President Bush announced a few days ago that Tuesday, January 2 will be a national day of mourning for former President Gerald Ford. He invites those around the world who share grief at his passing to join in this solemn observance.
Will the Massachusetts State House close down that day as a show of respect by the great Commonwealth of Massachusetts? Will Senate President Travaglini, House Speaker DiMasi, and the errant Legislators decide to honor Gerald Ford at their places of worship, rather than vote on the marriage amendment?
Sunday, December 31, 2006
Saturday, December 30, 2006
"Mormons Against Romney" Analyze Romney's Promise to "Sustain" Roe v. Wade
Mitt Romney promised to "sustain and support" Roe v. Wade in his 1994 campaign (against Ted Kennedy for the U.S. Senate). We just found this analysis of what "sustain" means within the Mormon faith, on the "Mormons against Romney" blog. (Not being of the Mormon faith, we have no idea if this is an orthodox interpretation. Apparently a left-leaning group, it includes links to "LDS Liberation Front" and "LDS-Left" -- as well as linking to a site peddling "Romney thongs"!) Here is their analysis, for what it's worth:
On Sustaining the Law (12-16-06)
The following statement, which has been widely reported, by Willard Mitt Romney has been rattling around in my head a fair amount recently:
"I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time when my Mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a U.S. Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years that we should sustain and support it, and I sustain and support that law and the right of a woman to make that choice." -Mitt Romney in a 1994 Senatorial debate
In the LDS context "sustain" has a very special meaning. Whenever someone in a congregation gets a new responsibility (a calling), their names are presented in our sacrament meeting along with what they are being asked to do. This is usually presented to the congregation by a member of the local leadership as follows: "Brother Jones has been asked to serve as the 15 and 16 year-old Sunday School teacher. All that can sustain him in this calling please show by the uplifted hand." At this point members of the congregation who sustain the calling raise their right hand. The leader than says "any opposed may manifest it", and anyone who opposes the calling may raise their hand.
To me this is one of the greatest things about the Mormon experience, that when we are asked to do something in our local congregation, we can look around us and see that the people around us know what we are being asked to do, and are showing a willingness to help and support us. It is an exceptional sense of community, especially considering that at the local and regional levels there is no paid clergy. Since as a rule everyone has some responsibility in the congregation, and those responsibilities change sometimes every 2-3 years, sometimes more frequently, there is a very egalitarian aspect to how local congregations are run.
We are also taught that once we sustain someone we should do all we can to help someone in their calling, and not needlessly tear them down.... Everyone in the Church from the highest ranked ecclesiastical official on down, is supported by a sustaining. This reflection of early Mormon principles of communitarianism might surprise outside observers of Mormonism, especially when one learns how all-pervasive it is.
Current president of the Church Gordon B. Hinckley said:
“The procedure of sustaining is much more than a ritualistic raising of the hand. It is a commitment to uphold, to support, to assist those who have been selected”
-Ensign, May 1995, p. 51 ...
We take the same approach to sustaining other things, such as the law of the land. Our 12th Article of Faith says that we are to sustain the law. What does this mean? The best explanation I have found is when past President of the LDS Church David O. McKay said:
“To sustain the law, therefore, is to refrain from saying or doing anything which will weaken it or make it ineffective”
-Conference Report, Apr. 1937, p. 28
When we sustain someone or something, and especially when we make that sustaining an overt public act, we take on very specific responsibilities. Support, strength, assistance even when we might personally disagree with something in the person or thing, are all things required of us in "sustaining".
When Mitt Romney was an LDS bishop he was in charge of the sustaining process every Sunday. On Sundays he didn't officiate in the process, the process was still done under his very close oversight. The LDS concept of "sustaining" can't be far from his mind when he makes statements saying he "sustains" a law. I think that in his 1994 statement quoted above he was completely on solid ground politically and spiritually. He might not love the idea of abortion personally, but it is provided for in the law and we sustain the law. If Romney ever really supported Roe v. Wade (and I know that this is in doubt in spite of his words above) then he should have had in his head the following adaptation of President McKay's counsel:
To sustain Roe v. Wade, therefore, is to refrain from saying or doing anything which will weaken it or make it ineffective.
I am not certain which is worse, that he once felt this way and turned has back on it, or that he lied in the first place and the true Romney is just now coming through. In either case, it seems to be a slap in the face for the important role sustaining plays in the Mormon experience.
[italics added]
On Sustaining the Law (12-16-06)
The following statement, which has been widely reported, by Willard Mitt Romney has been rattling around in my head a fair amount recently:
"I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time when my Mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a U.S. Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years that we should sustain and support it, and I sustain and support that law and the right of a woman to make that choice." -Mitt Romney in a 1994 Senatorial debate
In the LDS context "sustain" has a very special meaning. Whenever someone in a congregation gets a new responsibility (a calling), their names are presented in our sacrament meeting along with what they are being asked to do. This is usually presented to the congregation by a member of the local leadership as follows: "Brother Jones has been asked to serve as the 15 and 16 year-old Sunday School teacher. All that can sustain him in this calling please show by the uplifted hand." At this point members of the congregation who sustain the calling raise their right hand. The leader than says "any opposed may manifest it", and anyone who opposes the calling may raise their hand.
To me this is one of the greatest things about the Mormon experience, that when we are asked to do something in our local congregation, we can look around us and see that the people around us know what we are being asked to do, and are showing a willingness to help and support us. It is an exceptional sense of community, especially considering that at the local and regional levels there is no paid clergy. Since as a rule everyone has some responsibility in the congregation, and those responsibilities change sometimes every 2-3 years, sometimes more frequently, there is a very egalitarian aspect to how local congregations are run.
We are also taught that once we sustain someone we should do all we can to help someone in their calling, and not needlessly tear them down.... Everyone in the Church from the highest ranked ecclesiastical official on down, is supported by a sustaining. This reflection of early Mormon principles of communitarianism might surprise outside observers of Mormonism, especially when one learns how all-pervasive it is.
Current president of the Church Gordon B. Hinckley said:
“The procedure of sustaining is much more than a ritualistic raising of the hand. It is a commitment to uphold, to support, to assist those who have been selected”
-Ensign, May 1995, p. 51 ...
We take the same approach to sustaining other things, such as the law of the land. Our 12th Article of Faith says that we are to sustain the law. What does this mean? The best explanation I have found is when past President of the LDS Church David O. McKay said:
“To sustain the law, therefore, is to refrain from saying or doing anything which will weaken it or make it ineffective”
-Conference Report, Apr. 1937, p. 28
When we sustain someone or something, and especially when we make that sustaining an overt public act, we take on very specific responsibilities. Support, strength, assistance even when we might personally disagree with something in the person or thing, are all things required of us in "sustaining".
When Mitt Romney was an LDS bishop he was in charge of the sustaining process every Sunday. On Sundays he didn't officiate in the process, the process was still done under his very close oversight. The LDS concept of "sustaining" can't be far from his mind when he makes statements saying he "sustains" a law. I think that in his 1994 statement quoted above he was completely on solid ground politically and spiritually. He might not love the idea of abortion personally, but it is provided for in the law and we sustain the law. If Romney ever really supported Roe v. Wade (and I know that this is in doubt in spite of his words above) then he should have had in his head the following adaptation of President McKay's counsel:
To sustain Roe v. Wade, therefore, is to refrain from saying or doing anything which will weaken it or make it ineffective.
I am not certain which is worse, that he once felt this way and turned has back on it, or that he lied in the first place and the true Romney is just now coming through. In either case, it seems to be a slap in the face for the important role sustaining plays in the Mormon experience.
[italics added]
More Romney on Abortion
Time to reread this interview by Chris Wallace (FoxNews Sunday) with Romney from last February, posted on the NewsBusters blog:
Rough on Romney: Wallace Forces Mitt to Admit Abortion Position "Evolved"
Posted by Mark Finkelstein on February 26, 2006
Wallace was implacable when Romney stretched credulity by suggesting that somehow his own view of when life begins was crystallized in the context of a recent debate in his home state over stem cell research.
Wallace didn't hide his skepticism: "I don't understand governor. . . the question of harvesting eggs to be used for stem cells, that isn't why most women get abortions. There's a division there, isn't there?"
Hoping to change the uncomfortable subject, Romney suggested that he was "happy to talk about stem cell research."
Unfortunately for Romney, Wallace wasn't. "But I'm asking about abortion. And the vast majority of women aren't getting an abortion so they can sell their fetus." He again reminded Romney that when running for governor, "you did say women should have the right to make their own choice." Then, clearly skeptical, Wallace asked: "Are you saying you only came to the conclusion about when life begins - this has been an issue for 30, 40 years - in the last three years?"
Romney, cornered, was finally forced to admit: "I'm saying my position has evolved and it changed from where it was before."
Rough on Romney: Wallace Forces Mitt to Admit Abortion Position "Evolved"
Posted by Mark Finkelstein on February 26, 2006
Wallace was implacable when Romney stretched credulity by suggesting that somehow his own view of when life begins was crystallized in the context of a recent debate in his home state over stem cell research.
