Anti-Christian Graffiti in Boston Suburbs

You just don't see much, if any, graffiti in the Boston suburbs or ex-urbs. In fact, for the west-of-128 suburban dwellers, the accelerating shock of traveling into Boston is almost more than we can bear.

(We're thinking of what you see on the buildings along the pike, Rt. 2, or even the condition of Storrow Drive and its exit ramps. Amazing how fast our civic pride and order have deteriorated. Mumbles Menino really needs to learn the lesson of Rudy Giuliani: FIX THOSE BROKEN WINDOWS, and COVER THAT GRAFFITI!)

Well, to our great surprise and horror, traveling along Great Road (Rts. 2A/119) in Acton, we saw ... GRAFFITI! Of all places, it was on the office building occupied by Vision New England, a consortium of Evangelical churches in New England, best known for their annual "Congress" at the Hynes Convention Center in February. Interesting choice for this rare suburban posting. The graffiti says:

SUBURBS = CLOSED MINDS

Now what might the "graffiti artist" be thinking of? Apparently, the hideous urban graffitied blight we see along the pike is a sign of "open minds." Hmm ... Does graffiti equate with "open minds" ... key words for "progressive" causes such as "gay marriage"?

Or ... does graffiti indicate lack of concern for civil society and lawlessness?

Here's MassResistance's contribution to the (online) graffiti wars:

Graffiti = VANDALISM

Yes, the BARBARIANS ARE AT THE GATES !

Hate Crime? No -- A Crime by a Violent, Troubled Punk

The homosexual activists and their allies are making the most of the attack by a troubled young punk at a homosexual bar in New Bedford. Senator Ted is already using the horrible incident as proof that we need federal "hate crimes" legislation to cover sexual orientation. No, all we need is fair enforcement of criminal laws already on the books! (Massachusetts already has a "hate crimes" statute covering "sexual orientation.")

US Representative Barney Frank, who represents New Bedford, said the incident was a tragic aberration. ''This is the vicious act of one degenerate; it's not a city problem," he said. ''This is in no way reflective of any significant opinion in New Bedford."

Yes, it was the vicious act of one degenerate. But no, "opinion" has no role to play here! Use of that word implies that people who hold opinions critical of special rights for homosexuals are indeed dangerous, but they just don't happen to live in New Bedford!

The 18-year-old punk who attacked innocent people in a bar was clearly a mess, a Neo-Nazi wannabe, his room full of anti-black and anti-Semitic garbage. He went to a school for kids with discipline problems. The state had investigated his home in 2000 on suspicions of child neglect. A young man with serious mental health issues and social problems. Sick people exist in a world of their own. It's not anyone else's fault what a crazy man does.

Yet the media can't resist trying to link this crime to legitimate critics of "gay marriage". One photo (in the print editon of the Boston Globe) highlights a spokesman from the "Marriage Equality Coalition of the Southcoast" speaking at a candlelight vigil outside the bar. What does the political and moral argument over "gay marriage" have to do with some crazy guy's meltdown?

Then the Boston Globe inserts a quote intimating that this crime is the fault of anyone who objects to special rights for homosexuals:

''Again and again we have seen that as efforts to marginalize or, in the case of Massachusetts, remarginalize our community escalate, sick and violent people take those efforts as license to step up violence against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered people," said Clarence Patton, acting executive director of the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs. ''It's been happening across the nation, as our community has come under increased political and rhetorical fire."

Why aren't "hate crimes" committed by homosexual activists (criminally harassing emails, stolen credit cards, house break-ins) against leaders of the pro-family movement investigated and prosecuted?

Maybe it's time to review the dangers of so-called "hate crimes" statutes. See Robert Knight's article, " 'Hate Crime' Laws: An Assault on Freedom."

Liberal activists increasingly invoke such phrases as "hostile speech" and a "climate of violence" to describe pro-family opinion on homosexual issues. The net effect is to reclassify legitimate opinion and free speech as "hate speech" that can be censored....

Lies from Rep & DOE on H1641 Mandated Health Curriculum

We're tired of the lies from State Rep. Wolf and Dept. of Education (DOE) on the proposal to mandate "health education" (including sex/homosex ed) as a core curriculum subject in Massachusetts. Bill H1641 would make "health" a required subject, period -- and "health" would be defined by the Massachusetts DOE "Health Framework." (Though now suggested guidelines, the Health Framework would become mandated standards if H1641 passes).

But chief sponsor Rep. Alice Wolf (at the hearing, and in her letter to other reps) and DOE spokewoman Melanie Winklosky (quoted in the Boston Herald) say this isn't true! Wolf says parents could still opt their children out of sex ed (can students opt out of other required courses?), and Winklosky says individual school systems could do as they please. They are simply not telling the truth. Here's what Bill H1641 actually says:

AN ACT TO PROVIDE HEALTH EDUCATION IN SCHOOLS. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:

Section 1D of chapter 69 of the General Laws, as appearing in the 2000 Official Edition, is hereby amended by inserting after the words “foreign language,” in line 6, the words:— health education, as defined by the Massachusetts Comprehensive Health Education Framework.

And if you turn to Chapter 69: Section 1D, you see this:

Statewide educational goals; academic standards; vocational training; grant program
Section 1D. The board shall establish a set of statewide educational goals for all public elementary and secondary schools in the commonwealth.

The board shall direct the commissioner to institute a process to develop academic standards for the core subjects of mathematics, science and technology, history and social science, English, foreign languages ["health education, as defined by the Massachusetts Comprehensive Health Education Framework" to be inserted here by H1641] and the arts. The standards shall cover grades kindergarten through twelve and shall clearly set forth the skills, competencies and knowledge expected to be possessed by all students at the conclusion of individual grades or clusters of grades.... Satisfaction of the requirements of the competency determination shall be a condition for high school graduation.

