Gay & Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, GLAD, has filed its lawsuit to stop the new Massachusetts marriage amendment dead in its tracks. We predict GLAD will be successful. (It looks like the case will be heard before the state legislature's first possible meeting of its Constitutional Convention -- next May?-- where the amendment would have to pass the first of two legislative votes.)
MassResistance has long warned of such obstructionism, should an amendment be attempted. We're certain that Senate President Travaglini, who sets the dates and agenda of the Constitutional Convention, is in close communication with GLAD on timing issues.
GLAD's press release (Jan. 3, 2006) says they expect the case to be heard in the Spring ... by a "friend" on the Mass. Supreme Judical Court?
Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) today filed a lawsuit to challenge the Attorney General’s decision that a proposed ballot question that would once again exclude same-sex couples from marriage satisfies the Massachusetts constitution.
“The Attorney General simply got it wrong,” said Gary Buseck, GLAD’s Legal Director. “Our state constitution says there can be no citizen-initiated constitutional amendment that `relates to the reversal of a judicial decision.’ This proposed anti-gay, anti-marriage amendment is meant squarely and solely to reverse the decision in Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health that ended marriage discrimination in Massachusetts." ...
GLAD’s lawsuit was filed in the single justice session of the Supreme Judicial Court. It is anticipated that the case will be reported by the single justice to the full court and set for oral argument in Spring 2006.
We wonder which "single justice" they'll get? There's at least a 4 out of 7 chance it will be a good friend!
Tuesday, January 03, 2006
New Web Guide to the Political Left Needs Your Input
Here's a developing website you need to check out and contribute ideas to: David Horowitz's "Discover the Network" . If you're not familiar with Horowitz, check out his main site at FrontPageMag.com. He was a "red diaper baby" turned libertarian/conservative. One of his other big campaigns now is for academic freedom on college campuses. Generally a good guy.
Horowitz's new site will be a "Guide to the Political Left." It identifies the individuals and organizations that make up the left and also the institutions that fund and sustain it; it maps the paths through which the left exerts its influence on the larger body politic; it defines the left's (often hidden) programmatic agendas and it provides an understanding of its history and ideas.
Problem is, Horowitz hasn't yet gotten into the issues we deal with: the danger posed by leftist queer activists and their judicial-tyrant friends. He needs your help seeing the connection between these people and threats to our freedom of speech and religion, and constitutionally guaranteed liberties.
Send them information on groups like GLSEN, Human Rights Campaign, Gay & Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, etc.
Horowitz's new site will be a "Guide to the Political Left." It identifies the individuals and organizations that make up the left and also the institutions that fund and sustain it; it maps the paths through which the left exerts its influence on the larger body politic; it defines the left's (often hidden) programmatic agendas and it provides an understanding of its history and ideas.
Problem is, Horowitz hasn't yet gotten into the issues we deal with: the danger posed by leftist queer activists and their judicial-tyrant friends. He needs your help seeing the connection between these people and threats to our freedom of speech and religion, and constitutionally guaranteed liberties.
Send them information on groups like GLSEN, Human Rights Campaign, Gay & Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, etc.
Not Too Late for Romney to Act on "Gay Marriage" Ruling
Article 8 Alliance has posted a great page, reiterating the continuing illegality of "gay marriage" in Massachusetts. The main point, which this blog has been making for a year now, is that there is NO STATUTORY BASIS for the homosexual marriages in this state. We in fact drafted Bill H654 currently before the legislature, which states:
AN ACT TO CLARIFY THE STATUS OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGES PERFORMED UNDER PUBLIC AUTHORITY IN MASSACHUSETTS SINCE MAY 17, 2004.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows: It is hereby declared that all same-sex marriages performed under public authority in Massachusetts since May 17, 2004 are without statutory basis; and no marriage performed in Massachusetts will be considered legally binding which is not established by Massachusetts statute, not withstanding licensing through the Massachusetts Department of Public Health, or city or town clerk.
The Article 8 page includes a link to an article by constitutional law scholar Hadley Arkes (in National Review Online) from the day "gay marriages" began in Massachusetts -- May 17, 2004. Arkes said something then that still applies. And if Gov. Romney has national ambitions, he should take note, and take action:
Is it now too late [for Gov. Romney to act against "gay marriage"]? That isn't altogether clear. Today has become the decisive date only because of the holding of the Supreme Judicial Court. But this argument over the error of the court, or the wrongful taking of jurisdiction, does not expire on May 17. That argument is still open, which means that it could be plausible for the governor to make that move at any time. ...
If he were going to open himself to controversy and litigation, why not finally take his stand on the constitution itself, where his own authority on matters of marriage is clearly spelled out? And in taking his stand on the constitutional question, he would move to higher ground, with the burden of challenge shifted to the courts. As the arguments and recriminations fly freely about, he can in effect blow the whistle, invoke his authority, shift the focus dramatically, and make it clear — to the relief of the public — that a grownup is finally in charge.
It might have been a striking appeal to the south and west in the Republican party, that there was a northern governor, aligned with them in their moral perspectives, and with the resolution to act. [Emphasis added]
We say it's still not too late for Gov. Romney to take decisive action!
AN ACT TO CLARIFY THE STATUS OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGES PERFORMED UNDER PUBLIC AUTHORITY IN MASSACHUSETTS SINCE MAY 17, 2004.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows: It is hereby declared that all same-sex marriages performed under public authority in Massachusetts since May 17, 2004 are without statutory basis; and no marriage performed in Massachusetts will be considered legally binding which is not established by Massachusetts statute, not withstanding licensing through the Massachusetts Department of Public Health, or city or town clerk.
The Article 8 page includes a link to an article by constitutional law scholar Hadley Arkes (in National Review Online) from the day "gay marriages" began in Massachusetts -- May 17, 2004. Arkes said something then that still applies. And if Gov. Romney has national ambitions, he should take note, and take action:
Is it now too late [for Gov. Romney to act against "gay marriage"]? That isn't altogether clear. Today has become the decisive date only because of the holding of the Supreme Judicial Court. But this argument over the error of the court, or the wrongful taking of jurisdiction, does not expire on May 17. That argument is still open, which means that it could be plausible for the governor to make that move at any time. ...
If he were going to open himself to controversy and litigation, why not finally take his stand on the constitution itself, where his own authority on matters of marriage is clearly spelled out? And in taking his stand on the constitutional question, he would move to higher ground, with the burden of challenge shifted to the courts. As the arguments and recriminations fly freely about, he can in effect blow the whistle, invoke his authority, shift the focus dramatically, and make it clear — to the relief of the public — that a grownup is finally in charge.
It might have been a striking appeal to the south and west in the Republican party, that there was a northern governor, aligned with them in their moral perspectives, and with the resolution to act. [Emphasis added]
We say it's still not too late for Gov. Romney to take decisive action!
Monday, January 02, 2006
Romney Approved Special "Homosexual Marriage" Certificates
Wow, Romney's in a deeper hole than even we at MassResistance knew! Not only is he pretending he couldn't stop homosexual "marriages" from commencing in May 2004 (falsely claiming the SJC ruling had the power of law). Now the Globe reports that in 2005 he "approved at least 189 requests from same-sex couples" for the special one-day marriage certificates only he can issue! Disgraceful.
The Governor, his chief of staff, and the Boston Globe still don't get it: There is no law (statute) establishing homosexual "marriage" in Massachusetts! So they can't get away with saying "he's just applying the law fairly." How strange that even Romney's top legal adviser (from the Spring of 2004) told the Globe "the governor cannot legally apply a statute selectively."
MassResistance asks: WHAT STATUTE? Can they please give us the reference to the Mass. law that applies here? Just repeating over and over that "gay marriage is legal in Mass." doesn't make it so. And the Governor trying to hide behind staffers processing the applications won't work. (Romney has even bragged that some of his top staffers are gay! That might explain some of the problems we're having with him...)
But word is starting to get out to conservatives around the country that Romney has seriously violated his oath protect our state constitution.
From the Boston Globe, "Some see conflict for Romney on gay marriage", by Scott Helman and Scott Greenberger:
For 17 years, Massachusetts couples have asked friends, family, and loved ones to solemnize their marriages under an obscure state law allowing the governor to grant one-day certificates to officiate a wedding.
Since same-sex marriage became legal in May 2004, Governor Mitt Romney has approved scores of such requests from gay and lesbian couples, creating a ticklish political situation for the staunch gay-marriage opponent as he gears up for a possible presidential bid in 2008. Romney approved at least 189 requests from same-sex couples in 2005, along with about 1,040 applications for heterosexual couples.
The one-day certificates, which cost $25, allow virtually anyone to legally solemnize a marriage anywhere in the Commonwealth....
Romney's communications director, Eric Fehrnstrom, said that even though the governor opposes gay marriage, it would be discriminatory and illegal for him to apply the law regarding the one-day certificates differently to same-sex couples....
Fehrnstrom added that Romney's staff, not the governor himself, routinely handles and approves the applications....
Daniel Winslow, Romney's top legal adviser at the time [2004], said in an interview last week that attorney-client privilege prevented him from commenting on whether the administration discussed internally the one-day licenses as they pertained to gay marriage. But as a general principle, he said, the governor cannot legally apply a statute selectively. ''If you do them, you gotta do them," Winslow said. ''It's got to be applied evenly across the board."
The Romney administration applied the same logic when it instructed justices of the peace in 2004 that the law required them to officiate at same-sex weddings, even if they opposed gay marriage. Justices of the peace who didn't want to perform such marriages were told to resign....
But the governor has at times taken pains to promote tolerance of gays and lesbians. When an administration official was dismissed and asserted that the action was related to her intention to marry her lesbian partner, Romney strongly denied it and noted that several high-ranking officials in his administration were gay.
And in a November speech to the conservative Federalist Society in Washington DC, Romney decried the SJC decision, but also said, ''We should be open and tolerant of different lifestyles."
The applications Romney approved from same-sex couples included at least four from state legislators, including Jarrett T. Barrios...
The Governor, his chief of staff, and the Boston Globe still don't get it: There is no law (statute) establishing homosexual "marriage" in Massachusetts! So they can't get away with saying "he's just applying the law fairly." How strange that even Romney's top legal adviser (from the Spring of 2004) told the Globe "the governor cannot legally apply a statute selectively."
MassResistance asks: WHAT STATUTE? Can they please give us the reference to the Mass. law that applies here? Just repeating over and over that "gay marriage is legal in Mass." doesn't make it so. And the Governor trying to hide behind staffers processing the applications won't work. (Romney has even bragged that some of his top staffers are gay! That might explain some of the problems we're having with him...)
But word is starting to get out to conservatives around the country that Romney has seriously violated his oath protect our state constitution.
From the Boston Globe, "Some see conflict for Romney on gay marriage", by Scott Helman and Scott Greenberger:
For 17 years, Massachusetts couples have asked friends, family, and loved ones to solemnize their marriages under an obscure state law allowing the governor to grant one-day certificates to officiate a wedding.
Since same-sex marriage became legal in May 2004, Governor Mitt Romney has approved scores of such requests from gay and lesbian couples, creating a ticklish political situation for the staunch gay-marriage opponent as he gears up for a possible presidential bid in 2008. Romney approved at least 189 requests from same-sex couples in 2005, along with about 1,040 applications for heterosexual couples.
The one-day certificates, which cost $25, allow virtually anyone to legally solemnize a marriage anywhere in the Commonwealth....
Romney's communications director, Eric Fehrnstrom, said that even though the governor opposes gay marriage, it would be discriminatory and illegal for him to apply the law regarding the one-day certificates differently to same-sex couples....
Fehrnstrom added that Romney's staff, not the governor himself, routinely handles and approves the applications....
Daniel Winslow, Romney's top legal adviser at the time [2004], said in an interview last week that attorney-client privilege prevented him from commenting on whether the administration discussed internally the one-day licenses as they pertained to gay marriage. But as a general principle, he said, the governor cannot legally apply a statute selectively. ''If you do them, you gotta do them," Winslow said. ''It's got to be applied evenly across the board."
The Romney administration applied the same logic when it instructed justices of the peace in 2004 that the law required them to officiate at same-sex weddings, even if they opposed gay marriage. Justices of the peace who didn't want to perform such marriages were told to resign....
But the governor has at times taken pains to promote tolerance of gays and lesbians. When an administration official was dismissed and asserted that the action was related to her intention to marry her lesbian partner, Romney strongly denied it and noted that several high-ranking officials in his administration were gay.
And in a November speech to the conservative Federalist Society in Washington DC, Romney decried the SJC decision, but also said, ''We should be open and tolerant of different lifestyles."
The applications Romney approved from same-sex couples included at least four from state legislators, including Jarrett T. Barrios...
Where the Slippery Slope Starts
Stanley Kurtz has written a lot on same-sex marriage. His big thing lately is the slippery slope theory: Once homosexual marriages are validated, there's no stopping group marriages, and this will be very destabilizing for society. We agree.
But we differ with Kurtz on where the slippery slope begins. We believe it starts with a legal and social acceptance of homosexuality. Once the legal and social barriers have been removed (i.e., sodomy laws are overturned, gay hookup billboards are allowed on city streets, and family supermarkets carry homosexual newspapers), there's no stopping the radicals from claiming their demands are all about "equal rights". If there's nothing wrong with homosexual behavior per se, they can portray any opposition to anything they want as a discriminatory denial of rights.
Kurtz, on the other hand, believes we must accept homosexual behavior and overturn legal impediments to it (sodomy laws). What he doesn't understand is that he's undercutting his own arguments for preserving
marriage as "one man plus one woman."
What he calls "the 'ick' factor" -- undefined, but apparently the natural gut recognition to the unnaturalness of homosexual behavior -- should not be buried, and those who are brave enough to admit it should not be pushed to the sidelines in this debate. MassResistance believes "the 'ick' factor" comes not only from nature, but from our conscience. We think it a positive thing -- and denying it puts you on the slippery slope.
Kurtz's lengthy piece in The Weekly Standard, "Here Come the Brides: Plural marriage is waiting in the wings" about the recent trio (hetero man + two bisexual women) "married" in Holland, focused on his horror at the bisexuality inherent in polyamorous groupings. It seems "the 'ick' factor" is still operative for Kurtz regarding bisexuality!
