Many children with GLBT parents are harmed in ways we're only just beginning to hear about. A new web site by Dawn Stefanowicz in Canada seeks to share these stories. Why were these voices silenced when adoption by homosexual parents was legalized? Or homosexual "marriage" began? National Catholic Register's Gail Besse reports (Oct. 8-14 issue):
New Website Offers Support For Adult Children of Homosexuals. A woman who grew up with a same-sex-attracted father has launched an effort to help similar people deal with the pain they experience.
LONDON, Ontario — She had every daughter’s natural need for affirmation, but that was something her homosexual father just couldn’t give his little girl. Now in her 40s, Dawn Stefanowicz knows there are others like her — others who as children ached with silent hunger for that missing connection. To help them, she has set up the first website that specifically addresses the impact of homosexual parenting from the adult child’s perspective.
“It pierces the inside of you when you know the truth. Men who struggle with their own masculinity cannot affirm femininity,” she said. “Six-year-olds cannot tell you how they’re being impacted. We can’t comprehend what we went through until we’re adults.
Now an accountant and home schooling mother of two, Stefanowicz and her husband of 22 years live in Ontario. Her website, http://www.dawnstefanowicz.com, went online in early September. It outlines her childhood story, which includes being exposed to nude beaches, “gay cruising” sites and sexually transmitted diseases. The website lists scientific studies and news articles, secular and religious support groups, and confidential contact information. Her Christian faith and counseling helped Stefanowicz come to terms with her past and with the biological father whom she loved but lost to AIDS....
She said that in trying to “normalize” the raising of children by homosexual parents, society is reconstructing the family so children’s needs are secondary to the sexual desires of adults....
A host of parental problems can challenge children raised by those who act out same-sex attraction, according to Dale O’Leary, a writer and researcher for the Catholic Medical Association and author of The Gender Agenda: Redefining Equality. For example, boys reared by two “mothers” face hostility toward their masculinity within the lesbian community.
“Same-sex attraction is the tip of the iceberg,” O’Leary said. “Many such people were victims of sexual child abuse themselves and have multiple problems. Many have suicidal impulses, anger management issues, drug and alcohol abuse, a high level of partner change, serious depression and mental illness. The scary thing is, when children are raised by dysfunctional parents, they often think the problems are their fault,” she said.
Read more...
Monday, October 09, 2006
Sunday, October 08, 2006
STD Control Undermined When "Gay Marriage" Began?
There's a politically-correct silence concerning the apparent collapse of the Dept. of Public Health's STD control efforts, especially concerning HIV/AIDS and other diseases highly correlated with homosexual sex practices. There's also been little public discussion of the now abandoned effort to control STDs in the heterosexual population at the time a couple applies for a marriage license.
Until January 2005, a couple could not marry without a physician's certificate of health verifying that each person was free of certain STDs. But this part of the marriage statutes (MGL Ch. 207, Sec. 28A) was overturned when Gov. Romney signed into law House Bill #75 on Oct. 29, 2004. Why did Romney do this? Wasn't the marriage health certificate an important part of controlling the STD epidemic? (Remember too, the DPH is under Gov. Romney's authority.)
Do we need to connect the dots? If marriage licenses were still denied to homosexual males with STDs monitored by the DPH, how many of them would still be able to "marry"? Does anyone know of some other reason the health certificate requirement was done away with?
See this page from the Division of Sexually Transmitted Disease (STD), part of the DPH's Bureau of Communicable Disease Control: http://www.mass.gov/dph/cdc/std/divstd.htm . The two info alerts below -- one on waiving the marriage health certificate, the other on STD issues in the "men who have sex with men" population --are ironically juxtaposed on that same page.
Marriage Information
News Alert: Information to all physicians regarding the January 28, 2005 effective date of the repeal of medical certificate requirements for marriage licenses.... All couples that file a Notice of Intention to Marry on or after January 28, 2005, no longer must obtain a medical certificate.
Clinical Advisories:
--Lymphogranuloma venereum (LGV) presenting as inflammatory bowel disease or proctitis, January 2005 (PDF 159k) MS Word
--Infectious Syphilis Among Men who have Sex with Men (MSM)
--Increasing Number of Cases Caused by Quinolone Resistant Neisseria gonorrhoeae
Until January 2005, a couple could not marry without a physician's certificate of health verifying that each person was free of certain STDs. But this part of the marriage statutes (MGL Ch. 207, Sec. 28A) was overturned when Gov. Romney signed into law House Bill #75 on Oct. 29, 2004. Why did Romney do this? Wasn't the marriage health certificate an important part of controlling the STD epidemic? (Remember too, the DPH is under Gov. Romney's authority.)
Do we need to connect the dots? If marriage licenses were still denied to homosexual males with STDs monitored by the DPH, how many of them would still be able to "marry"? Does anyone know of some other reason the health certificate requirement was done away with?
See this page from the Division of Sexually Transmitted Disease (STD), part of the DPH's Bureau of Communicable Disease Control: http://www.mass.gov/dph/cdc/std/divstd.htm . The two info alerts below -- one on waiving the marriage health certificate, the other on STD issues in the "men who have sex with men" population --are ironically juxtaposed on that same page.
Marriage Information
News Alert: Information to all physicians regarding the January 28, 2005 effective date of the repeal of medical certificate requirements for marriage licenses.... All couples that file a Notice of Intention to Marry on or after January 28, 2005, no longer must obtain a medical certificate.
Clinical Advisories:
--Lymphogranuloma venereum (LGV) presenting as inflammatory bowel disease or proctitis, January 2005 (PDF 159k) MS Word
--Infectious Syphilis Among Men who have Sex with Men (MSM)
--Increasing Number of Cases Caused by Quinolone Resistant Neisseria gonorrhoeae
Friday, October 06, 2006
Foley's Case Typical: Molested Youth Often Turn to Homosexuality
Stephen Bennett, an ex-homosexual with a Christian ministry reaching out to homosexuals hoping to change, has some interesting things to say about the Mark Foley story. See Ex-Homosexual Ministry Leader: 'My Heart Breaks for Mark Foley.' (Agape Press, 10-5-06) Excerpts:
According to the ministry founder [Bennett], what the disgraced political figure needs to do now is to admit he has a problem and take full responsibility for his actions.... Foley's attorney told the press that the Congressman is, in fact, homosexual and that he had been sexually abused by a clergyman while between the ages of 13 and 15.
Stephen Bennett, a former homosexual and founder of Stephen Bennett Ministries (SBM), says his ministry often deals with homosexuals who were abused as youngsters. In fact, he says there is a definite correlation between molestation and homosexuality.
"This is the truth that people need to understand, that molestation is a vicious, vicious cycle and the media is afraid -- most of the secular media, because it's politically incorrect -- to make that association between molestation and homosexuality," Bennett says. However, he asserts, just because Foley has suffered at the hands of a homosexual clergyman does not mean the former Congressman has to be a by-product of that cycle....
[I]t is time, Bennett urges, for people "to stop worrying about being 'politically correct' in the media regarding homosexuality and finally deal with the truth ... that homosexual (and heterosexual) molestation of children can and [does] produce future homosexual men and women.
"Foley's story is so tragically typical," Stephen Bennett says. But the good news, he adds, is that the former Congressman and others like him can find deliverance from the homosexual lifestyle through a relationship with Christ, because help and hope are available, and change is completely possible.
According to the ministry founder [Bennett], what the disgraced political figure needs to do now is to admit he has a problem and take full responsibility for his actions.... Foley's attorney told the press that the Congressman is, in fact, homosexual and that he had been sexually abused by a clergyman while between the ages of 13 and 15.
Stephen Bennett, a former homosexual and founder of Stephen Bennett Ministries (SBM), says his ministry often deals with homosexuals who were abused as youngsters. In fact, he says there is a definite correlation between molestation and homosexuality.
"This is the truth that people need to understand, that molestation is a vicious, vicious cycle and the media is afraid -- most of the secular media, because it's politically incorrect -- to make that association between molestation and homosexuality," Bennett says. However, he asserts, just because Foley has suffered at the hands of a homosexual clergyman does not mean the former Congressman has to be a by-product of that cycle....
[I]t is time, Bennett urges, for people "to stop worrying about being 'politically correct' in the media regarding homosexuality and finally deal with the truth ... that homosexual (and heterosexual) molestation of children can and [does] produce future homosexual men and women.
"Foley's story is so tragically typical," Stephen Bennett says. But the good news, he adds, is that the former Congressman and others like him can find deliverance from the homosexual lifestyle through a relationship with Christ, because help and hope are available, and change is completely possible.
Thursday, October 05, 2006
WHO Is Targeting David Parker & Parents' Rights?