Wallace didn't hide his skepticism: "I don't understand governor. . . the question of harvesting eggs to be used for stem cells, that isn't why most women get abortions. There's a division there, isn't there?"
Hoping to change the uncomfortable subject, Romney suggested that he was "happy to talk about stem cell research."
Unfortunately for Romney, Wallace wasn't. "But I'm asking about abortion. And the vast majority of women aren't getting an abortion so they can sell their fetus." He again reminded Romney that when running for governor, "you did say women should have the right to make their own choice." Then, clearly skeptical, Wallace asked: "Are you saying you only came to the conclusion about when life begins - this has been an issue for 30, 40 years - in the last three years?"
Romney, cornered, was finally forced to admit: "I'm saying my position has evolved and it changed from where it was before."
Friday, December 29, 2006
Human Events Interviews Romney
We expect better from Human Events. In their interview with Mitt Romney yesterday (12-28-06), editor Rob Bluey doesn't push Romney beyond his 1994 campaign vs. Ted Kennedy, and the Romney's letter groveling for the Mass. Log Cabin Republican endorsement that year.
Of course, we've exposed that Romney's problems are much broader, much more profound. Why didn't Bluey touch on Romney's role in starting "homosexual marriage" in Massachusetts? Why didn't he ask about Romney's "Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth"?
Even on international affairs and economic issues, Romney avoids substantive answers. A typical response:
"The things I’d offer for all Americans would be similar to, I think, other great Republicans in the past and in the present. And yet in my case, I come with a little different background and different perspective, and therefore, what I’d offer would be slightly different I’m sure in some ways than others.
"The key issues we face, of course, are first, the conflict with the jihadists. This is a conflict which is going on within the world of Islam, and the jihadists are attempting to overcome the moderate, modern factions of Islam and replace them with a caliphate. It’s going to require the involvement of the U.S. as a leader of the world to help move Islam away from that kind of extremism and violence. That’s one challenge.
"Another challenge is our ability to compete with Asia. Asia’s going to be a much tougher competitor than we’ve known before. I spent my life in international business, been to Asia and, of course, other places in the world and done business there. I have a good sense how you make a nation more competitive. And that’s something that’s going to be critical."
Human Events used to be hard-hitting. (It's Ann Coulter's home publication.) So what's going on with their coverage of Romney? Bluey did post a somewhat more critical piece on 12-21, but when he has Romney on the phone, he backs down. Amazing how people cower before celebrity and power.
Of course, we've exposed that Romney's problems are much broader, much more profound. Why didn't Bluey touch on Romney's role in starting "homosexual marriage" in Massachusetts? Why didn't he ask about Romney's "Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth"?
Even on international affairs and economic issues, Romney avoids substantive answers. A typical response:
"The things I’d offer for all Americans would be similar to, I think, other great Republicans in the past and in the present. And yet in my case, I come with a little different background and different perspective, and therefore, what I’d offer would be slightly different I’m sure in some ways than others.
"The key issues we face, of course, are first, the conflict with the jihadists. This is a conflict which is going on within the world of Islam, and the jihadists are attempting to overcome the moderate, modern factions of Islam and replace them with a caliphate. It’s going to require the involvement of the U.S. as a leader of the world to help move Islam away from that kind of extremism and violence. That’s one challenge.
"Another challenge is our ability to compete with Asia. Asia’s going to be a much tougher competitor than we’ve known before. I spent my life in international business, been to Asia and, of course, other places in the world and done business there. I have a good sense how you make a nation more competitive. And that’s something that’s going to be critical."
Human Events used to be hard-hitting. (It's Ann Coulter's home publication.) So what's going on with their coverage of Romney? Bluey did post a somewhat more critical piece on 12-21, but when he has Romney on the phone, he backs down. Amazing how people cower before celebrity and power.
Caution on Cloned Animal Products, But Not Social Experiments
We're not alone in having the heebie-jeebies over the idea of dairy and meat products from cloned animals. We remember the demonstrations a few years ago outside Advanced Cell Technology in Worcester. The demonstrators hoped their voices might sound an alarm over this descent into the Brave New World. But no, now the FDA has actually approved human consumption of products from cloned animals, though a moratorium is likely through 2007. (Boston Globe, "Milk, meat from cloned herds ruled safe," 12-29-06)
It's notable that liberals like Senators Kennedy and Mikulski expressed reservations. Kennedy suggests some of the science behind the safety studies might be wrong. Mikulski said that cloned animals "have not been proven safe for consumers and are a threat to [other] animals." The International Dairy Foods Association is happy there's still a moratorium. And 58% of Americans recently polled would not buy these products even with FDA approval.
If only we would be so cautious when it comes to approving other grand experiments, whether scientific or social, like embryonic stem cell research, reproductive technologies, welfare, "homosexual marriage," adoption by same-sex couples, etc.
It's notable that liberals like Senators Kennedy and Mikulski expressed reservations. Kennedy suggests some of the science behind the safety studies might be wrong. Mikulski said that cloned animals "have not been proven safe for consumers and are a threat to [other] animals." The International Dairy Foods Association is happy there's still a moratorium. And 58% of Americans recently polled would not buy these products even with FDA approval.
If only we would be so cautious when it comes to approving other grand experiments, whether scientific or social, like embryonic stem cell research, reproductive technologies, welfare, "homosexual marriage," adoption by same-sex couples, etc.
Thursday, December 28, 2006
SJC Can Rule Other Branches -- When It Wants To
Lee Swislow (r), Exec. Director of GLAD, is unhappy with the SJC ruling.
She doesn't want her feelings hurt. Who cares about the Constitution?
The Mass. Supreme Judicial Court said yesterday that it cannot do anything to force the Legislature to vote on the marriage amendment, but it stated that the Legislators' vote is clearly required by Article 48 (referendum amendment procedure) of the Mass. Constitution.
In their ruling, the SJC documents that it was unimaginable to the legislators who passed Article 48 in 1918 that elected representatives would ever act to violate their oaths in such a way, by refusing to vote. And the SJC makes the argument that what was in the minds of those who drafted and approved that Article is what defines it for us today. So why doesn't the Court follow the clear historical understanding of the word "marriage" which John Adams, who wrote the Massachusetts Constitution, included in the original document?
The Boston Globe also reported on GLAD executive director Lee Swislow's response to the SJC ruling that the legislators are clearly required to vote. Robbed of any legal or rational arguments for the legislators not voting, she was reduced to arguing from her personal, emotional needs:
Lee Swislow, executive director of Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, said she hoped the legislators would continue to balk, even if it seemed like a cynical maneuver. "This is my right to marry the person I love, and putting that [measure] on the ballot feels like the most cynical thing that could happen, on a very personal level," said Swislow, who married her partner of 10 years in June 2004.
Wednesday, December 27, 2006
Romney's Pre-Presidential-Campaign Fundraising
A few weeks ago, the Boston Phoenix ran this on Romney's "Commonwealth PAC" donors: "Romney's Real Friends; Cash Flow" (12-13-06). Romney's doled out these funds to Republican candidates in key presidential states. He's raised far less than McCain, but more of it from big-business donors.
"Romney has reported raising a total of $6.5 million, including $2.7 million in his federal committee and $3.8 million in separate state committees. (Some committees have only reported through September, others through the election.) ... Very little money flowed from the South or the Heartland, however, where traditional social values are said to dwell. The bulk came from solid blue states like Massachusetts, California, and New York — and specifically, the sinful centers of secular commerce in Boston, Silicon Valley, and New York City.
"John McCain’s federal Straight Talk America PAC, by comparison, raised $9.2 million since the Arizona Senator formed it last year. Those donations, limited to $2000 a person, came from far more individuals, including a great many within the Washington Beltway. ... Commonwealth PAC has now run its course —Romney can’t use it while explicitly running for president, which he will be doing in a few weeks."
"Romney has reported raising a total of $6.5 million, including $2.7 million in his federal committee and $3.8 million in separate state committees. (Some committees have only reported through September, others through the election.) ... Very little money flowed from the South or the Heartland, however, where traditional social values are said to dwell. The bulk came from solid blue states like Massachusetts, California, and New York — and specifically, the sinful centers of secular commerce in Boston, Silicon Valley, and New York City.
"John McCain’s federal Straight Talk America PAC, by comparison, raised $9.2 million since the Arizona Senator formed it last year. Those donations, limited to $2000 a person, came from far more individuals, including a great many within the Washington Beltway. ... Commonwealth PAC has now run its course —Romney can’t use it while explicitly running for president, which he will be doing in a few weeks."
Tuesday, December 26, 2006
Romney Retrospective in Globe
The Boston Globe's retrospective (12-26-06) on Romney's four years as absentee Governor of Massachusetts is a mixed bag. They're correct to report (and editorialize) on how little he accomplished.
But the Globe is wrong to suggest his lack of accomplishments is partly due to time he spent on the social issues. In fact, he spent next to NO time standing up for social conservative values. That was his biggest failure, both as chief executive and head of the Republican Party. He was totally disengaged from building his own party, a must if we are to dismantle the one-party tyranny in this state. (Remember: He was an Independent before deciding to run against Kennedy in 1994.) He never spoke out for life issues. He never used the bully pulpit even to roll back taxes, as the voters have demanded!
