What does the Catholic Church mean when it says that homosexual parenting does violence to the children? Here's an interview with a woman raised by a homosexual father: Dawn Stefanowicz, interviewed by Gail Besse, in the National Catholic Register (May 10, 2006). Excerpts:
I’m speaking as a child who was not allowed to talk about what it’s like to grow up in a same-sex household. I loved my dad, and cared about his partners who have died of AIDS, so I can’t be politically correct. I have to speak up when legislation will inevitably put children at risk physically and psychologically.
Why doesn’t the public hear from more people in your situation?
It’s an extremely sensitive subject. It took me until I was in my late 20s to begin to deal with it. I haven’t met another adult child who didn’t love their parent, and often they won’t come forward until that parent has died. Sometimes the adult child won’t talk because they fear either hurting other family members or retribution from their own families.
What are your feelings toward your dad?
I came to deeply love and compassionately understand him before he died in 1991, sharing his life regrets with me. As a child, he had been sexually and physically abused by older males. He suffered from depression, anger, suicidal tendencies and sexual compulsions.
Do any incidents stick in your mind that you feel comfortable sharing?
We went to vacation spots that weren’t typical family places. One was a gay nude beach at Hanlan’s Point, Toronto, which often was raided by police, but now it’s legally “clothing optional.” By age 10, I was exposed to a sex shop and a gay cruising area. The boundaries between private and public sex were broken. There was cross-dressing, and gender-neutral aspects. I grew up feeling very confused about my own sexuality.
Read the complete interview.
Wednesday, May 10, 2006
Tuesday, May 09, 2006
MassResistance Trip to ConCon Cancelled!
Now why would Senate President Travaglini go and cancel the Constitutional Convention, scheduled for tomorrow, May 10? Pressing budgetary matters? Or is it running out the clock on the VoteOnMarriage referendum petition? ("Waiting for the Supreme Judicial Court's ruling on whether the petition is Constitutional"... Sure!)
We were looking forward to paying $20 for parking and remembering to leave our Swiss Army knife, mace, etc. behind so we could get through the State House security tomorrow! We really wanted to see what Cambridge Sen. Jarrett ("married to another man") Barrios had up his sleeve with OUR H653, the pure definition of marriage which WE filed to become a statute (NOT an amendment) -- and Barrios illegally, surreptitiously turned into a proposed Constitutional amendment! Was he somehow going to scuttle the VoteOnMarriage's amendment through the device of the mutated H653? Well, we just have to wait until July to find out.
Lawmakers postpone constitutional convention until July
May 9, 2006 - Associated Press
BOSTON -- Lawmakers will wait until July to consider several proposedconstitutional amendments, including making health care access a right andoutlawing gay marriage.
Senate President Robert Travaglini said Tuesday that the constitutional convention scheduled for Wednesday would be postponed because the Senate iscurrently preparing its budget and advancing "other important initiatives." "It would be prudent to postpone the constitutional convention until a later date in July," he said in a statement.
The Supreme Judicial Court is currently weighing a lawsuit by gay marriage activists which could make the proposed gay marriage constitutional amendment moot. The amendment would define marriage as the union of one man and one woman, but gay marriage supporters argue that it would violate the state constitution, which bars any citizen-initiated amendment that seeks to reverse a judicial ruling.
We were looking forward to paying $20 for parking and remembering to leave our Swiss Army knife, mace, etc. behind so we could get through the State House security tomorrow! We really wanted to see what Cambridge Sen. Jarrett ("married to another man") Barrios had up his sleeve with OUR H653, the pure definition of marriage which WE filed to become a statute (NOT an amendment) -- and Barrios illegally, surreptitiously turned into a proposed Constitutional amendment! Was he somehow going to scuttle the VoteOnMarriage's amendment through the device of the mutated H653? Well, we just have to wait until July to find out.
Lawmakers postpone constitutional convention until July
May 9, 2006 - Associated Press
BOSTON -- Lawmakers will wait until July to consider several proposedconstitutional amendments, including making health care access a right andoutlawing gay marriage.
Senate President Robert Travaglini said Tuesday that the constitutional convention scheduled for Wednesday would be postponed because the Senate iscurrently preparing its budget and advancing "other important initiatives." "It would be prudent to postpone the constitutional convention until a later date in July," he said in a statement.
The Supreme Judicial Court is currently weighing a lawsuit by gay marriage activists which could make the proposed gay marriage constitutional amendment moot. The amendment would define marriage as the union of one man and one woman, but gay marriage supporters argue that it would violate the state constitution, which bars any citizen-initiated amendment that seeks to reverse a judicial ruling.
Job Opening with "Gay" Activist Rep. Carl Sciortino
Rep. Carl Sciortino, openly homosexual legislator from Somerville and Medford, is looking for a legislative aide. He will not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation! So go ahead, MassResistance fans, apply! One of the job responsibilities is to "Ensure the office is kept clean." This is from a fellow who, as an undergraduate GLBT activist at Tufts, helped run anal lubricant seminars. He's also notorious for his part in QueerToday's disruption of Mass at the Cathedral of the Holy Cross in Boston, protesting the Church's stand against "homosexual marriage."
Hello,
I want to inform you of a job opening in my office for the position of Legislative Aide. The Legislative Aide is responsible for overseeing all day-to-day legislative, office, and constituent work. ... People of all sexual orientations [does this include pedophilia and bestiality?] and gender identities [i.e., "beyond binary"], people of color and people with disabilities are encouraged to apply.
Preference for people who are bilingual, who reside in Medford or Somerville, who are able to be occasionally flexible with work hours, and those with prior political or community organizing experience. If you are interested in applying, please send a resume, cover letter, and a writing sample by Friday, May 19th. They can be sent via email to brooks.daverman@state.ma.us, or mailed to Office of State Representative Carl Sciortino, Statehouse, Rm. 39, Boston, MA 02133. Please share this with anyone who you think might be interested.
Thank you,
Carl Sciortino
State Representative 34th Middlesex District
(617) 722-2014
Rep.CarlSciortino@Hou.State.MA.US
Hello,
I want to inform you of a job opening in my office for the position of Legislative Aide. The Legislative Aide is responsible for overseeing all day-to-day legislative, office, and constituent work. ... People of all sexual orientations [does this include pedophilia and bestiality?] and gender identities [i.e., "beyond binary"], people of color and people with disabilities are encouraged to apply.
Preference for people who are bilingual, who reside in Medford or Somerville, who are able to be occasionally flexible with work hours, and those with prior political or community organizing experience. If you are interested in applying, please send a resume, cover letter, and a writing sample by Friday, May 19th. They can be sent via email to brooks.daverman@state.ma.us, or mailed to Office of State Representative Carl Sciortino, Statehouse, Rm. 39, Boston, MA 02133. Please share this with anyone who you think might be interested.
Thank you,
Carl Sciortino
State Representative 34th Middlesex District
(617) 722-2014
Rep.CarlSciortino@Hou.State.MA.US
Monday, May 08, 2006
Governor Romney Instituted "Gay Marriage" in Massachusetts
We've gotten some interesting responses to two recent postings: Proof: Homosexual "Marriage" Still Not Legal in Massachusetts and "Surrender with Dignity" Conservatives. So for more along these lines:
We're all involved in an elaborate "Emperor-Has-No Clothes" charade, informed parties knowing full well that homosexual "marriage" is still not legal. As in the fairy tale, most -- but not all of us -- are keeping quiet. And the fantasy is being played out due only to the unilateral actions of Governor Romney. He ordered the printing of "Partner A/Partner B" marriage licenses, and ordered that all Justices of the Peace and Town Clerks cooperate with the fantasy of "marrying" homosexual partners. He did not have to do this. The Court did not order him to do so, and there was in fact no "homosexual marriage" LAW he had to uphold!
Let's go back to a news story that appeared on the day of the Goodridge ruling (Nov. 18, 2003) from our venerable Supreme Judicial Court. Before all the spin began, WCVB News Center 5 in Boston reported:
State's Highest Court Says 'Yes' To Gay Marriage
Legislature Has 180 Days To Decide On Amending Constitution
[Note: It does not say that Gov. Romney has 180 days to decide!]
M.R.F. Buckley, Staff Writer
POSTED: 10:34 am EST November 18, 2003
UPDATED: 6:35 am EST November 19, 2003
BOSTON -- Massachusetts highest court ruled Tuesday that it is illegal under the state's constitution to ban gay marriages, but left it up to the state Legislature to decide how the state will amend its Constitution to legalize gay marriages or unions. [Note: The Court ordered the Legislature -- not the Governor -- to act. The Court had NOT legalized "gay marriages", but recognized the Legislature as the branch which must do so. Though whether the Court even had this authority to order the Legislature is another question!]