GLAD Attorney 
Ms. Lee Swislow,
A partial rogues' gallery of the people going after David Parker in his defense of parents' rights. GLAD (Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders) is one of the groups that colluded with Chief Justice Margaret Marshall on the "homosexual marriage" ruling.
David Parker wasn't imagining things when he said he didn't want his little son taught about "transgenderism"!
NECN's Jim Braude interviews Joanne Herman (link to video in lower left corner of page)
Wednesday, October 04, 2006
Deval Patrick Supports Most Extreme GLBT Demands
Above: QueerToday.com organizer and BAGLY manager Mark Snyder with Deval Patrick and friend. Right: Riot last Oct. 30 organized by Snyder of QueerToday in attempt to shut down the LoveWonOut ex-gay conference at Tremont Temple Baptist Church in Boston.
Nothing is too far out for Dem gov candidate Deval Patrick. Here he is smiling with one of the most extreme members of the GLBT street gang, QueerToday. We've noted Patrick's appearance at the Harvard GLBT forum where he promised to do WHATEVER a "transgender" radical might ask of him. And he attended a big fundraiser for the Mass. Gay & Lesbian Political Caucus in July, just a few weeks after its chief lobbyist was arrested for soliciting UMass college boys for oral sex.
Doesn't it bother most voters that Patrick supports those wanting to destroy the natural family and marriage, shut down churches, and indoctrinate children from an early age without their parents' consent?
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
Cover-Up of Massachusetts' Own Foley-Type Scandal
Massachusetts' very own scandal: Chief Lobbyist for Mass. Gay & Lesbian Political Caucus (currently running the State House), Bill Conley (on right) arrested in July for soliciting UMass college boys for oral sex. Here he's shown cheering on his young charges in his role as member of Governor's [yes Mitt, that's you] Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth Pride parade, May 2005. On the State House steps (where else?)
Where's the outrage?
Massachusetts has its own Foley-type scandal: The head GLBT lobbyist at the Mass. State House -- who also worked with children on the "Governor's Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth" -- was arrested in July for internet solicitation of U. Mass. college boys for oral sex. That incident, first reported in late July/early August, sank in the local media. (We wonder why?) So it's MassResistance's job to remind everyone of our home-grown (come to think of it, Foley was home-grown too -- in Newton!) "gay" man with a hankering for fit young bodies.
The arrested lobbyist, William Conley, had a lead role in organizing "GLBT youth" as member of the "Governor's Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth." Our group just happened to catch his participation at the 2005 Youth Pride event (above photo), where he is cheering on the youth parade, standing on the State House steps with other activists of unknown character. Just as it's odd for a Congressman to be IM'ing a boy while awaiting a vote, it seems a bit odd to us that these middle-aged men would spend their Saturday afternoon organizing and attending a parade for very troubled teenagers who have been persuaded that anal sex and cross-dressing are healthy expressions of their inborn identities.
Let's just bury our heads in the sand. Pretend it's not happening. That's what the Log Cabin Republicans ("gay" RINOs) are doing: They've erased Foley's photo from their web site! Well, MassResistance will NOT be erasing any of the photos we've taken over the past decade. (And you've only seen a few of them so far!)
For some good commentary of the Foley story, check out:
Peter LaBarbera, Americans for Truth
Wall Street Journal editorial, "Paging Mr. Hastert" (10-3-06)
And from Linda Harvey, "Sexual fascism and the Mark Foley scandal":
Apparently, Rep. Mark Foley is homosexual. And like many homosexual men, he likes young teen boys. We should pray for him that he gets a handle on this problem and refrains from harming any more kids. Meanwhile, we need to wake up. The fact that this is typical behavior for homosexuals doesn't stop us from continuing to elevate such folks to positions where they gain access to our kids.
And the liberal wing of the GOP – the "It's My Party, Too" crowd – shelters and nurtures those who pose a serious threat to children in this and many other ways. Foley is on the advisory board of the radically liberal –- not "moderate"– PAC led by Christie Todd Whitman, who vetoed a partial-birth abortion ban bill while governor of New Jersey and supports homosexual "marriage." ... I guess they would all agree with Whitman's comment that homosexuals marrying wouldn't affect "her" marriage. Strange, but I thought adults were supposed to learn that it's not about "us." There's a bigger picture out there that grown-ups, including governors and congressional leaders, should learn about.
Yes, it will affect your marriage, Christie – because it will change the cultural norms, including what all of us are expected to accept and what all children are taught. Our children are endangered if we fail to leave them a legacy of sexual responsibility in the context of traditional marriage. But no – we unleash upon them public leaders with standards of the sewer.
Open or suspected homosexuals should never be elected. The problem with homosexuals is that they frequently don't have common sense and don't acknowledge appropriate boundaries. Weird sex, public displays of "affection" and nudity, and sex with youth are built into the "gay" sub-culture. Witness any pride parade, stroll around any predominantly "gay" neighborhood, or visit "GLBT" websites and you quickly see the problem. ...
Foley's leadership on the issue of child predator protection is amazing. There's little personal shame and much truth-twisting among homosexuals regarding youth. We need people of character in office, not those who are "double-minded," whose public leadership is at odds with their personal behavior.
Monday, October 02, 2006
Romney Obeys Some Laws, Makes Up Others, Buys Goodwill
A group from MassResistance greeted would-be Romney supporters at the NH Republican State Convention on Saturday (Sept. 30). We warned them that Romney is not the pro-family champion he claims to be in his tours around the country. The response to our handouts ran the gamut from steely straight-ahead glances (from those receiving $ from Romney's Commonwealth PAC for their campaigns? and college students rumored -- we were told by a delegate -- to be paid by Romney to come cheer him?) -- to nods and smiles from those who already knew they couldn't trust him.
As we pointed out in our posting on the RI "lesbian marriage" ruling, Romney is still confused about the LAW. Why insist on enforcing it in some cases (re: the REAL 1913 LAW barring out-of-staters marrying in Mass. if that marriage is not allowed in their home state), but make it up in others (where's the statute authorizing in-state homosexual marriages?)
"I have to follow the law. This is a nation of laws, even if I don't like them," Romney said in NH on Saturday. We gather he believes he can also MAKE the laws sometimes. So is the law he made up -- allowing homosexual marriage -- one he likes, or not? We're not just dealing with judicial tyranny in Massachusetts. We also have executive branch tyranny. And a royal state of confusion, encouraged by the mainstream media.
So there are lots of confused Republicans, partly due to Romney's dishonesty, partly due to media coverups, and partly due to the money that's being spread around.
The Boston Globe reported yesterday that Romney's Commonwealth PAC gave $100,000 to NH Republicans last year, and gave the Republican State Committee another $60,000 over the summer. So there's quite a bit of goodwill built up. No wonder many NH Republicans didn't want to take our handouts. He's also doling out money to key primary states in his role as chairman of the Republican Governors Association (to Florida, Michigan, Iowa), according to the Globe (10-1-06).
Back to the question which raged in 2004: Why does Romney think anyone has to follow the latest crazy ruling by a judge, anyhow? Why doesn't he order Massachusetts officials to deny the marriage licenses or ceremonies to the out-of-staters? Then he'd be upholding the law.
As we pointed out in our posting on the RI "lesbian marriage" ruling, Romney is still confused about the LAW. Why insist on enforcing it in some cases (re: the REAL 1913 LAW barring out-of-staters marrying in Mass. if that marriage is not allowed in their home state), but make it up in others (where's the statute authorizing in-state homosexual marriages?)
"I have to follow the law. This is a nation of laws, even if I don't like them," Romney said in NH on Saturday. We gather he believes he can also MAKE the laws sometimes. So is the law he made up -- allowing homosexual marriage -- one he likes, or not? We're not just dealing with judicial tyranny in Massachusetts. We also have executive branch tyranny. And a royal state of confusion, encouraged by the mainstream media.
So there are lots of confused Republicans, partly due to Romney's dishonesty, partly due to media coverups, and partly due to the money that's being spread around.
The Boston Globe reported yesterday that Romney's Commonwealth PAC gave $100,000 to NH Republicans last year, and gave the Republican State Committee another $60,000 over the summer. So there's quite a bit of goodwill built up. No wonder many NH Republicans didn't want to take our handouts. He's also doling out money to key primary states in his role as chairman of the Republican Governors Association (to Florida, Michigan, Iowa), according to the Globe (10-1-06).
Back to the question which raged in 2004: Why does Romney think anyone has to follow the latest crazy ruling by a judge, anyhow? Why doesn't he order Massachusetts officials to deny the marriage licenses or ceremonies to the out-of-staters? Then he'd be upholding the law.
Sunday, October 01, 2006
Rep. Foley and Pedophile "Mentoring"
Florida Rep. Mark Foley's story reminds us once again of all the pedophiles out there. Note that the Congressman lyingly told another Congressman he was just "mentoring" the page he harassed.
