Many attendees at CPAC, the Conservative Political Action Conference in D.C., reportedly just gave Mitt Romney a warm welcome. Many in attendance were very young activists (under 30's, and college students) lacking life wisdom. But the wiser voices there didn't fall for his seductive act. Phyllis Schlafly has rejected Romney, and others also recognize he is not a true conservative. See "A Mood of Gloom at CPAC" (Jonathan Martin, The Politico, 3-3-07):
"And the leading GOP contenders to succeed Bush? “They’re all equally unacceptable,” Schlafly said.
... “I’m disenchanted, I’m disenfranchised, I’m just dissed,” quipped David Bossie, the president of Citizens United and a tireless congressional investigator in the Clinton era. “It’s a struggle,” said conservative activist and public relations specialist Mike Thompson. “Conservatives want to win, but they aren’t really sure the guys at the top of the field are conservative.” ...
Mitt Romney is a man who truly deserves the description "empty suit." As far as I can tell, he has no firm convictions and a record of swinging with the swing voters. The best description of Romney is from a writer at The Politico [leftist Terry Michael]: "Mitt Romney is Bill Clinton with his pants up." He wants to be all things to all people.
The worst example is his position on abortion. In the past, he has swung from being anti-abortion (to appeal to Mormons back in Utah), to being pro-abortion (to appeal to voters in Massachusetts), and back to being anti-abortion again now that he's seeking the Republican nomination.
Sunday, March 04, 2007
Saturday, March 03, 2007
Extremist Homosexual Newspaper Calls for End to Religious Freedom
The radical homosexual movement does not like clear definitions of their terms, such as "sexual orientation" or "gender identity and expression." And it takes words with clear, commonly accepted definitions such as "marriage" and "bigotry" and turns them inside out. Anything expressing disapproval of homosexuality -- on whatever basis, whether religion, morality, natural law, societal stability, public health -- they call "bigotry". Look at this week's editorial in Bay Windows, equating "bigotry" and Judeo-Christian beliefs. The editor whines,
How much longer are we going to have to listen to people claim a religious freedom to bigotry? Even as he dismissed their absurd lawsuit against Lexington town officials for trying to “indoctrinate” their children “with the belief that homosexuality and same-sex marriages are moral,” U.S. District Court Judge Mark L. Wolf was quite respectful of David and Tonia Parker’s and Rob and Robin Wirthlin’s religious beliefs — beliefs which sparked the suit. The couples have “sincerely held religious beliefs,” Wolf wrote. “They do not wish to have their young children exposed to views that contradict these beliefs and their teaching of them.” Later, he notes, “Profound differences in religious beliefs are also a hallmark of our diverse nation. It is often in a community’s interest to try to find a reasonable way to accommodate those differences.” That’s what liberals have been trying to do — “accommodate those differences” — since George W. Bush was “elected” president in 2000 with a record turnout of evangelical voters....
The comparison to the civil rights struggle of African Americans is apt. Of course, it is the struggle for the rights of LGBT people that should be compared to the fight for equality by African Americans. A person’s skin color, their gender identity and their sexual orientation are fixed from birth. Believing that God formed human beings from clay, that Allah rewards martyrs with virgins in paradise, that an angel visited a teenaged Joseph Smith in 1823 and revealed the Mormon religion to him, or that a perfectly sane sign of your devotion to God is to lop off the foreskin of your or your infant son’s penis — well, that’s a choice. The glorious thing about making such a choice for yourself is that this is America and you can believe whatever you want to believe — no matter how outrageous or irrational. Trying to impose your beliefs upon others, regardless of how “sincerely held” they may be, now that’s when the trouble starts.
Besides its utter contempt for others' religious beliefs, Bay Windows is simply lying about the demands of the Lexington parents -- only asking that their own beliefs be respected, but not "trying to impose [their] beliefs on others." The parents are simply demanding their right under the U.S. Constitution that their religion be respected, and their right under Massachusetts statute to protect their children from unwanted instruction on human sexuality issues. But such dishonesty from the homosexual press is par for the course.
Further, the homosexual radicals would have us believe their "civil rights" are being infringed upon, on a level with blacks being denied the vote, or people held in slavery. How much longer are we going to have to listen to this bogus equating of homosexual behaviors with innate characteristics, or true violations of a person's freedom and dignity? Homosexual citizens can vote, make out wills, and live with a companion of their choosing. They can even marry a person of the opposite sex, just like everyone else. What rights are being denied?
Their community is not defined by innate characteristics, but by their behaviors. It's their behaviors Christians object to, without questioning their freedom, dignity and value as individual human beings. Notice that no one labels Christians "bigots" because their religious beliefs inform them that other behaviors are wrong -- e.g., adultery or thievery -- yet the homosexual community labels Christians "bigots" for their understanding that homosexuality is a behavior similarly (or even more strongly) condemned in the Bible.
But Bay Windows has had enough of "accommodation" of any understanding that contradicts theirs. They wish to obliterate any religious (or other) objection to their behaviors.
How much longer are we going to have to listen to people claim a religious freedom to bigotry? Even as he dismissed their absurd lawsuit against Lexington town officials for trying to “indoctrinate” their children “with the belief that homosexuality and same-sex marriages are moral,” U.S. District Court Judge Mark L. Wolf was quite respectful of David and Tonia Parker’s and Rob and Robin Wirthlin’s religious beliefs — beliefs which sparked the suit. The couples have “sincerely held religious beliefs,” Wolf wrote. “They do not wish to have their young children exposed to views that contradict these beliefs and their teaching of them.” Later, he notes, “Profound differences in religious beliefs are also a hallmark of our diverse nation. It is often in a community’s interest to try to find a reasonable way to accommodate those differences.” That’s what liberals have been trying to do — “accommodate those differences” — since George W. Bush was “elected” president in 2000 with a record turnout of evangelical voters....
The comparison to the civil rights struggle of African Americans is apt. Of course, it is the struggle for the rights of LGBT people that should be compared to the fight for equality by African Americans. A person’s skin color, their gender identity and their sexual orientation are fixed from birth. Believing that God formed human beings from clay, that Allah rewards martyrs with virgins in paradise, that an angel visited a teenaged Joseph Smith in 1823 and revealed the Mormon religion to him, or that a perfectly sane sign of your devotion to God is to lop off the foreskin of your or your infant son’s penis — well, that’s a choice. The glorious thing about making such a choice for yourself is that this is America and you can believe whatever you want to believe — no matter how outrageous or irrational. Trying to impose your beliefs upon others, regardless of how “sincerely held” they may be, now that’s when the trouble starts.
Besides its utter contempt for others' religious beliefs, Bay Windows is simply lying about the demands of the Lexington parents -- only asking that their own beliefs be respected, but not "trying to impose [their] beliefs on others." The parents are simply demanding their right under the U.S. Constitution that their religion be respected, and their right under Massachusetts statute to protect their children from unwanted instruction on human sexuality issues. But such dishonesty from the homosexual press is par for the course.
Further, the homosexual radicals would have us believe their "civil rights" are being infringed upon, on a level with blacks being denied the vote, or people held in slavery. How much longer are we going to have to listen to this bogus equating of homosexual behaviors with innate characteristics, or true violations of a person's freedom and dignity? Homosexual citizens can vote, make out wills, and live with a companion of their choosing. They can even marry a person of the opposite sex, just like everyone else. What rights are being denied?
Their community is not defined by innate characteristics, but by their behaviors. It's their behaviors Christians object to, without questioning their freedom, dignity and value as individual human beings. Notice that no one labels Christians "bigots" because their religious beliefs inform them that other behaviors are wrong -- e.g., adultery or thievery -- yet the homosexual community labels Christians "bigots" for their understanding that homosexuality is a behavior similarly (or even more strongly) condemned in the Bible.
But Bay Windows has had enough of "accommodation" of any understanding that contradicts theirs. They wish to obliterate any religious (or other) objection to their behaviors.
Friday, March 02, 2007
Black Roots, Bad Make-Up & Romney
We try not to stoop to ad hominem comments. But this time, any attempt at reasoned argument seems a lost cause, and we can't help ourselves...
Two prominent conservative women have let the movement down big time. Ann Coulter now endorsing Romney? And Kate O'Beirne (there goes National Review's credibility again!)? Didn't they see our report on Mitt Romney's deceptions? Are they just looking at his hair?
They've lost it. From National Review Online:
Friday, March 02, 2007
Romney Scored [Kate O'Beirne]
It seems to me that Mitt Romney's willingness to make specific pledges and outline a platform helpfully moved him beyond the typical GOP platitudes about smaller government. Grover Norquist noted that the former governor was the first in the field to sign his tax pledge and now Romney has married it with a spending pledge. In an effective, ahem, contrast, he noted that when it comes to government spending "I like vetoes." His pointed pledge to fight for the repeal of McCain-Feingold and his opposition to the McCain-Kennedy immigration bill appeared to be big crowd pleasers. So too was his "our people are sovereign" slam on activist judges. In stringing together some of the events he faced upon taking office - the Massachusetts court ordering gay marriage, the scientific community's support for creating embryos for research, and the blackballing of Catholic Charities over gay adoption - he offered a potentially plausible sequence that prompted second thoughts on social issues. [He was just endorsed by Ann Coulter: "I like the fact that he tricked liberals into voting for him."] Romney emphasized the importance and power of an enduring coalition of economic, social, and national security conservatives and he clearly hopes to unite them behind him. Today, he did a convincing job of explaining why they should.
Two prominent conservative women have let the movement down big time. Ann Coulter now endorsing Romney? And Kate O'Beirne (there goes National Review's credibility again!)? Didn't they see our report on Mitt Romney's deceptions? Are they just looking at his hair?
They've lost it. From National Review Online:
Friday, March 02, 2007
Romney Scored [Kate O'Beirne]
It seems to me that Mitt Romney's willingness to make specific pledges and outline a platform helpfully moved him beyond the typical GOP platitudes about smaller government. Grover Norquist noted that the former governor was the first in the field to sign his tax pledge and now Romney has married it with a spending pledge. In an effective, ahem, contrast, he noted that when it comes to government spending "I like vetoes." His pointed pledge to fight for the repeal of McCain-Feingold and his opposition to the McCain-Kennedy immigration bill appeared to be big crowd pleasers. So too was his "our people are sovereign" slam on activist judges. In stringing together some of the events he faced upon taking office - the Massachusetts court ordering gay marriage, the scientific community's support for creating embryos for research, and the blackballing of Catholic Charities over gay adoption - he offered a potentially plausible sequence that prompted second thoughts on social issues. [He was just endorsed by Ann Coulter: "I like the fact that he tricked liberals into voting for him."] Romney emphasized the importance and power of an enduring coalition of economic, social, and national security conservatives and he clearly hopes to unite them behind him. Today, he did a convincing job of explaining why they should.