This says a lot about Romney: It's all about him, not about political/moral principles, or the greater good of the state (or country) he's governing. How could we trust him as President?
Even honest Democrats recognize that absolute power of one party has corrupted this state. Romney had a golden opportunity to do something about that. What happened in 2004? His party's candidates were not properly supported, and what directives there were from the top instructed them to avoid discussing same-sex marriage! And in the 2006 election, he did nothing to support Republican legislative candidates, and only campaigned for Kerry Healey the day before the election! And where did he spend his Commonwealth PAC money? In states with important Presidential primaries (as the Globe reported on 12-24: "Romney left Mass. on 212 days in '06").
Romney did not devote his attention to the marriage issue. He basically let it ride, watched and waited for the least risky opportunities to speak out -- and then in only the mildest terms. In South Carolina he said that same-sex marriage must be halted, but back here he didn't lift a finger to see that the original protection of marriage referendum from 2002 was voted on (which we understand was still constitutionally alive when he took office). His brief, waffling statements from the Goodridge ruling on reveal a spineless politician without values or understanding of his Constitutional role.
To call a marriage amendment which bans civil unions "bigoted" -- as Romney did in 2002 --reveals his serious failings. Remember: GLAD is now openly using the legalization of civil unions in Connecticut as a legal argument for same-sex "marriage". (We warned you . . .) This demonstrates how little foresight Romney has on this issue. Or how dishonest he is being. Either way, do you want him as President?
Another example of failure to uphold conservative social values: He never lifted a finger to clean house at his Dept. of Education, or come to the support of David Parker and other parents around the state, whose schools routinely violate the parental notification law (on sex education). And what kind of "social conservative" would have a "Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth"?
But the Globe is wrong to suggest his lack of accomplishments is partly due to time he spent on the social issues. In fact, he spent next to NO time standing up for social conservative values. That was his biggest failure, both as chief executive and head of the Republican Party. He was totally disengaged from building his own party, a must if we are to dismantle the one-party tyranny in this state. (Remember: He was an Independent before deciding to run against Kennedy in 1994.) He never spoke out for life issues. He never used the bully pulpit even to roll back taxes, as the voters have demanded!
This says a lot about Romney: It's all about him, not about political/moral principles, or the greater good of the state (or country) he's governing. How could we trust him as President?
Even honest Democrats recognize that absolute power of one party has corrupted this state. Romney had a golden opportunity to do something about that. What happened in 2004? His party's candidates were not properly supported, and what directives there were from the top instructed them to avoid discussing same-sex marriage! And in the 2006 election, he did nothing to support Republican legislative candidates, and only campaigned for Kerry Healey the day before the election! And where did he spend his Commonwealth PAC money? In states with important Presidential primaries (as the Globe reported on 12-24: "Romney left Mass. on 212 days in '06").
Romney did not devote his attention to the marriage issue. He basically let it ride, watched and waited for the least risky opportunities to speak out -- and then in only the mildest terms. In South Carolina he said that same-sex marriage must be halted, but back here he didn't lift a finger to see that the original protection of marriage referendum from 2002 was voted on (which we understand was still constitutionally alive when he took office). His brief, waffling statements from the Goodridge ruling on reveal a spineless politician without values or understanding of his Constitutional role.
To call a marriage amendment which bans civil unions "bigoted" -- as Romney did in 2002 --reveals his serious failings. Remember: GLAD is now openly using the legalization of civil unions in Connecticut as a legal argument for same-sex "marriage". (We warned you . . .) This demonstrates how little foresight Romney has on this issue. Or how dishonest he is being. Either way, do you want him as President?
Another example of failure to uphold conservative social values: He never lifted a finger to clean house at his Dept. of Education, or come to the support of David Parker and other parents around the state, whose schools routinely violate the parental notification law (on sex education). And what kind of "social conservative" would have a "Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth"?
Sunday, December 24, 2006
Christmas
Merry Christmas
Matthias Grunewald
Nativity and Concert of Angels
from the Isenheim Altarpiece
from the Isenheim Altarpiece
Unterlinden Museum, Colmar, France
Thursday, December 21, 2006
Governor Romney: Defend the Constitution!
DEFENDING THE CONSTITUTION OF MASSACHUSETTSat the State House, Boston, November 19, 2006
[photo (c) 2006 MassResistance]
Wednesday, December 20, 2006
Homofascism
As you read about the phony charges being brought against Larry Cirignano, organizer for Catholic Vote, picture this vicious crowd at another event targeted by GLBT radicals. This video, shot on Nov. 19 at the State House, documents an earlier attempt by these homofascists to shut down a pro-marriage rally. Towards the end of the video clip, you see a tall man with glasses, looking very smug and proud of his handiwork organizing this exercise in intimidation. (Black jacket, white shirt.) That's Marc Solomon, head of MassEquality (617-878-2300; info@MassEquality.org). This is what he really does for a living.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fseDXR-huXI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fseDXR-huXI
Tuesday, December 19, 2006
The Pain of Not Knowing Your Biological Parent
After we wrote yesterday's post, we saw David Frum's blog in National Review (12-17-06). He links to this intriguing article in the Washington Post, by a young woman whose "father an was anonymous sperm donor."
Read it and weep. And think of all the children coming into the world this way to single women, or women with lesbian partners, or homosexual male couples paying for donor eggs and surrogate mother services.
There really should be a rethinking of the whole reproductive technology "industry". So much evil is rising to the surface now, including the abortion side of this coin: The embryonic stem cell debate has recently focused attention on all the "leftover" embryos. And "selective reduction" of multiple pregnancies resulting from IVF is another way of killing the smallest babies.
Read it and weep. And think of all the children coming into the world this way to single women, or women with lesbian partners, or homosexual male couples paying for donor eggs and surrogate mother services.
There really should be a rethinking of the whole reproductive technology "industry". So much evil is rising to the surface now, including the abortion side of this coin: The embryonic stem cell debate has recently focused attention on all the "leftover" embryos. And "selective reduction" of multiple pregnancies resulting from IVF is another way of killing the smallest babies.
Excerpts from the Washington Post article:
...I was angry at the idea that where donor conception is concerned, everyone focuses on the "parents" -- the adults who can make choices about their own lives. The recipient gets sympathy for wanting to have a child. The donor gets a guarantee of anonymity and absolution from any responsibility for the offspring of his "donation." As long as these adults are happy, then donor conception is a success, right?
Not so. The children born of these transactions are people, too. Those of us in the first documented generation of donor babies -- conceived in the late 1980s and early '90s, when sperm banks became more common and donor insemination began to flourish -- are coming of age, and we have something to say.
I'm here to tell you that emotionally, many of us are not keeping up. We didn't ask to be born into this situation, with its limitations and confusion. It's hypocritical of parents and medical professionals to assume that biological roots won't matter to the "products" of the cryobanks' service, when the longing for a biological relationship is what brings customers to the banks in the first place.
... when I was small, I would daydream about a tall, lean man picking me up and swinging me around in the front yard, a manly man melting at a touch from his little girl. ... My daydreams always ended abruptly; I knew I would never have a dad. As a coping mechanism, I used to think that he was dead. That made it easier. . . .
My heart went out to those others [donor children], especially after I participated in a couple of online groups. When I read some of the mothers' thoughts about their choice for conception, it made me feel degraded to nothing more than a vial of frozen sperm. It seemed to me that most of the mothers and donors give little thought to the feelings of the children who would result from their actions. It's not so much that they're coldhearted as that they don't consider what the children might think once they grow up.
Those of us created with donated sperm won't stay bubbly babies forever. We're all going to grow into adults and form opinions about the decision to bring us into the world in a way that deprives us of the basic right to know where we came from, what our history is and who both our parents are. . . .
Sunday, December 17, 2006
Mary Cheney's Baby
Regarding Mary Cheney's baby ... Most conservative commentators, including James Dobson ("Two Mommies Is One Too Many," Time Magazine, 12-12-06), continue to focus on "every child needing both a father and a mother."
Speaking as a parent of both biological and adopted children, I have something else to add. I agree that ideally a child should have parents of both sexes. But beyond that, same-sex parenting burdens the child's life in other ways.
Through conscious, selfish action on the part of these parents -- in some cases, a biological parent, and in some cases not -- he or she deliberately uses modern reproductive technology to help give birth to a child who will not know one (or both) biological parent(s). It is unconscionable for an adult to knowingly inflict such pain on an innocent child.
An adopted child who does not know anything (or even much) of his or her biological parent(s) is haunted by those unknowable facts every day, from the time he or she is old enough to understand what "adoption" means. Even if the child knows just a little about one bio parent, it is still a terribly painful loss, knowing they'll likely never meet her. If the child knows nothing, there is an even greater void. It becomes an unhealing sore affecting the child in myriad, unpredictable, unverbalized ways.
Who knows who the biological father is in the case of Mary Cheney's child? It may not bother her or her "partner" if they've decided to anonymously inseminate. But it will bother the child. And if they do know who the father is, how will this man be a part of the child's life in any way that's not terribly sad for the child? Will they have some sort of "poly" household? How will they explain to their child who his/her father is?
