Now that the Sodomy Lobby has taken control of the Massachusetts State House, it may be time to review some of the public health concerns homosexual practices entail, before such a discussion is punished as "hate speech". The leftist response to the nomination of Dr. James Holsinger for U.S. Surgeon General is a warning that such intolerance is gaining faster than anyone could have predited.
"The rectum is incapable of mechanical protection against abrasion and severe damage to the colonic mucosa can result if objects that are large, sharp, or pointed are inserted into the rectum." Medical fact, or "hate speech"?
That is from Holsinger's review of medical facts on homosexual health risks, written in 1991 for his church. But this is now considered controversial and hateful by the left. Why? Does anyone disagree that smoking is a health threat? Why is it doubted that rectosigmoid tearing characteristic of anal intercourse, fisting, and other practices (involving insertion of large objects into the anus) is unhealthy? Soon only the "gay" pornography sold in Borders bookstores will be allowed to reference such practices.
See Americans for Truth on the controversy over Dr. James Holsinger's nomination, and read his paper, "Pathophysiology of Male Homosexuality," written in 1991. Excerpt:
From the perspective of pathology and pathophysiology, the varied sexual practices of homosexual men have resulted in a diverse and expanded concept of sexually transmitted disease and associated trauma. “Four general groups of conditions may be encountered in homosexually active men: classical sexually transmitted diseases (gonorrhea, infections with chlamydia trachomatis, syphilis, herpes simplex infections, genital warts, pubic lice, scabies); enteric diseases (infections with hig gel la species, Campylobacter jejuni, Entamoeba histolytica, Giardia lamblia, hepatitis A, hepatitis B, hepatitis non-A, non-B, and cytomegalovirus); trauma (fecal incontinence, hemorrhoids, anal fissure, foreign bodies, rectosigmoid tears, allergic proctitis, penile edema, chemical sinusitis, inhaled nitrite burns, and sexual assault of the male patient); and the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS)” (Owen, 1985).
Saturday, June 16, 2007
Foul Speech from Romney Campaign
Great stuff on EyeOn08 on our least favorite Republican presidential candidate, Mitt Romney. A Romney campaign official has called Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas a "bottom feeder" and posted a photo of an ugly bottom-feeding fish alongside the silly commentary. This from one Jason Bonham (Illinois State Director, Legacy Law Foundation, Illinois), who is allied with the infamous David French, a Senior Counsel with the nominally conservative Alliance Defense Fund and "Evangelicals for Mitt". (Legacy Law is a Mormon group based in Utah, and is linked to VoteOnMarriage through Romney.)
(Some of these "conservative" legal foundations are becoming a joke, ready to give in on crucial principles. For instance, the Alliance Defense Fund is behind the wording of the compromised and failed VoteOnMarriage amendment here in Massacusetts. See our posting from October 2005: "Amateur Hour: Immigrant Law Student Behind Flawed "VoteOnMarriage" Research". ADF and Romney like civil unions -- not a conservative position.)
See also EyeOn08 "Romney on His 2002 Campaign Promise" -- to uphold abortion "rights" in Massachusetts. Excellent analysis and links.
Back to the mess Romney left for us here in Massachusetts, the homosexual "marriages" he ESTABLISHED through his Legal Counsel's office. Romney says he's disappointed in the outcome of Friday's marriage amendment vote, because the people are denied a say in defining marriage.
What a sham! Romney single-handedly implemented an illegitimate Court ruling, violated the Constitution by changing the marriage licenses, and ordered Justices of the Peace and Town Clerks to follow a "law" that's now a law. (Remember that all the Court said was that the Legislature should act, which it had not right to tell them, and the Legislature did not act to change the statutes.) Why did Romney implement the "marriages"? Yet now he pretends to care so much about protecting marriage and the people's voice. Does anyone really believe him?
[Boston Globe, 6-15-07:] "Unfortunately, our elected representatives decided that the voice of the people did not need to be heard in this debate," he said in a statement. Romney reiterated his call for Congress to pass a federal constitutional amendment banning gay marriage ... The vote yesterday helps Romney, West [Brown U political scientist] said. "It gives him credibility in other parts of the country as something other than a Massachusetts politician."
