Ron Crews, former president of the Mass. Family Institute, called on Gov. Romney back in early 2004 to issue an Executive Order to block illegal homosexual "marriages". Few seem to recall this now, but Crews was advocating for a forceful reminder from the Governor that since there was no new law passed to establish homosexual "marriage", nothing would be changing on May 17, 2004. (And no such law has been passed since!) So Romney could have -- and should have -- made it clear, through Executive Order, that we must all follow the law on the books, and not allow phony "homosexual marriages" to commence.
Has Mass. Family Institute changed its mind? Do they now think these phony "marriages" are legal? Or -- because Romney failed to enforce the law in 2004 -- that they magically became "legal" marriages?
Ron Crews said:
3-9-04: One alternative, he said, is to convince Gov. Mitt Romney to issue an executive order to city and town clerks halting the issuance of marriage license to same-sex couples... [Patriot Ledger]
4-11-04: "We're still hopeful Romney is going to act in what we believe to be his full constitutional authority, to delay and/or prevent the implementation of the Supreme Judicial Court decision" granting marriage licenses, said Ronald A. Crews… For Romney, the options for holding off the May 17 change might include issuing an executive order ... [Boston Globe]
4-12-04: "It is our hope that the governor will use his full authority as the chief executive to delay the implementation of the SJC decision. We believe he has constitutional authority to act," Crews said, saying one of the options was to issue an executive order. [Boston Globe]
Wednesday, November 29, 2006
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
Officials Who Violate Their Oath of Office Are Guilty of a Crime
By John Haskins
Under the Massachusetts Constitution, any public official who swears the oath of office and then willingly violates that oath it is subject to the criminal penalties of perjury -- a felony. That includes Governor Mitt Romney, much of the legislature, at least four judges on the Supreme Judicial Court, as well as Attorney General Tom Reilly, who has a duty to file criminal perjury charges against those now violating the Massachusetts oath of office. In an era of bolder citizenship and stronger, more serious Christianity, they would be subjected to citizen's arrest by a great troop of armed Massachusetts citizens, and they would be convicted and imprisoned for what they are now doing.
Obviously, the Massachusetts Constitution is not discriminating in the below article against Quakers by holding them to a higher legal standard or subjecting them to more severe criminal punishment for the same act. Therefore the meaning is plain and inescapable: Failure to "bear true faith and allegiance to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts" and to "support the constitution thereof" is a crime.
Article VI. Instead of the oath of allegiance prescribed by the constitution, the following oath shall be taken and subscribed by every person chosen or appointed to any office, civil or military under the government of this commonwealth, before he shall enter on the duties of his office, to wit:
"I, A. B., do solemnly swear, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts , and will support the constitution thereof. So help me God."
Provided, That when any person shall be of the denomination called Quakers, and shall decline taking said oath, he shall make his affirmation in the foregoing form, omitting the word "swear" and inserting instead thereof the word "affirm;" and omitting the words "So help me God," and subjoining, instead thereof, the words "This I do under the pains and penalties of perjury." [see Constitution, chapter VI, Art. I].
Article VII. No oath, declaration or subscription, excepting the oath prescribed in the preceding article and the oath of office shall be required of the governor, lieutenant governor, councilors, senators or representatives, to qualify them to perform the duties of their respective offices.
Under the Massachusetts Constitution, any public official who swears the oath of office and then willingly violates that oath it is subject to the criminal penalties of perjury -- a felony. That includes Governor Mitt Romney, much of the legislature, at least four judges on the Supreme Judicial Court, as well as Attorney General Tom Reilly, who has a duty to file criminal perjury charges against those now violating the Massachusetts oath of office. In an era of bolder citizenship and stronger, more serious Christianity, they would be subjected to citizen's arrest by a great troop of armed Massachusetts citizens, and they would be convicted and imprisoned for what they are now doing.
Obviously, the Massachusetts Constitution is not discriminating in the below article against Quakers by holding them to a higher legal standard or subjecting them to more severe criminal punishment for the same act. Therefore the meaning is plain and inescapable: Failure to "bear true faith and allegiance to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts" and to "support the constitution thereof" is a crime.
Article VI. Instead of the oath of allegiance prescribed by the constitution, the following oath shall be taken and subscribed by every person chosen or appointed to any office, civil or military under the government of this commonwealth, before he shall enter on the duties of his office, to wit:
"I, A. B., do solemnly swear, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts , and will support the constitution thereof. So help me God."
Provided, That when any person shall be of the denomination called Quakers, and shall decline taking said oath, he shall make his affirmation in the foregoing form, omitting the word "swear" and inserting instead thereof the word "affirm;" and omitting the words "So help me God," and subjoining, instead thereof, the words "This I do under the pains and penalties of perjury." [see Constitution, chapter VI, Art. I].
Article VII. No oath, declaration or subscription, excepting the oath prescribed in the preceding article and the oath of office shall be required of the governor, lieutenant governor, councilors, senators or representatives, to qualify them to perform the duties of their respective offices.
Monday, November 27, 2006
Alaska Legislature Exposes Romney's Dishonesty in Implementing "Gay Marriage"
The Alaska legislature just voted to ignore a court order to implement "domestic partnership" benefits for state employees. Their action exposes Mitt Romney's dishonesty claiming he had to implement the SJC's "gay marriage" ruling here! So why are the Massachusetts Family Institute and their "pro-family, conservative" legal experts still covering up for Romney?
(See "Senate passes same sex legislation and adjourns." And note the misleading headline! You'd think they were reporting on a victory for "same-sex rights".)
This Alaska story has received little play in the mainstream media. After all, who wants to hear about constitutions upheld, and judicial tyranny restrained? Our legislators should follow the example of their compatriots in Alaska, and read anad follow their own state constitution! Our associate John Haskins writes:
This story totally debunks the mythical "authority" of the Goodridge ruling that Romney has brilliantly used to implement the anti-family agenda he has had his entire career -- since long before he tried to banish the Boy Scouts from the Olympics for not accepting homosexual scoutmasters.
It is not possible that Alaska's constitution is any more clear than Massachusetts' in denying judges any power to tell the legislature or the governor what to do. Every supposedly "pro-family conservative" lawyer and law professor or pundit who has swallowed Mitt Romney's absurd story now has to explain this case. Are the Alaska legislators lawbreakers -- or is Mitt Romney? Our Governor violated his oath of office and ordered public officials to ignore the marriage statute, and instead to act on the wishes of the judges without even waiting for the Legislature to legalize homosexual "marriage" (as the judges themselves said would be necessary).
Reality checks like this story are reaching more and more people around the country. The cover-up of Mitt Romney -- and of the illegality of his homosexual marriage licenses - by lawyers, law professors and groups billing themselves as "pro-family conservatives" is failing.
From the Anchorage Daily News (AP), 11-20-06:
The state Senate Monday joined the state House in defying a court order to provide health insurance for gay partners of state employees. Senators voted 11-6 to pass a bill that prohibits the state's commissioner of administration from implementing regulations that would set up a benefits plan for gay couples.
They also voted 12-5 in favor of an advisory vote on the ballot next spring that would ask voters if a constitutional amendment to overturn the order-ordered [sic] benefits should be placed on the 2008 ballot.
Majority Republicans said lawmakers should decide questions regarding benefits for state employees. Minority Democrats said the bills do nothing but set up an unnecessary fight between the Legislature and the courts.