For most adopted children, their adoption is the "happier ending" that keeps them from orphanage or a sequence of foster homes. In the case of children born to parents who give them up, adoption (without the child's knowledge of the biological parents) is a still a positive outcome. But for a child born to same-sex "parents" through modern reproductive technologies, the child is beset with another burden -- her/she is not the outcome of a natural biological process, but is an engineered product two adults who had plenty of time to reflect. How selfish on the part of these two women. Their child will soon instinctively know that something's amiss in his/her little world, and will be pained by it every day. Does this matter to the two mommies?
No one's advocating removing the child from this household. But I will say that modern reproductive technologies are not a good thing. It's hard enough for the adopted child who's already in existence. It's worse for a child whose unnatural existence was carefully planned by two (or more) people lacking the excuse that they were caught up in the passion of the moment.
(P.S.: I have a real problem with IVF for married heterosexual couples too.)
Dobson wrote: "No-fault divorce reflected our selfish determination to do what was convenient for adults, and it has been, on balance, a disaster. We should not enter into yet another untested and far-reaching social experiment, this one driven by the desires of same-sex couples to bear and raise children."
Romney Has NOT Shifted to Right on "Gay Rights"
The Boston Globe persists in portraying Gov. Mitt Romney as shifting to the right on "gay rights." That's because they refuse to discuss what he really accomplished for the "gay rights" movement: the implementation of homosexual "marriage" in Massachusetts, and the entrenchment of radical GLBT organizations in our public high schools.
While Scott Helman ("Romney's journey to the right," 12-17-06) grudgingly acknowledges MassResistance as the instigator of the ongoing national re-examination of Romney's positions, he does not seem to have digested the parts of our report outlining:
In today's Herald, George Will's commentary, "Ghosts of comments past haunt McCain, Romney," also fixates on Romney's 1994 statements to the Log Cabin Republicans, and ignores these major problems with his record.
For now, it seems, we have to settle for the mainstream media's hyper-focus on Romney's 1994 statements and the abortion issue. But they cannot go on ignoring these major stories much longer. Eventually they'll be forced to notice (by his Republican primary opponents) that his advocacy and implementation of "gay rights" has extended throughout his tenure as Governor. Will the Globe then refer to such information as a "screed" from the McCain or Brownback campaign headquarters?
While Scott Helman ("Romney's journey to the right," 12-17-06) grudgingly acknowledges MassResistance as the instigator of the ongoing national re-examination of Romney's positions, he does not seem to have digested the parts of our report outlining:
- Romney's role in homosexual "marriage";
- Romney's role pushing homosexuality in our public schools (through his "Governor's Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth"); and
- Romney's appointment of liberal and "gay" activists to administrative posts and judgeships (and leaving many judgeships open for Governor-elect Patrick to fill).
In today's Herald, George Will's commentary, "Ghosts of comments past haunt McCain, Romney," also fixates on Romney's 1994 statements to the Log Cabin Republicans, and ignores these major problems with his record.
For now, it seems, we have to settle for the mainstream media's hyper-focus on Romney's 1994 statements and the abortion issue. But they cannot go on ignoring these major stories much longer. Eventually they'll be forced to notice (by his Republican primary opponents) that his advocacy and implementation of "gay rights" has extended throughout his tenure as Governor. Will the Globe then refer to such information as a "screed" from the McCain or Brownback campaign headquarters?
Friday, December 15, 2006
Romney's National Review Interview: STILL NOT Pro-Life, Still Not Held Accountable for "Gay Marriage"!
Romney just confirmed: He's still "pro-choice"! This unwittingly comes out in his latest interview in National Review Online. (See our analysis below.)
And, the political media is STILL not dealing with the larger constitutional issue of Gov. Romney's record in Massachusetts, revealed in our report: his illegal implementation of homosexual "marriage" -- and the continuing myth that these "marriages" are real and legal! On both the right and the left, prominent political journals are willfully ignoring this HUGE subject -- a significant failure by professional journalists to deal with an issue of monumental historic significance!
On the Right: Kathryn Lopez ("KLo") at National Review Online's blog (12-14-06), is once again fawning over Romney, in a specially timed and placed fluffy interview (more on that below). Apparently in line to be his press secretary (should the truth about his record never get out), she gives him every opportunity to explain away his inconsistencies on abortion and ENDA. But never presses him on his role in starting homosexual "marriage" in Massachusetts.
And over on the Left: At The New Republic, Ryan Lizza (12-15-06) points out Romney's failure to control his Governor's Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth, but focuses inordinately on "golden showers" and "fisting" discussions in the "Little Black Book". (Hmm...) He fails to mention the detailed, unassailable information we gave him on Romney's failure to uphold the Constitution and his unilateral implementation of homosexual "marriage". In the long run, the focus of this article may not be a bad thing, because the X-rated stuff Romney put kids in touch with (through his Youth Commission and his DOE's encouragement of gay clubs in the schools) is truly shocking.
More on KLo's NR interview:
This part of Romney's response -- on how he evolved on abortion from pro-choice to pro-life (at the age of 57) -- struck us, because it shows ROMNEY IS STILL NOT PRO-LIFE !
[Romney:] "But I do believe that the one-size-fits-all, abortion-on-demand-for-all-nine-months decision in Roe v. Wade does not serve the country well and is another example of judges making the law instead of interpreting the Constitution. What I would like to see is the Court return the issue to the people to decide. ... I understand there are people of good faith on both sides of the issue. They should be able to make and advance their case in democratic forums with civility, mutual respect, and confidence that our democratic process is the best place to handle these issues."
We say, NO! This is not a true pro-life position either! People should NOT vote on either the definition of marriage, or the definition of human life! Marriage is marriage, and murder is murder! Either a human fetus is a human life, or it is not. If you believe it is a HUMAN, how can we leave it up to the voters to decide whether it can be murdered? Come on, Romney. Come on, KLo -- and National Review. Romney: You're still "pro-choice" if you think the people should be given the opportunity to vote on abortion! "Let the People Vote!" -- on murder???
Also: If Romney has suddenly become pro-life in the last two years of his political career, then why did he force the morning-after pill on private hospitals just one year ago (with no conscience exemption to protect freedom of religion)?
December 7, 2005: "The state Department of Public Health has determined that Catholic and other privately-run hospitals in Massachusetts can opt out of giving the morning-after pill to rape victims because of religious or moral objections, despite a new law that requires all hospitals who treat such victims to provide them with emergency contraception."
("Private hospitals exempt on pill law," Boston Globe)
December 9, 2005 -- Flip-Flop: "Governor Mitt Romney reversed course on the state's new emergency contraception law yesterday, saying that all hospitals in the state will be obligated to provide the morning-after pill to rape victims. The decision overturns a ruling made public this week by the state Department of Public Health that privately run hospitals could opt out of the requirement if they objected on moral or religious grounds."
("Romney says no hospitals are exempt from pill law," Boston Globe)
And, the political media is STILL not dealing with the larger constitutional issue of Gov. Romney's record in Massachusetts, revealed in our report: his illegal implementation of homosexual "marriage" -- and the continuing myth that these "marriages" are real and legal! On both the right and the left, prominent political journals are willfully ignoring this HUGE subject -- a significant failure by professional journalists to deal with an issue of monumental historic significance!
On the Right: Kathryn Lopez ("KLo") at National Review Online's blog (12-14-06), is once again fawning over Romney, in a specially timed and placed fluffy interview (more on that below). Apparently in line to be his press secretary (should the truth about his record never get out), she gives him every opportunity to explain away his inconsistencies on abortion and ENDA. But never presses him on his role in starting homosexual "marriage" in Massachusetts.
And over on the Left: At The New Republic, Ryan Lizza (12-15-06) points out Romney's failure to control his Governor's Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth, but focuses inordinately on "golden showers" and "fisting" discussions in the "Little Black Book". (Hmm...) He fails to mention the detailed, unassailable information we gave him on Romney's failure to uphold the Constitution and his unilateral implementation of homosexual "marriage". In the long run, the focus of this article may not be a bad thing, because the X-rated stuff Romney put kids in touch with (through his Youth Commission and his DOE's encouragement of gay clubs in the schools) is truly shocking.
More on KLo's NR interview:
This part of Romney's response -- on how he evolved on abortion from pro-choice to pro-life (at the age of 57) -- struck us, because it shows ROMNEY IS STILL NOT PRO-LIFE !
[Romney:] "But I do believe that the one-size-fits-all, abortion-on-demand-for-all-nine-months decision in Roe v. Wade does not serve the country well and is another example of judges making the law instead of interpreting the Constitution. What I would like to see is the Court return the issue to the people to decide. ... I understand there are people of good faith on both sides of the issue. They should be able to make and advance their case in democratic forums with civility, mutual respect, and confidence that our democratic process is the best place to handle these issues."