(Kurtz points out that in the U.S., the Unitarians are ready to take the lead on group "marriage" -- as they did with same-sex "marriage" -- but have pulled back for fear of damaging the still precarious same-sex "marriage" movement. MassResistance noted back in June the Unitarian role in this social revolution.)
More recently in National Review Online, Kurtz responded to a liberal critic, who failed to see one of his main points about the importance of opposite-sex parents for children. Then Kurtz reiterated his opposition to sodomy laws! He wants to be sure we all understand that he does not oppose homosexual "marriage" on the basis of "the 'ick' factor." (Neither does he have any interest in addressing the health risks of homosexual sex, and its impact on public health.)
Kurtz wrote: "Anderson claims my use of the slippery-slope argument shows desperation. In effect, says Anderson, resort to the slippery slope proves that my main argument against gay marriage, "the 'ick' factor," is losing ground with the American people. Trouble is, I do not oppose same-sex marriage based on "the 'ick' factor." I've always called for tolerance of homosexuality, going back to "The Ashcroft-Logger Alliance" in 2001, where I expressed opposition to sodomy laws.
"I've used the slippery-slope argument from the beginning, as have other opponents of same-sex marriage. The only difference is that the slippery-slope argument is becoming more obviously true with every passing year. If anyone is prejudiced here, it's Anderson, who relies on mistaken assumptions about opponents of same-sex marriage.
"Arguably the central claim of same-sex-marriage opponents [is] that gay marriage separates marriage from parenthood, with deleterious consequences for marriage as an institution."
This is puzzling. Can't Kurtz see that a slippery-slope argument applied earlier in the game? Once you're publicly tolerant of homosexuality, how do you deny it's a legitimate basis for a "marriage" or "family"? If you outlaw "the 'ick' factor", or refuse to address the health risks of homosexuality (and transsexuality), your only recourse is to prove something that lies in the future (so is still unprovable): the socially destabilizing effect of sanctioned homosexual or polyamorous "marriages" and "parenting."
Once you say that the unnatural is natural and acceptable in sexual relations, how can you insist that there's a natural family order ("a child needs both a mother and a father") that must be adhered to? Why can't we be accepting of all family structures as valid, including three or more parents? Once you accept homosexual sexuality, why not accept bisexual sexuality? Why is he so upset at the idea of bisexuality, while tolerant of homosexuality?
As the grand social experiment leads into weirder and weirder places, Kurtz has too keep adjusting his outrage trigger. He accepts homosexuality, but not bisexuality. And bad as homosexual "marriage" is, he seems to think group "marriages" are even worse! What he doesn't seem to grasp is that the GLBTQIP activists are winning through incrementalism. After a few years of in-your-face outrageous demands, people like Kurtz are softened up, and ready to move on to oppose the next outrage. Meanwhile, the first outrageous demands have been achieved.
"More important, the De Bruijn [recently in Holland] wedding reveals a heretofore hidden dimension of the gay marriage phenomenon. The De Bruijns' triple marriage is a bisexual marriage. And, increasingly, bisexuality is emerging as a reason why legalized gay marriage is likely to result in legalized group marriage. If every sexual orientation has a right to construct its own form of marriage, then more changes are surely due. For what gay marriage is to homosexuality, group marriage is to bisexuality. The De Bruijn trio is the tip-off to the fact that a connection between bisexuality and the drive for multipartner marriage has been developing for some time."
Kurtz is taking a purely sociological perspective, trying hard to keep his scholarly focus just on family structure, while being open to an anything-goes sexuality...until "bisexuality" pops up and leads into polyamory! But he got on the slippery slope the minute he argued for accepting homosexual sex, while opposing only homosexual "marriage."
We believe "the 'ick' factor" is still powerful in America. It's the only thing that will halt this social and moral decline. Sadly, the public has been propagandized for so long about being open-minded and accepting, and seeing homosexual "marriage" as an "equal rights" issue, they don't want to appear "backward". So they've saved their gut opposition for the ballot box ... when they're allowed to vote.
But we differ with Kurtz on where the slippery slope begins. We believe it starts with a legal and social acceptance of homosexuality. Once the legal and social barriers have been removed (i.e., sodomy laws are overturned, gay hookup billboards are allowed on city streets, and family supermarkets carry homosexual newspapers), there's no stopping the radicals from claiming their demands are all about "equal rights". If there's nothing wrong with homosexual behavior per se, they can portray any opposition to anything they want as a discriminatory denial of rights.
Kurtz, on the other hand, believes we must accept homosexual behavior and overturn legal impediments to it (sodomy laws). What he doesn't understand is that he's undercutting his own arguments for preserving
marriage as "one man plus one woman."
What he calls "the 'ick' factor" -- undefined, but apparently the natural gut recognition to the unnaturalness of homosexual behavior -- should not be buried, and those who are brave enough to admit it should not be pushed to the sidelines in this debate. MassResistance believes "the 'ick' factor" comes not only from nature, but from our conscience. We think it a positive thing -- and denying it puts you on the slippery slope.
Kurtz's lengthy piece in The Weekly Standard, "Here Come the Brides: Plural marriage is waiting in the wings" about the recent trio (hetero man + two bisexual women) "married" in Holland, focused on his horror at the bisexuality inherent in polyamorous groupings. It seems "the 'ick' factor" is still operative for Kurtz regarding bisexuality!
(Kurtz points out that in the U.S., the Unitarians are ready to take the lead on group "marriage" -- as they did with same-sex "marriage" -- but have pulled back for fear of damaging the still precarious same-sex "marriage" movement. MassResistance noted back in June the Unitarian role in this social revolution.)
More recently in National Review Online, Kurtz responded to a liberal critic, who failed to see one of his main points about the importance of opposite-sex parents for children. Then Kurtz reiterated his opposition to sodomy laws! He wants to be sure we all understand that he does not oppose homosexual "marriage" on the basis of "the 'ick' factor." (Neither does he have any interest in addressing the health risks of homosexual sex, and its impact on public health.)
Kurtz wrote: "Anderson claims my use of the slippery-slope argument shows desperation. In effect, says Anderson, resort to the slippery slope proves that my main argument against gay marriage, "the 'ick' factor," is losing ground with the American people. Trouble is, I do not oppose same-sex marriage based on "the 'ick' factor." I've always called for tolerance of homosexuality, going back to "The Ashcroft-Logger Alliance" in 2001, where I expressed opposition to sodomy laws.
"I've used the slippery-slope argument from the beginning, as have other opponents of same-sex marriage. The only difference is that the slippery-slope argument is becoming more obviously true with every passing year. If anyone is prejudiced here, it's Anderson, who relies on mistaken assumptions about opponents of same-sex marriage.
"Arguably the central claim of same-sex-marriage opponents [is] that gay marriage separates marriage from parenthood, with deleterious consequences for marriage as an institution."
"[S]ame-sex marriage is winning through equal-protection claims. Most of those who favor same-sex marriage give little thought to marriage as an institution and much thought to the analogy from civil rights. Given that fundamental legal-political-cultural fact, there is every reason to fear that the grounds on which we are granting same-sex marriage will someday force us to grant recognition to multiple-partner marriage."
So, Kurtz believes in toleration for homosexuals in general, but is concerned that their right to "marry" is socially destabilizing -- and will lead to group "marriages."This is puzzling. Can't Kurtz see that a slippery-slope argument applied earlier in the game? Once you're publicly tolerant of homosexuality, how do you deny it's a legitimate basis for a "marriage" or "family"? If you outlaw "the 'ick' factor", or refuse to address the health risks of homosexuality (and transsexuality), your only recourse is to prove something that lies in the future (so is still unprovable): the socially destabilizing effect of sanctioned homosexual or polyamorous "marriages" and "parenting."
Once you say that the unnatural is natural and acceptable in sexual relations, how can you insist that there's a natural family order ("a child needs both a mother and a father") that must be adhered to? Why can't we be accepting of all family structures as valid, including three or more parents? Once you accept homosexual sexuality, why not accept bisexual sexuality? Why is he so upset at the idea of bisexuality, while tolerant of homosexuality?
As the grand social experiment leads into weirder and weirder places, Kurtz has too keep adjusting his outrage trigger. He accepts homosexuality, but not bisexuality. And bad as homosexual "marriage" is, he seems to think group "marriages" are even worse! What he doesn't seem to grasp is that the GLBTQIP activists are winning through incrementalism. After a few years of in-your-face outrageous demands, people like Kurtz are softened up, and ready to move on to oppose the next outrage. Meanwhile, the first outrageous demands have been achieved.
"More important, the De Bruijn [recently in Holland] wedding reveals a heretofore hidden dimension of the gay marriage phenomenon. The De Bruijns' triple marriage is a bisexual marriage. And, increasingly, bisexuality is emerging as a reason why legalized gay marriage is likely to result in legalized group marriage. If every sexual orientation has a right to construct its own form of marriage, then more changes are surely due. For what gay marriage is to homosexuality, group marriage is to bisexuality. The De Bruijn trio is the tip-off to the fact that a connection between bisexuality and the drive for multipartner marriage has been developing for some time."
Kurtz is taking a purely sociological perspective, trying hard to keep his scholarly focus just on family structure, while being open to an anything-goes sexuality...until "bisexuality" pops up and leads into polyamory! But he got on the slippery slope the minute he argued for accepting homosexual sex, while opposing only homosexual "marriage."
We believe "the 'ick' factor" is still powerful in America. It's the only thing that will halt this social and moral decline. Sadly, the public has been propagandized for so long about being open-minded and accepting, and seeing homosexual "marriage" as an "equal rights" issue, they don't want to appear "backward". So they've saved their gut opposition for the ballot box ... when they're allowed to vote.
Sunday, January 01, 2006
More Boston Globe Propaganda
In the Boston Globe, Dec. 30: "Same sex couple’s lawsuit a test of tolerance in Ireland.”
"Tolerance"? According to what definition? More artful propaganda. No serious voice of opposition or thoughtful criticism is included in the article. (What wonderful looking ladies. Great careers. The perfect couple. Still holding hands after 25 years. Why, that never happens with straight couples!)
Then, for an extra treat, if you clicked on the story above, you saw at the top of the page a billboard for Lambda Lounge, "for gay males only, 100% free personals." A hookup site. We're assaulted at every turn. Have we had enough yet?
Saturday, December 31, 2005
Party Time !
Great news! Article 8/MassResistance has met its challenge grant goal! So we've earned the funds to keep watching the watchers, challenging the challengers, disrupting the disrupters.
Hey, why don't you "home invaders" join MassResistance to celebrate? You know where to find us ... and we'd love to meet you! We're having a great New Years' Day party!
RSVP!
Hey, why don't you "home invaders" join MassResistance to celebrate? You know where to find us ... and we'd love to meet you! We're having a great New Years' Day party!
RSVP!
Friday, December 30, 2005
Two Takes on "Brokeback Mountain"
Reader beware. Below we delve into the true meaning of "non-discrimination" and "gay equality.," and what we've really opened the doors to -- where our mainstream "culture" is now headed. What was once confined to porn theaters or X-rated home videos is now in our malls, being touted for Oscars. If you object, you're "homophobic".
The "gay" western "Brokeback Mountain" is being wildly promoted by the gay-friendly media. For a conservative take, see WorldNetDaily's review by David Kupelian, which explains what a powerful piece of propaganda the movie is.
The movie is set in 1960's Wyoming. The movie's creepy title -- reminiscent of a gross term for condomless sodomy? -- is matched by the suggestiveness of the protagonists' names -- Jack Twist and Ennis. From Kupelian's review:
Ultimately, Ennis ends up alone, with nothing, living in a small, secluded trailer, having lost both his family and his homosexual partner. He's comforted only by his most precious possession – Jack's shirt – which he pitifully embraces, almost in a slow dance, his aching loneliness masterfully projected into the audience via the film's artistry.
Yes, the talents of Hollywood's finest are brought together in a successful attempt at making us experience Ennis's suffering, supposedly inflicted by a homophobic society. Heath Ledger's performance is brilliant and devastating. We do indeed leave the theater feeling Ennis's pain. Mission accomplished.
Lost in all of this, however, are towering, life-and-death realities concerning sex and morality and the sanctity of marriage and the preciousness of children and the direction of our civilization itself. So please, you moviemakers, how about easing off that tight camera shot of Ennis's suffering and doing a slow pan over the massive wreckage all around him? What about the years of silent anguish and loneliness Alma [his wife] stoically endures for the sake of keeping her family together, or the terrible betrayal, suffering and tears of the children, bereft of a father? None of this merits more than a brief acknowledgment in "Brokeback Mountain."
What is important to the moviemakers, rather, is that the viewer be made to feel, and feel, and feel again as deeply as possible the exquisitely painful loneliness and heartache of the homosexual cowboys – denied their truest happiness because of an ignorant and homophobic society.
Thus are the Judeo-Christian moral values that formed the very foundation and substance of Western culture for the past three millennia all swept away on a delicious tide of manufactured emotion. And believe me, skilled directors and actors can manufacture emotion by the truckload. It's what they do for a living.
We were curious what Boston's homosexual paper Bay Windows had to say about the movie. Their Dec. 15 review tells us a lot about the queer psyche. Note especially:
The most powerful and subversive message of the film is that for these men, all the hallmarks of domestic bliss, the loving wife, the children, the home, are the worst kind of prison.
The pornographic aspect is of utmost importance to this audience. They can't wait to get the DVD so they can replay the "rutting" scene. Jack turns out to be "a big ol' bottom" (and Ennis a "top"). The sodomy scene "is full-on, testosterone-fueled rutting with enough thrusting and grunting to make it pretty clear what's going up where." Lovely! A "beautifully sublime film," says the reviewer.
When word first spread that Hollywood eye candy Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal were starring in a film as gay cowboy lovers, the first question on most gay men's minds was, just how far were Gyllenhaal and Ledger going to go onscreen? And more importantly, how long until it comes out on DVD so we can pause and rewind, pause and rewind to our hearts' content?