This reminded us of the volunteer opportunities we saw listed on the "Friends of the Governor's Commission on GLBT Youth" web site. Sure, most of these people are probably OK. But, are we being careful enough? Are Commission members or its "Friends" who volunteer with these vulnerable youth subject to criminal background checks -- as are most parents who just want to go on field trips with their own children's schools? Just asking.
Also over the weekend we encountered the series Oprah is doing on pedophiles (thanks to Americans for Truth). She points us to this NY Times report by Kurt Eichenwald on pedophiles' use of the internet (8-21-06). Pedophiles claim they're struggling to achieve "rights" for children. Excerpts:
Today, pedophiles go online to seek tips for getting near children — at camps, through foster care, at community gatherings and at countless other events. [Like the Youth Pride march and prom?] They swap stories about day-to-day encounters with minors. And they make use of technology to help take their arguments to others, like sharing online a printable booklet to be distributed to children that extols the benefits of sex with adults....
In this online community, pedophiles view themselves as the vanguard of a nascent movement seeking legalization of child pornography and the loosening of age-of-consent laws. They portray themselves as battling for children’s rights to engage in sex with adults, a fight they liken to the civil rights movement. And while their effort has brought little success, they celebrated online in May when a small group of men in the Netherlands formed a pedophile political party, and they rejoiced again last month when a Dutch court upheld the party’s right to exist....
In essence, the groups deem potentially injurious acts and beliefs harmless. That is accomplished in part by denying that a victim is injured, condemning critics and appealing to higher loyalties — in this case, an ostensible struggle for the sexual freedom of children.
From summaries of the recent Oprah segments:
Many sexual predators choose to keep their preferences a secret, while others are vocal about their attraction to minors. In 1978, a support group for men who have sexual feelings toward young boys was founded in Boston. It is known as NAMBLA, the North American Man-Boy Love Association. According to NAMBLA's website, members "support the rights of youth, as well as adults, to choose the partners with whom they wish to share and enjoy their bodies." This controversial organization doesn't advocate breaking any laws, and it is not illegal to become a member....
According to Kurt [Eichenwald, NY Times reporter], many online predators believe children have a desire to have sex with adults and that other adults—like parents—force them to "deny their desires."A lot of what passes for advocacy, Kurt says, is simply a smoke screen in these communities. The crime takes place when fantasies translate into real, daily life, he says.
During his investigation, Kurt found predators may have acted upon fantasies in one place where children should feel safe—the classroom. Kurt was shocked to learn through his research that the most common job for pedophiles is teaching. He says one principal said in an online chat that he met his first "YF"—a popular abbreviation for "Young Friend"—when he was sent to his office for discipline.
This reminded us of the volunteer opportunities we saw listed on the "Friends of the Governor's Commission on GLBT Youth" web site. Sure, most of these people are probably OK. But, are we being careful enough? Are Commission members or its "Friends" who volunteer with these vulnerable youth subject to criminal background checks -- as are most parents who just want to go on field trips with their own children's schools? Just asking.
Also over the weekend we encountered the series Oprah is doing on pedophiles (thanks to Americans for Truth). She points us to this NY Times report by Kurt Eichenwald on pedophiles' use of the internet (8-21-06). Pedophiles claim they're struggling to achieve "rights" for children. Excerpts:
Today, pedophiles go online to seek tips for getting near children — at camps, through foster care, at community gatherings and at countless other events. [Like the Youth Pride march and prom?] They swap stories about day-to-day encounters with minors. And they make use of technology to help take their arguments to others, like sharing online a printable booklet to be distributed to children that extols the benefits of sex with adults....
In this online community, pedophiles view themselves as the vanguard of a nascent movement seeking legalization of child pornography and the loosening of age-of-consent laws. They portray themselves as battling for children’s rights to engage in sex with adults, a fight they liken to the civil rights movement. And while their effort has brought little success, they celebrated online in May when a small group of men in the Netherlands formed a pedophile political party, and they rejoiced again last month when a Dutch court upheld the party’s right to exist....
In essence, the groups deem potentially injurious acts and beliefs harmless. That is accomplished in part by denying that a victim is injured, condemning critics and appealing to higher loyalties — in this case, an ostensible struggle for the sexual freedom of children.
From summaries of the recent Oprah segments:
Many sexual predators choose to keep their preferences a secret, while others are vocal about their attraction to minors. In 1978, a support group for men who have sexual feelings toward young boys was founded in Boston. It is known as NAMBLA, the North American Man-Boy Love Association. According to NAMBLA's website, members "support the rights of youth, as well as adults, to choose the partners with whom they wish to share and enjoy their bodies." This controversial organization doesn't advocate breaking any laws, and it is not illegal to become a member....
According to Kurt [Eichenwald, NY Times reporter], many online predators believe children have a desire to have sex with adults and that other adults—like parents—force them to "deny their desires."A lot of what passes for advocacy, Kurt says, is simply a smoke screen in these communities. The crime takes place when fantasies translate into real, daily life, he says.
During his investigation, Kurt found predators may have acted upon fantasies in one place where children should feel safe—the classroom. Kurt was shocked to learn through his research that the most common job for pedophiles is teaching. He says one principal said in an online chat that he met his first "YF"—a popular abbreviation for "Young Friend"—when he was sent to his office for discipline.
Saturday, September 30, 2006
R.I. Lesbian Couple -- and Romney -- Confused
More idiocy from a Massachusetts judge. What's shocking this time is that the arrogant ruling comes from a measly County judge who's proclaimed that a lesbian couple resident in Rhode Island may "marry" in Massachusetts and take the "marriage" back to RI.
What no one seems to realize is that even in Massachusetts their "marriage" is invalid. Let the fools go on living their fantasy. It really doesn't matter, because at least the authorities in RI have the sense to refuse to acknowledge the "marriage":
A Suffolk Superior Court judge ruled yesterday that a lesbian couple from Rhode Island may get married in Massachusetts, finding that Rhode Island's laws do not explicitly prohibit same-sex marriages. Rhode Island officials responded that gay marriages by the state's residents would not be recognized unless the courts [the RI officials are also a little confused] or lawmakers there say so.
Gov. Romney, not to be trusted as a judge of judicial good behavior, said the county judge overstepped his authority. Where was Romney in November 2003, when four justices of the SJC had that same problem?
Romney denounced the Superior Court decision, saying that Connolly overstepped his authority. He called on Reilly to appeal the ruling or appoint a special prosecutor to do so.
"It seems that Massachusetts courts are intent on exporting gay marriage to states that don't permit it," said a statement Romney issued. "A federal marriage amendment may be the best and most reliable way to prevent confusion between the states and preserve the institution of marriage."
What no one seems to realize is that even in Massachusetts their "marriage" is invalid. Let the fools go on living their fantasy. It really doesn't matter, because at least the authorities in RI have the sense to refuse to acknowledge the "marriage":
A Suffolk Superior Court judge ruled yesterday that a lesbian couple from Rhode Island may get married in Massachusetts, finding that Rhode Island's laws do not explicitly prohibit same-sex marriages. Rhode Island officials responded that gay marriages by the state's residents would not be recognized unless the courts [the RI officials are also a little confused] or lawmakers there say so.
Gov. Romney, not to be trusted as a judge of judicial good behavior, said the county judge overstepped his authority. Where was Romney in November 2003, when four justices of the SJC had that same problem?
Romney denounced the Superior Court decision, saying that Connolly overstepped his authority. He called on Reilly to appeal the ruling or appoint a special prosecutor to do so.
"It seems that Massachusetts courts are intent on exporting gay marriage to states that don't permit it," said a statement Romney issued. "A federal marriage amendment may be the best and most reliable way to prevent confusion between the states and preserve the institution of marriage."
Thursday, September 28, 2006
Healey Was Keynote Speaker at Pro-Abortion Republican Event
Lt. Gov. Healey (2nd from left) with Planned Parenthood women at Republicans for Choice event last April. [Photo: Planned Parenthood website.]
What are they smiling about? Is it fun to advocate baby killing? Is it a noble cause? Are they raising money so they can encourage the deathly practice?
Back in April we exposed Planned Parenthood's participation at the overly big-tent Republican state convention. MassEquality was also there with a table promoting sodomy "marriage".
But WORSE was Republican Gov. candidate Kerry Healey's appearance as KEYNOTE SPEAKER at the Planned Parenthood "Mass. Republicans for Choice" party following the last day of the convention. What a lovely occasion for cocktails! Celebrating a woman's right to "choose" death for her child! Reed Hillman, Healey's running mate for Lt. Gov., was also in attendance as an honored guest. A national representative of "Planned Parenthood Republicans for Choice" was also present.
Remember that Planned Parenthood doesn't just kill babies. It runs workshops for high school students on Revolutionary Gender Models (promoting transgenderism, bisexuality, and homosexuality) and pushes the most radical sex ed programs in our schools.