We say, NO! This is not a true pro-life position either! People should NOT vote on either the definition of marriage, or the definition of human life! Marriage is marriage, and murder is murder! Either a human fetus is a human life, or it is not. If you believe it is a HUMAN, how can we leave it up to the voters to decide whether it can be murdered? Come on, Romney. Come on, KLo -- and National Review. Romney: You're still "pro-choice" if you think the people should be given the opportunity to vote on abortion! "Let the People Vote!" -- on murder???
Also: If Romney has suddenly become pro-life in the last two years of his political career, then why did he force the morning-after pill on private hospitals just one year ago (with no conscience exemption to protect freedom of religion)?
December 7, 2005: "The state Department of Public Health has determined that Catholic and other privately-run hospitals in Massachusetts can opt out of giving the morning-after pill to rape victims because of religious or moral objections, despite a new law that requires all hospitals who treat such victims to provide them with emergency contraception."
("Private hospitals exempt on pill law," Boston Globe)
December 9, 2005 -- Flip-Flop: "Governor Mitt Romney reversed course on the state's new emergency contraception law yesterday, saying that all hospitals in the state will be obligated to provide the morning-after pill to rape victims. The decision overturns a ruling made public this week by the state Department of Public Health that privately run hospitals could opt out of the requirement if they objected on moral or religious grounds."
("Romney says no hospitals are exempt from pill law," Boston Globe)
Thursday, December 14, 2006
Robert Paine, Esq. Sets "Americans for Mitt" Straight
Americans for Mitt, one of the cloned Mitt for Prez sites popping up all over, had a brief exchange with a reader, "J", who shared her correspondence with us. We sent it on to Robert Paine, Esq., the lawyer behind our Constitutional legal analysis of Romney's role in the homosexual "marriage" fiasco, who generously gave his valuable time to educate the Mitt clones around the country. Paine wrote:
Nathan [Americans for Mitt fellow],
You stated in an email to "J" [who had sent him a link to our "Romney Deception" report]:
Thanks again, but the Massachusetts Legislature is to blame for gay marriage, along with the Supreme Court. They had 180 days to act after the court ruling, but did not do so. Governor Romney can't single-handedly outlaw gay marriage, despite what Mass Resistance and others would have you believe.
and in another earlier one you said: Thanks for the warning "J", but that report has been out for three weeks. And much of it is a case of selective reporting.
You suffer from a case of selective reading or just an utter lack of knowledge. You make no sense. Before you start offering legal opinions, you might read the law and suppress your desire to write nonsensical gibberish. If you are going to blame others for gay marriage, you might want to read up a bit first.
Try starting with the Massachusetts Constitution where it says:
Article XXX. In the government of this commonwealth, the legislative department shall never exercise the executive and judicial powers, or either of them: the executive shall never exercise the legislative and judicial powers, or either of them: the judicial shall never exercise the legislative and executive powers, or either of them: to the end it may be a government of laws and not of men.
Then read the Goodridge case. In it you will find that the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) did not strike the marriage law which they said does not and never did permit same-sex marriage.
Then read Mitt Romney's own words in the Boston Globe (April 16, 2004):
‘‘I believe the reason that the court gave 180 days to the Legislature was to allow the Legislature the chance to look through the laws developed over the centuries and see how they should be adjusted or clarified for purposes of same-sex marriage; the Legislature didn’t do that,’’ Romney said.
Then go to the State House and research what the Legislature did in response to the SJC's "suggestion" that they change the laws. What you will find is that no laws have ever been changed in Massachusetts.
Then go back to the Constitution and read:
Article X. …(T)he people of this commonwealth are not controllable by any other laws than those to which their constitutional representative body have given their consent.
and read which of the three branches, the judiciary or the legislature or the supreme executive, legally has the authority to suspend a statute. There you will find that only the legislature can "make law," legislate, redefine, rewrite, etc.
Article XX. The power of suspending the laws, or the execution of the laws, ought never to be exercised but by the legislature, or by authority derived from it, to be exercised in such particular cases only as the legislature shall expressly provide for. [See Comm'r of Public Health v. The Bessie M. Burke Memorial Hospital, 366 Mass. 734 (1975) (“When one takes into account the historical basis of art. 20 in the attempts of the Crown to suspend the laws or operation of the laws without consent of Parliament,(fn13) one must agree with the occasional remarks in the decided cases that the core meaning of art. 20 is that only the Legislature, not the Executive or Judicial branches, may suspend an existing law.) ]
Then read Mitt Romney's May 2004 training powerpoint for Town Clerks:
Clerks should be ready to implement the new law on . . . May 17, 2004.
What new law? Which gets us to your nonsensical legal analysis . . .
How could the Legislature be responsible for gay marriage? They did nothing to institute gay marriage (granted they have in the past and continue to prevent the people from amending a constitution which already protects the institution of marriage, but "establishing" gay marriage rests with Romney). How could the SJC be responsible for gay marriage?
Is not the Executive Branch (Gov. Mitt Romney) a co-equal branch? Are there not three co-equal branches of government? Does that not mean that neither branch can point to another and say "the other made me do it"? There are three separate powers and three separate sets of duties and responsibilities.
The Massachusetts Constitution mandates that Romney, the Governor, is the "supreme executive." Only the supreme executive is permitted and obligated to execute the laws. Romney now acts like he had no choice, that the justices of the peace and town clerks are somehow not members of the executive branch and that they did this on their own ... But if they are not, why then did he threaten their jobs through his Legal Counsel saying that JP's must resign if they were unwilling to perform these illegal marriages?
Romney acts, like you just ignorantly claimed, as if the Legislature and the Judiciary have power over him. For Romney to claim that he can do nothing when the SJC violates the Constitution is to surrender democracy. Thomas Jefferson explains it this way:
"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy." O'Coin's Inc. v. Treasurer of the County of Worcester , 362 Mass. 507 (1972) (“It was certainly never intended that any one department, through the exercise of its acknowledged powers, should be able to prevent another department from fulfilling its responsibilities to the people under the Constitution.”)
Mitt Romney had and continues on a daily basis to have a constitutional responsibility to uphold the marriage law that has never been stricken, changed, amended, or repealed. That law prohibits gay marriage. Thus, Romney is a lawbreaker and a felon for violating his oath of office (subject to 20 years in prison).
Welcome to America. Separation of powers. Read the Constitution Nathan, it matters. No matter how much you claim otherwise by pointing to the Judges, to the legislators, to the rogue town clerks and JP's, this all comes back to who was in charge of executing the laws of Massachusetts.
Romney should have the courage and character to admit that contrary to many legal advisors' pleas, he made a political decision to suspend the constitution and the marriage laws of Massachusetts. He should admit that in hindsight that was a really bad decision, because it is about to end his chances of becoming president.
Imagine a truly contrite Governor Romney before the American people. Imagine if he announced to the people he was ending the fraud of gay marriage in America. Imagine who the next president might be. If that doesn't happen imagine where you will be on inauguration day 2009. Please save this letter and on that day I suggest you pull it out and send me an e-mail. I would love to hear where you were.
Sincerely,
Robert Paine, Esq.
RobertPaine.blogspot.com
Nathan [Americans for Mitt fellow],
You stated in an email to "J" [who had sent him a link to our "Romney Deception" report]:
Thanks again, but the Massachusetts Legislature is to blame for gay marriage, along with the Supreme Court. They had 180 days to act after the court ruling, but did not do so. Governor Romney can't single-handedly outlaw gay marriage, despite what Mass Resistance and others would have you believe.
and in another earlier one you said: Thanks for the warning "J", but that report has been out for three weeks. And much of it is a case of selective reporting.
You suffer from a case of selective reading or just an utter lack of knowledge. You make no sense. Before you start offering legal opinions, you might read the law and suppress your desire to write nonsensical gibberish. If you are going to blame others for gay marriage, you might want to read up a bit first.
Try starting with the Massachusetts Constitution where it says:
Article XXX. In the government of this commonwealth, the legislative department shall never exercise the executive and judicial powers, or either of them: the executive shall never exercise the legislative and judicial powers, or either of them: the judicial shall never exercise the legislative and executive powers, or either of them: to the end it may be a government of laws and not of men.
Then read the Goodridge case. In it you will find that the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) did not strike the marriage law which they said does not and never did permit same-sex marriage.
Then read Mitt Romney's own words in the Boston Globe (April 16, 2004):
‘‘I believe the reason that the court gave 180 days to the Legislature was to allow the Legislature the chance to look through the laws developed over the centuries and see how they should be adjusted or clarified for purposes of same-sex marriage; the Legislature didn’t do that,’’ Romney said.
Then go to the State House and research what the Legislature did in response to the SJC's "suggestion" that they change the laws. What you will find is that no laws have ever been changed in Massachusetts.
Then go back to the Constitution and read:
Article X. …(T)he people of this commonwealth are not controllable by any other laws than those to which their constitutional representative body have given their consent.
and read which of the three branches, the judiciary or the legislature or the supreme executive, legally has the authority to suspend a statute. There you will find that only the legislature can "make law," legislate, redefine, rewrite, etc.