...[A]s the two spend one lonely day after another together, largely isolated from the outside world, they begin to warm up to each other. It all leads to one cold night in a tent after a few too many drinks where one thing leads to another and . . . well, let's just say Jack's a big ol' bottom.
The sex might be the most controversial feature of the film, and kudos to Ang Lee for actually showing two men having sex onscreen, a decision that will likely cause many squeamish straight people to stay home. Gyllenhaal and Ledger are both basically fully clothed through the whole scene, but it is still shockingly graphic for a film starring two Hollywood heartthrobs whose fan-bases include sizable contingents from the CosmoGirl magazine set. [This fan base will ensure the propaganda gets spread far and wide with the young female audience.] This isn't sweet hold-me-gently lovemaking with a romantic orchestral score swelling up in the background. This is full-on, testosterone-fueled rutting with enough thrusting and grunting to make it pretty clear what's going up where. It's not terribly erotic, but that's not the point; this is a lifetime of repression exploding in a messy release.
... It's a portrait of a love doomed by intolerance... But for LGBT people, the film is a revelation. Without getting preachy, without cliches, it shows the promise of love and how that love is strangled by a society that cannot conceive of love between two men.
The "gay" western "Brokeback Mountain" is being wildly promoted by the gay-friendly media. For a conservative take, see WorldNetDaily's review by David Kupelian, which explains what a powerful piece of propaganda the movie is.
The movie is set in 1960's Wyoming. The movie's creepy title -- reminiscent of a gross term for condomless sodomy? -- is matched by the suggestiveness of the protagonists' names -- Jack Twist and Ennis. From Kupelian's review:
Ultimately, Ennis ends up alone, with nothing, living in a small, secluded trailer, having lost both his family and his homosexual partner. He's comforted only by his most precious possession – Jack's shirt – which he pitifully embraces, almost in a slow dance, his aching loneliness masterfully projected into the audience via the film's artistry.
Yes, the talents of Hollywood's finest are brought together in a successful attempt at making us experience Ennis's suffering, supposedly inflicted by a homophobic society. Heath Ledger's performance is brilliant and devastating. We do indeed leave the theater feeling Ennis's pain. Mission accomplished.
Lost in all of this, however, are towering, life-and-death realities concerning sex and morality and the sanctity of marriage and the preciousness of children and the direction of our civilization itself. So please, you moviemakers, how about easing off that tight camera shot of Ennis's suffering and doing a slow pan over the massive wreckage all around him? What about the years of silent anguish and loneliness Alma [his wife] stoically endures for the sake of keeping her family together, or the terrible betrayal, suffering and tears of the children, bereft of a father? None of this merits more than a brief acknowledgment in "Brokeback Mountain."
What is important to the moviemakers, rather, is that the viewer be made to feel, and feel, and feel again as deeply as possible the exquisitely painful loneliness and heartache of the homosexual cowboys – denied their truest happiness because of an ignorant and homophobic society.
Thus are the Judeo-Christian moral values that formed the very foundation and substance of Western culture for the past three millennia all swept away on a delicious tide of manufactured emotion. And believe me, skilled directors and actors can manufacture emotion by the truckload. It's what they do for a living.
We were curious what Boston's homosexual paper Bay Windows had to say about the movie. Their Dec. 15 review tells us a lot about the queer psyche. Note especially:
The most powerful and subversive message of the film is that for these men, all the hallmarks of domestic bliss, the loving wife, the children, the home, are the worst kind of prison.
The pornographic aspect is of utmost importance to this audience. They can't wait to get the DVD so they can replay the "rutting" scene. Jack turns out to be "a big ol' bottom" (and Ennis a "top"). The sodomy scene "is full-on, testosterone-fueled rutting with enough thrusting and grunting to make it pretty clear what's going up where." Lovely! A "beautifully sublime film," says the reviewer.
When word first spread that Hollywood eye candy Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal were starring in a film as gay cowboy lovers, the first question on most gay men's minds was, just how far were Gyllenhaal and Ledger going to go onscreen? And more importantly, how long until it comes out on DVD so we can pause and rewind, pause and rewind to our hearts' content?
...[A]s the two spend one lonely day after another together, largely isolated from the outside world, they begin to warm up to each other. It all leads to one cold night in a tent after a few too many drinks where one thing leads to another and . . . well, let's just say Jack's a big ol' bottom.
The sex might be the most controversial feature of the film, and kudos to Ang Lee for actually showing two men having sex onscreen, a decision that will likely cause many squeamish straight people to stay home. Gyllenhaal and Ledger are both basically fully clothed through the whole scene, but it is still shockingly graphic for a film starring two Hollywood heartthrobs whose fan-bases include sizable contingents from the CosmoGirl magazine set. [This fan base will ensure the propaganda gets spread far and wide with the young female audience.] This isn't sweet hold-me-gently lovemaking with a romantic orchestral score swelling up in the background. This is full-on, testosterone-fueled rutting with enough thrusting and grunting to make it pretty clear what's going up where. It's not terribly erotic, but that's not the point; this is a lifetime of repression exploding in a messy release.
... It's a portrait of a love doomed by intolerance... But for LGBT people, the film is a revelation. Without getting preachy, without cliches, it shows the promise of love and how that love is strangled by a society that cannot conceive of love between two men.
Thursday, December 29, 2005
MassEquality Setting Up Charges of "Fraud"
MassEquality (the queer activist group "defending marriage equality") is busy setting up charges of fraud and "stolen signatures" on the VoteOnMarriage.org marriage petition. They're descending on the Secretary of State's office through the first weeks of January looking high and low, in the hopes of casting doubt on the integrity of the whole process. (The queer activists also plan to challenge the referendum in court.)
They sent out an email on Dec. 22 trolling for charges of fraud -- and the responses will help them portray that there are real instances. Obviously, all they had to do was send their minions out to sign the petitions (knowing full well what they were signing), and later charge they were duped by the signature gatherer.
Now there could very well have been some unethical paid signature gatherers out to make the extra buck, but couldn't there also be some greater fraud being perpetrated here by MassEquality? Here's their recent email:
From: Marc Solomon, MassEquality Political Director
Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2005
Subject: Your signature may have been stolen
Please Read, Take Action and Forward
Dear [Supporter],
Your signature may have been stolen. Find out now!
Opponents of marriage equality have gone too far. In their efforts to collect signatures on a petition that would take away marriage equality, they hired an out-of-state firm that paid out-of-state signature collectors a dollar for each signature they collected. Over the past few months, hundreds of reports of fraud and deception conducted by these paid signature collectors have poured in from across the Commonwealth.
See if you are a victim. Just click below to search for your name on the
anti-gay petition, and you will receive instructions about what to do next if your name appears. No one has the right to steal your signature or to trick you out of it.
Time is of the essence. Check here now.
Anyone could be a victim. Even if you don't remember or are sure you did not sign a petition, please check to make sure your name is not listed among those who support a constitutional amendment barring marriage for gay and lesbian couples. One witness, a former signature-collector, observed paid signature-gatherers forging signatures! She estimates that thousands of citizens were tricked into signing through the use of deceptive tactics.
We need your help to expose the full scale of this deception. Click here now to see if your signature was stolen. If you have questions, call our Report Hotline (617) 878-2332 or email: Report@MassEquality.org
We need your help in other important ways as well. Spread the word. Forward this email to friends and family. We have a very short time-frame for conducting our review, so we need to spread the word quickly.
Volunteer. We need dozens of volunteers between December 22nd and January 10th to help us uncover fraud and search through signatures at the Secretary of State's office. Volunteers are needed days, evenings and weekends.
Donating even a few hours of your time can make a critical difference. Sign up by clicking here and we will send you more information. For more details, contact Jesse Sullivan at JesseSullivan@MassEquality.org or call 617-878-2352.
Thank you for taking this seriously. Nothing less than the integrity of our democracy in Massachusetts is at stake.
Sincerely,
Marc Solomon, Political Director
They sent out an email on Dec. 22 trolling for charges of fraud -- and the responses will help them portray that there are real instances. Obviously, all they had to do was send their minions out to sign the petitions (knowing full well what they were signing), and later charge they were duped by the signature gatherer.
Now there could very well have been some unethical paid signature gatherers out to make the extra buck, but couldn't there also be some greater fraud being perpetrated here by MassEquality? Here's their recent email:
From: Marc Solomon, MassEquality Political Director
Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2005
Subject: Your signature may have been stolen
Please Read, Take Action and Forward
Dear [Supporter],
Your signature may have been stolen. Find out now!
Opponents of marriage equality have gone too far. In their efforts to collect signatures on a petition that would take away marriage equality, they hired an out-of-state firm that paid out-of-state signature collectors a dollar for each signature they collected. Over the past few months, hundreds of reports of fraud and deception conducted by these paid signature collectors have poured in from across the Commonwealth.
See if you are a victim. Just click below to search for your name on the
anti-gay petition, and you will receive instructions about what to do next if your name appears. No one has the right to steal your signature or to trick you out of it.
Time is of the essence. Check here now.
Anyone could be a victim. Even if you don't remember or are sure you did not sign a petition, please check to make sure your name is not listed among those who support a constitutional amendment barring marriage for gay and lesbian couples. One witness, a former signature-collector, observed paid signature-gatherers forging signatures! She estimates that thousands of citizens were tricked into signing through the use of deceptive tactics.
We need your help to expose the full scale of this deception. Click here now to see if your signature was stolen. If you have questions, call our Report Hotline (617) 878-2332 or email: Report@MassEquality.org
We need your help in other important ways as well. Spread the word. Forward this email to friends and family. We have a very short time-frame for conducting our review, so we need to spread the word quickly.
Volunteer. We need dozens of volunteers between December 22nd and January 10th to help us uncover fraud and search through signatures at the Secretary of State's office. Volunteers are needed days, evenings and weekends.
Donating even a few hours of your time can make a critical difference. Sign up by clicking here and we will send you more information. For more details, contact Jesse Sullivan at JesseSullivan@MassEquality.org or call 617-878-2352.
Thank you for taking this seriously. Nothing less than the integrity of our democracy in Massachusetts is at stake.
Sincerely,
Marc Solomon, Political Director
Wednesday, December 28, 2005
RINO's for Governor?
Massachusetts is not only a "blue state" -- it's the worst example in the country of a truly one-party state!
But why does the Massachusetts Republican Party keep losing so badly? Because pseudo-Republicans, "Republicans In Name Only" (RINO's), have taken control of the state Republican party apparatus, and their candidates are the only ones put forward and supported (at least at the statewide level). And who are the two leading contenders for the Republican Party's nomination for Governor? Kerry Healey and Christy Minos. Both are card-carrying RINO's.
Both Healey and Minos support legalized abortion. Healey favors "civil unions" (AKA "gay marriage lite"). Minos has no problem with "gay marriage". Mihos has friendly ties with the Kennedys. This is not a pretty picture.
So who does a real Republican vote for in the primary? Get in touch with the Mass. Republican Assembly ("The Republican Wing of the Republican Party"), and see what they recommend. To start, you need to get involved with your local town Republican Committee, and pay attention to the state committee races. Clean house: Get rid of the RINO's!
See "Mihos not taking GOP hints against run," (Boston Globe, Dec. 28) for more detail on Romney's and Healey's attempt to remove Christy Minos from the Republican gubernatorial primary. Notice the Globe says nothing about where either candidate stands on hard-core Republican issues.
Christy P. Mihos, a multimillionaire convenience store magnate, is refusing to bend to pressure from Republicans in the White House and on Beacon Hill to drop his plans to challenge Lieutenant Governor Kerry Healey in next year's gubernatorial campaign.
Healey and some Republican strategists fear that Mihos, who is considering a run as an independent, would drain GOP votes from Healey and help the Democratic nominee win the general election. Republicans have urged Mihos to instead run against US Senator Edward M. Kennedy.
The pressure on Mihos to stay out of the gubernatorial race and run for the US Senate has come from, among others, Governor Mitt Romney and White House political director Sara Taylor. If Mihos agrees to run against Kennedy, the state GOP would reach two significant objectives: get Healey a free pass to the GOP gubernatorial nomination and field a candidate with the financial assets to mount a credible challenge to Kennedy....
Mihos confirmed that Romney asked him to enter the Senate race earlier this month, just hours before the governor announced he would not seek reelection....
The relationship between Mihos and the Republican Party is tenuous. What concerns Republican leaders, including Healey and her advisers, is that Mihos has made it known that he is prepared to run as an independent candidate in the general election if he cannot gain access to the GOP primary ballot or if he feels that the state party is undercutting his candidacy....
Mihos's campaign strategist points out that the state Republican establishment has strong ties to Healey. Romney, whose operatives run the party, has endorsed Healey for the nomination. Healey's campaign committee is located in party headquarters in Boston, and the party chairman, Darrell Crate, is vice president and chief financial officer of the investment firm run by Sean Healey, the lieutenant governor's husband....
Mihos is considered by GOP insiders as a maverick whose socially liberal positions do not fit comfortably into Romney's party establishment. As a member of the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority board, Mihos challenged Big Dig costs and toll increases. Acting Governor Jane M. Swift tried to remove him, a maneuver the Supreme Judicial Court rejected. But the incident left Mihos with ill feelings for party leaders....
Republicans may also be looking to the wrong Republican to run against Kennedy. Mihos acknowledges that he has a certain affection for the Kennedy family. His beachfront house on Great Island in Yarmouth faces directly across Lewis Bay to the Kennedy compound in Hyannis Port. Mihos has also developed relationships with some of the senator's nephew....
But why does the Massachusetts Republican Party keep losing so badly? Because pseudo-Republicans, "Republicans In Name Only" (RINO's), have taken control of the state Republican party apparatus, and their candidates are the only ones put forward and supported (at least at the statewide level). And who are the two leading contenders for the Republican Party's nomination for Governor? Kerry Healey and Christy Minos. Both are card-carrying RINO's.
Both Healey and Minos support legalized abortion. Healey favors "civil unions" (AKA "gay marriage lite"). Minos has no problem with "gay marriage". Mihos has friendly ties with the Kennedys. This is not a pretty picture.