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
Romney Popular with Know-Nothing Conservatives
John Fund's article on Gov. Romney in today's Opinion Journal (Wall Street Journal online) is an ill-informed disgrace: "Romney Rides High: A Mormon from Massachusetts wows social conservatives." Well, Romney doesn't wow us. Mr. Fund should do a bit more research with the Massachusetts conservatives before posting with such confidence.
He doesn't understand Romney's role in creating homosexual "marriage" -- well documented by Robert Paine, Esq., John Haskins, and yours truly. Homosexual “marriage” is still NOT legal here, and was NOT created by the Goodridge ruling. Even the homosexual lobby in our legislature knows this to be true, or they would not have filed their Bill #H977 to legalize homosexual "marriage" -- which they still have not had the confidence to bring to the floor for a vote!
In fact, it was Governor Mitt Romney who was ultimately responsible for homosexual “marriages” taking place. The Supreme Judicial Court only ordered the Legislature to act (which it never did). But Romney created these “marriages” through an unconstitutional and illegal directive to his Department of Public Health (to print new “marriage” licenses), and threats to fire any Town Clerk or Justice of the Peace who failed to implement the (non-existent) “new law.”
Mr. Fund also speaks of the Heritage Foundation's admiration for Romney and his mandatory health insurance bill. What he doesn't mention is that Romney gave Heritage a generous gift of $25,000, and that they worked together on the plan. No wonder Fund can get a good quote out of a Heritage guy.
From "Romney aided conservative groups," Boston Globe, 8-16-06:
Analysts with the Heritage Foundation worked closely with Romney in the past year to develop his healthcare initiative, which would require all Bay State residents to obtain medical insurance, a collaboration he often cites during his travels. Romney spoke at Heritage Foundation events at least three times since 2004.
The Heritage Foundation was founded in 1973 as a research and education institute dedicated to promoting "conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense," according to the group's website.
He doesn't understand Romney's role in creating homosexual "marriage" -- well documented by Robert Paine, Esq., John Haskins, and yours truly. Homosexual “marriage” is still NOT legal here, and was NOT created by the Goodridge ruling. Even the homosexual lobby in our legislature knows this to be true, or they would not have filed their Bill #H977 to legalize homosexual "marriage" -- which they still have not had the confidence to bring to the floor for a vote!
In fact, it was Governor Mitt Romney who was ultimately responsible for homosexual “marriages” taking place. The Supreme Judicial Court only ordered the Legislature to act (which it never did). But Romney created these “marriages” through an unconstitutional and illegal directive to his Department of Public Health (to print new “marriage” licenses), and threats to fire any Town Clerk or Justice of the Peace who failed to implement the (non-existent) “new law.”
Mr. Fund also speaks of the Heritage Foundation's admiration for Romney and his mandatory health insurance bill. What he doesn't mention is that Romney gave Heritage a generous gift of $25,000, and that they worked together on the plan. No wonder Fund can get a good quote out of a Heritage guy.
From "Romney aided conservative groups," Boston Globe, 8-16-06:
Analysts with the Heritage Foundation worked closely with Romney in the past year to develop his healthcare initiative, which would require all Bay State residents to obtain medical insurance, a collaboration he often cites during his travels. Romney spoke at Heritage Foundation events at least three times since 2004.
The Heritage Foundation was founded in 1973 as a research and education institute dedicated to promoting "conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense," according to the group's website.
Kerry Healey & Reed Hillman Pro-Civil Unions
"Republicans" deserve to lose the corner office in 2006. Both Kerry Healey and Reed Hillman are for "civil unions". Why should any conservative bother to vote? The pro-intimidation website, KnowThyNeighbor.org (which published the names of all the signers of the Mass. marriage amendment) posted this on their blog a few days ago:
Kerry Healey, Republican for Governor, still just does not get it. In an interview in June 2006 Healey spokeswoman, Amy Lambioso, told KnowThyNeighbor, "Kerry is against same-sex marriage but for civil unions. She is for the amendment to ban same-sex marriage and would vote for it if it reaches the ballot in 2008. If elected Governor, Healey will work on civil union legislation." When asked by KnowThyNeighbor what the language would be in Healey's "civil union" proposal i.e. "civil unions with all the rights of marriage" or "civil unions with rights 'to be determined,'" we were told, "it is premature to ask that as that would not be until 2008."
Don't think that Reed Hillman, who is Healey's and the GOP's choice for Lt. Governor is any better. When KnowThyNeighbor asked what Hillman's stance was on the subject, the spokeswoman told us, "Reed Hillman believes in everything that Healey does." When I responded with, "surely there must be something that Hillman would like to add or clarify in a statement, " I was told, "No, everything that Kerry Healey says is EXACTLY what Hillman says."
Kerry Healey, Republican for Governor, still just does not get it. In an interview in June 2006 Healey spokeswoman, Amy Lambioso, told KnowThyNeighbor, "Kerry is against same-sex marriage but for civil unions. She is for the amendment to ban same-sex marriage and would vote for it if it reaches the ballot in 2008. If elected Governor, Healey will work on civil union legislation." When asked by KnowThyNeighbor what the language would be in Healey's "civil union" proposal i.e. "civil unions with all the rights of marriage" or "civil unions with rights 'to be determined,'" we were told, "it is premature to ask that as that would not be until 2008."
Don't think that Reed Hillman, who is Healey's and the GOP's choice for Lt. Governor is any better. When KnowThyNeighbor asked what Hillman's stance was on the subject, the spokeswoman told us, "Reed Hillman believes in everything that Healey does." When I responded with, "surely there must be something that Hillman would like to add or clarify in a statement, " I was told, "No, everything that Kerry Healey says is EXACTLY what Hillman says."
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
Boycott Citgo, Buy Exxon-Mobil
Boycotting Citgo is a great way to slap down Chavezian, leftist anti-Americanism. And we never bought into that garbage about the Citgo sign by Fenway Park being a landmark worth saving. We always found it an eyesore. Take it down!
But it's nice to know you can feel good about buying at Exxon-Mobil instead. They are one of the companies rated ZERO by the so-called "Human Rights Campaign," an extremist GLBT organization. That means the corporation has not kowtowed to all the absurd demands of the GLBTs for diversity training, partner benefits, and transsexual surgery.
Sunday, September 24, 2006
More Pro-Homosexual, Pro-Transgender Propaganda in Boston Globe
Today's Boston Globe runs a story from the International Herald Tribune at the top of p. A13, featuring this photo. ("Elite in India campaigning against antigay legislation," Sept. 24, 2006) These are apparently "transgender" males dressed as females, part of a Calcutta demonstration last June celebrating the Stonewall riot of 1969.Note the Globe headline says the "elite" in India are campaigning. Did it mean to say "Some members of the elite"? And while the caption of the photo reads, "Gay and transgender people marched in Calcutta...," the story says nothing about transgenders. It just refers to homosexuals, gays, and bisexuals.
This new "campaign" in India (which consists of a "protest letter" signed by 150 people) purportedly wants to make the government's fight against HIV/AIDS more effective. It also aims to overturn the "anachronistic" law banning "gay" sex. (Do they mean to say "sodomy"?)
Again we ask, if there's a serious effort to get control of the HIV/AIDS epidemic in India, doesn't it make sense for public officials to discourage anal intercourse (five times as risky for contracting HIV as vaginal intercourse, according to the CDC), rather than encourage it? And that is what laws banning sodomy do.
Further, the use of this photo is part of the new MSM (mainstream media -- or "men who have sex with men" -- take your pick!) push to normalize transgenderism and transsexuality. Where will it stop?
From the story:
...Hostility to the law has intensified recently for two reasons: because it is seen as an anachronism, redolent of an earlier, less tolerant era, and because health care officials, struggling to contain India's AIDS epidemic, warn that it hampers their efforts to contact vulnerable groups.
The letter, which was also signed by Soli Sorabjee, a former attorney general, and Nitin Desai, a former UN undersecretary general, as well as prominent figures ranging from newspaper editors to admirals, stresses that the law has been ``used by homophobic officials to suppress the work of legitimate HIV-prevention groups, leaving gay and bisexual men in India even more defenseless against HIV infection."
The letter's release has been timed to trigger renewed debate in advance of a critical ruling from Delhi's High Court, expected early next month, on the validity of the legislation.
This is the latest stage of a long-running attempt by an HIV-AIDS prevention organization, the Naz Foundation, to have the law overturned....
UNAIDS said in May that India had the highest number of people in the world living with HIV -- about 5.7 million. A few weeks later, the government's AIDS-prevention body called for the law to be overturned.
