Conservatives should keep "gay marriage" out of the courts, say two lawyers who served in the Justice Dept. under Presidents Reagan and Bush I.
David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey argue in an op-ed in the New York Times (11-17-06) that constitutional amendments defining marriage are a bad idea. It is a matter which should be left to state legislatures. Indeed, the very fact that even our hideously liberal legislators here in Massachusetts have still not passed a statute legalizing homosexual marriage says a lot about the wisdom of this. Our legislators haven't had the nerve to bring it to the floor for debate and vote, and they're hoping that no one notices this has not yet be done!
Once our side concedes that a basic concept such as marriage needs to be further defined in a constitution, we're in trouble. Especially in Massachusetts, where the constitution actually refers to marriage, and therefore already assumes the traditional meaning of marriage, our constitution does not need amending! (And the current VoteOnMarriage proposal would just open up a new can of worms, allowing current homosexual "marriages" and civil unions. By not nullifying these concepts, the amendment would imply that they are acceptable.) When will we have to start defining concepts such as parent, or religion, or education in constitutional amendments? Where will it stop? From the op-ed:
...Moreover, the meaning of marriage, as important as it is, is no more crucial than many other issues of individual autonomy and morality that have also historically been decided by the legislatures. These include adoption and child-welfare laws, as well as a host of criminal and other regulatory measures of the greatest moment.
Indeed, cluttering state constitutions with the disposition of many difficult social issues — and this process will probably go on, and even accelerate, especially if all of the states choose to define marriage in their constitutions — is likely to empower the judiciary more. This paradoxical and unwelcome result would arise because some of the newly enshrined constitutional definitions and guarantees are sure to conflict with one another, leaving the courts the only venue for resolving the tension. Conservatives should find this outcome highly unpalatable....
If state legislatures were free to define and re-define marriage, we would have genuinely political solutions to an especially difficult and incendiary issue. Very few people do not hold deep convictions regarding same-sex marriage. To enshrine the definition of marriage in a state’s constitution removes the issue from the give-and-take of the normal political process. That process rarely produces an absolute victory for any side, but it also rarely results in absolute defeat. The outcome is never final; the defeated party can rally, regroup and try again....
By contrast, a constitutional amendment resolves a policy issue with a sufficient finality to prompt a more or less permanent sense of injustice and bitterness on the losing side....
Saturday, November 18, 2006
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
Romney Calls Rally to Show He Cares about Constitution
What a laugh. Now Gov. Romney and VoteOnMarriage announce a rally for the DEAD marriage amendment this Sunday 11/19. Looks like another pre-presidential campaign event to us. We hope pro-family activists are wiser than to fall for it.
If Romney really cared about the Constitution, and his oath to uphold it, he wouldn't have single-handedly implemented homosexual "marriages" back in 2004. If he really cared, he'd correct this error before he leaves office.
Watch out America: You can't trust Romney.
If Romney really cared about the Constitution, and his oath to uphold it, he wouldn't have single-handedly implemented homosexual "marriages" back in 2004. If he really cared, he'd correct this error before he leaves office.
Watch out America: You can't trust Romney.
Very Special Interests Controlling Mass. Legislature
"Special interests" controlling our Legislature: Check out this example -- where chief lobbyist William Conley of the Mass. Gay & Lesbian Political Caucus (transphobic, aren't they?) put his money. You may recall that Mr. Conley, former member of the Governor's Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth, is on leave from his lobbying job after being arrested for sex solicitation of U. Mass. college boys. [photo: Boston Phoenix]
You can pull up info on candidate contributions at: http://www.efs2.cpf.state.ma.us/EFSprod/servlet/WelcomeServlet
Bill Conley gave these elected officials or candidates contributions:
Governor-elect Deval Patrick
Secy. of State Bill Galvin
Speaker DiMasi's Comm. for a Democratic House
Rep. Sal DiMasi
Rep. Gale Candaras (now Senator-elect)
Rep. Cheryl Coakley-Rivera
Rep. Michael Costello
Rep. James Eldridge
Rep. Mark Falzone
Rep. Michael Festa
Rep. Patricia Haddad
Rep. Stephen Kulik
Rep. Barbara L'Italien
Rep. Liz Malia
Rep. Kathi-Anne ["it's hard to find a spouse"] Reinstein
Rep. Carl Sciortino
Rep. Robert Spellane
Rep. David Torrisi
Rep. James Vallee
Rep. Steven Walsh
Sen. Robert Antonioni
Sen. Steven Baddour
Sen. Stephen Buoniconti
Sen. Harriett Chandler
Sen. Robert Havern
Sen. Brian Joyce
Sen. Brian Lees (supposedly a Republican)
Sen. Robert O'Leary
former Sen. President Tom Birmingham
former Sen. Linda Meconium [not the real spelling...]
former Rep. Michael Cahill
Anne Manning (2004 candidate vs. Rep. Joyce Spiliotis)
Angus McQuilken (2005 candidate vs. Sen. Scott Brown)
Sunday, November 12, 2006
Nightmare Books from a GLSEN Social Worker
Elementary story books to watch out for: These are Laura Perkins' recommendations for K-3 reading. She's the GLSEN radical activist employed by the Newton Public Schools as a "social worker" -- meaning she takes little children and indoctrinates them on transgenderism and transsexuality, and gives them nightmares.
See the article by Tom Mountain in last week's Newton Tab: A 3rd-grade child's father is undergoing a sex-change operation; then the child will have two mommies! So a "teachable moment" just happened to come about, and the school social worker steps in. Her mission is to make the classmates to accept this bizarre situation. (If they have nightmares about the daddy's penis removal, they're "transphobic"!)
This is all done in the name of "equal rights," "diversity" and "safety." The GLBT activists' slogan is, "Your children are OUR children." -- they belong to the state, and in Massachusetts that now means GLBT activists.
It's amazing how that movement has co-opted legitimate concerns such as racial injustice or ethnic differences, and equated them with homosexuality and trans perversions beyond imagining. So there are also some perfectly fine books on this list, put to a twisted use. (It's the class discussions that are dangerous.) Here are just a few excerpts from Laura's "social skills" reading list:
I Don't Want To! A child is able to change his negative feelings about trying new things, when he finds out he is actually enjoying school.
Oliver Button Is A Sissy A boy is teased by other boys because he takes dance classes, and doesn't participate in boyish activities. His classmates change their attitudes about him when they see what a good dancer he is. Great for discussions about gender issues, assumptions, and changing one's feelings about someone.
The Best Friend's Club A story about kids ganging up against someone, and about an individual being courageous enough to stand up for a friend. Great for discussions. Memorable.
Fat Fat Rose Marie A story about kids ganging up against someone, and about an individual being courageous enough to stand up for a friend. Great for discussions. Memorable.
Asha's Mums A girl with lesbian mothers is told by her teacher and a classmate that "You can't have two mums." Great for leading into discussion of fairness, respect, and the importance of understanding differences.
My Two Uncles A girl tells about her gay uncle and his partner. The story includes family tensions because the grandparents have a hard time accepting the relationship but at the end of the story are closer to accepting it than they were in the beginning.
Daddy's Roommate Good! Fun and upbeat, a boy tells about his gay fathers' relationship.
A Picture Book of Harriet Tubman An extraordinary life; a person of courage and resistance and continued activism. Important.
Gloria Goes to Gay Pride It is a celebratory day, but not without awareness of prejudice. Good for discussing fear of differences, and groups that have been discriminated against and persecuted.
How Would You Feel if Your Dad Was Gay? Good book addressing the issues of children whose parents are gay, and what the children have to face in school from peers and teachers.
Who's in a Family? About different kinds of families, and it does include gay families.
Richard Wright and the Library Card Based on a scene from Black Boy, this book tells the story of how Richard Wright gained access to the public library, where black people were not allowed in the earlier part of the 2Oth century, through the help of a co-worker. Again, a story of discrimination and resistance and alliance.
Families are Different Does not include gay or lesbian families, and the omission is a good vehicle for discussion.
Yoshiko and the Foreigner A Japanese woman falls in love with a US officer. Children love the struggles the officer has with the Japanese language. Great for discussing the difficulty of being in a country without knowing the language. A wonderful story about assumptions, being suspicious of people from different countries, respect for other people's cultures, accepting differences.
See the article by Tom Mountain in last week's Newton Tab: A 3rd-grade child's father is undergoing a sex-change operation; then the child will have two mommies! So a "teachable moment" just happened to come about, and the school social worker steps in. Her mission is to make the classmates to accept this bizarre situation. (If they have nightmares about the daddy's penis removal, they're "transphobic"!)
This is all done in the name of "equal rights," "diversity" and "safety." The GLBT activists' slogan is, "Your children are OUR children." -- they belong to the state, and in Massachusetts that now means GLBT activists.
It's amazing how that movement has co-opted legitimate concerns such as racial injustice or ethnic differences, and equated them with homosexuality and trans perversions beyond imagining. So there are also some perfectly fine books on this list, put to a twisted use. (It's the class discussions that are dangerous.) Here are just a few excerpts from Laura's "social skills" reading list:
I Don't Want To! A child is able to change his negative feelings about trying new things, when he finds out he is actually enjoying school.
Oliver Button Is A Sissy A boy is teased by other boys because he takes dance classes, and doesn't participate in boyish activities. His classmates change their attitudes about him when they see what a good dancer he is. Great for discussions about gender issues, assumptions, and changing one's feelings about someone.
The Best Friend's Club A story about kids ganging up against someone, and about an individual being courageous enough to stand up for a friend. Great for discussions. Memorable.
Fat Fat Rose Marie A story about kids ganging up against someone, and about an individual being courageous enough to stand up for a friend. Great for discussions. Memorable.
Asha's Mums A girl with lesbian mothers is told by her teacher and a classmate that "You can't have two mums." Great for leading into discussion of fairness, respect, and the importance of understanding differences.
My Two Uncles A girl tells about her gay uncle and his partner. The story includes family tensions because the grandparents have a hard time accepting the relationship but at the end of the story are closer to accepting it than they were in the beginning.
Daddy's Roommate Good! Fun and upbeat, a boy tells about his gay fathers' relationship.
A Picture Book of Harriet Tubman An extraordinary life; a person of courage and resistance and continued activism. Important.