So who does a real Republican vote for in the primary? Get in touch with the Mass. Republican Assembly ("The Republican Wing of the Republican Party"), and see what they recommend. To start, you need to get involved with your local town Republican Committee, and pay attention to the state committee races. Clean house: Get rid of the RINO's!
See "Mihos not taking GOP hints against run," (Boston Globe, Dec. 28) for more detail on Romney's and Healey's attempt to remove Christy Minos from the Republican gubernatorial primary. Notice the Globe says nothing about where either candidate stands on hard-core Republican issues.
Christy P. Mihos, a multimillionaire convenience store magnate, is refusing to bend to pressure from Republicans in the White House and on Beacon Hill to drop his plans to challenge Lieutenant Governor Kerry Healey in next year's gubernatorial campaign.
Healey and some Republican strategists fear that Mihos, who is considering a run as an independent, would drain GOP votes from Healey and help the Democratic nominee win the general election. Republicans have urged Mihos to instead run against US Senator Edward M. Kennedy.
The pressure on Mihos to stay out of the gubernatorial race and run for the US Senate has come from, among others, Governor Mitt Romney and White House political director Sara Taylor. If Mihos agrees to run against Kennedy, the state GOP would reach two significant objectives: get Healey a free pass to the GOP gubernatorial nomination and field a candidate with the financial assets to mount a credible challenge to Kennedy....
Mihos confirmed that Romney asked him to enter the Senate race earlier this month, just hours before the governor announced he would not seek reelection....
The relationship between Mihos and the Republican Party is tenuous. What concerns Republican leaders, including Healey and her advisers, is that Mihos has made it known that he is prepared to run as an independent candidate in the general election if he cannot gain access to the GOP primary ballot or if he feels that the state party is undercutting his candidacy....
Mihos's campaign strategist points out that the state Republican establishment has strong ties to Healey. Romney, whose operatives run the party, has endorsed Healey for the nomination. Healey's campaign committee is located in party headquarters in Boston, and the party chairman, Darrell Crate, is vice president and chief financial officer of the investment firm run by Sean Healey, the lieutenant governor's husband....
Mihos is considered by GOP insiders as a maverick whose socially liberal positions do not fit comfortably into Romney's party establishment. As a member of the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority board, Mihos challenged Big Dig costs and toll increases. Acting Governor Jane M. Swift tried to remove him, a maneuver the Supreme Judicial Court rejected. But the incident left Mihos with ill feelings for party leaders....
Republicans may also be looking to the wrong Republican to run against Kennedy. Mihos acknowledges that he has a certain affection for the Kennedy family. His beachfront house on Great Island in Yarmouth faces directly across Lewis Bay to the Kennedy compound in Hyannis Port. Mihos has also developed relationships with some of the senator's nephew....
Tuesday, December 27, 2005
Haskins on Romney's "Gay Marriage" Blunders
MassResistance has pointed out over and over that homosexual "marriages" are STILL not legal in Massachusetts, and that Governor Mitt Romney and our state legislature violated their oaths to uphold the Constitution on this matter. There's an excellent piece by John Haskins summarizing Romney's blunders which ran in WorldNetDaily on December 24. Excerpts:
Conservative pundits, political leaders and activists have answered the constitutional, moral and sociological aberration of "homosexual marriage" in a way the far left could only have fantasized they would.
Surely someone in the conservative establishment knows that Massachusetts' homosexual "marriages" remain illegal and cannot be legal unless the Legislature passes a new law. Here is the stark reality that conservatives patting Gov. Mitt Romney on the back can't grasp: In one of the greatest executive blunders in American constitutional history, placebo-"conservative" Romney violated the state constitution and personally conjured up sodomy marriages by ordering state officials – in effect – to pretend that the Legislature had actually passed such a law. Mitt Romney, out of ignorance and sheer terror of being branded "homophobic" by the media, violated his oath of office, struck down constitutional democracy and saved our legislators their responsibility of voting – and by voting, putting their jobs on the line.
Massachusetts' outlaw judges must have soiled their underwear laughing in shock, seeing a "conservative" Republican governor stupid enough to enforce a law that had never even been passed. Even their ruling specifically acknowledged that a law must be passed before any legality could be conferred on sodomy "marriages." No knowledgeable person who is not trying to trick you will ever tell you that a court ruling is a law, or that judges can make laws. A sixth-grader can read the Massachusetts Constitution and understand the plain language.
Read more...
Conservative pundits, political leaders and activists have answered the constitutional, moral and sociological aberration of "homosexual marriage" in a way the far left could only have fantasized they would.
Surely someone in the conservative establishment knows that Massachusetts' homosexual "marriages" remain illegal and cannot be legal unless the Legislature passes a new law. Here is the stark reality that conservatives patting Gov. Mitt Romney on the back can't grasp: In one of the greatest executive blunders in American constitutional history, placebo-"conservative" Romney violated the state constitution and personally conjured up sodomy marriages by ordering state officials – in effect – to pretend that the Legislature had actually passed such a law. Mitt Romney, out of ignorance and sheer terror of being branded "homophobic" by the media, violated his oath of office, struck down constitutional democracy and saved our legislators their responsibility of voting – and by voting, putting their jobs on the line.
Massachusetts' outlaw judges must have soiled their underwear laughing in shock, seeing a "conservative" Republican governor stupid enough to enforce a law that had never even been passed. Even their ruling specifically acknowledged that a law must be passed before any legality could be conferred on sodomy "marriages." No knowledgeable person who is not trying to trick you will ever tell you that a court ruling is a law, or that judges can make laws. A sixth-grader can read the Massachusetts Constitution and understand the plain language.
Read more...
Monday, December 26, 2005
New Marriage Amendment to Be Challenged in Court
While advocates of the new marriage amendment were elated over the certification of 123,356 signatures, homosexual activists had earlier announced their plan to challenge the referendum early in the new year.
GLAD (Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders) is the same extremist group that brought us the Goodridge lawsuit. And what court will hear the case? The Mass. Supreme Judicial Court. So watch out. We don't know what VoteOnMarriage.org has as a backup plan if their marriage amendment petition is thrown out by the Court.
From Bay Windows, "See You in Court," Dec. 1, 2005:
Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) has announced that if enough signatures are certified to send a ballot question asking voters to amend the state constitution to ban civil marriages of lesbian and gay couples, it will file suit charging that the ballot question should never have been certified by Attorney General Tom Reilly in the first place.
Gary Buseck, legal director of GLAD, said that if registrars certify at least 65,825 signatures, enough to send the ballot question to the Legislature, where it will need the approval of at least 50 legislators in two consecutive legislative sessions before proceeding to voters, GLAD will file suit early next year against both Reilly and Secretary of State William Galvin to bring the petition process to a halt.
Buseck said GLAD's argument in the suit will be that the certification of the petition violated Article 48 of the Massachusetts Constitution, which lays out the rules for initiative petitions and explicitly bans petitions that relate to "the reversal of a judicial decision." Buseck said it is clear that the intent of the marriage amendment petition is to overturn the Goodridge decision, and it clearly falls under Article 48's list of excluded subjects for petitions.
GLAD (Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders) is the same extremist group that brought us the Goodridge lawsuit. And what court will hear the case? The Mass. Supreme Judicial Court. So watch out. We don't know what VoteOnMarriage.org has as a backup plan if their marriage amendment petition is thrown out by the Court.
From Bay Windows, "See You in Court," Dec. 1, 2005:
Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) has announced that if enough signatures are certified to send a ballot question asking voters to amend the state constitution to ban civil marriages of lesbian and gay couples, it will file suit charging that the ballot question should never have been certified by Attorney General Tom Reilly in the first place.
Gary Buseck, legal director of GLAD, said that if registrars certify at least 65,825 signatures, enough to send the ballot question to the Legislature, where it will need the approval of at least 50 legislators in two consecutive legislative sessions before proceeding to voters, GLAD will file suit early next year against both Reilly and Secretary of State William Galvin to bring the petition process to a halt.
Buseck said GLAD's argument in the suit will be that the certification of the petition violated Article 48 of the Massachusetts Constitution, which lays out the rules for initiative petitions and explicitly bans petitions that relate to "the reversal of a judicial decision." Buseck said it is clear that the intent of the marriage amendment petition is to overturn the Goodridge decision, and it clearly falls under Article 48's list of excluded subjects for petitions.
Sunday, December 25, 2005
Merry Christmas
We'll be taking a few days off to celebrate the holiday.
The Word Became Flesh.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.
John 1:1-5
The Word Became Flesh.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.
John 1:1-5
Friday, December 23, 2005
Religious Jews and Christmas Displays
On the MassResistance radio show this weekend on WTTT 1150AM (Sat. 10 a.m. and Sun. 7 p.m.), we discuss the "war on Christmas", especially as it's playing out here in Massachusetts. On the show, Attorney Chester Darling speaks about Lexington's ban of the creche back in 2000, an early and important case on the national scene.
Interesting that so many of the warriors (including the ACLU) who are trying to shut down Christmas (and public religion in general) are non-religious Jews. Their politics have become their religion, it seems.
Here's an article circulating on the web which addresses this phenonmenon: "A Religious Jew Who Loves Christmas", by Irwin N. Graulich (posted on MichNews.com, a good news & commentary site). Excerpts:
I am a deeply committed, religious Jew who simply loves Christmas. In fact, any Jew or non Christian who gets "offended" because 90% of Americans make such a public splash about their most important holiday is a selfish pig.
The incredible connection between American Christianity and Judaism is a deep one, resulting in the Judeo-Christian moral code upon which all of Western morality is based. It was the greatest Jewish thinker in history, Maimonides, who said that while Jews brought the Bible/Torah into the world, it is Christians who spread the idea of one moral God to much of mankind.
Let me say clearly that a crèche on a public or private lawn is a very beautiful sight. It means that people have gone to the trouble of sharing lovely visuals from their religion with all of America, expressing the beauty of their heritage and its spiritual message to humanity.
Jews, secularists, atheists, et. al. who are critical of these "public displays" obviously have not thought the issue through very clearly. If these groups do not believe in Christianity, why would they be offended? For nonbelievers, the nativity scene should be as relevant as flamingos on a lawn. So what is the big deal?...
Interesting that so many of the warriors (including the ACLU) who are trying to shut down Christmas (and public religion in general) are non-religious Jews. Their politics have become their religion, it seems.
Here's an article circulating on the web which addresses this phenonmenon: "A Religious Jew Who Loves Christmas", by Irwin N. Graulich (posted on MichNews.com, a good news & commentary site). Excerpts:
I am a deeply committed, religious Jew who simply loves Christmas. In fact, any Jew or non Christian who gets "offended" because 90% of Americans make such a public splash about their most important holiday is a selfish pig.
The incredible connection between American Christianity and Judaism is a deep one, resulting in the Judeo-Christian moral code upon which all of Western morality is based. It was the greatest Jewish thinker in history, Maimonides, who said that while Jews brought the Bible/Torah into the world, it is Christians who spread the idea of one moral God to much of mankind.
Let me say clearly that a crèche on a public or private lawn is a very beautiful sight. It means that people have gone to the trouble of sharing lovely visuals from their religion with all of America, expressing the beauty of their heritage and its spiritual message to humanity.
Jews, secularists, atheists, et. al. who are critical of these "public displays" obviously have not thought the issue through very clearly. If these groups do not believe in Christianity, why would they be offended? For nonbelievers, the nativity scene should be as relevant as flamingos on a lawn. So what is the big deal?...
Thursday, December 22, 2005
How David Parker's Life Has Changed
There's a decent article on Lexington father David Parker in today's Boston Globe Northwest section. In a series called "5 whose lives changed," it's relatively fair and accurate. We have some quibbles:
1. Nowhere does the article mention the fact that there's a LAW in Massachusetts which gives parents the right to opt their children out of curriculum dealing with "human sexuality" issues. This means that David Parker wasn't just camping out in the Principal's office on a whim. He was standing up for the legal rights of parents in this state, and the SCHOOL was violating the law. The article says Parker wouldn't leave the meeting "until school officials made assurances that they would comply with his wishes." [emphasis added]
2. The school had agreed to work out an accommodation with David Parker before the meeting began. It was the school that did not live up to its end of the deal.
3. The article says: "Parker feels the legalization of gay marriage in Massachusetts has curbed his rights as a parent. Because gay marriage is legal, he said, it is harder for him to raise questions about mentions of it in school."
But this is not quite accurate. Homosexual "marriage" is not legal. An out-of-control court ruled they thought it should be. No statute has been passed by the legislature, or signed into law by the Governor. However, there is a law giving parents the right to be informed and opt their children out of this subject in the public schools. Parker is of course right in sensing that this ruling has energized the homosexual activism in our schools.
1. Nowhere does the article mention the fact that there's a LAW in Massachusetts which gives parents the right to opt their children out of curriculum dealing with "human sexuality" issues. This means that David Parker wasn't just camping out in the Principal's office on a whim. He was standing up for the legal rights of parents in this state, and the SCHOOL was violating the law. The article says Parker wouldn't leave the meeting "until school officials made assurances that they would comply with his wishes." [emphasis added]
2. The school had agreed to work out an accommodation with David Parker before the meeting began. It was the school that did not live up to its end of the deal.
3. The article says: "Parker feels the legalization of gay marriage in Massachusetts has curbed his rights as a parent. Because gay marriage is legal, he said, it is harder for him to raise questions about mentions of it in school."
But this is not quite accurate. Homosexual "marriage" is not legal. An out-of-control court ruled they thought it should be. No statute has been passed by the legislature, or signed into law by the Governor. However, there is a law giving parents the right to be informed and opt their children out of this subject in the public schools. Parker is of course right in sensing that this ruling has energized the homosexual activism in our schools.
Wednesday, December 21, 2005
Pedophilia: The Musical
Will the new musical about pedophilia, now playing in Atlanta, be banned in Boston? We doubt it. Here's another contribution from our friend John:
There's a new musical about molesting boys - now on stage in Atlanta!NOTE THE PARTS OF THE ARTICLE I'VE HIGHLIGHTED IN RED. NOTICE THE FAMILIAR TECHNIQUE. THIS IS ALWAYS HOW THE PROPAGANDA BALL STARTS ROLLING: progressive, tolerant, visionary artists "pushing boundaries" to "get people talking about taboos." Why exactly? Do we learn something? No, except that we're far less disgusted by the disgusting, after we've done the desensitizing "discussion" routine to prove that we're not religious blah, blah, blah-phobes.