... The SJC ruled in a 4-3 decision that the Legislature now has 180 days to act on the state's Constitution. ... The court went on to say that it's up to the Legislature to decide whether same sex couples can legally marry in the state. "We declare that barring an individual from the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage solely because that person would marry a person of the same sex violates the Massachusetts Constitution ... Entry of judgment shall be stayed for 180 days to permit the Legislature to take such action as it may deem appropriate in light of this opinion." [And if the Legislature did nothing, what could the Court do to enforce its ruling?]
Gov. Mitt Romney, who opposes gay marriage, offered swift reaction. He said he will do everything he can to prevent gay marriages in the state, saying he disagreed with the SJC decision and will put forth an amendment to limit the legal definition of marriage in the state. [But Romney, while at first appearing to recognize that legislative action was required, went on to facilitate "homosexual marriage" without any legislative action! Filing an amendment to protect marriage is a far cry from printing licenses and issuing orders for "homosexual marriages" to commence, which Romney did do in May 2004.]
"Marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman and the exact equivalent to marriage is also reserved to a man and a woman. Over the next several months I'll work together with Legislative leadership and other legislators and community leaders to decide what kind of statute we can fashion which is consistent with the law. We obviously have to follow the law as provided by the Supreme Judicial Court, even if we don't agree with it, we're going to follow it in terms of preparing legislation and we'll have legislation which conforms to the law. [What "law"? There was only a court ruling! If there were already "law" handed down by the Court, why would the Legislature have to act?] But we will, at the same time, initiate a constitutional amendment process, and that constitutional amendment process will be consistent with what I think the feelings are of the people of the commonwealth, and of course, the entire sweep of recorded history," said Romney. ...
"This is sounding an awful lot like Vermont," said David Yas of Lawyer's Weekly. "The SJC stopped short of giving a blanket rights of all gay couples to marry and instead sending it to the Legislature for what will ultimately be some sort of compromise. In Vermont, this is more or less what happened." Yas predicted Massachusetts could ultimately end up with a civil union law for gays, similar to what Vermont approved. ... [Yas recognized that only the Legislature was called upon by the Court to act, and that the Court did not implement "gay marriage".]
We're all involved in an elaborate "Emperor-Has-No Clothes" charade, informed parties knowing full well that homosexual "marriage" is still not legal. As in the fairy tale, most -- but not all of us -- are keeping quiet. And the fantasy is being played out due only to the unilateral actions of Governor Romney. He ordered the printing of "Partner A/Partner B" marriage licenses, and ordered that all Justices of the Peace and Town Clerks cooperate with the fantasy of "marrying" homosexual partners. He did not have to do this. The Court did not order him to do so, and there was in fact no "homosexual marriage" LAW he had to uphold!
Let's go back to a news story that appeared on the day of the Goodridge ruling (Nov. 18, 2003) from our venerable Supreme Judicial Court. Before all the spin began, WCVB News Center 5 in Boston reported:
State's Highest Court Says 'Yes' To Gay Marriage
Legislature Has 180 Days To Decide On Amending Constitution
[Note: It does not say that Gov. Romney has 180 days to decide!]
M.R.F. Buckley, Staff Writer
POSTED: 10:34 am EST November 18, 2003
UPDATED: 6:35 am EST November 19, 2003
BOSTON -- Massachusetts highest court ruled Tuesday that it is illegal under the state's constitution to ban gay marriages, but left it up to the state Legislature to decide how the state will amend its Constitution to legalize gay marriages or unions. [Note: The Court ordered the Legislature -- not the Governor -- to act. The Court had NOT legalized "gay marriages", but recognized the Legislature as the branch which must do so. Though whether the Court even had this authority to order the Legislature is another question!]
... The SJC ruled in a 4-3 decision that the Legislature now has 180 days to act on the state's Constitution. ... The court went on to say that it's up to the Legislature to decide whether same sex couples can legally marry in the state. "We declare that barring an individual from the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage solely because that person would marry a person of the same sex violates the Massachusetts Constitution ... Entry of judgment shall be stayed for 180 days to permit the Legislature to take such action as it may deem appropriate in light of this opinion." [And if the Legislature did nothing, what could the Court do to enforce its ruling?]
Gov. Mitt Romney, who opposes gay marriage, offered swift reaction. He said he will do everything he can to prevent gay marriages in the state, saying he disagreed with the SJC decision and will put forth an amendment to limit the legal definition of marriage in the state. [But Romney, while at first appearing to recognize that legislative action was required, went on to facilitate "homosexual marriage" without any legislative action! Filing an amendment to protect marriage is a far cry from printing licenses and issuing orders for "homosexual marriages" to commence, which Romney did do in May 2004.]
"Marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman and the exact equivalent to marriage is also reserved to a man and a woman. Over the next several months I'll work together with Legislative leadership and other legislators and community leaders to decide what kind of statute we can fashion which is consistent with the law. We obviously have to follow the law as provided by the Supreme Judicial Court, even if we don't agree with it, we're going to follow it in terms of preparing legislation and we'll have legislation which conforms to the law. [What "law"? There was only a court ruling! If there were already "law" handed down by the Court, why would the Legislature have to act?] But we will, at the same time, initiate a constitutional amendment process, and that constitutional amendment process will be consistent with what I think the feelings are of the people of the commonwealth, and of course, the entire sweep of recorded history," said Romney. ...
"This is sounding an awful lot like Vermont," said David Yas of Lawyer's Weekly. "The SJC stopped short of giving a blanket rights of all gay couples to marry and instead sending it to the Legislature for what will ultimately be some sort of compromise. In Vermont, this is more or less what happened." Yas predicted Massachusetts could ultimately end up with a civil union law for gays, similar to what Vermont approved. ... [Yas recognized that only the Legislature was called upon by the Court to act, and that the Court did not implement "gay marriage".]
Sunday, May 07, 2006
The Buck Stops with Gov. Romney: BAGLY's Gay/Trans Parade & Prom
Foxy Cleopatra at Youth Pride 2005
"Prom Queens" at the BAGLY Queer/Trans Prom, Boston City Hall, May 2005
[Photos credit: BAGLY.org]
The Youth Pride parade hits the streets of Boston next Saturday, May 13. That evening, the BAGLY queer/trans prom will be held at Boston City Hall.
Massachusetts Governors have issued proclamations supporting the Youth Pride event every year -- that is, until Article 8/MassResistance sent a little communication to Governor Romney's office last year. While he had issued a proclamation his first year in office, he declined to proclaim "Youth Pride Day" his second year.
Sadly, we see that this year the Youth Pride group has been allowed to issue an official press release from the Governor's office, under the "authority" of the "Governor's Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth." The Governor's name and seal are at the top of the page. The buck stops with him. Why did he allow this? Will he step in to stop this horrible event?
The press release says: " 'One of the goals of Youth Pride is to unite the very diverse youth from across Massachusetts and beyond, and celebrate the wisdom, love and courage they have gained throughout their lives so far,' says Mass Youth Pride Committee member Timothy James Gallant." The event will feature "Gender Crash" in their "Words of Wisdom" segment. [Gender Crash calls itself the "intersection of Boston's queer, transgender, and gender queer communities."]
From the Mass Youth Pride announcement: On Saturday, May 13th the MA Youth Pride Committee will transform the Boston Common into “Rainbow City” for the 12th Annual Youth Pride Celebration.
In celebration of their lives and diversity, GLBTQ youth and their supporters will gather by the thousands to kick off Massachusetts' 12th annual Youth Pride and this year’s event promises to be a smash!
The day will be hosted by drag king Heywood Wakefield (Aliza Shapiro) and the schedule is as follows:
12pm- Rally at the Parkman Bandstand on Boston Common with featured speakers on the topics of Wisdom, Love and Courage. Awards in those same categories will be presented to people who have been an inspiration to the GLBTQ community.
Following the rally, the Boston Women's Rainbow Chorus will perform numbers from The Wizard of Oz and The Wiz as our 'Lollipop Kids' prepare to set off along the red-brick Freedom Trail, past the golden 'Oz-like' dome of the Massachusetts State House and through the streets of Downtown Boston. [Yes, they've transformed our state into a fantasy-world freak show.]
Upon returning to the Common, the celebration will continue with a music and resource festival. The festival will feature interactive games and activities as well as a chance to purchase goods from various vendors, including some of our very own youth vendors.
Admission to this event is free.
Youth Pride is the oldest and largest event for gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and queer youth and their allies in the nation. [A big thanks to Gov. William Weld!] A youth driven and youth organized event, this year's Youth Pride theme- "Rainbow City"- was chosen by the Massachusetts Youth Pride Committee to celebrate the diverse identities and shared spirit of GLBTQ youth. The MAYPC invites everyone to come and support GLBTQ youth while discovering that there is no place like Youth Pride!
For more information please contact Event Coordinator, Keri Aulita, at
ypcoordinator@hotmail.com or Youth Coordinator, Kelly Lydon, at kelly.lydon@state.ma.us.Or visit www.massyouthpride.org.