Gloria Goes to Gay Pride It is a celebratory day, but not without awareness of prejudice. Good for discussing fear of differences, and groups that have been discriminated against and persecuted.
How Would You Feel if Your Dad Was Gay? Good book addressing the issues of children whose parents are gay, and what the children have to face in school from peers and teachers.
Who's in a Family? About different kinds of families, and it does include gay families.
Richard Wright and the Library Card Based on a scene from Black Boy, this book tells the story of how Richard Wright gained access to the public library, where black people were not allowed in the earlier part of the 2Oth century, through the help of a co-worker. Again, a story of discrimination and resistance and alliance.
Families are Different Does not include gay or lesbian families, and the omission is a good vehicle for discussion.
Yoshiko and the Foreigner A Japanese woman falls in love with a US officer. Children love the struggles the officer has with the Japanese language. Great for discussing the difficulty of being in a country without knowing the language. A wonderful story about assumptions, being suspicious of people from different countries, respect for other people's cultures, accepting differences.
Saturday, November 11, 2006
Mass. Legislature: Bought by MassEquality
So -- Do we or do we not have a problem with "special interests" controlling our government? Whoever has the most money, and the least ethical practices, wins?Here's Rep. Kathi-Anne Reinstein whooping it up with Marc Solomon, head of MassEquality, after the 109 sell-outs voted to recess and defy the Constitution at the ConCon on Nov. 9. (Also in photo center, in blue suit: Rep. Marty Walz.)
They look like such nice young people, don't they?
[Photo: EdgeBoston.com]
Thursday, November 09, 2006
VoteOnMarriage R.I.P.
It's over. Dead. Give it up, VoteOnMarriage. Don't waste any more valuable pro-family activists' time, energy, money, and good will. You've been had. And you refused to see it coming, though you were warned.
We're not surprised that the Legislature recessed without voting on the VoteOnMarriage amendment today. The ConCon is set to reconvene on the last day of the session (Jan. 2, 2007), so there will be no way Gov. Romney could call the legislature back into session when they again fail to vote on the amendment that day! And Deval certainly wants it to die.
Shockingly, today we learned that there's not a single honorable, courageous legislator in Massachusetts. Item #19 on the calendar, the pure definition of marriage with a ban on civil unions (just before the weaker VoteOnMarriage amendment, #20) was voted down 196-0, just before the ConCon adjourned. Now what is wrong with #19? Our group filed it as a bill (H653), in an effort to strengthen the definition of marriage in our statutes. (Gov. Romney recommended this very course in his famous Wall Street Journal op-ed of February 2004!) The bill's co-sponsors were Rep. Goguen and Rep. Travis.
Well, who should rise to speak against #19 but Travis, who called it unconstitutional! He said it should not be debated. Did he forget he filed it -- after the Goodridge ruling? How hypocritical. He essentially recognized the ruling as legitimate in calling #19 unconstitutional. He believes that the the 8,000 (later he said 9,000) so-called same-sex "marriages" are legitimate and couldn't be disrupted (hence the weak and dangerous wording of the VoteOnMarriage amendment)!
Granted, homosexual activist Sen. Barrios turned #19 from a bill into an amendment. (Though he never said a thing about that in his slimey speech.) But it could never have passed today anyhow (needing 50%+), so the pro-family legislators could safely have voted for it -- but still didn't. Unbelievable.
Reps. Goguen, Loscocco, Parente, DeMacedo, Sens. Brown, Hedlund: What happened to all of you? What twisted strategy were you following? The wording of #19 is exactly the same as the marriage amendment you supported in 2002! So why the change? Not a single legislator in Massachusetts is "brave" enough to confirm marriage is between a man and a woman, and civil unions should be banned! And that the Goodridge ruling is illegitimate; and that current same-sex "marriages" are illegal and should not be protected!
Still awaiting the video of his press conference, but we understand that Gov. Romney said he's consulting with his attorneys on his options -- whether he can call the legislature back into session, etc. (You mean he didn't see this coming, and they haven't already figured that out?) We also heard that Romney said he "appreciated" that Senate President Travaglini followed the process today! Well, Trav had promised that each item would have a roll call vote. That obviously is not going to happen. Who does Romney think he's fooling?
We're not surprised that the Legislature recessed without voting on the VoteOnMarriage amendment today. The ConCon is set to reconvene on the last day of the session (Jan. 2, 2007), so there will be no way Gov. Romney could call the legislature back into session when they again fail to vote on the amendment that day! And Deval certainly wants it to die.
Shockingly, today we learned that there's not a single honorable, courageous legislator in Massachusetts. Item #19 on the calendar, the pure definition of marriage with a ban on civil unions (just before the weaker VoteOnMarriage amendment, #20) was voted down 196-0, just before the ConCon adjourned. Now what is wrong with #19? Our group filed it as a bill (H653), in an effort to strengthen the definition of marriage in our statutes. (Gov. Romney recommended this very course in his famous Wall Street Journal op-ed of February 2004!) The bill's co-sponsors were Rep. Goguen and Rep. Travis.
Well, who should rise to speak against #19 but Travis, who called it unconstitutional! He said it should not be debated. Did he forget he filed it -- after the Goodridge ruling? How hypocritical. He essentially recognized the ruling as legitimate in calling #19 unconstitutional. He believes that the the 8,000 (later he said 9,000) so-called same-sex "marriages" are legitimate and couldn't be disrupted (hence the weak and dangerous wording of the VoteOnMarriage amendment)!
Granted, homosexual activist Sen. Barrios turned #19 from a bill into an amendment. (Though he never said a thing about that in his slimey speech.) But it could never have passed today anyhow (needing 50%+), so the pro-family legislators could safely have voted for it -- but still didn't. Unbelievable.
Reps. Goguen, Loscocco, Parente, DeMacedo, Sens. Brown, Hedlund: What happened to all of you? What twisted strategy were you following? The wording of #19 is exactly the same as the marriage amendment you supported in 2002! So why the change? Not a single legislator in Massachusetts is "brave" enough to confirm marriage is between a man and a woman, and civil unions should be banned! And that the Goodridge ruling is illegitimate; and that current same-sex "marriages" are illegal and should not be protected!
Still awaiting the video of his press conference, but we understand that Gov. Romney said he's consulting with his attorneys on his options -- whether he can call the legislature back into session, etc. (You mean he didn't see this coming, and they haven't already figured that out?) We also heard that Romney said he "appreciated" that Senate President Travaglini followed the process today! Well, Trav had promised that each item would have a roll call vote. That obviously is not going to happen. Who does Romney think he's fooling?
Romney and the Errant Legislators
The Boston Globe reports today, "Leaders seek to kill gay marriage ban; goal is recess without a vote."
Will Romney have the courage to call the Legislature back into session if they adjourn without taking up the VoteOnMarriage amendment today? We doubt it. We've written before about the hollow oath he took to uphold our Constitution. After all, he is the one who, in defiance of the Constitution, implemented homosexual "marriages" through his issuance of rewritten marriage licenses and orders to Town Clerks and Justices of the Peace, while the marriage statutes were never changed to allow this.
House Speaker DiMasi's plan for today is to take a vote to adjourn (he has the 101 votes needed for that) before getting to item #20 on the calendar, the VoteOnMarriage amendment. But they may very well make it to item #19, the other marriage amendment, which would need 50%+ (101) to pass, and thus could give cover to many legislators to "safely" vote for a ban on homosexual "marriage" prior to adjourning. Senate President Travaglini, in charge of the proceedings today,
... said yesterday he would entertain a motion to recess or adjourn, even before a vote is taken on the marriage amendment. His comments appear to be a shift in his position from earlier this year, when he said he intended to make sure a recorded vote was taken on the amendment. [Which amendment, #19 or #20?]
"Whatever action the body decides to do will be done by a recorded vote," Travaglini said in an interview yesterday, when asked about a motion to recess. "I will entertain that motion. I will not influence anyone how to vote."
Will Romney have the courage to call the Legislature back into session if they adjourn without taking up the VoteOnMarriage amendment today? We doubt it. We've written before about the hollow oath he took to uphold our Constitution. After all, he is the one who, in defiance of the Constitution, implemented homosexual "marriages" through his issuance of rewritten marriage licenses and orders to Town Clerks and Justices of the Peace, while the marriage statutes were never changed to allow this.
House Speaker DiMasi's plan for today is to take a vote to adjourn (he has the 101 votes needed for that) before getting to item #20 on the calendar, the VoteOnMarriage amendment. But they may very well make it to item #19, the other marriage amendment, which would need 50%+ (101) to pass, and thus could give cover to many legislators to "safely" vote for a ban on homosexual "marriage" prior to adjourning. Senate President Travaglini, in charge of the proceedings today,
... said yesterday he would entertain a motion to recess or adjourn, even before a vote is taken on the marriage amendment. His comments appear to be a shift in his position from earlier this year, when he said he intended to make sure a recorded vote was taken on the amendment. [Which amendment, #19 or #20?]
"Whatever action the body decides to do will be done by a recorded vote," Travaglini said in an interview yesterday, when asked about a motion to recess. "I will entertain that motion. I will not influence anyone how to vote."
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
Romney Does In Mass. Republicans!
Thanks, Mitt! We lay this hideous loss at your feet. Jim Rappaport, who could well have been victorious yesterday had Mitt allowed him to be his Lt. Gov., had this to say. (And no, it's not just "sour grapes" -- it really is about whether or not Republicans stand for principles, or simple lust for power and pocketbooks.)
"For Republicans in Mass., a feeling of out and down," Boston Globe, 11-8-06:
Romney's popularity has sagged badly during his frequent travels, but Manning [a Republican consultant], who has worked on Romney's Massachusetts campaigns, said a national candidacy could restore some pride among Republicans and GOP-friendly independents back home.
James Rappaport , a former state party chairman and frequent Romney critic, took a harsher view. "Locally, this is a rebuke to Mitt Romney and checking out within six months after being elected and having accomplished almost nothing," said Rappaport, whom Romney rejected as a running mate in favor of Kerry Healey four years ago.
"Mitt Romney, through his stalwart efforts, has managed to bring our party back to where it was in 1986," he said. "What brought us back then was a commitment to principles; not just lower taxes for the sake of lower taxes but because we were chasing businesses out of the state," he said.