(Brian Camenker, director of MassResistance/Article 8 Alliance, sent a letter to the Herald to correct Winklosky's "misinformation", but it has not yet appeared.)

They tried to sneak the bill past us all in their last hearing of the year. But they failed! (Originally, it was scheduled to be heard on the same day as our new parents' rights opt-in bill H1050 in late October ... but mysteriously dropped off the radar screen only to resurface on a day with "miscellaneous" bills when no one was paying attention ... or so they thought.)

Deadbeat Rep. Matthew Patrick Supports Mandatory Sex/Homosex Ed

Lots of talk about Rep. Marie St. Fleur's tax and honesty problems today. This reminded us of the story last year in the Boston Herald revealing some of the State Reps known at that time to have similar problems. See Herald article (posted on CLT's website), excerpted below.

Are we surprised that Rep. Matthew Patrick was on the deadbeat list? His demeanor during the recent Education Committee hearing on the mandatory sex ed/homosex ed bill was appalling, rudely badgering witnesses as he tried to deny reality.

Apparently, everyone but Rep. Patrick has has heard first-hand stories about our schools training children in condom use, showing films pushing homosexuality, and directing young girls to Planned Parenthood clinics. But since the witnesses didn't have dated films and recordings of such incidents, he insinuated that no such stories could be believed!

How can anyone trust anything that comes out of the mouth of an elected official who can't even abide by the laws the rest of us have to follow? Not only does Rep. Patrick think tax laws don't apply to him, he also thinks he knows better than parents what sex ed and morals ed is appropriate for their children.

March 10, 2005
Six House reps fail to file income tax returns
By David R. Guarino (Boston Herald)

Didn't file for 2003: Rep. Matthew Patrick, 3rd-term Democrat from Falmouth

It's all spend but no tax these days for six state lawmakers who revenue officials say failed to file income tax returns while voting to spend billions of dollars paid by others.

The delinquent pols, all Democratic members of the House, include Rep. Byron Rushing (D-South End), a top lieutenant to Speaker Sal DiMasi, and Rep. David Linsky (D-Framingham), a former prosecutor eying a run for Middlesex district attorney. They were joined on the Department of Revenue non-filing list by fellow lawmakers Colleen M. Garry (D-Dracut), chairwoman of the Personnel and Administration Committee; Rep. Anne M. Gobi (D-Spencer), Rep. Sean Curran (D-Springfield), and Rep. Matthew Patrick (D-Falmouth).

The DOR list, obtained under a public records request by the Herald, also included freshman Rep. Patrick M. Natale (D-Woburn). But Natale said he wasn't working at the time and didn't have to file. Another lawmaker, Rep. Benjamin Swan (D-Springfield), filed his 2003 return just last week after questioning by a reporter.

[Note: A month after the Herald Story, the State House News Service reported: "Rep. Matthew Patrick (D-Falmouth) pointed out recent publicity surrounding his failure to file tax returns. Patrick said he forgot to mail his taxes, and has since paid his liability of $29.35."]

"Hate Speech" Conviction in France

Will this be happening in Massachusetts soon? A French politician is convicted and fined for "hate speech". His crime? Saying the following:

"Homosexual acts are socially and morally inferior . . . To describe a behavior which is not beneficial for society is not discriminating against those who make the choice of homosexuality."

Our legislature is now trying to codify homosexual propaganda as "fact" in our K-12 statewide "health" curriculum. The Governor, Legislature, and Supreme Judicial Court all participate in the charade of "legal" same-sex "marriage". So ... can "hate speech" laws be far behind?

See the report from LifeSiteNews.com:

LILLE, France, January 26, 2006 - A court in Lille handed down its sentence on a French Parliamentarian Tuesday, fining him 3000 Euros and forcing him to pay an additional 6000 Euros to be split between three homosexual activist groups who brought the charges against the MP. Christian Vanneste, a member of the UMP representing the Lille region was found guilty in December on charges of violating a French law barring "hate speech" against homosexuals.

However, Vanneste in the remarks upon which the charges were based and in his defence, was clear that he was not speaking against homosexual persons but homosexual sex acts.

Public Schools: UNSAFE Zones

Some brave teachers in San Francisco are standing up to the homosexual extremist demand that they post "safe zone" signs in their classrooms.

This is what citizens of Massachusetts will do tomorrow at the State House! They will tell the Education Committee of the state legislature that they are sick and tired of this dangerous propaganda already in the schools, and they will NOT stand for it becoming part of a required "health" curriculum! Promoting an unhealthly lifestyle as a healthy choice is simply "newspeak".

Here's what Robert Knight of the Culture & Family Institute of Concerned Women for America) had to say about the San Francisco situation:

...[T]alk of safety is cover for the homosexual agenda. "What [such policies] produce is intolerance toward anyone who won't accept homosexuality," [Knight] says, adding that in this case, that means "teachers who know that it's not a good thing to sell kids on the idea that it's okay to be gay."

According to Knight, the heated debate going on at San Leandro High is not about safety at all. "This is about bullying people and saying you will kneel down and bow to the Baal god of homosexuality -- or we'll make your life very miserable," he says.

The CFI spokesman maintains the school district is demonstrating intolerance toward the five teachers who are choosing not to display the posters -- and those teachers, he adds, are courageous for standing up to the mandate.