Is the outcome ever to reinforce the taboos? No, only to tear them down. "Progress" -- as usual, at the expense of helpless children. Read this incredible mess that reveals so much about our boundless apathy and ongoing moral self-castration.
The Express has already started pushing "Love Jerry," a new tuner written and composed by Megan Gogerty that follows the tortured story of Jerry, who develops a sexual relationship with his nephew while trying to stay friends with the boy's father.
A delicate, often heart-wrenching piece of theater, the show, which preems Jan. 22 at the Express, never descends to shock-value tactics as it explores volatile terrain, and its lilting country songs give the characters emotionally vulnerable texture. Should it manage to attract a crowd, "Love Jerry" could very well leave them cheering.
But how do you convince anyone to come sing along with a child abuser? It's a double-edged question: Not only can untested musicals be notoriously hard to launch, especially when the writer is an unknown, but pedophilia (not to mention incest to boot) has proven anathema to ticket buyers.
At the movies, for example, heaps of critical praise couldn't produce box office for such abuse-oriented films as "The Woodsman," marketed as a redemption tale with a spooky secret, and "Happiness," presented as a boundary-pushing comedy. And though John Patrick Shanley's [any relation to Father Paul Shanley, convicted Massachusetts child molester?] "Doubt" has had a stellar Broadway run, that play stays in more comfortable territory by never confirming whether its protagonist has molested someone or not.
In "Love Jerry," there's no question what's going on, yet Gogerty refrains from demonizing the title character. She focuses instead on the entire family's attempt to comprehend what's happened.
This moral grayness makes the play even trickier to market, yet it's also what convinced Express artistic director Jasson Minadakis to produce it. He says he "absolutely believes" in the show and is continually "shocked by how powerfully it expresses itself." [Read more of the article in Variety...]
There's a new musical about molesting boys - now on stage in Atlanta!NOTE THE PARTS OF THE ARTICLE I'VE HIGHLIGHTED IN RED. NOTICE THE FAMILIAR TECHNIQUE. THIS IS ALWAYS HOW THE PROPAGANDA BALL STARTS ROLLING: progressive, tolerant, visionary artists "pushing boundaries" to "get people talking about taboos." Why exactly? Do we learn something? No, except that we're far less disgusted by the disgusting, after we've done the desensitizing "discussion" routine to prove that we're not religious blah, blah, blah-phobes.
Is the outcome ever to reinforce the taboos? No, only to tear them down. "Progress" -- as usual, at the expense of helpless children. Read this incredible mess that reveals so much about our boundless apathy and ongoing moral self-castration.
"Express route to controversy in Atlanta: Tuner's subject matter is anathema to ticket buyers" (Dec. 19, 2005), by Mark Blankenship
Around the holidays, the biggest challenge for many theater companies is convincing audiences to care about yet another staging of "A Christmas Carol." This season in Atlanta, however, Actor's Express wants to stir up buzz about a less familiar property -- namely, a pedophile musical.The Express has already started pushing "Love Jerry," a new tuner written and composed by Megan Gogerty that follows the tortured story of Jerry, who develops a sexual relationship with his nephew while trying to stay friends with the boy's father.
A delicate, often heart-wrenching piece of theater, the show, which preems Jan. 22 at the Express, never descends to shock-value tactics as it explores volatile terrain, and its lilting country songs give the characters emotionally vulnerable texture. Should it manage to attract a crowd, "Love Jerry" could very well leave them cheering.
But how do you convince anyone to come sing along with a child abuser? It's a double-edged question: Not only can untested musicals be notoriously hard to launch, especially when the writer is an unknown, but pedophilia (not to mention incest to boot) has proven anathema to ticket buyers.
At the movies, for example, heaps of critical praise couldn't produce box office for such abuse-oriented films as "The Woodsman," marketed as a redemption tale with a spooky secret, and "Happiness," presented as a boundary-pushing comedy. And though John Patrick Shanley's [any relation to Father Paul Shanley, convicted Massachusetts child molester?] "Doubt" has had a stellar Broadway run, that play stays in more comfortable territory by never confirming whether its protagonist has molested someone or not.
In "Love Jerry," there's no question what's going on, yet Gogerty refrains from demonizing the title character. She focuses instead on the entire family's attempt to comprehend what's happened.
This moral grayness makes the play even trickier to market, yet it's also what convinced Express artistic director Jasson Minadakis to produce it. He says he "absolutely believes" in the show and is continually "shocked by how powerfully it expresses itself." [Read more of the article in Variety...]
Tuesday, December 20, 2005
The New "Mental Illness"?
Chuck Colson posted a worrisome piece last week: "Extreme Bias Makeover: When Prejudice Becomes a Disease." It's not only freedom of religion that's being challenged over the issue of homosexuality. Now, if we dare object to the "lifestyle", our mental health may be questioned!
Colson comments on an article in the Washington Post on Dec. 10 ("Psychiatry Ponders Whether Extreme Bias Can Be an Illness"). The Wash. Post, of course, buys into the whole concept of "homophobia" without question! And it can be a "pathological bias".
But who gets to define when a "bias" becomes a disabling pathology, requiring professional intervention (re-education?) or hospitalization? Is someone demonstrating a patholgical bias if they spend their weekend hours collecting signatures for a petition to outlaw homosexual "marriage"? Is one showing a pathological bias if they go to a church which preaches that homosexuality is a sinful disorder, and that marriage is only between a man and a woman? Or if they consciously choose not to go to Provincetown for their vacation?
From Colson's article:
The Post explains, “Mental health practitioners say they regularly confront extreme forms of racism, homophobia and other prejudice in the course of therapy, and that some patients are disabled by these beliefs. As doctors increasingly weigh the effects of race and culture on mental illness, some are asking whether pathological bias ought to be an official psychiatric diagnosis.”
In short, several psychiatrists are now pushing for racists and people who suffer from “homophobia” to be labeled mentally ill.
Could such a label possibly be justified? Well, the Post tries to make the case by telling about a man who turned down a job because he feared a co-worker might be gay, and who would not go places where he thought he might run into a gay person. Now that was an extreme case. The man did indeed have a phobia that was interfering with his life, and probably needed help. The man’s psychiatrist told the paper, “He felt under attack, he felt threatened.” Normally, that would be called paranoia. We wouldn’t be developing some new mental illness.
Just think about where this could lead: In short order, we might begin to put people who strongly oppose homosexual behavior on the same level as people who suffer irrational fears of gays, and declare both people mentally ill. After all, the American Psychiatric Association says that homosexual behavior is normal. So to strongly oppose it would be irrational. It’s a very short step from there to saying that this person is suffering from “pathological bias.”
Already, the California Department of Corrections is experimenting with drugs to eliminate prejudices. “We treat racism and homophobia as delusional disorders,” reported Shama Chaiken, the department’s chief psychologist. A number of distinguished scientists agree that the “clinical experience informs us that racism may be a manifestation of the delusional process.” Sometimes that’s true, as with a woman mentioned in the Post who was deathly afraid of Jewish people. But it’s not true that racism or homophobia [Colson forgot the quotation marks this time] always signal mental disorder. And if we do not make that crucial distinction, we are asking for big trouble.
It may sound extreme, but this is the beginning of a process that has long been popular with tyrants. In the Soviet Union, Christians were sent by the hundreds of thousands to mental institutions. The state was officially atheist, so if you believe that there was a God, you were insane. And it’s still a wonderful tool for oppressors in places like China and North Korea.
There’s another side to this. As a psychiatrist told the Washington Post, if we began to call bias a mental illness, it would let criminals off the hook for any behavior. It will take a few years, of course, to go all through the medical and clinical analyses and deliberations of the American Psychiatric Association.
But if the day should come that opposition to homosexual conduct is labeled homophobia, and homophobia labeled delusional, then it is a very short step to saying that belief in the Bible, which labels that conduct sinful, is also a mental disorder.
Frightening? Indeed. Impossible? I’m afraid not.
Colson comments on an article in the Washington Post on Dec. 10 ("Psychiatry Ponders Whether Extreme Bias Can Be an Illness"). The Wash. Post, of course, buys into the whole concept of "homophobia" without question! And it can be a "pathological bias".
But who gets to define when a "bias" becomes a disabling pathology, requiring professional intervention (re-education?) or hospitalization? Is someone demonstrating a patholgical bias if they spend their weekend hours collecting signatures for a petition to outlaw homosexual "marriage"? Is one showing a pathological bias if they go to a church which preaches that homosexuality is a sinful disorder, and that marriage is only between a man and a woman? Or if they consciously choose not to go to Provincetown for their vacation?
From Colson's article:
The Post explains, “Mental health practitioners say they regularly confront extreme forms of racism, homophobia and other prejudice in the course of therapy, and that some patients are disabled by these beliefs. As doctors increasingly weigh the effects of race and culture on mental illness, some are asking whether pathological bias ought to be an official psychiatric diagnosis.”
In short, several psychiatrists are now pushing for racists and people who suffer from “homophobia” to be labeled mentally ill.
Could such a label possibly be justified? Well, the Post tries to make the case by telling about a man who turned down a job because he feared a co-worker might be gay, and who would not go places where he thought he might run into a gay person. Now that was an extreme case. The man did indeed have a phobia that was interfering with his life, and probably needed help. The man’s psychiatrist told the paper, “He felt under attack, he felt threatened.” Normally, that would be called paranoia. We wouldn’t be developing some new mental illness.
Just think about where this could lead: In short order, we might begin to put people who strongly oppose homosexual behavior on the same level as people who suffer irrational fears of gays, and declare both people mentally ill. After all, the American Psychiatric Association says that homosexual behavior is normal. So to strongly oppose it would be irrational. It’s a very short step from there to saying that this person is suffering from “pathological bias.”
Already, the California Department of Corrections is experimenting with drugs to eliminate prejudices. “We treat racism and homophobia as delusional disorders,” reported Shama Chaiken, the department’s chief psychologist. A number of distinguished scientists agree that the “clinical experience informs us that racism may be a manifestation of the delusional process.” Sometimes that’s true, as with a woman mentioned in the Post who was deathly afraid of Jewish people. But it’s not true that racism or homophobia [Colson forgot the quotation marks this time] always signal mental disorder. And if we do not make that crucial distinction, we are asking for big trouble.
It may sound extreme, but this is the beginning of a process that has long been popular with tyrants. In the Soviet Union, Christians were sent by the hundreds of thousands to mental institutions. The state was officially atheist, so if you believe that there was a God, you were insane. And it’s still a wonderful tool for oppressors in places like China and North Korea.
There’s another side to this. As a psychiatrist told the Washington Post, if we began to call bias a mental illness, it would let criminals off the hook for any behavior. It will take a few years, of course, to go all through the medical and clinical analyses and deliberations of the American Psychiatric Association.
But if the day should come that opposition to homosexual conduct is labeled homophobia, and homophobia labeled delusional, then it is a very short step to saying that belief in the Bible, which labels that conduct sinful, is also a mental disorder.
Frightening? Indeed. Impossible? I’m afraid not.
Monday, December 19, 2005
Pied Pipers of Trans Perversion
It's not enough to have our noses rubbed in a "gay cowboy" movie. Now Hollywood and its media allies are pushing a new movie, "Transamerica", about a man who "becomes" a woman. Of course, the real problem is that this perversion is not just being pushed on adults -- the schools are brainwashing our children to think it is just a part of normal life in America, and maybe they should even consider the "trans" lifestyle for themselves!
The movie "Transamerica" is about a male-to-female "transsexual" -- or is it "transgender"? One review in the Boston Herald calls the character "transsexual", the other says "transgender".
The terminology confusion is important. It reveals that this insanity is gaining ground so fast that even its participants can't keep up, even they don't know how to describe what they're involved in! (Maybe one of our GLBTQIP readers could clear up the confusion. Isn't "transsexual" when you have the operations, hormone injections, hair removal, etc.; but "transgender" is basically cross-dressing or play acting?)
It's interesting that the protagonist in "Transamerica" is played by a real female. This of course keeps the audience from feeling the full force of the perversion involved. We've encountered trans people, and they do not come across as it appears the lovely actress does in the movie...
And what a lighthearted, fun movie it is! The star, Felicity Huffman, says:
Before her character can have his final operation, he must confront the 17-year-old son (Kevin Zegers) he never knew he fathered. As the two travel across the country, “Transamerica” becomes an odd-couple comedy.
“I know when you first think of an independent movie about a transgender woman, you go, ‘Oh, it’s gonna be dark, violent and upsetting, and I’ll take it like medicine.’ But it’s actually an adorable ride. It’s a comedy - with some dramatic moments. I think if you could just give it five minutes, you’ll see it’s an indie version of a chick flick. It’s really a fun watch.”
And what fun the surgery must be! Speaking of the "sex reassignment" surgery, link here for the "neo-vagina" constructive surgery (penile inversion technique) that the hero/heroine of the movie undergoes. (Would this be a "fun watch"?) These diagrams come from Transgendercare.com, where BAGLY (Boston Assoc. of Gay, Lesbian & Transgender Youth) leads our teenagers on their resource page!
This group, BAGLY, is blessed by our Mass. Dept. of Education and Governor's Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth. And the "Gay-Straight Alliance" clubs in high schools across the state refer our children to this group.
So why would anyone object to this movie? Our schools are already teaching this stuff! Just last week at Newton North High School, the executive director of BAGLY, a male-to-female "trans" (see 2nd photo in link) gave a talk. The Pied Pipers of trans perversion have already taken over our schools.
The movie "Transamerica" is about a male-to-female "transsexual" -- or is it "transgender"? One review in the Boston Herald calls the character "transsexual", the other says "transgender".
The terminology confusion is important. It reveals that this insanity is gaining ground so fast that even its participants can't keep up, even they don't know how to describe what they're involved in! (Maybe one of our GLBTQIP readers could clear up the confusion. Isn't "transsexual" when you have the operations, hormone injections, hair removal, etc.; but "transgender" is basically cross-dressing or play acting?)