As we've said all along, Romney should have no credibility when people hear the truth about his role in the marriage debacle here in Massachusetts. BTW, why does Romney think a federal amendment is needed for marriage, but that it's OK to leave abortion laws up to the states? If something is wrong, shouldn't it be wrong in every state?
(Some of these "conservative" legal foundations are becoming a joke, ready to give in on crucial principles. For instance, the Alliance Defense Fund is behind the wording of the compromised and failed VoteOnMarriage amendment here in Massacusetts. See our posting from October 2005: "Amateur Hour: Immigrant Law Student Behind Flawed "VoteOnMarriage" Research". ADF and Romney like civil unions -- not a conservative position.)
See also EyeOn08 "Romney on His 2002 Campaign Promise" -- to uphold abortion "rights" in Massachusetts. Excellent analysis and links.
Back to the mess Romney left for us here in Massachusetts, the homosexual "marriages" he ESTABLISHED through his Legal Counsel's office. Romney says he's disappointed in the outcome of Friday's marriage amendment vote, because the people are denied a say in defining marriage.
What a sham! Romney single-handedly implemented an illegitimate Court ruling, violated the Constitution by changing the marriage licenses, and ordered Justices of the Peace and Town Clerks to follow a "law" that's now a law. (Remember that all the Court said was that the Legislature should act, which it had not right to tell them, and the Legislature did not act to change the statutes.) Why did Romney implement the "marriages"? Yet now he pretends to care so much about protecting marriage and the people's voice. Does anyone really believe him?
[Boston Globe, 6-15-07:] "Unfortunately, our elected representatives decided that the voice of the people did not need to be heard in this debate," he said in a statement. Romney reiterated his call for Congress to pass a federal constitutional amendment banning gay marriage ... The vote yesterday helps Romney, West [Brown U political scientist] said. "It gives him credibility in other parts of the country as something other than a Massachusetts politician."
As we've said all along, Romney should have no credibility when people hear the truth about his role in the marriage debacle here in Massachusetts. BTW, why does Romney think a federal amendment is needed for marriage, but that it's OK to leave abortion laws up to the states? If something is wrong, shouldn't it be wrong in every state?
Friday, June 15, 2007
Boston Archdiocese Failed the People on Marriage
The Boston Archidiocese shares the responsibility for yesterday's debacle at the State House, as they were part of the VoteOnMarriage organization that failed the people:
"It's clear that the archdiocese is not serious about this issue. There is no real penalty being exacted on people who are in support of same sex marriage."
- Phil Lawler, Catholic World News editor
Most of the Legislators here are nominally Catholic, so why were they not concerned about their standing in the Church? and before God? We note that we saw NOT ONE Catholic priest outside the State House yesterday (though there were a few Franciscan brothers). There were plenty of pseudo-Christian "clerics" on the other side.
Remember that neither Mass. Family Institute nor the Archdiocese helped push the first (and better) marriage amendment back in 2001 and 2002 (the one the Legislature and Acting Governor Jane Swift unconstitutionally threw in the trash, refusing to take a vote). That was the time for action that could have succeeded -- prior to the seduction of many of our legislators by the wealthy sodomy lobby, and prior to the insane Supreme Judicial Court ruling (which they knew was in the works).
Phil Lawler, a Massachusetts resident, is editor of Catholic World News, and was Constitution Party candidate against Ted Kennedy in 2000. He spoke with LifeSite News yesterday about the failure of the Church to hold Catholic legislators feet to the fire. (The LifeSite article ends by urging its readers to contact Cardinal O'Malley.)
Key Advisor to Cardinal O'Malley Writes Pro-Gay 'Marriage' Column in Boston Newspaper
By Peter J. Smith and John-Henry Westen
BOSTON, June 14, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com)
... Phil Lawler, the editor and founder of Catholic World News who has an upcoming book called The Faithful Departed on the collapse of Catholic influence in the Boston area, commented to LifeSiteNews.com about the situation in light of today's vote loss.
