We've received a response from the gay analyst we quoted recently, who tried to answer our question, "Where is the statute legalizing homosexual 'marriage'?" (See "Level of Discourse, Part V"). Besides childish name calling, all he could come up with was "judicial review."
Now this same fellow challenges us to "open our hearts," and is certain we'd never publish his follow-up letter (which we do below). What we'd like him to know is that we are aware of, and concerned for, the pain he felt as a child and his continuing distress. But we also believe that he's being drawn into a world which will only lead him deeper into sadness, loneliness, and health problems (both mental and physical). We wish him the best, and hope he might contact a group such as Exodus International or Stephen Bennett Ministries -- people who've been there, done that, and know how to help.
Before his letter, we think it would be enlightening to share this bit about Mike Haley, ex-gay speaker and one of the leaders of Focus on the Family's "Love Won Out" ministry. He was explaining to a reporter from the Harvard Independent what the "Love Won Out" conference (in Boston last October) hoped to convey. [Reported by Jon Liu:]
... I'm ferried to a tiny library towards the back of the church. I'm here to speak to Mike Haley, the director of gender issues for Focus on the Family's Public Policy division.... "Our goal with this conference," Haley tells me, "is to teach the Christian community to balance truth and love when responding to the issue of homosexuality. Oftentimes the church has not done a good job understanding the issue... We find either one of two extremes. One extreme completely condones homosexuality; [the other] takes God's word and thwarts it to the other extreme which says, 'God hates fags....' We're helping [people with a gay loved one] to understand how they can uphold a standard and a belief without doing so in a hateful manner."
Whether the protestors outside like it or not, of course, Haley's sentiments roughly represent those of mainstream America.... "You're gonna have to start dealing with the fact that your child may never walk away from homosexuality," he says. "You have to stop beating them over the head with the Bible. You have to stop treating them like they have no place in your life. You need to continue to love your child and be open to whatever conversation that needs to be had."
I ask Haley how he responds to the critics who argue that treating homosexuality as curable puts young people at risk for depression, self-hatred, and suicide. He turns inward. "All I can say is I look at the situation when I was a sixteen-, fifteen-, fourteen-year-old boy dealing with same-sex attractions, and I was told that I was born gay. Let me tell you the depression and the suicidal feelings that that brought in my life. So what we're promoting today is that we tell truth to students.... There is no study that proves that homosexuality is genetic, but yet we see that over and over..."
Haley gives a list of mistruths he says are spread by schools and the mainstream media about sexual orientation. He wants public school students to have the "accurate information" - namely that homosexuality is a condition, not an essence. "If they decide that homosexuality is for them, then they have a right in America to embrace that. But I also want a right as a person who doesn't want homosexuality in my life...to walk away from homosexuality."
It's a conciliatory stance, and a telling one. The frame becomes that of self-determination - the idea that one can simply "walk away" - and it echoes quite noticeably the position held by the leftists at the war protest: We must break through the mental constraints, to transcend what we are told and make an approach towards truth. Haley, who lived for fifteen years as a gay man and still attends pro-gay conferences, tells me, "I wish the gay activists that are outside would come in and listen to what we're saying." But would he let them in now, off the street and unregistered? "Absolutely not. Because they're not willing to dialogue. What are they afraid of?" [emphasis added]
With Haley's comments in mind, read the comments from the young "gay" man:
I am very pleased to see my words on the blog! The [sic] thing is pretty funny, as I did not know you were looking for perfect english in email comments! HAHA! This is how I really feel, as do many gay people. Maybe it would give your readers some insight into our minds.....
I am 24 years old. I came out when I was 14. I told my parents, family, friend, and school that I am gay 10 years ago. I remember realizing I am gay when I was about 12. For two years I prayed to god to change me. To make me "normal". I, like many many other young gay teens, tried to take my own life rather than admit my sexuality. Fortunately my attempt was not successful.
In time I realized that I was born gay, all homosexuals are. I am gay the same was that Martin Luther King is black. We cannot change who we are. God made me gay because he loves me and he wants me to be gay. That is OK, it is not a bad thing. Homosexuality is natural and normal. Science is proving that more and more everyday. You and your friends are living in the dark ages. Just as people used to attack black people, you know attack me and other gays and lesbians.
I told you of my attempted suicide. Why did I attempt? I did that because when I was 13 I thought that it would be better to be dead than gay. Why did I feel that way? I tried to kill myself because of people like you. People like you that spread the lies of homophobia. Many children commit suicide because of your actions.
I pray for you to stop harming children that are growing up in this homophobic society. Real people of god would do everything they could to stop this epidemic. And lucky there are many many people who are fighting the terrible problem of homophobia. Unfortunately you are on the wrong side.
Your actions are dangerous. Your actions are harming the lives of many families and many many young people.
I will fight you and your colleagues everyday in every way to protect the lives of young people realizing they were born gay. I will fight you everyday in my efforts to tell the truth about homosexuality. And because God is on the side of Love, I know I will win. Every minority gets their civil rights eventually. Just look at the last 40 years. Gays have made HUGE strides in gaining their civil rights. We are well on our way. Maybe it is time for you to stop fighting to take away a minority's civil rights.
I pray for you and your colleagues to see the light. It is possible if you open you eyes, open your ears, but most importantly open your heart. I will be surpised if you post this. I imagine that you would only post things I write that you can use in some way.
[emphasis added]
Sunday, January 15, 2006
Saturday, January 14, 2006
Haskins Part IV - Elephant in the Room: "Gay Marriage" Still Not Legal
Here is Part IV of our series by John Haskins on why "gay marriage" is still not legal in Massachusetts. [See Part I, Part II, Part III.]
The elephant in the living room that the Boston Globe's homosexual editors won't allow to be reported honestly is that the gender-specific language in Massachusetts law does itself already preclude same-sex "marriage."
Let's set up a remote analogy to get some perspective. If a treaty is ratified between the United States and France, no separate law is needed to stop Germany claiming in an American court that it is party to that treaty. The parties were already enumerated: the United States and France (or in the case of marriage, a man and a woman.) The Supreme Court cannot legally re-interpret that treaty to include Germany. Courts have no jurisdiction over treaties as long as they do not compromise U.S sovereignty, etc. Legislators could ratify a new treaty with Germany, or perhaps modify the old treaty to include Germany. But Courts cannot tamper with treaties. Germany is not mentioned in the treaty, and courts have no jurisdiction in foreign policy. Clear.
Similarly, Massachusetts courts have no jurisdiction in marriage policy. Zero. Period. Under the state constitution they can "rule" any way they want, but it is meaningless noise -- no more binding than if an eight-year-old announces that he is emperor of the United States. That is what the three dissenting justices in the Goodridge case essentially pointed out. So the court's ruling is out of the picture -- totally unenforceable.
We are left only with an ambitious governor who wants to please the Boston Globe. Let's not forget Governor Romney's record includes: banishing the Boy Scouts from the Olympics for their policy of refusing homosexual applicants for scoutmaster; publicly rebuking his wife, son, and daughter-in-law for signing the original petition to amend the Mass. Constitution to define marriage; and calling those behind the petition "religious bigots".
Then in 2004 Romney, under no legal pressure at all from an illegal ruling, decided to demand the resignations of any state officials who valued their oaths to the constitution more highly than the illegal court ruling. No one stood up for them and they lost their jobs. The Globe's homosexual editors provided cover for Romney and -- stupidly-- some pro-family activists, conservative pundits, and politicians pretended (and still pretend) there was some kind of constitutional obligation pushing Romney to start handing out licenses to homosexual couples!
In fact, Romney has no legal right to issue such licenses since they violate the laws of the state. The new same-sex "marriage" licenses are legally void because they do not include the two parties enumerated in the law: "husband" and "wife." (The new licenses say "Party A and Party B"!) That's the prohibition that people are missing. "Husband" and "wife" are an essential part of the marriage law. Romney cannot get around that. Only the legislature could negate the "husband" and "wife" requirement. Even if they ever do change the law, the licenses issued prior would remain legally null.
We'll keep losing battles and arguments if we do not hammer away tirelessly at the constitutional contradictions of the Massachusetts homosexual "marriage" ruling. It is much more obviously anti-constitutional than almost any ruling that I know of in American history -- including the fraudulent Roe v. Wade. It is a terrible mistake -- surrendering something strategically indispensable, actually -- to say "homosexual marriage is now legal in Massachusetts" or that the court "gave same-sex couples the right to marry." Courts cannot give rights.
The elephant in the living room that the Boston Globe's homosexual editors won't allow to be reported honestly is that the gender-specific language in Massachusetts law does itself already preclude same-sex "marriage."
Let's set up a remote analogy to get some perspective. If a treaty is ratified between the United States and France, no separate law is needed to stop Germany claiming in an American court that it is party to that treaty. The parties were already enumerated: the United States and France (or in the case of marriage, a man and a woman.) The Supreme Court cannot legally re-interpret that treaty to include Germany. Courts have no jurisdiction over treaties as long as they do not compromise U.S sovereignty, etc. Legislators could ratify a new treaty with Germany, or perhaps modify the old treaty to include Germany. But Courts cannot tamper with treaties. Germany is not mentioned in the treaty, and courts have no jurisdiction in foreign policy. Clear.
Similarly, Massachusetts courts have no jurisdiction in marriage policy. Zero. Period. Under the state constitution they can "rule" any way they want, but it is meaningless noise -- no more binding than if an eight-year-old announces that he is emperor of the United States. That is what the three dissenting justices in the Goodridge case essentially pointed out. So the court's ruling is out of the picture -- totally unenforceable.