It's interesting that the protagonist in "Transamerica" is played by a real female. This of course keeps the audience from feeling the full force of the perversion involved. We've encountered trans people, and they do not come across as it appears the lovely actress does in the movie...
And what a lighthearted, fun movie it is! The star, Felicity Huffman, says:
Before her character can have his final operation, he must confront the 17-year-old son (Kevin Zegers) he never knew he fathered. As the two travel across the country, “Transamerica” becomes an odd-couple comedy.
“I know when you first think of an independent movie about a transgender woman, you go, ‘Oh, it’s gonna be dark, violent and upsetting, and I’ll take it like medicine.’ But it’s actually an adorable ride. It’s a comedy - with some dramatic moments. I think if you could just give it five minutes, you’ll see it’s an indie version of a chick flick. It’s really a fun watch.”
And what fun the surgery must be! Speaking of the "sex reassignment" surgery, link here for the "neo-vagina" constructive surgery (penile inversion technique) that the hero/heroine of the movie undergoes. (Would this be a "fun watch"?) These diagrams come from Transgendercare.com, where BAGLY (Boston Assoc. of Gay, Lesbian & Transgender Youth) leads our teenagers on their resource page!
This group, BAGLY, is blessed by our Mass. Dept. of Education and Governor's Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth. And the "Gay-Straight Alliance" clubs in high schools across the state refer our children to this group.
So why would anyone object to this movie? Our schools are already teaching this stuff! Just last week at Newton North High School, the executive director of BAGLY, a male-to-female "trans" (see 2nd photo in link) gave a talk. The Pied Pipers of trans perversion have already taken over our schools.
Sunday, December 18, 2005
Mr. Hetero Contest Sponsored by Mass. Pastor
Now here's a pastor with nerve. Tom Crouse of the Holland Congregational Church is promoting a "Mr. Hetero" contest, to take place on Feb. 4. Crouse has been an outspoken advocate for traditional marriage, and hosts a talk show on Worcester station WVNE 760AM.
Now whether or not this is an effective ploy, we'll leave to others to decide. But why can't Pastor Tom have a little fun, while also pointing out the absurdity of such events as "gay games" or "gay pride days"? Consider the "Gay Games 2006" coming this summer to Chicago. Special hotel deals, promises of great social opportunities with one's fellow athletes.
The American Family Association reported Dec. 8:
"Massachusetts Pastor has Contest for Mr. Straight"
In reaction to Gay Promotions, like Mr. Gay International, this one will find Mr. Hetero. The homosexual community has flooding the marketplace with products and opportunities exclusively for gays and lesbians. Now a talk show host in Massachusetts is turning the tables. Tom Crouse, pastor of Holland Congregational Church and host of the radio program “Engaging Your World” is launching a “contest” to name the most heterosexual guy in Massachusetts.
“We’re just looking for tolerance for heterosexuals.” Someone should stand up for heterosexuality, someone should stand up and celebrate how God’s made us and I said, ‘I’m gonna!’, so I think I’ll have a Mr. Heterosexual Contest!”
[Crouse wrote on his blog back in November:]
The goal is to bring the celebration of God' design to the forefront. To hopefully give Christians some courage, to see unbelievers come to Christ and to glorify God. And finally isn't it time that heterosexuals were shown some tolerance?
His event has apparently bubbled up to LGBT internet awareness, then on to regional newspapers (Springfield Republican). Even Salon.com readers have been spreading rumors about the sexual identity of the pastor! Go after the messenger if you can't deal with the message...
Now whether or not this is an effective ploy, we'll leave to others to decide. But why can't Pastor Tom have a little fun, while also pointing out the absurdity of such events as "gay games" or "gay pride days"? Consider the "Gay Games 2006" coming this summer to Chicago. Special hotel deals, promises of great social opportunities with one's fellow athletes.
The American Family Association reported Dec. 8:
"Massachusetts Pastor has Contest for Mr. Straight"
In reaction to Gay Promotions, like Mr. Gay International, this one will find Mr. Hetero. The homosexual community has flooding the marketplace with products and opportunities exclusively for gays and lesbians. Now a talk show host in Massachusetts is turning the tables. Tom Crouse, pastor of Holland Congregational Church and host of the radio program “Engaging Your World” is launching a “contest” to name the most heterosexual guy in Massachusetts.
“We’re just looking for tolerance for heterosexuals.” Someone should stand up for heterosexuality, someone should stand up and celebrate how God’s made us and I said, ‘I’m gonna!’, so I think I’ll have a Mr. Heterosexual Contest!”
[Crouse wrote on his blog back in November:]
The goal is to bring the celebration of God' design to the forefront. To hopefully give Christians some courage, to see unbelievers come to Christ and to glorify God. And finally isn't it time that heterosexuals were shown some tolerance?
His event has apparently bubbled up to LGBT internet awareness, then on to regional newspapers (Springfield Republican). Even Salon.com readers have been spreading rumors about the sexual identity of the pastor! Go after the messenger if you can't deal with the message...
Saturday, December 17, 2005
Level of Discourse, Part IV
When we first started MassResistance, we included a little personal touch in our profile, noting that one of our favorite authors was George Eliot. After a few weeks, we decided to keep this blog issue-centered, and remove personalized information. Well, one of our "lurkers" apparently had noted this favorite author...
And recently, this person sent us an email, printed below -- which they signed "George Eliot". It's typical of the pseudo-"respectful" stuff that gets sent. But in fact, it reveals the obsession that the homosexual community has about this subject. We also include the response to "Alias George Eliot" from one of our contributors, John.
From alias_george_eliot@yahoo.com:
I am contacting you with regard to your blog, MassResistance. You recently noted your dissatisfaction with the level of discourse of your opponents, and cited this as a reason not to open your site to comments. As such, I am addressing some specific aspects of your most recent posts in the hopes that you really are as reasonable as you purport to be. I can only assume that if you are truly intent upon rational discourse, you will answer my inquiry with forthrightness and respect.
First, I want to address your latest post, which makes reference to the "crystal clear" connection between pro-choice groups and pro-equality groups. You state that this connection exists, but you never explain how or why. Moreover, the links you provide do not contain any explanation of this connection. As an individual who is both pro-choice and pro-equality, I can state that I do see a connection--respect for the individual and a belief in self-determination. To me, these are the beliefs that are at the heart of both movements. I suspect, however, that the connection you are drawing is very different from mine (as evidenced by your false syllogism of "culture of death = abortion + homosexuality"). What is this dangerous connection that you have discerned? Aside from pointing out that some feminist groups support marriage equality, what evidence do you see?
You next report a story about hate speech in Sweden, and threaten that this trial portents the end of religious freedom in the United States. Frankly, I cannot see any connection between the two. I know that you are aware of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, because I have seen you laud its protections in your blog. As such, I don't believe you can, in good conscience, report that the end of religious freedom is nigh. You know as well as I do that all political speech, including hateful speech, is protected by the First Amendment. It is only when that speech encourages, incites, and results in violent acts that it may be prosecuted. Following this to its natural conclusion, it means that no preacher or priest in the U.S. could be tried for hateful speech unless that speech directly advocated violence. Certainly you would not defend a priest who specifically instructed his congregation to commit acts of violence against homosexuals in the name of the Lord. (I attended sixteen years of Catholic schools, and could therefore identify scores of Biblical passages which call for the love, respect, and forgiveness of one's opponents.) With this being the case, I simply don't see what it is that you fear.
In this same vein of religious freedom, I note a distinct tone in your blog which seems to hold that, because your interpretation of the Bible condemns homosexual acts, homosexuals in Massachusetts do not deserve equal rights. Clearly, religious freedom is very important to you, and rightly so. The separation of Church and State is crucial to this nation's democratic structure. However, the same First Amendment which guarentees your freedom to worship as you see fit, *also* guarentees that citizens of this country will not be governed by the strictures of any one of this country's many religions. How is it, then, that you will accept only the first portion of the First Amendment (the portion which protects you), and reject the portion which protects the rest of us from establishment of a governmental religion? Do you not see, as I do, that the right to religious freedom necessarily includes the right to freedom from someone else's religion? You believe the edicts of the Catholic church which condemn homosexuality. This is your right, both according to your conscience and according to the Free Exercise Clause. However, homosexual individuals also have the right not to be governed by your interpretation of the Bible.
Lastly, I noted a discrepancy in your discussion of the media's treatment of Catholicism. For instance, on November 21, you criticized the Boston Herald for failing to challenge the Catholicism of certain individuals. You seemed to state that you believed people who encourage respect for homosexual individuals could not truly call themselves Catholics...and you expect the Boston Herald, a mainstream periodical, to enter into a theological analysis of what it means to be Catholic. Yet, on November 28 and 29, you criticized the Globe and Herald for--in editorials--"challenging the Archbishop on Catholic doctrine." Even if this characterization of the editorials were correct, I don't see how you can hold this position. One week you tell Herald that it's not wading deeply enough into Catholic dogma, and the next week you criticize it for doing that very thing. This position is untenable. Moreover, your discussion makes me wonder whether you realize that the Globe and the Herald are not, in fact, Catholic organizations. Perhaps you mistakenly believe these newspapers to be mouthpieces of the Catholic church?
I am genuinely interested in your responses to my queries, and I hope that you will reply with the same amount of respect with which I have addressed you.Thank you for your time.
MassResistance understands that it is the Catholic Church as an institution which defines Catholic doctrine -- not the Boston Globe, the Boston Herald, Mayor Menino, or homosexual activists. Our friend John responds to "George Eliot" in more detail:
You have not signed your name or given a town of residence. You select an alias for reasons that we both understand to have sinister intent. Thus, you mock your own posture of "forthrightness and respect." Why waste my time with non sequiturs and hypocrisy?
Your love of "self-determination" stops short of human infants in their mothers' wombs, whom you arbitrarily de-humanize as if you are some sort of divinity or as if the burden of proof of its humanity is on the baby in the womb. Your claimed dedication to "self-determination" also does not stop you from endorsing forced indoctrination of other people's children into your worldview, your politics, your ethical nihilism and your sexual and moral suicide.
Religious freedom? Freedom of speech? A person of your interests cannot be unaware that in countries such as Canada, with laws similar to ours, a modern update of an ancient, relentless and militant homo-fascism has settled over the land and people are dragged before neo-Stalinist "human rights tribunals" to be punished for uttering "homophobic" religious speech. Is anyone threatening to criminalize your views? To force public schoolchildren to accept my views? Are major corporations and universities and government agencies firing and disciplining people for pushing homosexuality? No. It is my views that are routinely punished in these places.
You know well that this is the exact purpose and effect of your thinly disguised "hate crimes" legislation and politically-correct corporate and university policies. Can you deny the joy that this repression gives you? Can you deny the thrill you feel that multiple portions of the Massachusetts state constitution have been quietly suspended in order to create the illusion that homosexual "marriage" -- a contradiction in terms if ever there was one -- is now "legal"? Can you deny the thrill you get by knowing that breaking into the home of a leader of the Resistance causes children to fear for their safety?
And, "respect for homosexual individuals"...? Hmm, if you can't avoid the cheap rhetorical trick of equating "respect" with total ideological, political and moral surrender, then you really need to grow up and look in the mirror. Since you have not surrendered to my views on these issues your own logic makes you a bigot, a hater, and a fanatic, right?
And we both know you're beyond the pale with this claim: "One week you tell the Herald that it's not wading deeply enough into Catholic dogma, and the next week you criticize it for doing that very thing. This position is untenable."
No. Actually, it's not untenable, as you know. We do have to take for granted that you can see the hypocrisy in a newspaper which:
a. by avoidance of the flagrant theological contradictions, intentionally provides cover for self-proclaimed "Catholics" who aggressively subvert Catholicism;
b. suddenly ventures into theology and doctrinal questions only to distort and to be a mouthpiece for those whose passion is to hijack the name and institutions of Christianity for a "religion" that Caligula and Nero would endorse.
So the untenable position is yours, as we both know. You applaud the Herald for "wading into church dogma" to condemn -- by transparently false logic -- those whom you hate, but you applaud the Herald for avoiding dogma when it would expose your heroes as using pseudo-Catholicism to destroy Catholicism.
And try to make sense of the non sequitur in this beauty (you wrote it): "...scores of Biblical passages which call for the love, respect, and forgiveness of one's opponents. With this being the case, I simply don't see what it is that you fear."
Okay, so, one more time: How do Christian love, forgiveness, and respect magically get reasonable people to agree with you and start pretending that your agenda is no threat to democracy and to the moral development of children? Are there no steps in between, like you respecting those who (without hating you at all) objectively regard your choices and your worldview as tragically dysfunctional? Before demanding more "respect", shouldn't you demand an end to forced indoctrination of other people's children into blind acceptance of a lifestyle that shortens men's lives by twenty years on average? Shouldn't you demand that fundamental changes in law and society be implemented, if at all, without striking down a constitution and the right of self-government? If not, then you admit to endorsing the fascist route to power.
You have still more writing to be ashamed of: "Perhaps you mistakenly believe these newspapers to be mouthpieces of the Catholic church?"
No, we both know they are mouthpieces for moral nihilism and increasingly for authoritarian repression of the religious foundation that provides the only philosophical soil for inalienable, God-given human rights. Buy and read David Barton's book "Original Intent" before you talk silliness about the First Amendment and what it means. You owe all of your rights to the Christian tolerance (the authentic kind) that produced modern democracy. "Original Intent" will be a revelation to you, if you have the guts to read it.
All of the political values that you claim to honor are not only manifestly contradicted in your politics, but as even Marxist historians admit, are rooted firmly in a political culture that could only have arisen from Biblical Christianity -- which you seek to banish by progressively outlawing its public expression, brainwashing all children against its moral code and by diluting it from within through dishonest claims of alternative "interpretations" of scripture. Language is not infinitely malleable -- nor is reality.