© Copyright 2006, The Anchorage Daily News
(See "Senate passes same sex legislation and adjourns." And note the misleading headline! You'd think they were reporting on a victory for "same-sex rights".)
This Alaska story has received little play in the mainstream media. After all, who wants to hear about constitutions upheld, and judicial tyranny restrained? Our legislators should follow the example of their compatriots in Alaska, and read anad follow their own state constitution! Our associate John Haskins writes:
This story totally debunks the mythical "authority" of the Goodridge ruling that Romney has brilliantly used to implement the anti-family agenda he has had his entire career -- since long before he tried to banish the Boy Scouts from the Olympics for not accepting homosexual scoutmasters.
It is not possible that Alaska's constitution is any more clear than Massachusetts' in denying judges any power to tell the legislature or the governor what to do. Every supposedly "pro-family conservative" lawyer and law professor or pundit who has swallowed Mitt Romney's absurd story now has to explain this case. Are the Alaska legislators lawbreakers -- or is Mitt Romney? Our Governor violated his oath of office and ordered public officials to ignore the marriage statute, and instead to act on the wishes of the judges without even waiting for the Legislature to legalize homosexual "marriage" (as the judges themselves said would be necessary).
Reality checks like this story are reaching more and more people around the country. The cover-up of Mitt Romney -- and of the illegality of his homosexual marriage licenses - by lawyers, law professors and groups billing themselves as "pro-family conservatives" is failing.
From the Anchorage Daily News (AP), 11-20-06:
The state Senate Monday joined the state House in defying a court order to provide health insurance for gay partners of state employees. Senators voted 11-6 to pass a bill that prohibits the state's commissioner of administration from implementing regulations that would set up a benefits plan for gay couples.
They also voted 12-5 in favor of an advisory vote on the ballot next spring that would ask voters if a constitutional amendment to overturn the order-ordered [sic] benefits should be placed on the 2008 ballot.
Majority Republicans said lawmakers should decide questions regarding benefits for state employees. Minority Democrats said the bills do nothing but set up an unnecessary fight between the Legislature and the courts.
© Copyright 2006, The Anchorage Daily News
Thursday, November 23, 2006
Gov. Mitt Romney & Same-Sex "Marriage" Timeline
©2006 MassResistance (11-23-06)
Mitt Romney demonstrates his commitment to homosexual "rights" before becoming Governor of Massachusetts in January 2003:
o 1994 Campaign vs. Ted Kennedy for U.S. Senate: Romney pledged he “will provide more effective leadership” than Kennedy on homosexual rights; endorsed by Log Cabin Republicans.
o 2000-2002: As head of Salt Lake City Olympic Committee, Romney banned Boy Scouts from participating.
o 2001 Called first citizens' petition to define marriage “too extreme” and “bigoted” because it banned civil unions.
o 2002 campaign for Governor: Romney makes promises to GLBT community, according to leading Boston homosexual newspaper; endorsed by homosexual activist Log Cabin Republicans.
o Nov. 18, 2003 Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) rules that same-sex marriage is protected in the Mass. Constitution, and gives the Legislature 180 days to act (“Goodridge” ruling).
o Nov. 18, 2003 Romney responds to SJC ruling with four-sentence statement implicitly recognizing SJC’s authority, says only remedy will be a constitutional amendment: “I disagree with the Supreme Judicial Court. Marriage is an institution between a man and a woman. I will support an amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution to make that expressly clear. Of course, we must provide basic civil rights and appropriate benefits to nontraditional couples, but marriage is a special institution that should be reserved for a man and a woman.”
o Nov.-Dec. 2003 Romney reportedly working with Legislators promoting “civil unions”.
o Jan. 2004 Romney silent on proposal to remove four SJC justices through Bill of Address (put forward by Article 8 Alliance / MassResistance).
o Feb. 4, 2004 SJC tells Legislature that civil unions for same-sex couples will not satisfy its interpretation of the Mass. Constitution; only full-fledged marriage will do.
o Feb. 5, 2004 Romney publishes editorial in Wall Street Journal laying all blame on the SJC for problem in Massachusetts. Suggests other states strengthen marriage statutes and pass constitutional amendments. Says don’t “attack … gays, singles or non-traditional couples.”
o Feb. 2004 Romney’s Legal Counsel tells Justices of the Peace (under Romney’s authority) they will be able to claim “conscientious objector” status and refuse to perform same-sex marriages.
o Feb.-May 2004 Pro-family leaders and columnists urge Romney to defy court, and issue Executive Order to block same-sex marriage; no public comment from Romney.
o March 12, 2004 As Legislature postures on constitutional amendments, Romney continues to say amendment to Mass. Constitution is solution.
o March 26, 2004 Word leaks out that Romney’s Dept. of Public Health (DPH) and attorneys are planning training sessions for Town Clerks and preparing same-sex marriage licenses.
o March 29, 2004 Romney tells Republicans in Mass. legislature to vote for Travaglini-Lees “compromise amendment” which would ban same-sex marriage but establish civil unions (and would not go to voters before Nov. 2006). Republican legislators had earlier opposed this amendment because of the civil unions clause, and it passed only due to their changed votes.
o March 29-31, 2004 Romney seeks stay of SJC ruling until constitutional amendment issue is settled, but Atty. General Reilly refuses to take Governor’s case before SJC. [Did Romney believe that same court that issued Goodridge ruling would seriously consider his request for a stay?]
o March 30, 2004 Romney says he’ll “abide by the law of the land as it exists on May 17” and says he would not order town clerks to defy court edict. Romney says he’d not explored the Constitution section giving him power over “causes of marriage” and whether it gives him any legal power to stop same-sex marriage (according to spokesman).
o April 12, 2004 Romney spokesman says training sessions for town clerks will begin “with plenty of room to spare before May 17.” Ron Crews of Mass. Coalition for Marriage states hope for an Executive Order to halt the marriages.
o April 15, 2004 Romney files emergency bill in Legislature to seek stay of SJC ruling, and is rebuffed and reprimanded by Senate President Travaglini.
o April 15, 2004 Romney’s DPH Registrar of Vital Records informs town clerks by letter of training sessions before SJC ruling becomes effective.
o April 16, 2004 Romney announces his administration is scheduling training sessions for May 5-12 with licenses changed from “husband/wife” to “Party A/Party B”.
o April 17, 2004 Mass. Dept. of Revenue (under Romney) declares SJC ruling the new “law”.
o April 22, 2004 Romney does not comment on Rep. Goguen's filing of Bill of Address for Article 8 Alliance/MassResistance to remove the 4 SJC judges, or Article 8’s revelation of Chief Justice Marshall’s violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct. (Marshall had appeared as keynote speaker at homosexual advocacy group dinner in 1999 advocated extension of “rights” for homosexuals, and failed to recuse herself from ruling on same-sex marriage though she had publicly expressed her bias.)
o April 26, 2004 Romney’s chief Legal Counsel, Daniel Winslow, issues directive to Justices of the Peace to resign (or be fired, fined, or sued) if they are unwilling to perform same-sex marriages (exact date not given on document).
o April 29, 2004 Romney writes to 49 other Governors to inform them he’ll uphold section of Mass. marriage statutes banning same-sex marriages for out-of-state couples.
o May 5-12, 2004 Town clerk training sessions held. [GLAD – Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders -- is only source on content of sessions; perhaps they were responsible for content?]