"It's clear that the archdiocese is not serious about this issue," said Lawler. "There is no real penalty being exacted on people who are in support of same sex marriage."Lawler explained, "People who are supporting traditional marriage, who supported the marriage amendment were going to have to pay a pretty heavy price in terms of the wrath of the gay rights lobby, of Governor Patrick, of the editorial writers all around the state. But people who abandoned the cause, people who supported same sex marriage, and opposed this amendment were not going to face any real problems with the leadership of the Catholic Church."He concluded, "And that's really in my mind the biggest reason for today's outcome." ...
The LifeSite article also discusses Peter Meade's article in the Boston Herald:
"It's clear that the archdiocese is not serious about this issue. There is no real penalty being exacted on people who are in support of same sex marriage."
- Phil Lawler, Catholic World News editor
Most of the Legislators here are nominally Catholic, so why were they not concerned about their standing in the Church? and before God? We note that we saw NOT ONE Catholic priest outside the State House yesterday (though there were a few Franciscan brothers). There were plenty of pseudo-Christian "clerics" on the other side.
Remember that neither Mass. Family Institute nor the Archdiocese helped push the first (and better) marriage amendment back in 2001 and 2002 (the one the Legislature and Acting Governor Jane Swift unconstitutionally threw in the trash, refusing to take a vote). That was the time for action that could have succeeded -- prior to the seduction of many of our legislators by the wealthy sodomy lobby, and prior to the insane Supreme Judicial Court ruling (which they knew was in the works).
Phil Lawler, a Massachusetts resident, is editor of Catholic World News, and was Constitution Party candidate against Ted Kennedy in 2000. He spoke with LifeSite News yesterday about the failure of the Church to hold Catholic legislators feet to the fire. (The LifeSite article ends by urging its readers to contact Cardinal O'Malley.)
Key Advisor to Cardinal O'Malley Writes Pro-Gay 'Marriage' Column in Boston Newspaper
By Peter J. Smith and John-Henry Westen
BOSTON, June 14, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com)
... Phil Lawler, the editor and founder of Catholic World News who has an upcoming book called The Faithful Departed on the collapse of Catholic influence in the Boston area, commented to LifeSiteNews.com about the situation in light of today's vote loss.
"It's clear that the archdiocese is not serious about this issue," said Lawler. "There is no real penalty being exacted on people who are in support of same sex marriage."Lawler explained, "People who are supporting traditional marriage, who supported the marriage amendment were going to have to pay a pretty heavy price in terms of the wrath of the gay rights lobby, of Governor Patrick, of the editorial writers all around the state. But people who abandoned the cause, people who supported same sex marriage, and opposed this amendment were not going to face any real problems with the leadership of the Catholic Church."He concluded, "And that's really in my mind the biggest reason for today's outcome." ...
The LifeSite article also discusses Peter Meade's article in the Boston Herald:
Gay marriage is just another step in "natural social evolution" writes a high profile lay advisor to Boston Archbishop Cardinal O'Malley. The advisor, Peter Meade--one of seven members of Catholic Charities in Boston who resigned over the Archdiocese's decision to ban same-sex couples from adopting--maintains his position on the committee O'Malley appointed to recommend which parishes in the Archdiocese ought to be closed."
On May 17, 2004, the day marriage was made legal for everyone in Massachusetts, we looked out our window to see - contrary to apocalyptic predictions - that the sun had actually risen," wrote Meade and his wife Rosanne Bacon Meade in a column published Tuesday by the Boston Herald. "Life went on quite normally not only that day, but every day since." ... Before his resignation over the Church's refusal to allow homosexual adoption, Meade was the Chair of Catholic Charities in Boston....
See Meade's column in the Boston Herald here.
Thursday, June 14, 2007
VoteOnMarriage Failed the People
The VoteOnMarriage amendment went down in flames today, with an even more appalling result than anyone could have imagined. Prayers without compromising the truth may work. Prayers when the truth is compromised cannot.
VoteOnMarriage's campaign failed because the debate was boiled down to "letting the people vote" and ensuring "children have both a mother and a father." But it left out the important truth about homosexual "marriage": It's based on immoral and unhealthy sexual perversions. Morality and public health needed to be part of the debate.