"The school district has no business telling teachers to glorify behavior that has such a long list of known health risks," Knight says. "This ought to be treated as a public health issue -- not a matter of civil rights, as [homosexual activists] like to frame it."

And it is wrong, Knight adds, to force teachers into a situation that implies their approval of an unsafe and unhealthy lifestyle. "When you put a rainbow poster up in your classroom, you're lending the authority of the teacher to the gay-rights movement," he explains. In essence, says Knight, the district is saying: "Kids, go ahead and try this behavior. Even your teacher is for it."

Who's Behind Mandatory Sex/Homosex Ed in Massachusetts?

Rep. Alice Wolf, former mayor of Cambridge (behind the "domestic partner benefits" ordinance there in the early 90's), has a very dear friend named Arthur Lipkin. So dear that she performed his "marriage" ceremony to another man in May 2004. (See story in Boston Phoenix for a photo of the happily "married" couple.)

Mr. Lipkin's works -- telling educators how to infuse GLBT issues throughout the curriculum -- are cited as resources in the Mass. Dept of Education "Health Curriculum Frameworks." The Frameworks would be the basis for the mandatory "health" education in Rep. Wolf's House Bill 1641.

Lipkin is connected with the Harvard Graduate School of Education, and edits a "scholarly" journal on GLBT issues in the schools. He is a leader of the Cambridge Lavender Alliance, which awarded Rep. Wolf her "honorary lesbian" title. He also was the first teacher in Massachusetts to "come out" to his pupils and school. What an act of courage!

These are the people who want to deny parents their rights to educate their children as they see fit on these sensitive moral issues.

David Parker on Radio Sunday Night (Jan. 29)

DAVID PARKER -- Radio Star!!!

Subject: H1640, the proposed bill to make "HEALTH" education a requirement in Massachusetts, using the Mass. Curriculum Frameworks. Details about this horrible bill are on our MassResistance website. (And see our posting on its lead sponsor, Rep. Alice Wolf.)

* THIS SUNDAY NIGHT 8-10 pm -- on WRKO Radio (AM680) "Pundit Review" show, David Parker will square off against Rep. Ted Speliotis!

* And from 7-8 pm Sunday David will be a guest on the MassResistance radio show (WTTT AM1150). The MassResistance show also airs 10-11 am Saturday.

Woburn Crowne Plaza Hosts Trans Convention

The latest trend in the queer activist world is all things "trans". As we've all noticed, transgenders and transsexuals are more and more "out". Recently, the Tiffany Club of New England held its annual convention at the Woburn Crowne Plaza hotel. Seminars included "Transyouth" and "Transitioning at Work."

The Tiffany Club home page proclaims:
THE TRINITY OF BEING: OF BEING MASCULINE, OF BEING FEMININE, OF BEING ONE, WITH YOURSELF AND NATURE!

Here's a little snippet from the Bay Windows coverage:

And beyond the resources, another goal of the conference was for attendees to kick back and have fun. On Jan. 20 Richard Novic, a psychiatrist from Los Angeles, gave a reading of his cross dressing memoir, Alice in Genderland, to a small but enthusiastic audience. Novic, who was dressed in his “Alice” persona during the reading and said he is equally comfortable with either name and with male or female pronouns, may have made L.A. his home, but he also has deep roots in the Boston area, having received his undergraduate degree at Harvard and having gone to medical school locally. He thrilled the audience by describing his experience dressing as a woman in public for the first time at a Tiffany Club meeting in 1991 and flirting with the drag performers at Jacques and Playland.

Novic, who is married with two kids, who know about his weekly excursions to the clubs as Alice, said that he reconnected with the Tiffany Club for the first time in about 15 years when he signed his book at this past summer’s Pride festival. Of course, there was a complication; he was also in town for his Harvard class reunion.

“I snuck away from the festivities, threw a dress on, and went and sat at the Tiffany Club tent that Saturday afternoon at the Boston Pride festival,” he explained. After the festival, he ditched his female garb, got back into his male attire, and rejoined the reunion festivities.

"Honorary Lesbian" Pushes Mandatory State "Health" Curriculum

State Rep. Alice Wolf (D-Cambridge), designated "Honorary Lesbian" by the Cambridge Lavender Alliance, is the chief sponsor of House Bill 1641, which would mandate K-12 "health" education for every public school student in Massachusetts. Wolf is doing her best to spread the word that this bill is just about teaching little children how to brush their teeth, and saving older children from drug addiction and gang involvement.

Needless to say, the definition of "health" in the document of reference -- the Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks -- has been dictated by assorted libertines, Planned Parenthood abortion advocates, and homosexual extremists. And they picked Rep. Wolf to be their lead sponsor for good reasons.

Wolf was endorsed in 2004 by these radical homosexual PACs:
MassEquality
MGLPC (Mass. Gay & Lesbian Political Caucus)
Freedom to Marry Coalition
OutSomerville
Cambridge Lavender Alliance (see above).
She's also been endorsed by Mass. League of Environmental Voters, the Mass.Women's Political Caucus, and Mass. NARAL. Her other leftist awards include the "Progressive Leadership Award" from the Commonwealth Coalition, and the "Woman of Courage Award" from the Mass. chapter of the National Organization of Women.

Wolf's homosexual activism goes way back. Formerly the Mayor of Cambridge, she received the "Friends of the Community Award" given by the Greater Boston Lesbian and Gay Political Alliance in 1992 for her work in passing the Cambridge Domestic Partnership Law.

Need you know more?