o May 15, 2004 Romney issues proclamation: May 15 is “Gay/Straight Youth Pride Day”. Romney’s “Governor’s Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth” events include parade, GLBT activism (with prominent transsexual radical activists), and a GLBT prom – two days before same-sex marriages are to begin.
o May 17, 2004 Same-sex marriages begin across Massachusetts. Romney issues brief statement: “All along, I have said an issue as fundamental to society as the definition of marriage should be decided by the people. Until then, I intend to follow the law and expect others to do the same.” [What law? Original marriage statutes clearly defining marriage as between a man and a woman were –and are -- still on the books, unchanged by the Legislature. So Romney is not enforcing the actual law—just a court opinion.]
o May 18, 2004 Romney begins enforcement of section of marriage statute banning out-of-state couples marrying in Mass. if that marriage would be illegal in their home state, while other intact sections of the marriage statute (“man” and “woman”) are ignored.
o June 22, 2004 Romney testifies before US Senate Judiciary Committee for federal marriage amendment and blames Court for situation in Massachusetts.
o Oct. 29, 2004 Romney signs new law eliminating blood test for STDs as requirement for marriage license (Ch. 388 of Acts of 2004). [Note: this is the only part of marriage statutes changed to satisfy demands of same-sex marriage]
o Dec. 2004 Romney has no comment on bills filed by Article 8 Alliance / MassResistance for 2005-6 session: to remove four SJC judges; strengthen definition of marriage in statute; and declare same-sex marriages since May 17, 2004 null/void and without statutory basis.
o Feb. 21, 2005 Romney makes speech before South Carolina Republicans, then is accused of “flip-flopping” on civil unions by homosexual lobby. Romney also negatively refers to demands by the homosexual activists that birth certificates be changed to read “Parent A/Parent B” (instead of “father/mother”), arguing he had no authority to make such a change [though he had no such qualms about changing the marriage license].
o June 16, 2005 Romney joins VoteOnMarriage (VOM) amendment effort, which would recognize same-sex marriages prior to amendment taking effect, and not ban civil unions. (Romney says VOM is superior to the Travaglini-Lees compromise amendment.) Romney also announces support of VOM’s proposed bill promoting partnership benefits for any couple wanting them (see “Benefits Fairness Act” filed Jan. 2006). Romney says he’s opposed to removing the four SJC judges. Calls for a “high degree of respect and tolerance for people whose lifestyle and choices and orientation is as they may choose.”
o July 22, 2005 Romney says only Legislature can change birth certificates from “father/mother” to “Parent A/Parent B”.
o Sept. 14, 2005 Travaglini-Lees compromise amendment defeated in Legislature.
o Nov. 2005 Romney tells Federalist Society that judiciary must be grounded in Constitution and law and precedents, and only the Legislature and people can change that base.
o Jan. 2, 2006 Boston Globe reports Romney issued special Governor’s ceremonial marriage licenses to 189 same-sex couples in 2005 (including to homosexual activist state senator), claiming he did not refuse because he was evenly applying the “statute”. [Note: There is no new statute establishing same-sex marriage.]
o Jan. 11, 2006 Romney files “Benefits Fairness Act” with VoteOnMarriage, which is roundly criticized by GLBT lobby, and shelved in Committee as late-filed bill.
o March 10-14, 2006 Romney says laws require Catholic Charities not to discriminate against same-sex parents in its adoption placements [but there’s only an administrative regulation]. He says same-sex couples have "a legitimate interest" in adopting children.
o June 2, 2006 Romney sends letter to US Congress arguing for federal marriage amendment.
o June 28, 2006 Romney urges Legislature to vote on VOM amendment, and addresses importance of following Constitution.
o Sept. 30, 2006 Romney says he has to “follow the law,” and accept Mass. Superior Court ruling stating Rhode Island lesbian couple can marry in Massachusetts (following an earlier SJC ruling addressing Rhode Island’s lack of prohibition of same-sex marriage).
o Oct. 15, 2006 Romney addresses nationally broadcast “Liberty Sunday” (Family Research Council) event in Boston. Blames SJC for Mass. problems, says we need an outpouring of respect and tolerance for all people regardless of different choices they make, and as a nation we must reject discrimination and bigotry. Calls for support of federal marriage amendment.
o Nov. 19, 2006 Romney holds rally on State House steps announcing he’s delivering a copy of the Constitution to every Legislator who voted to recess the Constitutional Convention (to avoid the vote on the VOM amendment required by state Constitution). Romney also announces he’s appealing to the courts. [But he says nothing about the SJC precedent of Dec. 20, 2002, ruling that the Legislature must vote in this situation, which already affirms that he should call Legislators back.]
Mitt Romney demonstrates his commitment to homosexual "rights" before becoming Governor of Massachusetts in January 2003:
o 1994 Campaign vs. Ted Kennedy for U.S. Senate: Romney pledged he “will provide more effective leadership” than Kennedy on homosexual rights; endorsed by Log Cabin Republicans.
o 2000-2002: As head of Salt Lake City Olympic Committee, Romney banned Boy Scouts from participating.
o 2001 Called first citizens' petition to define marriage “too extreme” and “bigoted” because it banned civil unions.
o 2002 campaign for Governor: Romney makes promises to GLBT community, according to leading Boston homosexual newspaper; endorsed by homosexual activist Log Cabin Republicans.
o Nov. 18, 2003 Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) rules that same-sex marriage is protected in the Mass. Constitution, and gives the Legislature 180 days to act (“Goodridge” ruling).
o Nov. 18, 2003 Romney responds to SJC ruling with four-sentence statement implicitly recognizing SJC’s authority, says only remedy will be a constitutional amendment: “I disagree with the Supreme Judicial Court. Marriage is an institution between a man and a woman. I will support an amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution to make that expressly clear. Of course, we must provide basic civil rights and appropriate benefits to nontraditional couples, but marriage is a special institution that should be reserved for a man and a woman.”
o Nov.-Dec. 2003 Romney reportedly working with Legislators promoting “civil unions”.
o Jan. 2004 Romney silent on proposal to remove four SJC justices through Bill of Address (put forward by Article 8 Alliance / MassResistance).
o Feb. 4, 2004 SJC tells Legislature that civil unions for same-sex couples will not satisfy its interpretation of the Mass. Constitution; only full-fledged marriage will do.
o Feb. 5, 2004 Romney publishes editorial in Wall Street Journal laying all blame on the SJC for problem in Massachusetts. Suggests other states strengthen marriage statutes and pass constitutional amendments. Says don’t “attack … gays, singles or non-traditional couples.”
o Feb. 2004 Romney’s Legal Counsel tells Justices of the Peace (under Romney’s authority) they will be able to claim “conscientious objector” status and refuse to perform same-sex marriages.
o Feb.-May 2004 Pro-family leaders and columnists urge Romney to defy court, and issue Executive Order to block same-sex marriage; no public comment from Romney.
o March 12, 2004 As Legislature postures on constitutional amendments, Romney continues to say amendment to Mass. Constitution is solution.
o March 26, 2004 Word leaks out that Romney’s Dept. of Public Health (DPH) and attorneys are planning training sessions for Town Clerks and preparing same-sex marriage licenses.
o March 29, 2004 Romney tells Republicans in Mass. legislature to vote for Travaglini-Lees “compromise amendment” which would ban same-sex marriage but establish civil unions (and would not go to voters before Nov. 2006). Republican legislators had earlier opposed this amendment because of the civil unions clause, and it passed only due to their changed votes.
