Listen up, all you heterosexuals. Did you know you're just "BREEDERS"?
Where's the hate? Surprising that the Boston Globe would even report this latest spew from the Culture of Death. We've seen this insult hurled before in the "gay" press, but not reported in the MSM. From "A new intolerance visits Provincetown: Police say gays accused of slurs" (July 14, 2006). Note that the police do not consider these incidents hate crimes:
PROVINCETOWN -- Town leaders here are holding a public meeting today to air concerns about slurs and bigoted behavior. And this time, they say, it's gay people who are displaying intolerance.
Police say they logged numerous complaints of straight people being called "breeders" by gays over the July Fourth holiday weekend. Jamaican workers reported being the target of racial slurs. And a woman was verbally accosted after signing a petition that opposed same-sex marriage, they said.
The town, which prizes its reputation for openness and tolerance, is taking the concerns seriously, though police say they do not consider the incidents hate crimes....
Tuesday, July 18, 2006
Monday, July 17, 2006
What Children Learn at Boston Pride
A few scenes from Boston's Pride parade, June 2006. What are these young girls learning? Note the sign behind the person in the black beater: "Be nice to sex workers"
As we look at photos from "Pride Week" in Boston, we keep thinking about all the children seen at the festivities, and what they learned. The leader of the Revolutionary GLBT forces of Lexington, Meg Soens, was there with two of her young children, helping the ACLU of Massachusetts celebrate its assault on our values. (Maybe scenes from Pride will soon become part of the Lexington schools' curriculum?) Here are some of the things children saw on the street:
Topless women bikers
Young men dancing in clinging underwear
"Drag queens" everywhere
People handing out special anal intercourse condoms and lubricant
Men with black wings, faerie costumes, flaming wings
A man wearing a balloon headdress shaped like male genitals
Women from a "drag king" theater troupe in tight "beater" shirts, some without breasts
Sign reading "Love a Sex Worker"
"Tranny Daddy" and family
Bare-chested "dykes" with fresh scars from breast removal surgery
"Hedda Lettuce" blasting unbelievable vulgarities from a huge screen towering over the Boston Common -- PLUS
Large banner advertisements or signs leading them to:
- ManHunt.net (take their online "tour")
- Bisexual Resource Center
- Independent Pagans of New England
- Tiffany (transsexual male-to-females)
- MassEquality, PFLAG, GLSEN, BAGLY, GLAD, ACLU, etc.
And this is where the Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth (whether run by the Governor, or by Senator Barrios) would encourage our children to go.
Friday, July 14, 2006
To Our Fans
We'll be posting sporadically over the rest of the summer. Lots of family events happening, some travel. Didn't want the folks at Bay Windows to think anything was amiss.
Tuesday, July 11, 2006
Write Sodomy Into the Constitution -- By Any Means?
What will the Legislature do tomorrow, July 12, 2006 -- the date set for the state Constitutional Convention? On its calendar are two proposed marriage amendments, #19 (Sen. Barrios' ploy), and #20 (VoteOnMarriage's). Any of these things may happen:
It's a great plan. As time goes by, more and more regular people fall by the wayside, tired of defending real marriage and normal family values. Tired of calling unresponsive or nasty reps. Tired of writing checks to VoteOnMarriage. Meanwhile, millions from the national GLBT activist groups -- the Gill Foundation, Human Rights Campaign, The Victory Fund -- will flow into the state. This is their beachhead. They will give it all they have.
If the amendment ever goes to the popular vote (in 2008), we predict it will lose. Most voters these days respond to emotion, not logic or moral arguments. By 2008, more "GLBT families" will be in existence, more homosexual indoctrination in the schools will have had its effect.
Even if the VoteOnMarriage amendment passes, no good would come of it. Current "homosexual marriages" would be validated. Two classes of unequal GLBT citizens would be created (some allowed to marry, some not), and the court challenge for that "injustice" is already in the works. (See the Court's invitation to the GLBTs below.) Civil unions would not be outlawed. A silly "reciprocal benefits" law might be passed that would open another Pandora's box.
But look at the Supreme Judicial Court ruling yesterday. Though the GLBT activists are feigning surprise and disappointment that the SJC threw out their narrowly defined challenge to the VoteOnMarriage petition, even the Globe points out that they
... were heartened by a concurring opinion opinion written by justices John M. Greaney and Roderick L. Ireland that questions whether the proposed ban, if approved in 2008, would be constitutional.
Venturing beyond the scope of Reilly's certification of the ballot question, Greaney wrote that the 2003 decision legalizing same-sex marriage might be "irreversible" if the proposed amendment was held by the court to violate existing provisions in the constitution that guarantee equal rights.
"The only effect of a positive vote will be to make same-sex couples, and their families, unequal to everyone else," he wrote. "This is discrimination in its rawest form."
The ruling actually INVITED a challenge to the VoteOnMarriage amendment, should it be passed. Meaning, the SJC is prepared to do the unthinkable: rule a Constitutional amendment unconstitutional! (MassResistance/Article 8 Alliance warned of this last July, when the VoteOnMarriage plan was first announced.) In his concurring opinion, Justice Greaney (with Justice Ireland) writes:
"IF THE INITIATIVE IS APPROVED BY THE LEGISLATURE AND ULTIMATELY ADOPTED, THERE WILL BE TIME ENOUGH, IF AN APPROPRIATE LAWSUIT IS BROUGHT, FOR THIS COURT TO RESOLVE THE QUESTION WHETHER OUR CONSTITITUION CAN BE HOME TO PROVISIONS THAT ARE APPARENTLY MUTUALLY INCONSISTENT AND IRRECONCILABLE."
- Senate President Travaglini will postpone until November or December (then somehow it will just never come up before December 31). Question #20 will die at the end of the session. "It's time to move on."
- Travaglini will call for a vote to adjourn. (The bad guys have the majority.)
- A quorum will not show up. (The bad guys have the majority.) The ConCon won't even happen. Maybe the Governor will try to force them back into session; maybe not.
- Question #19 will be taken up (originally our proposed bill to define marriage and ban "civil unions" in statute, illegally transformed through shenanigans involving Senators Barrios and the Senate President into an "amendment"). Since this would require a majority of the Legislature to pass, it will surely fail, since that many of our legislators have sold their souls to the CULTURE OF DEATH / GLBT Lobby.
- Question #20 -- VoteOnMarriage's flawed amendment, which we do not support -- would not be taken up if #19 is. The GLBT lobby /Travaglini will say, "Why consider the definition of "marriage" twice? It's time to move on. We've discussed this subject enough!" (Leaving aside that #20 only needs 50 votes to pass on to the required second year's ConCon, and has entirely different wording than #19.)
- VoteOnMarriage's amendment will come to a vote, and will get its 50 needed to pass on to next year's second, required ConCon.
It's a great plan. As time goes by, more and more regular people fall by the wayside, tired of defending real marriage and normal family values. Tired of calling unresponsive or nasty reps. Tired of writing checks to VoteOnMarriage. Meanwhile, millions from the national GLBT activist groups -- the Gill Foundation, Human Rights Campaign, The Victory Fund -- will flow into the state. This is their beachhead. They will give it all they have.
If the amendment ever goes to the popular vote (in 2008), we predict it will lose. Most voters these days respond to emotion, not logic or moral arguments. By 2008, more "GLBT families" will be in existence, more homosexual indoctrination in the schools will have had its effect.
Even if the VoteOnMarriage amendment passes, no good would come of it. Current "homosexual marriages" would be validated. Two classes of unequal GLBT citizens would be created (some allowed to marry, some not), and the court challenge for that "injustice" is already in the works. (See the Court's invitation to the GLBTs below.) Civil unions would not be outlawed. A silly "reciprocal benefits" law might be passed that would open another Pandora's box.
But look at the Supreme Judicial Court ruling yesterday. Though the GLBT activists are feigning surprise and disappointment that the SJC threw out their narrowly defined challenge to the VoteOnMarriage petition, even the Globe points out that they
... were heartened by a concurring opinion opinion written by justices John M. Greaney and Roderick L. Ireland that questions whether the proposed ban, if approved in 2008, would be constitutional.