As for equal rights, the rights of homosexuals do not extend to imposing on children a freakish, revolutionary kind of childhood that all psychological, sociological and pedagogical evidence reveals to be contrary to their innate needs. No honest person denies that every child needs one father and one mother. If you can't handle that, please don't bother writing any more. Surely there is some aspect of your social, sexual, theological, political and constitutional revolution that you have doubts about. Surely. If not, then an intelligent mind is going to waste for the sake of a cause that is consuming your conscience.
Peace, not hatred,
John
And recently, this person sent us an email, printed below -- which they signed "George Eliot". It's typical of the pseudo-"respectful" stuff that gets sent. But in fact, it reveals the obsession that the homosexual community has about this subject. We also include the response to "Alias George Eliot" from one of our contributors, John.
From alias_george_eliot@yahoo.com:
I am contacting you with regard to your blog, MassResistance. You recently noted your dissatisfaction with the level of discourse of your opponents, and cited this as a reason not to open your site to comments. As such, I am addressing some specific aspects of your most recent posts in the hopes that you really are as reasonable as you purport to be. I can only assume that if you are truly intent upon rational discourse, you will answer my inquiry with forthrightness and respect.
First, I want to address your latest post, which makes reference to the "crystal clear" connection between pro-choice groups and pro-equality groups. You state that this connection exists, but you never explain how or why. Moreover, the links you provide do not contain any explanation of this connection. As an individual who is both pro-choice and pro-equality, I can state that I do see a connection--respect for the individual and a belief in self-determination. To me, these are the beliefs that are at the heart of both movements. I suspect, however, that the connection you are drawing is very different from mine (as evidenced by your false syllogism of "culture of death = abortion + homosexuality"). What is this dangerous connection that you have discerned? Aside from pointing out that some feminist groups support marriage equality, what evidence do you see?
You next report a story about hate speech in Sweden, and threaten that this trial portents the end of religious freedom in the United States. Frankly, I cannot see any connection between the two. I know that you are aware of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, because I have seen you laud its protections in your blog. As such, I don't believe you can, in good conscience, report that the end of religious freedom is nigh. You know as well as I do that all political speech, including hateful speech, is protected by the First Amendment. It is only when that speech encourages, incites, and results in violent acts that it may be prosecuted. Following this to its natural conclusion, it means that no preacher or priest in the U.S. could be tried for hateful speech unless that speech directly advocated violence. Certainly you would not defend a priest who specifically instructed his congregation to commit acts of violence against homosexuals in the name of the Lord. (I attended sixteen years of Catholic schools, and could therefore identify scores of Biblical passages which call for the love, respect, and forgiveness of one's opponents.) With this being the case, I simply don't see what it is that you fear.
In this same vein of religious freedom, I note a distinct tone in your blog which seems to hold that, because your interpretation of the Bible condemns homosexual acts, homosexuals in Massachusetts do not deserve equal rights. Clearly, religious freedom is very important to you, and rightly so. The separation of Church and State is crucial to this nation's democratic structure. However, the same First Amendment which guarentees your freedom to worship as you see fit, *also* guarentees that citizens of this country will not be governed by the strictures of any one of this country's many religions. How is it, then, that you will accept only the first portion of the First Amendment (the portion which protects you), and reject the portion which protects the rest of us from establishment of a governmental religion? Do you not see, as I do, that the right to religious freedom necessarily includes the right to freedom from someone else's religion? You believe the edicts of the Catholic church which condemn homosexuality. This is your right, both according to your conscience and according to the Free Exercise Clause. However, homosexual individuals also have the right not to be governed by your interpretation of the Bible.
Lastly, I noted a discrepancy in your discussion of the media's treatment of Catholicism. For instance, on November 21, you criticized the Boston Herald for failing to challenge the Catholicism of certain individuals. You seemed to state that you believed people who encourage respect for homosexual individuals could not truly call themselves Catholics...and you expect the Boston Herald, a mainstream periodical, to enter into a theological analysis of what it means to be Catholic. Yet, on November 28 and 29, you criticized the Globe and Herald for--in editorials--"challenging the Archbishop on Catholic doctrine." Even if this characterization of the editorials were correct, I don't see how you can hold this position. One week you tell Herald that it's not wading deeply enough into Catholic dogma, and the next week you criticize it for doing that very thing. This position is untenable. Moreover, your discussion makes me wonder whether you realize that the Globe and the Herald are not, in fact, Catholic organizations. Perhaps you mistakenly believe these newspapers to be mouthpieces of the Catholic church?
I am genuinely interested in your responses to my queries, and I hope that you will reply with the same amount of respect with which I have addressed you.Thank you for your time.
MassResistance understands that it is the Catholic Church as an institution which defines Catholic doctrine -- not the Boston Globe, the Boston Herald, Mayor Menino, or homosexual activists. Our friend John responds to "George Eliot" in more detail:
You have not signed your name or given a town of residence. You select an alias for reasons that we both understand to have sinister intent. Thus, you mock your own posture of "forthrightness and respect." Why waste my time with non sequiturs and hypocrisy?
Your love of "self-determination" stops short of human infants in their mothers' wombs, whom you arbitrarily de-humanize as if you are some sort of divinity or as if the burden of proof of its humanity is on the baby in the womb. Your claimed dedication to "self-determination" also does not stop you from endorsing forced indoctrination of other people's children into your worldview, your politics, your ethical nihilism and your sexual and moral suicide.
Religious freedom? Freedom of speech? A person of your interests cannot be unaware that in countries such as Canada, with laws similar to ours, a modern update of an ancient, relentless and militant homo-fascism has settled over the land and people are dragged before neo-Stalinist "human rights tribunals" to be punished for uttering "homophobic" religious speech. Is anyone threatening to criminalize your views? To force public schoolchildren to accept my views? Are major corporations and universities and government agencies firing and disciplining people for pushing homosexuality? No. It is my views that are routinely punished in these places.
You know well that this is the exact purpose and effect of your thinly disguised "hate crimes" legislation and politically-correct corporate and university policies. Can you deny the joy that this repression gives you? Can you deny the thrill you feel that multiple portions of the Massachusetts state constitution have been quietly suspended in order to create the illusion that homosexual "marriage" -- a contradiction in terms if ever there was one -- is now "legal"? Can you deny the thrill you get by knowing that breaking into the home of a leader of the Resistance causes children to fear for their safety?
And, "respect for homosexual individuals"...? Hmm, if you can't avoid the cheap rhetorical trick of equating "respect" with total ideological, political and moral surrender, then you really need to grow up and look in the mirror. Since you have not surrendered to my views on these issues your own logic makes you a bigot, a hater, and a fanatic, right?
And we both know you're beyond the pale with this claim: "One week you tell the Herald that it's not wading deeply enough into Catholic dogma, and the next week you criticize it for doing that very thing. This position is untenable."
No. Actually, it's not untenable, as you know. We do have to take for granted that you can see the hypocrisy in a newspaper which:
a. by avoidance of the flagrant theological contradictions, intentionally provides cover for self-proclaimed "Catholics" who aggressively subvert Catholicism;
b. suddenly ventures into theology and doctrinal questions only to distort and to be a mouthpiece for those whose passion is to hijack the name and institutions of Christianity for a "religion" that Caligula and Nero would endorse.
So the untenable position is yours, as we both know. You applaud the Herald for "wading into church dogma" to condemn -- by transparently false logic -- those whom you hate, but you applaud the Herald for avoiding dogma when it would expose your heroes as using pseudo-Catholicism to destroy Catholicism.
And try to make sense of the non sequitur in this beauty (you wrote it): "...scores of Biblical passages which call for the love, respect, and forgiveness of one's opponents. With this being the case, I simply don't see what it is that you fear."
Okay, so, one more time: How do Christian love, forgiveness, and respect magically get reasonable people to agree with you and start pretending that your agenda is no threat to democracy and to the moral development of children? Are there no steps in between, like you respecting those who (without hating you at all) objectively regard your choices and your worldview as tragically dysfunctional? Before demanding more "respect", shouldn't you demand an end to forced indoctrination of other people's children into blind acceptance of a lifestyle that shortens men's lives by twenty years on average? Shouldn't you demand that fundamental changes in law and society be implemented, if at all, without striking down a constitution and the right of self-government? If not, then you admit to endorsing the fascist route to power.
You have still more writing to be ashamed of: "Perhaps you mistakenly believe these newspapers to be mouthpieces of the Catholic church?"
No, we both know they are mouthpieces for moral nihilism and increasingly for authoritarian repression of the religious foundation that provides the only philosophical soil for inalienable, God-given human rights. Buy and read David Barton's book "Original Intent" before you talk silliness about the First Amendment and what it means. You owe all of your rights to the Christian tolerance (the authentic kind) that produced modern democracy. "Original Intent" will be a revelation to you, if you have the guts to read it.
All of the political values that you claim to honor are not only manifestly contradicted in your politics, but as even Marxist historians admit, are rooted firmly in a political culture that could only have arisen from Biblical Christianity -- which you seek to banish by progressively outlawing its public expression, brainwashing all children against its moral code and by diluting it from within through dishonest claims of alternative "interpretations" of scripture. Language is not infinitely malleable -- nor is reality.
As for equal rights, the rights of homosexuals do not extend to imposing on children a freakish, revolutionary kind of childhood that all psychological, sociological and pedagogical evidence reveals to be contrary to their innate needs. No honest person denies that every child needs one father and one mother. If you can't handle that, please don't bother writing any more. Surely there is some aspect of your social, sexual, theological, political and constitutional revolution that you have doubts about. Surely. If not, then an intelligent mind is going to waste for the sake of a cause that is consuming your conscience.
Peace, not hatred,
John
Friday, December 16, 2005
Companies Caving to Radical Homosexuals
Here's the latest catalog of big corporations paying protection money to LGBTQIP radicals: The so-called "Human Rights Campaign" has released its update on which companies give them every crazy thing they demand.
HRC says their "Corporate Equality Index is a tool to measure how equitably companies are treating their gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender employees, consumers and investors."
Bay Windows reports on the updated list of "gay friendly" companies:
Among the perfect scorers are such well known companies as Sears, Best Buy, General Mills, Kraft Foods, Estee Lauder, Johnson & Johnson, Whirlpool, the New York Times, AT&T, American Airlines, the Ford Corporation, and The Gap. Among the worst scorers are such well known companies as Kmart, H.J. Heinz, Nestle Purina, Bayer, Maytag, Rubbermaid, Nissan, and Exxon Mobil.
According to Bay Windows, the HRC index:
...researches only companies with 500 or more employees on the Fortune 500 and Forbes 200 indexes. It also ranks corporations - and therefore their products - based solely on corporate workplace policies. The seven criteria include:
* whether the company has a policy prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation,
* whether the policy also prohibits discrimination based on gender identity and expression,
* whether the company provides parity in health benefits to employees' domestic partners,
* whether the company recognizes an in-house GLBT employee group,
* whether the company's diversity training includes sexual orientation,
* whether the company has a corporate giving policy that provides donations to GLBT charitable groups, and
*whether the company gives to groups which oppose equal rights for gays.
The scoring does not consider whether a corporate political action committee contributes money to gay friendly or gay hostile candidates.
HRC says their "Corporate Equality Index is a tool to measure how equitably companies are treating their gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender employees, consumers and investors."
Bay Windows reports on the updated list of "gay friendly" companies:
Among the perfect scorers are such well known companies as Sears, Best Buy, General Mills, Kraft Foods, Estee Lauder, Johnson & Johnson, Whirlpool, the New York Times, AT&T, American Airlines, the Ford Corporation, and The Gap. Among the worst scorers are such well known companies as Kmart, H.J. Heinz, Nestle Purina, Bayer, Maytag, Rubbermaid, Nissan, and Exxon Mobil.
According to Bay Windows, the HRC index:
...researches only companies with 500 or more employees on the Fortune 500 and Forbes 200 indexes. It also ranks corporations - and therefore their products - based solely on corporate workplace policies. The seven criteria include:
* whether the company has a policy prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation,
* whether the policy also prohibits discrimination based on gender identity and expression,
* whether the company provides parity in health benefits to employees' domestic partners,
* whether the company recognizes an in-house GLBT employee group,
* whether the company's diversity training includes sexual orientation,
* whether the company has a corporate giving policy that provides donations to GLBT charitable groups, and
*whether the company gives to groups which oppose equal rights for gays.
The scoring does not consider whether a corporate political action committee contributes money to gay friendly or gay hostile candidates.
Wednesday, December 14, 2005
Weigel on Menino; Globe's Advocacy Journalism
Surprising to see a column by conservative Catholic writer George Weigel in the Boston Globe today. "Menino's Catholic fallacies" fleshes out the points we made a few days ago. Weigel is a little kinder to Menino, simply saying "cartoon Catholicism and the crudest caricatures of Catholic belief are often promoted today by Catholic political leaders. Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino is a case in point." (Now MassResistance basically called Menino himself the cartoon.) Weigel writes:
So it seems that Menino knows neither the Bible, nor the catechism, nor the teaching of popes and bishops. Why should anyone beyond Catholics care? Because Americans will continue to debate the role of religiously informed moral reason in public life. That debate can be intelligent or dumb; it can strengthen democracy or weaken it; it can build bridges of understanding through serious conversation or fracture communities and stoke animosities. If political leaders like Mayor Menino continue to promote caricatures and cartoons of Catholic conviction, the debate will be unintelligible and fractious. And American democracy will be the weaker for it.
In yesterday's Globe, we had another example of their advocacy journalism, calling dissenting protesters of Catholic doctrine "advocates". (D0 they ever refer to abortion protesters as "pro-life advocates"?)
The Dec. 12 headline blares, "Advocates protest ban on gay priests; Rallies denounce Vatican policy." The group calling itself "Voice of the Faithful" held a protest on the steps of Boston's Cathedral of the Holy Cross on Sunday. U.S. Rep. William Delahunt took part.
"We're going to stand for what we consider great priests. Gay or not gay, who cares?" said a spokesman. These people are simply dissenters. If they want to be advocates for gay priests, women priests, married priests or whatever, they should leave the Catholic church and join the Metropolitan Community Church -- established by queer activists and their allies especially to promote such nonsense.