o March 29-31, 2004 Romney seeks stay of SJC ruling until constitutional amendment issue is settled, but Atty. General Reilly refuses to take Governor’s case before SJC. [Did Romney believe that same court that issued Goodridge ruling would seriously consider his request for a stay?]
o March 30, 2004 Romney says he’ll “abide by the law of the land as it exists on May 17” and says he would not order town clerks to defy court edict. Romney says he’d not explored the Constitution section giving him power over “causes of marriage” and whether it gives him any legal power to stop same-sex marriage (according to spokesman).
o April 12, 2004 Romney spokesman says training sessions for town clerks will begin “with plenty of room to spare before May 17.” Ron Crews of Mass. Coalition for Marriage states hope for an Executive Order to halt the marriages.
o April 15, 2004 Romney files emergency bill in Legislature to seek stay of SJC ruling, and is rebuffed and reprimanded by Senate President Travaglini.
o April 15, 2004 Romney’s DPH Registrar of Vital Records informs town clerks by letter of training sessions before SJC ruling becomes effective.
o April 16, 2004 Romney announces his administration is scheduling training sessions for May 5-12 with licenses changed from “husband/wife” to “Party A/Party B”.
o April 17, 2004 Mass. Dept. of Revenue (under Romney) declares SJC ruling the new “law”.
o April 22, 2004 Romney does not comment on Rep. Goguen's filing of Bill of Address for Article 8 Alliance/MassResistance to remove the 4 SJC judges, or Article 8’s revelation of Chief Justice Marshall’s violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct. (Marshall had appeared as keynote speaker at homosexual advocacy group dinner in 1999 advocated extension of “rights” for homosexuals, and failed to recuse herself from ruling on same-sex marriage though she had publicly expressed her bias.)
o April 26, 2004 Romney’s chief Legal Counsel, Daniel Winslow, issues directive to Justices of the Peace to resign (or be fired, fined, or sued) if they are unwilling to perform same-sex marriages (exact date not given on document).
o April 29, 2004 Romney writes to 49 other Governors to inform them he’ll uphold section of Mass. marriage statutes banning same-sex marriages for out-of-state couples.
o May 5-12, 2004 Town clerk training sessions held. [GLAD – Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders -- is only source on content of sessions; perhaps they were responsible for content?]
o May 15, 2004 Romney issues proclamation: May 15 is “Gay/Straight Youth Pride Day”. Romney’s “Governor’s Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth” events include parade, GLBT activism (with prominent transsexual radical activists), and a GLBT prom – two days before same-sex marriages are to begin.
o May 17, 2004 Same-sex marriages begin across Massachusetts. Romney issues brief statement: “All along, I have said an issue as fundamental to society as the definition of marriage should be decided by the people. Until then, I intend to follow the law and expect others to do the same.” [What law? Original marriage statutes clearly defining marriage as between a man and a woman were –and are -- still on the books, unchanged by the Legislature. So Romney is not enforcing the actual law—just a court opinion.]
o May 18, 2004 Romney begins enforcement of section of marriage statute banning out-of-state couples marrying in Mass. if that marriage would be illegal in their home state, while other intact sections of the marriage statute (“man” and “woman”) are ignored.
o June 22, 2004 Romney testifies before US Senate Judiciary Committee for federal marriage amendment and blames Court for situation in Massachusetts.
o Oct. 29, 2004 Romney signs new law eliminating blood test for STDs as requirement for marriage license (Ch. 388 of Acts of 2004). [Note: this is the only part of marriage statutes changed to satisfy demands of same-sex marriage]
o Dec. 2004 Romney has no comment on bills filed by Article 8 Alliance / MassResistance for 2005-6 session: to remove four SJC judges; strengthen definition of marriage in statute; and declare same-sex marriages since May 17, 2004 null/void and without statutory basis.
o Feb. 21, 2005 Romney makes speech before South Carolina Republicans, then is accused of “flip-flopping” on civil unions by homosexual lobby. Romney also negatively refers to demands by the homosexual activists that birth certificates be changed to read “Parent A/Parent B” (instead of “father/mother”), arguing he had no authority to make such a change [though he had no such qualms about changing the marriage license].
o June 16, 2005 Romney joins VoteOnMarriage (VOM) amendment effort, which would recognize same-sex marriages prior to amendment taking effect, and not ban civil unions. (Romney says VOM is superior to the Travaglini-Lees compromise amendment.) Romney also announces support of VOM’s proposed bill promoting partnership benefits for any couple wanting them (see “Benefits Fairness Act” filed Jan. 2006). Romney says he’s opposed to removing the four SJC judges. Calls for a “high degree of respect and tolerance for people whose lifestyle and choices and orientation is as they may choose.”
o July 22, 2005 Romney says only Legislature can change birth certificates from “father/mother” to “Parent A/Parent B”.
o Sept. 14, 2005 Travaglini-Lees compromise amendment defeated in Legislature.
o Nov. 2005 Romney tells Federalist Society that judiciary must be grounded in Constitution and law and precedents, and only the Legislature and people can change that base.
o Jan. 2, 2006 Boston Globe reports Romney issued special Governor’s ceremonial marriage licenses to 189 same-sex couples in 2005 (including to homosexual activist state senator), claiming he did not refuse because he was evenly applying the “statute”. [Note: There is no new statute establishing same-sex marriage.]
o Jan. 11, 2006 Romney files “Benefits Fairness Act” with VoteOnMarriage, which is roundly criticized by GLBT lobby, and shelved in Committee as late-filed bill.
o March 10-14, 2006 Romney says laws require Catholic Charities not to discriminate against same-sex parents in its adoption placements [but there’s only an administrative regulation]. He says same-sex couples have "a legitimate interest" in adopting children.
o June 2, 2006 Romney sends letter to US Congress arguing for federal marriage amendment.
o June 28, 2006 Romney urges Legislature to vote on VOM amendment, and addresses importance of following Constitution.
o Sept. 30, 2006 Romney says he has to “follow the law,” and accept Mass. Superior Court ruling stating Rhode Island lesbian couple can marry in Massachusetts (following an earlier SJC ruling addressing Rhode Island’s lack of prohibition of same-sex marriage).
o Oct. 15, 2006 Romney addresses nationally broadcast “Liberty Sunday” (Family Research Council) event in Boston. Blames SJC for Mass. problems, says we need an outpouring of respect and tolerance for all people regardless of different choices they make, and as a nation we must reject discrimination and bigotry. Calls for support of federal marriage amendment.
o Nov. 19, 2006 Romney holds rally on State House steps announcing he’s delivering a copy of the Constitution to every Legislator who voted to recess the Constitutional Convention (to avoid the vote on the VOM amendment required by state Constitution). Romney also announces he’s appealing to the courts. [But he says nothing about the SJC precedent of Dec. 20, 2002, ruling that the Legislature must vote in this situation, which already affirms that he should call Legislators back.]
Wednesday, November 22, 2006
Romney: Call Legislature Back Into Session!
On the rally at the State House last Sunday (Nov. 19), we ask: Why didn't Romney call the Legislature back into session then -- if necessary, with the help of State Troopers? The 109 Legislators who voted to recess violated their oaths to follow the Constitution by refusing to vote on the citizens' petition to define marriage.
Why did Romney just announce his appeal to the courts? The clock is ticking... Does he really think that his lawsuit -- filed with the same Supreme Judicial Court that issued the "Goodridge" opinion -- will accomplish anything? And even if the Court rules the right way (as it did in Dec. 2002, on the Pawlick marriage amendment, to no avail), only the Governor can enforce bringing the Legislators back to vote.