"For Republicans in Mass., a feeling of out and down," Boston Globe, 11-8-06:
Romney's popularity has sagged badly during his frequent travels, but Manning [a Republican consultant], who has worked on Romney's Massachusetts campaigns, said a national candidacy could restore some pride among Republicans and GOP-friendly independents back home.
James Rappaport , a former state party chairman and frequent Romney critic, took a harsher view. "Locally, this is a rebuke to Mitt Romney and checking out within six months after being elected and having accomplished almost nothing," said Rappaport, whom Romney rejected as a running mate in favor of Kerry Healey four years ago.
"Mitt Romney, through his stalwart efforts, has managed to bring our party back to where it was in 1986," he said. "What brought us back then was a commitment to principles; not just lower taxes for the sake of lower taxes but because we were chasing businesses out of the state," he said.
Tuesday, November 07, 2006
Gender a Choice -- Not a Physical Reality -- in NYC
Just when you thought the political scene couldn't be any more depressing, we see this insane story out of New York City: "Gender" there will soon be a personal "choice", not physiological reality.
With our totalitarian one-party government looming in Massachusetts, with a Governor-elect who's told the trans radicals he'll give them whatever they want, and with a radical activist GLBT state rep having promised to file a trans "rights" bill in the next legislative session ... get ready!
We've recently had strange and most unpleasant encounters of the "trans" kind in restrooms in NYC. (A WorldNetDaily article suggests more otherworldly scenarios this movement might force on us.) Please, can we restore the sanity?
New York Plans to Make Gender Personal Choice
By Damien Cave, New York Times, 11-7-06
Separating anatomy from what it means to be a man or a woman, New York City is moving forward with a plan to let people alter the sex on their birth certificate even if they have not had sex-change surgery.
Under the rule being considered by the city’s Board of Health, which is likely to be adopted soon, people born in the city would be able to change the documented sex on their birth certificates by providing affidavits from a doctor and a mental health professional laying out why their patients should be considered members of the opposite sex, and asserting that their proposed change would be permanent.
Applicants would have to have changed their name and shown that they had lived in their adopted gender for at least two years, but there would be no explicit medical requirements.
“Surgery versus nonsurgery can be arbitrary,” said Dr. Thomas R. Frieden, the city’s health commissioner. “Somebody with a beard may have had breast-implant surgery. It’s the permanence of the transition that matters most.”
If approved, the new rule would put New York at the forefront of efforts to redefine gender. A handful of states do not require surgery for such birth certificate changes, but in some of those cases patients are still not allowed to make the change without showing a physiological shift to the opposite gender. ...
The Metropolitan Transportation Authority also agreed last month to let people define their own gender when deciding whether to use the men’s or women’s bathrooms.
Joann Prinzivalli, 52, a lawyer for the New York Transgender Rights Organization, a man who has lived as a woman since 2000, without surgery, said the changes amount to progress, a move away from American culture’s misguided fixation on genitals as the basis for one’s gender identity.
“It’s based on an arbitrary distinction that says there are two and only two sexes,” she said. “In reality the diversity of nature is such that there are more than just two, and people who seem to belong to one of the designated sexes may really belong to the other.”
With our totalitarian one-party government looming in Massachusetts, with a Governor-elect who's told the trans radicals he'll give them whatever they want, and with a radical activist GLBT state rep having promised to file a trans "rights" bill in the next legislative session ... get ready!
We've recently had strange and most unpleasant encounters of the "trans" kind in restrooms in NYC. (A WorldNetDaily article suggests more otherworldly scenarios this movement might force on us.) Please, can we restore the sanity?
New York Plans to Make Gender Personal Choice
By Damien Cave, New York Times, 11-7-06
Separating anatomy from what it means to be a man or a woman, New York City is moving forward with a plan to let people alter the sex on their birth certificate even if they have not had sex-change surgery.
Under the rule being considered by the city’s Board of Health, which is likely to be adopted soon, people born in the city would be able to change the documented sex on their birth certificates by providing affidavits from a doctor and a mental health professional laying out why their patients should be considered members of the opposite sex, and asserting that their proposed change would be permanent.
Applicants would have to have changed their name and shown that they had lived in their adopted gender for at least two years, but there would be no explicit medical requirements.
“Surgery versus nonsurgery can be arbitrary,” said Dr. Thomas R. Frieden, the city’s health commissioner. “Somebody with a beard may have had breast-implant surgery. It’s the permanence of the transition that matters most.”
If approved, the new rule would put New York at the forefront of efforts to redefine gender. A handful of states do not require surgery for such birth certificate changes, but in some of those cases patients are still not allowed to make the change without showing a physiological shift to the opposite gender. ...
The Metropolitan Transportation Authority also agreed last month to let people define their own gender when deciding whether to use the men’s or women’s bathrooms.
Joann Prinzivalli, 52, a lawyer for the New York Transgender Rights Organization, a man who has lived as a woman since 2000, without surgery, said the changes amount to progress, a move away from American culture’s misguided fixation on genitals as the basis for one’s gender identity.
“It’s based on an arbitrary distinction that says there are two and only two sexes,” she said. “In reality the diversity of nature is such that there are more than just two, and people who seem to belong to one of the designated sexes may really belong to the other.”
Monday, November 06, 2006
Romney's Gift to Deval: More Judges for New Gov. to Appoint!
So - how many of you still think Gov. Romney is devoted to conservative principles? If he really cared about the future of this state, he'd use every opportunity before leaving office to appoint solid judges while he can. But no, he gaily announced last week that he wouldn't burden his Governor's Council with having to approve a "flurry of lame-duck appointments" to the bench.
From the Boston Globe, "Romney pledges no flurry of lame-duck appointments," 11-2-06:
Romney, who made four appointments yesterday and a total of 13 judicial appointments since the September primary election, will leave at least a dozen judgeships and clerk magistrate vacancies for his successor to fill, said spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom. "My plans are to have all nominees who have made it through the process on your desks next Wednesday," Romney told governor's councilors at their regular meeting yesterday. "I don't intend to bring you a lengthy list of nominees. . . . I won't overtax you with a huge slate." Fehrnstrom described Romney's action as "fairly unprecedented." ...
"It's really unusual," said Christopher Iannella, a governor's councilor who has served during the Dukakis, Weld, Cellucci, Swift, and Romney administrations. "Generally speaking, the governor fills just about every position there is to fill. A lot of these positions have been hanging around for a while and should have been filled before now. On the other hand, he's giving the new governor an opportunity." ...
David Yas, editor of Lawyers Weekly, said Romney is "bucking tradition" by resisting the urge to fill all remaining judgeships. "It is a tradition for governors to use that power to appoint judges aggressively in the waning moments of their administration," Yas said.
It's not bad enough that Romney's totally destroyed the Mass. Republican Party. He also has to give this gift to soft-on-crime Deval? And you thought Judge Maria Lopez was bad? Just wait.
Please remind us why we voted for Romney? And now we're supposed to vote for Healey???
From the Boston Globe, "Romney pledges no flurry of lame-duck appointments," 11-2-06:
Romney, who made four appointments yesterday and a total of 13 judicial appointments since the September primary election, will leave at least a dozen judgeships and clerk magistrate vacancies for his successor to fill, said spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom. "My plans are to have all nominees who have made it through the process on your desks next Wednesday," Romney told governor's councilors at their regular meeting yesterday. "I don't intend to bring you a lengthy list of nominees. . . . I won't overtax you with a huge slate." Fehrnstrom described Romney's action as "fairly unprecedented." ...
"It's really unusual," said Christopher Iannella, a governor's councilor who has served during the Dukakis, Weld, Cellucci, Swift, and Romney administrations. "Generally speaking, the governor fills just about every position there is to fill. A lot of these positions have been hanging around for a while and should have been filled before now. On the other hand, he's giving the new governor an opportunity." ...
David Yas, editor of Lawyers Weekly, said Romney is "bucking tradition" by resisting the urge to fill all remaining judgeships. "It is a tradition for governors to use that power to appoint judges aggressively in the waning moments of their administration," Yas said.
It's not bad enough that Romney's totally destroyed the Mass. Republican Party. He also has to give this gift to soft-on-crime Deval? And you thought Judge Maria Lopez was bad? Just wait.
Please remind us why we voted for Romney? And now we're supposed to vote for Healey???
Sunday, November 05, 2006
Same-Sex "Marriage" & Abortion: Ignore the Physical Realities?
In a recent discussion, we heard about a local high school freshman history class debate over "same-sex marriage." Our friend -- also conservative -- was somewhat surprised when we said we thought this was inappropriate subject matter for 9th graders.
(We realize that kids can vote at 18. Too early! This is a problem. Maybe only those risking their lives for our freedoms should have voting rights before 21?)
Anyhow, we don't think 14-year-olds should discuss "same-sex marriage" because it's not really about "civil rights" (homosexuality not being innate, as is race) or politics. It is about abnormal sexual behaviors becoming a basis for a "marital" relationship. Yet any mention of the physical reality behind the "rights" argument has been silenced. Why have we allowed this to happen -- even in our adult discussions?
Yet you can be sure the kids in that class are thinking about the sex acts involved in "same-sex marriage" (just as any child has thoughts about how they were conceived by their parents)! At the same time they're absorbing the message that they can't talk about this distinguishing feature between normal, real marriage and homosexual "marriage." We've been taught to avert our eyes from the sexual aspect, and everyone pretends it's about "rights." But really it's about accepting, normalizing, and government sanctioning of perverted and unhealthy physical acts (and relationships notorious for high levels of "domestic abuse"). Do we want 9th graders having a discussion so biased at the outset?
Because of this underlying though unspoken fact -- the sex involved -- emotions run very high for the kids, some who come home very shaken and in tears -- partly because they are being forced to repress their gut reaction to what they know is wrong. The conservative kids are being called names that they know are unfair, because they are engaging their consciences and moral training, not just aping "progressive" rights talk.
There's an analogy with the abortion "discussion." Why was it that pro-lifers allowed the pro-aborts to silence them way back in the beginning of the abortion "debate" on the physical reality of abortion: the ripping apart of a human baby? Why did many accept that they can't show pictures, or talk about the actual procedure and what it does to both the baby and the mother? How come many pro-lifers accepted that confronting this physical reality was "in bad taste" or "extreme"? The other side was allowed to frame the argument, just as in the case of "same-sex marriage rights."