Venturing beyond the scope of Reilly's certification of the ballot question, Greaney wrote that the 2003 decision legalizing same-sex marriage might be "irreversible" if the proposed amendment was held by the court to violate existing provisions in the constitution that guarantee equal rights.
"The only effect of a positive vote will be to make same-sex couples, and their families, unequal to everyone else," he wrote. "This is discrimination in its rawest form."
The ruling actually INVITED a challenge to the VoteOnMarriage amendment, should it be passed. Meaning, the SJC is prepared to do the unthinkable: rule a Constitutional amendment unconstitutional! (MassResistance/Article 8 Alliance warned of this last July, when the VoteOnMarriage plan was first announced.) In his concurring opinion, Justice Greaney (with Justice Ireland) writes:
"IF THE INITIATIVE IS APPROVED BY THE LEGISLATURE AND ULTIMATELY ADOPTED, THERE WILL BE TIME ENOUGH, IF AN APPROPRIATE LAWSUIT IS BROUGHT, FOR THIS COURT TO RESOLVE THE QUESTION WHETHER OUR CONSTITITUION CAN BE HOME TO PROVISIONS THAT ARE APPARENTLY MUTUALLY INCONSISTENT AND IRRECONCILABLE."
Sunday, July 09, 2006
"Boston Pride" Recruited Volunteers for "Youth Pride"
SCENES from BOSTON PRIDE 2006
All photos (c) 2006 MassResistance
These are the sorts of people who were put in touch with "GLBT Youth" by the Boston Pride organization. They directed "volunteers" to Youth Pride back in May, then recently thanked all the people who showed up to "mentor" the youth. "2006 Youth Pride was a phenomenal success! Thank you to all the volunteers and supporters who came out to make the event a success!"
Remember that the "Youth Pride" event every May is a project of the Governor's Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth, and the prom that ends the day is put on by BAGLY.
U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Marriage!
U. S. Supreme Court Decision on Marriage - 1885
"[C]ertainly no legislation can be supposed more wholesome and necessary in the founding of a free, self-governing commonwealth . . . than that which seeks to establish it on the basis of the idea of the family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony; [the family is] the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization; the best guarantee of that reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement.”
-U. S. Supreme Court, Murphy v. Ramsey, 1885.
From the Stone Age? Certainly not "progressive" enough for Empress Margaret!
"[C]ertainly no legislation can be supposed more wholesome and necessary in the founding of a free, self-governing commonwealth . . . than that which seeks to establish it on the basis of the idea of the family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony; [the family is] the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization; the best guarantee of that reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement.”
-U. S. Supreme Court, Murphy v. Ramsey, 1885.
From the Stone Age? Certainly not "progressive" enough for Empress Margaret!
Saturday, July 08, 2006
Sex-Driven "Gay" Culture Cruel to Old Men
The "gay" lifestyle ... Once again we read the truth, from a "gay" man. We came across a sad article in InNewsWeekly: "Old gay men don't die, they're just pushed away." The author complains that their old age is one of loneliness and rejection (should they even make it past the land mines of AIDS and other diseases related to homosexual sex). Yet this is a "lifestyle" we're encouraging young people to embrace.
The natural thing is for one's sexuality to wane as one ages. For heterosexuals, this change is usually accompanied by relationships with one's own children and then grandchildren. That's because a heterosexual's natural sexuality usually produced children at some point. Since "gay" men (by definition) refuse to accept natural sexuality, most do not have children (except from some hetero relationship or adoption). As their bodies get old, the "gay" culture will not tolerate them as sex objects. And since so much of their earlier lives focused on sex -- so much of their energy was poured into what sounds like an exhausting existence -- they have little to fill this void as they age.
Now one might very well ask why doesn't this fellow just settle down and get "married"? (And P.S.: You might want to avoid the Fens and Herring Cove.)
Growing up we are taught to respect our elders; we are not encouraged to have sex with them. Not only does the general population frown upon intergenerational liaisons, but as a rule the aged are excluded from all things sexual. Middle aged individuals are expected to transform from if not vital, then at least potential, erotic beings into sexless geriatrics whose sole purpose is to dole out baked goods, financial support and advice. Most of the elderly heterosexuals I know seem to take this exclusion in stride, however for many elderly gay men this sexual segregation is the worst part of growing old. Raised in a culture where personal worth is integrated with sexual _expression and validation, many older gay men wake up to find both their buttocks and their sexual worth have fallen through the floor. It is not a welcomed discovery.
One need travel no further than the Fens in Boston or the dunes at Herring Cove in Provincetown to see this sexual exclusion in action. While the more junior varsity members of the gay community use these venues for a bit of anonymous slap and tickle, the attending senior set is more often than not left to their solitary devices. This is not for lack of trying. I have witnessed numerous elderly attempts at engagement with the younger men in these environments, but nine times out of ten they are either ignored or actively discouraged. The message could not be clearer: We may suffer your presence, old man, but not your participation. This dismissal is largely based on the fact old men rarely fit the mainstream definition of "hot." ...
The natural thing is for one's sexuality to wane as one ages. For heterosexuals, this change is usually accompanied by relationships with one's own children and then grandchildren. That's because a heterosexual's natural sexuality usually produced children at some point. Since "gay" men (by definition) refuse to accept natural sexuality, most do not have children (except from some hetero relationship or adoption). As their bodies get old, the "gay" culture will not tolerate them as sex objects. And since so much of their earlier lives focused on sex -- so much of their energy was poured into what sounds like an exhausting existence -- they have little to fill this void as they age.
Now one might very well ask why doesn't this fellow just settle down and get "married"? (And P.S.: You might want to avoid the Fens and Herring Cove.)
Growing up we are taught to respect our elders; we are not encouraged to have sex with them. Not only does the general population frown upon intergenerational liaisons, but as a rule the aged are excluded from all things sexual. Middle aged individuals are expected to transform from if not vital, then at least potential, erotic beings into sexless geriatrics whose sole purpose is to dole out baked goods, financial support and advice. Most of the elderly heterosexuals I know seem to take this exclusion in stride, however for many elderly gay men this sexual segregation is the worst part of growing old. Raised in a culture where personal worth is integrated with sexual _expression and validation, many older gay men wake up to find both their buttocks and their sexual worth have fallen through the floor. It is not a welcomed discovery.
One need travel no further than the Fens in Boston or the dunes at Herring Cove in Provincetown to see this sexual exclusion in action. While the more junior varsity members of the gay community use these venues for a bit of anonymous slap and tickle, the attending senior set is more often than not left to their solitary devices. This is not for lack of trying. I have witnessed numerous elderly attempts at engagement with the younger men in these environments, but nine times out of ten they are either ignored or actively discouraged. The message could not be clearer: We may suffer your presence, old man, but not your participation. This dismissal is largely based on the fact old men rarely fit the mainstream definition of "hot." ...
Friday, July 07, 2006
No, Sodomy "Marriage" is NOT a "Civil Right"
People are not born homosexual, bisexual, transgender, or transsexual. But people are born black, white, Asian, or mixed race. Or short or tall. Or handsome or homely. God made them that way, and that can never change, no matter what emotional, spiritual, psychological, or cosmetic events or forces come into play.
Many people of color are incensed at the attempt by the activist GLBT's to equate race and "sexual identity." Check out the concerns of the Congressional Black Caucus back in March 2004: "Black caucus resists comparison of gay 'marriage' to civil rights." And our link to Boston's Rev. Eugene Rivers' column in the Weekly Standard.
Here's just one example of an email we recently received from a Massachusetts citizen:
Please put me on your E-Mail list. I am sick of MassEquality propagandizing me ... sick of the SJC's arrogant theft of my right to vote on an issue ... and sick of arrogant homosexuals hijacking the REAL Civil Rights Movement, the one I (as a proud black American) am old enough to remember first-hand.
Many people of color are incensed at the attempt by the activist GLBT's to equate race and "sexual identity." Check out the concerns of the Congressional Black Caucus back in March 2004: "Black caucus resists comparison of gay 'marriage' to civil rights." And our link to Boston's Rev. Eugene Rivers' column in the Weekly Standard.