The Governor can be reached at 617-725-4005. Time to demand he call the Legislature back!
Here are observations from our friend, the Rev. Michael Carl, on the State House rally on Nov. 19:
Greetings,
Why don't we take a survey to find out if we the people will bombard Romney's office, demanding that he exercise his Constitutional authority to announce that Goodridge v. the State Board of Health is null and void.
According to the Massachusetts Constitution, Part Two, Chapter Three, 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 Governor is the Constitutional officer responsible for settling marriage issues. Thus, Romney had, and has until January 2, the power to act to tell the world that the SJC's opinion in Goodridge v. the State Board of Health is illegal, unconstitutional, and an blight on the legal and moral landscape of this Commonwealth and the nation in which we are a member. He also has the constitutional authority to call the Legislature back into special session and prescribe that they take a vote on the people's amendment.
Why are we so mild and weak? Why don't we have a measure of nerve that's at least as big as that of the folks in the homosexual lobby? The editor of Bay Windows boldly claimed that the legislature owed them their willing disregard of the Constitution. She demanded that the Legislature disobey the law, something they were only too willing to do!!! If the editor of a publication serving the immoral in our society can make such a bold demand, why can't we be at least as assertive in our cause of righteousness? It's time that we take an aggressive stand and demand that our weak-kneed, spineless, waffling officials tell the homosexuals where to get off!!! What in the world is wrong with us? Have we lost our nerve? Don't we have the courage of our convictions? Why can't we see that we're fighting for the soul of our nation? What is it going to take before we will finally open our eyes to see that our elected officials are happily playing the fiddle while our nation burns around them?
We are going to lose this battle, if we haven't already, and we're still gullible enough to believe Romney cares. He's grandstanding again. He stood up on the State House steps holding out a meatless bone to entice us into thinking he really wants to do something about the homosexual marriage issue. He's still doing the same thing the rest of the amoral, gutless wonders in the GOP have done for over a decade. They've courted the "Values Voters" with hollow platitudes and an endless number of empty pontifications. When are we going to realize that the GOP regarded us as being equal to the Capitol staircases--something to walk on while they climbed the rungs of power?
Look where it got us. Nowhere. All we got was one little piece of federal legislation that yes, outlawed an extremely grisly procedure. Yet, that law only covered a small fraction of the total number of babies slaughtered in our abortion mills every year. And that law was thrown out by a couple of black-robed, tin-horned federal potentates within a month or two of its signing. The culture is sliding further into the moral abyss as we in Massachusetts are still willing to dance with a milquetoast, lame-duck governor whose eyes are filled with the twinkle of White House-shaped stars.
The time for whistles and bells is over. It's now time to act.
Rev. Michael Carl
Lynn , Massachusetts
Constitution Party of Mass., Co-Chairman
"All things are possible for him who believes" (Mark 9:23)
Why did Romney just announce his appeal to the courts? The clock is ticking... Does he really think that his lawsuit -- filed with the same Supreme Judicial Court that issued the "Goodridge" opinion -- will accomplish anything? And even if the Court rules the right way (as it did in Dec. 2002, on the Pawlick marriage amendment, to no avail), only the Governor can enforce bringing the Legislators back to vote.
The Governor can be reached at 617-725-4005. Time to demand he call the Legislature back!
Here are observations from our friend, the Rev. Michael Carl, on the State House rally on Nov. 19:
Greetings,
Why don't we take a survey to find out if we the people will bombard Romney's office, demanding that he exercise his Constitutional authority to announce that Goodridge v. the State Board of Health is null and void.
According to the Massachusetts Constitution, Part Two, Chapter Three, 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 Governor is the Constitutional officer responsible for settling marriage issues. Thus, Romney had, and has until January 2, the power to act to tell the world that the SJC's opinion in Goodridge v. the State Board of Health is illegal, unconstitutional, and an blight on the legal and moral landscape of this Commonwealth and the nation in which we are a member. He also has the constitutional authority to call the Legislature back into special session and prescribe that they take a vote on the people's amendment.
Why are we so mild and weak? Why don't we have a measure of nerve that's at least as big as that of the folks in the homosexual lobby? The editor of Bay Windows boldly claimed that the legislature owed them their willing disregard of the Constitution. She demanded that the Legislature disobey the law, something they were only too willing to do!!! If the editor of a publication serving the immoral in our society can make such a bold demand, why can't we be at least as assertive in our cause of righteousness? It's time that we take an aggressive stand and demand that our weak-kneed, spineless, waffling officials tell the homosexuals where to get off!!! What in the world is wrong with us? Have we lost our nerve? Don't we have the courage of our convictions? Why can't we see that we're fighting for the soul of our nation? What is it going to take before we will finally open our eyes to see that our elected officials are happily playing the fiddle while our nation burns around them?
We are going to lose this battle, if we haven't already, and we're still gullible enough to believe Romney cares. He's grandstanding again. He stood up on the State House steps holding out a meatless bone to entice us into thinking he really wants to do something about the homosexual marriage issue. He's still doing the same thing the rest of the amoral, gutless wonders in the GOP have done for over a decade. They've courted the "Values Voters" with hollow platitudes and an endless number of empty pontifications. When are we going to realize that the GOP regarded us as being equal to the Capitol staircases--something to walk on while they climbed the rungs of power?
Look where it got us. Nowhere. All we got was one little piece of federal legislation that yes, outlawed an extremely grisly procedure. Yet, that law only covered a small fraction of the total number of babies slaughtered in our abortion mills every year. And that law was thrown out by a couple of black-robed, tin-horned federal potentates within a month or two of its signing. The culture is sliding further into the moral abyss as we in Massachusetts are still willing to dance with a milquetoast, lame-duck governor whose eyes are filled with the twinkle of White House-shaped stars.
The time for whistles and bells is over. It's now time to act.
Rev. Michael Carl
Lynn , Massachusetts
Constitution Party of Mass., Co-Chairman
"All things are possible for him who believes" (Mark 9:23)
Voices from the Past: Romney Could Have Halted "Gay Marriages"
Romney could have stopped homosexual "marriages" from happening on May 17, 2004. Instead, he instead facilitated and created those marriages. When this national nightmare began with the Court ruling in November 2003, many voices called on Romney to act through executive order, or otherwise defy the court ruling. Why have many of those voices fallen silent over the past three years?
Romney could have issued a simple statement that the Court had no authority to enforce its unconstitutional opinion. He could have issued an Executive Order that no changes be made to the marriage license (which read “husband” and “wife”), and that no office holders under his authority facilitate or perform homosexual “marriages.”
Remember: The Court had not even “ordered” the state to print new “marriage” licenses, or that the Justices of the Peace and Town Clerks had to implement same-sex “marriages” on May 17, 2004. (The Court had no authority to order that in any case.) The Legislature passed no new law, leaving the old marriage laws (stating “husband” and “wife”) on the books. So there was no new “law” for the Governor to enforce. Romney -- through directives to his Executive branch employees -- implemented “homosexual marriages”.
But prior to May 17, 2004, many (including some who now hail Romney as the “defender of marriage”) understood that he could block “homosexual marriages”. They should now acknowledge that he could still correct his error by Executive Order.