(We realize that kids can vote at 18. Too early! This is a problem. Maybe only those risking their lives for our freedoms should have voting rights before 21?)
Anyhow, we don't think 14-year-olds should discuss "same-sex marriage" because it's not really about "civil rights" (homosexuality not being innate, as is race) or politics. It is about abnormal sexual behaviors becoming a basis for a "marital" relationship. Yet any mention of the physical reality behind the "rights" argument has been silenced. Why have we allowed this to happen -- even in our adult discussions?
Yet you can be sure the kids in that class are thinking about the sex acts involved in "same-sex marriage" (just as any child has thoughts about how they were conceived by their parents)! At the same time they're absorbing the message that they can't talk about this distinguishing feature between normal, real marriage and homosexual "marriage." We've been taught to avert our eyes from the sexual aspect, and everyone pretends it's about "rights." But really it's about accepting, normalizing, and government sanctioning of perverted and unhealthy physical acts (and relationships notorious for high levels of "domestic abuse"). Do we want 9th graders having a discussion so biased at the outset?
Because of this underlying though unspoken fact -- the sex involved -- emotions run very high for the kids, some who come home very shaken and in tears -- partly because they are being forced to repress their gut reaction to what they know is wrong. The conservative kids are being called names that they know are unfair, because they are engaging their consciences and moral training, not just aping "progressive" rights talk.
There's an analogy with the abortion "discussion." Why was it that pro-lifers allowed the pro-aborts to silence them way back in the beginning of the abortion "debate" on the physical reality of abortion: the ripping apart of a human baby? Why did many accept that they can't show pictures, or talk about the actual procedure and what it does to both the baby and the mother? How come many pro-lifers accepted that confronting this physical reality was "in bad taste" or "extreme"? The other side was allowed to frame the argument, just as in the case of "same-sex marriage rights."
Friday, November 03, 2006
Where's the First Amendment at WRKO?
Keep John DePetro. Uphold the First Amendment. What's the problem?
So what if he called gov. candidate Grace Ross a "fat lesbian"! It's political speech, and it must be protected.
Ross is openly lesbian. Her sexual identity is part of her POLITICAL identity. And she is obviously fat. People call others overweight, portly, or fat all the time.
The GLBT activists turned sexual identity into a political issue, DePetro didn't. Isn't Ross PROUD of her sexual orientation? She herself said, “I think he was indeed being nasty. It’s not news to anybody that I’m a lesbian."
So was it only the "fat" part that bothers everyone? There are even "fat" activists out there who've made obesity a political issue.
If he called someone a wacky fundamentalist Christian, would he be fired for that? If he said someone had thinning hair, would he be fired for that?
So what if he called gov. candidate Grace Ross a "fat lesbian"! It's political speech, and it must be protected.
Ross is openly lesbian. Her sexual identity is part of her POLITICAL identity. And she is obviously fat. People call others overweight, portly, or fat all the time.
The GLBT activists turned sexual identity into a political issue, DePetro didn't. Isn't Ross PROUD of her sexual orientation? She herself said, “I think he was indeed being nasty. It’s not news to anybody that I’m a lesbian."
So was it only the "fat" part that bothers everyone? There are even "fat" activists out there who've made obesity a political issue.
If he called someone a wacky fundamentalist Christian, would he be fired for that? If he said someone had thinning hair, would he be fired for that?
Thursday, November 02, 2006
Marriage AmendmentS at Nov. 9 ConCon
The Boston Globe's article on Tuesday (10-31-06) on the Massachusetts Catholic Bishops pushing for a vote on the VoteOnMarriage amendment seemed to be an excuse to post a list of "religious" institutions favoring sodomy "marriage". It mentions worries that a walkout by legislators will scuttle the amendment.
But why does the press never mention the OTHER marriage amendment, #19 on the Nov. 9 ConCon calendar? It offers a purer definition of marriage: one man/one woman, with a ban on civil unions.
Will the ConCon adjourn without the required vote on the VoteOnMarriage referendum amendment (#20 on the calendar), as happened a few years ago? Here's a possible scenario, that makes use of that other marriage amendment:
We filed #19 as a bill (H653) to define marriage in statute, but homosexual activist State Senator Jarrett Barrios mysteriously turned it into a constitutional amendment proposal. Why? He's certainly against it in principle. But he must have had some use for it up his sleeve...
It would require a 50%+ vote to pass (rather than the 25% for the VoteOnMarriage citizens' petition). Knowing there aren't that many who would vote for #19 now, maybe the intention is to give cover to legislators worried about their record on marriage. They could safely vote for #19, knowing it will fail. Then the ConCon can adjourn before taking up #20, the VoteOnMarriage amendment. And the worried legislators can still tell their constituents they voted for traditional marriage at the Nov. 9 ConCon!
But why does the press never mention the OTHER marriage amendment, #19 on the Nov. 9 ConCon calendar? It offers a purer definition of marriage: one man/one woman, with a ban on civil unions.
Will the ConCon adjourn without the required vote on the VoteOnMarriage referendum amendment (#20 on the calendar), as happened a few years ago? Here's a possible scenario, that makes use of that other marriage amendment:
We filed #19 as a bill (H653) to define marriage in statute, but homosexual activist State Senator Jarrett Barrios mysteriously turned it into a constitutional amendment proposal. Why? He's certainly against it in principle. But he must have had some use for it up his sleeve...
It would require a 50%+ vote to pass (rather than the 25% for the VoteOnMarriage citizens' petition). Knowing there aren't that many who would vote for #19 now, maybe the intention is to give cover to legislators worried about their record on marriage. They could safely vote for #19, knowing it will fail. Then the ConCon can adjourn before taking up #20, the VoteOnMarriage amendment. And the worried legislators can still tell their constituents they voted for traditional marriage at the Nov. 9 ConCon!
Wednesday, November 01, 2006
Is Home Schooling the Answer?
Our comments on home schooling (at end of our 10-26-06 posting) have generated some negative responses. It's definitely a controversial and emotional issue. Here's one:
I'd actually like to make a short response to your opinion of homeschooling. I'm sorry it was such a negative experience that you have decided it's not the way for parents to fix the situation we find ourselves in as a society. You're right, it does demand too much sacrifice, but that's because the state still makes it too difficult with punitive taxes. What we ought to do is demand the state make it easier for us to homeschool, not shoot down homeschooling in favor of improving the public schools. It is a pipedream that they ever will be improved. Let's face it - God has been totally kicked out, and He will never be brought back. Therefore the devil has filled the vacuum.
What is needed to persuade the state to make it easier to homeschool is a massive no-confidence vote in the public schools, manifested by pulling our children out of them. We need to make homeschooling a reality they must deal with, instead of a mere threatening possibility that they will eventually overtly try to head off. Also, aside from the issue that the state has evil intentions concerning our children, the fact is that it is not the state's job to educate our kids. It is the job of the parents to do that. If we try to avoid that God-given responsibility by shifting it off to the state, we have no right to complain about the results. It is not about how 'happy' we are or our children are while we homeschool - it is whether we are doing our duty. I am not saying I don't understand the terrible pressures that homeschooling can create. I just think we should take the fight in the right direction - let's fight for the relief of the state-created pressures.
I'd actually like to make a short response to your opinion of homeschooling. I'm sorry it was such a negative experience that you have decided it's not the way for parents to fix the situation we find ourselves in as a society. You're right, it does demand too much sacrifice, but that's because the state still makes it too difficult with punitive taxes. What we ought to do is demand the state make it easier for us to homeschool, not shoot down homeschooling in favor of improving the public schools. It is a pipedream that they ever will be improved. Let's face it - God has been totally kicked out, and He will never be brought back. Therefore the devil has filled the vacuum.
What is needed to persuade the state to make it easier to homeschool is a massive no-confidence vote in the public schools, manifested by pulling our children out of them. We need to make homeschooling a reality they must deal with, instead of a mere threatening possibility that they will eventually overtly try to head off. Also, aside from the issue that the state has evil intentions concerning our children, the fact is that it is not the state's job to educate our kids. It is the job of the parents to do that. If we try to avoid that God-given responsibility by shifting it off to the state, we have no right to complain about the results. It is not about how 'happy' we are or our children are while we homeschool - it is whether we are doing our duty. I am not saying I don't understand the terrible pressures that homeschooling can create. I just think we should take the fight in the right direction - let's fight for the relief of the state-created pressures.
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
To Vote, or NOT to Vote, for Kerry Healey?
We print this letter (with permission from its author) circulating among pro-lifers in Massachusetts. See our earlier posting on Kerry Healey's appearance as keynote speaker, along with her running mate Reed Hillman, in a Planned Parenthood sponsored pro-abortion party at the end of the state Republican Convention! And we've noted their pro civil unions stance. From a supporter of the Mass. State Constitution Party write-in candidate, Rev. Michael Carl:
Subject: Vote Your Conscience
Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,
I would like to take the time here and urge you to vote a week from today. But I am not asking you to vote Democratic or Republican. I am asking you to vote your conscience.
I don't know about you, but I have been greatly dissatisfied with this year's crop of gubernatorial candidates. For years I have voted straight down the GOP ticket, but conscience tells me this year I just can't do it. The Massachusetts State Republican Party has nominated a woman who is pro-abortion, pro-embryonic stem cell research, pro-civil unions and pro legalized gambling. I cannot in good conscience cast my vote for such a candidate, not any more.
The argument in favour of voting for the GOP candidate basically boils down to the lesser of two evils idea. Because Kerry Healey is more conservative than anyone else on the ballot, a win for her would make things not as bad as they could potentially be should another candidate win. May I remind everyone that a lesser of two evils is still evil? We will never get what we want if we vote for candidates who oppose our desires and wishes. Simple logic tells us that.
I understand that the real change this state needs does not come from the State House but from God's house. Only the Word of God can change lives for eternity. I am a preacher, not a politician. Yet, as a preacher, how can I continue to preach one message from the pulpit and support an opposing message in the ballot box? My conscience will not allow me to do this any longer. I must earnestly contend for the faith once delivered. It is about time that we as Christians voted as Christians.
I am not calling for a national movement or the setup of another religious political action committee. I am simply urging you to vote for candidates not based on perceived success, but based on conscience. Do the right thing. If we continue to ignore candidates we agree with simply because we don't think they have a chance of winning, they never will have a chance of winning! We don't do what is right because we think it will be successful. We would never promote that idea in our churches, so why promote that idea in the ballot box? In this election, I am supporting the Massachusetts State Constitution Party write-in candidacy of Michael Carl. I would urge you to do the same.