Saturday, September 23, 2006
Senator Dianne Wilkerson: Bought by MassEquality
We often ask here in Massachusetts how incredibly corrupt and incompetent legislators continue to be re-elected. The answer is, of course, that powerful special interests -- in the case of State Senator Dianne Wilkerson, MassEquality (the GLBT lobby) -- throw their money and workers behind a candidate who would otherwise fail. Then they own the candidate.
Of course the Boston Globe and Herald say nothing about MassEquality's huge role in Wilkerson's victory.
Wilkerson is important to MassEquality's race card playing. Same with their darling Deval Patrick. They clearly state that they will use his race to further their cause. Wilkerson is a black who says homosexually-behaving people's demands for special rights is equivalent to the civil rights struggle of the 60's, where people's inborn physical characteristic was the grounds for discrimination.
It seemed like good news a few months back when Wilkerson, through sheer incompetence, failed to get enough signatures to appear on the Democrat primary ballot. We were hopeful. But then she miraculously pulled off a write-in victory on Tuesday, over other reasonable (when compared to her) write-in candidates. Given her foul record, how could this have happened?
Bay Windows' coverage explains it all. According to Wilkerson, "MassEquality ... did everything." They "pulled out all the stops" to get her elected. See "A very gay day" (Sept 21, 2006):
Same-sex marriage advocates managed to protect all of their incumbent supporters facing challengers, showing for the second election season in a row that the LGBT community is willing to go to the mat for lawmakers who support marriage equality. In particular, Solomon [Director of MassEquality] said MassEquality pulled out all the stops to support Sen. Dianne Wilkerson (D-Boston), a vocal supporter of same-sex marriage who had failed to collect the required 300 signatures to appear on the primary ballot and who faced a four-way sticker campaign to win back her own seat....
Solomon, who worked the polls in Jamaica Plain and the South End for the Wilkerson campaign, said the LGBT community showed its loyalty to one of its strongest supporters by coming out in force for Wilkerson. On primary day the campaign had 600 positions for volunteers, and MassEquality supporters filled 130 of those, and MassEquality also sent out mailings urging members of the LGBT community to support her. In addition to Solomon, MassEquality’s field organizer Jesse Sullivan also spent the day working on behalf of the campaign. Beyond MassEquality, the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus also recruited volunteers to work for Wilkerson’s campaign, including co-chairs Arline Isaacson and Gary Daffin.
“I’m so proud of what the gay community did in this race,” said Solomon.
He said MassEquality faced criticism from some of its own supporter for backing Wilkerson, who has faced her own share of criticism and bad press over the years. In 1997 she pleaded guilty of failing to pay her income taxes, she was sued by Attorney General Tom Reilly’s office a year ago for campaign finance violations, a series of Boston Herald stories have raised allegations (but no charges) of perjury relating to a manslaughter case involving two of her nephews.
On top of all that her failure to get on the ballot had some observers ready to write off her political career, and two of her challengers, Chang-Diaz and Republican Samiyah Diaz, raised Wilkerson’s character as a major issue in the race. Yet Solomon said Wilkerson’s support for the community, and in particular her celebrated speech in favor of marriage equality during the 2004 constitutional convention, during which she compared the struggle for gay rights to the fight for African American civil rights, earned her the loyalty of the community.
“We took some pretty serious flack from our members for being as outspoken as we were,” said Solomon.
And even among some of her volunteers there was the sense that Wilkerson had strained the relationship with her supporters. Claire Humphrey, a former Freedom to Marry Coalition of Massachusetts board member, worked the polls for Wilkerson’s campaign from 6:30 a.m. until closing alongside her wife, MassEquality board member Vickie Henry. Humphrey said she and her fellow campaign workers were willing to wage the labor-intensive campaign needed to win a sticker campaign, but she was upset with Wilkerson for putting her supporters in that position by failing to qualify for the ballot.
“I’m disappointed, like a lot of people are. [But] she’s come through so much, she’s family now … You can take the ups and downs of family more than you do others. She’s more than earned my loyalty,” said Humphrey.
Wilkerson herself said she was grateful for the work MassEquality did in her campaign. “MassEquality was awesome… They did everything. They recruited volunteers, they helped raise money,” said Wilkerson. She also credited them with reminding the LGBT community of her role in the marriage fight.
Of course the Boston Globe and Herald say nothing about MassEquality's huge role in Wilkerson's victory.
Wilkerson is important to MassEquality's race card playing. Same with their darling Deval Patrick. They clearly state that they will use his race to further their cause. Wilkerson is a black who says homosexually-behaving people's demands for special rights is equivalent to the civil rights struggle of the 60's, where people's inborn physical characteristic was the grounds for discrimination.
It seemed like good news a few months back when Wilkerson, through sheer incompetence, failed to get enough signatures to appear on the Democrat primary ballot. We were hopeful. But then she miraculously pulled off a write-in victory on Tuesday, over other reasonable (when compared to her) write-in candidates. Given her foul record, how could this have happened?
Bay Windows' coverage explains it all. According to Wilkerson, "MassEquality ... did everything." They "pulled out all the stops" to get her elected. See "A very gay day" (Sept 21, 2006):
Same-sex marriage advocates managed to protect all of their incumbent supporters facing challengers, showing for the second election season in a row that the LGBT community is willing to go to the mat for lawmakers who support marriage equality. In particular, Solomon [Director of MassEquality] said MassEquality pulled out all the stops to support Sen. Dianne Wilkerson (D-Boston), a vocal supporter of same-sex marriage who had failed to collect the required 300 signatures to appear on the primary ballot and who faced a four-way sticker campaign to win back her own seat....
Solomon, who worked the polls in Jamaica Plain and the South End for the Wilkerson campaign, said the LGBT community showed its loyalty to one of its strongest supporters by coming out in force for Wilkerson. On primary day the campaign had 600 positions for volunteers, and MassEquality supporters filled 130 of those, and MassEquality also sent out mailings urging members of the LGBT community to support her. In addition to Solomon, MassEquality’s field organizer Jesse Sullivan also spent the day working on behalf of the campaign. Beyond MassEquality, the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus also recruited volunteers to work for Wilkerson’s campaign, including co-chairs Arline Isaacson and Gary Daffin.
“I’m so proud of what the gay community did in this race,” said Solomon.
He said MassEquality faced criticism from some of its own supporter for backing Wilkerson, who has faced her own share of criticism and bad press over the years. In 1997 she pleaded guilty of failing to pay her income taxes, she was sued by Attorney General Tom Reilly’s office a year ago for campaign finance violations, a series of Boston Herald stories have raised allegations (but no charges) of perjury relating to a manslaughter case involving two of her nephews.
On top of all that her failure to get on the ballot had some observers ready to write off her political career, and two of her challengers, Chang-Diaz and Republican Samiyah Diaz, raised Wilkerson’s character as a major issue in the race. Yet Solomon said Wilkerson’s support for the community, and in particular her celebrated speech in favor of marriage equality during the 2004 constitutional convention, during which she compared the struggle for gay rights to the fight for African American civil rights, earned her the loyalty of the community.
“We took some pretty serious flack from our members for being as outspoken as we were,” said Solomon.
And even among some of her volunteers there was the sense that Wilkerson had strained the relationship with her supporters. Claire Humphrey, a former Freedom to Marry Coalition of Massachusetts board member, worked the polls for Wilkerson’s campaign from 6:30 a.m. until closing alongside her wife, MassEquality board member Vickie Henry. Humphrey said she and her fellow campaign workers were willing to wage the labor-intensive campaign needed to win a sticker campaign, but she was upset with Wilkerson for putting her supporters in that position by failing to qualify for the ballot.
“I’m disappointed, like a lot of people are. [But] she’s come through so much, she’s family now … You can take the ups and downs of family more than you do others. She’s more than earned my loyalty,” said Humphrey.
Wilkerson herself said she was grateful for the work MassEquality did in her campaign. “MassEquality was awesome… They did everything. They recruited volunteers, they helped raise money,” said Wilkerson. She also credited them with reminding the LGBT community of her role in the marriage fight.
Thursday, September 21, 2006
Corporate Collaborators
WorldNetDaily (WND) reminded us of the latest capitulations in the corporate world to the powerful homosexual dollar: "America's pro-homosexual giants: 2006 List of companies scoring perfect 100 percent from 'gay'-rights group" (Sept. 20, 2006). At first glance, the growing list of pro-GLBT companies appears to be all bad news. But look more carefully: The boycott begun by American Family Association after Ford's latest obscenities has had a huge effect! (More on that below.)