Male Friendship Damaged by Sexual Confusion

Albert Mohler's website is full of provocative articles. Last month he summarized a fascinating essay by Anthony Esolen, an English professor at Providence College. (See Mohler, "Sexual Confusion and the End of Friendship.")

Esolen explains that the homosexual and "pansexual" extremists have profoundly affected friendships between heterosexual males, and have made it even more difficult for boys to grow into healthy adult males. His essay, "A Requiem for Friendship: Why Boys Will Not Be Boys & Other Consequences of the Sexual Revolution," appears in the September 2005 issue of Touchstone magazine.

Excerpts from Mohler's artice:

Esolen begins by reminding readers of a scene from J. R. R. Tolkien's great work, The Lord of the Rings. Sam Gamgee, having followed his master Frodo into Mordor, the realm of death, finds him in a small filthy cell lying half-conscious. "Frodo! Mr. Frodo, my dear!" Sam cries. "It's Sam, I've come!" Frodo embraces his friend and Sam eventually cradles Frodo's head. As Esolen suggests, a reader or viewer of this scene is likely to jump to a rather perverse conclusion: "What, are they gay?"

Esolen suggests that this question is an "ignorant but inevitable response" to the context. He goes on to recall that Shakespeare and many other great authors spoke of non-sexual love between men in strongest terms. Similarly, when David is told of the death of his friend Jonathan, he cries: "Your love to me was finer than the love of women."

As Esolen understands, the corruption of language has contributed to this confusion. When words like love, friend, male, female, and partner are transformed in a new sexual context, what was once understood to be pure and undefiled is now subject to sniggering and disrespect.

Esolen insists that this linguistic shift was no accident. He accuses "pansexualists" of corrupting the language in order to normalize sexual confusion and anarchy. They have used language "as a tool for establishing their own order and imposing it on everyone else," he argues....

One of the words and realities most clearly corrupted for the sake of sexual anarchy is friendship--and male friendship in particular. "For modern American men, friendship is no longer forged in the heat of battle, or in the dust of the plains as they drive their herds across half a continent, or in the choking air of a coalmine, or even in the cigar smoke of a debating club," Esolen notes. Most men no longer find themselves in situations that encourage and inculcate straightforward male friendships. As Esolen observes, "the sexual revolution has also nearly killed male friendship as devoted to anything beyond drinking and watching sports; and the homosexual movement, a logically inevitable result of forty years of heterosexual promiscuity and feminist folly, bids fair to finish it off and nail the coffin shut."

What this means for grown men is bad enough, but Esolen is persuasive when he argues that the most vulnerable victims of friendship's demise are boys. "The prominence of male homosexuality changes the language for teenage boys. It is absurd and cruel to say that the boy can ignore it. Even if he would, his classmates will not let him. All boys need to prove that they are not failures. They need to prove that they are on the way to becoming men--that they are not going to relapse into the need to be protected by, and therefore identified with, their mothers." So? Esolen argues that boys, deprived of normal recognitions of masculinity and safe friendships with other boys and men, often turn to aggressive sexual promiscuity with girls in order to prove that they are not homosexual. Boys who refuse to play this game are tagged as homosexuals.

Esolen is on to something of incredible importance here. He reminds us all that boys need the uncomplicated camaraderie of other boys in order to negotiate their own path to manhood....

Fenway Community "Health" Center Encouraging Spread of AIDS?

We wish we had time to research ethical standards on drug testing. Surely, there is something unethical about a clinic which entices troubled people to enter into or persist in dangerous, even life-threatening, sexual practices. What is this -- clinic-endorsed "bug chasing"?

Well, if you're into anal sex and you'd like to earn $230, you can try out an experimental anti-HIV product (we suspect it's a lubricant). And while you might just catch HIV/AIDS, you'll be having fun and contributing to medical research! (But remember, no guarantees that the product will work in fighting HIV.) Only those with experience as "bottoms" need apply.

Fenway Community Health's soft-porn ad Bay Windows shows a photo of a man's naked backside, his body on top of another naked body. (Remember, your children can pick this paper up at Stop & Shop supermarkets, and in vending boxes all over Massachusetts!) The text reads:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

WHICH DO YOU PREFER? [text superimposed on naked bodies]

Fenway Community Health is conducting a study to help researchers who are developing a new product which may help prevent the transmission of HIV.

To find out what products YOU like best, we need YOUR input!

The products in this phase of the study DO NOT offer HIV protection, but this study is the first step toward new products that may eventually offer protection from HIV transmission.

For this study we're seeking men who:
-Are 18 years or older
-Are currently sexually active
-Are HIV-negative
-Have been a bottom in the past year

The study lasts up to 3 months, and you will be compensated $230 for your time over the course of the study. For more information call 617-927-6450.
Fenway Community Health

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Judge DelVecchio, Mass. Bar Assoc., Judge Maria Lopez: Together At Last

Judge Suzanne DelVecchio, infamous for coddling a homosexual child-raping teacher last week with a suspended sentence, was defended on national television last Friday by a spokesman for the Massachusetts Bar Association. The Hannity & Colmes hour on Fox News identified their guest, Ed Ryan, as speaking for the Mass. Bar Association Task Force.

Ryan, former president of the Massachusetts Bar, made an utter fool of himself -- and his professional association -- by his comments defending the suspended sentence. He essentially parroted Judge DelVecchio's comment that since the boy was just a few weeks shy of his 16th birthday, it must have been consensual, and therefore not so bad! And besides, Ryan said, the boy lied to investigators at first! Ryan even said he'd hold the same opinion if it were his own 15-year-old child involved!

Both the conservative Sean Hannity and liberal Alan Colmes were aghast. When Hannity asked Ryan about his association with DelVecchio, he said she was one of the most respected jurists in the Commonwealth.