Saturday, May 06, 2006
Gay & Lesbian Bar Association: "As Queer as It Gets"
[Warning: Lots of lavender links in this one!]
Try as we might, we keep missing gala events! First it was PFLAG's back-to-back fundraisers, then we missed the 26th anniversary celebration for BAGLY, honoring Rep. Alice Wolf of Cambridge (who recently tried to sneak by a bill requiring sex ed/homosex ed indoctrination from the earliest grades).
Now we find out too late that we could have attended the annual Mass. Gay & Lesbian Bar Association Dinner. ("MLGBA promotes the administration of justice throughout Massachusetts for all persons without regard to their sexual orientation or gender identity or expression." And that just about covers everything.) This was the group SJC Chief Justice Margaret Marshall promised to support back in 1999, appearing as their keynote speaker. She then went on to keep her promise. All highly unethical and contrary to the Code of Judicial Conduct, of course. (But this is Massachusetts...)
The keynote speaker at the MGLBA dinner, one Rachel Maddow, "is queer, very queer," according to our very queer source. She's apparently on MSNBC nightly at 11pm with Tucker Carlson (but who with a normal life can stay up that late?). Mark, at our very queer source, writes:
Rachel's keynote speech was important for the gay community of Massachusetts to hear. She spoke about our need to fight back against an administration that ignores the rule of law, rather than wasting our time responding to attacks from Rick Santorum. She said we should be proud to be different, proud to be a minority, and not obsess over assimilating. "We will never be normal," she yelled. [emphasis added]
After the event Rachel talked with Jenn ["a queer femme"] and I [sic] about how she agrees that if we look at all of our struggles through the singular lense of gay marriage it will hurt us as a community, we must broaded [sic] our scope and form coalitions.
Grace Sterling Stowell also gave an inspiring speech in which she encouraged the audience to think about the needs of LGBT Youth and the Trans Community who are so often forgotten by the mainstream gay community. [Check out "her" speech at last year's GLSEN conference!]
Larry Kessler also received an award. Larry has been an anti-war activist, founded organizations to feed the hunger and shelter the poor, and founded the Aids Action Committee of Massachusetts [publisher of the Little Black Book].
Overall the speeches and awardees were as queer as it gets.
Try as we might, we keep missing gala events! First it was PFLAG's back-to-back fundraisers, then we missed the 26th anniversary celebration for BAGLY, honoring Rep. Alice Wolf of Cambridge (who recently tried to sneak by a bill requiring sex ed/homosex ed indoctrination from the earliest grades).
Now we find out too late that we could have attended the annual Mass. Gay & Lesbian Bar Association Dinner. ("MLGBA promotes the administration of justice throughout Massachusetts for all persons without regard to their sexual orientation or gender identity or expression." And that just about covers everything.) This was the group SJC Chief Justice Margaret Marshall promised to support back in 1999, appearing as their keynote speaker. She then went on to keep her promise. All highly unethical and contrary to the Code of Judicial Conduct, of course. (But this is Massachusetts...)
The keynote speaker at the MGLBA dinner, one Rachel Maddow, "is queer, very queer," according to our very queer source. She's apparently on MSNBC nightly at 11pm with Tucker Carlson (but who with a normal life can stay up that late?). Mark, at our very queer source, writes:
Rachel's keynote speech was important for the gay community of Massachusetts to hear. She spoke about our need to fight back against an administration that ignores the rule of law, rather than wasting our time responding to attacks from Rick Santorum. She said we should be proud to be different, proud to be a minority, and not obsess over assimilating. "We will never be normal," she yelled. [emphasis added]
After the event Rachel talked with Jenn ["a queer femme"] and I [sic] about how she agrees that if we look at all of our struggles through the singular lense of gay marriage it will hurt us as a community, we must broaded [sic] our scope and form coalitions.
Grace Sterling Stowell also gave an inspiring speech in which she encouraged the audience to think about the needs of LGBT Youth and the Trans Community who are so often forgotten by the mainstream gay community. [Check out "her" speech at last year's GLSEN conference!]
Larry Kessler also received an award. Larry has been an anti-war activist, founded organizations to feed the hunger and shelter the poor, and founded the Aids Action Committee of Massachusetts [publisher of the Little Black Book].
Overall the speeches and awardees were as queer as it gets.
Thursday, May 04, 2006
"King and King" About "Family"? NO...
It was already a stretch when GLBTQIP activists claimed that "Who's In a Family?" (the book that triggered the David Parker's concern) was only about "different kinds of families." But how are families with children created except through sex? (Leaving aside that non-hetero parents now have unethical doctors willing to artificially inseminate, no matter what the parent profile is ...)
So we say even "Who's In a Family?" is about human sexuality, because when a young child from a normal background is forced to focus on two mommies or two daddies with their children, they will naturally find it strange. Then their thoughts inevitably move on to how two mommies or two daddies can make babies. "Do they kiss like my mommy and daddy? Do they sleep together?", etc. But it's still not about sex, say the GLBTQIPs!
But now the GLBTQIPs are really pushing it. "King and King", the latest tool of indoctrination in the Lexington schools, is about two young princes who fall in love and get "married." It is "not about sex but about family," they still say.
But where, we ask, are the two kings' children? Is a male couple engaging in sodomy a "family"? Is that all that the word "family" now requires? How is this book about "different kinds of families" that children see in their own neighborhoods? The only reference to "family" in this story book is the strained relationship between the prince his mother, the chattering, overbearing queen. (Very interesting. No father around, a nagging mother he can't stand ... but that's a topic for another day.)
So we say even "Who's In a Family?" is about human sexuality, because when a young child from a normal background is forced to focus on two mommies or two daddies with their children, they will naturally find it strange. Then their thoughts inevitably move on to how two mommies or two daddies can make babies. "Do they kiss like my mommy and daddy? Do they sleep together?", etc. But it's still not about sex, say the GLBTQIPs!
But now the GLBTQIPs are really pushing it. "King and King", the latest tool of indoctrination in the Lexington schools, is about two young princes who fall in love and get "married." It is "not about sex but about family," they still say.
But where, we ask, are the two kings' children? Is a male couple engaging in sodomy a "family"? Is that all that the word "family" now requires? How is this book about "different kinds of families" that children see in their own neighborhoods? The only reference to "family" in this story book is the strained relationship between the prince his mother, the chattering, overbearing queen. (Very interesting. No father around, a nagging mother he can't stand ... but that's a topic for another day.)
Wednesday, May 03, 2006
Proof: Homosexual "Marriage" Still Not Legal in Massachusetts
Still don't get it? Look at these two bills pending in the Massachusetts legislature:
[Filed by the homosexual lobby:]
H977 / S967 (Still in Judiciary Committee) -- Would "officially" legalize homosexual marriage. The homosexual lobby apparently realizes that the SJC decision did not actually change any law. Thus, they want to make it "official" law -- which it ISN'T now!
An Act TO PROTECT MASSACHUSETTS FAMILIES THROUGH EQUAL ACCESS TO CIVIL MARRIAGE. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:
SECTION 1. Chapter 207 is hereby amended by adding the following new section:
Section 37A. Any person who otherwise meets the eligibility requirements of this chapter may marry any other eligible person regardless of gender.
[Filed by MassResistance:]
H654 (Still in Judiciary Committee) -- Nullification of same-sex "marriages".
An ACT TO CLARIFY THE STATUS OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGES PERFORMED UNDER PUBLIC AUTHORITY IN MASSACHUSETTS SINCE MAY 17, 2004. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:
It is hereby declared that all same-sex marriages performed under public authority in Massachusetts since May 17, 2004 are without statutory basis; and no marriage performed in Massachusetts will be considered legally binding which is not established by Massachusetts statute, not withstanding licensing through the Massachusetts Department of Public Health, or city or town clerk.
[Filed by the homosexual lobby:]
H977 / S967 (Still in Judiciary Committee) -- Would "officially" legalize homosexual marriage. The homosexual lobby apparently realizes that the SJC decision did not actually change any law. Thus, they want to make it "official" law -- which it ISN'T now!
An Act TO PROTECT MASSACHUSETTS FAMILIES THROUGH EQUAL ACCESS TO CIVIL MARRIAGE. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:
SECTION 1. Chapter 207 is hereby amended by adding the following new section:
Section 37A. Any person who otherwise meets the eligibility requirements of this chapter may marry any other eligible person regardless of gender.
[Filed by MassResistance:]
H654 (Still in Judiciary Committee) -- Nullification of same-sex "marriages".
An ACT TO CLARIFY THE STATUS OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGES PERFORMED UNDER PUBLIC AUTHORITY IN MASSACHUSETTS SINCE MAY 17, 2004. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:
It is hereby declared that all same-sex marriages performed under public authority in Massachusetts since May 17, 2004 are without statutory basis; and no marriage performed in Massachusetts will be considered legally binding which is not established by Massachusetts statute, not withstanding licensing through the Massachusetts Department of Public Health, or city or town clerk.