We are left only with an ambitious governor who wants to please the Boston Globe. Let's not forget Governor Romney's record includes: banishing the Boy Scouts from the Olympics for their policy of refusing homosexual applicants for scoutmaster; publicly rebuking his wife, son, and daughter-in-law for signing the original petition to amend the Mass. Constitution to define marriage; and calling those behind the petition "religious bigots".
Then in 2004 Romney, under no legal pressure at all from an illegal ruling, decided to demand the resignations of any state officials who valued their oaths to the constitution more highly than the illegal court ruling. No one stood up for them and they lost their jobs. The Globe's homosexual editors provided cover for Romney and -- stupidly-- some pro-family activists, conservative pundits, and politicians pretended (and still pretend) there was some kind of constitutional obligation pushing Romney to start handing out licenses to homosexual couples!
In fact, Romney has no legal right to issue such licenses since they violate the laws of the state. The new same-sex "marriage" licenses are legally void because they do not include the two parties enumerated in the law: "husband" and "wife." (The new licenses say "Party A and Party B"!) That's the prohibition that people are missing. "Husband" and "wife" are an essential part of the marriage law. Romney cannot get around that. Only the legislature could negate the "husband" and "wife" requirement. Even if they ever do change the law, the licenses issued prior would remain legally null.
We'll keep losing battles and arguments if we do not hammer away tirelessly at the constitutional contradictions of the Massachusetts homosexual "marriage" ruling. It is much more obviously anti-constitutional than almost any ruling that I know of in American history -- including the fraudulent Roe v. Wade. It is a terrible mistake -- surrendering something strategically indispensable, actually -- to say "homosexual marriage is now legal in Massachusetts" or that the court "gave same-sex couples the right to marry." Courts cannot give rights.
Friday, January 13, 2006
Would Pope Approve of "Benefits Fairness" Legislation?
Catholic World News reported on Jan 12, "Pope rebukes Italian officials on civil-union proposal...". This is of special interest in light of the Mass. Catholic Bishops' support of the recently proposed "Benefits Fairness" bill they filed with VoteOnMarriage.org in our Mass. legislature.
"Pope Benedict stressed that 'marriage and the family are not a chance sociological construction.' On the contrary, he said, 'the right relationship between man and woman is rooted in the essential core of the human being,' and the state's recognition of that relationship is essential to the health of society. 'What we are talking about here are not norms peculiar to Catholic morality, but elementary truths about our shared humanity,' the Pope continued.
"In a clear reference to the proposal to recognize civil unions-- known as 'PACS' in Italy-- the Pontiff warned that it would be a 'grave error' to grant 'inappropriate forms of legal recognition, for which there is no real social need, to forms of union' other than marriage."
"Pope Benedict stressed that 'marriage and the family are not a chance sociological construction.' On the contrary, he said, 'the right relationship between man and woman is rooted in the essential core of the human being,' and the state's recognition of that relationship is essential to the health of society. 'What we are talking about here are not norms peculiar to Catholic morality, but elementary truths about our shared humanity,' the Pope continued.
"In a clear reference to the proposal to recognize civil unions-- known as 'PACS' in Italy-- the Pontiff warned that it would be a 'grave error' to grant 'inappropriate forms of legal recognition, for which there is no real social need, to forms of union' other than marriage."
Thursday, January 12, 2006
Romney Violates Constitution on "Gay Marriage" - Part III of Haskins Series
Herewith, Part III of John Haskins' series on judicial tyranny and the Homosexual "Marriage" Ruling. (See "Gays Can't Answer: Where Is Statute Legalizing 'Gay Marriage'?", Part I and Part II below.)
Lawmaking by judges is explicitly illegal and non-binding. Void, null, without meaning, as Jefferson, Madison, Jackson, Lincoln, and many others said.
An oath by a public official to uphold a constitution is primarily an oath to block a creeping coup d'etat by the other branches or by the bureaucracy (or by another level of the local, state, federal system).
On the specifics of the Massachusetts situation: Laws have descriptive terminology in them that reveals the intent of the legislature. Massachusetts law has gender-specific language. This language is legally binding on everyone, including Supreme Court justices. Only the legislature, or the people themselves, can erase it.
If this were not true, judges could deconstruct every single law in existence and give it meanings unrelated to the legislature's intended meaning. Under whose definition would this be democracy? How many American soldiers have died to defend the right of judges to randomly rule over the ratified laws of elected representatives of the people? Zero, I think.
Governor Romney cannot give valid licenses to anyone that are not authorized by law. He is an "executive" sworn to execute only laws ratified by the Legislature within the strict boundaries of the constitutional document.
If a court rules that the state constitution compels that all red-headed boys be refused health care, is a governor to take their word for it or to pull out his copy of the constitution? His oath is not to a court's interpretation. It is to the constitution. Read Jefferson on this.
A governor has not merely the right, but an inescapable obligation to enforce the state constitution as written. Outside of those boundaries he becomes a tyrant -- maybe a handsome, smiley, affable tyrant, but a tyrant -- and no court can give him additional constitutional authority to wander. You may agree with the policy outcome and think him a benevolent tyrant, just as handsome as dictators come, but he nevertheless meets the Founding Fathers' definition of a tyrant.
So Romney violated the constitution by ignoring marriage law as ratified, simply because he was under "pressure" from a court and from the Boston Globe to ignore the law.
If marriage laws "need updating" (to use a loaded phrase that usually reveals a basic belief that laws and moral concepts have a "sell-by" date after which they are obsolete), the people, through their elected legislature or state ballot initiative, are the only ones with constitutional authority to annul or "update" laws.
This is endlessly re-stated -- and very forcefully -- in the language of the Founders and is the core of constitutional (republican) democracy. It is perhaps more explicitly formulated in the Massachusetts Constitution (written by John Adams) than anywhere else.
The point that people just don't get is that we are, sadly, in a post-constitutional phase of our political history. Many judges and legal scholars are frank about this off the record. My recent column,"No More Striking Down Constitutions" in the American Spectator, addresses this.
Lawyers do not even study constitutions in law school. They study case law -- precedent -- and their professors call that "constitutional law."
Aside from the three dissenting justices and the appellate court judge, those who have pointed out the raw tyranny of this ruling are simply not given much access to the media, even to the "establishment" conservative media.
As I recall, except for the overtly anti-constitutionalist Lawrence Tribe, the entirety of Harvard Law faculty who went on record rejected the courts' claimed right to impose any general policy on marriage. It's not rocket science.
Lawmaking by judges is explicitly illegal and non-binding. Void, null, without meaning, as Jefferson, Madison, Jackson, Lincoln, and many others said.
An oath by a public official to uphold a constitution is primarily an oath to block a creeping coup d'etat by the other branches or by the bureaucracy (or by another level of the local, state, federal system).
On the specifics of the Massachusetts situation: Laws have descriptive terminology in them that reveals the intent of the legislature. Massachusetts law has gender-specific language. This language is legally binding on everyone, including Supreme Court justices. Only the legislature, or the people themselves, can erase it.
If this were not true, judges could deconstruct every single law in existence and give it meanings unrelated to the legislature's intended meaning. Under whose definition would this be democracy? How many American soldiers have died to defend the right of judges to randomly rule over the ratified laws of elected representatives of the people? Zero, I think.
Governor Romney cannot give valid licenses to anyone that are not authorized by law. He is an "executive" sworn to execute only laws ratified by the Legislature within the strict boundaries of the constitutional document.
If a court rules that the state constitution compels that all red-headed boys be refused health care, is a governor to take their word for it or to pull out his copy of the constitution? His oath is not to a court's interpretation. It is to the constitution. Read Jefferson on this.
A governor has not merely the right, but an inescapable obligation to enforce the state constitution as written. Outside of those boundaries he becomes a tyrant -- maybe a handsome, smiley, affable tyrant, but a tyrant -- and no court can give him additional constitutional authority to wander. You may agree with the policy outcome and think him a benevolent tyrant, just as handsome as dictators come, but he nevertheless meets the Founding Fathers' definition of a tyrant.
So Romney violated the constitution by ignoring marriage law as ratified, simply because he was under "pressure" from a court and from the Boston Globe to ignore the law.
If marriage laws "need updating" (to use a loaded phrase that usually reveals a basic belief that laws and moral concepts have a "sell-by" date after which they are obsolete), the people, through their elected legislature or state ballot initiative, are the only ones with constitutional authority to annul or "update" laws.
This is endlessly re-stated -- and very forcefully -- in the language of the Founders and is the core of constitutional (republican) democracy. It is perhaps more explicitly formulated in the Massachusetts Constitution (written by John Adams) than anywhere else.
The point that people just don't get is that we are, sadly, in a post-constitutional phase of our political history. Many judges and legal scholars are frank about this off the record. My recent column,"No More Striking Down Constitutions" in the American Spectator, addresses this.
Lawyers do not even study constitutions in law school. They study case law -- precedent -- and their professors call that "constitutional law."
Aside from the three dissenting justices and the appellate court judge, those who have pointed out the raw tyranny of this ruling are simply not given much access to the media, even to the "establishment" conservative media.
As I recall, except for the overtly anti-constitutionalist Lawrence Tribe, the entirety of Harvard Law faculty who went on record rejected the courts' claimed right to impose any general policy on marriage. It's not rocket science.
Wednesday, January 11, 2006
Mass. Family Institute & VoteOnMarriage Advocate "New Rights"
The Mass. Family Institute (MFI), VoteOnMarriage.org, and Governor Romney today unveiled their inexplicable "Benefits Fairness" bill. It would "ensur[e] new rights, benefits and protections for adults ineligible for marriage" (their words in quotes). They first promised this bill when promoting their new marriage amendment last June.