In Agape Press today ("Activist Attests to a Pro-Homosexual Judiciary in His State, Cites Examples"), Brian Camenker of Article 8 Alliance/MassResistance referred to the bias of the Massachusetts Bar Association, which was certainly on display in Mr. Ryan on the Hannity & Colmes show.

Ryan also appeared recently on the O'Reilly Factor (10-13-05):
[Bill O'Reilly:] And then there are the criminal courts. Almost every day, we report another terrible crime against children. And often the judges give violent sexual predators light sentences. Some judges favoring rehab and the like. Now last night on “The Factor", Massachusetts lawyer Ed Ryan accused me of undermining the nation's judicial system because I'm holding judges responsible for their sentences.

Interesting footnote: A few years back, Ryan stuck up for the outrageous lenient sentence handed down by Judge Maria Lopez to the male "transgender" (Ebony Horton) who had abducted and assaulted a young boy. Lopez's sentence and outrageous courtroom demeanor led to her resignation, before the state legislature could act on a Bill of Address to remove her from the bench.

[from Associated Press, "Glamorous Judge Under Fire," 9-14-00):
Ryan, the bar association president, said that reasonable people can debate whether Lopez's sentence was just. But to oust her because of it would be wrong. ''I don't want to think that the outcome of cases is going to be determined by the hue and cry of public opinion,'' Ryan said. ''That's a very dangerous precedent.''

[From TheBostonChannel.com, ABC 5, Sept. 2000:]
Horton, dressed as a woman, pretended he was searching for his son and asked the boy for help. He then took the child to an abandoned warehouse and forced to the boy to simulate sex acts after holding a screwdriver to the child's neck.

Prosecutors from the Suffolk County District Attorney's office had asked Lopez to give Horton an eight- to 10-year jail sentence after he pleaded guilty to charges of assault with intent to rape a child, kidnapping, indecent assault and battery, assault and battery with a dangerous weapon and assault and battery.

Instead, Lopez sentenced Horton to five years' probation and one year of home detention with an electronic monitoring device. He will be allowed to leave home to attend college classes and church three times a week, as well as various medical and counseling appointments....

The victim's grandmother, in tears after the sentencing, said she couldn't understand why Horton wasn't given a stiffer sentence. "He should be in custody, at least eight to 10 years for doing what he did to my grandson. And I don't understand that judge, why she did what she did. Because if it wasn't for the grace of God my grandson could have been dead," she said.

[From the Associated Press story on Lopez]:
Some legal observers say Lopez, 47, is knowledgeable and fair. They say that if she were removed because of a legal, if unpopular, ruling, it would set a dangerous precedent. Others suggest that Lopez's gender has fed the criticism and that questions about her personal style are out of bounds.

''There's something about the coverage of this that has been particularly demeaning to her,'' said U.S. District Judge Nancy Gertner....

She was a most unusual judge: The attractive Lopez was unafraid to paint flashy colors on her fingernails, go in-line skating on city streets in Spandex, or pose coyly for a newspaper photographer.

A 1994 Boston Globe profile raved about her ''energy and joie de vivre.'' Her 1995 marriage to Stephen Mindich, publisher of the alternative weekly The Boston Phoenix, made newspaper feature pages, and stories about the couple often appear in the society and gossip columns.

Some of her previous rulings made headlines and prompted criticism. Among them: an order that the state pay for a transsexual's breast reconstruction, and a requirement that a man who killed his friend in a boating accident build a memorial to his victim.

Complaints of leniency were first loudly made against Lopez over a 1992 case in which she refused to keep a man in jail after his juvenile sentence for killing his 5-year-old neighbor was up.

Ed Ryan, president of the Massachusetts Bar Association, said Lopez is generally considered fair, thorough and not particularly lenient.

But after the Horton decision, Boston Herald columnist Howie Carr called Lopez ''rancid human flotsam.'' [Go for it, Howie!] Ryan said he heard a talk show host suggest that Lopez be locked up with a child molester holding a screwdriver to her throat.

Judge DelVecchio - Boston Globe Connection

Judge Suzanne DelVecchio received national attention last week after she gave a suspended sentence to a male teacher who raped a 15-year old boy student. While the Boston Globe didn't even cover the story originally (it was reported in the Boston Herald), DelVecchio is now defended by their columnist Eileen McNamara in Sunday's Globe. (And what a weak defense it is.)

No mention of Judge DelVecchio's apparent double standard for rapists. She sentenced a male teacher convicted of raping two female students in 1997 to eight years. But homosexual rape? No biggie.

And still, no mention of the fact that Judge DelVecchio has violated the Massachusetts Code of Judicial Conduct in the past, as keynote speaker at the Mass. Lesbian Gay Bar Association (MLGBA) fundraiser in 2000, where she advocated for legalized homosexual unions. (Judges may not be active in partisan groups or speak at fundraisers.) When her speech was reported in Mass. Lawyers' Weekly, the Catholic Lawyers' Guild brought it to the attention of Bishop O'Malley (now Archbishop) of Fall River, who disinvited the Judge as speaker at an upcoming Catholic lawyers' event.

Who should then come to DelVecchio's rescue, with a column in the Boston Globe ripping both Bishop O'Malley and the Catholic lawyers? None other than Eileen McNamara. McNamara was then rewarded by the MLGBA who invited her to be keynote speaker at their 2001 fundraiser!