Tuesday, May 02, 2006
How Many Homosexuals Really Want to "Marry"?
Is the demand for homosexual "marriage" a disingenuous political tool? Only a small percentage of the estimated homosexual populations in the Netherlands, Belgium, or Massachusetts have "married". Bear in mind that Massachusetts is a "magnet" state for homosexuals who do want to "marry" in this country. (And note that the story inaccurately reports that such "marriage" is "legal" in Massachusetts.)
Apr 26, 2006
Study Assesses How Many Gays Marry if Legal
By DAVID CRARYAP National Writer
NEW YORK (AP) -- A new study attempts to gauge the percentage of gays and lesbians who have chosen to marry in places where that option is legal, with estimates ranging from as little as 2 percent to more than 16 percent, depending on the location.
A co-author of the report, released Wednesday, said both sides in the gay marriage debate may take heart from the findings.
The Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, which opposes gay marriage, reviewed data from the Netherlands, Belgium, Canada and Massachusetts, all of which allow same-sex partners to wed.
In each case, the study offered a range of estimates of the percentage of gays who had married, based on varying approximations - from 1 percent to 5 percent - of how many gays were in the general population.
In the Netherlands, where 8,127 same-sex couples married from April 1, 2001, through last December, the study said this represented between 2.6 percent and 6.3 percent of the country's gays and lesbians.
The study estimated that between 2 percent and 5 percent of Belgium's gays and lesbians, and 5.9 percent to 16.7 percent of those in Massachusetts had married. Same-sex marriage became legal in Massachusetts in May 2004, and 7,341 gay and lesbians couples had wed there through last December. [Read more ...]
Apr 26, 2006
Study Assesses How Many Gays Marry if Legal
By DAVID CRARYAP National Writer
NEW YORK (AP) -- A new study attempts to gauge the percentage of gays and lesbians who have chosen to marry in places where that option is legal, with estimates ranging from as little as 2 percent to more than 16 percent, depending on the location.
A co-author of the report, released Wednesday, said both sides in the gay marriage debate may take heart from the findings.
The Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, which opposes gay marriage, reviewed data from the Netherlands, Belgium, Canada and Massachusetts, all of which allow same-sex partners to wed.
In each case, the study offered a range of estimates of the percentage of gays who had married, based on varying approximations - from 1 percent to 5 percent - of how many gays were in the general population.
In the Netherlands, where 8,127 same-sex couples married from April 1, 2001, through last December, the study said this represented between 2.6 percent and 6.3 percent of the country's gays and lesbians.
The study estimated that between 2 percent and 5 percent of Belgium's gays and lesbians, and 5.9 percent to 16.7 percent of those in Massachusetts had married. Same-sex marriage became legal in Massachusetts in May 2004, and 7,341 gay and lesbians couples had wed there through last December. [Read more ...]
Monday, May 01, 2006
Brave New World = Fatherless Children
The world of the future. Single-mom households, children with no father. Two-mom households, children with no father. And don't forget the two-dad households who somehow adopt children who will know no mother. From the Family Research Council:
Life Without Father
The tykes' smiling pictures confront us in today's Washington Post. They are the children of "Donor 401." He is a German, we know, and he's a sperm donor who has fathered at least 25 children--that we know of. Fairfax (VA) Cryobank is proud of its role in this project. Still anonymous, Donor 401 is nonetheless a hot commodity on TV talk shows. The kids shown appear to be blond, blue-eyed.
Women who have been inseminated with his sperm have appeared with Meredith Vieira on "The View." The "Today" show featured a story on this phenomenon. And Comedy Central's Steve Colbert claimed facetiously to be Donor 401. "Obviously, the kids will ask questions someday," said one of the women who set up an online registry to link up the children who are biologically half-brothers and sisters, "and having this connection will help." Oh yes, they will definitely ask questions someday. And some of these parents may not be entirely prepared to answer.
We used to view with horror the idea of intentionally depriving children of a relationship with their father--and with their brothers and sisters. Now it has become almost a sport, a lark, a subject for daytime TV talk show fun. It is a direct and dehumanizing attack on the family.
Life Without Father
The tykes' smiling pictures confront us in today's Washington Post. They are the children of "Donor 401." He is a German, we know, and he's a sperm donor who has fathered at least 25 children--that we know of. Fairfax (VA) Cryobank is proud of its role in this project. Still anonymous, Donor 401 is nonetheless a hot commodity on TV talk shows. The kids shown appear to be blond, blue-eyed.
Women who have been inseminated with his sperm have appeared with Meredith Vieira on "The View." The "Today" show featured a story on this phenomenon. And Comedy Central's Steve Colbert claimed facetiously to be Donor 401. "Obviously, the kids will ask questions someday," said one of the women who set up an online registry to link up the children who are biologically half-brothers and sisters, "and having this connection will help." Oh yes, they will definitely ask questions someday. And some of these parents may not be entirely prepared to answer.
We used to view with horror the idea of intentionally depriving children of a relationship with their father--and with their brothers and sisters. Now it has become almost a sport, a lark, a subject for daytime TV talk show fun. It is a direct and dehumanizing attack on the family.
Mushy Republicans Again
John Haskins has another excellent article on mushy Republicans and conservatives who can't face the truth, this time on Alan Keyes' website, Renew America:
"Bush DID make history on the White House lawn...and every politically astute liberal knows it."
By John Haskins (April 29, 2006)
More denial, folks. As always, every politically aware liberal and homosexual activist in the country knows what many on "Our Side" have scrambled to deny. Here's a little reality pill to nibble on: another incremental surrender DID occur and history WAS made in this White House Easter Egg Roll, in an almost irreversible way. Homosexuals, bearing their trophy children — helpless prisoners in the War Against Future Generations — were welcomed without so much as blink of an eye at a family event on a high Christian holy day.
Make no mistake: those who plot and scheme tirelessly against the innocence of our children, and against our rights as parents to defend them and who have sworn enmity against our God, know that they won that Easter egg roll and we lost. No, once again, we didn't lose. We surrendered. Our specialty. And we then chastised those among us who warned against one more polite, quiet, peaceful, dignified, lazy, little surrender.
Why don't pro-family people understand how much the "little" things like this advance society's acceptance of homosexual "families," homosexual child rearing and homosexual "marriages?" How blind can we be? ...
[Read more ...]
"Bush DID make history on the White House lawn...and every politically astute liberal knows it."
By John Haskins (April 29, 2006)
More denial, folks. As always, every politically aware liberal and homosexual activist in the country knows what many on "Our Side" have scrambled to deny. Here's a little reality pill to nibble on: another incremental surrender DID occur and history WAS made in this White House Easter Egg Roll, in an almost irreversible way. Homosexuals, bearing their trophy children — helpless prisoners in the War Against Future Generations — were welcomed without so much as blink of an eye at a family event on a high Christian holy day.
Make no mistake: those who plot and scheme tirelessly against the innocence of our children, and against our rights as parents to defend them and who have sworn enmity against our God, know that they won that Easter egg roll and we lost. No, once again, we didn't lose. We surrendered. Our specialty. And we then chastised those among us who warned against one more polite, quiet, peaceful, dignified, lazy, little surrender.
Why don't pro-family people understand how much the "little" things like this advance society's acceptance of homosexual "families," homosexual child rearing and homosexual "marriages?" How blind can we be? ...
[Read more ...]
Saturday, April 29, 2006
Shame on Mass. Republicans
From MassResistance's reporter at the state Republican convention today, Saturday, April 29.
The Massachusetts Republican Party is at its weakest ever. This is because they are not Republicans any more. Shame on the party leadership. They have clearly joined the Culture of Death, proclaiming their pro-abortion stance -- even celebrating it at a cocktail party! And the state committee allowed sodomy "marriage" advocates to have an information table at Saturday's state party convention.
MassEquality passing out its propaganda at a Republican convention!? Bad enough that in 2004, Republican candidates were instructed to avoid the issue of homosexual "marriage". But now the party is apparently welcoming MassEquality's message. No -- a party convention is not a free speech zone. Exhibitors should be in accord with the principles of the party. Does the Massachusetts Republican Party now officially support homosexual "marriage"?! We'll have to check on this...