Here's just one example of an email we recently received from a Massachusetts citizen:
Please put me on your E-Mail list. I am sick of MassEquality propagandizing me ... sick of the SJC's arrogant theft of my right to vote on an issue ... and sick of arrogant homosexuals hijacking the REAL Civil Rights Movement, the one I (as a proud black American) am old enough to remember first-hand.
Thursday, July 06, 2006
Governor Romney Holds Back on "Gay Parenting"
At last week's press conference on the VoteOnMarriage.org amendment, Governor Romney continued to hold back on what's wrong with gay and lesbian parenting. (See Bay Windows' report.)
Do we think most homosexual parents love their children? Sure. But -- do most of them bring their children up in a healthy environment? We have SERIOUS doubts.
Read the articles and interviews by the daughter of a homosexual father describing the hell of her upbringing, and the long struggle she's had overcoming what she experienced. The star lesbian activist in Lexington, Meg Soens, was photographed at Boston Pride Parade with two of her young children. (What did her daughter learn from the parading young women who'd had their breasts removed?) What about "Tranny Daddy" strutting his/her stuff at Boston Pride with three kids and "wife" in tow? Or the Boston Sunday Globe magazine columnist, and man "married" to a man, who says he will bring his adopted daughter up with a "fierce pride."
We know that for all their public posturing, homosexual male couples are rarely monogamous. And Senator Fluff, Jarrett Barrios, while very concerned about his son eating marshmallow fluff in school lunches, is apparently not concerned that the boy is learning from his two "daddies" that sodomy is healthy and normal.
This is what is wrong with GLBT "parenting". Why can't our Governor say so?
Do we think most homosexual parents love their children? Sure. But -- do most of them bring their children up in a healthy environment? We have SERIOUS doubts.
Read the articles and interviews by the daughter of a homosexual father describing the hell of her upbringing, and the long struggle she's had overcoming what she experienced. The star lesbian activist in Lexington, Meg Soens, was photographed at Boston Pride Parade with two of her young children. (What did her daughter learn from the parading young women who'd had their breasts removed?) What about "Tranny Daddy" strutting his/her stuff at Boston Pride with three kids and "wife" in tow? Or the Boston Sunday Globe magazine columnist, and man "married" to a man, who says he will bring his adopted daughter up with a "fierce pride."
We know that for all their public posturing, homosexual male couples are rarely monogamous. And Senator Fluff, Jarrett Barrios, while very concerned about his son eating marshmallow fluff in school lunches, is apparently not concerned that the boy is learning from his two "daddies" that sodomy is healthy and normal.
This is what is wrong with GLBT "parenting". Why can't our Governor say so?
Tuesday, July 04, 2006
"Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth" = Government Sponsored Endangerment of Children
Why is the Governor's Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth (possibly soon to become an independent Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth?) so dangerous? Because it leads vulnerable, confused young people into contact with older GLBT activists -- some of whom may be sexual predators. This is yet another example of politically-correct DENIAL in our society. While many profess concern for child victims of sexual predators, here they let it run unchecked.
Here are some of the people and groups who've called for volunteers or noted their own volunteer activities at recent Commission events, such as the annual Youth Pride day and BAGLY gay/trans prom at Boston City Hall. By way of comparison: Would we knowingly put our heterosexual teenage girls in touch with known prostitutes? Would we knowingly send them to events focusing on sex, staffed by older, single male "volunteers"? Yet the Commission believes these groups -- totally focused on sexuality -- are all completely trustworthy with young teens who are drawn to them through their own sexual curiosity.
PUMP (HIV peer support group/male sex workers)
Friends of the Governor's Commission on GLBT Youth (list of volunteer opportunities)
Lambda Car Club (homosexual antique car lovers)
GenderCrash (trans event host at Youth Pride)
Jesuit Urban Center parishioners ("Catholic" church that hangs rainbow banners)
Adult crossdressers - Anonymous
Perverts trolling for teen boys - Anonymous
Hate blog authors
Bay Windows readers
BAGLY adult staff and mentors
The Commission also poisons the whole youth population through the GSA's (gay clubs in the high schools) which the Commission supports. It also trains teachers and administrators in "Safe Schools" propaganda, and promotes speakers and "gay awareness" events in the schools.
Here are some of the people and groups who've called for volunteers or noted their own volunteer activities at recent Commission events, such as the annual Youth Pride day and BAGLY gay/trans prom at Boston City Hall. By way of comparison: Would we knowingly put our heterosexual teenage girls in touch with known prostitutes? Would we knowingly send them to events focusing on sex, staffed by older, single male "volunteers"? Yet the Commission believes these groups -- totally focused on sexuality -- are all completely trustworthy with young teens who are drawn to them through their own sexual curiosity.
PUMP (HIV peer support group/male sex workers)
Friends of the Governor's Commission on GLBT Youth (list of volunteer opportunities)
Lambda Car Club (homosexual antique car lovers)
GenderCrash (trans event host at Youth Pride)
Jesuit Urban Center parishioners ("Catholic" church that hangs rainbow banners)
Adult crossdressers - Anonymous
Perverts trolling for teen boys - Anonymous
Hate blog authors
Bay Windows readers
BAGLY adult staff and mentors
The Commission also poisons the whole youth population through the GSA's (gay clubs in the high schools) which the Commission supports. It also trains teachers and administrators in "Safe Schools" propaganda, and promotes speakers and "gay awareness" events in the schools.
Monday, July 03, 2006
Planned Parenthood Sowing "Sexual Identity" Confusion
[Handout from Planned Parenthood at GLSEN Boston Conference, April 30, 2005. Given to both children and adults.]
Warren Buffett's announcement that he'll give the majority of his fortune to the Gates Foundation was greeted with oohs and ahhs from most quarters. But how many people know that the Gates Foundation supports abortionists? Namely, Planned Parenthood.
And Planned Parenthood promotes not only baby killing, but homosexuality, bisexuality, transgenderism, and transsexuality. See our report on Planned Parenthood's presentation at a recent GLSEN Boston conference. PP is always at the State House testifying for harmful, anti-parental-rights causes, such as "comprehensive sex ed" and school-based clinics. PP is also on the front lines of the GLBT culture war. The "Revolutionary Gender Model" diagram they handed out at the GLSEN conference (above) highlights a huge inconsistency regarding "sexual identity" in the GLBT movement . On the one hand, their propaganda says people are "born that way". On the other hand, often behind closed doors of GLSEN-type seminars, "sexual identity" is said to fluid, and can change throughout one's life. Which is it?
Saturday, July 01, 2006
Thursday, June 29, 2006
Governor's Gay/Lesbian Youth Commission "Outright" Pamphlet -- Now Hard to Find
Take a look at this outrageous propaganda masterpiece, published jointly by the Mass. Department of Education and the Governor's Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth:
Outright. Your right to be.
This colorful pamphlet entices our children into the GLBT world and encourages them to become activists. (If you try to find it on the Dept. of Education website, it was recently taken down. But our link still works -- for now.) Check out all the smiling kids, rainbow flags, bright colors, and slick design.
This taxpayer-funded pamphlet, distributed to children all over the state, teaches our young teens that "homophobia" is a fact. That the "struggle" of gay, lesbian, and bisexual teens is a "civil rights" issue. That expert legal help exists for them, that they should demand whatever they can think of at school, and they'll get it through legal intimidation. That anyone who disagrees that homosexuality and bisexuality should be considered healthy, legitimate, and morally acceptable behaviors is a HATER and must be scolded and re-educated. That they should all become junior "hate crimes" Gestapo agents and monitor their school environments.
This vile production first appeared under Governor Paul Cellucci. The notorious David LaFontaine (condom thrower with ACT-UP at the Cathedral in Boston) was then Chairman of the Commission, with activist attorney Vincent McCarthy as Vice Chairman, and BAGLY employee Andy Garcia as program and event coordinator.