The queer activists and MassResistance would agree that this is not a consistent plan: After allowing "marriage" to one group of homosexual couples, later offering only a "benefits" sop to homosexuals will be seen as second-class treatment, a withdrawal of a "right". Homosexuals either are or aren't equal in terms of "domestic" rights. There's no in-between. And if they are equal, why not let them "marry"?
And what, please, does "NEW RIGHTS" mean? We thought true rights were God-given, and that we simply figure out how to define and codify them. We don't make up "NEW RIGHTS"! (Though we may rectify improper denial of true rights, as in the abolition of slavery.) MassResistance first addressed this problem back in September 2005.
Our reaction to this bill is that it's disingenuous. While it's really all about special "rights" for homosexuals, our would-be allies are pretending it's about generic "rights" -- including for mythical groups that have never stormed the State House demanding their "rights". Has there ever been a march by non-next-of-kin groups ("interdependent mutually supportive relationships who are ineligible for marriage but who nevertheless would benefit from a status similar to next-of-kin status") -- other than queer activists?
From MFI's press release (Jan. 11, 2006):
"Newton Upper Falls, MA - VoteOnMarriage.org - the campaign to allow voters to decide on the definition of marriage in Massachusetts - today announced, along with a bi-partisan group of state legislators, the filing of the Benefits Fairness Act.
"The Benefits Fairness Act would ensure that citizens in the Commonwealth who are ineligible for marriage are afforded necessary rights, protections, and benefits not currently provided for under Massachusetts law.
"Specifically the Act entitles two Massachusetts adults who are ineligible for marriage to enter into a legal arrangement which provides for reciprocal hospital visitation, health care proxy designation, after-death decisions, inheritance and estate designation, and mental health decisions. The legislation also enables employers to include this new designation in their life, health and other benefits programs."
(See the complete MFI press release, and details on the bill.)
So, just as MFI-VoteOnMarriage did in their new proposed "protection of marriage" amendment (which lets existing homosexual "marriages" stand), they're again trying to placate the queer activists. But the very act of addressing this group implies an acquiescence to their demands for special "rights" -- when such demands aren't worthy of any response at all! This bill legitimizes homosexuality as a basis for a domestic relationships sanctioned by the state.
"The Act is strongly endorsed by VoteOnMarriage.org and the allied organizations that seek to define marriage in Massachusetts as the exclusive union of one man and one woman."
[...Except for those homosexual "marriages" solemnized by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts between May 17, 2004 and the date their amendment should take effect...]
" 'Do we have compassion for the needs of people? Absolutely! However the natural marriage relationship as it has been defined for millennia is fundamental, distinct and unique,' [except for that period between 5/17/04 and the amendment taking effect] said Kris Mineau, spokesman, VoteOnMarriage.org and president, Massachusetts Family Institute."
MassResistance does feel a little bad. We've gone back on our promise not to bring up our disagreement with the amendment again. But this benefits bill was just too much for us!
The queer activists and MassResistance would agree that this is not a consistent plan: After allowing "marriage" to one group of homosexual couples, later offering only a "benefits" sop to homosexuals will be seen as second-class treatment, a withdrawal of a "right". Homosexuals either are or aren't equal in terms of "domestic" rights. There's no in-between. And if they are equal, why not let them "marry"?
And what, please, does "NEW RIGHTS" mean? We thought true rights were God-given, and that we simply figure out how to define and codify them. We don't make up "NEW RIGHTS"! (Though we may rectify improper denial of true rights, as in the abolition of slavery.) MassResistance first addressed this problem back in September 2005.
Our reaction to this bill is that it's disingenuous. While it's really all about special "rights" for homosexuals, our would-be allies are pretending it's about generic "rights" -- including for mythical groups that have never stormed the State House demanding their "rights". Has there ever been a march by non-next-of-kin groups ("interdependent mutually supportive relationships who are ineligible for marriage but who nevertheless would benefit from a status similar to next-of-kin status") -- other than queer activists?
From MFI's press release (Jan. 11, 2006):
"Newton Upper Falls, MA - VoteOnMarriage.org - the campaign to allow voters to decide on the definition of marriage in Massachusetts - today announced, along with a bi-partisan group of state legislators, the filing of the Benefits Fairness Act.
"The Benefits Fairness Act would ensure that citizens in the Commonwealth who are ineligible for marriage are afforded necessary rights, protections, and benefits not currently provided for under Massachusetts law.
"Specifically the Act entitles two Massachusetts adults who are ineligible for marriage to enter into a legal arrangement which provides for reciprocal hospital visitation, health care proxy designation, after-death decisions, inheritance and estate designation, and mental health decisions. The legislation also enables employers to include this new designation in their life, health and other benefits programs."
(See the complete MFI press release, and details on the bill.)
So, just as MFI-VoteOnMarriage did in their new proposed "protection of marriage" amendment (which lets existing homosexual "marriages" stand), they're again trying to placate the queer activists. But the very act of addressing this group implies an acquiescence to their demands for special "rights" -- when such demands aren't worthy of any response at all! This bill legitimizes homosexuality as a basis for a domestic relationships sanctioned by the state.
"The Act is strongly endorsed by VoteOnMarriage.org and the allied organizations that seek to define marriage in Massachusetts as the exclusive union of one man and one woman."
[...Except for those homosexual "marriages" solemnized by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts between May 17, 2004 and the date their amendment should take effect...]
" 'Do we have compassion for the needs of people? Absolutely! However the natural marriage relationship as it has been defined for millennia is fundamental, distinct and unique,' [except for that period between 5/17/04 and the amendment taking effect] said Kris Mineau, spokesman, VoteOnMarriage.org and president, Massachusetts Family Institute."
MassResistance does feel a little bad. We've gone back on our promise not to bring up our disagreement with the amendment again. But this benefits bill was just too much for us!
Level of Discourse, Part V
Finally! We got answers to our question, "Where is the statute legalizing homosexual 'marriage'?" Here it is:
Dear [MassResistance]:
I CAN ANSWER YOUR QUESTION ... why is gay marriage legal. I am very surprised that you dont [sic] know. I though [sic] you had lawyer friends - like the one that helped you spy on those kids in school.
Well, anyone that [sic] has studied law at all (even a beginners [sic] class) know [sic] this..... It is not hard at all. Find a lawyer (a real lawyer, not some scam lawyer like you usually find). The answer that everyone understands, including High school [sic] children I am sure, [sic] is.... I still cant [sic] believe that you dont [sic] know this!!! HAHAHAHHAH!!!
The answer is Judicial review! DUH! Read a law book!!!
HAHAHHA! You guys are GREAT for a laugh! I show my friends your blog and they laugh too, wondering how anyone could not know this basic legal information!
This person has been communicating with us for some time now. We hope it gives him/her/? satisfaction seeing his/her/? brilliant thoughts published.
And here's another answer we received:
looking at your blog - gays cant answer why gay marriage is legal. Who cares!!! We have won! Marriage discrimination is over in Massachusetts because the SJC said so. That is it! Final! Who cares why! All I care is that I can marry my boyfriend and get the same rights as my parents. I dont care why it is legal, it just is. And that is a wonderful thing!
Dear [MassResistance]:
I CAN ANSWER YOUR QUESTION ... why is gay marriage legal. I am very surprised that you dont [sic] know. I though [sic] you had lawyer friends - like the one that helped you spy on those kids in school.
Well, anyone that [sic] has studied law at all (even a beginners [sic] class) know [sic] this..... It is not hard at all. Find a lawyer (a real lawyer, not some scam lawyer like you usually find). The answer that everyone understands, including High school [sic] children I am sure, [sic] is.... I still cant [sic] believe that you dont [sic] know this!!! HAHAHAHHAH!!!
The answer is Judicial review! DUH! Read a law book!!!
HAHAHHA! You guys are GREAT for a laugh! I show my friends your blog and they laugh too, wondering how anyone could not know this basic legal information!
This person has been communicating with us for some time now. We hope it gives him/her/? satisfaction seeing his/her/? brilliant thoughts published.
And here's another answer we received:
looking at your blog - gays cant answer why gay marriage is legal. Who cares!!! We have won! Marriage discrimination is over in Massachusetts because the SJC said so. That is it! Final! Who cares why! All I care is that I can marry my boyfriend and get the same rights as my parents. I dont care why it is legal, it just is. And that is a wonderful thing!
Tuesday, January 10, 2006
"Gays" Can't Answer: Is "Gay Marriage" Legal? Part II
A few days ago, we posted the first part of John Haskins' response to the queer activists' feeble attempt to answer our question: where is the statute legalizing homosexual "marriage"?
Here is Part II of John Haskins' response (and there's more to come...):
In the spirit of friendship, here are some gifts to those who dedicate their days and nights to ensure that no American child a generation from now will have the faintest clue what it was like when children were allowed to be children and learn of the human family, sexuality, and morality in the manner and definitions that formed their civilization -- Some crib notes on Beacon Hill's homosexual marriage scam (and remember the Boston Globe doesn't get to mark the final examination):
Laws forbid things not only explicitly but implicitly. Laws usually implicitly forbid far more than they explicitly forbid. Existing Massachusetts marriage law HAS gender-specific language which implicitly requires one husband and one wife to fulfill the two enumerated categories of the contract. The language in those laws remains binding. Judges can't tinker with it. Period.