Article XX. The power of suspending the laws, or the execution of the laws, ought never to be exercised but by the legislature, or by authority derived from it, to be exercised in such particular cases only as the legislature shall expressly provide for. [See Comm'r of Public Health v. The Bessie M. Burke Memorial Hospital, 366 Mass. 734 (1975) (“When one takes into account the historical basis of art. 20 in the attempts of the Crown to suspend the laws or operation of the laws without consent of Parliament,(fn13) one must agree with the occasional remarks in the decided cases that the core meaning of art. 20 is that only the Legislature, not the Executive or Judicial branches, may suspend an existing law.) ]
Then read Mitt Romney's May 2004 training powerpoint for Town Clerks:
Clerks should be ready to implement the new law on . . . May 17, 2004.
What new law? Which gets us to your nonsensical legal analysis . . .
How could the Legislature be responsible for gay marriage? They did nothing to institute gay marriage (granted they have in the past and continue to prevent the people from amending a constitution which already protects the institution of marriage, but "establishing" gay marriage rests with Romney). How could the SJC be responsible for gay marriage?
Is not the Executive Branch (Gov. Mitt Romney) a co-equal branch? Are there not three co-equal branches of government? Does that not mean that neither branch can point to another and say "the other made me do it"? There are three separate powers and three separate sets of duties and responsibilities.
The Massachusetts Constitution mandates that Romney, the Governor, is the "supreme executive." Only the supreme executive is permitted and obligated to execute the laws. Romney now acts like he had no choice, that the justices of the peace and town clerks are somehow not members of the executive branch and that they did this on their own ... But if they are not, why then did he threaten their jobs through his Legal Counsel saying that JP's must resign if they were unwilling to perform these illegal marriages?
Romney acts, like you just ignorantly claimed, as if the Legislature and the Judiciary have power over him. For Romney to claim that he can do nothing when the SJC violates the Constitution is to surrender democracy. Thomas Jefferson explains it this way:
"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy." O'Coin's Inc. v. Treasurer of the County of Worcester , 362 Mass. 507 (1972) (“It was certainly never intended that any one department, through the exercise of its acknowledged powers, should be able to prevent another department from fulfilling its responsibilities to the people under the Constitution.”)
Mitt Romney had and continues on a daily basis to have a constitutional responsibility to uphold the marriage law that has never been stricken, changed, amended, or repealed. That law prohibits gay marriage. Thus, Romney is a lawbreaker and a felon for violating his oath of office (subject to 20 years in prison).
Welcome to America. Separation of powers. Read the Constitution Nathan, it matters. No matter how much you claim otherwise by pointing to the Judges, to the legislators, to the rogue town clerks and JP's, this all comes back to who was in charge of executing the laws of Massachusetts.
Romney should have the courage and character to admit that contrary to many legal advisors' pleas, he made a political decision to suspend the constitution and the marriage laws of Massachusetts. He should admit that in hindsight that was a really bad decision, because it is about to end his chances of becoming president.
Imagine a truly contrite Governor Romney before the American people. Imagine if he announced to the people he was ending the fraud of gay marriage in America. Imagine who the next president might be. If that doesn't happen imagine where you will be on inauguration day 2009. Please save this letter and on that day I suggest you pull it out and send me an e-mail. I would love to hear where you were.
Sincerely,
Robert Paine, Esq.
RobertPaine.blogspot.com
MassResistance's "Mitt Romney Deception" Report Makes Brit Hume's Special Report
MassResistance is given as the source of the latest Romney buzz on Brit Hume's "Special Report" on Fox News (Tuesday, December 12). See Mort Kondracke's comments below. [Transcript at RealClearPolitics.]
HUME: Well, there you got two views of the McCain candidacy, at least in Iowa, which, of course is, the earliest (ph) state. If you don't do well in Iowa, you're fighting an uphill battle. What she said was reflected by many others, conservatives, and particularly conservative and active Christians in Iowa which is an important voting bloc, applies to Rudy Giuliani, as well. So, back with our panel now to discus this. How -- I mean, is this a- - chicken, so to speak, that are going to come home to roost, sooner or later and we're -- and this is just a sign of it -- this report we had from Steve Brown tonight about the very negative attitudes toward those two guys because of their views on abortion and certain other key issues.
KONDRACKE: But, McCain's view on abortion is down the line pro-life.
HUME: Giuliani.
KONDRACKE: And Giuliani is pro-choice. The fascinating case is Mitt Romney, who wasn't covered in that report. There's an organization named Mass resistance, which is pro-life organization, very conservative, in Massachusetts that is blasting Romney has being the most pro-abortion, most pro gay-rights, they say, in the country. That can't be because he's not as pro-gay and pro-choice as Arnold Schwarzenegger, but you know, they're questioning his credentials...
HUME: Well, let's talk for a moment about Iowa and McCain and Giuliani in Iowa. What is your sense, Michael, of whether -- so, McCain passes muster, if he does, with these people on abortion.
HUME: Well, there you got two views of the McCain candidacy, at least in Iowa, which, of course is, the earliest (ph) state. If you don't do well in Iowa, you're fighting an uphill battle. What she said was reflected by many others, conservatives, and particularly conservative and active Christians in Iowa which is an important voting bloc, applies to Rudy Giuliani, as well. So, back with our panel now to discus this. How -- I mean, is this a- - chicken, so to speak, that are going to come home to roost, sooner or later and we're -- and this is just a sign of it -- this report we had from Steve Brown tonight about the very negative attitudes toward those two guys because of their views on abortion and certain other key issues.
KONDRACKE: But, McCain's view on abortion is down the line pro-life.
HUME: Giuliani.
KONDRACKE: And Giuliani is pro-choice. The fascinating case is Mitt Romney, who wasn't covered in that report. There's an organization named Mass resistance, which is pro-life organization, very conservative, in Massachusetts that is blasting Romney has being the most pro-abortion, most pro gay-rights, they say, in the country. That can't be because he's not as pro-gay and pro-choice as Arnold Schwarzenegger, but you know, they're questioning his credentials...
HUME: Well, let's talk for a moment about Iowa and McCain and Giuliani in Iowa. What is your sense, Michael, of whether -- so, McCain passes muster, if he does, with these people on abortion.
Wednesday, December 13, 2006
Timeline Documents Romney's Role in Creating Same-Sex "Marriages"
Check out this timeline, first published on our blog on November 23. It makes Romney's role in starting s-s "marriages" very clear.
Timeline Documents Romney's Role in Creating Same-Sex "Marriages"
Timeline Documents Romney's Role in Creating Same-Sex "Marriages"
Pro-Family Leaders & Media Still Ignoring that Romney Started "Gay Marriages"!
How absurd: To even float the idea that Romney could "explain" away his hypocrisy! (See yesterday's AP article below.) And the problem is much deeper than just his 1994 letter to the Log Cabin Republicans. It goes to his unconstitutional implementation of same-sex "marriages" here in Massachusetts.
Pro-family leaders around the country, as well as the mainstream media, are trying to bury that part of the story. And the fact that Romney can still reverse his illegal directives that began the phony "marriages" via executive order before he leaves office on January 2! Why?
John Haskins writes:
I think the idea that Romney can "explain away" the recent revelations is due in large part to the fact that it's simply unmentionable that our side fell into treating Mitt Romney as if he reluctantly "executed" the Goodridge decision, rather than what he really did: use the legal and political confusion about Goodridge to illegally impose "homosexual marriage" and blame the Court (which must have pleased four of the judges to no end).
It is simply far too humiliating for the national pro-family leadership (and those associated with the Mass. Family Institute and the Boston Archdiocese) to face the mind-boggling implications of the fact that homosexual "marriage" is still illegal and that Romney committed an impeachable felony "in broad daylight" by violating his oath of office -- with the PR responsibilities handled for him by gullible pro-marriage leaders who fell for his head fake.
Moreover, some of the lawyers who failed so colossally in advising them would be vulnerable to malpractice lawsuits and would never recover their reputations. As I have written in various places, it's almost indisputable that very few of these pro-family lawyers even consulted the state Constitution, or the massive body of relevant case law.
So, talking about "rediscovered" twelve-year-old promises to Log Cabin Republicans is code for the shock of figuring out that Romney has played them for fools ever since he announced that he had "no choice but to execute the law" and then imposed "homosexual marriage."
Conservatives say Romney needs to explain record on gay rights
By Glen Johnson (AP, 12-12-06)
At a gathering of San Diego County Republicans on Monday night, Romney brushed aside a question from The Associated Press. "Thanks, I have other people to talk to right now," he said. ... Such responses may not satisfy conservatives, who hold critical sway in the primaries and could opt for other possible candidates with strong records on social issues such as Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback and Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee.
Several conservative leaders are seeking answers from Romney.
"I am concerned and I do think he needs to explain this," said Paul Weyrich, chief executive officer of the Free Congress Foundation. "Because he either is or isn't in favor of the homosexual agenda and we need to know before we would get involved in his candidacy."
Richard Land, a top member of the Southern Baptist Convention, was among a group of evangelicals who met with Romney at his home in October. Land said Tuesday, "Christians believe in conversion, and so they're open to listen, but when a candidate 12 years ago says he is more of a champion on these issues than Ted Kennedy, that needs to be explained."