Here is a model the pamphlet provides for a "Safe Schools Pledge" that all members of a school community should be asked to sign:
"I pledge from this day onward to do my best to interrupt prejudice and to stop those who, because of hate, would harass or violate the civil rights of anyone. I will try at all times to be aware of my own biases against people who are different from myself. . . I will speak out against anyone who mocks, seeks to intimidate, or hurt someone of a different race, religion, ethnic group, or sexual orientation. I will reach out to support those who are targets of harassment. I firmly believe that one person can make a difference and that no person can be an 'innocent bystander' when it comes to opposing hate. I recognize that respect for individual dignity, achieving equality and opposing racism, prejudice, ethnic stereotypes, discrimination, homophobia, anti-Semitism, gender bias, sexism, ageism, scapegoating, and all other forms of hatred is a responsibility of all people."
Students are told how to organize gay clubs at their schools, how to overcome opposition, where to turn for legal help. They are led to the Fenway Community Health Center (distributor of Little Black Book to teens at the GLSEN conference in 2005); a task force on "hate crimes"; GLAD (Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, who prosecuted the exposers of the GLSEN Fistgate seminar, brought the gay marriage case in Massachusetts, are now pushing for "transgender rights", and many other extremist cases).
Outright. Your right to be.
This colorful pamphlet entices our children into the GLBT world and encourages them to become activists. (If you try to find it on the Dept. of Education website, it was recently taken down. But our link still works -- for now.) Check out all the smiling kids, rainbow flags, bright colors, and slick design.
This taxpayer-funded pamphlet, distributed to children all over the state, teaches our young teens that "homophobia" is a fact. That the "struggle" of gay, lesbian, and bisexual teens is a "civil rights" issue. That expert legal help exists for them, that they should demand whatever they can think of at school, and they'll get it through legal intimidation. That anyone who disagrees that homosexuality and bisexuality should be considered healthy, legitimate, and morally acceptable behaviors is a HATER and must be scolded and re-educated. That they should all become junior "hate crimes" Gestapo agents and monitor their school environments.
This vile production first appeared under Governor Paul Cellucci. The notorious David LaFontaine (condom thrower with ACT-UP at the Cathedral in Boston) was then Chairman of the Commission, with activist attorney Vincent McCarthy as Vice Chairman, and BAGLY employee Andy Garcia as program and event coordinator.
Here is a model the pamphlet provides for a "Safe Schools Pledge" that all members of a school community should be asked to sign:
"I pledge from this day onward to do my best to interrupt prejudice and to stop those who, because of hate, would harass or violate the civil rights of anyone. I will try at all times to be aware of my own biases against people who are different from myself. . . I will speak out against anyone who mocks, seeks to intimidate, or hurt someone of a different race, religion, ethnic group, or sexual orientation. I will reach out to support those who are targets of harassment. I firmly believe that one person can make a difference and that no person can be an 'innocent bystander' when it comes to opposing hate. I recognize that respect for individual dignity, achieving equality and opposing racism, prejudice, ethnic stereotypes, discrimination, homophobia, anti-Semitism, gender bias, sexism, ageism, scapegoating, and all other forms of hatred is a responsibility of all people."
Students are told how to organize gay clubs at their schools, how to overcome opposition, where to turn for legal help. They are led to the Fenway Community Health Center (distributor of Little Black Book to teens at the GLSEN conference in 2005); a task force on "hate crimes"; GLAD (Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, who prosecuted the exposers of the GLSEN Fistgate seminar, brought the gay marriage case in Massachusetts, are now pushing for "transgender rights", and many other extremist cases).
Wednesday, June 28, 2006
The "Born Gay Hoax"
Check out this lecture (a one-hour video) on the "Born Gay Hoax." We ran across it on the Intercollegiate Studies Institute's excellent website.
From the ISI forum on this lecture:
Ryan Sorba, an ISI Campus Representative at Cal State-San Bernardino gave a lecture last week at his school.... I know Ryan well and he is almost an "expert" on the subject of his lecture and I hope he writes and speaks more on the subject of homosexuality.
Through a psychological approach, Ryan not only views homosexuality as against the natural law, but he also points out the "homosexualist" political movement that has arisen in the past few decades and the many fallacies in their argument that some people are "born gay." Ryan's lecture insists that all people are "born straight" and that there is a "born gay" hoax that has been furthered without any scientific evidence. The idea of being "born gay" is relatively new to the homosexualist movement, yet this idea has had terrible consequences.You can watch the full hour-long lecture (and believe me you will learn alot!) via this link: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4207851797866730699
From the ISI forum on this lecture:
Ryan Sorba, an ISI Campus Representative at Cal State-San Bernardino gave a lecture last week at his school.... I know Ryan well and he is almost an "expert" on the subject of his lecture and I hope he writes and speaks more on the subject of homosexuality.
Through a psychological approach, Ryan not only views homosexuality as against the natural law, but he also points out the "homosexualist" political movement that has arisen in the past few decades and the many fallacies in their argument that some people are "born gay." Ryan's lecture insists that all people are "born straight" and that there is a "born gay" hoax that has been furthered without any scientific evidence. The idea of being "born gay" is relatively new to the homosexualist movement, yet this idea has had terrible consequences.You can watch the full hour-long lecture (and believe me you will learn alot!) via this link: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4207851797866730699
Tuesday, June 27, 2006
Homosexuals and Spiritual Understanding
Photo credit: InNewsWeekly from Boston Pride 2006Today's Boston Globe rushed to announce a planned press conference by the "Religious Coalition for the Freedom to Marry," who insist that thousands of years of Judeo-Christian teachings have gotten it wrong, and that "marriage" can be based on sodomy. (See "Multifaith coalition targets O'Malley; Members support same-sex marriage.") The coalition, which shares an office with MassEquality, accuses Cardinal O'Malley of "religious discrimination" and says "it violates the principle of church-state separation to deny civil marriage rights based on Catholic teaching."
In other words, the Cardinal has no place speaking on anything concerning government and laws, whether it's abortion, the death penalty, war, poverty programs, whatever. But the "progressives", as they call themselves, can impose their religious understanding on the rest of us, and it's not religious discrimination. Yes, the "progressives" understand spiritual truths about sodomy "marriage" the rest of us just don't get.
Why, just look at the loving couple above at the recent Pride celebration in Boston. One fellow is so devout he's tatooed a cross on his arm, and the other is wearing a cross necklace! Now they get it! (Note also the poster for the Ramrod "gay" bar.) They look like they have "marriage" on their minds.
What would Jesus do?
What would Jesus do?
Monday, June 26, 2006
MassEquality Stickers Put to Good Use?
Yesterday's posting made us really sad. Sad for the young woman, sad that we had to be so brutal in getting the TRUTH out.
So we thought we'd lighten things up a bit. Check out this photo (which we hesitate to post on a conservative blog): At least this young woman in the "Dyke March" has a sense of humor, and an understanding that God did not want her to go to unnatural surgical extremes. It's the best use of MassEquality's silly "Support Equality" stickers we've seen yet!
So we thought we'd lighten things up a bit. Check out this photo (which we hesitate to post on a conservative blog): At least this young woman in the "Dyke March" has a sense of humor, and an understanding that God did not want her to go to unnatural surgical extremes. It's the best use of MassEquality's silly "Support Equality" stickers we've seen yet!
Sunday, June 25, 2006
Why?
At the "Dyke March" -- Boston Pride 2006 What has this young woman done to herself? And -- WHY? Did BAGLY give presentations on "transgenderism" in her high school or college?
This is what the Boston Pride Committee, as well as the Governor's Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth, now support. Instead of affirming this sort of behavior, our schools and state agencies (if involved at all) should be getting these people the psychological counseling they need.
It's not stopping at "straightforward" homosexuality, folks. The horse is out of the barn. Once the public accepts one form of perversion, anything goes. (The sticker on her shorts appears to read "Trans Dyke" ... yet another category.)
How sad. Do you want this to happen to your daughter or granddaughter?
Saturday, June 24, 2006
Witches, Warlocks, Pagans at Boston Pride
(c) 2006 MassResistanceWitches, warlocks, goddess worshippers. This is the diversity we are told we must celebrate! The Independent Pagans of New England marched in Boston's Pride parade a few weeks ago. The Pride Committee had no problem allowing Satan worshippers to strut their stuff.
The goddess figure on the poster is captioned: "All acts of love and pleasure are Her rituals." Under the coiled rainbow snake on the left it says: "Don't tread on me."