Judges can't just cynically conjure up bizarre new meanings agreed upon at their last cocktail party to (as with Roe v Wade) and ignore actual ratified language in other laws (like Massachusetts marriage law) because they don't like what they mean. That's how the Soviets practiced "jurisprudence:" making it up as they went along, despite what is said to have been a beautiful and glorious Soviet constitution.
Under the Massachusetts constitution, judges have no authority to strike down any law, to change its meaning -- or to order the two elected branches to do anything. When an attorney argues otherwise he is arguing not from the state constitution, but mindlessly importing dubious legal theories on the United States Constitution that do not apply to the Massachusetts Constitution, because the state constitution forcefully rejects judicial policymaking in multiple ways.
Our state constitution explicitly denies the court ANY jurisdiction over marriage -- as the three dissenting justices and an appellate court forcefully pointed out. Whatever opinions on marriage they might issue are categorically illegal rulings, thus non-binding.
(Are we having fun yet?)
Moreover, even if the state constitution did not totally deny judges a voice in marriage, the ruling could only apply to the specific plaintiff in the case, because the state constitution says the people are "not bound by any law not ratified by their elected representatives in the legislature." Even if a Massachusetts court ruling were "law" it would not be binding on the people outside the courtroom. READ the state constitution! We were established as an elective democracy through the bloody sacrifices of American soldiers who would never have died for a Judge's or a cowardly Governor's right to overrule democracy and the constitution in one fell swoop. The state's fundamental legal document denies courts ANY binding role in shaping policy. They sit under the law, never over it.
(Are we having fun now?)
The reasons go on and on. There is no way around them. They are fatal problems for the homosexual "marriage" cause, as more than one judge and attorney has pointed out. Read my article, 'Conservative' Romney buckles and blunders, then study the relevant portions of the Massachusetts Constitution and it will dawn on you that in at least four different ways these homosexual "marriages" exist only outside the law. Void. Null. Illegal. A political fantasy. Well -- that's if constitutions count when they negate left-wing agendas.
Here is Part II of John Haskins' response (and there's more to come...):
In the spirit of friendship, here are some gifts to those who dedicate their days and nights to ensure that no American child a generation from now will have the faintest clue what it was like when children were allowed to be children and learn of the human family, sexuality, and morality in the manner and definitions that formed their civilization -- Some crib notes on Beacon Hill's homosexual marriage scam (and remember the Boston Globe doesn't get to mark the final examination):
Laws forbid things not only explicitly but implicitly. Laws usually implicitly forbid far more than they explicitly forbid. Existing Massachusetts marriage law HAS gender-specific language which implicitly requires one husband and one wife to fulfill the two enumerated categories of the contract. The language in those laws remains binding. Judges can't tinker with it. Period.
Judges can't just cynically conjure up bizarre new meanings agreed upon at their last cocktail party to (as with Roe v Wade) and ignore actual ratified language in other laws (like Massachusetts marriage law) because they don't like what they mean. That's how the Soviets practiced "jurisprudence:" making it up as they went along, despite what is said to have been a beautiful and glorious Soviet constitution.
Under the Massachusetts constitution, judges have no authority to strike down any law, to change its meaning -- or to order the two elected branches to do anything. When an attorney argues otherwise he is arguing not from the state constitution, but mindlessly importing dubious legal theories on the United States Constitution that do not apply to the Massachusetts Constitution, because the state constitution forcefully rejects judicial policymaking in multiple ways.
Our state constitution explicitly denies the court ANY jurisdiction over marriage -- as the three dissenting justices and an appellate court forcefully pointed out. Whatever opinions on marriage they might issue are categorically illegal rulings, thus non-binding.
(Are we having fun yet?)
Moreover, even if the state constitution did not totally deny judges a voice in marriage, the ruling could only apply to the specific plaintiff in the case, because the state constitution says the people are "not bound by any law not ratified by their elected representatives in the legislature." Even if a Massachusetts court ruling were "law" it would not be binding on the people outside the courtroom. READ the state constitution! We were established as an elective democracy through the bloody sacrifices of American soldiers who would never have died for a Judge's or a cowardly Governor's right to overrule democracy and the constitution in one fell swoop. The state's fundamental legal document denies courts ANY binding role in shaping policy. They sit under the law, never over it.
(Are we having fun now?)
The reasons go on and on. There is no way around them. They are fatal problems for the homosexual "marriage" cause, as more than one judge and attorney has pointed out. Read my article, 'Conservative' Romney buckles and blunders, then study the relevant portions of the Massachusetts Constitution and it will dawn on you that in at least four different ways these homosexual "marriages" exist only outside the law. Void. Null. Illegal. A political fantasy. Well -- that's if constitutions count when they negate left-wing agendas.
Monday, January 09, 2006
"Gay" Activists Will Use "Any Means Necessary"
The queer activists at MassEquality and KnowThyNeighbor made charges of fraudulent signatures on the VoteOnMarriage.org marriage petition, but the deadline for filing formal complaints with the Secretary of State has past, and no complaints were filed! After KnowThyNeighbor made fools of themselves on the O'Reilly Factor last week, we now read that MassEquality hasn't been able to come up with the goods they promised either.
Some conservatives (including yours truly) are not personally allied with this particular marriage amendment proposal. Nevertheless, we believe in an honest political process. But clearly, the queer activists do not. Here is what the homosexual newspaper Bay Windows' editorial has to say about the new marriage petition (Editorial: "2006 To Do List", Jan. 5 issue). Note that they plan to take down the amendment "through any means necessary"and "through procedural maneuvering" in the Legislature (key to that being Senate President Travaglini):
The most crucial fight this year is the campaign to defeat the constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. MassEquality is leading the charge to squash this amendment, which is expected to come before the Legislature this spring or summer. A date will most likely be set during the May 10 constitutional convention. But the odds are stacked against defeat of this amendment. As a citizen-petition amendment, it only needs the support of one quarter of lawmakers in two successive sessions to wind up on the ballot, and even with MassEquality’s electoral successes in the last few years, VoteOnMarriage.org, the proponents of the amendment, should have no trouble getting enough votes.
Between now and the ConCon, legislators need to hear from you, your family, your friends and anyone else who cares about LGBT equality. Let them know that they need to stop this amendment by any means necessary, whether that means pulling together a supermajority to vote it down or killing it through procedural maneuvering before it comes up for a vote. You and your friends must also contact Senate President Robert Travaglini. As the man who holds the gavel at the ConCon, Travaglini will be instrumental in the success of any parliamentary quashing of the amendment.
Maybe the procedural maneuvering will include using House Bill H653, which was filed by Article 8 Alliance back in Dec. 2004 to define marriage in statute (one man, one woman). Openly "gay" Sen. Barrios somehow maneuvered our bill into a constitutional amendment proposal last year! (No one quite understands how or why he did this, though we suspected at the time he was positioning it for future use -- possibly to block the VoteOnMarriage citizens' petition amendment.) Only time will tell.
Here's the Mass. Family Institute's email alert today (1-9-06) on the signature issue:
VoteOnMarriage.org Seeks Investigation of Anti-Vote Websites and Prosecution of Paid Circulator; No Formal Challenges Filed by Signature Opponents
Newton Upper Falls, MA - VoteOnMarriage.org - the campaign to allow voters to decide on the definition of marriage in Massachusetts - today issued a letter to Secretary of the Commonwealth William Galvin with a copy to Attorney General Thomas Reilly regarding complaints and practices related to the campaigns for and against the marriage-vote effort.
The letter details that VoteOnMarriage.org sought to comply fully with all applicable laws during the signature gathering process and had been found in full compliance by the Attorney General. However, the only case of fraud of which VoteOneMarriage.org is aware - the admission before a legislative committee and to the media by paid circulator Angela McElroy that she misrepresented the marriage petition in potentially 269 cases - has yet to be investigated by authorities.
VoteOnMarriage.org calls on the proper authorities to prosecute this and any other circulator who intentionally misrepresented the petition. (Of note, VoteOnMarriage.org's sub-contracted agent dismissed Ms. McElroy from her employment, with cause, prior to her public admission.) VoteOnMarriage.org pledges to cooperate fully in any investigation and welcomes the opportunity to bring to justice anyone who has violated the law.
The letter also raises grave concerns about the legitimacy of petition complaint reporting processes established by the anti-vote organizations KnowThyNeighbor.org and MassEquality.org. Both organizations offer searchable, online databases listing the names of marriage petition signers. Each website invites citizens to search their database and make a complaint to their office and/or to the offices of Secretary Galvin, Attorney General Reilly and state legislators if their name was listed but they did not wish to sign the petition.
While VoteOnMarriage.org respects the First Amendment rights of these organizations, their online complaint process itself invites fraud in that it fails to authenticate the identity of the citizens filing complaints. Any person may pose as a disgruntled marriage petition signer, in essence stealing a legitimate signer's identity, and lodge a fallacious complaint of fraud.
In addition, VoteOnMarriage.org has received a significant number of contacts from petition signers who themselves have received harassing and intimidating live and automated phone calls, as well as mailings, from MassEquality. As has been cited in media reports, these citizens have been frightened that their identities have been stolen and believe the calls and letters are intended to harass and intimidate them - a clear civil rights violation.
"We have no objection to efforts to expose as-of-yet unknown instances of alleged fraud, however, we do object to the manner in which they are carrying out their anti-vote campaign," said Kris Mineau, spokesman VoteOnMarriage.org and president, Massachusetts Family Institute.
VoteOnMarriage.org calls on Secretary Galvin and Attorney General Reilly to take appropriate action to protect petition signers from online, telephone and direct mail threats against their civil liberties, personal safety and security.