Planned Parenthood also had a table at the convention. And at the end of the day on Saturday, "Republicans for Choice" threw a cocktail reception. Here's the flyer that was circulating:
Immediately following the Republican Convention
Join the Massachusetts Coalition for Choice at the kick-off event for the
MASSACHUSETTS REPUBLICANS FOR CHOICE
Keynote Speaker: Lieutenant Governor and Gubernatorial Candidate Kerry Healey
Other Speakers:
Lieutenant Governor Candidate Reed Hillman
Darlee Crockett, National Co-chair of Planned Parenthood Republicans for Choice
SATURDAY APRIL 29th 2006, 2pm (or end of convention if later) Brewery exchange, 3rd floor Playloft: 201 Cabot St. in Lowell
- light hors d'oeuvres served - cash bar
EVENT HOST COMMITTEE
Lieutenant Governor Kerry Healey
Lieutenant Governor Candidate Reed Hillman
Governor William F. Weld
Governor Argeo Paul Cellucci
The Honorable Jane Swift
Darlee Crockett, national Co-chair, Planned Parenthood Republicans for Choice
Massachusetts State Senator Brian Lees
Massachusetts State Senator Richard Tisei
Massachusetts State Rep0resentative Karyn Polito
Massachusetts State Representative Mary Rogeness
Massachusetts State Representative Sue Pope
Massachusetts State Representative Virginia Coppola
The Honorable Jody Dow
The Honorable Patrick Guerriero
Sarah Chamberlain Resnick, Executive Director of the Republican Mainstreet Partnership
Jonathan Stevens, Public Policy Director of the Republican Mainstreet Partnership
Ann Blackham, Ann Murphy, Bill Saltonstall, Jenny Armini, Lucile P. Hicks, Lyman Wood, Nancy J. Luther, Polly Logan, William Sawyer
The Massachusetts Republican Party is at its weakest ever. This is because they are not Republicans any more. Shame on the party leadership. They have clearly joined the Culture of Death, proclaiming their pro-abortion stance -- even celebrating it at a cocktail party! And the state committee allowed sodomy "marriage" advocates to have an information table at Saturday's state party convention.
MassEquality passing out its propaganda at a Republican convention!? Bad enough that in 2004, Republican candidates were instructed to avoid the issue of homosexual "marriage". But now the party is apparently welcoming MassEquality's message. No -- a party convention is not a free speech zone. Exhibitors should be in accord with the principles of the party. Does the Massachusetts Republican Party now officially support homosexual "marriage"?! We'll have to check on this...
Planned Parenthood also had a table at the convention. And at the end of the day on Saturday, "Republicans for Choice" threw a cocktail reception. Here's the flyer that was circulating:
Immediately following the Republican Convention
Join the Massachusetts Coalition for Choice at the kick-off event for the
MASSACHUSETTS REPUBLICANS FOR CHOICE
Keynote Speaker: Lieutenant Governor and Gubernatorial Candidate Kerry Healey
Other Speakers:
Lieutenant Governor Candidate Reed Hillman
Darlee Crockett, National Co-chair of Planned Parenthood Republicans for Choice
SATURDAY APRIL 29th 2006, 2pm (or end of convention if later) Brewery exchange, 3rd floor Playloft: 201 Cabot St. in Lowell
- light hors d'oeuvres served - cash bar
EVENT HOST COMMITTEE
Lieutenant Governor Kerry Healey
Lieutenant Governor Candidate Reed Hillman
Governor William F. Weld
Governor Argeo Paul Cellucci
The Honorable Jane Swift
Darlee Crockett, national Co-chair, Planned Parenthood Republicans for Choice
Massachusetts State Senator Brian Lees
Massachusetts State Senator Richard Tisei
Massachusetts State Rep0resentative Karyn Polito
Massachusetts State Representative Mary Rogeness
Massachusetts State Representative Sue Pope
Massachusetts State Representative Virginia Coppola
The Honorable Jody Dow
The Honorable Patrick Guerriero
Sarah Chamberlain Resnick, Executive Director of the Republican Mainstreet Partnership
Jonathan Stevens, Public Policy Director of the Republican Mainstreet Partnership
Ann Blackham, Ann Murphy, Bill Saltonstall, Jenny Armini, Lucile P. Hicks, Lyman Wood, Nancy J. Luther, Polly Logan, William Sawyer
Thursday, April 27, 2006
MR Editor Attends Real Wedding!
We'll be taking a few days off to attend a REAL wedding on the West Coast-- one man + one woman. Back on Monday.
Wednesday, April 26, 2006
School Risk Audit: Are Your Schools Promoting Homosexuality?
Parents and community members need to document exactly what's happening in their own schools. Here's a tool which might help.
From Robert Knight at the Culture & Family Institute of Concerned Women for America: Groups Endorse ‘School Risk Audit’ to Expose ‘Gay’ Agenda in Schools (4/25/06).
Are your local schools promoting homosexuality? There’s a new way to find out.
A coalition of pro-family groups is urging parents to do a “School Risk Audit” to determine whether and how the schools have become conduits for homosexual activism.
Concerned Women for America (CWA) has joined with Mission America, American Family Association, Citizens for Community Values, Family Research Council, Eagle Forum, Americans for Truth, Exodus Mandate, and several state organizations (see below at end of article) to recommend a “School Risk Audit” inspired by a resolution passed in 2005 by the Southern Baptist Convention and developed by Mission America President Linda Harvey.
Parents can download the audit form and use any portion they wish or the entire document. The Audit includes recommendations for parental action in the wake of the survey, such as how to alert school authorities and how to issue a press release.
From Robert Knight at the Culture & Family Institute of Concerned Women for America: Groups Endorse ‘School Risk Audit’ to Expose ‘Gay’ Agenda in Schools (4/25/06).
Are your local schools promoting homosexuality? There’s a new way to find out.
A coalition of pro-family groups is urging parents to do a “School Risk Audit” to determine whether and how the schools have become conduits for homosexual activism.
Concerned Women for America (CWA) has joined with Mission America, American Family Association, Citizens for Community Values, Family Research Council, Eagle Forum, Americans for Truth, Exodus Mandate, and several state organizations (see below at end of article) to recommend a “School Risk Audit” inspired by a resolution passed in 2005 by the Southern Baptist Convention and developed by Mission America President Linda Harvey.
Parents can download the audit form and use any portion they wish or the entire document. The Audit includes recommendations for parental action in the wake of the survey, such as how to alert school authorities and how to issue a press release.
Tuesday, April 25, 2006
Schools' Legal Liability in Promoting Homosexual Sex
Schools across America are going to start experiencing lawsuits over their criminal seduction of our young people into the unhealthy GLBT "lifestyle". Check out this resource from PFOX (Parents & Friends of ExGays & Gays). It makes a great gift for your local school committee, superintendent, and principal.
"The Legal Liability Associated with Homosexuality Education in Public Schools: An assessment of the risks and liabilities associated with policies and programs that normalize homosexual behavior in public schools." Topics include:
-Endangering the physical health of a child (STDs, HPV, promoting unsafe sex, other risky behaviors); endangering the mental health of a child; schools unequipped to be mental health clinics; contributing to delinquency of a child; recommended reading for children?; the Massachusetts model; unconstitutional restriction of First Amendment rights.
"The Legal Liability Associated with Homosexuality Education in Public Schools: An assessment of the risks and liabilities associated with policies and programs that normalize homosexual behavior in public schools." Topics include:
-Endangering the physical health of a child (STDs, HPV, promoting unsafe sex, other risky behaviors); endangering the mental health of a child; schools unequipped to be mental health clinics; contributing to delinquency of a child; recommended reading for children?; the Massachusetts model; unconstitutional restriction of First Amendment rights.
Monday, April 24, 2006
PFOX Resources to Combat "Day of Silence"
Check out the ex-gay perspective on countering the poisonous message of gay-straight alliances. See PFOX's website. That's "Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays".
For example, see: "How to Respond to a Gay/Straight Alliance (GSA) Club at your school (a correct response to the anti-ex-gay group GLSEN): Ten Steps to Success by using ex-gay resources to fight bigotry."
And to hand out on the "Day of Silence", here's their downloadable pamphlet for teens: Feelings Change: They are Only One Part of You..."
For example, see: "How to Respond to a Gay/Straight Alliance (GSA) Club at your school (a correct response to the anti-ex-gay group GLSEN): Ten Steps to Success by using ex-gay resources to fight bigotry."
And to hand out on the "Day of Silence", here's their downloadable pamphlet for teens: Feelings Change: They are Only One Part of You..."
Propaganda Assault This Wednesday 4-26: "Day of Silence" in High Schools
Have you called your high school yet to ask the principal if there will be a homosexual propaganda assault -- deceptively named the "Day of Silence" -- this Wednesday, April 26? And if there will be, why hasn't he informed parents of this event which promotes homosexuality, bisexuality, and transgenderism? Massachusetts law (Ch. 71, Sec. 32A) requires parental notification, and ability to opt out their children when human sexuality issues are brought up in the schools.
The principals will surely tell you that it's a student-run event and not part of the curriculum. This is a lie. The event is run by the radical, national GLBT advocacy group GLSEN, and supported by school administrations. (See quote below -- from the horse's mouth.) If you wonder about this claim, ask yourself if Operation Rescue would be allowed to have day of civil disobedience promoting the pro-life cause.