Webster's dictionary gives several definitions for "pagan": (1) a follower of a polytheistic religion (as in ancient Rome). (2) one who has little or no religion and who delights in sensual pleasures and material goods.
"Met with cheers of "Look, it's the Pagans, " "Blessed Be, " and "Yahhh, the Pagans, " shouted from the spectators lining the winding route of the 2005 GLBT Pride March/Parade, those of us that chose to march were received warmly by the vast majority of those that lined the streets of Boston on June 11th, 2005....
"At approximately 11:45, we invoked the elements with a call on a bull's horn, and called upon the Goddesses Athena and Aphrodite, and the God Hermes, to aid and protect those gathered there to march throughout the day....
"In the past years, we were able to march with some of the other religious groups, as a statement of our presence as another religious community, just not as organized as the others. In the last few years, these groups have become more scattered throughout the march, and finding a place this year was more than the usual challenge. We were welcomed by another facet of the Gay community, the Radical Fairies, to march behind them...."
Gender Confusion in the Episcopal Church
The newly elected Presiding Bishop for the Episcopal Church, Katharine Jefferts Schori, reveals that church now suffers from a serious case of gender confusion. From her (his?) homily last week:"That bloody cross brings new life into this world. Colossians calls Jesus the firstborn of all creation, the firstborn from the dead. That sweaty, bloody, tear-stained labor of the cross bears new life. Our mother Jesus gives birth to a new creation -- and you and I are His children. If we're going to keep on growing into Christ-images for the world around us, we're going to have to give up fear."
Her thoughts on whether homosexuality is a sin: "I don't believe so. I believe that God creates us with different gifts. Some people come into this world with affections ordered toward other people of the same gender, and some people come into this world with affections directed at people of the other gender."
Friday, June 23, 2006
Fenway Community Health Supports Scenes from Hell
Bay Windows (the homosexual newspaper in Boston handed out at Stop & Shop supermarkets and public libraries around the state) runs a series called "One of Us". This week it's about a "guerilla theater" group that hangs out in "gay cruising grounds."
The director of the group says it collaborates with Fenway Community Health (publisher of the Little Black Book) and is supported by Starbucks. (The director says he is also the "Men’s Health Coordinator at MAP for Health, a community-based organization working with Asians and Pacific Islanders on HIV Education and Outreach.")
"One of Us"? That implies this scene is typical of the "gay" lifestyle, and pertinent to readers of Bay Windows. The interview reads like a scene from hell. Here are excerpts:
…I direct guerilla theater in gay cruising grounds.
What form does that take? It’s a project named “Street Theater Named Desire.” We do short, short plays and safe-sex outreach.
Does that call a halt to the cruising? We want to make sure that the cruising continues, so what we do is intentionally hot: our actors generally only perform in their underwear, and we supply all the accoutrements a “fenster” [men cruising "The Fens" area in Boston] would need for a night in the park: condoms, lube, coffee, donut holes, water, bug spray, hand sanitizer, baby wipes, blankets to sit on and poster-size porn.
What do you think of the argument that the best way to stop endangering gays in the Fens would be to hack it down? I think it’s a denial of the power and the magic of horniness. I think hacking down the reeds will only move men into the garden plots, and I think it’s a denial of over 100 years of history....
And what does a Theater Offensive week look like? It includes rehearsing with A Street Car Named Desire; a chunk of designing and crafting; designing T-shirts and porn cards; starting the work on a community-based program called Repeat Offenders, working with our collaborator — Fenway Community Health, and other sponsors like Starbucks; weekly safer-sex outreach at Buzz; and more.
The director of the group says it collaborates with Fenway Community Health (publisher of the Little Black Book) and is supported by Starbucks. (The director says he is also the "Men’s Health Coordinator at MAP for Health, a community-based organization working with Asians and Pacific Islanders on HIV Education and Outreach.")
"One of Us"? That implies this scene is typical of the "gay" lifestyle, and pertinent to readers of Bay Windows. The interview reads like a scene from hell. Here are excerpts:
…I direct guerilla theater in gay cruising grounds.
What form does that take? It’s a project named “Street Theater Named Desire.” We do short, short plays and safe-sex outreach.
Does that call a halt to the cruising? We want to make sure that the cruising continues, so what we do is intentionally hot: our actors generally only perform in their underwear, and we supply all the accoutrements a “fenster” [men cruising "The Fens" area in Boston] would need for a night in the park: condoms, lube, coffee, donut holes, water, bug spray, hand sanitizer, baby wipes, blankets to sit on and poster-size porn.
What do you think of the argument that the best way to stop endangering gays in the Fens would be to hack it down? I think it’s a denial of the power and the magic of horniness. I think hacking down the reeds will only move men into the garden plots, and I think it’s a denial of over 100 years of history....
And what does a Theater Offensive week look like? It includes rehearsing with A Street Car Named Desire; a chunk of designing and crafting; designing T-shirts and porn cards; starting the work on a community-based program called Repeat Offenders, working with our collaborator — Fenway Community Health, and other sponsors like Starbucks; weekly safer-sex outreach at Buzz; and more.
Tuesday, June 20, 2006
Senator Jarrett Barrios' Budget Follies
State Senator Jarrett Barrios, who claims to be "married" to Doug Hattaway (bigtime Democrat consultant and former AlGore spokesman), has adopted several young boys. We don't know what adoption agency he worked with.
We do know that he has inserted into the proposed FY2007 state budget a grant for $375,000 to the Center for Family Connections, which probably does some great work -- but which also is running a summer seminar in Provincetown this July for adoptive families. Hmm... This might prove more interesting than his recent encounter with marshmallow fluff. (See EHS 940 in Senate Budget amendments.) The Center's website wasn't up, but we found this info on the Mass. Adoption Resource Exchange site:
We do know that he has inserted into the proposed FY2007 state budget a grant for $375,000 to the Center for Family Connections, which probably does some great work -- but which also is running a summer seminar in Provincetown this July for adoptive families. Hmm... This might prove more interesting than his recent encounter with marshmallow fluff. (See EHS 940 in Senate Budget amendments.) The Center's website wasn't up, but we found this info on the Mass. Adoption Resource Exchange site:
Center for Family Connections : 21st ARCHeology Summer Intensives on Adoption and Complex Blended Families Searching For Self: How the search-and the story-heal. Sunday, July 9th – Wednesday, July 12, 2006. Provincetown Theater, Provincetown, Cape Cod MA. For more information on fees and registration, please call Caitlin Fitz Gerald at 617-547-0909 or 1-800-KINNECT or visit their Web site. Each presenter will tell one story that will illuminate, teach, humor, honor and heal. All will look at the personal search that is a part of building your ‘self ’ as a parent (birth, adoptive, foster, step); as an adopted person (legal adoption or emotional adoption); and/or as a professional who comes in contact with mythic that search that people take in finding themselves and their families.
The founder and director of the Center for Family Connections, Dr.Joyce Maguire Pavao, has reviewed a book on "Gay Men Choosing Parenthood", which she says:
"gives the reader an opportunity to explore the fact that no one has the right to be a parent , but anyone who has the desire and the ability to provide a safe and stable family for a child in need, should be able to provide that healing and that family. People may have problems with policy around gay parenthood, but once a family is formed, we must work to provide the holding environments to keep that family—and most especially those children—safe and sound. Fathers are often underrated and underserved in general, and the world at large and professionals whowork with families need to have an understanding of the challenges and how to provide support , especially for gay fathers."
Monday, June 19, 2006
KnowThyNeighbor.org Exporting Intimidation Tactics to Other States
photos (c) 2006 MassResistance/TD
KnowThyNeighbor.org (KTN), the website that posted the names of all the signers of the Massachusetts marriage referendum petition, claims it just wants to encourage friendly discussions between neighbors. And the head of the "Freedom to Marry Coalition" in Massachusetts said the site can provoke "friendly, non-confrontational discussion." What lies!
Look at their banners at the recent Pride parade in Boston. "Vote Bigotry Out!" Clearly, in their minds, anyone who signed the petition is guilty of "bigotry," and therefore would be unable to take part in a real dialogue. And KTN's threat to any would-be signer is blatant: "When you sign, it's online."