Seen on Cardinal Sean O'Malley's Blog
The Cardinal and Bishops are strongly behind the current marriage amendment in Massachusetts. But why isn't the Church taking a public stand for parents' rights in the schools, and protecting religious freedom of the parents in the moral education of their own children? Isn't the early training of a child just as important as marriage? Where is the Catholic Church -- and all the other churches and Orthodox Jews of Massachusetts -- on this all-important issue? Maybe some of our Catholic friends should post more on the Cardinal's blog. Here's one recent posting:
I would say the biggest priority to pray for this Lent is the children in Massachusetts public schools who call themselves Catholic or Christian, who will be subjected to diversity ed at kindergarten. This "family stuff" will not just be simple books on different families -- it will be a new composite of sexual & trans behaviors ...
According to the Judge last Friday who decided the David Parker/Lexington public school case, take your kid out or homeschool is the only answer to the public school sex ed question. Do we have any reaction to this nightmare in the making this Lent? The fear of man bringeth a snare. The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom. At least the voucher system should be in place so decent people do not have to contribute to the delinquency of minors in this decision. The Judge had the nerve to say this was not a religion issue. Can you believe that!
Visit www.massresistance.org Get the whole transcript. This mensch of a Jewish father Brian Camenker, and David Parker and the Wirthlins of Lexington are battling for all parents and where is the camaraderie… Camenker is taking on the whole state and who will stand up and be counted in all this and back him up and unite the parents to react with righteous outrage ... God save the USA. My religion is clearly against this behavior....Where is the church in all this? I do not hear you?
I would say the biggest priority to pray for this Lent is the children in Massachusetts public schools who call themselves Catholic or Christian, who will be subjected to diversity ed at kindergarten. This "family stuff" will not just be simple books on different families -- it will be a new composite of sexual & trans behaviors ...
According to the Judge last Friday who decided the David Parker/Lexington public school case, take your kid out or homeschool is the only answer to the public school sex ed question. Do we have any reaction to this nightmare in the making this Lent? The fear of man bringeth a snare. The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom. At least the voucher system should be in place so decent people do not have to contribute to the delinquency of minors in this decision. The Judge had the nerve to say this was not a religion issue. Can you believe that!
Visit www.massresistance.org Get the whole transcript. This mensch of a Jewish father Brian Camenker, and David Parker and the Wirthlins of Lexington are battling for all parents and where is the camaraderie… Camenker is taking on the whole state and who will stand up and be counted in all this and back him up and unite the parents to react with righteous outrage ... God save the USA. My religion is clearly against this behavior....Where is the church in all this? I do not hear you?
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Poor Mitt
Mitt's doing very poorly in the polls. An article by Michael Tomasky in the National Prospect calls him a "loser".
"The new Washington Post poll shows that in the last five weeks -- the time period during which the people have had a chance to see his stuff, that is -- he's dropped from 9 percent support to a leaden 4 percent. Nine was within spitting distance of respectability; 4 leaves him 11 points behind a man who isn't even running, Newt Gingrich!"
EyeOn08 comments that Romney's TV ad purchases tell a tale of how poorly he's doing:
Last week, Mitt Romney released ads in a bunch of early states. I argued that Romney was going on the air because he was getting defined in the media. Now HotlineTV weighs in, arguing that Romney made a fundamental mistake with these ads because now, if Romney’s numbers don’t move, Romney will appear totally dead. I think this makes an important point. As I argued earlier, Romney is getting clobbered in the press. I’m talking about the AP, not the NY Times. Romneys only hope is fighting back with TV. But if he can’t do that and continues to get defined — if he cannot shift the discussion to his own terms — he is completely over.
"The new Washington Post poll shows that in the last five weeks -- the time period during which the people have had a chance to see his stuff, that is -- he's dropped from 9 percent support to a leaden 4 percent. Nine was within spitting distance of respectability; 4 leaves him 11 points behind a man who isn't even running, Newt Gingrich!"
EyeOn08 comments that Romney's TV ad purchases tell a tale of how poorly he's doing:
Last week, Mitt Romney released ads in a bunch of early states. I argued that Romney was going on the air because he was getting defined in the media. Now HotlineTV weighs in, arguing that Romney made a fundamental mistake with these ads because now, if Romney’s numbers don’t move, Romney will appear totally dead. I think this makes an important point. As I argued earlier, Romney is getting clobbered in the press. I’m talking about the AP, not the NY Times. Romneys only hope is fighting back with TV. But if he can’t do that and continues to get defined — if he cannot shift the discussion to his own terms — he is completely over.
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
David Parker Interview from Sept. 2006
David Parker interviewed by Dr. Shirley Caniff and Rev. Merrie Turner last Sept. 10, 2006:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rn9-8BQTX0w
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rn9-8BQTX0w
Are Same-Sex Parented Embryos Imminent?
Until lately, most pro-lifers' energies were devoted to the abortion issue. Now, they're also concerned about cloning and embryonic stem-cell research. But how many are aware of this other very troubling area of research: engineering embryos from two parent cells of the same sex.
The homosexual/lesbian population is quite excited about this work. We remember hearing our child speak of a feminist science teacher announcing to the class a few years back that "two women would soon be able to have a baby together -- without a man!" Here's an article on a lesbian website foaming over this possibility: "Parthenogenesis: Do We Need Men Anymore? Creating Children Without Men or Sperm." (Of course, the gay men don't want to be left out.)
John Howard, a Massachusetts activist pushing for legislation banning this frightening research, has reminded us of his blog on this subject. We encourage you to contact him if you're interested in promoting legislation to block this looming nightmare.
Check out this article he's linked: "Three Mothers Make a Baby: Is that Sex? Yes, Or Maybe?" by Nancy L. Jones (from the Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity):
Perhaps you haven’t heard, but the doubt in some men’s minds regarding the age-old question “mother-baby, father-maybe?” may one day be forever removed. Results of a scientific experiment announced in April [2004] demonstrated that no paternal role was needed for the creation of a most uncommon baby mouse.* The triumph of Japanese researchers, this mouse (named Kaguya) was the product of two female mice. In creating Kaguya, scientists combined one normal mouse egg and one very manipulated mouse egg to form a “parthenogenic” embryo, who was then implanted into a surrogate female mouse and subsequently born.* Though this process is not reproducible (as of yet) in humans, researchers are nevertheless uncovering the keys for controlling early human development and producing artificial gametes....
...If Kaguya’s mode of creation were to be extrapolated to humans, the very basis of our society would be shattered—opening nearly endless possibilities for overcoming the normal reproductive barriers for mammals that requires both male and female genetic contributions.
Recently, the President’s Council on Bioethics published a report entitled Reproduction and Responsibility: The Regulation of New Biotechnologies.* Several of the report’s recommendations are especially apropos given the Japanese experiment. Among these are prohibitions against “attempts to conceive a child by any means other than the union of egg and sperm” and prohibitions against “attempts to conceive a child by using gametes obtained from a human fetus or derived from human embryonic stem cells.”* While the relevance of the first prohibition is self-explanatory, the second is also germane because if the product of two eggs is to be viable, one of the eggs must be “immature”—which suggests the human fetus as a potential source....
Christians and those concerned about the dignity of human life and the sacredness of human procreation must urge Congress to address reprogenetic issues now! Currently our culture is struggling with what constitutes marriage…but soon the question will be expanded to what constitutes human procreation. We must stay ahead of the technology and be proactive in outlawing any form of human procreation that deviates from the combination of a single sperm and a single egg.
The homosexual/lesbian population is quite excited about this work. We remember hearing our child speak of a feminist science teacher announcing to the class a few years back that "two women would soon be able to have a baby together -- without a man!" Here's an article on a lesbian website foaming over this possibility: "Parthenogenesis: Do We Need Men Anymore? Creating Children Without Men or Sperm." (Of course, the gay men don't want to be left out.)
John Howard, a Massachusetts activist pushing for legislation banning this frightening research, has reminded us of his blog on this subject. We encourage you to contact him if you're interested in promoting legislation to block this looming nightmare.
Check out this article he's linked: "Three Mothers Make a Baby: Is that Sex? Yes, Or Maybe?" by Nancy L. Jones (from the Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity):
Perhaps you haven’t heard, but the doubt in some men’s minds regarding the age-old question “mother-baby, father-maybe?” may one day be forever removed. Results of a scientific experiment announced in April [2004] demonstrated that no paternal role was needed for the creation of a most uncommon baby mouse.* The triumph of Japanese researchers, this mouse (named Kaguya) was the product of two female mice. In creating Kaguya, scientists combined one normal mouse egg and one very manipulated mouse egg to form a “parthenogenic” embryo, who was then implanted into a surrogate female mouse and subsequently born.* Though this process is not reproducible (as of yet) in humans, researchers are nevertheless uncovering the keys for controlling early human development and producing artificial gametes....
...If Kaguya’s mode of creation were to be extrapolated to humans, the very basis of our society would be shattered—opening nearly endless possibilities for overcoming the normal reproductive barriers for mammals that requires both male and female genetic contributions.
Recently, the President’s Council on Bioethics published a report entitled Reproduction and Responsibility: The Regulation of New Biotechnologies.* Several of the report’s recommendations are especially apropos given the Japanese experiment. Among these are prohibitions against “attempts to conceive a child by any means other than the union of egg and sperm” and prohibitions against “attempts to conceive a child by using gametes obtained from a human fetus or derived from human embryonic stem cells.”* While the relevance of the first prohibition is self-explanatory, the second is also germane because if the product of two eggs is to be viable, one of the eggs must be “immature”—which suggests the human fetus as a potential source....
Christians and those concerned about the dignity of human life and the sacredness of human procreation must urge Congress to address reprogenetic issues now! Currently our culture is struggling with what constitutes marriage…but soon the question will be expanded to what constitutes human procreation. We must stay ahead of the technology and be proactive in outlawing any form of human procreation that deviates from the combination of a single sperm and a single egg.