And still, no mention of the fact that according to the Code of Judicial Conduct, Judge DelVecchio should have recused herself on the homosexual marriage lawsuit which came through her Superior Court, on its way to the Mass. Supreme Judicial Court. This is because she had made it clear that she held an opinion on the issue (at the MLGBA dinner), and could not rule impartially.

Del Vecchio shares this distinction -- a double violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct -- with Chief Justice Margaret Marshall, who was keynote speaker at the MLGBA dinner in 1999.

Welcome to the world of homosexual activists and their faithful fellow travelers. Isn't it amazing what they get away with?

Mass. Lesbian Activist Planning Assault on White House Easter Celebration

The Weekly Standard reported that homosexual extremists are planning to politicize the family Easter Egg Roll on the White House lawn this April. The Associated Press picked up the story a few days later. What the articles don't tell you is that one of the activists behind this propaganda ploy, Jennifer Chrisler of the Family Pride Coalition, is from Massachusetts and is "married" to Massachusetts' own Cheryl Jacques, formerly state senator then failed national director of the so-called "Human Rights Campaign." (See their family photo in InNewsWeekly's feature article.)

Chrisler, clearly a religious and political extremist who believes in using her twin boys as political props, says that "religious and political extremists who oppose equality" are trying to spoil her family outing.

From the Weekly Standard, "A Gay Easter? Gay-rights groups make covert plans to crash the annual White House Easter egg roll" (1-17-06):

"FOR OVER A HUNDRED YEARS children have gathered on the South Lawn of the White House on the Monday after Easter to roll Easter eggs across the yard and meet the Easter Bunny. Seemingly few (if any) Washingtonians have ever tried to exploit the annual White House Easter Egg Roll for political purposes. Until now. A church-based homosexual rights group is planning to crash the event with a 'family visibility action' to spotlight their non-traditional families.

" 'On April 17, 2006, when the White House lawn is opened to families for the Annual Easter Egg Roll, imagine if the first 1,000 families onto the lawn were LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender] families,' enthused a January 4 email alert from Soulforce. Once America sees the White House lawn awash in LGBT families, 'there will be no going back,' Soulforce promised.

"Soulforce is the political organizing tool of self-described 'militant gay activist' Mel White, the former Jerry Falwell speech writer who discovered his gayness and became a clergyman in the predominantly homosexual Metropolitan Community Churches."

Family Pride will be dressing their participants in special T-shirts with a "nonpolitical message". Of course, a group that chooses to identify by their unnatural sexual practices -- and demands that everyone else publicly accede their normality -- is making a political statement by their very presence.

[Weekly Standard continues:]
"Recipients of the Soulforce email were asked to be 'discreet' and not to post the information on websites because the 'success of this action depends on keeping it under the radar of the media and the administration!!!'

"OVER THE YEARS Soulforce has become well known for its disruptive demonstrations and acts of civil disobedience at the conventions of religious denominations that do not share its views on sexual ethics. Invariably these churches, even the liberal mainline ones, are portrayed by Soulforce as 'anti-gay.'

"Soulforce's main partner in crashing the White House Easter Egg roll is the Family Pride Coalition (FPC), which is the 'only national non-profit organization solely dedicated to equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) parents and their families.' "

Haskins Six-Part Series: "Gay Marriage" Still Not Legal in Mass.

Here is our complete six-part series by John Haskins on the illegality and unconstitutionality of "gay marriage" in Massachusetts:

Part I - Gays Can't Answer: Where Is Statute Legalizing "Gay Marriage"?
Part II - The Law, the Constitution, and "Gay Marriage"
Part III - Gov. Romney Violates Constitution on "Gay Marriage"
Part IV - The Elephant In the Room: "Gay Marriage" Still Not Legal
Part V - We've Surrendered the Language
Part VI - Conclusion: Wake Up, Conservatives!
Bonus - Exchange with a Critic: They're Still Stumped

The Other Side Still Stumped: Haskins Answers Objections

We received a polite objection from Steve to the series by John Haskins on the illegality and unconstitutionality of "gay marriage". [For Haskins' complete series, see Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV, Part V, Part VI.] Here is Steve's objection, followed by Haskins' response below.

[Steve:] Let me preface this by saying I am no lawyer, I'm a biologist, so legally my opinion is second hand and observational only, as I suspect is your own.

I understand by the latest post on your MassResistanceBlog that you think just because the General Court of the Massachusetts legislature and the Governor never enacted specific statutes to enact same sex marriage, that these marriages have no legal status. I disagree. The SJC decided it was unconstitutional and therefore illegal for the Commonwealth to deny same sex marriages.

This invalidated all mention of the sex of any two marriage participants in the existing statutes of the state. In May last year, the Commonwealth has changed its marriage certificates for ALL marriages. So whether a man and a woman marry, or two men marry, or two women marry, they all get the same form to recognize their Civil Marriage. It would be nice if the Commonwealth rewrote its marriage statues to clearly legalize same sex marriage, but it is not strictly necessary.

My comment on your legal and moral philosophy: If the Judicial Courts had only acted as you say they should have, never having struck down unconstitutional laws, our state and our nation would be a far more unfair place than it is now. We would have states where interracial marriage is illegal, where segregation existed in schools and businesses, where people owned slaves. No doubt people would defend these evils as being allowed by law, and supported by Christian religion in the Bible. Even though the Supreme court has struck down racist laws, there are still Christian Identity adherents that cite Biblical passages to support their bigotries.

I think that since homosexuality is not unique to humans, and can be the basis for loving relationships between people (and even rearing children successfully), it would be unfair to deny the legal and contractual benefits of Civil Marriage to same sex couples (and their children, if any). So I applaud the courts for Lawrence v. Texas and Goodridge v. Massachusetts. These decisions stand up for my inalienable and self-evident rights to love the man I love, and perhaps to someday to marry him.