Here are some of the voices from late 2003 through May 2004:
Article 8 Alliance/MassResistance, 12-03
Since shortly after the Court's ruling, our group called for defiance of "Goodridge", removal of the four judges through a Bill of Address, and an Executive Order from the Governor. We have consistently held these positions. We wrote in late 2003: "The Governor must issue an executive order openly defying any further action by the Superior Court and ordering that: Neither the Department of Public Health nor any public employee in Massachusetts may disobey the current marriage laws; and same-sex marriage licenses will NOT be legally recognized in Massachusetts."
CitizenLink (Focus on the Family), 2-4-04
"Gov. Mitt Romney could issue an executive order to town clerks not to issue marriage licenses to homosexual couples — as he did after the Nov. 18 ruling [this is erroneous; he did not issue any order then] — until after the matter is settled once and for all. [State Rep. Vinny] DeMacedo said he didn't know if the court would accept that action or not, but added it was clear now what the issues really are in the debate." (Karla Dial, CitizenLink.com)
Jan LaRue Legal Counsel, Concerned Women for America, 2-5-04
"Jan LaRue, chief counsel for CWA, dismissed the notion that same-sex "marriage" was now inevitable in Massachusetts. 'The court expressly refused to strike down the state's marriage laws,' LaRue said. 'They are still on the books. The court did not order the Legislature to grant same-sex marriage. It gave the Legislature 180 days to take whatever action 'it deemed appropriate in light of the ruling. Amending the Constitution is appropriate action. If the amendment is passed, the Governor should issue an executive order forbidding the issuances of licenses except to opposite-sex couples in accordance with the marriage laws.' ” (Talon News)
Patrick J. Buchanan, “Mitt Romney: Meet Calvin Coolidge” 2-9-04
“What's a governor to do? … Defy the court. Romney should step out in front of the state press corps and read a statement that would stun America, rally social and judicial conservatives of both parties, and bring every network camera in the nation to Boston: ‘I have read the court's decision, and while I respect the court, I cannot respect its decision. There is no basis for it in law. There is no basis for it in precedent. There is no basis for it in the letter or spirit of the constitution of our Commonwealth nor in the intent of the men who wrote that constitution… And as I took an oath to defend the Constitution of the Commonwealth, I intend to disregard the court order of last November…. I will neither propose nor will I sign any bill from the legislature that places homosexual unions on a moral and legal plane with traditional matrimony. To do so would violate my oath, conflict with my beliefs and trample upon the convictions of the people of this state.' After issuing his statement, the governor should take up leadership of the fight to put on the state ballot a constitutional amendment restricting marriage in Massachusetts to men and women. What would the Massachusetts high court do? Declare Romney in contempt? Order Romney's arrest? Tell state employees to start accepting requests from homosexuals for marriage licenses? Romney could tell the employees to politely reject such requests….” (syndicated column, “Mitt Romney: Meet Calvin Coolidge”)
Ron Crews, Mass. Family Institute/Coalition for Marriage, 3-9-04
"Ronald A. Crews of the Coalition for Marriage said there are options to pursue, even if the Legislature balks again at taking the first step to ban gay marriage in the wake of the state Supreme Court ruling that barring gays from marriage was illegal. ‘‘We do believe there are other options to delay the implementation of the ruling,'' Crews said. One alternative, he said, is to convince Gov. Mitt Romney to issue an executive order to city and town clerks halting the issuance of marriage license to same-sex couples, which would start on May 17 under the supreme court ruling." (Patriot Ledger)
Ron Crews on 4-11-04
" 'We're still hopeful Romney is going to act in what we believe to be his full constitutional authority, to delay and/or prevent the implementation of the Supreme Judicial Court decision' granting marriage licenses, said Ronald A. Crews… For Romney, the options for holding off the May 17 change might include issuing an executive order that would tie the matter up in court, for example, or changing state rules to make the licenses virtually impossible to get. But Romney's spokesman sounds resigned to the issuance of licenses on May 17. 'Going forward, our options are extremely limited,' said Eric Fehrnstrom, the governor's communications director. Romney will not be obstructionist or act outside the law, he added, but the governor is open to legal ways to stop the marriages...." (Boston Globe)
Ron Crews on 4-12-04
"Ron Crews, leader of the Massachusetts Family Institute and an outspoken critic of gay marriage, said, 'It is our hope that the governor will use his full authority as the chief executive to delay the implementation of the SJC decision. We believe he has constitutional authority to act,' Crews said, saying one of the options was to issue an executive order." (Boston Globe)
"FRC's Perkins says federal legislators should take heed. 'All eyes are now on Governor Mitt Romney, who is the last defense for marriage in Massachusetts,' he says."(Agape Press)
[This seems to imply Romney could somehow act on his own to stop the marriages.]
Robert Knight, Director, Culture & Family Institute, Concerned Women for America, 3-30-04
[Note: Knight (now at Media Research Center) has continued to point out Romney’s culpability in the Massachusetts “marriage” nightmare.]
"Supporters of traditional marriage are urging Romney to intervene via an executive order that would allow the legislative process to proceed. 'It's now up to the governor to put the brakes on this madness,' says Robert Knight of the Culture and Family Institute. 'He needs to make it clear that the law has not changed, and that on May 17, homosexual couples cannot make a mockery of God's institution of marriage.' (Agape Press)
Hadley Arkes, Professor of Jurisprudence, Amherst College, “The Missing Governor” 5-17-04
"EXECUTIVE FAILURE: The deeper failure must go to the man who stood as governor, holding the levers of the executive. And if it is countdown for marriage in Massachusetts, it is countdown also for Mitt Romney, whose political demise may be measured along the scale of moves he could have taken and the record of his receding, step by step, until he finally talked himself into doing nothing, or nothing much. …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…. Is it now too late? That isn't altogether clear. Today has become the decisive date only because of the holding of the Supreme Judicial Court. 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 Missing Governor,” National Review Online)
Mathew Staver, Esq., Liberty Counsel, 5-18-04
“Staver also believes action can be taken by Gov. Romney and the state legislature. The Massachusetts constitution specifically gives the executive branch authority over marriage, he noted, with the provision that the legislative branch can delegate authority over marriage to other branches. The legislature has delegated only four such matters to the judiciary – divorce, alimony, annulment and affirmation. The executive branch, through the governor, is empowered to issue an executive order refusing to implement the ruling, Staver contends. The Massachusetts legislature also is empowered to pass a law stating that courts have no authority to redefine marriage.” (WorldNetDaily)
Staver also commented on out-of-state couples, 5-17-04
"While Gov. Mitt Romney, who backed off an earlier edict that couples applying for licenses needed to show proof of residency, seems unwilling to prosecute the scofflaw clerks, attorney Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel is more than ready to do so. 'We'll file suit against the town clerks that violate the 1913 law,' Staver told CitizenLink today. 'One . . . clerk said how would he know if they could get married in their home state? Nobody recognizes same-sex marriage, that's pretty obvious. (Romney) has the authority to issue an executive order to put a stop to this now. He just has to exercise it. He started off well, but he's gotten a little timid. Now is the time for people of courage to step forward.'' (CitizenLink, Focus on the Family)
[We point out that what applies to the 1913 law would also apply to the marriage statutes (one man/one woman) still on the books! Romney could block ANY “homosexual marriage” since those laws have not changed!]
