poise, grace and humor" usually considered manly qualities? It would be interesting to know the "gender identity" of the people deciding this award.
Jennifer Aniston has become GQ magazine's first (Wo)Man of the Year. The magazine's 10th annual Man of the Year cover is a topless Aniston, with her womanly parts discretely obscured, Zap2it.com reported Tuesday. The magazine said it decided to forgo the Y gene and chose Aniston this year for her "poise, grace and humor" during the scandal involving her now ex-husband Brad Pitt...
Are the words "poise, grace and humor" usually considered manly qualities? It would be interesting to know the "gender identity" of the people deciding this award.
Tuesday, November 15, 2005
Where They're Leading Us: Queer Club Orgy at Brown U.
The O'Reilly Factor had an interesting story last night out of Brown University. It seems that the Queer Alliance club on campus -- an official student organization receiving money from student fees -- held a school-approved party (or "orgy" as O'Reilly called it) in a campus building. O'Reilly's producer said that he paid $80 for his ticket.
The producer said the tone for the party was set by the group that organized it, the Queer Alliance, who were the "core" of the attendees, though many hetero couples were there and fully into the scene. It was called the "SexPowerGod" Party. Hundreds attended. The producer who attended said it was it was "pure debauchery". The footage showed young people in skimpy underwear cavorting; the producer witnessed sexual acts. Many attendees were sent to the hospital emergency room.
Here's a discussion about SexPowerGod off the Brown Daily Jolt:
What is the deal with this party, I have never been to one... is it for straight people too or what
yes. It's a misconception that the party is just for the gay community. Yes the Queer Alliance throws it, but of course it's open to anyone who wants to go. So be ready to have some fun come next weekend :)
ok...so what kind of activities go on at this party usually
The producer said the tone for the party was set by the group that organized it, the Queer Alliance, who were the "core" of the attendees, though many hetero couples were there and fully into the scene. It was called the "SexPowerGod" Party. Hundreds attended. The producer who attended said it was it was "pure debauchery". The footage showed young people in skimpy underwear cavorting; the producer witnessed sexual acts. Many attendees were sent to the hospital emergency room.
Here's a discussion about SexPowerGod off the Brown Daily Jolt:
What is the deal with this party, I have never been to one... is it for straight people too or what
yes. It's a misconception that the party is just for the gay community. Yes the Queer Alliance throws it, but of course it's open to anyone who wants to go. So be ready to have some fun come next weekend :)
ok...so what kind of activities go on at this party usually
oral sex. and actual sex. and freaky dancing next to people who are nearly naked. in case you really wanted it spelled out.
As a good looking straight male who went last year, let me tell you the lowdown about SPG: its a bunch of overweight, greasy gay guys with far too little clothes dancing like the queers they are. It's repulsive. I can see how a straight girl MIGHT have a good time in that environment, but for guys who like girls -- stay the f--- away.
What a big man, posting anonymously on the Jolt to insult queer people who are confident enough to publicly express an alternative sexual preference. You get two gold stars, one for homophobia and one for cowardice.P.S. Are twice-yearly Queer Alliance parties such a big threat to you personally? That's just sad. (-Raging Succubus)
I'm not sure how under the auspices of Brown the school, which can think itself liable for god knows what and crack down (a CANDLE in a room!!!) allows public sex -- what of the spread of disease and the school's liability? Isn't this how they closed all the sex clubs in NYC? Plato's retreat to The Tunnel?
first of all, providence still has bath houses, in case you haven't noticed. second, the fags give out condoms at the dance. they promote safe...wild-kinky-dirty...sex
SPG is fun. Except I should have known to stay away from their chocolate flavoured condoms.
i went my freshman year with my boyfriend (i am a girl) and had a horrible time. people were gross and all over eachother and (everyone else) all night--hardcore. it was all techno music which sucked, and there's not much to do other than make out with really raunchy drunk people in elephant thongs.
So this is what's happening at colleges across America? It's especially sad when we see institutions to which we're personally connected allowing this sort of thing. (Yes, MRWatch, we do have Ivy connections.)
Monday, November 14, 2005
The Offense of Normality
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".
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".
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...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)