The deadline period for filing complaints with the Election's Division of the Secretary of the Commonwealth's office related to the petition process was January 6. No formal challenges to the VoteOnMarriage.org signature-gathering effort were filed.
Some conservatives (including yours truly) are not personally allied with this particular marriage amendment proposal. Nevertheless, we believe in an honest political process. But clearly, the queer activists do not. Here is what the homosexual newspaper Bay Windows' editorial has to say about the new marriage petition (Editorial: "2006 To Do List", Jan. 5 issue). Note that they plan to take down the amendment "through any means necessary"and "through procedural maneuvering" in the Legislature (key to that being Senate President Travaglini):
The most crucial fight this year is the campaign to defeat the constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. MassEquality is leading the charge to squash this amendment, which is expected to come before the Legislature this spring or summer. A date will most likely be set during the May 10 constitutional convention. But the odds are stacked against defeat of this amendment. As a citizen-petition amendment, it only needs the support of one quarter of lawmakers in two successive sessions to wind up on the ballot, and even with MassEquality’s electoral successes in the last few years, VoteOnMarriage.org, the proponents of the amendment, should have no trouble getting enough votes.
Between now and the ConCon, legislators need to hear from you, your family, your friends and anyone else who cares about LGBT equality. Let them know that they need to stop this amendment by any means necessary, whether that means pulling together a supermajority to vote it down or killing it through procedural maneuvering before it comes up for a vote. You and your friends must also contact Senate President Robert Travaglini. As the man who holds the gavel at the ConCon, Travaglini will be instrumental in the success of any parliamentary quashing of the amendment.
Maybe the procedural maneuvering will include using House Bill H653, which was filed by Article 8 Alliance back in Dec. 2004 to define marriage in statute (one man, one woman). Openly "gay" Sen. Barrios somehow maneuvered our bill into a constitutional amendment proposal last year! (No one quite understands how or why he did this, though we suspected at the time he was positioning it for future use -- possibly to block the VoteOnMarriage citizens' petition amendment.) Only time will tell.
Here's the Mass. Family Institute's email alert today (1-9-06) on the signature issue:
VoteOnMarriage.org Seeks Investigation of Anti-Vote Websites and Prosecution of Paid Circulator; No Formal Challenges Filed by Signature Opponents
Newton Upper Falls, MA - VoteOnMarriage.org - the campaign to allow voters to decide on the definition of marriage in Massachusetts - today issued a letter to Secretary of the Commonwealth William Galvin with a copy to Attorney General Thomas Reilly regarding complaints and practices related to the campaigns for and against the marriage-vote effort.
The letter details that VoteOnMarriage.org sought to comply fully with all applicable laws during the signature gathering process and had been found in full compliance by the Attorney General. However, the only case of fraud of which VoteOneMarriage.org is aware - the admission before a legislative committee and to the media by paid circulator Angela McElroy that she misrepresented the marriage petition in potentially 269 cases - has yet to be investigated by authorities.
VoteOnMarriage.org calls on the proper authorities to prosecute this and any other circulator who intentionally misrepresented the petition. (Of note, VoteOnMarriage.org's sub-contracted agent dismissed Ms. McElroy from her employment, with cause, prior to her public admission.) VoteOnMarriage.org pledges to cooperate fully in any investigation and welcomes the opportunity to bring to justice anyone who has violated the law.
The letter also raises grave concerns about the legitimacy of petition complaint reporting processes established by the anti-vote organizations KnowThyNeighbor.org and MassEquality.org. Both organizations offer searchable, online databases listing the names of marriage petition signers. Each website invites citizens to search their database and make a complaint to their office and/or to the offices of Secretary Galvin, Attorney General Reilly and state legislators if their name was listed but they did not wish to sign the petition.
While VoteOnMarriage.org respects the First Amendment rights of these organizations, their online complaint process itself invites fraud in that it fails to authenticate the identity of the citizens filing complaints. Any person may pose as a disgruntled marriage petition signer, in essence stealing a legitimate signer's identity, and lodge a fallacious complaint of fraud.
In addition, VoteOnMarriage.org has received a significant number of contacts from petition signers who themselves have received harassing and intimidating live and automated phone calls, as well as mailings, from MassEquality. As has been cited in media reports, these citizens have been frightened that their identities have been stolen and believe the calls and letters are intended to harass and intimidate them - a clear civil rights violation.
"We have no objection to efforts to expose as-of-yet unknown instances of alleged fraud, however, we do object to the manner in which they are carrying out their anti-vote campaign," said Kris Mineau, spokesman VoteOnMarriage.org and president, Massachusetts Family Institute.
VoteOnMarriage.org calls on Secretary Galvin and Attorney General Reilly to take appropriate action to protect petition signers from online, telephone and direct mail threats against their civil liberties, personal safety and security.
The deadline period for filing complaints with the Election's Division of the Secretary of the Commonwealth's office related to the petition process was January 6. No formal challenges to the VoteOnMarriage.org signature-gathering effort were filed.
Sunday, January 08, 2006
More on "Love Won Out" Ex-Gay Conference in Boston
We were there: MassResistance broke the story to the nation on the near-riot instigated by the radical queer activists (and their anti-war, anti-American Leftist allies) against the ex-gay conference in Boston last October 30. We published the photos, we reported the story. The organizers of the conference in fact tried to prevent us from leaving the building to observe the action on the street, and then tried to keep us from snapping photos and recording the sound (yes, we did that too!).
Then, we well remember the efforts (by conference organizers and hosts) immediately after the conference to downplay the shocking "demonstration", the efforts to "SHUT IT DOWN!" -- to disrupt the conference, and perhaps storm the church.
We suspect that the organizers and their hosts didn't appreciate the significance of the near-riot at first. So we are happy to see they apparently have come to a clearer understanding. Two reports have just surfaced from Focus on the Family with details on what actually happened that day.
First, Focus on the Family's magazine, Citizen Link -- which uses our photo -- reports on the "vitriol" of the demonstrators: "Hate meets hope in Boston" (Jan. 2006):
Their shouts echoed up the canyon-like walls of the buildings on either side: Many made obscene gestures at people watching from inside. A row of shoulder-to-shoulder police officers guarded the church doors from the threatening mob.
Allison Silva, a member of MassEquality, stood near an upright coffin bearing a sign that equated the conference with death.
“What they’re doing is causing suicides,” she said. “It’s causing people (to have) severe mental illness after they’ve gone through treatment that is not successful. Being gay is natural. Homosexuality is natural. It’s just a part of everyone’s life.”
Ashlee Reed, director of Project 10 East, said the conference was “not acceptable.”
“Groups such as these that have programs where they attempt to change people and attempt to make people into something they’re not—it’s a form of bullying,” she said.
Our report included a photo of a poster from the demonstration, which read:
James Dobson:
Racist
Sexist
Anti-gay
The Citizen Link column explains the absurdity of this poster. Besides equating racism with opposition to special "rights" for homosexuals, this poster shows an ignorance of the history of the special church, Boston's Tremont Temple, which hosted the conference.
The church is no stranger to controversy. Though one sign tagged the conference as “racist,” Tremont Temple was the first racially integrated church in America. It was part of the Underground Railroad. It’s where the Emancipation Proclamation was first read in New England. All of that in the face of great opposition.
Pendleton [pastor of the church] said taking a stand for truth ultimately brings people together, including teaching a biblical view of homosexuality.
“I think having such a strong, positive, loving, redemptive message is something that unites a church,” he said. “And that’s what I’m about.”
Then, we well remember the efforts (by conference organizers and hosts) immediately after the conference to downplay the shocking "demonstration", the efforts to "SHUT IT DOWN!" -- to disrupt the conference, and perhaps storm the church.
We suspect that the organizers and their hosts didn't appreciate the significance of the near-riot at first. So we are happy to see they apparently have come to a clearer understanding. Two reports have just surfaced from Focus on the Family with details on what actually happened that day.
First, Focus on the Family's magazine, Citizen Link -- which uses our photo -- reports on the "vitriol" of the demonstrators: "Hate meets hope in Boston" (Jan. 2006):
Their shouts echoed up the canyon-like walls of the buildings on either side: Many made obscene gestures at people watching from inside. A row of shoulder-to-shoulder police officers guarded the church doors from the threatening mob.
Allison Silva, a member of MassEquality, stood near an upright coffin bearing a sign that equated the conference with death.
“What they’re doing is causing suicides,” she said. “It’s causing people (to have) severe mental illness after they’ve gone through treatment that is not successful. Being gay is natural. Homosexuality is natural. It’s just a part of everyone’s life.”
Ashlee Reed, director of Project 10 East, said the conference was “not acceptable.”
“Groups such as these that have programs where they attempt to change people and attempt to make people into something they’re not—it’s a form of bullying,” she said.
Our report included a photo of a poster from the demonstration, which read:
James Dobson:
Racist
Sexist
Anti-gay
The Citizen Link column explains the absurdity of this poster. Besides equating racism with opposition to special "rights" for homosexuals, this poster shows an ignorance of the history of the special church, Boston's Tremont Temple, which hosted the conference.
The church is no stranger to controversy. Though one sign tagged the conference as “racist,” Tremont Temple was the first racially integrated church in America. It was part of the Underground Railroad. It’s where the Emancipation Proclamation was first read in New England. All of that in the face of great opposition.
Pendleton [pastor of the church] said taking a stand for truth ultimately brings people together, including teaching a biblical view of homosexuality.
“I think having such a strong, positive, loving, redemptive message is something that unites a church,” he said. “And that’s what I’m about.”