Write in Michael Carl, 109 Eutaw Ave., Lynn, MA 01902 (the address must be written in as well) for governor.
You read more of my endorsement of Mr. Carl by logging on to my blog posting.
Because of Grace,
Kevin Thompson
Asst. Pastor, North Baptist Church
Brockton, MA
Subject: Vote Your Conscience
Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,
I would like to take the time here and urge you to vote a week from today. But I am not asking you to vote Democratic or Republican. I am asking you to vote your conscience.
I don't know about you, but I have been greatly dissatisfied with this year's crop of gubernatorial candidates. For years I have voted straight down the GOP ticket, but conscience tells me this year I just can't do it. The Massachusetts State Republican Party has nominated a woman who is pro-abortion, pro-embryonic stem cell research, pro-civil unions and pro legalized gambling. I cannot in good conscience cast my vote for such a candidate, not any more.
The argument in favour of voting for the GOP candidate basically boils down to the lesser of two evils idea. Because Kerry Healey is more conservative than anyone else on the ballot, a win for her would make things not as bad as they could potentially be should another candidate win. May I remind everyone that a lesser of two evils is still evil? We will never get what we want if we vote for candidates who oppose our desires and wishes. Simple logic tells us that.
I understand that the real change this state needs does not come from the State House but from God's house. Only the Word of God can change lives for eternity. I am a preacher, not a politician. Yet, as a preacher, how can I continue to preach one message from the pulpit and support an opposing message in the ballot box? My conscience will not allow me to do this any longer. I must earnestly contend for the faith once delivered. It is about time that we as Christians voted as Christians.
I am not calling for a national movement or the setup of another religious political action committee. I am simply urging you to vote for candidates not based on perceived success, but based on conscience. Do the right thing. If we continue to ignore candidates we agree with simply because we don't think they have a chance of winning, they never will have a chance of winning! We don't do what is right because we think it will be successful. We would never promote that idea in our churches, so why promote that idea in the ballot box? In this election, I am supporting the Massachusetts State Constitution Party write-in candidacy of Michael Carl. I would urge you to do the same.
Write in Michael Carl, 109 Eutaw Ave., Lynn, MA 01902 (the address must be written in as well) for governor.
You read more of my endorsement of Mr. Carl by logging on to my blog posting.
Because of Grace,
Kevin Thompson
Asst. Pastor, North Baptist Church
Brockton, MA
Monday, October 30, 2006
Time to Reread Prof. Hadley Arkes on Romney's Failure to Follow Constitution
TIME TO REREAD Prof. Hadley Arkes' article in National Review, "The Missing Governor" (May 17, 2004):
Arkes is Professor of Jurisprudence at Amherst College. Here are excerpts, with commentary by John Haskins below.
The conservative lawyers argued that new plaintiffs would form a class and seek an injunction from the court to enforce the holding in the Goodridge case. But they seemed to forget that the legislature has the authority to shape and define the power to issue injunctions.
John Haskins comments:
Exceptional conservative honesty! This reveals why we're losing. This is not only 'must reading." It's also must thinking.
All who are troubled by where America is heading MUST read Professor Arkes' NR column -- again if they have read it before. They must send this quote and the link to Arkes' article to anyone who needs to understand not only what is actually, all pretenses aside, an unconditional "pro-family" and conservative surrender of constitutional law, not only in here Massachusetts, but in case after case after case around the country. Vermont, California, New Jersey...
We are not just losing, we are surrendering. Most of our prominent "conservative" attorneys and law professors are not constitutionalists in any meaningful sense. Professor Arkes' article, now two-and-a-half years old, but still as fresh and urgent as the day he wrote it, hints at this. There are piles of irrefutable evidence to support this charge. And it indicts many of what I call "paycheck conservatives" -- including some who are running around soaking up tax-deductible donations and admiration playing the role of pro-family hero.
But many have long histories of endlessly and compulsively trying to find the middle ground and compromising the Constitution itself, while mocking and undermining behind the scenes all attorneys and pro-family leaders who try to hold the line. The result is a gradual collapse of constitutional democracy, parental rights, and the sanctity of childhood and the natural human family. In terms of jurisprudence, many of our "pro-family" lawyers and law professors are on the other side. We could name some of those directly responsible for covering up Mitt Romney's illegal imposition of homosexual marriage. The essential point is to understand that their surrender is at the spiritual and subconscious level. They believe themselves to be "pro-family", pro-constitution heroes. Their results over the years and their constant undermining of fundamental constitutional principles prove otherwise.
Professor Arkes, widely respected and head and shoulders above these other lawyers and professors as a constitutional scholar, names no names and understates his description of them in the most gentlemanly way. But read between the lines. This has been and continues to be a step-by-step surrender, negotiated case-by-case by our own "conservative" lawyers, law professors and pro-family leadership.
We can be silent no longer.
Arkes is Professor of Jurisprudence at Amherst College. Here are excerpts, with commentary by John Haskins below.
On what Romney could have done:
…if the constitutional authority was really with the governor, to act for himself and the legislature, then it made the most profound difference that the governor flex that authority now himself: He could invoke his powers under the constitution; cite the error of the court in seizing jurisdiction wrongfully for itself; and order all licenses of marriage to be sent on to Boston, to his office, until the legislature, in the fullness of time, settled its policy on marriage…. But this argument over the error of the court, or the wrongful taking of jurisdiction, does not expire on May 17. That argument is still open, which means that it could be plausible for the governor to make that move at any time. But why should he make that move when receding has now become his signature tune?
The conservative lawyers argued that new plaintiffs would form a class and seek an injunction from the court to enforce the holding in the Goodridge case. But they seemed to forget that the legislature has the authority to shape and define the power to issue injunctions.
John Haskins comments:
Exceptional conservative honesty! This reveals why we're losing. This is not only 'must reading." It's also must thinking.
All who are troubled by where America is heading MUST read Professor Arkes' NR column -- again if they have read it before. They must send this quote and the link to Arkes' article to anyone who needs to understand not only what is actually, all pretenses aside, an unconditional "pro-family" and conservative surrender of constitutional law, not only in here Massachusetts, but in case after case after case around the country. Vermont, California, New Jersey...
We are not just losing, we are surrendering. Most of our prominent "conservative" attorneys and law professors are not constitutionalists in any meaningful sense. Professor Arkes' article, now two-and-a-half years old, but still as fresh and urgent as the day he wrote it, hints at this. There are piles of irrefutable evidence to support this charge. And it indicts many of what I call "paycheck conservatives" -- including some who are running around soaking up tax-deductible donations and admiration playing the role of pro-family hero.
But many have long histories of endlessly and compulsively trying to find the middle ground and compromising the Constitution itself, while mocking and undermining behind the scenes all attorneys and pro-family leaders who try to hold the line. The result is a gradual collapse of constitutional democracy, parental rights, and the sanctity of childhood and the natural human family. In terms of jurisprudence, many of our "pro-family" lawyers and law professors are on the other side. We could name some of those directly responsible for covering up Mitt Romney's illegal imposition of homosexual marriage. The essential point is to understand that their surrender is at the spiritual and subconscious level. They believe themselves to be "pro-family", pro-constitution heroes. Their results over the years and their constant undermining of fundamental constitutional principles prove otherwise.
Professor Arkes, widely respected and head and shoulders above these other lawyers and professors as a constitutional scholar, names no names and understates his description of them in the most gentlemanly way. But read between the lines. This has been and continues to be a step-by-step surrender, negotiated case-by-case by our own "conservative" lawyers, law professors and pro-family leadership.
We can be silent no longer.
Sunday, October 29, 2006
Dangers of Undefined Term "Sexual Orientation"
We've said before that the lack of definition for the term "sexual orientation" leads us to dangerous places. Now we read in LifeSiteNews about a college course in the "Sexual Diversity Studies Program" at the University Toronoto which explores...
sadomasochism, bondage and domination as part of an “academic” approach to gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender issues.... graduating student Robbie Morgan [said,] “We’ll talk about whips and chains in a political, social, cultural, religious context of sexuality and how that sexuality affects those institutions." ... "Visiting lecturers will address technical aspects of flogging, restraint, and role-play,” the University’s website course description explains. “Students will ‘research’ questions (e.g. what constitutes coercion? Consent? Control? Submission? Can sexual practices transform our understanding of power?) by the optional performance of selected scenes.”
Sexual “diversity” has become an increasingly central emphasis of the University of Toronto’s social policy over the past decade. In 2003, then-president Robert Birgeneau wrote in the Toronto Star that the University had made “great progress” in ensuring the comfort level of “lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered or queer” students.
Here in Massachusetts, we pointed out that the New England Leather Alliance (NELA) -- whose logo is a whip -- was scheduled to march in Boston Pride last June, though our photographer didn't see them in the final line-up. Even leading hotels in Boston, such as the Sheraton and the Park Plaza Hotel, have hosted their BDSM (bondage, domination, sadism, masochism) conventions. That's because they couldn't discriminate on the basis of "sexual orientation," we assume.
The Boston Globe recently reported on their upcoming BDSM convention having to move: "Adult event hits the road in permit flap." So this January, the BDSM Convention will be in Danvers at the Sheraton Ferncroft Resort. In 2005, the Boston Herald thought it was OK to report on their “Fetish Fair” event at the Boston Center for the Arts in 2005: "Leather abounded, of course, but plenty of other kinks were on display: latex, saddles, corsets, paddles, whips, adult diapers, S&M videos and several women and men dressed as women being led around the market in chains.” (8-7-05)
Believe it or not, NELA is a 501(c)3 organization and has given "charitable donations" to "Masters and Slaves Together," the Boston Dyke March, and the National Coalition for Sexual Freedom.
Accept all of this, or you're guilty of unlawful discrimination on the basis of "sexual orientation."
sadomasochism, bondage and domination as part of an “academic” approach to gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender issues.... graduating student Robbie Morgan [said,] “We’ll talk about whips and chains in a political, social, cultural, religious context of sexuality and how that sexuality affects those institutions." ... "Visiting lecturers will address technical aspects of flogging, restraint, and role-play,” the University’s website course description explains. “Students will ‘research’ questions (e.g. what constitutes coercion? Consent? Control? Submission? Can sexual practices transform our understanding of power?) by the optional performance of selected scenes.”