We've published the list of high schools with gay clubs ("Gay-Straight Alliances"), based on GLSEN's list from last year, newspaper accounts, and our own first-hand knowledge, and GLSEN's national website posts a list of Massachusetts high school clubs. The Governor's Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth will not answer our request for an up-to-date list, and the Mass. Dept. of Education Safe Schools office plays ignorant. The Governor's office said they'd help us get this list two weeks ago, but we've still not received anything.
According to Bay Windows, "[I]n 2001 ... GLSEN took charge of the event. Under GLSEN’s leadership the Day of Silence quickly expanded to thousands of high schools across the country and became GLSEN’s signature event. ... Sean Haley, executive director of GLSEN Boston, said he expects students at between 125-150 schools in the state to take part in the event this year. He said schools in the Boston area have been honoring the Day of Silence since GLSEN first took over planning the event in 2001. [emphasis added]
The principals will surely tell you that it's a student-run event and not part of the curriculum. This is a lie. The event is run by the radical, national GLBT advocacy group GLSEN, and supported by school administrations. (See quote below -- from the horse's mouth.) If you wonder about this claim, ask yourself if Operation Rescue would be allowed to have day of civil disobedience promoting the pro-life cause.
We've published the list of high schools with gay clubs ("Gay-Straight Alliances"), based on GLSEN's list from last year, newspaper accounts, and our own first-hand knowledge, and GLSEN's national website posts a list of Massachusetts high school clubs. The Governor's Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth will not answer our request for an up-to-date list, and the Mass. Dept. of Education Safe Schools office plays ignorant. The Governor's office said they'd help us get this list two weeks ago, but we've still not received anything.
According to Bay Windows, "[I]n 2001 ... GLSEN took charge of the event. Under GLSEN’s leadership the Day of Silence quickly expanded to thousands of high schools across the country and became GLSEN’s signature event. ... Sean Haley, executive director of GLSEN Boston, said he expects students at between 125-150 schools in the state to take part in the event this year. He said schools in the Boston area have been honoring the Day of Silence since GLSEN first took over planning the event in 2001. [emphasis added]
Sunday, April 23, 2006
False Report in Bay Windows Corrected
Bay Windows tried to make MassResistance/Article 8 appear ineffectual, publishing a "news story" that a protest against the concert by the Boston Gay Men's Chorus at the Concord-Carlisle High School "fizzled". Well, MassResistance/Article 8 never called for a demonstration! Bay Windows did run our correction in their "Letters to the Editor" column this week:
How not to celebrate Palm Sunday
The headline (see “Article 8 Protest of Boston Gay Men’s Chorus Fizzles,” April 13) states that Article 8 called for a protest of the BGMC concert at Concord-Carlisle HS on Sunday, April 9.
They did no such thing.
Article 8 supporters would not turn out for a protest on Palm Sunday. The idea of that concert on that day was so repugnant that no one would go anywhere near it! We were simply getting the news out that the event was on the calendar. Many people then contacted the school administrators.
Please correct your misleading headline and story.
Charles Liung, MassResistance
[Bay Windows] Editor’s note: Bay Windows would never presume to understand how the members of a group like Article 8/MassResistance celebrate religious holidays like Palm Sunday.
How not to celebrate Palm Sunday
The headline (see “Article 8 Protest of Boston Gay Men’s Chorus Fizzles,” April 13) states that Article 8 called for a protest of the BGMC concert at Concord-Carlisle HS on Sunday, April 9.
They did no such thing.
Article 8 supporters would not turn out for a protest on Palm Sunday. The idea of that concert on that day was so repugnant that no one would go anywhere near it! We were simply getting the news out that the event was on the calendar. Many people then contacted the school administrators.
Please correct your misleading headline and story.
Charles Liung, MassResistance
[Bay Windows] Editor’s note: Bay Windows would never presume to understand how the members of a group like Article 8/MassResistance celebrate religious holidays like Palm Sunday.
Saturday, April 22, 2006
"Surrender with Dignity" Conservatives
MassResistance just received a letter from "Focus on the Family Action" center, wherein we're urged to participate in VoteOnMarriage's lobbying push for its flawed amendment (prior to the anticipated May 10 Constitutional Convention). If you've been following this blog, you'll know we have grave reservations about this proposed amendment.
If you're still in doubt about this, read the latest from John Haskins (below). And in case you missed it, check out Haskins' WorldNetDaily article (Dec. 2005) revealing the truth on how homosexual "marriage" actually came about in Massachusetts: Conservative Romney Buckles and Blunders."
Are the "Surrender with Dignity" Conservatives leading us over a cliff?
By John Haskins
The colossal resources being put into ratifying a new Massachusetts marriage amendment are based on a complete misunderstanding of the void legal and constitutional status of Governor Romney's homosexual "marriages". This proposed amendment faces possibly insurmountable obstacles. If it fails, it will break the spirit of many grassroots activists who are sacrificing much in the desperate hope that this amendment would restore moral sanity and legal order to Massachusetts.
This amendment -- if it somehow gets past a politically and morally debauched legislature -- would ignore the phony homosexual "marriages" that now violate the laws of Massachusetts. This is largely unknown to many of the pro-family activists who have been asked to sacrifice time and money in order to roll the wrong boulder up the wrong hill. This amendment would enshrine the principle that our laws and our state Constitution are subject to judges and governors striking them down, when they have the Boston Globe -- and the obsessively pro-establishment pro-family groups -- "Vichy Christians" (as one national pro-family political consultant has called them) -- handling the cover-up for a supposed "conservative" governor. This governor, Mitt Romney, has sponsored a gay youth pride parade, has called pro-family activists "right-wing religious bigots", and tried to banish the anti-homosexuality Boy Scouts from the Winter Olympics in 2002.
All of the major players in this Massachusetts fraud know that Gov. Romney's homosexual "marriages" are illegal. Gov. Romney knows it. His advisors know it. Much of the state legislature knows it. Many homosexual activists know it. The homosexual activists editing the Boston Globe know it. The four judges who tried to trick the legislature into legalizing homosexual "marriage" know it.
So -- almost everyone understands the fraud -- except the "Vichy Christians." They seem to believe that if a governor is handsome enough and clean-cut enough and looks pro-family, then he must be on "our side" -- even if he ordered state officials to either violate their oaths to uphold the law (which remains one-man, one-woman) or resign. For some bizarre reason, "Matinee Mitt" just couldn't wait to see if the Legislature would agree with the four judges and change the law to legalize homosexual "marriages." "Our side" signed an unconditional surrender when they accepted the legality of Gov. Romney's illegal homosexual "marriage" licenses.
Gov. Romney's order violated the laws of the Commonwealth and the people's Constitution. If the Governor had had the constitutional authority to act, the four Supreme Judicial Court justices would have told him to! They did not. They told the legislature to change the law, which as the judges knew, is the only way that homosexual "marriage" could gain any measure of legality. They legislature did not change the law! [In fact, there is a bill pending, sponsored by the homosexual lobby, to do just that, proving they know it's still not legal! -MR]
So Gov. Romney solved the problem: He ordered state officials to violate the law. If Mike Dukakis or another Democrat governor had done this, he never could have gotten away with it. If Gov. Weld, Cellucci, or Swift had done this, they could never have gotten away with it. But because a handsome, churchy-looking governor did it, all the while protesting that he really, really, really hated doing it [but "had to uphold the law" -MR], most of our side signed up for the fox's campaign to keep the wolves out of the chicken house.
A further note: One of the most prominent pro-family leaders behind this amendment told me three months ago, "You're right. We need a strategy." [Admitting: "And we don't have one." -MR] This was already several years into the battle. But do you really need a battle strategy after you've surrendered the whole war?
Again, please read the article on WorldNetDaily [from this past December].
MassResistance note: Strategies were initiated by Article 8 Alliance which would have attacked the core of the problem -- judicial tyranny, as well as targeting the Governor's proposed actions on issuance of "marriage" certificates. Why did the "Vichy Christians" refuse to join that effort to remove the judges, as well as pressure the Governor to withhold "marriage" licenses?
If you're still in doubt about this, read the latest from John Haskins (below). And in case you missed it, check out Haskins' WorldNetDaily article (Dec. 2005) revealing the truth on how homosexual "marriage" actually came about in Massachusetts: Conservative Romney Buckles and Blunders."
Are the "Surrender with Dignity" Conservatives leading us over a cliff?
By John Haskins
The colossal resources being put into ratifying a new Massachusetts marriage amendment are based on a complete misunderstanding of the void legal and constitutional status of Governor Romney's homosexual "marriages". This proposed amendment faces possibly insurmountable obstacles. If it fails, it will break the spirit of many grassroots activists who are sacrificing much in the desperate hope that this amendment would restore moral sanity and legal order to Massachusetts.