Second, Dr. James Dobson's radio broadcast interviewed Mike Haley, one of the main ex-gay speakers of the conference, on his radio show on December 27. Haley described the demonstration:
Dobson: You were just in Boston, and there was an unbelievable protest there. Tell us how that happened.
Haley: Well, absolutely. The same day that we had planned our Love Won Out conference, there was also a protest – an anti-war protest with Cindy Sheehan. Well, they had joined sides. We had two thousand protesters in front of our event. About 10-12 policemen shoulder-to-shoulder blocking the entrance of the church. It was just an incredible episode. One of the things that we realized as we looked out on the protesters was the amount of venom that they had for the message…
Dobson: Were they screaming?
Haley: Screaming: “Shut it down! Shut Focus down! Shut it down! Shut this church down!
Dobson: You told us even the police were shaken.
Haley: Absolutely. Dan Patterson, who comes with us on all of our events said that after he was able to talk with some of the policemen that were there -- He said they were visibly shaken and said that absolutely, if they had not been there, they would have stormed the church.
Dobson: How many people were inside?
Haley: We had 900 people in attendance, and that was in Boston....
Saturday, January 07, 2006
"Gays" Can't Answer: Where Is Statute Legalizing "Gay Marriage"?
Our policy at MassResistance is to address the issues. But we've noticed that the "intellectual elite" of their movement doesn't even try to answer some of our more pointed questions, such as:
WHERE IS THE STATUTE IN MASSACHUSETTS LEGALIZING "GAY MARRIAGE"?
So, while we don't like to stoop to their the level, and read their hate/intimidation blogs, we have to give the queer-activists bloggers credit for at least trying to answer this question, insipid as their attempt is. (Marc Solomon, Mary Bonauto: Where are you?)
Here is the best their bloggers can do:
The General Laws of Massachusetts carefully regulate marriage. Unfortunately for the anti folk, it did not originally consider SSM. On the other hand, Chapter 207 starts with 14 very specific Sections forbidding this or that type of marriage - bigamy, incest, underage and on and on.
It goes into the heart of marriage regulation here. The question remains, who is legally entitled to a license to marry? The bulk of the who-can laws related to the license and solemnization. Again, the General Laws are very specific about that. This reinforces the clear distinction carried over from English common law to the Bay Colony to our Commonwealth's constitution, that marriage here is a civil contract. The argument that these stupid people make about "no laws allowing for same sex marriage" is just that, stupid. Forrest was right: Stupid is as stupid does. (- Mass Marrier)
Wow, we are really convinced now that our founders intended to protect same-sex "marriage" in our Constitution! And that the Supreme Judicial Court was acting constitutionally in declaring that "Love Is Love!" And that there is a statute establishing same-sex "marriage"!
Our associate John Haskins answers this silliness from the queer activist blogosphere. Here, we print Part I of his response: So, you have "No Patience for Stupid People"?
Well, the brains over at the offices of SLIBEC (Sodomy Love Is a Beautiful Example for Children), the world-class constitutional and pedagogical think tank running the hate blog "MassresistanceWatch", have weighed in with a truly Jeffersonian masterpiece of constitutional jurisprudence.
It is plagiarized, of course, from other puny Globe-spores sprouting and pushing out tendrils in the cold, bleak outer reaches of Internet darkness (well there are only so many talking points for sabotaging childhood and the human family and they have to be shared around). Mutant political and moral fungi (toxic ideas, not people), thrive -- like their biological counterparts -- in the absence of light. We've answered profligate and unconvincing lies before and the lesson is always the same: the root of things in such places is not the ignorance, so much as the lack of principle. Some dogmas, some people, just need the darkness of ignorance.
And it's not that we greatly dislike these people personally, obsessed though they are with slandering us for insisting that laws and constitutions have meaning. They may be delightful indeed, when taking rest breaks from tearing down constitutional government, instructing public schoolchildren on anal sex, terrorizing worshippers at communion, and breaking into the homes of those who disagree with them on whether children have an inalienable right to a father and a mother, or homosexuals have an inalienable right to possess children.
Likeable or not -- when not fighting for children's right to have homosexuals adopt them and teach them about families and sexual fidelity and well, about sex, -- one unavoidable observation is that the activists claiming to speak for all homosexuals in Massachusetts seem less talented, less literate, less well-read, less honest, far more fanatical, and far more humorless than any single one of the numerous homosexual friends I've had.
Here they go again, almost believing their own propaganda (one might think):
There's a wonderful post over at Marry in Massachusetts that answers the stupid question "Where is the law in Massachusetts that allows for same sex marriage! There is no law. Show me the law!" Mass Marrier is much more kinder [sic] to these people than I would be, I think the people that are spouting this ridiculous rhetoric are just plain stupid, I mean anti-gay Gov. Romney gets it, so does the anti-everything except Christian lawyers group, The Liberty Counsel, otherwise, why would they the sue the state to stop same sex marriages from happening on May 17, 2004? DUH! ( - MassResistanceWatch)
"DUH" and double-DUH. "DUH" means we're stupid. (Or...no, actually...maybe they left out two periods and were signaling for help from other Globe-spores for more hate-lies to throw at our facts.) Facts, being objective and real and true, can be very confusing. Several of our ex-gay friends tell us, chuckling and rolling their eyes, that "D.U.H." in the sophisticated hate code of the homo-Bolshevik underground, means "Don't Understand Half-of-it." So maybe the legal juggernauts over there aren't just slipping into their familiar "Ugly! Meanie! Stupid! Duh! Nana, na nana!" Maybe they've also oiled up their rusty old Nazi Enigma machine and cleverly embedded into their hate-lies a desperate call for help from someone who can read constitutions. Here are some friendly suggestions:
Well, I don't know if it will help, but they could try reading my article a fourth and a fifth time -- slowly. A firsthand glance at the actual Massachusetts Constitution would be way too much to ask. Or they could call and make an appointment with the cleaning lady who dusts the offices of the three Supreme Judicial Court Justices in Boston who carefully explained why the Goodridge ruling is unconstitutional. (Hint: The constitution negates any policy-making by courts and very specifically voids any role they attempt to play in matters of marriage).
This word-meaning stuff is really complicated when more than four letters are involved, but there are some standout cleaning ladies at the court who can read well enough to understand that a homosexual marriage "license" based on a court ruling, a boy-Governor's Freudian terror of lady justices, and editorials in homosexual newspapers are a lot like Confederate money (hint: backed by the wrong constitution!).
It's not entirely the Governor's fault. When he came to town, no one told him that the Boston Globe of decades past is no more. The new rag in town has the same name, but there's some misunderstanding about it. You see, the reason subscriptions have plunged by 250,000 recently is that readers are realizing that this "G.L.O.B.E." is just an acronym (Gay, Lesbian Or Bisexual Extremists) for Boston's second most respected homosexual publication. People who have dealt with both papers tend to prefer the greater objectivity, professionalism and civility of Bay Windows.
Well, here's the article which apparently prompted this furious bluster and denial - and the usual insults (while accusing us of hate speech): "Mitt Romney's Constitutional Blunder: Bogus Gay Marriages" (in WorldNetDaily as: 'Conservative' Romney buckles and blunders). It explains why these homosexual "marriages" are void. There are also other unanswerable constitutional obstacles that I did not address for lack of space.
Here's an excerpt from my WorldNetDaily piece:
"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..."
WHERE IS THE STATUTE IN MASSACHUSETTS LEGALIZING "GAY MARRIAGE"?
So, while we don't like to stoop to their the level, and read their hate/intimidation blogs, we have to give the queer-activists bloggers credit for at least trying to answer this question, insipid as their attempt is. (Marc Solomon, Mary Bonauto: Where are you?)
Here is the best their bloggers can do:
The General Laws of Massachusetts carefully regulate marriage. Unfortunately for the anti folk, it did not originally consider SSM. On the other hand, Chapter 207 starts with 14 very specific Sections forbidding this or that type of marriage - bigamy, incest, underage and on and on.
It goes into the heart of marriage regulation here. The question remains, who is legally entitled to a license to marry? The bulk of the who-can laws related to the license and solemnization. Again, the General Laws are very specific about that. This reinforces the clear distinction carried over from English common law to the Bay Colony to our Commonwealth's constitution, that marriage here is a civil contract. The argument that these stupid people make about "no laws allowing for same sex marriage" is just that, stupid. Forrest was right: Stupid is as stupid does. (- Mass Marrier)
Wow, we are really convinced now that our founders intended to protect same-sex "marriage" in our Constitution! And that the Supreme Judicial Court was acting constitutionally in declaring that "Love Is Love!" And that there is a statute establishing same-sex "marriage"!
Our associate John Haskins answers this silliness from the queer activist blogosphere. Here, we print Part I of his response: So, you have "No Patience for Stupid People"?
Well, the brains over at the offices of SLIBEC (Sodomy Love Is a Beautiful Example for Children), the world-class constitutional and pedagogical think tank running the hate blog "MassresistanceWatch", have weighed in with a truly Jeffersonian masterpiece of constitutional jurisprudence.
It is plagiarized, of course, from other puny Globe-spores sprouting and pushing out tendrils in the cold, bleak outer reaches of Internet darkness (well there are only so many talking points for sabotaging childhood and the human family and they have to be shared around). Mutant political and moral fungi (toxic ideas, not people), thrive -- like their biological counterparts -- in the absence of light. We've answered profligate and unconvincing lies before and the lesson is always the same: the root of things in such places is not the ignorance, so much as the lack of principle. Some dogmas, some people, just need the darkness of ignorance.