Now, KTN is going national. Their website links to its new operation in Florida, and encourages GLBT activists around the country to start intimidation sites in their own states. The Boston Globe reported that KTN officially consulted with the Florida group which has now posted the 450,000 marriage petition signers in that state. A "church" hosts the Florida operation, ChristChurchOfPeace.org.
"KnowThyNeighbor.org is a grassroots, non-profit organization promoting dialogue on marriage equality in Massachusetts and advocating for the removal of governmental barriers to public information by providing meaningful access online. ... If you see a friend, family member, or neighbor on the list of petition signers, make sure they are not a victim of fraud and let them know why marriage equality is important to you." -- Yeah, right...
Sunday, June 18, 2006
Two "Daddies" Will Teach Daughter "Fierce Pride"
We were expecting to see this: rants on "Fathers' Day" -- with the apostrophe moved one letter to the right. Sure enough, WorldNetDay links to a wacky piece out of Seattle. And our very own Boston Globe Magazine's monthly homosexual "Coupling" columnist writes about how tough things still are in Massachusetts for families like his: two homosexual "married" men who have adopted a baby girl.
The Globe columnist uses that old, dishonest analogy that same-sex parents are no different from mixed-race parents. But race -- an inborn and normal identifying factor -- cannot be equated with chosen abnormal, homosexual behaviors. Even to equate the homosexual couples' adoptive circumstances to a single mother adopting a baby from Africa is dishonest. The African child, if left in Africa, would have been consigned to a neglected life in a poor orphanage, so surely a single parent in the U.S. is preferable -- and not unnatural. But there were HUNDREDS of normal, heterosexual married couples anxiously waiting to adopt a child like the little girl placed with these two homosexual men in Arlington.
Speaking as an adoptive parent of a child of a different race, I am particularly offended by the mixed-race family comparison. Yes, this Arlington "family" will be stared at as different, as ours still is! But the difference is (again) that the stares our family sees are related to unsettled popular attitudes about RACE (and even adoption), whereas the stares in their direction are connected to people's gut sense that this girl is in trouble. How will she grow up, what will she be exposed to? Clearly she'll be taught that homosexuality (in all its "diversity") is normal. The "daddies" admit they plan to take her to Provincetown events. Later, if not already, we'd expect they'll involve her in Boston Pride parades and gay clubs at her school. They say they will raise her with a "fierce pride."
No matter what attempts are made to make life "normal" for adopted children, the pain of their early loss (never knowing their biological parents) is always there for them. That is enough of a challenge. Why add the element of unnatural homosexual "parenting" to the package? Not long ago, social workers would have had the sense to protect this child from that extra stress. But now, thanks to the dominance of radical leftists and homosexual activists in our social service professions, normal parents are overlooked in favor of a placement furthering GLBT social re-engineering. How sad for this child -- and many others like her.
(From Coupling: "Happy Fathers' Day," by David Valdes Greenwood, 6-18-06:)
Even as we try to raise Lily with love and a sense of safety, she's always going to see that her family isn't the established norm. Is it any wonder, then, that we get dreamy-eyed over ads for Rosie O'Donnell's R Family cruises, designed for gay-parented families? Or that we plan to make an annual tradition out of Family Week in Provincetown in hopes that, for at least a few days a year, Lily will see her family as the yardstick, not the exception to the rule?
But we don't plan to live the rest of our lives on a cruise ship or in a beach town. We plan to raise Lily at home in her own community, where, if she looks closely enough, she'll see as many configurations of families as there are constellations in the sky. Two moms packing their girls off to school. Two dads and their son welcoming a new baby. A mom and a dad redoing their backyard so their toddler has a place to play. A mixed-race couple singing lullabies in two languages. A single mom raising the daughter she went to Africa to adopt.
We want Lily to see all of this and to keep it in her heart for those times when the world stubbornly insists there is only one family picture. We cannot shield her from people who would erase us, whether from storybooks or society, but we can teach her to celebrate Fathers' Day, and every day, with unfettered joy and fierce pride.
The Globe columnist uses that old, dishonest analogy that same-sex parents are no different from mixed-race parents. But race -- an inborn and normal identifying factor -- cannot be equated with chosen abnormal, homosexual behaviors. Even to equate the homosexual couples' adoptive circumstances to a single mother adopting a baby from Africa is dishonest. The African child, if left in Africa, would have been consigned to a neglected life in a poor orphanage, so surely a single parent in the U.S. is preferable -- and not unnatural. But there were HUNDREDS of normal, heterosexual married couples anxiously waiting to adopt a child like the little girl placed with these two homosexual men in Arlington.
Speaking as an adoptive parent of a child of a different race, I am particularly offended by the mixed-race family comparison. Yes, this Arlington "family" will be stared at as different, as ours still is! But the difference is (again) that the stares our family sees are related to unsettled popular attitudes about RACE (and even adoption), whereas the stares in their direction are connected to people's gut sense that this girl is in trouble. How will she grow up, what will she be exposed to? Clearly she'll be taught that homosexuality (in all its "diversity") is normal. The "daddies" admit they plan to take her to Provincetown events. Later, if not already, we'd expect they'll involve her in Boston Pride parades and gay clubs at her school. They say they will raise her with a "fierce pride."
No matter what attempts are made to make life "normal" for adopted children, the pain of their early loss (never knowing their biological parents) is always there for them. That is enough of a challenge. Why add the element of unnatural homosexual "parenting" to the package? Not long ago, social workers would have had the sense to protect this child from that extra stress. But now, thanks to the dominance of radical leftists and homosexual activists in our social service professions, normal parents are overlooked in favor of a placement furthering GLBT social re-engineering. How sad for this child -- and many others like her.
(From Coupling: "Happy Fathers' Day," by David Valdes Greenwood, 6-18-06:)
Even as we try to raise Lily with love and a sense of safety, she's always going to see that her family isn't the established norm. Is it any wonder, then, that we get dreamy-eyed over ads for Rosie O'Donnell's R Family cruises, designed for gay-parented families? Or that we plan to make an annual tradition out of Family Week in Provincetown in hopes that, for at least a few days a year, Lily will see her family as the yardstick, not the exception to the rule?
But we don't plan to live the rest of our lives on a cruise ship or in a beach town. We plan to raise Lily at home in her own community, where, if she looks closely enough, she'll see as many configurations of families as there are constellations in the sky. Two moms packing their girls off to school. Two dads and their son welcoming a new baby. A mom and a dad redoing their backyard so their toddler has a place to play. A mixed-race couple singing lullabies in two languages. A single mom raising the daughter she went to Africa to adopt.
We want Lily to see all of this and to keep it in her heart for those times when the world stubbornly insists there is only one family picture. We cannot shield her from people who would erase us, whether from storybooks or society, but we can teach her to celebrate Fathers' Day, and every day, with unfettered joy and fierce pride.
Saturday, June 17, 2006
What About the Children at Boston Pride -- and With Homosexual Parents?
There were many young children at the Boston Pride parade and festival on the Common last Saturday. One very young group paraded with a banner advertising a chain of pre-schools. Others apparently attended with the adults they live with -- such as "Tranny Daddy" and "Queer Queer Queer Mom." Most are learning from their activist parents to support the ACLU's attack on America, Western values, and Judeo-Christian morals.
These adult guardians believe it a good thing to expose their children to this event, where homosexual sex paraphernalia are handed out, and participants identify themselves only through their strange sexual behaviors. Where a drag queen makes grossly filthy jokes, including not-so-subtle implications about the new rage for gay couples adopting Filipino babies (" ... you know why? Because they're beige, and they go with everything."). Where witches and "radical faeries" parade as "independent pagans." Where people march almost naked, fat lesbian bikers ride down the street topless, and transsexuals are cheered as they strut their DSM-IV stuff. Where the Boston polyamory group and the New England Leather Alliance (a 501(c)-3 organization!!) give out their web addresses. Where young women wear tight T-shirts showing that they've had their breasts removed.
