The Boston Globe's original report on the New Bedford punk's attack at a gay bar included a graph showing the incidence of "hate crimes" in Massachusetts. If you look carefully at the graph, you'll notice the source is hardly reliable: "Fenway Community Health Center", the same place that encourages young men to engage in anal sex and possibly contract HIV/AIDS (for which they'll be paid $230).
Note also that the numbers from Fenway are not of prosecuted crimes. Who knows where their numbers come from. Reliable sources indicate that the incidence of crimes based on sexual orientation are declining.
See Robert Knight's citations, 'Hate Crime' Laws: An Assault on Freedom:
Homosexual activists often exaggerate the incidence of "hate crimes," which make up less than 1 percent of all crimes. Over the past several years, even with more law enforcement agencies reporting, the number of "hate crimes" based on "sexual orientation" has dropped.
In 2003, Americans were victimized by approximately 11 million "non-hate" crimes such as muggings, beatings, murders and property crime, such as burglaries, car theft and vandalism. Nearly 1.4 million of the crimes were classified as "violent crimes."
By contrast, there were 7,489 "hate crime" incidents, of which 1,239 were attributed to "sexual orientation" bias. That's a drop of five from the 2002 total of 1,244, and down 154 from 1,393 in 2001.3
Meanwhile, homosexual activist groups and law enforcement agencies tracking "gay-on-gay" domestic violence reported 6,523 cases in 2003, up 13 percent from 5,718 in 2002.4
People involved in homosexual behavior are astronomically more likely to be assaulted by another homosexual than to become the victim of a "hate crime."
What's more, the "hate crime" concept is profoundly subjective. According to FBI statistics,5 five forcible rapes in 2003 were classified as "hate crimes." Overall, 93,433 forcible rapes were reported in 2003, which means the other 93,428 rapes were not "hate crimes."
Also in 2003, some 16,503 criminal homicides were reported, of which 14 were classified as "hate crimes." Six were said to be based on "sexual orientation," and five were said to be based on racial bias.
Monday, February 06, 2006
Sunday, February 05, 2006
Ex-Gay Exposes Truth about Homosexual Rights Movement
Do you pro-family activists have the courage to read and digest this? A powerful expose on the truth about the homosexual lifestyle. The author, an ex-gay, pulls no punches.
Among other things, the author makes clear that there's no such thing as monogamous "gay" relationships. In his 20 years living as a "gay", he never encountered one such couple.
Think about this: There's never been a definition of ethical standards (for sexual behavior) by any of the "religious" leaders of the homosexual movement, only a demolition of traditional religious/ethical standards. (Since this is a Catholic magazine, there's an interesting discussion of an ex-priest behind the so-called Catholic homosexual activist "Dignity" movement.)
In the February issue of The New Oxford Review, "The Truth About the Homosexual Rights Movement; The Books Were a Front for the Porn," by Ronald G. Lee. Here are the opening paragraphs:
There was a "gay" bookstore called Lobo's in Austin, Texas, when I was living there as a grad student. The layout was interesting. Looking inside from the street all you saw were books. It looked like any other bookstore. There was a section devoted to classic "gay" fiction by writers such as Oscar Wilde, Gertrude Stein, and W.H. Auden. There were biographies of prominent "gay" icons, some of whom, like Walt Whitman, would probably have accepted the homosexual label, but many of whom, like Whitman's idol, President Lincoln, had been commandeered for the cause on the basis of evidence no stronger than a bad marriage or an intense same-sex friendship. There were impassioned modern "gay" memoirs, and historical accounts of the origins and development of the "gay rights" movement. It all looked so innocuous and disarmingly bourgeois. But if you went inside to browse, before long you noticed another section, behind the books, a section not visible from the street. The pornography section. Hundreds and hundreds of pornographic videos, all involving men, but otherwise catering to every conceivable sexual taste or fantasy. And you would notice something else too. There were no customers in the front. All the customers were in the back, rooting through the videos. As far as I know, I am the only person who ever actually purchased a book at Lobo's. The books were, in every sense of the word, a front for the porn.