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Jeff Jacoby Holds Back on Reason for Opposing "Gay Marriage"
Jeff Jacoby, Boston Globe columnist, continues to hold back. Today ("Love, marriage, and the baby carriage") he comments on the proposal in Washington state by homosexual extremists -- which we discussed two weeks ago -- to confine marriage to heterosexual couples who have children within three years of marriage. The homosexual activists are tring to make a point that "it is only fair because they are being denied the right to marry because they cannot have children." Jacoby tries to shoot this down by saying that no "mainstream opponent" of homosexual "marriage" focuses just on the "raising children" argument.
But as we pointed out, an exclusive focus on children has been Mitt Romney's line (and even Massachusetts Family Institute/VoteOnMarriage, before they switched to "let the people vote"). When Romney, for instance, says we must protect traditional marriage, he gives only one reason: "because every child deserves a mother and a father." So Jacoby is wrong when he says "No mainstream opponent of same-sex marriage claims that having children is the sole purpose of wedlock."
These "mainstreamers" never do discuss the other reasons for real "marriage", because they know that they could apply equally to homosexual couples, or even polygamous arrangements. With one exception. In Jacoby's long list of marriage purposes, only one -- "having a legitimate sexual outlet" -- would not apply to homosexual couples.
It's nice to know that Jacoby still thinks there's such a thing as "legitimate" and "illegitimate" sexuality. But if homosexual sex is "illegitimate", why does Jacoby never himself write of this problem with homosexual "marriage" -- that it's based on sexual perversion, and therefore illegitimate? How odd that Romney, VoteOnMarriage, the Mass. Family Institute, et al. also never bring this up as a reason to oppose homosexual "marriage". Why is that? What are they afraid of?
Jacoby wrote:
... activists are assaulting a straw man. No mainstream opponent of same-sex marriage claims that having children is the sole purpose of wedlock. Marriages can serve any number of purposes -- cementing the bond between partners, guaranteeing financial security, having a legitimate sexual outlet, ensuring companionship, and so on. People get married for various reasons; the desire to raise a family is only one of them.
What makes marriage a public institution, however -- the reason it is regulated by law and given an elevated legal status -- is that it provides something no healthy society can do without: a stable environment in which men and women can create and bring up the next generation, and in which children can enter the world with mothers and fathers committed to their well-being.
But as we pointed out, an exclusive focus on children has been Mitt Romney's line (and even Massachusetts Family Institute/VoteOnMarriage, before they switched to "let the people vote"). When Romney, for instance, says we must protect traditional marriage, he gives only one reason: "because every child deserves a mother and a father." So Jacoby is wrong when he says "No mainstream opponent of same-sex marriage claims that having children is the sole purpose of wedlock."
These "mainstreamers" never do discuss the other reasons for real "marriage", because they know that they could apply equally to homosexual couples, or even polygamous arrangements. With one exception. In Jacoby's long list of marriage purposes, only one -- "having a legitimate sexual outlet" -- would not apply to homosexual couples.
It's nice to know that Jacoby still thinks there's such a thing as "legitimate" and "illegitimate" sexuality. But if homosexual sex is "illegitimate", why does Jacoby never himself write of this problem with homosexual "marriage" -- that it's based on sexual perversion, and therefore illegitimate? How odd that Romney, VoteOnMarriage, the Mass. Family Institute, et al. also never bring this up as a reason to oppose homosexual "marriage". Why is that? What are they afraid of?
Jacoby wrote:
... activists are assaulting a straw man. No mainstream opponent of same-sex marriage claims that having children is the sole purpose of wedlock. Marriages can serve any number of purposes -- cementing the bond between partners, guaranteeing financial security, having a legitimate sexual outlet, ensuring companionship, and so on. People get married for various reasons; the desire to raise a family is only one of them.
What makes marriage a public institution, however -- the reason it is regulated by law and given an elevated legal status -- is that it provides something no healthy society can do without: a stable environment in which men and women can create and bring up the next generation, and in which children can enter the world with mothers and fathers committed to their well-being.
Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth Has Added Perversions
The surreptitiously created Massachusetts "Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth" has now gone even further out of bounds legally, by adding the terms "Bisexual and Transgender" to its name. At the first official public meeting of the group in February, they handed out literature calling themselves the "Commission on Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Youth."
The "law" creating the Commission did not include mention of "bisexual and transgender" youth. We predicted long ago that the free-range activists would soon add these terms, as they had done last year with their fundraising organization supporting the Commission. (Quite a few members of the Commission identify as "bisexual and transgender.")
Nowhere in Massachusetts statutes are those words "bisexual and transgender" ever mentioned. What do they mean anyhow? Not even the activists in the GLBT community are in agreement on their definition. But now we have an official Commission of the Commonwealth addressing these mythical youth. A Commission which "shall be an independent agency of the commonwealth and shall not be subject to the control of any other department or agency."
See the statute creating the Commission: Chapter 3: Section 67. Commission on gay and lesbian youth; membership; terms; powers and duties.
The "law" creating the Commission did not include mention of "bisexual and transgender" youth. We predicted long ago that the free-range activists would soon add these terms, as they had done last year with their fundraising organization supporting the Commission. (Quite a few members of the Commission identify as "bisexual and transgender.")
Nowhere in Massachusetts statutes are those words "bisexual and transgender" ever mentioned. What do they mean anyhow? Not even the activists in the GLBT community are in agreement on their definition. But now we have an official Commission of the Commonwealth addressing these mythical youth. A Commission which "shall be an independent agency of the commonwealth and shall not be subject to the control of any other department or agency."
See the statute creating the Commission: Chapter 3: Section 67. Commission on gay and lesbian youth; membership; terms; powers and duties.
Saturday, February 24, 2007
MassEquality Plants More Operatives
Who controls the State House?
The State Senator possibly in line to replace Senate President Travaglini, who appears to be planning his exit, is Therese Murray. She has just hired a MassEquality operative as her aide (he runs a nasty little blog). We reported earlier on Sen. Dianne Wilkerson's new legislative aide from MassEquality (also involved in an extremist GLBT blog, Jesse AKA "QueerJay"). Governor Patrick also respects MassEquality's work:
From Bay Windows:
MassEquality loses key operative to Patrick administration
It looks like MassEquality’s success in Bay State politics is both a blessing and curse. Several operatives have leveraged their experience at the organization to broaden their horizons in national or local politics, among them former campaign director Marty Rouse, who departed MassEquality in 2005 to become national field director for the Human Rights Campaign; former field organizer Jesse Sullivan, who is now state Sen. Dianne Wilkerson’s legislative director, and Chris Mason, who left his post as assistant canvass director to work as an aide to state Sen. Therese Murray, the heir apparent to the Senate presidency.
The latest to go is Stan McGee, the director of MassEquality’s civic and business outreach, a successful initiative that recruited some of the state’s most influential business big-wigs to the marriage movement. McGee started his new job as assistant secretary for policy and planning to Secretary of Housing and Economic Development Daniel O’Connell on Feb. 5. And he’s pretty sure that that the coalition-building skills he honed during the past year at MassEquality gave him a leg up on the competition. “I can imagine that in some other states having worked at a gay civil rights nonprofit would have been a liability,” says McGee, a corporate attorney, Harvard Law School alum and Rhodes Scholar. “There’s no doubt in my mind that I would not have been considered as seriously as I was for this position but for the work that I did at MassEquality.”
Solomon [of MassEquality] credited McGee with making “a huge difference” in the fight to preserve marriage equality in Massachusetts, praising his ability to effectively go where no ordinary grassroots activist could: the corporate boardroom.... McGee was responsible for an unprecedented statement issued last June urging the legislature to reject the proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-marriage that was signed by 165 high-powered business and civic leaders, among them New England Patriots owner Bob Kraft, Boston Foundation President Paul Grogan and Boston Chamber of Commerce President Paul Guzzi. Along with MassEquality Development Director Scott Gortikov, McGee also leveraged those contacts to stage a fundraiser that netted $100,000 for the organization.
The State Senator possibly in line to replace Senate President Travaglini, who appears to be planning his exit, is Therese Murray. She has just hired a MassEquality operative as her aide (he runs a nasty little blog). We reported earlier on Sen. Dianne Wilkerson's new legislative aide from MassEquality (also involved in an extremist GLBT blog, Jesse AKA "QueerJay"). Governor Patrick also respects MassEquality's work:
From Bay Windows:
MassEquality loses key operative to Patrick administration
It looks like MassEquality’s success in Bay State politics is both a blessing and curse. Several operatives have leveraged their experience at the organization to broaden their horizons in national or local politics, among them former campaign director Marty Rouse, who departed MassEquality in 2005 to become national field director for the Human Rights Campaign; former field organizer Jesse Sullivan, who is now state Sen. Dianne Wilkerson’s legislative director, and Chris Mason, who left his post as assistant canvass director to work as an aide to state Sen. Therese Murray, the heir apparent to the Senate presidency.
The latest to go is Stan McGee, the director of MassEquality’s civic and business outreach, a successful initiative that recruited some of the state’s most influential business big-wigs to the marriage movement. McGee started his new job as assistant secretary for policy and planning to Secretary of Housing and Economic Development Daniel O’Connell on Feb. 5. And he’s pretty sure that that the coalition-building skills he honed during the past year at MassEquality gave him a leg up on the competition. “I can imagine that in some other states having worked at a gay civil rights nonprofit would have been a liability,” says McGee, a corporate attorney, Harvard Law School alum and Rhodes Scholar. “There’s no doubt in my mind that I would not have been considered as seriously as I was for this position but for the work that I did at MassEquality.”
Solomon [of MassEquality] credited McGee with making “a huge difference” in the fight to preserve marriage equality in Massachusetts, praising his ability to effectively go where no ordinary grassroots activist could: the corporate boardroom.... McGee was responsible for an unprecedented statement issued last June urging the legislature to reject the proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-marriage that was signed by 165 high-powered business and civic leaders, among them New England Patriots owner Bob Kraft, Boston Foundation President Paul Grogan and Boston Chamber of Commerce President Paul Guzzi. Along with MassEquality Development Director Scott Gortikov, McGee also leveraged those contacts to stage a fundraiser that netted $100,000 for the organization.
Questions on Judge Wolf's Ruling on David Parker Case
Federal Judge Mark Wolf just ruled that Lexington father David Parker has to give his little children over to the state for indoctrination in sexual perversion. Here are some questions that immediately come to mind for Judge Wolf:
1. He points to Massachusetts laws banning discrimination on the basis of "sexual orientation." But how would he define that term, which is not defined anywhere in those laws? Judge Wolf likes to philosophize about the legitimate purpose of a school in preparing children to be good citizens. But nowhere does he help us good citizens understand what "sexual orientation" means. A careful jurist would help fill in the gaps in the law, right? Though once judges start defining "sexual orientation" all sorts of crazy, perverted behaviors could be normalized.