Macy's and other corporate sponsors, the Human Rights Campaign, Mayor Menino, and the Boston Pride committee itself all portrayed this as a "family-friendly" event. GLSEN had a bus in the parade. (Bay Windows claims the "only major snafu came when festival emcee Hedda Lettuce, whose raunchy stand-up act clashed with the tone of the largely family-friendly event, tore into the Pride Committee from the stage after organizers asked her to tone down her act, inviting them to 'eat [her] pickled ass.' ")
Obviously, the definition of "parent" and "family" are now up for grabs, along with "marriage". For those homosexual parents who have children not as an accessory or part of their interior decorating scheme, we still wonder how they can have the best interests of their children in mind if they drag them to such an event. As Dale O'Leary wrote ["The truth about the human person," The Pilot, 5-5-06]: "Of course, same-sex couples who acquire children love them, but such natural emotions will only make it harder for them to admit that they put their own desires above their children's needs." And we doubt she ever contemplated the "families" coming to this sort of event!
O'Leary points out that studies purporting to show children do as well with homosexual parents as heterosexual parents "don't meet the minimum standards for valid research. Most use very small samples, often drawn from the friends of the person doing the study. Some don't even compare children raised by same-sex couples with those raised by their biological married parents, but instead use children raised by single mothers as a control group. The researchers don't ask the hard questions and don't follow the children over time. In several studies, the authors did not accurately represent their own data." And we are certain the researchers don't discuss the effect of parents bringing their children to events such as Boston Pride.
At a recent GLSEN Boston seminar, a homosexual activist teacher told a story about a very sad, quiet boy in his middle school class who kept apart from all the other kids. The teacher gloated that the student seemed so happy when he (the teacher) "came out" to his students, and the boy approached him to confess he had two mommies and was glad to have someone to talk to (...undoubtedly yearning for a father, the adult male who should have been there). But the GLSEN activist doesn't see this from the other perspective: that bringing up a child in this unnatural home was essentially an act of abuse, or at least selfishness, on the part of the two mommies. Their very unhappy, lonely boy was the result.
These adult guardians believe it a good thing to expose their children to this event, where homosexual sex paraphernalia are handed out, and participants identify themselves only through their strange sexual behaviors. Where a drag queen makes grossly filthy jokes, including not-so-subtle implications about the new rage for gay couples adopting Filipino babies (" ... you know why? Because they're beige, and they go with everything."). Where witches and "radical faeries" parade as "independent pagans." Where people march almost naked, fat lesbian bikers ride down the street topless, and transsexuals are cheered as they strut their DSM-IV stuff. Where the Boston polyamory group and the New England Leather Alliance (a 501(c)-3 organization!!) give out their web addresses. Where young women wear tight T-shirts showing that they've had their breasts removed.
Macy's and other corporate sponsors, the Human Rights Campaign, Mayor Menino, and the Boston Pride committee itself all portrayed this as a "family-friendly" event. GLSEN had a bus in the parade. (Bay Windows claims the "only major snafu came when festival emcee Hedda Lettuce, whose raunchy stand-up act clashed with the tone of the largely family-friendly event, tore into the Pride Committee from the stage after organizers asked her to tone down her act, inviting them to 'eat [her] pickled ass.' ")
Obviously, the definition of "parent" and "family" are now up for grabs, along with "marriage". For those homosexual parents who have children not as an accessory or part of their interior decorating scheme, we still wonder how they can have the best interests of their children in mind if they drag them to such an event. As Dale O'Leary wrote ["The truth about the human person," The Pilot, 5-5-06]: "Of course, same-sex couples who acquire children love them, but such natural emotions will only make it harder for them to admit that they put their own desires above their children's needs." And we doubt she ever contemplated the "families" coming to this sort of event!
O'Leary points out that studies purporting to show children do as well with homosexual parents as heterosexual parents "don't meet the minimum standards for valid research. Most use very small samples, often drawn from the friends of the person doing the study. Some don't even compare children raised by same-sex couples with those raised by their biological married parents, but instead use children raised by single mothers as a control group. The researchers don't ask the hard questions and don't follow the children over time. In several studies, the authors did not accurately represent their own data." And we are certain the researchers don't discuss the effect of parents bringing their children to events such as Boston Pride.
At a recent GLSEN Boston seminar, a homosexual activist teacher told a story about a very sad, quiet boy in his middle school class who kept apart from all the other kids. The teacher gloated that the student seemed so happy when he (the teacher) "came out" to his students, and the boy approached him to confess he had two mommies and was glad to have someone to talk to (...undoubtedly yearning for a father, the adult male who should have been there). But the GLSEN activist doesn't see this from the other perspective: that bringing up a child in this unnatural home was essentially an act of abuse, or at least selfishness, on the part of the two mommies. Their very unhappy, lonely boy was the result.
Friday, June 16, 2006
Catholics for Romney? Only If They Don't Understand the Constitution!
Last Sunday's Boston Globe ran an article on Gov. Mitt Romney's savvy way around federal presidential campaign fundraising regulations, namely his "Commonwealth PAC." "Romney has PAC affiliates in Iowa, Michigan, South Carolina, New Hampshire, and, formerly, in Arizona. Particularly beneficial to Romney are the affiliates in Iowa and Michigan, where there are no limits on how much an individual can give."
This aroused the curiosity of a few concerned Massachusetts Catholics, and they came across the Catholics for Romney blog. Read the FUN comments on the Monday, May 22 posting, "A site to bookmark." Massachusetts Catholics explain how Gov. Romney was responsible for the homosexual "marriages" through his order to Justices of the Peace and Town Clerks to issue "marriage" certificates -- which Romney had redesigned (without authority) to read "Party A" and "Party B". But the loyal Romneyites on that blog can't handle the truth!
And some mean things are said about MassResistance!!! ...
"There's an anti-Romney group (MassRessistance---and they are essentially "spamming" every site and discussion board possible with this same sorry story) that has made it their crusade to bash Romney on every possible occasion because he did not do an illegal 'George Wallace' style barring of the courthouse to prevent Gay Marriages from occurring."
Excerpts:
"WIN" wrote:
I am a Catholic and I have a problem with Mitt Romney seeking Catholic votes when he has been responsible for gay marriage. Contrary to a popular misconception created (except for lawyers and judges who are very much aware of this) which was created by Mitt Romney, gay marriage currently is not legal in Massachusetts. The SJC interpreted the marriage statute to NOT PERMIT same sex marriage. The SJC declared the marriage statute “unconstitutional” BUT they did not strike that law. It remains a statute on the books as it was originally written and intended. The Massachusetts Constitution clearly states that a law that remains on the books is the law until it is repealed by the Legislature. The SJC simply changed the “common law” meaning of the term marriage but because that term already exists in the statute and in the Constitution, the SJC’s “common law” declaration of a new meaning did not and could not change the statute nor the words of the Constitution because common law is subordinate to statutory and constitutional law. The SJC acknowledged this in the Goodridge case saying that they could not legislate and therefore gave the legislature 180 days to act. The legislature neither repealed the “unconstitutional” marriage law nor changed the law by way of a change to the statute nor by allowing the Constitutional Amendment to go through in 2005. Therefore the “law,” the marriage statute, that forbids same-sex marriage, continues to forbid it. The only reason why same-sex marriage licenses are being handed out is because Mitt Romney ordered them to be but he did that without legal authority under any statute. This is confirmed by the fact that the Massachusetts Legislature currently has two opposing bills pending before it; one that promotes same-sex “marriage” (H977/S967) and the other that defines marriage as the union of one man to one woman (H654). If same-sex marriage” was currently legal, there would be no reason to have either of these opposing bills pending before the Massachusetts Legislature. Romney knows this. He was told before May 17, 2004 and he has been told repeatedly, by prominent and not so prominent lawyers and others. He has a sworn duty to uphold the Massachusetts Constitution and the marriage statute. Every day that goes by is another day that he has violated massachusetts law.
Jeff responds:
I am not one for censorship . . . but the above post is so filled with misinformation that it will confuse people who do not understand the issue and should be removed . . . there's an anti-Romney group (MassRessistance---and they are essentially "spamming" every site and discussion board possible with this same sorry story) that has made it their crusade to bash Romney on every possible occasion because he did not do an illegal "George Wallace" style barring of the courthouse to prevent Gay Marriages from occurring.
carol said...