Our society should strive for fairness, don't you think? I know you disagree with me about what is fair, but your opinions on same sex marriage are no longer the majority in our state. Your approach seems to lack true compassion.

[Haskins:] Unfortunately for the court, the state Constitution denies judges any voice at all in marriage policy. Their rulings are illegal.

It also denies them the right to nullify laws that they claim are unconstitutional.

It also says that all laws remain in effect until the legislature revokes them.

It also says the people are bound only by laws passed by the legislature -- that is why we are not bound by legal opinions of a court.

As the court admitted, heterosexual marriage was clearly the intent of the legislature. The intent behind a law is binding -- on the governor and the towns and the clerks and the courts.

The new marriage certificates that you mention are in violation of the law, and thus void when presented to two persons of the same gender. The Governor violated the Constitution and his oath of office by obeying illegal orders from judges who are forbidden by the Constitution from ordering him to act in any way.

He also is forbidden to ignore laws passed by the legislature. You may prefer a dictatorship when you get what you want from the dictator, but don't call it "constitutional democracy."

As for your other points, Steve, I've had close friends who were homosexuals, bisexuals, or had been, or were heading in that direction. I have never judged them worse than I as a human being. By and large they have admitted the element of choice in their sexuality and have admitted unhappiness following from choosing homosexuality. So my opposition to homosexuality is in large part based on the compassion that you claim I do not have. I do not want you or anyone else to destroy yourself while pursuing pleasure.

Further, courts did not end slavery, they enforced it. As for slavery endorsed on the Old Testament, it was in no way similar to what was practiced in other contexts. Slaves of the Israelites were prisoners of war who had mostly sacrificed their own children to idols, raped boys, and in numerous ways were deserving of capital punishment. So in being spared -- both as prisoners of war and as practitioners of infanticide, human sacrifice, torture, child rape and murder, and given a chance to live a new life after crimes against humanity -- they were getting a good deal. Moreover, their Israelite masters were forbidden, on penalty of death, to buy and sell slaves.

I regard it as one of the most selfish things an adult can do to subject children to what you would call a "gay family." You are a liar if you claim to have researched what we know objectively about children and their need for both a father and a mother in one home, if you also pretend that homosexuals can offer that. Children are hard-wired to need one father and one mother. Stop passing off love of yourself as love for children. This only highlights the incredible selfishness into which homosexual behavior spirals downward.

I go from that hard criticism to a constructive, and I hope, encouraging suggestion: You can escape from homosexuality and you will be happier over the long run if you choose to do so. Don't fall for the lies about your lack of choice. I've known people who have chosen to do so. Look around you. Look at the homosexuals who are over 40. Over 50. Over 60. Think about what you see. And also think about how few of them there are.

Steve, if my opinion is not the majority, then why fear a vote? My opinion is the majority by a wide margin. In fact, many homosexuals know that what I am saying is true -- that homosexual marriage remains illegal. Most homosexuals have no desire to marry. Many homosexual activists openly seek the destruction of marriage and write about this goal as a way of liberating society. Homosexual relationships almost never last long enough to make "marriage" an honest option. University researchers can't even find enough lasting homosexual relationships to study. The tiny number that last five years are virtually all "open relationships." Wow. That's just what children need -- two fathers who are not even going to stick together for five years.

John Haskins, Series Conclusion: Unconstitutionality of "Gay Marriage" Ruling

The 6th and concluding article from John Haskins on the illegality and unconstitutionality of homosexual "marriage" in Massachusetts. [See Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV, and Part V.]

Bluffing tyrants in black robes now sell new "rights" to the highest bidder, guaranteed on "licenses" printed on the back sides of shredded constitutions. This is happening so fast, it is tempting not to peer down the table to see where the billiard balls are going to ricochet next.

Laboratories might well bypass nature and produce engineered human infants to cater to homosexual couples - an easy majority of whom will divorce during the tender childhood years of their custom-designed, factory babies. But judges will always be available to strike down the rights of infants and children, while taking the accumulation of "rights" of the adult "preferential victim" homosexuals to new, undreamed-of heights.

We should fear such consequences after Gov. Mitt Romney suspended several parts of the state constitution to appease homosexual activists -- some of whom call "homosexual marriage" a step toward the eradication of marriage itself -- which they see as an "archaic, oppressive institution."

But smart, well-read conservatives (forget those on the other side or in the squishy middle) will mostly drift along, protesting mildly any inhuman "advance" that the so-called "progressives" demand.

Whatever the consequences of homosexual marriage -- whether a legalized kind in the future or the current illegal ones -- would be for children and the rest of us, we have already surrendered the necessary weapons to fight such battles in the future. We cannot continue indefinitely without an enforcable constitution, and the will to punish severely those who swear to defend it but then openly violate its very core.

Our "constitutionalist" conservative leaders and scribes have overwhelmingly abandoned their weapons in the field and withdrawn to the clubhouse where they can dispute the details of surrender to the enemy.

Surely, if this were not true, pro-marriage, pro-family forces -- for that matter, all decent Americans -- would have heard constant calls in recent years to unite behind the goal of imprisoning those who slice babies apart or vacuum their brains out days or weeks before they would otherwise come wiggling and wide-eyed into the world, crying for their mother's breast.

Sadly, we've been Orwellianized on the pro-family, pro-children, pro-marriage side, so that we now treat such imhumanity as an abstract, legal matter to be addressed with an annual article, a speech and scattered protest.