Dr. James Dobson, Focus on the Family, 5-18-04
" 'The documents being issued all across Massachusetts may say 'marriage license' at the top, but they are really death certificates for the institution of marriage as it has served society for thousands of years.' Dobson … said he's distressed the decision to legalize marriage for same-sex couples was fueled by a politically correct agenda with 'no regard for the rule of law' … 'This is not the first time a tyrannical court – in this case the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court – has force-fed the people a liberal agenda disguised as the rule of law,' he said. 'But it may be the most devastating example of that kind of judicial activism.' " (WorldNetDaily)
[In other words, there was no real, valid “law” the Governor had to uphold in issuing the licenses. But Dobson, then and now, wants to ignore that it was the Executive branch that facilitated the “marriages”.]
Romney could have issued a simple statement that the Court had no authority to enforce its unconstitutional opinion. He could have issued an Executive Order that no changes be made to the marriage license (which read “husband” and “wife”), and that no office holders under his authority facilitate or perform homosexual “marriages.”
Remember: The Court had not even “ordered” the state to print new “marriage” licenses, or that the Justices of the Peace and Town Clerks had to implement same-sex “marriages” on May 17, 2004. (The Court had no authority to order that in any case.) The Legislature passed no new law, leaving the old marriage laws (stating “husband” and “wife”) on the books. So there was no new “law” for the Governor to enforce. Romney -- through directives to his Executive branch employees -- implemented “homosexual marriages”.
But prior to May 17, 2004, many (including some who now hail Romney as the “defender of marriage”) understood that he could block “homosexual marriages”. They should now acknowledge that he could still correct his error by Executive Order.
Here are some of the voices from late 2003 through May 2004:
Article 8 Alliance/MassResistance, 12-03
Since shortly after the Court's ruling, our group called for defiance of "Goodridge", removal of the four judges through a Bill of Address, and an Executive Order from the Governor. We have consistently held these positions. We wrote in late 2003: "The Governor must issue an executive order openly defying any further action by the Superior Court and ordering that: Neither the Department of Public Health nor any public employee in Massachusetts may disobey the current marriage laws; and same-sex marriage licenses will NOT be legally recognized in Massachusetts."
CitizenLink (Focus on the Family), 2-4-04
"Gov. Mitt Romney could issue an executive order to town clerks not to issue marriage licenses to homosexual couples — as he did after the Nov. 18 ruling [this is erroneous; he did not issue any order then] — until after the matter is settled once and for all. [State Rep. Vinny] DeMacedo said he didn't know if the court would accept that action or not, but added it was clear now what the issues really are in the debate." (Karla Dial, CitizenLink.com)
Jan LaRue Legal Counsel, Concerned Women for America, 2-5-04
"Jan LaRue, chief counsel for CWA, dismissed the notion that same-sex "marriage" was now inevitable in Massachusetts. 'The court expressly refused to strike down the state's marriage laws,' LaRue said. 'They are still on the books. The court did not order the Legislature to grant same-sex marriage. It gave the Legislature 180 days to take whatever action 'it deemed appropriate in light of the ruling. Amending the Constitution is appropriate action. If the amendment is passed, the Governor should issue an executive order forbidding the issuances of licenses except to opposite-sex couples in accordance with the marriage laws.' ” (Talon News)
Patrick J. Buchanan, “Mitt Romney: Meet Calvin Coolidge” 2-9-04
“What's a governor to do? … Defy the court. Romney should step out in front of the state press corps and read a statement that would stun America, rally social and judicial conservatives of both parties, and bring every network camera in the nation to Boston: ‘I have read the court's decision, and while I respect the court, I cannot respect its decision. There is no basis for it in law. There is no basis for it in precedent. There is no basis for it in the letter or spirit of the constitution of our Commonwealth nor in the intent of the men who wrote that constitution… And as I took an oath to defend the Constitution of the Commonwealth, I intend to disregard the court order of last November…. I will neither propose nor will I sign any bill from the legislature that places homosexual unions on a moral and legal plane with traditional matrimony. To do so would violate my oath, conflict with my beliefs and trample upon the convictions of the people of this state.' After issuing his statement, the governor should take up leadership of the fight to put on the state ballot a constitutional amendment restricting marriage in Massachusetts to men and women. What would the Massachusetts high court do? Declare Romney in contempt? Order Romney's arrest? Tell state employees to start accepting requests from homosexuals for marriage licenses? Romney could tell the employees to politely reject such requests….” (syndicated column, “Mitt Romney: Meet Calvin Coolidge”)
Ron Crews, Mass. Family Institute/Coalition for Marriage, 3-9-04
"Ronald A. Crews of the Coalition for Marriage said there are options to pursue, even if the Legislature balks again at taking the first step to ban gay marriage in the wake of the state Supreme Court ruling that barring gays from marriage was illegal. ‘‘We do believe there are other options to delay the implementation of the ruling,'' Crews said. One alternative, he said, is to convince Gov. Mitt Romney to issue an executive order to city and town clerks halting the issuance of marriage license to same-sex couples, which would start on May 17 under the supreme court ruling." (Patriot Ledger)
Ron Crews on 4-11-04
" 'We're still hopeful Romney is going to act in what we believe to be his full constitutional authority, to delay and/or prevent the implementation of the Supreme Judicial Court decision' granting marriage licenses, said Ronald A. Crews… For Romney, the options for holding off the May 17 change might include issuing an executive order that would tie the matter up in court, for example, or changing state rules to make the licenses virtually impossible to get. But Romney's spokesman sounds resigned to the issuance of licenses on May 17. 'Going forward, our options are extremely limited,' said Eric Fehrnstrom, the governor's communications director. Romney will not be obstructionist or act outside the law, he added, but the governor is open to legal ways to stop the marriages...." (Boston Globe)
Ron Crews on 4-12-04
"Ron Crews, leader of the Massachusetts Family Institute and an outspoken critic of gay marriage, said, 'It is our hope that the governor will use his full authority as the chief executive to delay the implementation of the SJC decision. We believe he has constitutional authority to act,' Crews said, saying one of the options was to issue an executive order." (Boston Globe)
Genevieve Wood, Family Research Council, 3-30-04 "Wood… says the next step in the battle over marriage belongs to Romney. She urges the governor to remain strong in defending marriage, noting that supporters of traditional marriage are already working on a new amendment and making efforts to change the current one before it appears on the 2006 state ballot. 'There's a lot that can happen over the next year,' Wood says. 'I think what's most important right now is for the governor to stand firm [and] not allow any marriage licenses to be handed out on May 17.' " (Agape Press)
Tony Perkins, President, Family Research Council, 3-30-04"FRC's Perkins says federal legislators should take heed. 'All eyes are now on Governor Mitt Romney, who is the last defense for marriage in Massachusetts,' he says."(Agape Press)
[This seems to imply Romney could somehow act on his own to stop the marriages.]
Robert Knight, Director, Culture & Family Institute, Concerned Women for America, 3-30-04
[Note: Knight (now at Media Research Center) has continued to point out Romney’s culpability in the Massachusetts “marriage” nightmare.]