Judge Wolf: What about people who practice bondage & discipline/sadomasochism? Isn't that a "sexual orientation" that must be respected? How about cross-dressing? Can a school administrator, school board, or parent object to a teacher who openly participates in these "sexual orientations" and discusses them in school? Should third-graders be told about transsexual parents, awaiting organ removal surgery, as they recently were in a Newton public school? Don't our little developing citizens need to know about these things too? What if a school says: "Some parents are transsexual. We cannot discriminate against them. We need to read story books about them to the youngest children, so they'll grow up respecting diversity."
2. We thought the books the Lexington parents objected to were "just about different kinds of families." That's what the defendants said. Now the judge is telling us "sexual orientation" is involved. So this is about human sexuality? And the Parental Notification statute (Mass. law) applies after all?
3. When Judge Wolf points to the Massachusetts Health Curriculum Framework, he omits the crucial fact that it is one subject framework NOT required by Massachusetts law, including its recommendations for instruction on homosexuality and different types of families. The health framework is only recommended by the Dept. of Education. (That's why GLBT advocate Rep. Alice Wolf is again trying to pass her bill turning this framework into a requirement!)
4. Judge Wolf cites MGL ch. 69, sec. 1D, which does not mention "sexual orientation" -- that undefined phrase -- but says that public schools should "inculcate respect for the cultural, ethnic, and racial diversity of the commonwealth ... [and] avoid perpetuating gender, cultural, ethnic, or racial stereotypes." Nothing about "sexual orientation." Is he saying that alternative families are part of our cultural diversity? Or that gender stereotypes are perpetuated if children grow up thinking children have a mom and a dad?
5. Judge Wolf is not familiar enough with Massachusetts statutes to know that homosexual "marriage" is still not legal. The laws were never changed after the Goodridge ruling, and only the Legislature can "legalize" homosexual "marriage". That's why Rep. Byron Rushing has re-filed his bill to do so. The homosexual lobby knows this. And we suspect Judge Wolf and his friends at the ACLU do too.
1. He points to Massachusetts laws banning discrimination on the basis of "sexual orientation." But how would he define that term, which is not defined anywhere in those laws? Judge Wolf likes to philosophize about the legitimate purpose of a school in preparing children to be good citizens. But nowhere does he help us good citizens understand what "sexual orientation" means. A careful jurist would help fill in the gaps in the law, right? Though once judges start defining "sexual orientation" all sorts of crazy, perverted behaviors could be normalized.
Judge Wolf: What about people who practice bondage & discipline/sadomasochism? Isn't that a "sexual orientation" that must be respected? How about cross-dressing? Can a school administrator, school board, or parent object to a teacher who openly participates in these "sexual orientations" and discusses them in school? Should third-graders be told about transsexual parents, awaiting organ removal surgery, as they recently were in a Newton public school? Don't our little developing citizens need to know about these things too? What if a school says: "Some parents are transsexual. We cannot discriminate against them. We need to read story books about them to the youngest children, so they'll grow up respecting diversity."
2. We thought the books the Lexington parents objected to were "just about different kinds of families." That's what the defendants said. Now the judge is telling us "sexual orientation" is involved. So this is about human sexuality? And the Parental Notification statute (Mass. law) applies after all?
3. When Judge Wolf points to the Massachusetts Health Curriculum Framework, he omits the crucial fact that it is one subject framework NOT required by Massachusetts law, including its recommendations for instruction on homosexuality and different types of families. The health framework is only recommended by the Dept. of Education. (That's why GLBT advocate Rep. Alice Wolf is again trying to pass her bill turning this framework into a requirement!)
4. Judge Wolf cites MGL ch. 69, sec. 1D, which does not mention "sexual orientation" -- that undefined phrase -- but says that public schools should "inculcate respect for the cultural, ethnic, and racial diversity of the commonwealth ... [and] avoid perpetuating gender, cultural, ethnic, or racial stereotypes." Nothing about "sexual orientation." Is he saying that alternative families are part of our cultural diversity? Or that gender stereotypes are perpetuated if children grow up thinking children have a mom and a dad?
5. Judge Wolf is not familiar enough with Massachusetts statutes to know that homosexual "marriage" is still not legal. The laws were never changed after the Goodridge ruling, and only the Legislature can "legalize" homosexual "marriage". That's why Rep. Byron Rushing has re-filed his bill to do so. The homosexual lobby knows this. And we suspect Judge Wolf and his friends at the ACLU do too.
Friday, February 23, 2007
"Peeing in Peace" at the Mass. State House
The entire homosexual lobby is gearing up to pass the "transgender rights" and "hate crimes" bill this session. According to Bay Windows,
"Several of the supporting organizations have worked directly with MTPC and the lead sponsors of the bill, Reps. Carl Sciortino (D-Somerville) and Byron Rushing (D-Boston), to help advance the bill. Ryan [Mass. Transgender Political Coalition/MTPC] said GLAD [Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, the group behind the homosexual marriage case] and MLGBA [Mass. Lesbian and Gay Bar Assoc.] drafted the language of the bill, which bans discrimination based on gender identity and expression in employment, education, housing, and credit, and adds hate crimes protections based on gender identity and expression.... MassEquality and the Caucus helped plan logistics for the campaign, including working with MTPC to set up the town hall meetings and reach out to the community, and Ryan said the Caucus will be working with MTPC in the state house to try and pass the bill.
One of the "resources" listed on the MTPC web site is a publication entitled "Peeing in Peace." That means bathrooms are about to be debated in the Massachusetts State House (if they dare to hold a hearing on the "Transgender Rights" bill).
The question of toilets is really big. MTPC is holding a seminar called "Toilet Training". Here's the trans "logic":
A man who dresses as a woman has every right to use the ladies' room. And that's because if he "identifies" as a woman, he is a woman. Therefore, it's not a man using the ladies' room. It's a woman, even if there's a male organ. So no one has any grounds for complaint. And if you do complain once this bill passes, you'll be guilty of a hate crime.
Ditto a female "identifying" as a male. If she wants to use the men's room, that's fine, because she is a man... according to her/"him". That's all that matters: how that individual "identifies" or "expresses" him/herself.
(But if the unenlighted still complain, and the hate crimes law is not yet in place, at a minimum there will be demands for single-person bathrooms.)
From the MTPC web site:
Does this mean that women will have to share bathrooms with men, and vice versa?
This ordinance will prevent employers and proprietors of public accommodations from requiring people to use bathrooms that do not correspond to their gender identity. It will not mean that women will have to share bathrooms with men. All people must have access to safe and dignified bathroom facilities, regardless of their gender identity or expression.
The Boston City ordinances currently permit restrooms and other such facilities to be separated by sex. Nothing in this proposed ordinance will change that. What the ordinance will do is prevent the obvious disruptions and problems that arise when people are required to use bathrooms inappropriate to their gender identity, (for example, when transgender women are forced to share bathrooms with men, or transgender men are forced to share bathrooms with women). This ordinance simply will allow individuals to use bathroom facilities based on the gender identity that they "publicly and exclusively assert or express." By adding this language, this ordinance will help resolve awkward bathroom situations, not create them.
Allowing individuals to use the restroom that corresponds with the gender identity that they "publicly and exclusively assert or express" makes sense. There is simply no legitimate way to do "anatomy checks" or "chromosomal checks" before determining who can use what restroom.
Nothing in this proposed ordinance would alter an individual's reasonable privacy and safety expectations in restrooms. Legitimate safety concerns, of course, need to be addressed regardless of who poses them. Proprietors of public accommodations have an obligation to make restroom facilities safe for all people. However, we cannot let legitimate safety concerns become a proxy for bias and prejudice.
"Several of the supporting organizations have worked directly with MTPC and the lead sponsors of the bill, Reps. Carl Sciortino (D-Somerville) and Byron Rushing (D-Boston), to help advance the bill. Ryan [Mass. Transgender Political Coalition/MTPC] said GLAD [Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, the group behind the homosexual marriage case] and MLGBA [Mass. Lesbian and Gay Bar Assoc.] drafted the language of the bill, which bans discrimination based on gender identity and expression in employment, education, housing, and credit, and adds hate crimes protections based on gender identity and expression.... MassEquality and the Caucus helped plan logistics for the campaign, including working with MTPC to set up the town hall meetings and reach out to the community, and Ryan said the Caucus will be working with MTPC in the state house to try and pass the bill.
One of the "resources" listed on the MTPC web site is a publication entitled "Peeing in Peace." That means bathrooms are about to be debated in the Massachusetts State House (if they dare to hold a hearing on the "Transgender Rights" bill).
The question of toilets is really big. MTPC is holding a seminar called "Toilet Training". Here's the trans "logic":
A man who dresses as a woman has every right to use the ladies' room. And that's because if he "identifies" as a woman, he is a woman. Therefore, it's not a man using the ladies' room. It's a woman, even if there's a male organ. So no one has any grounds for complaint. And if you do complain once this bill passes, you'll be guilty of a hate crime.
Ditto a female "identifying" as a male. If she wants to use the men's room, that's fine, because she is a man... according to her/"him". That's all that matters: how that individual "identifies" or "expresses" him/herself.
(But if the unenlighted still complain, and the hate crimes law is not yet in place, at a minimum there will be demands for single-person bathrooms.)
From the MTPC web site:
Does this mean that women will have to share bathrooms with men, and vice versa?
This ordinance will prevent employers and proprietors of public accommodations from requiring people to use bathrooms that do not correspond to their gender identity. It will not mean that women will have to share bathrooms with men. All people must have access to safe and dignified bathroom facilities, regardless of their gender identity or expression.
The Boston City ordinances currently permit restrooms and other such facilities to be separated by sex. Nothing in this proposed ordinance will change that. What the ordinance will do is prevent the obvious disruptions and problems that arise when people are required to use bathrooms inappropriate to their gender identity, (for example, when transgender women are forced to share bathrooms with men, or transgender men are forced to share bathrooms with women). This ordinance simply will allow individuals to use bathroom facilities based on the gender identity that they "publicly and exclusively assert or express." By adding this language, this ordinance will help resolve awkward bathroom situations, not create them.
Allowing individuals to use the restroom that corresponds with the gender identity that they "publicly and exclusively assert or express" makes sense. There is simply no legitimate way to do "anatomy checks" or "chromosomal checks" before determining who can use what restroom.