And it's not that we greatly dislike these people personally, obsessed though they are with slandering us for insisting that laws and constitutions have meaning. They may be delightful indeed, when taking rest breaks from tearing down constitutional government, instructing public schoolchildren on anal sex, terrorizing worshippers at communion, and breaking into the homes of those who disagree with them on whether children have an inalienable right to a father and a mother, or homosexuals have an inalienable right to possess children.
Likeable or not -- when not fighting for children's right to have homosexuals adopt them and teach them about families and sexual fidelity and well, about sex, -- one unavoidable observation is that the activists claiming to speak for all homosexuals in Massachusetts seem less talented, less literate, less well-read, less honest, far more fanatical, and far more humorless than any single one of the numerous homosexual friends I've had.
Here they go again, almost believing their own propaganda (one might think):
There's a wonderful post over at Marry in Massachusetts that answers the stupid question "Where is the law in Massachusetts that allows for same sex marriage! There is no law. Show me the law!" Mass Marrier is much more kinder [sic] to these people than I would be, I think the people that are spouting this ridiculous rhetoric are just plain stupid, I mean anti-gay Gov. Romney gets it, so does the anti-everything except Christian lawyers group, The Liberty Counsel, otherwise, why would they the sue the state to stop same sex marriages from happening on May 17, 2004? DUH! ( - MassResistanceWatch)
"DUH" and double-DUH. "DUH" means we're stupid. (Or...no, actually...maybe they left out two periods and were signaling for help from other Globe-spores for more hate-lies to throw at our facts.) Facts, being objective and real and true, can be very confusing. Several of our ex-gay friends tell us, chuckling and rolling their eyes, that "D.U.H." in the sophisticated hate code of the homo-Bolshevik underground, means "Don't Understand Half-of-it." So maybe the legal juggernauts over there aren't just slipping into their familiar "Ugly! Meanie! Stupid! Duh! Nana, na nana!" Maybe they've also oiled up their rusty old Nazi Enigma machine and cleverly embedded into their hate-lies a desperate call for help from someone who can read constitutions. Here are some friendly suggestions:
Well, I don't know if it will help, but they could try reading my article a fourth and a fifth time -- slowly. A firsthand glance at the actual Massachusetts Constitution would be way too much to ask. Or they could call and make an appointment with the cleaning lady who dusts the offices of the three Supreme Judicial Court Justices in Boston who carefully explained why the Goodridge ruling is unconstitutional. (Hint: The constitution negates any policy-making by courts and very specifically voids any role they attempt to play in matters of marriage).
This word-meaning stuff is really complicated when more than four letters are involved, but there are some standout cleaning ladies at the court who can read well enough to understand that a homosexual marriage "license" based on a court ruling, a boy-Governor's Freudian terror of lady justices, and editorials in homosexual newspapers are a lot like Confederate money (hint: backed by the wrong constitution!).
It's not entirely the Governor's fault. When he came to town, no one told him that the Boston Globe of decades past is no more. The new rag in town has the same name, but there's some misunderstanding about it. You see, the reason subscriptions have plunged by 250,000 recently is that readers are realizing that this "G.L.O.B.E." is just an acronym (Gay, Lesbian Or Bisexual Extremists) for Boston's second most respected homosexual publication. People who have dealt with both papers tend to prefer the greater objectivity, professionalism and civility of Bay Windows.
Well, here's the article which apparently prompted this furious bluster and denial - and the usual insults (while accusing us of hate speech): "Mitt Romney's Constitutional Blunder: Bogus Gay Marriages" (in WorldNetDaily as: 'Conservative' Romney buckles and blunders). It explains why these homosexual "marriages" are void. There are also other unanswerable constitutional obstacles that I did not address for lack of space.
Here's an excerpt from my WorldNetDaily piece:
"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..."
--John Haskins
TO BE CONTINUED...
Friday, January 06, 2006
Ad for Alternative Family ... or Group Marriage??
But what about the children?
The alternative families and "group marriages" we're starting to hear about, resulting from the GLBTQIP free-for-all (and further encouraged by the idea of "legal gay marriage"), bring up serious concerns about the children they will raise.
The site linked in the ad below, alternativefamilies.org, has a section called the "Aunts & Uncles Program." Hmm. Could it be that a boy might need a father after all? And a girl might need a mother? (But ... could a child need two fathers and a mother?)
Classified ad in Bay Windows (Dec. 1, 2005, p. 9):
SEEKING DONOR FATHER
Healthy, athletic, upbeat, easy-going, lesbian, 36, MIT, Harvard, Yale MD, professionally, financially, and emotionally stable seeks gay man or couple interested in shared involvement in co-parenting a child. You must be well-educated, available to participate actively in shared care and custody, and ready to pursue parenting in the immediate future. For more information and next steps, contact ... Alternative Family Matters,617-576-6788 ...
The alternative families and "group marriages" we're starting to hear about, resulting from the GLBTQIP free-for-all (and further encouraged by the idea of "legal gay marriage"), bring up serious concerns about the children they will raise.
The site linked in the ad below, alternativefamilies.org, has a section called the "Aunts & Uncles Program." Hmm. Could it be that a boy might need a father after all? And a girl might need a mother? (But ... could a child need two fathers and a mother?)
Classified ad in Bay Windows (Dec. 1, 2005, p. 9):
SEEKING DONOR FATHER
Healthy, athletic, upbeat, easy-going, lesbian, 36, MIT, Harvard, Yale MD, professionally, financially, and emotionally stable seeks gay man or couple interested in shared involvement in co-parenting a child. You must be well-educated, available to participate actively in shared care and custody, and ready to pursue parenting in the immediate future. For more information and next steps, contact ... Alternative Family Matters,617-576-6788 ...
Thursday, January 05, 2006
LGBTs Say: Young LGBTs Over Tended by Older Counterparts
Are older LGBT's "over tending" their younger counterparts? Queer researchers ask: Is the flurry of attention and programs for queer youth creating more problems than they're solving for the younger set? A queer think tank report says this may be the case.
(So, MassResistance says: Time to cut the government funding. Cut the programs in our schools. Disband the "gay-straight" clubs in the high schools. End the gay proms. Stop drawing teens into your extremist political cause. Let them be confused for a few years. Just let the kids be kids.)
Excerpts from a very interesting piece in Bay Windows, "Scissor Sisters versus show tunes", focusing on this "queer generation gap":
A new report from the Institute for Gay and Lesbian Strategic Studies (IGLSS), an Amherst-based think tank, asserts that there is a serious breakdown in communication between LGBT youth and their graying counterparts fueled not just by the obvious age difference, but by the lightning speed with which life has changed for LGBT people in the last three-plus decades.
In The Gay Generation Gap: Communicating Across the LGBT Generational Divide, co-authors Dr. Glenda Russell and Dr. Janis Bohan take a page from Culture and Commitment, the anthropologist Margaret Mead’s analysis of intergenerational communications and social change...
One assumption often made by older LGBT people, Bohan notes, is that “the experience of LGBT youth is full of angst and trauma and misery and drug use and running away and dropping out of school and all of those awful things which we hear a lot about.” But, it’s an assumption both she and Russell believe is based more on their own coming out experiences than the current reality....
“This is a longer story,” says Bohan, “but what we found is that most LGBT youth really are doing just fine,” though she acknowledges that some young LGBT people do still endure great difficulties. “One of the things that we came to realize was that our assumption that they were in trouble often reinforced that portrayal of LGBT youth in ways that might not be helpful to them,” she says. Propagating narratives of teens in peril while giving short shrift to the positive aspects of being a young queer person, Russell and Bohan assert, presents the risk “that LGBT youths may conclude that these are the only legitimate stories for their own lives.” They quote one young lesbian who said, “I feel like a loser because I never committed suicide, I never did drugs, I just read approximately 12 science fiction books in a week.”
The more positive experiences of LGBT youth seems to be supported by a study released last month by the city of Boston and the Harvard Youth Violence Prevention Center. The report, titled “Report of the 2004 Boston Youth Survey,” found that instances of harassment and discrimination on the “basis of presumed sexual orientation” was “relatively rare.” Only seven percent of respondents reported experiencing such discrimination; by contrast 15 percent of respondents said they had experienced racial discrimination or harassment.
...The challenge for LGBT adults, particularly those who work with queer youth, where the focus is more often on the difficulties of being young and queer, is to maintain a broader perspective, says Russell, a senior research associate at IGLSS. “I think when you work with queer youth who really are in difficult straights — who really are hitting on all of those risk factors — it’s difficult to believe that there are also gay youth who are doing okay,” she says. Another turn-off for queer teens, according to Russell and Bohan, is the tendency of some LGBT adults to try to fulfill their own youthful dreams through today’s young people. Hence things like the Queer Prom — the highlight of which for one young lesbian referenced in Russell and Bohan’s report was seeing her newly out lesbian teacher dance with her partner. Get the picture?
(So, MassResistance says: Time to cut the government funding. Cut the programs in our schools. Disband the "gay-straight" clubs in the high schools. End the gay proms. Stop drawing teens into your extremist political cause. Let them be confused for a few years. Just let the kids be kids.)
Excerpts from a very interesting piece in Bay Windows, "Scissor Sisters versus show tunes", focusing on this "queer generation gap":
A new report from the Institute for Gay and Lesbian Strategic Studies (IGLSS), an Amherst-based think tank, asserts that there is a serious breakdown in communication between LGBT youth and their graying counterparts fueled not just by the obvious age difference, but by the lightning speed with which life has changed for LGBT people in the last three-plus decades.