Sexual “diversity” has become an increasingly central emphasis of the University of Toronto’s social policy over the past decade. In 2003, then-president Robert Birgeneau wrote in the Toronto Star that the University had made “great progress” in ensuring the comfort level of “lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered or queer” students.
Here in Massachusetts, we pointed out that the New England Leather Alliance (NELA) -- whose logo is a whip -- was scheduled to march in Boston Pride last June, though our photographer didn't see them in the final line-up. Even leading hotels in Boston, such as the Sheraton and the Park Plaza Hotel, have hosted their BDSM (bondage, domination, sadism, masochism) conventions. That's because they couldn't discriminate on the basis of "sexual orientation," we assume.
The Boston Globe recently reported on their upcoming BDSM convention having to move: "Adult event hits the road in permit flap." So this January, the BDSM Convention will be in Danvers at the Sheraton Ferncroft Resort. In 2005, the Boston Herald thought it was OK to report on their “Fetish Fair” event at the Boston Center for the Arts in 2005: "Leather abounded, of course, but plenty of other kinks were on display: latex, saddles, corsets, paddles, whips, adult diapers, S&M videos and several women and men dressed as women being led around the market in chains.” (8-7-05)
Believe it or not, NELA is a 501(c)3 organization and has given "charitable donations" to "Masters and Slaves Together," the Boston Dyke March, and the National Coalition for Sexual Freedom.
Accept all of this, or you're guilty of unlawful discrimination on the basis of "sexual orientation."
Friday, October 27, 2006
Margaret Marshall's Ethical Violations Covered Up by Boston Globe
Chief Justice Margaret Marshall was keynote speaker at the Mass. Lesbian & Gay Bar Association fundraising dinner in 1999,
where she advocated for extension of homosexual "rights."
Back in April 2004, the Boston Globe refused to report MassResistance/Article 8 Alliance's revelation at a State House press conference that Chief Justice Margaret Marshall had uniquely violated the Code of Judicial Conduct in her open advocacy for extension of homosexual "rights," and should be removed from office on that basis alone. Marshall appeared as keynote speaker (not allowed for judges) at the Mass. Lesbian & Gay Bar Association fundraiser in 1999, and later ruled on the same-sex marriage case where she had a clear, publicly expressed bias. A Globe reporter was at our April 2004 press conference, but no story ever ran in the Globe, the Herald, or on the TV stations also present.
But today, the Globe ran an AP story which is much less significant, "Judge defends attendance at '02 lesbian rite" ["lesbian rite"?!], on Sen. Brownback of Kansas blocking a federal judicial nominee's appointment. At issue is the nominee's attendance in 2002 at a "lesbian commitment ceremony" of a friend in Massachusetts.
While we think that Sen. Brownback is right to question how the nominee's attendance at that event "might shape her judicial views," we also know the Globe's intention is to discredit Brownback. But clearly, Marshall's unquestionable ethics violation was, and still is, a bigger story. It's never too late for the Globe to address this issue.
Thursday, October 26, 2006
What's a Parent To Do? Exit the Public Schools?
John Haskins comments on this piece in WorldNetDaily,
"Baptist 'exit strategy' means get kids out of public schools; Groundswell of support building in 16 million member group for homeschooling" (10-20-06) :
It is one of the most tragic and far-reaching failures of the Family Research Council/Alliance Defense Fund/Massachusetts Family Institute - type "conservatism" in America that they have totally failed to acknowledge the desperate need to pressure politicians intensely for a fundamental change in our education system so that "vouchers" or somesuch thing will allow all parents to find the private (or public) school that best suits their own children.
On issue after issue, it takes twenty or thirty years for pro-family leaders to see that we are actually heading where groups like MassResistance are telling them we are heading. There are many who have concluded that the pro-family leaders at the state and national level, in their blind addiction to moderate, non-controversial "solutions," have waited too long and it is simply too late to save America for our children.
I am of the firm opinion that we must roughly push aside those "pro-family leaders" who have lured us down the path of surrender with false assurances and have played on our deep desire to see things as less dangerous than they are. The only alternative will be continued acquiescence to the tightening fist of tyranny. I understand that most pro-family people sitting at home watching the boob tube are not yet ready to open their eyes and see where this is leading. But more and more people seem to be getting angry as they realize what kind of people have been responsible for the total strategic incompetence of the pro-family and conservative leadership.
It is a major, long-term success -- partly due to the work of the the former Parents' Rights Coalition (now MassResistance) -- that the Southern Baptists and many others are finally understanding that schools are intent on destroying the moral character of our children. But they and other "pro-family conservatives" have wasted precious years debating this issue and trusting in George Bush, political "messiah for hire," and his party.
MassResistance comments on the idea of "exiting" the public schools:
We're very frustrated by the call to home school. Been there, done that. It's not the solution for most people. Kids are miserable, mother is not as happy as she pretends, etc. We suspect most of the articles pushing home schooling are written by the fathers who aren't stuck in the home, doing the "schooling"!
And why do people with traditional values have to be punished by this level of sacrifice (and we're speaking just as much of the hardship on the children as the parents!). We pay taxes too, and we deserve schooling benefits. Why throw in the towel and let the leftists totally control government-funded education? Why give them that victory?
We believe that new private schools -- whether religious or secular -- are the answer, and vouchers play an important role in making these happen. Sadly, we're almost all trapped in the public schools for the time being, but need to be working for the next generation's children: the little ones, born or not yet born; neighbors, great-nephews, granddaughters ...
"Baptist 'exit strategy' means get kids out of public schools; Groundswell of support building in 16 million member group for homeschooling" (10-20-06) :
It is one of the most tragic and far-reaching failures of the Family Research Council/Alliance Defense Fund/Massachusetts Family Institute - type "conservatism" in America that they have totally failed to acknowledge the desperate need to pressure politicians intensely for a fundamental change in our education system so that "vouchers" or somesuch thing will allow all parents to find the private (or public) school that best suits their own children.
On issue after issue, it takes twenty or thirty years for pro-family leaders to see that we are actually heading where groups like MassResistance are telling them we are heading. There are many who have concluded that the pro-family leaders at the state and national level, in their blind addiction to moderate, non-controversial "solutions," have waited too long and it is simply too late to save America for our children.
I am of the firm opinion that we must roughly push aside those "pro-family leaders" who have lured us down the path of surrender with false assurances and have played on our deep desire to see things as less dangerous than they are. The only alternative will be continued acquiescence to the tightening fist of tyranny. I understand that most pro-family people sitting at home watching the boob tube are not yet ready to open their eyes and see where this is leading. But more and more people seem to be getting angry as they realize what kind of people have been responsible for the total strategic incompetence of the pro-family and conservative leadership.
It is a major, long-term success -- partly due to the work of the the former Parents' Rights Coalition (now MassResistance) -- that the Southern Baptists and many others are finally understanding that schools are intent on destroying the moral character of our children. But they and other "pro-family conservatives" have wasted precious years debating this issue and trusting in George Bush, political "messiah for hire," and his party.
MassResistance comments on the idea of "exiting" the public schools:
We're very frustrated by the call to home school. Been there, done that. It's not the solution for most people. Kids are miserable, mother is not as happy as she pretends, etc. We suspect most of the articles pushing home schooling are written by the fathers who aren't stuck in the home, doing the "schooling"!
And why do people with traditional values have to be punished by this level of sacrifice (and we're speaking just as much of the hardship on the children as the parents!). We pay taxes too, and we deserve schooling benefits. Why throw in the towel and let the leftists totally control government-funded education? Why give them that victory?
We believe that new private schools -- whether religious or secular -- are the answer, and vouchers play an important role in making these happen. Sadly, we're almost all trapped in the public schools for the time being, but need to be working for the next generation's children: the little ones, born or not yet born; neighbors, great-nephews, granddaughters ...
Wednesday, October 25, 2006
New Jersey Marriage Ruling: 180 Days...till WHAT?
TRENTON, N.J. - Oct. 25, 2006 (AP)
New Jersey's Supreme Court opened the door to gay marriage Wednesday, ruling that homosexuals are entitled to the same rights as heterosexuals, but leaving it to lawmakers to legalize same-sex unions. The high court gave lawmakers 180 days to rewrite marriage laws to either include same-sex couples or create a new system of civil unions for them.
Or else ... what ?? Will the justices throw a hissy fit? Or will some weenie governor tell his Dept. of Public Health to print new Party A/Party B/Party C (so they don't have to bother reprinting them in a few years) marriage licenses? The old "180 days trick" worked in Massachusetts; maybe it will work in New Jersey.
Garden State Equality, New Jersey's main gay and lesbian political organization quickly announced Wednesday that three lawmakers would introduce a bill in the Legislature to get full marriage rights to same-sex couples.
Apparently, New Jersey homosexual activists are openly admitting they need to get a bill passed by the legislature. In Massachusetts, that still hasn't happened, though there were bills filed this past session which were not acted on (H977/S967). So, as we've been pointing out for over two years, same-sex "marriage" is still not legal in Massachusetts. And the GLBT leadership is hoping no one will notice.
New Jersey's Supreme Court opened the door to gay marriage Wednesday, ruling that homosexuals are entitled to the same rights as heterosexuals, but leaving it to lawmakers to legalize same-sex unions. The high court gave lawmakers 180 days to rewrite marriage laws to either include same-sex couples or create a new system of civil unions for them.
Or else ... what ?? Will the justices throw a hissy fit? Or will some weenie governor tell his Dept. of Public Health to print new Party A/Party B/Party C (so they don't have to bother reprinting them in a few years) marriage licenses? The old "180 days trick" worked in Massachusetts; maybe it will work in New Jersey.
Garden State Equality, New Jersey's main gay and lesbian political organization quickly announced Wednesday that three lawmakers would introduce a bill in the Legislature to get full marriage rights to same-sex couples.
Apparently, New Jersey homosexual activists are openly admitting they need to get a bill passed by the legislature. In Massachusetts, that still hasn't happened, though there were bills filed this past session which were not acted on (H977/S967). So, as we've been pointing out for over two years, same-sex "marriage" is still not legal in Massachusetts. And the GLBT leadership is hoping no one will notice.