Nothing in this proposed ordinance would alter an individual's reasonable privacy and safety expectations in restrooms. Legitimate safety concerns, of course, need to be addressed regardless of who poses them. Proprietors of public accommodations have an obligation to make restroom facilities safe for all people. However, we cannot let legitimate safety concerns become a proxy for bias and prejudice.
Thursday, February 22, 2007
"Sexual Orientation" and "Gender Identity" Not Defined
This summary is not available. Please
click here to view the post.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Rev. Rob Schenck Mistaken About Romney
There weren't too many people at the protest of Advanced Cell Technologies (ACT) in Worcester in 2001. ACT was working on cloning humans for "therapeutic" uses. About 100 people who understood the ominous implications of human cloning showed up. We were covering the event for MassNews as well as protesting. Also present were Bill Cotter of Operation Rescue, Ray Neary formerly of Mass. Citizens for Life, and pro-life activist Laurie Letourneau. And that's where we met the Rev. Rob Schenck. He was one of the "Pro-Life Leaders Denied Meeting with Advanced Cell Technologies."
What a shock, then, that Schenck should now be falling for Mitt Romney's act, including that it was stem cell research and cloning issues that converted Romney to his new pro-life position -- a tale which just doesn't ring true.
So -- what's up with Rev. Schenck? From Christian Newswire (2-20-07):
Schenck Returns from Private Meetings with Romney and McCain
WASHINGTON -- The Reverend Rob Schenck (pronounced SHANK), president of the National Clergy Council and its affiliate, Faith and Action in the Nation's Capital, returned today to Washington from Orlando, Florida, where he participated in small private meetings with Republican presidential hopefuls Mitt Romney and John McCain.
Schenck, who also serves as chair of the Committee on Church and Society for the Evangelical Church Alliance, America's oldest association of Evangelical clergy, said about the Romney and McCain meetings:
"I was able to get a read of these two men away from the cameras, the reporters and rah-rah audiences. These were honest, candid dialogues on critically important aspects of Governor Romney's and Senator McCain's personal and political principles. We got a pretty good assessment of where they are on the key issues for traditional Christians and particularly for Evangelicals. I was impressed by both, but especially Mitt Romney."
Schenck has met previously with Sam Brownback of Kansas, another Republican candidate. He says the Kansas senator remains the gold standard for the top three concerns of the sanctity of life, the sanctity of marriage and the family and the public acknowledgment of God.
Schenck is seeking similar meetings with the other '08 presidential candidates from all parties. He is available for further comment beginning Thursday, February 22.
What a shock, then, that Schenck should now be falling for Mitt Romney's act, including that it was stem cell research and cloning issues that converted Romney to his new pro-life position -- a tale which just doesn't ring true.
So -- what's up with Rev. Schenck? From Christian Newswire (2-20-07):
Schenck Returns from Private Meetings with Romney and McCain
WASHINGTON -- The Reverend Rob Schenck (pronounced SHANK), president of the National Clergy Council and its affiliate, Faith and Action in the Nation's Capital, returned today to Washington from Orlando, Florida, where he participated in small private meetings with Republican presidential hopefuls Mitt Romney and John McCain.
Schenck, who also serves as chair of the Committee on Church and Society for the Evangelical Church Alliance, America's oldest association of Evangelical clergy, said about the Romney and McCain meetings:
"I was able to get a read of these two men away from the cameras, the reporters and rah-rah audiences. These were honest, candid dialogues on critically important aspects of Governor Romney's and Senator McCain's personal and political principles. We got a pretty good assessment of where they are on the key issues for traditional Christians and particularly for Evangelicals. I was impressed by both, but especially Mitt Romney."
Schenck has met previously with Sam Brownback of Kansas, another Republican candidate. He says the Kansas senator remains the gold standard for the top three concerns of the sanctity of life, the sanctity of marriage and the family and the public acknowledgment of God.
Schenck is seeking similar meetings with the other '08 presidential candidates from all parties. He is available for further comment beginning Thursday, February 22.
Monday, February 19, 2007
Gun Advocates Are Not That Stupid, Mitt
Now it's one thing if you let your NRA membership lapse, as yours truly has. It's quite another to suddenly in your late 50's decide you're on board. And it doesn't exactly ring true that one would be a gung-ho Second Amendment supporter, then go on to brag about shooting rabbits with 22's. Hmm.
Today's Boston Globe reports on one of the NRA's newest members, Mitt Romney:
Mitt Romney, who has touted his support of gun owners since launching his presidential campaign, yesterday acknowledged he did not become a member of the National Rifle Association until last August, campaign officials said. Asked why Romney joined only a few months before declaring his candidacy, Madden said: "I would argue not many Americans care when you join, but why you join, and I think I've made that clear."
Speaking on ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopoulos," Romney said he signed up for a life long membership "within the last year." "I think they're doing good things, and I believe in supporting the right to bear arms," Romney said.
Not all gun advocates are convinced of Romney's commitment to their cause....
Today's Boston Globe reports on one of the NRA's newest members, Mitt Romney:
Mitt Romney, who has touted his support of gun owners since launching his presidential campaign, yesterday acknowledged he did not become a member of the National Rifle Association until last August, campaign officials said. Asked why Romney joined only a few months before declaring his candidacy, Madden said: "I would argue not many Americans care when you join, but why you join, and I think I've made that clear."
Speaking on ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopoulos," Romney said he signed up for a life long membership "within the last year." "I think they're doing good things, and I believe in supporting the right to bear arms," Romney said.
Not all gun advocates are convinced of Romney's commitment to their cause....
Saturday, February 17, 2007
Homosexual Lobby Still Trying to Legalize "Gay Marriage"
A story the Boston Globe and the phony "conservative" media will never cover:
The homosexual lobby in the Massachusetts legislature has again filed a bill to legalize homosexual marriage. Because it's still not legal, and they know it. No statute has ever been passed to change existing law which still refers to marriage as only between man/woman, husband/wife.
The homosexual lobby filed a bill last session too, but strategically decided not to bring it up for a vote. Now, with a Governor who favors sodomy "marriage", they'll probably push it through without a hearing on some midnight vote. Who knows, maybe they had an agreement with Mitt Romney last session not to bring it up and embarrass him, and blow open their whole scam.
And no one (except us) will point out that this bill proves "gay marriage" has not been legal in Massachusetts these past three years. Not even National Review, Maggie Gallagher, Massachusetts Family Institute, Human Events, Jay Sekulow's ACLJ, the Alliance Defense Fund, James Dobson, or Mitt Romney.
Here's what Rep. Byron Rushing has filed. The title of the bill is so clever: "An Act to Protect Massachusetts Families Through Equal Access to Marriage." He could have chosen a more accurate title, for instance: "An Act Protecting Sodomy-Based Households Posing as Natural Families."
House Bill 1710:
An Act to Protect Massachusetts Families Through Equal Access to Marriage
SECTION 1. Chapter 207 is hereby amended by adding the
following new section:—
Section 37A. Any person who otherwise meets the eligibility
requirements of this chapter may marry any other eligible person
regardless of gender.
The homosexual lobby in the Massachusetts legislature has again filed a bill to legalize homosexual marriage. Because it's still not legal, and they know it. No statute has ever been passed to change existing law which still refers to marriage as only between man/woman, husband/wife.
The homosexual lobby filed a bill last session too, but strategically decided not to bring it up for a vote. Now, with a Governor who favors sodomy "marriage", they'll probably push it through without a hearing on some midnight vote. Who knows, maybe they had an agreement with Mitt Romney last session not to bring it up and embarrass him, and blow open their whole scam.
And no one (except us) will point out that this bill proves "gay marriage" has not been legal in Massachusetts these past three years. Not even National Review, Maggie Gallagher, Massachusetts Family Institute, Human Events, Jay Sekulow's ACLJ, the Alliance Defense Fund, James Dobson, or Mitt Romney.
Here's what Rep. Byron Rushing has filed. The title of the bill is so clever: "An Act to Protect Massachusetts Families Through Equal Access to Marriage." He could have chosen a more accurate title, for instance: "An Act Protecting Sodomy-Based Households Posing as Natural Families."
House Bill 1710:
An Act to Protect Massachusetts Families Through Equal Access to Marriage
SECTION 1. Chapter 207 is hereby amended by adding the
following new section:—
Section 37A. Any person who otherwise meets the eligibility
requirements of this chapter may marry any other eligible person
regardless of gender.
Friday, February 16, 2007
Ambition vs. Family
The Boston Globe and ABC broached the subject. We didn't. But we can't help commenting. Having a family member with MS (multiple sclerosis), which Ann Romney has, makes us wonder about Mitt Romney's decision to run for President. It obviously made the Romney family wonder too, for a while at least, though they obviously decided to roll the dice.
If you have a regular job and a spouse with this condition, it's hard enough on both of you. But if you're running for President? Or become President? It's simply hard to imagine how the Romneys came to this decision. Chronic illnesses don't do well under stressful conditions. Imagine the stress of being First Lady while coping with a degenerative, unpredictable disease...
The Globe reports ("Romney's wife opens up on campaign issues," 2-16-07):
... this week, Ann Romney delved into some of the most private and charged issues facing her husband's campaign. In an extensive and surprisingly frank interview with ABC News, she described her battle with multiple sclerosis, saying her husband will forge ahead with his pursuit of the presidency, even if her health declines.
... and disclosed that she did not want him to run for governor in 2002, when the couple was on a high after the successful Salt Lake City Winter Olympics. "It was just this euphoric feeling, and I did not want to step immediately into something that is so negative, with the campaign, after that," Ann Romney told Kate Snow during an interview that aired Wednesday on Good Morning America. "I wanted to take a breath; I wanted to enjoy what we'd done," she said....
Discussing multiple sclerosis, which she was diagnosed with in 1998, Ann Romney said she was weak for several years and felt "completely crushed."
"I was not an example of strength and courage when I was going through it," she said. "I was pretty frightened."
These says, she said, "I'm feeling well. . . . My health is good." She credited yoga, Pilates, reflexology, and acupuncture, as well as a diet low in sugar and white flour. She also loves horses and tries to ride every day, she said.
She said the family has decided that even if her health worsens, her husband will not stop campaigning for the White House.... "We decided that once we crossed that threshold, that he was going forward, that he was making a commitment," she said. She added, "That was a commitment that I made him promise to make."
Web MD: "Multiple sclerosis is a disease of the brain and spinal cord. Its symptoms may include vision problems, muscle weakness, and difficulty with walking, coordination, and balance. Some patients experience relatively mild MS; other cases are severe." (But the course of the disease is unpredictable.)