In The Gay Generation Gap: Communicating Across the LGBT Generational Divide, co-authors Dr. Glenda Russell and Dr. Janis Bohan take a page from Culture and Commitment, the anthropologist Margaret Mead’s analysis of intergenerational communications and social change...
One assumption often made by older LGBT people, Bohan notes, is that “the experience of LGBT youth is full of angst and trauma and misery and drug use and running away and dropping out of school and all of those awful things which we hear a lot about.” But, it’s an assumption both she and Russell believe is based more on their own coming out experiences than the current reality....
“This is a longer story,” says Bohan, “but what we found is that most LGBT youth really are doing just fine,” though she acknowledges that some young LGBT people do still endure great difficulties. “One of the things that we came to realize was that our assumption that they were in trouble often reinforced that portrayal of LGBT youth in ways that might not be helpful to them,” she says. Propagating narratives of teens in peril while giving short shrift to the positive aspects of being a young queer person, Russell and Bohan assert, presents the risk “that LGBT youths may conclude that these are the only legitimate stories for their own lives.” They quote one young lesbian who said, “I feel like a loser because I never committed suicide, I never did drugs, I just read approximately 12 science fiction books in a week.”
The more positive experiences of LGBT youth seems to be supported by a study released last month by the city of Boston and the Harvard Youth Violence Prevention Center. The report, titled “Report of the 2004 Boston Youth Survey,” found that instances of harassment and discrimination on the “basis of presumed sexual orientation” was “relatively rare.” Only seven percent of respondents reported experiencing such discrimination; by contrast 15 percent of respondents said they had experienced racial discrimination or harassment.
...The challenge for LGBT adults, particularly those who work with queer youth, where the focus is more often on the difficulties of being young and queer, is to maintain a broader perspective, says Russell, a senior research associate at IGLSS. “I think when you work with queer youth who really are in difficult straights — who really are hitting on all of those risk factors — it’s difficult to believe that there are also gay youth who are doing okay,” she says. Another turn-off for queer teens, according to Russell and Bohan, is the tendency of some LGBT adults to try to fulfill their own youthful dreams through today’s young people. Hence things like the Queer Prom — the highlight of which for one young lesbian referenced in Russell and Bohan’s report was seeing her newly out lesbian teacher dance with her partner. Get the picture?
"KnowThyNeighbor.org" Not Ready for Prime Time
It's amazing the gay activists has gotten as far as they have... When you see a pitiful performance like Tom Lang's on "The O'Reilly Factor" last night, you have to wonder how. Lang is the "brains" behind the vile "KnowThyNeighbor.org" effort to intimidate anyone who signed the new marriage amendment petition.
Intimidation, not smarts, is the key to their success.
Massachusetts Family Institute (MFI) president, Kris Mineau, did a good job on the show, but it was O'Reilly who pinned Lang to the mat. Lang simply couldn't put a good face on his intimidation effort. O'Reilly basically asked why not just let the people vote and what's the point of messing around with the petition signers? Lang could not come up with an answer.
MFI has reported that petition signers are in fact being harassed by automated and personal phone calls at their homes. Lang tried to shrug this off: his group wasn't doing it, MassEquality was! (As if they're not working together!) We reported last week how MassEquality is pretending to search for fraud, but more likely is fabricating fraud and harassing signers. MFI's E-Alert (1-4-06) states:
Homosexual activists, using the Freedom of Information Act, have acquired the names of the Massachusetts voters who signed the Protection of Marriage Amendment (POMA) and posted them on at least two websites, www.knowthyneighbor.org and www.massequality.org....
It has also come to our attention that there continues to be rampant intimidation of Massachusetts citizens by the radicals within the homosexual movement in this state. We have received phone calls from upset voters who are receiving harassing automated and live phone calls simply because they have exercised their right to participate in an initiative petition. These calls that claim fraud may sound official, but they are simply an intimidation tactic used by our opponents. If you receive one of these phone calls, or are subjected to any other type of harassment due to your signing of the petition, please write a letter to Attorney General Tom Reilly explaining the incident in detail. You can also call the AG’s office at (617) 727-2200, but your letter will serve as an official written report.
Office of the Attorney General One Ashburton Place Boston, MA 02108
Intimidation, not smarts, is the key to their success.
Massachusetts Family Institute (MFI) president, Kris Mineau, did a good job on the show, but it was O'Reilly who pinned Lang to the mat. Lang simply couldn't put a good face on his intimidation effort. O'Reilly basically asked why not just let the people vote and what's the point of messing around with the petition signers? Lang could not come up with an answer.
MFI has reported that petition signers are in fact being harassed by automated and personal phone calls at their homes. Lang tried to shrug this off: his group wasn't doing it, MassEquality was! (As if they're not working together!) We reported last week how MassEquality is pretending to search for fraud, but more likely is fabricating fraud and harassing signers. MFI's E-Alert (1-4-06) states:
Homosexual activists, using the Freedom of Information Act, have acquired the names of the Massachusetts voters who signed the Protection of Marriage Amendment (POMA) and posted them on at least two websites, www.knowthyneighbor.org and www.massequality.org....
It has also come to our attention that there continues to be rampant intimidation of Massachusetts citizens by the radicals within the homosexual movement in this state. We have received phone calls from upset voters who are receiving harassing automated and live phone calls simply because they have exercised their right to participate in an initiative petition. These calls that claim fraud may sound official, but they are simply an intimidation tactic used by our opponents. If you receive one of these phone calls, or are subjected to any other type of harassment due to your signing of the petition, please write a letter to Attorney General Tom Reilly explaining the incident in detail. You can also call the AG’s office at (617) 727-2200, but your letter will serve as an official written report.
Office of the Attorney General One Ashburton Place Boston, MA 02108
Wednesday, January 04, 2006
Corporate Complicity
Some time ago we published a list of companies sponsoring the radical homosexual agenda which we called the Hall of Shame. We began with Massachusetts companies listed as sponsors of local "Pride" celebrations, advertisers in Bay Windows, AIDS Action Committee supporters, etc. Then we began adding national companies.
A few weeks back, we linked to the radical homosexual group Human Rights Campaign's list of their favorite companies.
Now, Robert Knight summarizes this corporate complicity in his article, "The Corporate Curtain: How companies are using 'diversity' policies to silence Christians, promote homosexuality" (Dec. 29, 2005). He includes stories of discrimination against or firing of employees who openly disagree with the promotion of homosexuality in their workplace. Excerpts:
America's corporations are under increasing pressure not only to accommodate homosexuality but to celebrate it and to punish employees who object. Over the past two decades, hundreds of companies have adopted varying degrees of homosexual activism in their official policies. As a result, a growing number of Christians have been disciplined or fired for resisting the trend.
Elizabeth Birch, former president of the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), the largest homosexual pressure group, said in 2004 that she was happily surprised that corporations have become "the driving engine" of "gay" activism....
According to the HRC report, "[T]he most significant policy gain in 2005 was the addition of 'gender identity or expression' in corporate non-discrimination policies." This means companies are putting cross-dressing, transgenderism and transsexualism on the same level as race and ethnicity. HRC is going a step further, however, and has announced that companies can earn points in 2006 by paying for sex-change-related operations and hormone injections.
Knight references the book by Alan Sears and Craig Osten, The Homosexual Agenda, which outlines the typical steps followed by the radicals. They write:
Why has corporate America been such an easy target for homosexual activists to push their agenda? One of the main reasons is that the homosexual community has a much higher level of disposable income than most families, and therefore in order to tap that market, many corporations have gone overboard in their willingness to bow to the demands of radical homosexual activists. In addition, homosexual activists, with the aid of the media, have become so adept at demonizing any corporation that does not give in to their agenda that most companies quietly cower at their feet rather than face the public relations wrath of the activists.
A few weeks back, we linked to the radical homosexual group Human Rights Campaign's list of their favorite companies.
Now, Robert Knight summarizes this corporate complicity in his article, "The Corporate Curtain: How companies are using 'diversity' policies to silence Christians, promote homosexuality" (Dec. 29, 2005). He includes stories of discrimination against or firing of employees who openly disagree with the promotion of homosexuality in their workplace. Excerpts:
America's corporations are under increasing pressure not only to accommodate homosexuality but to celebrate it and to punish employees who object. Over the past two decades, hundreds of companies have adopted varying degrees of homosexual activism in their official policies. As a result, a growing number of Christians have been disciplined or fired for resisting the trend.
Elizabeth Birch, former president of the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), the largest homosexual pressure group, said in 2004 that she was happily surprised that corporations have become "the driving engine" of "gay" activism....
According to the HRC report, "[T]he most significant policy gain in 2005 was the addition of 'gender identity or expression' in corporate non-discrimination policies." This means companies are putting cross-dressing, transgenderism and transsexualism on the same level as race and ethnicity. HRC is going a step further, however, and has announced that companies can earn points in 2006 by paying for sex-change-related operations and hormone injections.
Knight references the book by Alan Sears and Craig Osten, The Homosexual Agenda, which outlines the typical steps followed by the radicals. They write:
Why has corporate America been such an easy target for homosexual activists to push their agenda? One of the main reasons is that the homosexual community has a much higher level of disposable income than most families, and therefore in order to tap that market, many corporations have gone overboard in their willingness to bow to the demands of radical homosexual activists. In addition, homosexual activists, with the aid of the media, have become so adept at demonizing any corporation that does not give in to their agenda that most companies quietly cower at their feet rather than face the public relations wrath of the activists.
Tuesday, January 03, 2006
"Gays" File Suit to Stop New Marriage Amendment
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!
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!
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)