Tom Minnery, spokesman for Focus on the Family, the Colorado-based evangelical organization, said homosexuality is an emotional issue. "You've got to be committed to your position for it or against it or you'll be swayed, so he's got a lot of explaining to do," Minnery said of the governor.
Pro-family leaders around the country, as well as the mainstream media, are trying to bury that part of the story. And the fact that Romney can still reverse his illegal directives that began the phony "marriages" via executive order before he leaves office on January 2! Why?
John Haskins writes:
I think the idea that Romney can "explain away" the recent revelations is due in large part to the fact that it's simply unmentionable that our side fell into treating Mitt Romney as if he reluctantly "executed" the Goodridge decision, rather than what he really did: use the legal and political confusion about Goodridge to illegally impose "homosexual marriage" and blame the Court (which must have pleased four of the judges to no end).
It is simply far too humiliating for the national pro-family leadership (and those associated with the Mass. Family Institute and the Boston Archdiocese) to face the mind-boggling implications of the fact that homosexual "marriage" is still illegal and that Romney committed an impeachable felony "in broad daylight" by violating his oath of office -- with the PR responsibilities handled for him by gullible pro-marriage leaders who fell for his head fake.
Moreover, some of the lawyers who failed so colossally in advising them would be vulnerable to malpractice lawsuits and would never recover their reputations. As I have written in various places, it's almost indisputable that very few of these pro-family lawyers even consulted the state Constitution, or the massive body of relevant case law.
So, talking about "rediscovered" twelve-year-old promises to Log Cabin Republicans is code for the shock of figuring out that Romney has played them for fools ever since he announced that he had "no choice but to execute the law" and then imposed "homosexual marriage."
Conservatives say Romney needs to explain record on gay rights
By Glen Johnson (AP, 12-12-06)
At a gathering of San Diego County Republicans on Monday night, Romney brushed aside a question from The Associated Press. "Thanks, I have other people to talk to right now," he said. ... Such responses may not satisfy conservatives, who hold critical sway in the primaries and could opt for other possible candidates with strong records on social issues such as Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback and Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee.
Several conservative leaders are seeking answers from Romney.
"I am concerned and I do think he needs to explain this," said Paul Weyrich, chief executive officer of the Free Congress Foundation. "Because he either is or isn't in favor of the homosexual agenda and we need to know before we would get involved in his candidacy."
Richard Land, a top member of the Southern Baptist Convention, was among a group of evangelicals who met with Romney at his home in October. Land said Tuesday, "Christians believe in conversion, and so they're open to listen, but when a candidate 12 years ago says he is more of a champion on these issues than Ted Kennedy, that needs to be explained."
Tom Minnery, spokesman for Focus on the Family, the Colorado-based evangelical organization, said homosexuality is an emotional issue. "You've got to be committed to your position for it or against it or you'll be swayed, so he's got a lot of explaining to do," Minnery said of the governor.
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
Globe Suddenly Trying to Rescue Romney!
Today's article in the Boston Globe, "Romney is fast rising as a serious contender," by Peter S. Canellos (12-12-06), is an obvious attempt to rescue Romney. The Globe belatedly realized that their reporting on Romney's 1994 pandering to the Log Cabin Republicans may be doing in a candidate they'd better keep in contention!
It is journalistic malpractice that they suddenly pretend the latest developments -- MassResistance's revelations on Romney's anti-family positions and the resulting loss of conservatives' support -- have never happened! So after twelve years of trashing Romney, the Globe has suddenly been convinced by much smarter strategists on the left that he is the best thing that ever happened to the homosexual revolution, and they should put him on life support!
This piece by Canellos is life support for Romney, and it is an old propaganda trick: Ignore the huge negative news, pump out good news. And try to ride out the storm.
--John Haskins
It is journalistic malpractice that they suddenly pretend the latest developments -- MassResistance's revelations on Romney's anti-family positions and the resulting loss of conservatives' support -- have never happened! So after twelve years of trashing Romney, the Globe has suddenly been convinced by much smarter strategists on the left that he is the best thing that ever happened to the homosexual revolution, and they should put him on life support!
This piece by Canellos is life support for Romney, and it is an old propaganda trick: Ignore the huge negative news, pump out good news. And try to ride out the storm.
--John Haskins
Shame on Sponsors of Boston Gay Men's Chorus
We posted recently on WCRB's shameful advertising for the Boston Gay Men's Chorus Christmas concert. Now we see (in the print edition of Bay Windows) other major sponsors of this event:
MassCulturalCouncil.org [YOUR TAX $ !!]
Bank of America
M. Steinert & Sons
Stop & Shop
Yale Appliance & Lighting
The Opera House
More on the MassCulturalCouncil:
MCC receives an annual appropriation from the state Legislature and funds from the National Endowment for the Arts, the Wallace Foundation, and others. Details on our budget are available online. In turn, MCC makes thousands of grants directly to non-profit cultural organizations, schools, communities, and individuals artists, through funding programs that use arts, science, and the humanities to build strong, diverse, livable communities. The beneficiaries of these programs comprise a cross-section of the population and citizens in each Massachusetts city and town.
MassCulturalCouncil.org [YOUR TAX $ !!]
Bank of America
M. Steinert & Sons
Stop & Shop
Yale Appliance & Lighting
The Opera House
More on the MassCulturalCouncil:
MCC receives an annual appropriation from the state Legislature and funds from the National Endowment for the Arts, the Wallace Foundation, and others. Details on our budget are available online. In turn, MCC makes thousands of grants directly to non-profit cultural organizations, schools, communities, and individuals artists, through funding programs that use arts, science, and the humanities to build strong, diverse, livable communities. The beneficiaries of these programs comprise a cross-section of the population and citizens in each Massachusetts city and town.
Monday, December 11, 2006
Two Romney Tidbits Not To Be Missed
1. Gov. Romney has issued many special “marriage” licenses to homosexual couples. Because of the special nature of these licenses, it is his prerogative as Chief Executive to refuse to issue them! Yet he gave out 189 in 2005 to homosexual couples, including (according to the Globe) to family and friends, as well as homosexual activist State Senator Barrios!
"...And in a November speech to the conservative Federalist Society in Washington DC, Romney decried the SJC decision, but also said, ''We should be open and tolerant of different lifestyles."…The applications Romney approved from same-sex couples included at least four from state legislators, including Jarrett T. Barrios, a state senator from Cambridge, members of the clergy from out-of-state, family members, and friends … " (“Some see conflict for Romney on gay marriage; Ceremonial licensing belies his opposition,” Boston Globe, 1-2-06.)
2. Romney supports homosexual couples adopting:
"Romney said he would file a 'very narrow' bill aimed at letting Catholic Charities, the social service arm of the Boston Archdiocese, and other religious groups exclude same-sex couples from their adoption programs if including them violates religious tenets. But he also noted that gays and lesbians have a right to adopt. 'I know that there will be some gay couples who will say that this could be discriminatory against us,' Romney told reporters ... 'Except that there are many, many other agencies that can meet the needs of those gay couples, and I recognize that they have a legitimate interest in being able to receive adoptive services.' The comments were softer in tone than those last week, when the governor said nothing about the legal basis for gay adoptions as he announced his plans to file the bill." ("Romney shifts tone on gay adoption," Boston Globe, 3-14-06.)
"...And in a November speech to the conservative Federalist Society in Washington DC, Romney decried the SJC decision, but also said, ''We should be open and tolerant of different lifestyles."…The applications Romney approved from same-sex couples included at least four from state legislators, including Jarrett T. Barrios, a state senator from Cambridge, members of the clergy from out-of-state, family members, and friends … " (“Some see conflict for Romney on gay marriage; Ceremonial licensing belies his opposition,” Boston Globe, 1-2-06.)
2. Romney supports homosexual couples adopting:
"Romney said he would file a 'very narrow' bill aimed at letting Catholic Charities, the social service arm of the Boston Archdiocese, and other religious groups exclude same-sex couples from their adoption programs if including them violates religious tenets. But he also noted that gays and lesbians have a right to adopt. 'I know that there will be some gay couples who will say that this could be discriminatory against us,' Romney told reporters ... 'Except that there are many, many other agencies that can meet the needs of those gay couples, and I recognize that they have a legitimate interest in being able to receive adoptive services.' The comments were softer in tone than those last week, when the governor said nothing about the legal basis for gay adoptions as he announced his plans to file the bill." ("Romney shifts tone on gay adoption," Boston Globe, 3-14-06.)
Mitt Romney's Chappaquiddick: His 1994 Letter to Log Cabin Republicans
Here's Mitt's actual letter to the Massachusetts Log Cabin Republicans in 1994, begging for their endorsement.
Did he think this would just disappear? It's sort of like Chappaquiddick for Teddy. It will haunt him forever.
Thanks, Bay Windows, for finding it -- and printing this from Don Feder's column at the time: In an Oct. 20, 1994 oped, Boston Herald columnist Don Feder said that the letter proved that “Romney is the Mormon Bill Weld, the man he looks to for inspiration. Nowhere is his social radicalism more apparent than on the cutting-edge moral issue of our age — the normalization of homosexuality.”
Did he think this would just disappear? It's sort of like Chappaquiddick for Teddy. It will haunt him forever.