If you have a regular job and a spouse with this condition, it's hard enough on both of you. But if you're running for President? Or become President? It's simply hard to imagine how the Romneys came to this decision. Chronic illnesses don't do well under stressful conditions. Imagine the stress of being First Lady while coping with a degenerative, unpredictable disease...
The Globe reports ("Romney's wife opens up on campaign issues," 2-16-07):
... this week, Ann Romney delved into some of the most private and charged issues facing her husband's campaign. In an extensive and surprisingly frank interview with ABC News, she described her battle with multiple sclerosis, saying her husband will forge ahead with his pursuit of the presidency, even if her health declines.
... and disclosed that she did not want him to run for governor in 2002, when the couple was on a high after the successful Salt Lake City Winter Olympics. "It was just this euphoric feeling, and I did not want to step immediately into something that is so negative, with the campaign, after that," Ann Romney told Kate Snow during an interview that aired Wednesday on Good Morning America. "I wanted to take a breath; I wanted to enjoy what we'd done," she said....
Discussing multiple sclerosis, which she was diagnosed with in 1998, Ann Romney said she was weak for several years and felt "completely crushed."
"I was not an example of strength and courage when I was going through it," she said. "I was pretty frightened."
These says, she said, "I'm feeling well. . . . My health is good." She credited yoga, Pilates, reflexology, and acupuncture, as well as a diet low in sugar and white flour. She also loves horses and tries to ride every day, she said.
She said the family has decided that even if her health worsens, her husband will not stop campaigning for the White House.... "We decided that once we crossed that threshold, that he was going forward, that he was making a commitment," she said. She added, "That was a commitment that I made him promise to make."
Web MD: "Multiple sclerosis is a disease of the brain and spinal cord. Its symptoms may include vision problems, muscle weakness, and difficulty with walking, coordination, and balance. Some patients experience relatively mild MS; other cases are severe." (But the course of the disease is unpredictable.)
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Weakness of "Marriage-is-about-children" Argument
This story from Washington state points out the weakness of the argument that we must protect marriage so every child will have a mother and father. This is the exclusive line used by Mitt Romney and Massachusetts Family Institute/VoteOnMarriage to justify real marriage.
"Gay marriage" proponents in Washington are pushing a ballot measure "that would require heterosexual married couples to have a child within three years or the marriage will be annulled. They say it is only fair because they are being denied the right to marry because they cannot have children."
All those who don’t want to touch the perverted, unnatural, unhealthy, and immoral aspects of homosexuality cannot satisfactorily answer this line of thinking. Also, note that the pro-homosexual marriage group in Washington state calls itself “Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance”… intentionally sowing confusion.
No Kids, No Marriage?
FOX News, 2-8-07
This is a partial transcript of The Big Story With John Gibson, February 7, 2007, that has been edited for clarity.
JOHN GIBSON, HOST: The "Big Buzz" is about the theater of the absurd going on in the state of Washington . Get this: Gay marriage proponents there are trying to get a measure on the November ballot that would require heterosexual married couples to have a child within three years or the marriage will be annulled. They say it is only fair because they are being denied the right to marry because they cannot have children.
Is what's good for gays also good for straights? "Big Story" correspondent Douglas Kennedy has the rest of the story in this in-your-face ballot initiative.
DOUGLAS KENNEDY, "BIG STORY" CORRESPONDENT: Yes, John, even the backers of this are calling it absurd. But they maintain it makes a point, namely, exposing the hypocrisy of those who say the sole purpose of marriage is to procreate.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
KENNEDY (VOICE OVER): If you can't have babies, you can't get married. That would be the law in Washington State if voters there pass a possible ballot initiative. It is a proposal its sponsor says is simply trying to make a point.
GREGORY GADOW, WASH. DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ALLIANCE : If same-sex couples can be denied marriage because of that premise, it logically follows that all couples unable, or unwilling, to have children together, should likewise be prohibited from marriage.
KENNEDY: In addition, the initiative would require that couples unable or unwilling or unable to have babies within three years would have their marriage declared unrecognized. The language is in direct response to a July 2006 state supreme court decision, which upheld a law denying gay people the right to marry.
LISA STONE, NW WOMEN'S LAW CENTER : Essentially, that decision, which my organization, the Northwest Women's Law Center , litigated to the Washington Supreme Court said that the state has an interest in procreation, and that that interest is sufficient to deny marriage to same-sex couples.
TONY PERKINS, FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL: They're lampooning those who are supporting marriage across this country for very legitimate reasons.
KENNEDY: Tony Perkins heads the Family Research Council, a national group that does not want the gays to marry.
PERKINS: One of the core fabrics of our society is the family. It's preparing the next generation. It is raising children. It is procreation.
STONE: Families come in all shapes and sizes these days. There are inter-generational families, grandparents raising grandchildren. There are single-parent headed families and there are families for one reason or another that don't have children. There are also same-sex families that do have children and that raise those children in loving households.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
KENNEDY: Supporters of the initiative say they are now gathering the signatures needed to get it on the November ballot. Still, even if it passes they say they are hoping, John, that it will not pass any constitutional muster.
GIBSON: It will be real weird. Douglas , thank you very much.
"Gay marriage" proponents in Washington are pushing a ballot measure "that would require heterosexual married couples to have a child within three years or the marriage will be annulled. They say it is only fair because they are being denied the right to marry because they cannot have children."
All those who don’t want to touch the perverted, unnatural, unhealthy, and immoral aspects of homosexuality cannot satisfactorily answer this line of thinking. Also, note that the pro-homosexual marriage group in Washington state calls itself “Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance”… intentionally sowing confusion.
No Kids, No Marriage?
FOX News, 2-8-07
This is a partial transcript of The Big Story With John Gibson, February 7, 2007, that has been edited for clarity.
JOHN GIBSON, HOST: The "Big Buzz" is about the theater of the absurd going on in the state of Washington . Get this: Gay marriage proponents there are trying to get a measure on the November ballot that would require heterosexual married couples to have a child within three years or the marriage will be annulled. They say it is only fair because they are being denied the right to marry because they cannot have children.
Is what's good for gays also good for straights? "Big Story" correspondent Douglas Kennedy has the rest of the story in this in-your-face ballot initiative.
DOUGLAS KENNEDY, "BIG STORY" CORRESPONDENT: Yes, John, even the backers of this are calling it absurd. But they maintain it makes a point, namely, exposing the hypocrisy of those who say the sole purpose of marriage is to procreate.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
KENNEDY (VOICE OVER): If you can't have babies, you can't get married. That would be the law in Washington State if voters there pass a possible ballot initiative. It is a proposal its sponsor says is simply trying to make a point.
GREGORY GADOW, WASH. DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ALLIANCE : If same-sex couples can be denied marriage because of that premise, it logically follows that all couples unable, or unwilling, to have children together, should likewise be prohibited from marriage.
KENNEDY: In addition, the initiative would require that couples unable or unwilling or unable to have babies within three years would have their marriage declared unrecognized. The language is in direct response to a July 2006 state supreme court decision, which upheld a law denying gay people the right to marry.
LISA STONE, NW WOMEN'S LAW CENTER : Essentially, that decision, which my organization, the Northwest Women's Law Center , litigated to the Washington Supreme Court said that the state has an interest in procreation, and that that interest is sufficient to deny marriage to same-sex couples.
TONY PERKINS, FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL: They're lampooning those who are supporting marriage across this country for very legitimate reasons.
KENNEDY: Tony Perkins heads the Family Research Council, a national group that does not want the gays to marry.
PERKINS: One of the core fabrics of our society is the family. It's preparing the next generation. It is raising children. It is procreation.
STONE: Families come in all shapes and sizes these days. There are inter-generational families, grandparents raising grandchildren. There are single-parent headed families and there are families for one reason or another that don't have children. There are also same-sex families that do have children and that raise those children in loving households.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
KENNEDY: Supporters of the initiative say they are now gathering the signatures needed to get it on the November ballot. Still, even if it passes they say they are hoping, John, that it will not pass any constitutional muster.
GIBSON: It will be real weird. Douglas , thank you very much.
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
Romney & His Dad
Lost in the coverage of Romney's announcement on the 13th that he's running for President is this telling contrast between him and his father, George Romney (who ran in 1968).
The Boston Globe's print edition showed a photo of the New York Times story on George Romney's declaration. Part of the headline: "APPEALS FOR MORALITY"
The Globe juxtaposes these quotes from father and son to emphasize their similarity. But we noticed that George refered to God, Mitt doesn't. Maybe that's why Mitt never appeals to "morality" in any of his pronouncements, whether on abortion or homosexuality. For example, his only defense of marriage as one man and one woman is that "every child needs a father and a mother." From the Globe ("Romney to kick off race in Mich.", 2-13-07):
Here's George Romney in his 1967 announcement speech: "We must recognize that the root source of America's strength is the divinely endowed freedom of its people."
And here's Mitt Romney in a speech to a Republican Governors Association conference two months ago: "If you believe that, as I do, that our source of strength is our people, then when America faces a new generation of challenges like we do today, you don't look to government. . . . You look to make the people stronger, because that has always been and will always be the source of our destiny."
But while George Romney was proud to call himself a moderate, Mitt Romney is running as a conservative.
The Boston Globe's print edition showed a photo of the New York Times story on George Romney's declaration. Part of the headline: "APPEALS FOR MORALITY"
The Globe juxtaposes these quotes from father and son to emphasize their similarity. But we noticed that George refered to God, Mitt doesn't. Maybe that's why Mitt never appeals to "morality" in any of his pronouncements, whether on abortion or homosexuality. For example, his only defense of marriage as one man and one woman is that "every child needs a father and a mother." From the Globe ("Romney to kick off race in Mich.", 2-13-07):
Here's George Romney in his 1967 announcement speech: "We must recognize that the root source of America's strength is the divinely endowed freedom of its people."
And here's Mitt Romney in a speech to a Republican Governors Association conference two months ago: "If you believe that, as I do, that our source of strength is our people, then when America faces a new generation of challenges like we do today, you don't look to government. . . . You look to make the people stronger, because that has always been and will always be the source of our destiny."
But while George Romney was proud to call himself a moderate, Mitt Romney is running as a conservative.
A "conservative" who doesn't mention God or morality.
Monday, February 12, 2007
Young Americans for Freedom in Michigan Oppose Romney
Go Young Americans for Freedom! Brings back memories of siblings in college joining and bragging ... Go Goldwater! ...