This amendment -- if it somehow gets past a politically and morally debauched legislature -- would ignore the phony homosexual "marriages" that now violate the laws of Massachusetts. This is largely unknown to many of the pro-family activists who have been asked to sacrifice time and money in order to roll the wrong boulder up the wrong hill. This amendment would enshrine the principle that our laws and our state Constitution are subject to judges and governors striking them down, when they have the Boston Globe -- and the obsessively pro-establishment pro-family groups -- "Vichy Christians" (as one national pro-family political consultant has called them) -- handling the cover-up for a supposed "conservative" governor. This governor, Mitt Romney, has sponsored a gay youth pride parade, has called pro-family activists "right-wing religious bigots", and tried to banish the anti-homosexuality Boy Scouts from the Winter Olympics in 2002.
All of the major players in this Massachusetts fraud know that Gov. Romney's homosexual "marriages" are illegal. Gov. Romney knows it. His advisors know it. Much of the state legislature knows it. Many homosexual activists know it. The homosexual activists editing the Boston Globe know it. The four judges who tried to trick the legislature into legalizing homosexual "marriage" know it.
So -- almost everyone understands the fraud -- except the "Vichy Christians." They seem to believe that if a governor is handsome enough and clean-cut enough and looks pro-family, then he must be on "our side" -- even if he ordered state officials to either violate their oaths to uphold the law (which remains one-man, one-woman) or resign. For some bizarre reason, "Matinee Mitt" just couldn't wait to see if the Legislature would agree with the four judges and change the law to legalize homosexual "marriages." "Our side" signed an unconditional surrender when they accepted the legality of Gov. Romney's illegal homosexual "marriage" licenses.
Gov. Romney's order violated the laws of the Commonwealth and the people's Constitution. If the Governor had had the constitutional authority to act, the four Supreme Judicial Court justices would have told him to! They did not. They told the legislature to change the law, which as the judges knew, is the only way that homosexual "marriage" could gain any measure of legality. They legislature did not change the law! [In fact, there is a bill pending, sponsored by the homosexual lobby, to do just that, proving they know it's still not legal! -MR]
So Gov. Romney solved the problem: He ordered state officials to violate the law. If Mike Dukakis or another Democrat governor had done this, he never could have gotten away with it. If Gov. Weld, Cellucci, or Swift had done this, they could never have gotten away with it. But because a handsome, churchy-looking governor did it, all the while protesting that he really, really, really hated doing it [but "had to uphold the law" -MR], most of our side signed up for the fox's campaign to keep the wolves out of the chicken house.
A further note: One of the most prominent pro-family leaders behind this amendment told me three months ago, "You're right. We need a strategy." [Admitting: "And we don't have one." -MR] This was already several years into the battle. But do you really need a battle strategy after you've surrendered the whole war?
Again, please read the article on WorldNetDaily [from this past December].
MassResistance note: Strategies were initiated by Article 8 Alliance which would have attacked the core of the problem -- judicial tyranny, as well as targeting the Governor's proposed actions on issuance of "marriage" certificates. Why did the "Vichy Christians" refuse to join that effort to remove the judges, as well as pressure the Governor to withhold "marriage" licenses?
Thursday, April 20, 2006
Spring Vacation
Spring Vacation week at MassResistance blog. But as you can see from the MassResistance website, we're still resisting!
Monday, April 17, 2006
MFI: Politeness Is the Chief Virtue
Bay Windows reports that Mass. Family Institute (MFI) thinks we're rude (!) and they're "distancing" themselves from the likes of us. (Yes, they appear to have spoken with Bay Windows! Why?)
It seems MFI sent a letter to all the Massachusetts state legislators begging them not to confuse them (MFI) with Article 8/MassResistance or the Pawlicks (Mass. Citizens for Marriage).
MFI is the group behind the current horribly flawed marriage amendment. Tight with Dr. James Dobson's Focus on the Family, they like to be polite. They seem not to realize that the barbarians are at the gates. They don't think it's polite to reveal the unpleasant truth about homosexuality, or speak passionately to our representatives.
MFI believes it's a good political strategy to redefine "family" to include the new "families" made since same-sex "marriages" began in May 2004. And it's a REALLY good idea to send openly gay, activist legislators VERY POLITE postcards asking them to PLEASE "Let the people vote!" -- to confirm this ghastly redefinition of the family. An example of very polite testimony from MFI for their amendment:
The amendment is quite limited, as it only relates to "marriage" as such and says nothing one way or the other about benefits, civil unions, domestic partnerships-which are left to legislative rather than constitutional determination. It also only operates prospectively, and will not undo existing same-sex marriages that have been entered into under the authority of the Goodridge decision. ... Only the union of male and female can beget offspring, and only wives and husbands can provide children with a married mother and a father, which is the ideal arrangement for raising children. Obviously other parenting arrangements are possible, and they are allowed by law; but these should not be allowed to undermine the sense that children being raised by a married mother and father is optimal. Preserving the traditional definition of marriage is the least that can be done to make that point.
And MFI wants to distance itself from Brian Camenker (Brian -- who is brave enough to expose things like "Fistgate" and the "Little Black Book"), and the Pawlicks (who were behind the clean marriage amendment of a few years back). Now what did we do to earn the reputation of being "rude"? We suggested to citizens that it's OK to contact legislators at home if they can't reach them at their offices. (Reps did choose to run for public office, after all; and they must have caller ID and voice mail; and can choose not to answer their phones if they're eating dinner!) Or to demand that our reps preserve parental rights. Or that it's OK for citizens to be angry that there are bills filed by Mass. legislators advocating the de-criminalization of bestiality.
No, says MFI, don't be angry -- remain polite and calm. Beg -- but with poise -- for your voting rights. Everything will be OK. And don't be distracted by Article 8/MassResistance's alerts identifying those dangerous bills! (Reminds us of the videos of captured Westerners begging for their lives as the terrorists are about to shoot them in the head, or decapitate them. Weak and hopeless.)
It seems MFI sent a letter to all the Massachusetts state legislators begging them not to confuse them (MFI) with Article 8/MassResistance or the Pawlicks (Mass. Citizens for Marriage).
MFI is the group behind the current horribly flawed marriage amendment. Tight with Dr. James Dobson's Focus on the Family, they like to be polite. They seem not to realize that the barbarians are at the gates. They don't think it's polite to reveal the unpleasant truth about homosexuality, or speak passionately to our representatives.
MFI believes it's a good political strategy to redefine "family" to include the new "families" made since same-sex "marriages" began in May 2004. And it's a REALLY good idea to send openly gay, activist legislators VERY POLITE postcards asking them to PLEASE "Let the people vote!" -- to confirm this ghastly redefinition of the family. An example of very polite testimony from MFI for their amendment:
The amendment is quite limited, as it only relates to "marriage" as such and says nothing one way or the other about benefits, civil unions, domestic partnerships-which are left to legislative rather than constitutional determination. It also only operates prospectively, and will not undo existing same-sex marriages that have been entered into under the authority of the Goodridge decision. ... Only the union of male and female can beget offspring, and only wives and husbands can provide children with a married mother and a father, which is the ideal arrangement for raising children. Obviously other parenting arrangements are possible, and they are allowed by law; but these should not be allowed to undermine the sense that children being raised by a married mother and father is optimal. Preserving the traditional definition of marriage is the least that can be done to make that point.
And MFI wants to distance itself from Brian Camenker (Brian -- who is brave enough to expose things like "Fistgate" and the "Little Black Book"), and the Pawlicks (who were behind the clean marriage amendment of a few years back). Now what did we do to earn the reputation of being "rude"? We suggested to citizens that it's OK to contact legislators at home if they can't reach them at their offices. (Reps did choose to run for public office, after all; and they must have caller ID and voice mail; and can choose not to answer their phones if they're eating dinner!) Or to demand that our reps preserve parental rights. Or that it's OK for citizens to be angry that there are bills filed by Mass. legislators advocating the de-criminalization of bestiality.
No, says MFI, don't be angry -- remain polite and calm. Beg -- but with poise -- for your voting rights. Everything will be OK. And don't be distracted by Article 8/MassResistance's alerts identifying those dangerous bills! (Reminds us of the videos of captured Westerners begging for their lives as the terrorists are about to shoot them in the head, or decapitate them. Weak and hopeless.)
Princeton Professor & "Celebrated Writer" Rents Boys
More truth on the homosexual "lifestyle". (In case you missed it, check out the article from the New Oxford Review which we recently highlighted.)
Time Out New York (TONY) magazine interviews Princeton professor Edmund White on his autobiography, My Lives in this week's issue (April 13-19): "The naughty professor: Celebrated gay writer and Princetonian Edmund White gets graphic in his memoir." He proudly describes his "gay" perversions, including his love of S&M and hustlers. From the TONY interview:
There's ... plenty of explicit sex, from his childhood seductions of neighborhood boys in Cincinnati to a rather recent, very complicated S&M affair with a much younger man. ...
TONY: Does it embarrass you at all to write so candidly about your sexual encounters?