So why waste thousands of dollars on books that no one was going to buy? It was clear from the large "on sale" section that only a pitifully small number of books were ever purchased at their original price. The owners of Lobo's were apparently wasting a lot of money on gay novels and works of gay history, when all the real money was in pornography. But the money spent on books wasn't wasted. It was used to purchase a commodity that is more precious than gold to the gay rights establishment. Respectability. Respectability and the appearance of normalcy. Without that investment, we would not now be engaged in a serious debate about the legalization of same-sex "marriage." By the time I lived in Austin, I had been thinking of myself as a gay man for almost 20 years. Based on the experience acquired during those years, I recognized in Lobo's a metaphor for the strategy used to sell gay rights to the American people, and for the sordid reality that strategy concealed.
Among other things, the author makes clear that there's no such thing as monogamous "gay" relationships. In his 20 years living as a "gay", he never encountered one such couple.
Think about this: There's never been a definition of ethical standards (for sexual behavior) by any of the "religious" leaders of the homosexual movement, only a demolition of traditional religious/ethical standards. (Since this is a Catholic magazine, there's an interesting discussion of an ex-priest behind the so-called Catholic homosexual activist "Dignity" movement.)
In the February issue of The New Oxford Review, "The Truth About the Homosexual Rights Movement; The Books Were a Front for the Porn," by Ronald G. Lee. Here are the opening paragraphs:
There was a "gay" bookstore called Lobo's in Austin, Texas, when I was living there as a grad student. The layout was interesting. Looking inside from the street all you saw were books. It looked like any other bookstore. There was a section devoted to classic "gay" fiction by writers such as Oscar Wilde, Gertrude Stein, and W.H. Auden. There were biographies of prominent "gay" icons, some of whom, like Walt Whitman, would probably have accepted the homosexual label, but many of whom, like Whitman's idol, President Lincoln, had been commandeered for the cause on the basis of evidence no stronger than a bad marriage or an intense same-sex friendship. There were impassioned modern "gay" memoirs, and historical accounts of the origins and development of the "gay rights" movement. It all looked so innocuous and disarmingly bourgeois. But if you went inside to browse, before long you noticed another section, behind the books, a section not visible from the street. The pornography section. Hundreds and hundreds of pornographic videos, all involving men, but otherwise catering to every conceivable sexual taste or fantasy. And you would notice something else too. There were no customers in the front. All the customers were in the back, rooting through the videos. As far as I know, I am the only person who ever actually purchased a book at Lobo's. The books were, in every sense of the word, a front for the porn.
So why waste thousands of dollars on books that no one was going to buy? It was clear from the large "on sale" section that only a pitifully small number of books were ever purchased at their original price. The owners of Lobo's were apparently wasting a lot of money on gay novels and works of gay history, when all the real money was in pornography. But the money spent on books wasn't wasted. It was used to purchase a commodity that is more precious than gold to the gay rights establishment. Respectability. Respectability and the appearance of normalcy. Without that investment, we would not now be engaged in a serious debate about the legalization of same-sex "marriage." By the time I lived in Austin, I had been thinking of myself as a gay man for almost 20 years. Based on the experience acquired during those years, I recognized in Lobo's a metaphor for the strategy used to sell gay rights to the American people, and for the sordid reality that strategy concealed.
Canada: Welcoming Polygamy, Abolishing Marriage?
Stanley Kurtz's latest in National Review Online, "Dissolving Marriage" (2-3-06) is a must read. He explains the significance of the recent official studies by the Canadian government on polygamy and polyamory. Who can seriously argue against the "slippery slope" theory, after reading this?
And don't miss the link to Mark Steyn, who explains that multiculturalist arguments (Muslim husbands with multiple wives) will be the vehicle to get this really rolling in Canada.
[Kurtz:] The way to abolish marriage, without seeming to abolish it, is to redefine the institution out of existence. If everything can be marriage, pretty soon nothing will be marriage. Legalize gay marriage, followed by multi-partner marriage, and pretty soon the whole idea of marriage will be meaningless. At that point, Canada can move to what [the legal "scholars" behind the reports] really want: an infinitely flexible relationship system that validates any conceivable family arrangement, regardless of the number or gender of partners.
The Canadian public cannot bring itself to believe that the abolition of marriage is the real agenda of the country’s liberal legal-political elite. That is why everyone was surprised by [the recent] polygamy report, even though the judicial elite’s intentions had been completely public for five years.