Now, they're raining on Romney's parade at the Michigan Republic Party convention. What fun, YAF members from U Michigan and Michigan State, holding signs saying:
RINOs for Romney
and
Don't Like Romney's views?
Wait 10 minutes and they'll Flip Flop
and
Multiple Choice Romney
See the video on www.EyeOn08.com:
http://www.eyeon08.com/2007/02/11/more-grassroots-anti-romney-protests/
EyeOn08 has also posted this from the Pro-Life March in D.C. last month:
"Pro-life students against flip-floppers"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYvHqgnEi2o
Now, they're raining on Romney's parade at the Michigan Republic Party convention. What fun, YAF members from U Michigan and Michigan State, holding signs saying:
RINOs for Romney
and
Don't Like Romney's views?
Wait 10 minutes and they'll Flip Flop
and
Multiple Choice Romney
See the video on www.EyeOn08.com:
http://www.eyeon08.com/2007/02/11/more-grassroots-anti-romney-protests/
EyeOn08 has also posted this from the Pro-Life March in D.C. last month:
"Pro-life students against flip-floppers"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYvHqgnEi2o
Why No Comments on This Blog?
Peter LaBarbera at AmericansForTruth has pointed us to an excellent answer to the question, "Why don't you allow comments on your blog?" Like LaBarbera and Mr. Cramer (see his blog posting below), we have been subject to vile language, threats, harassment, even a house break-in, by activists in the LGBT community. They do not believe in free speech or the polite exchange of ideas.
Why there are no comments on my blog
Pam Spaulding, a lesbian blogger, posted something about Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, which is run by Peter LaBarbera. Like many blogs, Pam’s blog allows readers to add comments–which soon included Peter LaBarbera’s home address, and a suggestion that the park across the street would be a good place for a sniper.
Comments on blogs can either be moderated (which ends up taking a lot of a blogger’s time) or unmoderated (in which case, the blogger may not be aware of what’s being said in the comments). Once informed, Pam Spaulding removed these comments and emphasized that this was not acceptable behavior.
That’s why I have never turned commenting on in my blog. Who needs the aggravation of letting unhinged idiots post trash like that (and worse) in the comments?
I can’t say that I am surprised by what happened on Pam Spaulding’s blog, however. Over the roughly twenty years that I have been using the Internet to engage in political discussion, I have expressed myself strongly (sometimes even a little too strongly) about a very large number of controversial issues. There is one, and only one group of political activists that have ever made harassing phone calls to me (repeated calls at 6:00 AM with silence at the other end), made lewd phone calls to my children (who fortunately, were small enough to be confused rather than shocked), tried to get me fired from a job, or threatened my safety with threats of violence.
Guess which group that was. Not leftists. Not gun control activists. No Islamists. Not Communists. Not labor unionists. Not history professors. Not environmentalists. Homosexual activists are the only group that has engaged in these tactics in response to my political free speech. Obviously, not all homosexuals––or even all homosexual activists––have engaged in these tactics. But part of why I have joined the ranks of those who think that homosexuality reflects something terribly broken is because there is no other group whose activists become so unhinged in response to criticism that they engaged in these tactics. I have never felt at risk because of my political activity–until the unrelenting campaign of harassment started in the early 1990s, and I started to regularly carry a gun because of it.
Why there are no comments on my blog
Pam Spaulding, a lesbian blogger, posted something about Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, which is run by Peter LaBarbera. Like many blogs, Pam’s blog allows readers to add comments–which soon included Peter LaBarbera’s home address, and a suggestion that the park across the street would be a good place for a sniper.
Comments on blogs can either be moderated (which ends up taking a lot of a blogger’s time) or unmoderated (in which case, the blogger may not be aware of what’s being said in the comments). Once informed, Pam Spaulding removed these comments and emphasized that this was not acceptable behavior.
That’s why I have never turned commenting on in my blog. Who needs the aggravation of letting unhinged idiots post trash like that (and worse) in the comments?
I can’t say that I am surprised by what happened on Pam Spaulding’s blog, however. Over the roughly twenty years that I have been using the Internet to engage in political discussion, I have expressed myself strongly (sometimes even a little too strongly) about a very large number of controversial issues. There is one, and only one group of political activists that have ever made harassing phone calls to me (repeated calls at 6:00 AM with silence at the other end), made lewd phone calls to my children (who fortunately, were small enough to be confused rather than shocked), tried to get me fired from a job, or threatened my safety with threats of violence.
Guess which group that was. Not leftists. Not gun control activists. No Islamists. Not Communists. Not labor unionists. Not history professors. Not environmentalists. Homosexual activists are the only group that has engaged in these tactics in response to my political free speech. Obviously, not all homosexuals––or even all homosexual activists––have engaged in these tactics. But part of why I have joined the ranks of those who think that homosexuality reflects something terribly broken is because there is no other group whose activists become so unhinged in response to criticism that they engaged in these tactics. I have never felt at risk because of my political activity–until the unrelenting campaign of harassment started in the early 1990s, and I started to regularly carry a gun because of it.
Sunday, February 11, 2007
Romney Is Not Pro-Life: More Proof
Mitt Romney is not pro-life. If he were, he wouldn't think we could vote on abortion.
Abortion either is, or is not, murder. If Romney believes it is murder -- the definition of "pro-life" -- how can he say it's something that can and should be decided by popular vote? Some states choose to allow baby murder, others don't. Sounds "pro-choice" to us. A pro-life leader would not take this position.
Further, pro-lifers respect the innocence of the baby, and do not make the exceptions that it's OK to abort in cases of rape or incest -- as Romney does. (Plus, Romney views Roe v. Wade as "law" -- when it's an illegitimate court ruling.)
Did President Lincoln think the individual states should be able to decide whether or not slavery would be allowed in their state? Or was slavery a moral wrong that had to be dealt with on a national level? Lincoln acted like a man and provided real leadership. Where are the real men today?
We ask Presidential candidate Romney: Is abortion a moral wrong equivalent to slavery? He apparently doesn't think so. He thinks there's some wiggle room. He recommends leaving it to voters in individual states to decide whether or not they'll allow the murder of innocent babies within their borders. Even with the (unacceptable) exceptions for rape and incest built in, Romney does not support a national right-to-life amendment.
Romney earlier explained this in his December schmooze with Kathryn Lopez at National Review. And he was foolish enough to repeat it here:
NATIONAL JOURNAL
February 10, 2007
Q: You would favor a constitutional amendment banning abortion with exceptions for the life of the mother, rape and incest. Is that correct?
Romney: What I've indicated is that I am pro-life, and that my hope is that the Supreme Court will give to the states over time or give to the states soon or give to the states their own ability to make their own decisions with regard to their own abortion law.
Q: If a state wanted unlimited abortion?
Romney: The state would fall into restrictions that had been imposed at the federal level, so they couldn't be more expansive in abortion than currently exists under the law, but they could become more restrictive in abortion provisions. So states like Massachusetts could stay like they are if they so desire, and states that have a different view could take that course. And it would be up to the citizens of the individual states. My view is not to impose a single federal rule on the entire nation -- a one-size-fits-all approach -- but instead allow states to make their own decisions in this regard.
Abortion either is, or is not, murder. If Romney believes it is murder -- the definition of "pro-life" -- how can he say it's something that can and should be decided by popular vote? Some states choose to allow baby murder, others don't. Sounds "pro-choice" to us. A pro-life leader would not take this position.
Further, pro-lifers respect the innocence of the baby, and do not make the exceptions that it's OK to abort in cases of rape or incest -- as Romney does. (Plus, Romney views Roe v. Wade as "law" -- when it's an illegitimate court ruling.)
Did President Lincoln think the individual states should be able to decide whether or not slavery would be allowed in their state? Or was slavery a moral wrong that had to be dealt with on a national level? Lincoln acted like a man and provided real leadership. Where are the real men today?
We ask Presidential candidate Romney: Is abortion a moral wrong equivalent to slavery? He apparently doesn't think so. He thinks there's some wiggle room. He recommends leaving it to voters in individual states to decide whether or not they'll allow the murder of innocent babies within their borders. Even with the (unacceptable) exceptions for rape and incest built in, Romney does not support a national right-to-life amendment.
Romney earlier explained this in his December schmooze with Kathryn Lopez at National Review. And he was foolish enough to repeat it here:
NATIONAL JOURNAL
February 10, 2007
Q: You would favor a constitutional amendment banning abortion with exceptions for the life of the mother, rape and incest. Is that correct?
Romney: What I've indicated is that I am pro-life, and that my hope is that the Supreme Court will give to the states over time or give to the states soon or give to the states their own ability to make their own decisions with regard to their own abortion law.
Q: If a state wanted unlimited abortion?
Romney: The state would fall into restrictions that had been imposed at the federal level, so they couldn't be more expansive in abortion than currently exists under the law, but they could become more restrictive in abortion provisions. So states like Massachusetts could stay like they are if they so desire, and states that have a different view could take that course. And it would be up to the citizens of the individual states. My view is not to impose a single federal rule on the entire nation -- a one-size-fits-all approach -- but instead allow states to make their own decisions in this regard.
Saturday, February 10, 2007
Wall Street Journal: Romney Flip-Flops on "Gay Marriage"
The Wall Street Journal has serious doubts about Mitt Romney. We highlighted their editorial trashing his Massachusetts health insurance plan -- which he was so proud of, until about a month ago. Now, WSJ is voicing hesitation on his free market bona fides:
Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts Governor, has had some success exploiting conservative unease with Mr. McCain. He has shown he can win votes in a blue state, and he was successful both as a capitalist and as manager of the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympics.
However, he too is something of an empty policy slate. The former business consultant made a big deal of the health-care "reform" he steered through the Massachusetts legislature last year, and we suppose he deserves credit for trying. But he oversold the results--to the applause of the national health-care lobby--and imposed an insurance mandate without reforming the state insurance market.
As it unfolds, this law is turning out to be far from a free-market success. And so now Mr. Romney is distancing himself from it--never mind that he upbraided his critics last year for not understanding its virtues. The episode suggests a thin political skin and perhaps a too malleable policy core.
Also, WSJ today noted that Romney's not only a flip-flopper on abortion and gay rights, but also has changed his position on gay marriage ("Election 2008: A Crowded Field Forms Early"):
Mitt Romney
Strengths: The Republican governor from liberal Massachusetts brokered a bipartisan universal health-care initiative last year. The Bain Capital founder's $6.5 million in pledges last month have built early credibility.