Another hopeful aspect is our belief that the GLBT movement is blundering in their push for "transgender" or "transsexual" benefits or "rights" in the workplace. The "Human Rights Campaign" (HRC) -- source of the list -- awards its perfect 100% GLBT score only if a company includes "health" benefits for "trans" workers. But what this actually means is shocking: hormone treatments, surgeries, and therapy for employees who are "transitioning" while on the job! (And think of how paychecks for normal employees are reduced when these benefits sap a company's resources.) From Bay Windows, Sept. 21, 2006:
The [HRC] index rates companies on a range of policies, from the existence of nondiscrimination protections and diversity training around sexual orientation and gender identity and expression to the provision of health insurance benefits for domestic partners to corporate investment in pro- or anti-LGBT causes. ... there has been a particular increase in protections for transgender employees, with a 75 percent increase in companies providing non-discrimination protections based on gender identity and expression. The index also found 67 companies that provide a full range of health benefits to transgender employees, including coverage for surgery, hormones, and therapy.
Maria Ferris, director of global workforce diversity programs at IBM, one of the companies with a perfect score, said transgender employees at IBM can get access to full healthcare services, including surgery, to transition on the job. Employees can choose from a menu of different health plans, and at least one in each state covers surgery.
Here's WorldNetDaily's summary of the big changes in the list: Corporate America gets 'gay'-friendlier: Biggest names in U.S. business applauded for promoting alternative sexual lifestyles. Note that Ford has suffered major losses over the past year:
A one-year boycott of Ford was announced last winter by the after the group said Ford reneged on a promise to remain neutral on such social issues as homosexuality.
Just a few weeks later, Bill Ford, chairman and CEO at the time, said the company had met with leaders of homosexual organizations and had made "a historical commitment … that I intend to carry forward" by promising to value all people, regardless of sexual orientation.
Several dozen conservative and Christian organizations joined in the AFA effort. Then last week Ford announced buyouts were being offered to an estimated 75,000 workers, some plants were being closed and that the company did not expect to see a profit for several more years. The company's corporate network includes Ford, Lincoln, Mercury, Mazda, Volvo, Jaguar, Land Rover and Aston-Martin vehicles.
Another hopeful aspect is our belief that the GLBT movement is blundering in their push for "transgender" or "transsexual" benefits or "rights" in the workplace. The "Human Rights Campaign" (HRC) -- source of the list -- awards its perfect 100% GLBT score only if a company includes "health" benefits for "trans" workers. But what this actually means is shocking: hormone treatments, surgeries, and therapy for employees who are "transitioning" while on the job! (And think of how paychecks for normal employees are reduced when these benefits sap a company's resources.) From Bay Windows, Sept. 21, 2006:
The [HRC] index rates companies on a range of policies, from the existence of nondiscrimination protections and diversity training around sexual orientation and gender identity and expression to the provision of health insurance benefits for domestic partners to corporate investment in pro- or anti-LGBT causes. ... there has been a particular increase in protections for transgender employees, with a 75 percent increase in companies providing non-discrimination protections based on gender identity and expression. The index also found 67 companies that provide a full range of health benefits to transgender employees, including coverage for surgery, hormones, and therapy.
Maria Ferris, director of global workforce diversity programs at IBM, one of the companies with a perfect score, said transgender employees at IBM can get access to full healthcare services, including surgery, to transition on the job. Employees can choose from a menu of different health plans, and at least one in each state covers surgery.
Here's WorldNetDaily's summary of the big changes in the list: Corporate America gets 'gay'-friendlier: Biggest names in U.S. business applauded for promoting alternative sexual lifestyles. Note that Ford has suffered major losses over the past year:
A one-year boycott of Ford was announced last winter by the after the group said Ford reneged on a promise to remain neutral on such social issues as homosexuality.
Just a few weeks later, Bill Ford, chairman and CEO at the time, said the company had met with leaders of homosexual organizations and had made "a historical commitment … that I intend to carry forward" by promising to value all people, regardless of sexual orientation.
Several dozen conservative and Christian organizations joined in the AFA effort. Then last week Ford announced buyouts were being offered to an estimated 75,000 workers, some plants were being closed and that the company did not expect to see a profit for several more years. The company's corporate network includes Ford, Lincoln, Mercury, Mazda, Volvo, Jaguar, Land Rover and Aston-Martin vehicles.
Deval Patrick's Reckless Promises
Seems that Deval Patrick will promise anyone anything. Take the example of "trans rights". At the Harvard forum on GLBT issues, he told a "trans" attendee, "You need to teach me how you experience it in your life.… I’m all for extending the laws, but how to get at the issue, what to tell my prosecutors to do, what to tell my bureaucrats to do, you need to educate me on that, that’s all.” In other words, just tell me whatever your latest lunatic radical demand is, and I'll do it for you.
From Bay Windows, "Pressing the Flesh: Patrick, Gabrieli go at it on gay issues," Sept. 14, 2006:
The question of how to protect transgender people from discrimination in housing, employment, public accommodations and credit under state law also teased out a difference between the candidates. Though both agreed that the state’s hate crimes laws should be expanded to protect those who are victimized on the basis of gender identity, Gabrieli flatly stated he wants to ensure that “our civil rights protections include gender identity and gender expression,” while Patrick approached the issue more cautiously, acknowledging that transgender issues were an area “where I have a lot of work to do.”
“I can’t see limiting our civil rights laws so that they exclude those who identify across gender,” he said “But frankly, beyond that principle and that approach there is honestly a lot I’ve got to do to understand exactly how we need to come up with, and in what context, and how then we change not just our legislation but our practices so it really does get at the issues people are facing in their lives.”...
Patrick’s statement that he needed further education on transgender rights raised a flag for at least one audience member. Following the forum, Jakobi Gorham, a 24-year-old Northeastern University student who works at Harvard’s science center, approached Patrick to discuss the issue. “If you deeply believe that people are people regardless of what the issues are, it set me back, and it actually hurt me for you to say that you need to educate yourself,” Gorham told the candidate.
“I’m sorry to hear you say that,” Patrick replied. The candidate then explained that he supports expanding the state’s laws to protect transgender people, but said, “how you enforce that, how that comes up in your life, you need to teach me that. I know how it comes up in the life of the gay kid or a lesbian. I know that. You need to teach me how you experience it in your life. … I’m all for extending the laws, but how to get at the issue, what to tell my prosecutors to do, what to tell my bureaucrats to do, you need to educate me on that, that’s all.”
From Bay Windows, "Pressing the Flesh: Patrick, Gabrieli go at it on gay issues," Sept. 14, 2006:
The question of how to protect transgender people from discrimination in housing, employment, public accommodations and credit under state law also teased out a difference between the candidates. Though both agreed that the state’s hate crimes laws should be expanded to protect those who are victimized on the basis of gender identity, Gabrieli flatly stated he wants to ensure that “our civil rights protections include gender identity and gender expression,” while Patrick approached the issue more cautiously, acknowledging that transgender issues were an area “where I have a lot of work to do.”
“I can’t see limiting our civil rights laws so that they exclude those who identify across gender,” he said “But frankly, beyond that principle and that approach there is honestly a lot I’ve got to do to understand exactly how we need to come up with, and in what context, and how then we change not just our legislation but our practices so it really does get at the issues people are facing in their lives.”...
Patrick’s statement that he needed further education on transgender rights raised a flag for at least one audience member. Following the forum, Jakobi Gorham, a 24-year-old Northeastern University student who works at Harvard’s science center, approached Patrick to discuss the issue. “If you deeply believe that people are people regardless of what the issues are, it set me back, and it actually hurt me for you to say that you need to educate yourself,” Gorham told the candidate.
“I’m sorry to hear you say that,” Patrick replied. The candidate then explained that he supports expanding the state’s laws to protect transgender people, but said, “how you enforce that, how that comes up in your life, you need to teach me that. I know how it comes up in the life of the gay kid or a lesbian. I know that. You need to teach me how you experience it in your life. … I’m all for extending the laws, but how to get at the issue, what to tell my prosecutors to do, what to tell my bureaucrats to do, you need to educate me on that, that’s all.”
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
Harvard Business School Recognizes Three Genders
Gender confusion is even worse at Harvard than we first realized. Bob Knight (of the Culture and Family Institute at CWA) revealed in July that the Harvard Business School is now giving applicants three choices for their sex designation: male, female, or transgender!
This is a significant example of an elite institution trying to keep up with absurd avant-garde ideas. When things are moving so fast in the GLBT radical activist community that they themselves can't decide on the meaning of gender (or terms for their new gender-variation concepts), how can the gullible fools at the Harvard Business School Admissions Office keep up? Wouldn't a "trans" person check off the gender he or she happens to be identifying as, at the time of application -- and not choose "transgender"? From Agape Press, July 25, 2006:
Harvard Introduces Third Gender: Knight Rips Ivy League School for Giving Credibility to 'Transgenderism'
Prospective applicants to prestigious Harvard Business School no longer have to be of the male or female gender. One pro-family leader in Washington, DC, is criticizing the school for legitimizing transgenderism.