TransWorcester
This weekend, Oct. 27-29, Worcester’s DCU Center "will host a gathering of transsexuals, bisexuals, genderqueers, intersexuals, polysexuals, transgenders and others for the fifth Transcending Boundaries conference." Their website says, "We'll take over DCU Center to foster community, educate ourselves, and overcome societal sex, gender, and sexuality boundaries!" Also participating in the conference is PFLAG, which along with GLSEN and Planned Parenthood, has hopped on the trans bandwagon and is actively pushing all things trans in the public square and public schools. Sponsors include the YWCA of Central Mass. the Worcester Hilton Garden Hotel, AIDS Project Worcester, and Planned Parenthood of Connecticut (the group that gave the "trans" workshop at the GLSEN Boston conference last year).
PFLAG is "Parents, Friends, Families of Lesbians and Gays" ... and Bisexuals and Transgenders and genderqueers and intersexuals and polysexuals and ... Someone pointed out that these are really parents and families who are wondering where they went wrong, but burying their unease, sorrow, and/or guilt by "celebrating diversity".
Everywhere we go we're having "trans" madness forced on us. Men dressed as women invading women's restrooms. That absurd movie Transamerica. (No, we have no plans to see it.) The transgender "anti-bullying curriculum" about to go into all our middle schools. Little children coming to school dressed as the opposite sex. Workers "transitioning" on the job -- even teachers at schools, with no opt-out for their young students. The pro-GLBT "Human Rights Campaign" giving its 100% rating only to companies that offer "health" benefits to "transitioning" employees.
Once you allow homosexuality and bisexuality to go mainstream, how can you not allow transsexuality? If there's no "normal" any more, who's to object? One strategy seems to be to de-sensitize people to transgenderism/transsexuality, so "straightforward" homosexuality will seem downright tame. Of course, this will be considered transphobic hate speech in just a few years -- but for now, we can still ask: What on earth is the Worcester DCU Center thinking? (Ask them: 508-755-6800.)
Bay Windows has been hyping this event for some time now:
"She’s all here" (Bay Windows, 10-19-06):
Don’t fit into the mainstream LGBT mold? Not to worry. Later this month, from Oct. 27-29, Worcester’s DCU Center will host a gathering of transsexuals, bisexuals, genderqueers, intersexuals, polysexuals, transgenders and others for the fifth Transcending Boundaries conference. The event is geared toward bringing together people who are often considered on the margins of the LGBT community. The event will feature workshops, speakers and entertainment, including a Halloween party, and in a first for the event, the conference has merged with the Northeast regional conference for Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG).
PFLAG is "Parents, Friends, Families of Lesbians and Gays" ... and Bisexuals and Transgenders and genderqueers and intersexuals and polysexuals and ... Someone pointed out that these are really parents and families who are wondering where they went wrong, but burying their unease, sorrow, and/or guilt by "celebrating diversity".
Everywhere we go we're having "trans" madness forced on us. Men dressed as women invading women's restrooms. That absurd movie Transamerica. (No, we have no plans to see it.) The transgender "anti-bullying curriculum" about to go into all our middle schools. Little children coming to school dressed as the opposite sex. Workers "transitioning" on the job -- even teachers at schools, with no opt-out for their young students. The pro-GLBT "Human Rights Campaign" giving its 100% rating only to companies that offer "health" benefits to "transitioning" employees.
Once you allow homosexuality and bisexuality to go mainstream, how can you not allow transsexuality? If there's no "normal" any more, who's to object? One strategy seems to be to de-sensitize people to transgenderism/transsexuality, so "straightforward" homosexuality will seem downright tame. Of course, this will be considered transphobic hate speech in just a few years -- but for now, we can still ask: What on earth is the Worcester DCU Center thinking? (Ask them: 508-755-6800.)
Bay Windows has been hyping this event for some time now:
"She’s all here" (Bay Windows, 10-19-06):
Don’t fit into the mainstream LGBT mold? Not to worry. Later this month, from Oct. 27-29, Worcester’s DCU Center will host a gathering of transsexuals, bisexuals, genderqueers, intersexuals, polysexuals, transgenders and others for the fifth Transcending Boundaries conference. The event is geared toward bringing together people who are often considered on the margins of the LGBT community. The event will feature workshops, speakers and entertainment, including a Halloween party, and in a first for the event, the conference has merged with the Northeast regional conference for Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG).
Sunday, October 22, 2006
BAGLY & Our Children: Dangerous Liaisons
Photos: Halloween partygoers at Gay Men's Domestic Violence Project (from their web site).
BAGLY, the "Boston Alliance of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Youth," is a member of the new Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth, and a favorite resource for gay/straight alliance high school clubs.
BAGLY's resource page has changed recently. If anything, the danger BAGLY poses for our children is now even clearer. There are links to groups focusing on GLBT "domestic violence," including the Gay Men's Domestic Violence Project, where kids can learn about their Halloween Party (photos above). Then there are the links to the "gay" newspapers, where kids can surf on sex orgies around the world (called "circuit parties"). Now would this information "prevent suicide" or contribute to suicide in troubled youth?
After we drew attention to BAGLY's link to to the Transgendercare.com web site (with sex change information and links to perverted personal web pages), BAGLY took it down. (Apparently the weirdness of that site was just too obvious.) Now BAGLY refers "youth" to all the sites below. What do links on abuse, violence, disease, suicide tell you about the GLBT "lifestyle" they are leading our children into? Why does our state government support this BAGLY, and recommend it to teens around the state?
[BAGLY's Resource Page:]
Local LGBT News & Community Guides
Bay Windows
InNewsWeekly
EdgeBoston
Legal & Support Resources
Know Your Rights as a Youth: LAMDA Legal provides an online resource. You'll learn how to form a Gay Straight Alliance at your school. What to do if you are harassed. And more!
GLSEN: Making Schools Safer
GLAD: (617.426.1350) This law firm offers legal guidance for LGBT related issues.
Crisis Support & Hotlines
Rape Crisis Services (1-800-542-5212)
LGBT HelpLine (1-888-340-4528): Get referrals to the services you need. Healthcare, Housing, Violence Recovery, HIV/AIDS, etc.
Peer Listening Line (1-800-399-PEER): Need someone to talk to?
Network LA RED: Domestic violence resources for lesbian and bisexual women and transgendered people.
Gay Men's Domestic Violence Project
Health Care
Sidney Borum Jr. Health Center offers free and anonymous HIV testing, Hep C and other STD screenings, mental health counseling. Trans friendly. Free services available for people without healthcare. 617.457.8140
Fenway Community Health Center offers health care for the LGBT community.
No STD Testing for "Gay" Men "Marrying" with Skyrocketing HIV Rates
Let's see. No more blood tests for STDs are required before getting married in Massachusetts...
Meanwhile, The Advocate (a national homosexual magazine) reported on anticipated skyrocketing HIV rates among homosexual males as they age over the next decade: 1 in 4 homosexuals now 20 years old are expected to be HIV-positive by age 30 (though only about half of that group are HIV+ now). "Prevention" is mentioned as the pressing need, but not discussed. (The blog comments on QueerToday are enlightening; see below.)
From The Advocate:
Study: Succeeding generations of gays will have higher HIV rates
According to the results of a new study released at the international AIDS conference in Toronto on Thursday, HIV prevalence is set to skyrocket among Western gay men as they age. The University of Pittsburgh report, a review of papers published in journals, indicates that the number of new cases of HIV has been rising by about 1.9% each year since 2001, which means that as gay men as a group get older, more and more of them will become HIV-positive, Agence-France Presse reports."Ongoing incidence rates at this level will yield very high HIV prevalence rates within each generation of gay men," University of Pittsburgh researcher Ron Stall told AFP.
Although only one in 12 gay men at age 20 were infected with HIV in North America and Europe in 2001, Stall and other researchers project that the rate could rise to one in four by the time they turn 30. At age 60, the projections suggest that 58% of the men could be infected.
The numbers are more dire for gay men of color: 4% of them between the ages of 15 and 22 are currently infected, while 15% between the ages of 23 and 29 are infected. At an average annual rate of increase in new infections of 4%, three quarters of black gay men in the latter age category will be infected with HIV at age 50. "It's not a new story; it has been repeated time and again in the literature in the past...an almost unbelievable incidence rate," Stall said to AFP. "African-American men who have sex with men suffer among the highest HIV prevalence rates of any risk group in the world."
The report's findings only underscore the need for better ways of preventing HIV infection, instead of just treating its effects. "HIV is still an incurable disease," Ronald Valdiserri, deputy director of the National Center for HIV at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, told AFP. "In the United States, 5% [of the budget for HIV] is spent on prevention." He added: "America is more interested on treating this disease than preventing it. We can't treat our way out of this epidemic, even as a rich country."
QueerToday's comments:
In 2006, twenty-five years after the AIDS epidemic first made its appearance, I still hear things like: "Can you get it from kissing?" or "Can you get it because some cum got on my chest?" or "you look healthy so you don't have to use a condom with me." After hearing comments like these, I have to conclude that a major part of the problem is widespread mis-education.
It is often said that "this isn't the '70s" and so we have to just accept that the sexual landscape has changed. We can no longer have "carefree" sex anymore, some say. Use a condom everytime, HIV prevention specialists say. And they are right--indeed, the sexual landscape has changed and if you are going to have anal sex, USE A CONDOM.
But what HIV prevention specialists also have to take seriously is that this is also not the late '80s and early '90s. Since 1996, anti-retroviral drugs have significantly prolonged the lives of people who are HIV+. Furthermore, the antibody tests have become far more sensitive and now, with the fourth generation antibody tests you can actually know whether or not you are positive only six weeks after a risky encounter! The CDC still recommends three months, but in the state of Massachusetts, six weeks is considered definitive.
With the window period for testing getting smaller, the antiretroviral drugs getting more effective and side-effects becoming more manageable, we may be seeing more incidents of unprotected sex because people are becoming more relaxed and experimenting with new ways to keep themselves safer--e.g. serosorting. People are using "trial and error" to negotiate the changing effects of HIV. But unfortunately, with a lot of "trial" comes a lot of "error" and the rate of new infections continue to rise.
Meanwhile, The Advocate (a national homosexual magazine) reported on anticipated skyrocketing HIV rates among homosexual males as they age over the next decade: 1 in 4 homosexuals now 20 years old are expected to be HIV-positive by age 30 (though only about half of that group are HIV+ now). "Prevention" is mentioned as the pressing need, but not discussed. (The blog comments on QueerToday are enlightening; see below.)