EW: ... I love being very honest in my writing. To me, it’s like a sacred obligation, but I’m actually rather reserved in real life.
TONY: You write that you’re a masochist who doesn’t like pain. How does that jibe?
EW: The appeal for me is more about the rituals and the humiliation, which is mostly verbal. It’s a game, I suppose, but a serious game that touches many deep feelings. People who genuinely like receiving or inflicting real pain are very much in the minority, even among the S&M crowd.
TONY: One of the chapters in your book is called “My Hustlers.” Do rent boys play an important part in your life?
EW: I’ve always liked them, and they are very convenient in some ways. If you want to make yourself stay home and write, you just order somebody to come up at midnight. And they’re usually cheaper than what it costs to go out on a date.
It's not surprising that White had horrible relations with his parents. The Princeton WeeklBulletin writes:
As a writer on the vanguard of the gay rights movement, White felt the book needed “a lot more about relationships and sex and probably a little less about the professional details of my career.” There are some graphic scenes depicting White’s sex life, but the most compelling parts of the book are his characterizations of his parents: his mother, a squat, overdressed Texan whose “egotism and incessant chatter could be truly punishing;” and his father, a tyrannical, reclusive misanthrope whose son failed to interest him.
“I tried to portray them as honestly as I could, but it was painful going back into all that stuff, especially the chapter on my father. I never really let myself think that much about it,” said White, whose parents died more than a decade ago. He worried about his sister’s reaction to the book, but “after she read it, she said, ‘Oh God, you let our parents off so lightly. They were much more monstrous than that.’ ” [emphasis added]
Time Out New York (TONY) magazine interviews Princeton professor Edmund White on his autobiography, My Lives in this week's issue (April 13-19): "The naughty professor: Celebrated gay writer and Princetonian Edmund White gets graphic in his memoir." He proudly describes his "gay" perversions, including his love of S&M and hustlers. From the TONY interview:
There's ... plenty of explicit sex, from his childhood seductions of neighborhood boys in Cincinnati to a rather recent, very complicated S&M affair with a much younger man. ...
TONY: Does it embarrass you at all to write so candidly about your sexual encounters?
EW: ... I love being very honest in my writing. To me, it’s like a sacred obligation, but I’m actually rather reserved in real life.
TONY: You write that you’re a masochist who doesn’t like pain. How does that jibe?
EW: The appeal for me is more about the rituals and the humiliation, which is mostly verbal. It’s a game, I suppose, but a serious game that touches many deep feelings. People who genuinely like receiving or inflicting real pain are very much in the minority, even among the S&M crowd.
TONY: One of the chapters in your book is called “My Hustlers.” Do rent boys play an important part in your life?
EW: I’ve always liked them, and they are very convenient in some ways. If you want to make yourself stay home and write, you just order somebody to come up at midnight. And they’re usually cheaper than what it costs to go out on a date.
It's not surprising that White had horrible relations with his parents. The Princeton WeeklBulletin writes:
As a writer on the vanguard of the gay rights movement, White felt the book needed “a lot more about relationships and sex and probably a little less about the professional details of my career.” There are some graphic scenes depicting White’s sex life, but the most compelling parts of the book are his characterizations of his parents: his mother, a squat, overdressed Texan whose “egotism and incessant chatter could be truly punishing;” and his father, a tyrannical, reclusive misanthrope whose son failed to interest him.
“I tried to portray them as honestly as I could, but it was painful going back into all that stuff, especially the chapter on my father. I never really let myself think that much about it,” said White, whose parents died more than a decade ago. He worried about his sister’s reaction to the book, but “after she read it, she said, ‘Oh God, you let our parents off so lightly. They were much more monstrous than that.’ ” [emphasis added]
Sunday, April 16, 2006
Palm Sunday Event in Concord Haunts Easter Celebrations
The American Family Association's news, Agape Press, is following the homosexual propaganda fundraiser concert at the Concord-Carlisle High School last week. The horrible event on Palm Sunday certainly soured many of our Easter celebrations!
"PFLAG's Palm Sunday Fundraiser Gets Attention of Massachusetts Activist."
"PFLAG's Palm Sunday Fundraiser Gets Attention of Massachusetts Activist."
Saturday, April 15, 2006
"Wicked" Author Struts His "Gay" Parenting
Last week's Judiciary Committee hearing on VoteOnMarriage's proposed amendment brought out many of the older, well-dressed "alternative families" and poised professional same-sex couples, pleading that their "marriages" and "families" not be disrupted. (It's only hateful people who would argue that thousands of years of cross-cultural traditions and the Bible are correct in defining marriage as a man and a woman!) Noticeably absent were college-age or younger rabble-rousers. Clearly, the strategy was to present same-sex headed households as "your best neighbors", the professional or author next door, the stable parents who are just as good as you heteronormative parents -- if not better, because they won't bring their child up with hateful prejudices!
Notable was the celebrity appearance by the author of Wicked ("The Life and Times of the Wicked Witch of the West"), now a hit Broadway musical. With a his sleeping adopted Asian son on his shoulder and "husband" standing nearby, Gregory Maguire (a Mass. resident) explained how, as a "gay", he was able to conceive the character of the horribly wronged green witch.
Elphaba, "the little-green skinned girl ... [was] a smart, prickly, and misunderstood creature who challenges all our preconceived notions about the nature of good and evil." She was terribly discriminated against, because through no fault of her own she was born green. And of course, she wasn't really wicked. It was just a big conspiracy by the nasty society she lived in. And in the end, that horrible Dorothy killed her, though she had done nothing wrong!
Any time you hear of some new hit novel or musical dealing with discrimination, there's a good chance it's really all about discrimination against homosexuals, and how evil traditional society is. (New York Newsday calls Wicked a "political cautionary tale".) Homosexuals are just like the green witch: they were born that way. So accept them as they are! Stop discriminating!
Notable was the celebrity appearance by the author of Wicked ("The Life and Times of the Wicked Witch of the West"), now a hit Broadway musical. With a his sleeping adopted Asian son on his shoulder and "husband" standing nearby, Gregory Maguire (a Mass. resident) explained how, as a "gay", he was able to conceive the character of the horribly wronged green witch.
Elphaba, "the little-green skinned girl ... [was] a smart, prickly, and misunderstood creature who challenges all our preconceived notions about the nature of good and evil." She was terribly discriminated against, because through no fault of her own she was born green. And of course, she wasn't really wicked. It was just a big conspiracy by the nasty society she lived in. And in the end, that horrible Dorothy killed her, though she had done nothing wrong!
Any time you hear of some new hit novel or musical dealing with discrimination, there's a good chance it's really all about discrimination against homosexuals, and how evil traditional society is. (New York Newsday calls Wicked a "political cautionary tale".) Homosexuals are just like the green witch: they were born that way. So accept them as they are! Stop discriminating!
Friday, April 14, 2006
A Good Day to Speak the Truth
A good day to speak the truth: There is no compromising with evil.
We remember being asked if pro-lifers could find any compromise position with the pro-abortion crowd. How ridiculous. Maybe we could agree to only half of the requested abortions each year? Or maybe we could agree to let Planned Parenthood instruct our high school girls where to go to get abortions, as long as we have equal time to instruct them on the humanity of the developing baby? We don't think so! The only morally correct -- and politically effective -- position is to say all abortions are murder. And say NO altogether to Planned Parenthood having any access to children in the schools!
Similarly, why is it that some traditionalists think we can find some common ground with GLSEN? That we can let GLSEN preach their poison in our schools, and then try to counteract it with a "Day of Truth"? How much poison is too much? Put that effort into getting GLSEN out of the schools altogether, we say.
Another example: Why do some in the pro-family movement in our state think they can placate homosexual extremists by letting them keep some of their "marriages", by offering them benefits packages, and by promising not to ban civil unions? Why should the state sanction any alternative domestic arrangement as a "family"? How much state-sanctioned perversion is too much?
There can be no compromise with evil.
We remember being asked if pro-lifers could find any compromise position with the pro-abortion crowd. How ridiculous. Maybe we could agree to only half of the requested abortions each year? Or maybe we could agree to let Planned Parenthood instruct our high school girls where to go to get abortions, as long as we have equal time to instruct them on the humanity of the developing baby? We don't think so! The only morally correct -- and politically effective -- position is to say all abortions are murder. And say NO altogether to Planned Parenthood having any access to children in the schools!
Similarly, why is it that some traditionalists think we can find some common ground with GLSEN? That we can let GLSEN preach their poison in our schools, and then try to counteract it with a "Day of Truth"? How much poison is too much? Put that effort into getting GLSEN out of the schools altogether, we say.
Another example: Why do some in the pro-family movement in our state think they can placate homosexual extremists by letting them keep some of their "marriages", by offering them benefits packages, and by promising not to ban civil unions? Why should the state sanction any alternative domestic arrangement as a "family"? How much state-sanctioned perversion is too much?
There can be no compromise with evil.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)