One tidbit in the Kurtz piece: The recent riots in France might very well be linked to all those young men being the products of poor, polygamist families, where there's no strong fatherly presence. BBC News reported (11-16-05):
[S]enior officials from President Jacques Chirac's centre-right party have suggested that polygamy is one factor in the riots, arguing children of polygamous families have less of a father figure and are more likely to live in overcrowded conditions.
"Polygamy... prevents people being educated as they should be in an organised society. Tens of people cannot live in a single flat," Bernard Accoyer, leader of the Union for a Popular Majority (UMP) in the National Assembly lower house of parliament, told French radio. Polygamy is illegal in France but until 1993, it was possible for immigrants to bring more than one wife from their home country to join them.
Is this a good model for Canada to follow?
And don't miss the link to Mark Steyn, who explains that multiculturalist arguments (Muslim husbands with multiple wives) will be the vehicle to get this really rolling in Canada.
[Kurtz:] The way to abolish marriage, without seeming to abolish it, is to redefine the institution out of existence. If everything can be marriage, pretty soon nothing will be marriage. Legalize gay marriage, followed by multi-partner marriage, and pretty soon the whole idea of marriage will be meaningless. At that point, Canada can move to what [the legal "scholars" behind the reports] really want: an infinitely flexible relationship system that validates any conceivable family arrangement, regardless of the number or gender of partners.
The Canadian public cannot bring itself to believe that the abolition of marriage is the real agenda of the country’s liberal legal-political elite. That is why everyone was surprised by [the recent] polygamy report, even though the judicial elite’s intentions had been completely public for five years.
One tidbit in the Kurtz piece: The recent riots in France might very well be linked to all those young men being the products of poor, polygamist families, where there's no strong fatherly presence. BBC News reported (11-16-05):
[S]enior officials from President Jacques Chirac's centre-right party have suggested that polygamy is one factor in the riots, arguing children of polygamous families have less of a father figure and are more likely to live in overcrowded conditions.
"Polygamy... prevents people being educated as they should be in an organised society. Tens of people cannot live in a single flat," Bernard Accoyer, leader of the Union for a Popular Majority (UMP) in the National Assembly lower house of parliament, told French radio. Polygamy is illegal in France but until 1993, it was possible for immigrants to bring more than one wife from their home country to join them.
Is this a good model for Canada to follow?
What Is a "Hate Crime"?
We questioned the whole concept of "hate crimes" in our previous posting on the violent teenage thug who attacked men in a homosexual bar in New Bedford a few days ago. So now this demented character has killed a policeman and a woman.
Were these murders "hate crimes"? Was the killer motivated by some special animus against police or women? How will we know? If not "hate crimes", do they deserve lesser punishments than if the victims were homosexuals?
Update, 2-5-06 afternoon: Suspect in Bar Attack Dies After Shootout. Now we'll never know whether his murder of the policeman and woman were "hate crimes"!
Were these murders "hate crimes"? Was the killer motivated by some special animus against police or women? How will we know? If not "hate crimes", do they deserve lesser punishments than if the victims were homosexuals?
Update, 2-5-06 afternoon: Suspect in Bar Attack Dies After Shootout. Now we'll never know whether his murder of the policeman and woman were "hate crimes"!
Saturday, February 04, 2006
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 !
(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 !
Friday, February 03, 2006
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....
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....
Thursday, February 02, 2006
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.
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."]
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."]
Wednesday, February 01, 2006
"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.
"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.
Monday, January 30, 2006
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."
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."
Sunday, January 29, 2006
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.
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.
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.
Saturday, January 28, 2006
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.
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.
Friday, January 27, 2006
"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?
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?
Wednesday, January 25, 2006
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....
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....
Tuesday, January 24, 2006
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
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
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Monday, January 23, 2006
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.
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.
Sunday, January 22, 2006
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?
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?
Saturday, January 21, 2006
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.'
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
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
Friday, January 20, 2006
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.
[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.
Thursday, January 19, 2006
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.
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.
Wednesday, January 18, 2006
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."
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
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.
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.
Monday, January 16, 2006
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."
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."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)