Thanks, Bay Windows, for finding it -- and printing this from Don Feder's column at the time: In an Oct. 20, 1994 oped, Boston Herald columnist Don Feder said that the letter proved that “Romney is the Mormon Bill Weld, the man he looks to for inspiration. Nowhere is his social radicalism more apparent than on the cutting-edge moral issue of our age — the normalization of homosexuality.”
Sunday, December 10, 2006
WCRB Promotes Sodomite Christmas Concert
Would a major radio station advertise a holiday concert by a "Sex Workers' Chorus"? Would a prominent conservatory allow its concert hall to be used for an "Abortionists' Orchestra" winter solstice celebration? Does the Boston Symphony mark with asterisks the members of their orchestra according to whether they're heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, or trans?
So why does a musical performing group identified by its members' abnormal sexual practices get a pass, and worse, positive publicity? "Come join us for the happiest sodomite Christmas celebration ever!"
Boston's WCRB is advertising the upcoming concerts at Jordan Hall by the "Boston Gay Men's Chorus". Calling their event "Home for the Holidays," it includes the family-friendly "Charlie Brown's Christmas." (How will they twist that, we wonder?) How can anyone hear the ad, or sit in the audience, without thinking about what makes the performers different -- their sexual proclivities? Who wants to be reminded of that when you're thinking about the true meaning of Christmas, or just enjoying what should be politics-free, sex-free Christmas music?
We are sick of such groups constantly pushing their sexuality and sexual politics in our faces wherever we turn. WCRB ("Boston's Classical music station") supposedly celebrates the highest achievements of Western culture. We tune in to it for a reminder of what's great about our culture, and for a respite from the craziness of the social-political scene. How sad that they've jumped on this bandwagon.
So why does a musical performing group identified by its members' abnormal sexual practices get a pass, and worse, positive publicity? "Come join us for the happiest sodomite Christmas celebration ever!"
Boston's WCRB is advertising the upcoming concerts at Jordan Hall by the "Boston Gay Men's Chorus". Calling their event "Home for the Holidays," it includes the family-friendly "Charlie Brown's Christmas." (How will they twist that, we wonder?) How can anyone hear the ad, or sit in the audience, without thinking about what makes the performers different -- their sexual proclivities? Who wants to be reminded of that when you're thinking about the true meaning of Christmas, or just enjoying what should be politics-free, sex-free Christmas music?
We are sick of such groups constantly pushing their sexuality and sexual politics in our faces wherever we turn. WCRB ("Boston's Classical music station") supposedly celebrates the highest achievements of Western culture. We tune in to it for a reminder of what's great about our culture, and for a respite from the craziness of the social-political scene. How sad that they've jumped on this bandwagon.
Saturday, December 09, 2006
Globe Refuses to Mention MassResistance as Source of "Romney Buzz"
Our print edition of today's Boston Globe didn't include the piece, "New questions on Romney's stance on gays; Letter to Log Cabin group expressed his support in '94," which we just found online. Just as we said in our earlier post today, the media wishes we'd go away, and refuses to acknowledge OUR report on Romney as the instigator of the national "buzz" on Romney's pro-homosexual positions!
Note that today's Globe article does quote MassResistance president Brian Camenker at the end, but fails to note that the report is OURS, not our good friend Peter LaBarbera's whom they do cite (though he posted it on his site, Americans for Truth, on Nov. 28, clearly crediting us -- a week after we sent it out on the internet). And the New York Times guest column by Thomas B . Edsall today, "The Rascals on the Right," and the AP article in today's New York Times, "Gov. Romney's Record on Gays Questioned," fail to identify MassResistance as the "rascals on the right"!
Edsall (in the NY Times) reports some of the truth: "Although Romney has evidently led an uneventful [def: no affairs or bribery scandals?] private life, he is trying to forcibly reinvent himself from his incarnation as a Massachusetts governor who favored abortion rights and gay rights."
The New York Times/AP quotes Tony Perkins (Family Research Council -- which hosted Romney as a pro-family star at their Liberty Sunday event October 15, AFTER our associates had explained to him that Romney was severely compromised by his unconstitutional, illegal implementation of gay marriage). Seems that Mr. Perkins has finally had his eyes opened by MassResistance's efforts to out the TRUTH:
NO -- we have a national voice now. And the Globe had better recognize that the internet and blogosphere have overturned their monopoly on the "news".
The Globe reports today:
... But the reaction to the comments from the 1994 Massachusetts Senate race indicate that some conservatives may be reassessing Romney. "This is quite disturbing," Tony Perkins, head of the Family Research Council and an influential conservative, told the Times.
Romney's views on gays have stimulated considerable chatter in the conservative blogosphere, where some have wondered aloud if he has hurt his standing with conservative voters.
"Will it sink the Romney campaign? I have a hard time seeing him win in the South," wrote the UtahConservative blog in reaction to a Nov. 26 Globe column about Romney's views on gays, which also cites the letter to the Massachusetts Log Cabin group.
Americans for Truth, a conservative group that opposes gay rights, posted an essay late last month saying, "Romney has a long record of supporting homosexual and abortion 'rights' despite his Mormon religion." [What the Globe doesn't say is that this posting on Americans for Truth accompanies OUR report!] ...
In a recent posting titled "The Mitt Romney deception" that touches on Romney's gay rights positions, local conservative activist Brian Camenker wrote: "Despite recent statements across the country by Governor Mitt Romney claiming he's pro-life, pro-family and a committed conservative, a broad investigation of his actual statements, actions, and public positions over the years indicates that he has spent his entire career speaking and governing as a liberal."
Note that today's Globe article does quote MassResistance president Brian Camenker at the end, but fails to note that the report is OURS, not our good friend Peter LaBarbera's whom they do cite (though he posted it on his site, Americans for Truth, on Nov. 28, clearly crediting us -- a week after we sent it out on the internet). And the New York Times guest column by Thomas B . Edsall today, "The Rascals on the Right," and the AP article in today's New York Times, "Gov. Romney's Record on Gays Questioned," fail to identify MassResistance as the "rascals on the right"!
Edsall (in the NY Times) reports some of the truth: "Although Romney has evidently led an uneventful [def: no affairs or bribery scandals?] private life, he is trying to forcibly reinvent himself from his incarnation as a Massachusetts governor who favored abortion rights and gay rights."
The New York Times/AP quotes Tony Perkins (Family Research Council -- which hosted Romney as a pro-family star at their Liberty Sunday event October 15, AFTER our associates had explained to him that Romney was severely compromised by his unconstitutional, illegal implementation of gay marriage). Seems that Mr. Perkins has finally had his eyes opened by MassResistance's efforts to out the TRUTH:
Tony Perkins, president of the conservative Family Research Council, said Romney's comments were ''quite disturbing. This is going to create a lot of problems for Governor Romney,'' he told The New York Times in Saturday's editions. ''He is going to have a hard time overcoming this.''
Noted conservative Paul Weyrich told The Times, ''Unless he comes out with an abject repudiation of this, I think it makes him out to be a hypocrite.''
Romney was wrapping up a weeklong trip to Asia on Saturday and could not be reached for comment.
Arline Isaacson, co-chair of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus, said she cautioned gay and lesbians against believing Romney's overtures in 1994, and said conservatives shouldn't trust him, either. ''He can't be trusted,'' she said. ''Because if it is politically expedient for him to swing to his right or swing to his left, he will do it.''
Our report went out to millions BEFORE Thanksgiving, though it was not posted on our website until just after the holiday weekend. So the blogs and mainstream media have had this information long before the recent Bay Windows regurgitation, or the very recent Globe reports! We've been in touch with "Utah conservatives" (mentioned in the Globe) re: Romney for several weeks now! But the Globe only mentions us at the end of their article, as if we're just a local voice piping in!NO -- we have a national voice now. And the Globe had better recognize that the internet and blogosphere have overturned their monopoly on the "news".
The Globe reports today:
... But the reaction to the comments from the 1994 Massachusetts Senate race indicate that some conservatives may be reassessing Romney. "This is quite disturbing," Tony Perkins, head of the Family Research Council and an influential conservative, told the Times.
Romney's views on gays have stimulated considerable chatter in the conservative blogosphere, where some have wondered aloud if he has hurt his standing with conservative voters.
"Will it sink the Romney campaign? I have a hard time seeing him win in the South," wrote the UtahConservative blog in reaction to a Nov. 26 Globe column about Romney's views on gays, which also cites the letter to the Massachusetts Log Cabin group.
Americans for Truth, a conservative group that opposes gay rights, posted an essay late last month saying, "Romney has a long record of supporting homosexual and abortion 'rights' despite his Mormon religion." [What the Globe doesn't say is that this posting on Americans for Truth accompanies OUR report!] ...
In a recent posting titled "The Mitt Romney deception" that touches on Romney's gay rights positions, local conservative activist Brian Camenker wrote: "Despite recent statements across the country by Governor Mitt Romney claiming he's pro-life, pro-family and a committed conservative, a broad investigation of his actual statements, actions, and public positions over the years indicates that he has spent his entire career speaking and governing as a liberal."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)