"Supporters of traditional marriage are urging Romney to intervene via an executive order that would allow the legislative process to proceed. 'It's now up to the governor to put the brakes on this madness,' says Robert Knight of the Culture and Family Institute. 'He needs to make it clear that the law has not changed, and that on May 17, homosexual couples cannot make a mockery of God's institution of marriage.' (Agape Press)
Hadley Arkes, Professor of Jurisprudence, Amherst College, “The Missing Governor” 5-17-04
"EXECUTIVE FAILURE: The deeper failure must go to the man who stood as governor, holding the levers of the executive. And if it is countdown for marriage in Massachusetts, it is countdown also for Mitt Romney, whose political demise may be measured along the scale of moves he could have taken and the record of his receding, step by step, until he finally talked himself into doing nothing, or nothing much. …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…. Is it now too late? That isn't altogether clear. Today has become the decisive date only because of the holding of the Supreme Judicial Court. 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 Missing Governor,” National Review Online)
Mathew Staver, Esq., Liberty Counsel, 5-18-04
“Staver also believes action can be taken by Gov. Romney and the state legislature. The Massachusetts constitution specifically gives the executive branch authority over marriage, he noted, with the provision that the legislative branch can delegate authority over marriage to other branches. The legislature has delegated only four such matters to the judiciary – divorce, alimony, annulment and affirmation. The executive branch, through the governor, is empowered to issue an executive order refusing to implement the ruling, Staver contends. The Massachusetts legislature also is empowered to pass a law stating that courts have no authority to redefine marriage.” (WorldNetDaily)
Staver also commented on out-of-state couples, 5-17-04
"While Gov. Mitt Romney, who backed off an earlier edict that couples applying for licenses needed to show proof of residency, seems unwilling to prosecute the scofflaw clerks, attorney Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel is more than ready to do so. 'We'll file suit against the town clerks that violate the 1913 law,' Staver told CitizenLink today. 'One . . . clerk said how would he know if they could get married in their home state? Nobody recognizes same-sex marriage, that's pretty obvious. (Romney) has the authority to issue an executive order to put a stop to this now. He just has to exercise it. He started off well, but he's gotten a little timid. Now is the time for people of courage to step forward.'' (CitizenLink, Focus on the Family)
[We point out that what applies to the 1913 law would also apply to the marriage statutes (one man/one woman) still on the books! Romney could block ANY “homosexual marriage” since those laws have not changed!]
Dr. James Dobson, Focus on the Family, 5-18-04
" 'The documents being issued all across Massachusetts may say 'marriage license' at the top, but they are really death certificates for the institution of marriage as it has served society for thousands of years.' Dobson … said he's distressed the decision to legalize marriage for same-sex couples was fueled by a politically correct agenda with 'no regard for the rule of law' … 'This is not the first time a tyrannical court – in this case the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court – has force-fed the people a liberal agenda disguised as the rule of law,' he said. 'But it may be the most devastating example of that kind of judicial activism.' " (WorldNetDaily)
[In other words, there was no real, valid “law” the Governor had to uphold in issuing the licenses. But Dobson, then and now, wants to ignore that it was the Executive branch that facilitated the “marriages”.]
Tuesday, November 21, 2006
Romney's Sparse Statements While Imlplementing "Gay Marriages"
Governor Romney could have used the "bully pulpit" to address homosexual "marriage", and halt the insanity overtaking the Commonwealth in the Spring of 2004. But he NEVER did. Rather, he avoided public comment. He often sent his spokesman out, not matter how highly significant the question.
11-18-03 “I disagree with the Supreme Judicial Court. Marriage is an institution between a man and a woman. I will support an amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution to make that expressly clear. Of course, we must provide basic civil rights and appropriate benefits to nontraditional couples, but marriage is a special institution that should be reserved for a man and a woman.”
3-26-04 The “president of the Massachusetts Towns Clerks' Association, said she notified clerks this week about the training after she was informed about it during a visit by an official from the state's Registry of Vital Records and Statistics, the division within the state Department of Public Health that oversees the issuance of marriage licenses…. But a spokeswoman for Romney, who as head of the executive branch of government controls the Department of Public Health, declined yesterday to acknowledge that the training was scheduled…. Romney would not publicly comment on whether he will ask the SJC to stay its decision until after the Constitutional Convention, which will reconvene next week…. State officials also are preparing forms, scheduled to be available by May 17, with gender-appropriate language for same-sex couples who request marriage licenses, Hutchenrider [Town Clerks’ Assoc.] said. "The attorneys are going over them," she said. (Boston Globe) [That would mean the Governor’s attorneys…]
3-31-04 “Romney reiterated his commitment Tuesday to abide by the law of the land as it exists on May 17 and said he would not order city clerks to defy the court edict. There is a section in the state constitution that gives the governor the power to weigh in on the "causes of marriage," but Romney said he had not explored whether this clause gives him any legal power to stop gay marriages.” (AP, 3-31-04) [Meanwhile, his attorneys were busy preparing the new “marriage” licenses and training sessions.]
4-15-04 Statement by Romney on Filing Emergency Bill to Seek Goodridge Stay: Romney said the legislation “will allow me to protect the integrity of the constitutional process” and “preserve the right of the citizens to make this decision rather than having it made for them by the Court.” Meanwhile, the Registry of Vital Records and Statistics will today release a letter to city and town clerks notifying them of regional information sessions that will provide a forum for instructions on how to proceed with gay marriage should the Governor be unsuccessful in obtaining a stay of the Goodridge decision. [Governor’s office]
5-17-04 On the day homosexual “marriages” began, Romney said, “I intend to follow the law and expect others to do the same.” [What law? The marriage statute had not changed.]
11-18-03 “I disagree with the Supreme Judicial Court. Marriage is an institution between a man and a woman. I will support an amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution to make that expressly clear. Of course, we must provide basic civil rights and appropriate benefits to nontraditional couples, but marriage is a special institution that should be reserved for a man and a woman.”
3-26-04 The “president of the Massachusetts Towns Clerks' Association, said she notified clerks this week about the training after she was informed about it during a visit by an official from the state's Registry of Vital Records and Statistics, the division within the state Department of Public Health that oversees the issuance of marriage licenses…. But a spokeswoman for Romney, who as head of the executive branch of government controls the Department of Public Health, declined yesterday to acknowledge that the training was scheduled…. Romney would not publicly comment on whether he will ask the SJC to stay its decision until after the Constitutional Convention, which will reconvene next week…. State officials also are preparing forms, scheduled to be available by May 17, with gender-appropriate language for same-sex couples who request marriage licenses, Hutchenrider [Town Clerks’ Assoc.] said. "The attorneys are going over them," she said. (Boston Globe) [That would mean the Governor’s attorneys…]
3-31-04 “Romney reiterated his commitment Tuesday to abide by the law of the land as it exists on May 17 and said he would not order city clerks to defy the court edict. There is a section in the state constitution that gives the governor the power to weigh in on the "causes of marriage," but Romney said he had not explored whether this clause gives him any legal power to stop gay marriages.” (AP, 3-31-04) [Meanwhile, his attorneys were busy preparing the new “marriage” licenses and training sessions.]
4-15-04 Statement by Romney on Filing Emergency Bill to Seek Goodridge Stay: Romney said the legislation “will allow me to protect the integrity of the constitutional process” and “preserve the right of the citizens to make this decision rather than having it made for them by the Court.” Meanwhile, the Registry of Vital Records and Statistics will today release a letter to city and town clerks notifying them of regional information sessions that will provide a forum for instructions on how to proceed with gay marriage should the Governor be unsuccessful in obtaining a stay of the Goodridge decision. [Governor’s office]
5-17-04 On the day homosexual “marriages” began, Romney said, “I intend to follow the law and expect others to do the same.” [What law? The marriage statute had not changed.]
Saturday, November 18, 2006
Constitutional Amendments Defining Marriage Questioned
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....
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....
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)