Looking at our record of accepting the illegal as legal, the outrageous as questionable, the inhumane as debatable, who will believe that we have any moral gravitas left for resisting the mere manufacture of babies to entertain illegally "married" homosexual couples whose unions will dissolve on average after -- what -- five years?

I recently published a commentary in the American Spectator, "No More Striking Down Constitutions: Why can't even conservatives call things by their name?". My hope is to shake "conservatives" out of their sleep.

Invalid "Marriages" -- A Sad Farce

Leather "Wedding" in Massachusetts

Photo credit: Bay Windows

Invalid "Marriages" -- A Sad Farce

We're sorry we have to break this, but it seems the rest of the media is unwilling to speak the truth: All the homosexual "marriages" in Massachusetts are invalid. The portraits in the Bay Windows marriage announcements section (example above) will bring home the reality of this sad farce, hurtful to all of society, including these couples.

Are we compassionate conservatives? Absolutely. Compassion includes speaking the truth: homosexual couples cannot really marry in Massachusetts. They can fill out a form joining "Party A" and "Party B" and have a party, and no one is stopping them from living together. But they cannot marry. The Legislature has not passed and the Governor has not signed any law to this effect.

Excerpts from the announcement for the couple pictured above:

They laughed, they cried, they shared an experience that moved them in ways they never anticipated. [They] were married Sept. 17, 2005 on Martha's Vineyard... Nontraditional indeed. From the couple's wedding attire - each wore black leather pants and dress shirts hand-beaded by a friend - to the Xanadu (their favorite film)-inspired wedding cake, this was not your parents' wedding. Except perhaps for the flower girls, 11-year-old A ... and the couple's nieces, who wore traditional floor length dresses....

Their first date began with drinks at the South End gay watering hole Fritz and while they had an instant rapport, X confesses there wasn't much physical spark. Z had taken the unfortunate step of shaving before the date, X says, "and I have a facial-hair pre-req!" Nonetheless they continued to Giacomo's at dinner and finished things off with dessert at The Four Seasons. That's when they noticed snow falling over the Boston Public Garden, making a romantic backdrop for a first kiss. Z made the move, and all thoughts of facial hair flew from X's head. "He's like, the best kisser in the world."

John Haskins, Part V: We've Surrendered the Language

[See earlier entries in John Haskins' series: Part I, Part II, Part III, and Part IV.]

Now that we've separated government from law (understanding that court rulings cannot outweigh real laws), and we've separated law from constitutions, and constitutions from language, and language from logic, we would be wasting our time unless we backtrack and re-fight the battles we've surrendered that made it possible for judges to rule us.

At this juncture nuanced arguments about whether a right to homosexual "marriage" should exist are beside the point of the coup d'etat that is under way on Beacon Hill. We have to impeach judges and other officials when they deserve that fate, or nothing that we argue or that is in our constitution will have any weight.

Conservatives have already accepted so much of the twisted political language and false legal and constitutional doctrine of the anti-constitutional left that every new concession of yet another aspect of constitutionally-constrained government is a step closer to final surrender on whatever remains of the moral and social order, and of the right to rule ourselves.

Language and terminology are absolutely vital, since words convey ideas. We constantly use the misnomers and subversive phrases of our opponents, so we convey their ideas -- not ours -- even when we think we are resisting them.

This is one of the biggest reasons we are losing the Culture War, the war to preserve some kind of humane and sensible ideal of the family and society that children are entitled to grow up in. The other sides lies pathologically -- never one lie at a time, but in laminated multi-tiered condominium lies. Big lies and little lies together. And "conservatives" accept the big, earth-shaking lies that will haunt us in every battle we will ever face to preserve our children's right to govern themselves in a society worth preserving. But "conservatives" debate the little lies that are related to the details of conditions after surrender. We have surrendered our Constitution. Everything from here on out is up for grabs -- with no firm boundaries.

A blogger responded in agreement with these points elsewhere:
"The purpose of this doublespeak campaign is the corruption of the language to the extent that concepts become so vague and mushy that the voice struggles to find the words to give expression to essential concepts such as equality, liberty, rights, rule of law, and good governance. Perfectly useful words are gutted and their meaning replaced. This is emblematic of the same sex marriage campaign. It is not so much a slippery slope as a series of dominos."

And if we do not identify the the thing within ourselves that answers with gentle words of moderation the steady supply of costly losses to the American family and the American child, the appropriate metaphor will be: "a line of dominos on a slippery slope."

Read Original Intent by David Barton to get a sense of how far the mentality and language of gradual surrender, which pervades conservative journalism, public policy, law and constitutional matters, has taken us outside the boundaries of the Constitution.

M.L. King: Say "No" to Unjust Laws

MassResistance advocates removal of the judges who ruled that homosexual "marriage" is protected by our state constitution, that it should be the "law" of the land. For the sake of argument, let's say it is now "law" in Massachusetts (which of course it isn't). Then the question arises, should we acknowledge and obey this "law"? Is it a just law?

The Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote in his "Letter from the Birmingham Jail" (1963):

"One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that 'an unjust law is no law at all.'

"Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust."

And to recognize "marriages" based on sodomy and other unnatural sexual acts is degrading to all of us in the end. Homosexual "marriage" is clearly contrary to God's law and natural law.

King also called on the religious leaders of Birmingham to act as moral leaders in the political community. He was deeply disappointed with their lack of courage. While some came forward, "too many others have been more cautious than courageous and have remained silent behind the anesthetizing security of stained-glass windows."

Feedback from a Troubled Young Man

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]

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.

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."

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.