Before completing an application, students looking to enter the Harvard Business School MBA program are asked to fill out an online profile that offers three choices of gender: female, male, or transgender. The form also asks prospective applicants if they would be interested in learning more about the school's "lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgender" community.
Bob Knight, director of the Culture and Family Institute (CFI) at Concerned Women for America, says "it's not compassionate" for Harvard to encourage people to reject their "God-given natures." But then Knight considers the source.
"I'm not surprised it's coming out of Harvard," he says, "because they've flirted with the idea that, in terms of sexuality, anything goes, and they've given intellectual respectability to it." Knight continues, sharing that he feels it is "harmful" that Harvard, one of the most prestigious colleges in America, now thinks there are three sexes instead of two. "That kind of thing trickles down to other institutions," he laments. ... Read more
This is a significant example of an elite institution trying to keep up with absurd avant-garde ideas. When things are moving so fast in the GLBT radical activist community that they themselves can't decide on the meaning of gender (or terms for their new gender-variation concepts), how can the gullible fools at the Harvard Business School Admissions Office keep up? Wouldn't a "trans" person check off the gender he or she happens to be identifying as, at the time of application -- and not choose "transgender"? From Agape Press, July 25, 2006:
Harvard Introduces Third Gender: Knight Rips Ivy League School for Giving Credibility to 'Transgenderism'
Prospective applicants to prestigious Harvard Business School no longer have to be of the male or female gender. One pro-family leader in Washington, DC, is criticizing the school for legitimizing transgenderism.
Before completing an application, students looking to enter the Harvard Business School MBA program are asked to fill out an online profile that offers three choices of gender: female, male, or transgender. The form also asks prospective applicants if they would be interested in learning more about the school's "lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgender" community.
Bob Knight, director of the Culture and Family Institute (CFI) at Concerned Women for America, says "it's not compassionate" for Harvard to encourage people to reject their "God-given natures." But then Knight considers the source.
"I'm not surprised it's coming out of Harvard," he says, "because they've flirted with the idea that, in terms of sexuality, anything goes, and they've given intellectual respectability to it." Knight continues, sharing that he feels it is "harmful" that Harvard, one of the most prestigious colleges in America, now thinks there are three sexes instead of two. "That kind of thing trickles down to other institutions," he laments. ... Read more
Monday, September 18, 2006
Gabrieli & Patrick: Revolutionaries on Sexuality? Or Just Stupid?
So, we have two pansexual revolutionaries running for the Democrat nomination for Governor: Chris Gabrieli and Deval Patrick. As you've seen in our recent postings (starting Sept. 14), they both eagerly participated in a Harvard forum pushing the farthest-out LGBT demands. (If they're not revolutionaries, they're just stupid. Which is worse?)
Revolutionaries want to overthrow the existing order. Revolutionaries abolish true rights (speech, religion, property, fair elections) and establish invented "rights" that guarantee that they - the revolutionary elite -- will continue to hold power. In the social-sexual realm, they seek to establish a pansexual free-for-all (to undermine the traditional family), including homosexual "marriage" (and eventually polygamous and polyandrous "families") and transgender/transsexual/gender-identity "rights". They claim that these disordered perversions are "civil rights", thereby enabling the state to stomp out any dissent as unlawful "discrimination" or "hate speech" or "hate crimes."
Now, one might argue (though we'd disagree) that GLBT citizens have a "right" to state-financed medical treatment for their disorders. But it cannot possibly be argued that it's a "civil right" to come to work or appear in public dressed and "presenting" as a member of the opposite sex. Or to demand that people play along, show no signs of discomfort or revulsion, and use the absurd new pronouns "trans" people are inventing for themselves.
Both Gabrieli and Patrick have pledged to make it unlawful to discriminate against "trans" citizens. So employers could not deny health benefits to pay for hormone treatments, electrolysis, or cosmetic and mutilating sex-change surgeries. And employers could not dismiss a "trans" employee whose presence disrupted a workplace environment for whatever reason (e.g., a teacher who teacher returns after vacation "presenting" as the opposite sex to the little children in his or her charge, or a front-desk worker or cashier whose appearance would force a business to lose customers). And the normal citizen could not react in any (harmless) negative way when encountering such perversion.
Gabrieli and Patrick are ready to jump off a cliff. Their pledge to enact legislation for "trans" non-discrimination and "hate crimes" is every bit as dangerous as setting up a guillotine in the public square. This, along with homosexual "marriage", is societal suicide. Remember, even the GLBT radical "educators" themselves call their "trans" sexuality model "Revolutionary"!
Watch out Massachusetts: Your likely next Governor has pledged to implement this radical scheme.
Revolutionaries want to overthrow the existing order. Revolutionaries abolish true rights (speech, religion, property, fair elections) and establish invented "rights" that guarantee that they - the revolutionary elite -- will continue to hold power. In the social-sexual realm, they seek to establish a pansexual free-for-all (to undermine the traditional family), including homosexual "marriage" (and eventually polygamous and polyandrous "families") and transgender/transsexual/gender-identity "rights". They claim that these disordered perversions are "civil rights", thereby enabling the state to stomp out any dissent as unlawful "discrimination" or "hate speech" or "hate crimes."
Now, one might argue (though we'd disagree) that GLBT citizens have a "right" to state-financed medical treatment for their disorders. But it cannot possibly be argued that it's a "civil right" to come to work or appear in public dressed and "presenting" as a member of the opposite sex. Or to demand that people play along, show no signs of discomfort or revulsion, and use the absurd new pronouns "trans" people are inventing for themselves.
Both Gabrieli and Patrick have pledged to make it unlawful to discriminate against "trans" citizens. So employers could not deny health benefits to pay for hormone treatments, electrolysis, or cosmetic and mutilating sex-change surgeries. And employers could not dismiss a "trans" employee whose presence disrupted a workplace environment for whatever reason (e.g., a teacher who teacher returns after vacation "presenting" as the opposite sex to the little children in his or her charge, or a front-desk worker or cashier whose appearance would force a business to lose customers). And the normal citizen could not react in any (harmless) negative way when encountering such perversion.
Gabrieli and Patrick are ready to jump off a cliff. Their pledge to enact legislation for "trans" non-discrimination and "hate crimes" is every bit as dangerous as setting up a guillotine in the public square. This, along with homosexual "marriage", is societal suicide. Remember, even the GLBT radical "educators" themselves call their "trans" sexuality model "Revolutionary"!
Watch out Massachusetts: Your likely next Governor has pledged to implement this radical scheme.
Sunday, September 17, 2006
Transgender Tutorial #2 for Chris Gabrieli & Deval Patrick
Chris and Deval:
Are you ready to become "REVOLUTIONARIES" and accept the "revolutionary gender model" shown above? According to your own statements at the Harvard GLBT forum last week, you are! But first, you have to prove yourselves.
We gave you a lot of challenging material in our 1st tutorial. And now you need to study REALLY HARD on what is being given to our teenagers across Massachachusetts, if you want to be an informed Governor. If high school kids are ready to master this, so can you!
First, review the TransgenderCare web site we noted in Tutorial #1. (Be sure to go to their youth page, a favorite with our own BAGLY -- Boston Alliance of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Youth.)Then, study up on the diagrams and terms Planned Parenthood is distributing to Massachusetts schoolchildren [see diagram above] at the GLSEN conferences and in those GSA clubs you both think are so great. Here is their useful definition of "transgender":
"Trangenderism encompasses many different gender presentations and identitites. From Male-to-Female and Female-to-Male to FemmeQueen, Boi, Trannyfag, Female-born man, Bigendered, Transwoman, Tomboy, Butch, Crossdresser and many more."
When you're done with that, check out the Harvard student "trans zine" Quench -- from the new generation of classically educated scholars. (See their acknowledgement page from Issue 1.)
Are you ready for your quiz yet?
Saturday, September 16, 2006
Transgender Tutorial #1 for Chris Gabrieli & Deval Patrick
Photos: Tranny Bois, Bay Windows; Male-to-Female, BAGLY; Fishnets (c) 2005 MassResistance.
So this is the sort of thing that Gov candidates Chris Gabrieli and Deval Patrick think is well and good... (1) Women who so want to be men they surgically remove their breasts and parade bare-chested at Boston Pride. (2) Men who claim to be women and teach our children the joys of the "trans" world through BAGLY seminars, supported by our state government (see BAGLY executive director in top photo). (3) Males who dress as tarty females and are celebrated by the Commission for Gay and Lesbian Youth at the state-sponsored "Youth Pride" parade. (4) Web site on "transgender health" hormone treatments and sex-change surgery -- which BAGLY used to link for our teenagers! ... until we exposed it. (It's too gross to show here, but is a site worth exploring. Note their links for "transgender youth" -- the sort of information the Gay-Straight Alliance clubs lead our children to, with Gabrieli's and Patrick's approval.)