Fr. Bob Carr addresses the demonstration on his blog, Catholicism Anew. He writes of the complicity of the Massachusetts Democrat Party apparatus and leaders in this all-out attack on the Catholic church. (For more on Carr, see Carol McKinley's blog Dec. 14.) Here's part of his letter to Rep. Delahunt:
I see that you were outside the Cathedral during the latest Voice of the Faithful attack on Catholics claiming to show your acceptance for all priests. Give me a break!
Mr. Delahunt, your party worked to take down our church, period! Barney Frank and friends declared war on Catholics in 2003 and you and the rest of the Massachusetts delegation, et. al. are part of that war.
You stood last night with people who were previously part of a protest against faithful laypersons inside the Roman Catholic Church in June of 2003. These protesters disturbed innocent faithful people seeking only to worship at their parish church. They have been actively involved in harassing faithful innocent Catholics for several years. Yet, on that day, they with the full blessing of the media who supported you so well on Sunday night, were even more intimidated. That is a felony in this country, sir. Would you be so comfortable and happy standing next to the convicted felons you put in prison as DA of Norfolk County Now you stand up for all priests? No you don't.
It took us a while to figure out who was behind this attack on the Church. We eventually did and we know that one of the groups out trying to silence us was the Massachusetts wing of the Democratic party and their friends from Vermont, headed up by ex-Catholic Howard Dean and his strategists over at the JFK School of Government.
The DNC lost the Catholic vote in 2004 and can assume most of it is gone forever. Nice try on the damage control, but your ship already sunk. ...
So it seems that Menino knows neither the Bible, nor the catechism, nor the teaching of popes and bishops. Why should anyone beyond Catholics care? Because Americans will continue to debate the role of religiously informed moral reason in public life. That debate can be intelligent or dumb; it can strengthen democracy or weaken it; it can build bridges of understanding through serious conversation or fracture communities and stoke animosities. If political leaders like Mayor Menino continue to promote caricatures and cartoons of Catholic conviction, the debate will be unintelligible and fractious. And American democracy will be the weaker for it.
In yesterday's Globe, we had another example of their advocacy journalism, calling dissenting protesters of Catholic doctrine "advocates". (D0 they ever refer to abortion protesters as "pro-life advocates"?)
The Dec. 12 headline blares, "Advocates protest ban on gay priests; Rallies denounce Vatican policy." The group calling itself "Voice of the Faithful" held a protest on the steps of Boston's Cathedral of the Holy Cross on Sunday. U.S. Rep. William Delahunt took part.
"We're going to stand for what we consider great priests. Gay or not gay, who cares?" said a spokesman. These people are simply dissenters. If they want to be advocates for gay priests, women priests, married priests or whatever, they should leave the Catholic church and join the Metropolitan Community Church -- established by queer activists and their allies especially to promote such nonsense.
Fr. Bob Carr addresses the demonstration on his blog, Catholicism Anew. He writes of the complicity of the Massachusetts Democrat Party apparatus and leaders in this all-out attack on the Catholic church. (For more on Carr, see Carol McKinley's blog Dec. 14.) Here's part of his letter to Rep. Delahunt:
I see that you were outside the Cathedral during the latest Voice of the Faithful attack on Catholics claiming to show your acceptance for all priests. Give me a break!
Mr. Delahunt, your party worked to take down our church, period! Barney Frank and friends declared war on Catholics in 2003 and you and the rest of the Massachusetts delegation, et. al. are part of that war.
You stood last night with people who were previously part of a protest against faithful laypersons inside the Roman Catholic Church in June of 2003. These protesters disturbed innocent faithful people seeking only to worship at their parish church. They have been actively involved in harassing faithful innocent Catholics for several years. Yet, on that day, they with the full blessing of the media who supported you so well on Sunday night, were even more intimidated. That is a felony in this country, sir. Would you be so comfortable and happy standing next to the convicted felons you put in prison as DA of Norfolk County Now you stand up for all priests? No you don't.
It took us a while to figure out who was behind this attack on the Church. We eventually did and we know that one of the groups out trying to silence us was the Massachusetts wing of the Democratic party and their friends from Vermont, headed up by ex-Catholic Howard Dean and his strategists over at the JFK School of Government.
The DNC lost the Catholic vote in 2004 and can assume most of it is gone forever. Nice try on the damage control, but your ship already sunk. ...
Tuesday, December 13, 2005
Boston Globe Normalizing the Abnormal Again
Read this from the Boston Globe and tell us you're not disturbed by the picture of this "happy family": Two "married" dads and their newly adopted baby girl home for Christmas. (WHO is running the adoption agencies?!)
From the Globe Sunday Magazine (Dec. 11), in their series called "COUPLING" ...(Now what vision does that conjure up, speaking of homosexual men?) ... "Home Alone: Three's company when a new family settles in for a quiet holiday":
Despite what gay-marriage foes say, we're hardly extremists at my house - more Waltons than Weather Underground. But we are, nonetheless, about to stage a truly radical action: We're staying home for the holidays....
We will gather our small family around our own tree on Christmas Eve and sleep in our own beds as Santa spreads consumerism from chimney to chimney. On Christmas Day, we will sip cups of espresso (or formula, depending on the age of the Valdes Greenwood involved) and loll about in our living room, refusing to dress for the day....
The only hitch in this plan was revealing it to the people we love. You'd think, what with our having a newborn, we'd get a free pass this once, but no...
We could easily have been swayed by the lure of picking out Baby's First Holiday Outfit - think red velvet - in which to display our girl. But we also knew that the party (indeed fabulous, but very loud) would begin just as our daughter would normally go to sleep; trust me, there isn't enough velvet in the world to soothe our gal if she is awake when she wants to be sleeping. We declined, envisioning instead a night at home that suits her needs. This engendered a sniff of weary disapproval: If we wanted to warp our baby by regimenting her so tirelessly, well, that's our choice. Indeed it is.
From the Globe Sunday Magazine (Dec. 11), in their series called "COUPLING" ...(Now what vision does that conjure up, speaking of homosexual men?) ... "Home Alone: Three's company when a new family settles in for a quiet holiday":
Despite what gay-marriage foes say, we're hardly extremists at my house - more Waltons than Weather Underground. But we are, nonetheless, about to stage a truly radical action: We're staying home for the holidays....
We will gather our small family around our own tree on Christmas Eve and sleep in our own beds as Santa spreads consumerism from chimney to chimney. On Christmas Day, we will sip cups of espresso (or formula, depending on the age of the Valdes Greenwood involved) and loll about in our living room, refusing to dress for the day....
The only hitch in this plan was revealing it to the people we love. You'd think, what with our having a newborn, we'd get a free pass this once, but no...
We could easily have been swayed by the lure of picking out Baby's First Holiday Outfit - think red velvet - in which to display our girl. But we also knew that the party (indeed fabulous, but very loud) would begin just as our daughter would normally go to sleep; trust me, there isn't enough velvet in the world to soothe our gal if she is awake when she wants to be sleeping. We declined, envisioning instead a night at home that suits her needs. This engendered a sniff of weary disapproval: If we wanted to warp our baby by regimenting her so tirelessly, well, that's our choice. Indeed it is.
Monday, December 12, 2005
Polygamy -- Again
For a while, the homosexual activists tried to ridicule the fears of the traditional values supporters that same-sex "marriage" would put us on the road to legalizing polygamy. But more and more stories are coming out that show this is, in fact, where we're headed. And it's harder and harder for them to deny the ultimate goal of their movement. After all, their more open radicals now include "P" in their acronmym ("GLBTQIP").
Yesterday's Washington Times ran a story by Cheryl Wetzstein, "The Marriage of Many" (Dec. 11). Note that the ACLU and Libertarian Party support polygamy. So it's coming our way ... unless we roll back the insanity of same-sex "marriage".
Polygamy has been outlawed in the United States since Colonial days, and despite the notable detour of America's home-grown Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, it seems likely to remain so. The U.S. Supreme Court rejected polygamy in its 1878 decision in Reynolds v. United States, which said government can enforce anti-polygamy laws even if they run counter to people's religious beliefs. Utah's Constitution outlaws polygamy "forever" and, in 2001, the state's anti-polygamy laws were upheld when Thomas Green, a fundamentalist Mormon man with five wives, was sent to prison for bigamy and related crimes.
In recent years, the federal government and 40 states have passed Defense of Marriage Acts and/or constitutional amendments that define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. But two 2003 court rulings changed the legal landscape on sex and marriage: The Lawrence v. Texas decision by the U.S. Supreme Court disallows states to criminalize private sexual behavior among consenting adults, such as sodomy between homosexual men. The Goodridge decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, which legalized same-sex "marriage" in that state, says "the right to marry means little if it does not include the right to marry the person of one's choice."
Taken together, these rulings appear to support a right to polygamy by consenting adults, according to pundits such as conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer. "[I]f marriage is redefined to include two men in love, on what possible principled grounds can it be denied to three men in love?" Mr. Krauthammer has asked....
Polygamy is supported in principle by the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Libertarian Party. In a 2004 commentary in USA Today, George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley said anti-polygamy laws are hypocritical and that Green's 2001 bigamy conviction was "simply a matter of unequal treatment under the law."
Yesterday's Washington Times ran a story by Cheryl Wetzstein, "The Marriage of Many" (Dec. 11). Note that the ACLU and Libertarian Party support polygamy. So it's coming our way ... unless we roll back the insanity of same-sex "marriage".
Polygamy has been outlawed in the United States since Colonial days, and despite the notable detour of America's home-grown Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, it seems likely to remain so. The U.S. Supreme Court rejected polygamy in its 1878 decision in Reynolds v. United States, which said government can enforce anti-polygamy laws even if they run counter to people's religious beliefs. Utah's Constitution outlaws polygamy "forever" and, in 2001, the state's anti-polygamy laws were upheld when Thomas Green, a fundamentalist Mormon man with five wives, was sent to prison for bigamy and related crimes.
In recent years, the federal government and 40 states have passed Defense of Marriage Acts and/or constitutional amendments that define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. But two 2003 court rulings changed the legal landscape on sex and marriage: The Lawrence v. Texas decision by the U.S. Supreme Court disallows states to criminalize private sexual behavior among consenting adults, such as sodomy between homosexual men. The Goodridge decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, which legalized same-sex "marriage" in that state, says "the right to marry means little if it does not include the right to marry the person of one's choice."
Taken together, these rulings appear to support a right to polygamy by consenting adults, according to pundits such as conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer. "[I]f marriage is redefined to include two men in love, on what possible principled grounds can it be denied to three men in love?" Mr. Krauthammer has asked....
Polygamy is supported in principle by the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Libertarian Party. In a 2004 commentary in USA Today, George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley said anti-polygamy laws are hypocritical and that Green's 2001 bigamy conviction was "simply a matter of unequal treatment under the law."
Sunday, December 11, 2005
Maine's Slippery Slope
2005: The year Maine was lost. Soon many of its beautiful cities and towns will be like Provincetown, so lost to depravity you dare not go there.
We've noted the tragedy of the Nov. 8 vote in Maine, which gave the state over to the most radical queer/transgender "rights" bill in the nation. Recently, the Christian Civic League of Maine has posted other very disturbing news stories. Their slippery slope is looking very steep right now.
Just in the past few weeks, semi-nude models were prancing in store windows in Augusta, modeling lingerie. The local press was ga-ga at how "New York" this was, but there was not a word of alarm over where this Maine's public life is trending. Also, a pro-family activist was verbally pummeled -- just for advocating a boycott of a supermarket chain promoting the homosexual agenda. Check out the CCL reports on Nov. 30 and Dec. 5:
Within this year of transformation was a week of shame, a week in which even the most jaded, apathetic citizens were forced to acknowledge that a moral calamity has overtaken Maine.
On Saturday, the Kennebec Journal reported that semi-nude lingerie models were peddling their wares in the window of a store in downtown Augusta. On Monday, the story was picked up by the national news media, and on Tuesday the story had traveled as far as Europe and Australia. The reaction of our state and local lawmakers was a collective snicker, as if nothing bad could ever result from the goings-on at a store named "Spellbound".
On Friday, the Kennebec Journal ran an editorial which praised the store in the highest possible terms. The editorial said that the behavior of the store was "sassy" and "so New York" and that it "spiced up a bit of downtown Augusta that needed improving." Emboldened by the press, the owner of the store promised to add male models; and by Friday, scantily-clad young women were dancing in the store window.
All the while, the media, the Governor's Office, and state and local legislators said nothing about the importance of public morality. Their silence proclaimed to the entire state that lewd and lascivious behavior is now acceptable in public.
We've noted the tragedy of the Nov. 8 vote in Maine, which gave the state over to the most radical queer/transgender "rights" bill in the nation. Recently, the Christian Civic League of Maine has posted other very disturbing news stories. Their slippery slope is looking very steep right now.
Just in the past few weeks, semi-nude models were prancing in store windows in Augusta, modeling lingerie. The local press was ga-ga at how "New York" this was, but there was not a word of alarm over where this Maine's public life is trending. Also, a pro-family activist was verbally pummeled -- just for advocating a boycott of a supermarket chain promoting the homosexual agenda. Check out the CCL reports on Nov. 30 and Dec. 5:
Within this year of transformation was a week of shame, a week in which even the most jaded, apathetic citizens were forced to acknowledge that a moral calamity has overtaken Maine.
On Saturday, the Kennebec Journal reported that semi-nude lingerie models were peddling their wares in the window of a store in downtown Augusta. On Monday, the story was picked up by the national news media, and on Tuesday the story had traveled as far as Europe and Australia. The reaction of our state and local lawmakers was a collective snicker, as if nothing bad could ever result from the goings-on at a store named "Spellbound".
On Friday, the Kennebec Journal ran an editorial which praised the store in the highest possible terms. The editorial said that the behavior of the store was "sassy" and "so New York" and that it "spiced up a bit of downtown Augusta that needed improving." Emboldened by the press, the owner of the store promised to add male models; and by Friday, scantily-clad young women were dancing in the store window.
All the while, the media, the Governor's Office, and state and local legislators said nothing about the importance of public morality. Their silence proclaimed to the entire state that lewd and lascivious behavior is now acceptable in public.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)