From The Advocate:
Study: Succeeding generations of gays will have higher HIV rates
According to the results of a new study released at the international AIDS conference in Toronto on Thursday, HIV prevalence is set to skyrocket among Western gay men as they age. The University of Pittsburgh report, a review of papers published in journals, indicates that the number of new cases of HIV has been rising by about 1.9% each year since 2001, which means that as gay men as a group get older, more and more of them will become HIV-positive, Agence-France Presse reports."Ongoing incidence rates at this level will yield very high HIV prevalence rates within each generation of gay men," University of Pittsburgh researcher Ron Stall told AFP.
Although only one in 12 gay men at age 20 were infected with HIV in North America and Europe in 2001, Stall and other researchers project that the rate could rise to one in four by the time they turn 30. At age 60, the projections suggest that 58% of the men could be infected.
The numbers are more dire for gay men of color: 4% of them between the ages of 15 and 22 are currently infected, while 15% between the ages of 23 and 29 are infected. At an average annual rate of increase in new infections of 4%, three quarters of black gay men in the latter age category will be infected with HIV at age 50. "It's not a new story; it has been repeated time and again in the literature in the past...an almost unbelievable incidence rate," Stall said to AFP. "African-American men who have sex with men suffer among the highest HIV prevalence rates of any risk group in the world."
The report's findings only underscore the need for better ways of preventing HIV infection, instead of just treating its effects. "HIV is still an incurable disease," Ronald Valdiserri, deputy director of the National Center for HIV at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, told AFP. "In the United States, 5% [of the budget for HIV] is spent on prevention." He added: "America is more interested on treating this disease than preventing it. We can't treat our way out of this epidemic, even as a rich country."
QueerToday's comments:
In 2006, twenty-five years after the AIDS epidemic first made its appearance, I still hear things like: "Can you get it from kissing?" or "Can you get it because some cum got on my chest?" or "you look healthy so you don't have to use a condom with me." After hearing comments like these, I have to conclude that a major part of the problem is widespread mis-education.
It is often said that "this isn't the '70s" and so we have to just accept that the sexual landscape has changed. We can no longer have "carefree" sex anymore, some say. Use a condom everytime, HIV prevention specialists say. And they are right--indeed, the sexual landscape has changed and if you are going to have anal sex, USE A CONDOM.
But what HIV prevention specialists also have to take seriously is that this is also not the late '80s and early '90s. Since 1996, anti-retroviral drugs have significantly prolonged the lives of people who are HIV+. Furthermore, the antibody tests have become far more sensitive and now, with the fourth generation antibody tests you can actually know whether or not you are positive only six weeks after a risky encounter! The CDC still recommends three months, but in the state of Massachusetts, six weeks is considered definitive.
With the window period for testing getting smaller, the antiretroviral drugs getting more effective and side-effects becoming more manageable, we may be seeing more incidents of unprotected sex because people are becoming more relaxed and experimenting with new ways to keep themselves safer--e.g. serosorting. People are using "trial and error" to negotiate the changing effects of HIV. But unfortunately, with a lot of "trial" comes a lot of "error" and the rate of new infections continue to rise.
Saturday, October 21, 2006
Bettnet.com discussion: Romney Started Same-Sex Marriage
There's a good discussion going on Bettnet.com about Romney's unconstitutional actions which began the fraudulent same-sex "marriages" in Massachusetts. (See MassResistance for more on this.) Check out Bettnet.com. Here's just a small excerpt (from 10/20/06):
Robert,
One simple question, since you are telling us who support the [VoteOnMarriage] amendment that it is unnecessary. Who is going to rule on your case? - Sean
Robert Paine, Esq. replies:
Honest judges and if they are not honest or they are biased, we need to have the intestinal fortitude to use the other parts of the Mass Constitution which foresaw such illegal conduct and remove any public official who is unfit for office. Let’s say the SJC wants to involve itself in a cause concerning marriage. Let’s not acquiesce in their blatant violation of the plain words of the constitution: Article V. All causes of marriage, divorce, and alimony, and all appeals from the judges of probate shall be heard and determined by the governor and council, until the legislature shall, by law, make other provision.
The SJC therefore has no subject matter jurisdiction over that cause of action and thus has no legal authority to decide anything regarding that case.
Let’s say that Judge Margaret Marshall wants to sit on a case regarding same-sex “rights.” Her previous decision to engage in that battle as a partisan (accepting awards from the GLBT legal community), makes her unfit to be an unbiased judge on that case. She should have the honesty to recuse herself. We should have the courage to call her on her dishonesty if she does not willingly recuse herself.
It is fine for her to hold whatever beliefs she holds. It is not fine to claim to be unbiased when the overwhelming evidence is that she is very biased on this issue.
Let’s say the Governor had not been ordered by the SJC to do anything regarding marriage licenses. Let’s say he swore to uphold the Constitution and laws of Massachusetts. Lets say the marriage law does not permit same-sex marriage (read Goodridge). Let’s say that the SJC never struck the marriage law and thus it continues to prohibit same-sex “marriage.” Lets say that the Constitution explicitly says that the citizens of the Commonwealth are bound by no law other than one passed by the legislature. Lets say that the legislature never changed the marriage law. Let’s say that neither the SJC nor the legislature could change the meaning of the word marriage by statute or fiat because that word exists in the Constitution and only the citizens of the Commonwealth have the legal authority to amend (change the meaning of) the Constitution through constitutional amendment procedures well laid out in the constitution. Lets say that despite all of this Governor Romney took it upon himself to violate the marriage statute which does not permit same-sex marriage by ordering town clerks and JP’s to violate the marriage statute and certify and solemnize marriages not permitted by the statute. What would you do?
No . . . it is actually a null and void act because it was done without authority AND additionally it is an impeachable act.
It is unacceptable to permit all three branches of government to ignore the plain meaning of the words in the Constitution.
Sean is there any case in which you could imagine where the actions of either the Judiciary, the Governor, or the Legislature are without actual legal authority? If so, what would you do in that situation? Simply accept it and move on? Hope it doesn’t happen again? What is the remedy? What is your solution. Like it or not that is the situation we are in right now and it is frightening.
The practical reason why the judges who will “hear our case” have the nerve to blatantly outright violate the constitution is because they know that most people are like you sean; too afraid to stand up and defend themselves.
-Robert Paine, Esq.
Robert,
One simple question, since you are telling us who support the [VoteOnMarriage] amendment that it is unnecessary. Who is going to rule on your case? - Sean
Robert Paine, Esq. replies:
Honest judges and if they are not honest or they are biased, we need to have the intestinal fortitude to use the other parts of the Mass Constitution which foresaw such illegal conduct and remove any public official who is unfit for office. Let’s say the SJC wants to involve itself in a cause concerning marriage. Let’s not acquiesce in their blatant violation of the plain words of the constitution: Article V. All causes of marriage, divorce, and alimony, and all appeals from the judges of probate shall be heard and determined by the governor and council, until the legislature shall, by law, make other provision.
The SJC therefore has no subject matter jurisdiction over that cause of action and thus has no legal authority to decide anything regarding that case.
Let’s say that Judge Margaret Marshall wants to sit on a case regarding same-sex “rights.” Her previous decision to engage in that battle as a partisan (accepting awards from the GLBT legal community), makes her unfit to be an unbiased judge on that case. She should have the honesty to recuse herself. We should have the courage to call her on her dishonesty if she does not willingly recuse herself.
It is fine for her to hold whatever beliefs she holds. It is not fine to claim to be unbiased when the overwhelming evidence is that she is very biased on this issue.
Let’s say the Governor had not been ordered by the SJC to do anything regarding marriage licenses. Let’s say he swore to uphold the Constitution and laws of Massachusetts. Lets say the marriage law does not permit same-sex marriage (read Goodridge). Let’s say that the SJC never struck the marriage law and thus it continues to prohibit same-sex “marriage.” Lets say that the Constitution explicitly says that the citizens of the Commonwealth are bound by no law other than one passed by the legislature. Lets say that the legislature never changed the marriage law. Let’s say that neither the SJC nor the legislature could change the meaning of the word marriage by statute or fiat because that word exists in the Constitution and only the citizens of the Commonwealth have the legal authority to amend (change the meaning of) the Constitution through constitutional amendment procedures well laid out in the constitution. Lets say that despite all of this Governor Romney took it upon himself to violate the marriage statute which does not permit same-sex marriage by ordering town clerks and JP’s to violate the marriage statute and certify and solemnize marriages not permitted by the statute. What would you do?
No . . . it is actually a null and void act because it was done without authority AND additionally it is an impeachable act.
It is unacceptable to permit all three branches of government to ignore the plain meaning of the words in the Constitution.
Sean is there any case in which you could imagine where the actions of either the Judiciary, the Governor, or the Legislature are without actual legal authority? If so, what would you do in that situation? Simply accept it and move on? Hope it doesn’t happen again? What is the remedy? What is your solution. Like it or not that is the situation we are in right now and it is frightening.
The practical reason why the judges who will “hear our case” have the nerve to blatantly outright violate the constitution is because they know that most people are like you sean; too afraid to stand up and defend themselves.
-Robert Paine, Esq.
Friday, October 20, 2006
Good News: Boston Globe In a Nosedive
The Wall Street Journal story on the Boston Globe's nosedive made us happy. ("Boston Globe Doesn't Deliver For the Times," 10-19-06.) The Globe will experience "its first unprofitable year in recent history." Circulation has fallen in recent years, due primarily to "digital migration" given that "Boston has the third highest penetration of broadband of any city in the United States." Advertising revenue has dropped dramatically. Since the the New York Times acquired the Globe in 1993, the Sunday Globe's circulation has dropped 25%, from 800,000 to 611,000.We're sure that's all true. But we also happen to know what people are saying on the ground. Of course everyone's turning to the Internet for news. But one reason for that is that they're SICK of the managed news (a.k.a. propaganda) that the Globe provides.
You can't even open up the Globe's Sunday Magazine any more without gagging on some whiny male "wife" going on about his "husband's" driving. Or the real estate section featuring huge photos of a butchy tattooed lesbian putting up dry wall in her and her "wife's" new home. People can only take so much of this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)