So our likely next Governor, either Deval Patrick or Chris Gabrieli, claims to support protections and "extensions of rights" for transgender or transsexual citizens. But are they really prepared to govern on this issue? ARE THEY READY TO SPECIFY WHAT CONSTITUTES THE "HATE CRIMES" they promised to encode? Since they went to the forum focusing on this issue at Harvard Law School the other day, we turn to Harvard to see what they need to know.
Now remember, if it's on the Harvard website, it must be the TRUTH ... Veritas, and all that. Check out these Harvard-approved sites: (1) Harvard Trans Task Force. (2) "Trannys Talk Back: Words of Harvard Transgender, Genderqueer and Questioning Community Members Talking Back in Conversations Going on Around Us."
This makes for very painful, sad reading. We sense hurting people who need serious psychiatric intervention (from a traditional practitioner, not someone who will pump them up with opposite-sex hormones). But our next Gov promises to consider these words of wisdom to be embraced, guidance for his crafting of "hate crimes" legislation. Some excerpts from "Trannys Talk Back":
... a no-nonsense page called "How to Respect a Transsexual Person" [excerpts]: - Always use the language that corresponds to my gender identity, e.g. he, she, even if my body does not seem to match yet and even when talking about my past.
- If you are still adjusting, it's normal to make mistakes. Don't draw attention to it by saying "sorry". Just correct yourself right after and carry on. [How much time to we have to adjust before making a "mistake" becomes a "hate crime"?]
- If I identify as male, never use female-marked words like girl, waitress, breasts, vagina, etc. to describe anything about me, and vice versa. Always use language that corresponds to my gender. [But what if you can't make out what the gender is you're supposed to recognize?] For example, if I am a female-to-male transsexual person, I am always a guy and never a girl. Don't call me "female-bodied", unless I use that term myself.
- A transsexual girl or woman is male-to-female. A transsexual guy is female-to-male. Never the other way around.
- Gender identity has nothing to do with sexual orientation. Whether I am attracted to men, women, both or neither is a totally separate thing from whether I am male or female. For example, if I am a trans girl who likes girls, treat me no differently than any other lesbian woman. [Remember, whether or not surgery has taken place is not significant ... we think.]
++++++++++++++++++++
... as queers (and allies), we tend to get irked when people assume things about our sexuality on first meeting us, right? Same thing. Just as I don't want people to assume I'm straight just because I have long hair, I don't want them to assume the woman I'm walking to the parking lot is a guy because she's tall and has an adam's apple; and I don't want them to assume the guy I'm kissing is a woman because he has a more prominent chest ... I do get off the hook more easily on a lot of typical SO [sexual orientation] questions, simply because I'm very vocally bi, so my sexual orientation isn't defined by the partners I choose -- but I know a lot of SOs who face questions like ...: "Are you still a lesbian if you're dating an MTF [male-to-female]?" or, even more angst-inspiring, "Are you still a lesbian now that your butch girlfriend is your FTM [female-to-male] boyfriend?" [How long until asking such questions becomes a "hate crime"?]
+++++++++++++++++++++++
There was the coffee shop, where someone said, "Oh, you forgot to give him his muffin," and someone else replied, "No, that's a girl" -- a point which they proceeded to debate amongst themselves as if he couldn't hear them, and during which they referred to him consistently as "it." (Just to be on the safe side, I presume.) And there was helping him into his "hard-core" binder the next morning, knowing there would be bruises to salve, inside and out, come nightfall.
+++++++++++++++++++++
When people at harvard hear that i'm trans, they constantly ask me when i'm having an operation. occasionally, they ask if i've already had it. I usually end up answering the question but then feeling really shitty that we're at a point where people think that MY body is THEIR business. no i'm not planning to have any surgery. i feel like it's a good thing to educate people, to know that not all trans people are the same, so i keep answering the questions when people who are in the bgltsa ask me. [I.e., there is massive confusion even within the pansexual activist movement! So how will Chris and Deval ever figure this out?] but i keep crawling deeper into my shell because i'm pissed that i have to talk about it all the time.
+++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++++
When people at harvard hear that i'm trans, they constantly ask me when i'm having an operation. occasionally, they ask if i've already had it. I usually end up answering the question but then feeling really shitty that we're at a point where people think that MY body is THEIR business. no i'm not planning to have any surgery. i feel like it's a good thing to educate people, to know that not all trans people are the same, so i keep answering the questions when people who are in the bgltsa ask me. [I.e., there is massive confusion even within the pansexual activist movement! So how will Chris and Deval ever figure this out?] but i keep crawling deeper into my shell because i'm pissed that i have to talk about it all the time.
+++++++++++++++++++
GenderQueer
Current working definition: those who identify their gender outside the gender binary system of male and female, maybe fluid with gender presentation or not conform to gender stereotypes and may use gender neutral pronouns such as "sie, hir, hir, hirs, hirself" or "zie, zir, zir, zirs, zirself" or choose to use the pronoun closest to the end of the masculine or feminine spectrum they are presenting. Some may do some or all of medical transition or none at all. Some may change their birth name. It is also used by some to describe both their gender identity and their sexuality as queer. Other terms that gender non-conforming or those who have gender identitites outside the binary gender system are boy dyke, dyke boy, boi, and by some youth in communities of color are femme queens, butch boi, or drags.
Got that, Chris and Deval?
Friday, September 15, 2006
Harvard, Truth, and Transgenderism
Speaker at "Transgender Rights" rally at Harvard, 4-19-06. (Photo: InNewsWeekly. See entire photo gallery from rally.)
As we all know, Harvard's motto is Veritas, or Truth. While researching a little forum with the Democrat Governor candidates held on Sept. 12 at the Harvard Law School, we encountered that lovely Veritas seal once again -- on the Harvard Law School Lambda (GLBT) group's website. A new "truth" they are inventing is that "transgenderism" or "gender identity" is something to be protected, and anyone who shows any discomfort or opposition to it will soon be guilty of a "hate crime." Chris Gabrieli and Deval Patrick both agree. Though we're sure they can't define the terms either!
What struck us as we cruised around the Harvard pansexual web sites was that they are themselves uncertain what the Truth is on their own issues! First of all, could they please precisely, legally define "sexual orientation"? You'd think the Harvard Law students would be eager to do so. How about "bisexual"? Or "transgender"? Or "transsexual"? Or "gender identity"? Or "gender expression"? Or "genderqueer"?
Not even the Harvard administration answers this. Last April, Harvard made "gender identity" a "protected class." But what does that mean? We must assume the Harvard Corporation has studied the online Harvard student publication, "Trannys Talk Back" -- so why do we still see no definitions? The Crimson articles reporting this new policy only confuse us more, with a deluge of undefined, overlapping terms.
And why is the university-wide faculty/staff/student group called just the "Harvard Gay and Lesbian Caucus"? What happened to Bisexual? Transgender? Genderqueer? We think the undergraduates must be guilty of biphobia and transphobia and genderqueerphobia for not including these practices in their names! The undergraduate group knows better. It not only calls itself the BGLTSA, but it provides a directory of all the "gender non-specific restrooms" on campus. Maybe their first Transgender 101 get-together will answer our questions:
Transgender 101 (Sept. 28, 7:30 pm) Location: Dunster JCR, J entry, to the right
What's the difference between transsexual, transgender and transvestite? How do I know what pronouns someone prefers? Is being transgender the same as being gay? Is intersex another term for transgender? Who determines what men and women are supposed to be? How do gender stereotypes affect us all? Come learn about these issues and more from members of the Transgender Task Force at this year's first Trans 101. Desserts will be served.
So is this what Harvard is ready to accept as the definition of "transsexual" (below, from the National Center for Lesbian Rights)? It seems that Harvard (and some other universities) is already paying for hormone treatments for staff and students. So they must be including "transsexual" as part of "sexual identity." Unbelievable.
The existence of individuals who live as members of the other gender and whom we would now likely identify as “transsexual” has been documented throughout human history.[1] In contrast, the contemporary medical treatments that comprise sex-reassignment have only been available for about forty years. As a medical condition, transsexualism is defined as "the desire to change one’s anatomic sexual characteristics to conform physically with one’s perception of self as a member of the opposite sex."[2] Transsexualism is technically classified as a specific form of a broader psychiatric disorder termed "gender identity disorder," also known as “gender dysphoria.”[3] The only recognized treatment for transsexualism is medical, not psychiatric. The medically prescribed treatment for transsexualism consists of three components: (1) hormone therapy; (2) living as a member of the other sex (known as the “real life experience”); and (3) sex-reassignment surgeries.[4] As medical treatments for transsexualism have developed, transsexual people have sought—and, increasingly, received—legal protection in the areas of employment discrimination, marriage, child custody, health care, prison safety, hate crimes legislation, and asylum.[5]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)