Jeff, Why do you refer to prolifers as "these people"? I know WIN (as do most of us here in the Boston area who have been fighting prolife and profamily issues at the State House). You're not coming out of the starting gate with a good strategy if you are going to attack us. I know this is disappointing, but most of us have alerted the RNC that the prolife movement will not stand behind Mitt Romney and we have told them the reasons why. WIN have given you the reasons why. We are dissatisfied with public statements and letters when we all know that he has the power to take the actions that protect the authentic U.S. Constitution. While his paper statements look good in a publicity campaign, we find them disingenuous and most, if not all of the Catholic prolifers I know here in MA long ago dismissed him as a prochoicer with the spin. It's not going to fly. Too many times we put the papers under his nose, pulled MGL and US Constitution and showed him we knew he had the authority - and asked him to take the actions. He refused. He flipped flopped and he has left prolife Catholic families to be chewed and mauled by the dogs. You will excuse us, I'm sure, as we take his statements and throw them in the trash. Lots of luck to the RNC if they select Mitt. They can kiss Catholic prolifers goodbye.
WIN wrote:
If there is a flaw in my legal analysis, please let me know what it is. Did the SJC reformulate not just the definition of marriage but also the definition of separation of powers? Is Mitt Romney, not one of the three "co-EQUAL" branches of Government? Does he not have the legal duty to uphold current Massachusetts law? What then is the current state of Massachusetts law? Please let me know? Either the SJC rewrote the marriage statute, which is clearly unconstitutional, or they did not. If they did not, Romney had no legal duty to order the issuance of marriage licenses. If they did, Romney had a legal obligation to ignore their unconstitutional legislative act (because the Massachusetts Constitution states that only the legislature may create laws). That by the way also applies to Mitt Romney. He as the executive branch has no legal authority to enforce laws that DO NOT EXIST. If there is a law in Massachusetts that permits same-sex marriage, please point it out. Read the Goodridge case and show me where the SJC did anything of the sort (ordering town clerks or even the legislature to do anything). They did not, but they are easy people for someone like Mitt Romney who needs a punching bag as he runs for president, to punch and claim that it is activist judges who changed the law. Why did Romney order Town Clerks to go against their religious beliefs and conscience and comply with Goodridge? What authority did he have to do that? There is no legal authority right now, in Massachusetts for same-sex "marriage." The licenses are illegal (VOID) and Romney is violating the Constitution. If he is not, please show me the legal authority or censor youself for not adding anything of value to this discussion.
This aroused the curiosity of a few concerned Massachusetts Catholics, and they came across the Catholics for Romney blog. Read the FUN comments on the Monday, May 22 posting, "A site to bookmark." Massachusetts Catholics explain how Gov. Romney was responsible for the homosexual "marriages" through his order to Justices of the Peace and Town Clerks to issue "marriage" certificates -- which Romney had redesigned (without authority) to read "Party A" and "Party B". But the loyal Romneyites on that blog can't handle the truth!
And some mean things are said about MassResistance!!! ...
"There's an anti-Romney group (MassRessistance---and they are essentially "spamming" every site and discussion board possible with this same sorry story) that has made it their crusade to bash Romney on every possible occasion because he did not do an illegal 'George Wallace' style barring of the courthouse to prevent Gay Marriages from occurring."
Excerpts:
"WIN" wrote:
I am a Catholic and I have a problem with Mitt Romney seeking Catholic votes when he has been responsible for gay marriage. Contrary to a popular misconception created (except for lawyers and judges who are very much aware of this) which was created by Mitt Romney, gay marriage currently is not legal in Massachusetts. The SJC interpreted the marriage statute to NOT PERMIT same sex marriage. The SJC declared the marriage statute “unconstitutional” BUT they did not strike that law. It remains a statute on the books as it was originally written and intended. The Massachusetts Constitution clearly states that a law that remains on the books is the law until it is repealed by the Legislature. The SJC simply changed the “common law” meaning of the term marriage but because that term already exists in the statute and in the Constitution, the SJC’s “common law” declaration of a new meaning did not and could not change the statute nor the words of the Constitution because common law is subordinate to statutory and constitutional law. The SJC acknowledged this in the Goodridge case saying that they could not legislate and therefore gave the legislature 180 days to act. The legislature neither repealed the “unconstitutional” marriage law nor changed the law by way of a change to the statute nor by allowing the Constitutional Amendment to go through in 2005. Therefore the “law,” the marriage statute, that forbids same-sex marriage, continues to forbid it. The only reason why same-sex marriage licenses are being handed out is because Mitt Romney ordered them to be but he did that without legal authority under any statute. This is confirmed by the fact that the Massachusetts Legislature currently has two opposing bills pending before it; one that promotes same-sex “marriage” (H977/S967) and the other that defines marriage as the union of one man to one woman (H654). If same-sex marriage” was currently legal, there would be no reason to have either of these opposing bills pending before the Massachusetts Legislature. Romney knows this. He was told before May 17, 2004 and he has been told repeatedly, by prominent and not so prominent lawyers and others. He has a sworn duty to uphold the Massachusetts Constitution and the marriage statute. Every day that goes by is another day that he has violated massachusetts law.
Jeff responds:
I am not one for censorship . . . but the above post is so filled with misinformation that it will confuse people who do not understand the issue and should be removed . . . there's an anti-Romney group (MassRessistance---and they are essentially "spamming" every site and discussion board possible with this same sorry story) that has made it their crusade to bash Romney on every possible occasion because he did not do an illegal "George Wallace" style barring of the courthouse to prevent Gay Marriages from occurring.
carol said...
Jeff, Why do you refer to prolifers as "these people"? I know WIN (as do most of us here in the Boston area who have been fighting prolife and profamily issues at the State House). You're not coming out of the starting gate with a good strategy if you are going to attack us. I know this is disappointing, but most of us have alerted the RNC that the prolife movement will not stand behind Mitt Romney and we have told them the reasons why. WIN have given you the reasons why. We are dissatisfied with public statements and letters when we all know that he has the power to take the actions that protect the authentic U.S. Constitution. While his paper statements look good in a publicity campaign, we find them disingenuous and most, if not all of the Catholic prolifers I know here in MA long ago dismissed him as a prochoicer with the spin. It's not going to fly. Too many times we put the papers under his nose, pulled MGL and US Constitution and showed him we knew he had the authority - and asked him to take the actions. He refused. He flipped flopped and he has left prolife Catholic families to be chewed and mauled by the dogs. You will excuse us, I'm sure, as we take his statements and throw them in the trash. Lots of luck to the RNC if they select Mitt. They can kiss Catholic prolifers goodbye.
WIN wrote:
If there is a flaw in my legal analysis, please let me know what it is. Did the SJC reformulate not just the definition of marriage but also the definition of separation of powers? Is Mitt Romney, not one of the three "co-EQUAL" branches of Government? Does he not have the legal duty to uphold current Massachusetts law? What then is the current state of Massachusetts law? Please let me know? Either the SJC rewrote the marriage statute, which is clearly unconstitutional, or they did not. If they did not, Romney had no legal duty to order the issuance of marriage licenses. If they did, Romney had a legal obligation to ignore their unconstitutional legislative act (because the Massachusetts Constitution states that only the legislature may create laws). That by the way also applies to Mitt Romney. He as the executive branch has no legal authority to enforce laws that DO NOT EXIST. If there is a law in Massachusetts that permits same-sex marriage, please point it out. Read the Goodridge case and show me where the SJC did anything of the sort (ordering town clerks or even the legislature to do anything). They did not, but they are easy people for someone like Mitt Romney who needs a punching bag as he runs for president, to punch and claim that it is activist judges who changed the law. Why did Romney order Town Clerks to go against their religious beliefs and conscience and comply with Goodridge? What authority did he have to do that? There is no legal authority right now, in Massachusetts for same-sex "marriage." The licenses are illegal (VOID) and Romney is violating the Constitution. If he is not, please show me the legal authority or censor youself for not adding anything of value to this discussion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)