Weaknesses: The fact that Mr. Romney is a Mormon could hurt his support among evangelicals. Attempts to woo social conservatives have been hampered by shifting positions on gay marriage and abortion rights.
Hmm... did the WSJ really mean to say this? "Gay marriage" rather than "gay rights"? A big fan of the editorial page told us, "YES -- they have the best editors, and they probably did pay attention to MassResistance's report."
Well, even if it was a slip, here's the truth about Mitt Romney: HE HAS NOT BEEN CONSISTENT ON HIS SUPPORT FOR REAL MARRIAGE. First, in 2001-2, Romney opposed a proposed constitutional amendment in Massachusetts, which would have banned "gay marriage" and also "civil unions". Romney said that was "too extreme". Understand that he thinks we need to respect all citizens, no matter what choices they may make in their lives. So apparently, in 2001-2, Romney supported civil unions. And if that wasn't the basis for opposing the amendment, maybe he just didn't want to ban "gay marriage"? We ask his Mr. Romney to clarify his opposition to the 2002 Mass. marriage amendment. And further, why didn't he make a stink then that the Legislature unconstitutionally threw it into the dustbin? (He became Governor in January 2003, days after that happened.)
Then in 2005-6, suddenly Romney favored the new proposed Mass. marriage amendment, which would NOT ban civil unions, and which would let stand the existing "gay marriages" (since May 2004).
So first he's against a marriage amendment, then he's for one. Is this a flip-flop? Or -- is there some consistency? Romney seems to want to keep open the possibility for civil unions in both instances. Interesting.
Hello, Romney campaign. Please explain!
Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts Governor, has had some success exploiting conservative unease with Mr. McCain. He has shown he can win votes in a blue state, and he was successful both as a capitalist and as manager of the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympics.
However, he too is something of an empty policy slate. The former business consultant made a big deal of the health-care "reform" he steered through the Massachusetts legislature last year, and we suppose he deserves credit for trying. But he oversold the results--to the applause of the national health-care lobby--and imposed an insurance mandate without reforming the state insurance market.
As it unfolds, this law is turning out to be far from a free-market success. And so now Mr. Romney is distancing himself from it--never mind that he upbraided his critics last year for not understanding its virtues. The episode suggests a thin political skin and perhaps a too malleable policy core.
Also, WSJ today noted that Romney's not only a flip-flopper on abortion and gay rights, but also has changed his position on gay marriage ("Election 2008: A Crowded Field Forms Early"):
Mitt Romney
Strengths: The Republican governor from liberal Massachusetts brokered a bipartisan universal health-care initiative last year. The Bain Capital founder's $6.5 million in pledges last month have built early credibility.
Weaknesses: The fact that Mr. Romney is a Mormon could hurt his support among evangelicals. Attempts to woo social conservatives have been hampered by shifting positions on gay marriage and abortion rights.
Hmm... did the WSJ really mean to say this? "Gay marriage" rather than "gay rights"? A big fan of the editorial page told us, "YES -- they have the best editors, and they probably did pay attention to MassResistance's report."
Well, even if it was a slip, here's the truth about Mitt Romney: HE HAS NOT BEEN CONSISTENT ON HIS SUPPORT FOR REAL MARRIAGE. First, in 2001-2, Romney opposed a proposed constitutional amendment in Massachusetts, which would have banned "gay marriage" and also "civil unions". Romney said that was "too extreme". Understand that he thinks we need to respect all citizens, no matter what choices they may make in their lives. So apparently, in 2001-2, Romney supported civil unions. And if that wasn't the basis for opposing the amendment, maybe he just didn't want to ban "gay marriage"? We ask his Mr. Romney to clarify his opposition to the 2002 Mass. marriage amendment. And further, why didn't he make a stink then that the Legislature unconstitutionally threw it into the dustbin? (He became Governor in January 2003, days after that happened.)
Then in 2005-6, suddenly Romney favored the new proposed Mass. marriage amendment, which would NOT ban civil unions, and which would let stand the existing "gay marriages" (since May 2004).
So first he's against a marriage amendment, then he's for one. Is this a flip-flop? Or -- is there some consistency? Romney seems to want to keep open the possibility for civil unions in both instances. Interesting.
Hello, Romney campaign. Please explain!
Friday, February 09, 2007
Linguine Spines in Maine State House
Mike Heath, Executive Director of the Christian Civic League of Maine, tells the truth there, as we do in Massachusetts. In this spineless age, that can make you pretty unpopular in places like State Houses. Here is the depressing news from Maine -- plus Heath's CALL TO ACTION. Where are the men and women of principle? Heath writes:
Want to Join Me?
You may have noticed that no proposal has surfaced in Maine's legislature to enact sodomy-based marriage, otherwise known as same sex marriage. I don't like to use the phrase "same sex marriage" because that is their term of art.... The only reason Maine didn't beat Massachusetts and become the first state in America with sodomy-based marriage is because the Christian Civic League of Maine looked around at the army and decided that someone needed to confront the giant.
We haven't slain Goliath yet. We are still polishing our stones. Many Christian forces are more like Saul and his army camped in the field drinking and making merry while Goliath wanders out to the middle of the field each day to taunt them and their God. Just as Saul's army was entertained by Goliath, Christians allow themselves today to be entertained by the antics of the anti-God crowd. They'd prefer not to confront the giant.
And make no mistake, the anti-God crowd is in power in Maine.
The leader of Maine's REPUBLICAN party says he has no interest in social issues. His number two man defends the foolish "diversity days" that are popping up in public schools all over Maine. The most recent one at Cony High School included a "transgendered" teenager as a workshop leader.
Make no mistake. The anti-God crowd runs the Maine State House. They are happy with abortion and homosexuality. And the Christians who serve there do not have the stomach to fight them. When I angered the anti-God left a few years ago the State House stopped business to craft a letter condemning me. Every Senator signed the letter condemning me, even some I consider to be friends. I consider the letter to be a badge of honor.
And you know something. I don't blame the Christians for camping out. Goliath is big and scary while the army that camps behind him on the battlefield is bigger and scarier.
The bigness and scariness of the enemy army isn't important to God. He always works though individuals. He works through men like David. Individuals like you. Your courage, clear- headedness and morality will glorify God today. God isn't impressed by armies, nations and technology. David was called a man after God's own heart.
See the news from the Christian Civic League of Maine.
Want to Join Me?
You may have noticed that no proposal has surfaced in Maine's legislature to enact sodomy-based marriage, otherwise known as same sex marriage. I don't like to use the phrase "same sex marriage" because that is their term of art.... The only reason Maine didn't beat Massachusetts and become the first state in America with sodomy-based marriage is because the Christian Civic League of Maine looked around at the army and decided that someone needed to confront the giant.
We haven't slain Goliath yet. We are still polishing our stones. Many Christian forces are more like Saul and his army camped in the field drinking and making merry while Goliath wanders out to the middle of the field each day to taunt them and their God. Just as Saul's army was entertained by Goliath, Christians allow themselves today to be entertained by the antics of the anti-God crowd. They'd prefer not to confront the giant.
And make no mistake, the anti-God crowd is in power in Maine.
The leader of Maine's REPUBLICAN party says he has no interest in social issues. His number two man defends the foolish "diversity days" that are popping up in public schools all over Maine. The most recent one at Cony High School included a "transgendered" teenager as a workshop leader.
Make no mistake. The anti-God crowd runs the Maine State House. They are happy with abortion and homosexuality. And the Christians who serve there do not have the stomach to fight them. When I angered the anti-God left a few years ago the State House stopped business to craft a letter condemning me. Every Senator signed the letter condemning me, even some I consider to be friends. I consider the letter to be a badge of honor.
And you know something. I don't blame the Christians for camping out. Goliath is big and scary while the army that camps behind him on the battlefield is bigger and scarier.
The bigness and scariness of the enemy army isn't important to God. He always works though individuals. He works through men like David. Individuals like you. Your courage, clear- headedness and morality will glorify God today. God isn't impressed by armies, nations and technology. David was called a man after God's own heart.
See the news from the Christian Civic League of Maine.
Thursday, February 08, 2007
Gill's Homosexual $Millions Coming Into Massachusetts
We've warned Massachusetts that millionaire homosexual activist "philanthropist" Tim Gill was sending $MILLIONS into Massachusetts to help overturn sane government. He's already targeted State Rep. Phil Travis (and maybe others). We're sure he'll donate massive funds to defeat VoteOnMarriage's amendment in any way he can. Remember his chief operative on this, Patrick Guerriero, is a Massachusetts boy working closely with Arline Isaacson (Mass. Gay & Lesbian Political Caucus) and the MassEquality crowd.
From today's Bay Windows, "On Snickers bars, ... and political activist Tim Gill":
Worth a read: This month’s Atlantic Monthly includes a terrific piece by Joshua Green on the state-by-state strategy of defeating anti-gay politicians taken by wealthy gays like Tim Gill. Titled “They Won’t Know What Hit Them,” the piece includes an interview with the reclusive Gill, who explains his strategy of targeting state lawmakers for defeat: “The strategic piece of the puzzle we’d been missing — consistent across almost every legislature we examined — is that it’s often just a handful of people, two or three, who introduce the most outrageous legislation and force the rest of their colleagues to vote on it. If you could reach these few people or neutralize them by flipping the chamber to leaders who would block bad legislation, you’d have a dramatic effect.”Gill had a list of 70 lawmakers targeted for defeat; it included Massachusetts representative Phil Travis (who ultimately resigned rather than seek reelection). Fifty of those Gill set out to unseat lost their jobs. He’s already at work on a much bigger list for 2008.
From today's Bay Windows, "On Snickers bars, ... and political activist Tim Gill":
Worth a read: This month’s Atlantic Monthly includes a terrific piece by Joshua Green on the state-by-state strategy of defeating anti-gay politicians taken by wealthy gays like Tim Gill. Titled “They Won’t Know What Hit Them,” the piece includes an interview with the reclusive Gill, who explains his strategy of targeting state lawmakers for defeat: “The strategic piece of the puzzle we’d been missing — consistent across almost every legislature we examined — is that it’s often just a handful of people, two or three, who introduce the most outrageous legislation and force the rest of their colleagues to vote on it. If you could reach these few people or neutralize them by flipping the chamber to leaders who would block bad legislation, you’d have a dramatic effect.”Gill had a list of 70 lawmakers targeted for defeat; it included Massachusetts representative Phil Travis (who ultimately resigned rather than seek reelection). Fifty of those Gill set out to unseat lost their jobs. He’s already at work on a much bigger list for 2008.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)