But VoteOnMarriage (and its prime actor, Massachusetts Family Institute) never spoke about these issues. Why didn't they say plainly that disordered sexuality cannot become an accepted basis for "marriage"? And after compromising with Mitt Romney, they could hardly address preserving the integrity of our constitution, and the common accepted meaning of the words therein.
VoteOnMarriage depleted our side's energy and financial resources in pursuit of a terribly flawed amendment. We've warned about their failing strategy ("Be polite! Dialogue with the other side!") and compromised amendment wording for two years now. We said: "Don't feed the bears! They'll just come back for more and more. They'll smell your weakness. And they'll eat you alive."
But VoteOnMarriage said they had a good relationship with MassEquality. They spoke to the homosexual newspaper Bay Windows, badmouthed MassResistance to them and to people on Beacon Hill (including the last several governors) and to pro-family conservatives around the nation. They rigidly controlled what people said in their demonstrations, including their signs. It was a top-down movement, no real grassroots sentiments allowed. Time and again, as we walked through the VoteOnMarriage demonstrators, we would hear individuals corrected if they stepped out of line, said something "inappropriate" or with a little too much emotion.
Their strategy of endless compromise with evil, their attempted appeasement of those destroying the minds of children, and their puerile censorship of pro-family rhetoric has no origin in the Old or New Testament, and anyone who thinks otherwise has subconsciously blacked out the most powerful parts of the Holy Scriptures.
We hear from an MFI insider that they plan to regroup! How do you regroup with failed leadership, and a failed vision? Just a week ago, we heard that another MFI insider said the homosexual lobby was tiring out! They are detached from reality. They don't understand the foe we're facing.
When leaders fail to achieve their goal, they should be fired. VoteOnMarriage and the Massachusetts Family Institute have been discredited, they have failed the faithful pro-family people of Massachusetts. So we say to them: Don't ask for another penny, another drop of our blood and sweat.
VoteOnMarriage's campaign failed because the debate was boiled down to "letting the people vote" and ensuring "children have both a mother and a father." But it left out the important truth about homosexual "marriage": It's based on immoral and unhealthy sexual perversions. Morality and public health needed to be part of the debate.
But VoteOnMarriage (and its prime actor, Massachusetts Family Institute) never spoke about these issues. Why didn't they say plainly that disordered sexuality cannot become an accepted basis for "marriage"? And after compromising with Mitt Romney, they could hardly address preserving the integrity of our constitution, and the common accepted meaning of the words therein.
VoteOnMarriage depleted our side's energy and financial resources in pursuit of a terribly flawed amendment. We've warned about their failing strategy ("Be polite! Dialogue with the other side!") and compromised amendment wording for two years now. We said: "Don't feed the bears! They'll just come back for more and more. They'll smell your weakness. And they'll eat you alive."
But VoteOnMarriage said they had a good relationship with MassEquality. They spoke to the homosexual newspaper Bay Windows, badmouthed MassResistance to them and to people on Beacon Hill (including the last several governors) and to pro-family conservatives around the nation. They rigidly controlled what people said in their demonstrations, including their signs. It was a top-down movement, no real grassroots sentiments allowed. Time and again, as we walked through the VoteOnMarriage demonstrators, we would hear individuals corrected if they stepped out of line, said something "inappropriate" or with a little too much emotion.
Their strategy of endless compromise with evil, their attempted appeasement of those destroying the minds of children, and their puerile censorship of pro-family rhetoric has no origin in the Old or New Testament, and anyone who thinks otherwise has subconsciously blacked out the most powerful parts of the Holy Scriptures.
We hear from an MFI insider that they plan to regroup! How do you regroup with failed leadership, and a failed vision? Just a week ago, we heard that another MFI insider said the homosexual lobby was tiring out! They are detached from reality. They don't understand the foe we're facing.
When leaders fail to achieve their goal, they should be fired. VoteOnMarriage and the Massachusetts Family Institute have been discredited, they have failed the faithful pro-family people of Massachusetts. So we say to them: Don't ask for another penny, another drop of our blood and sweat.
Sodomy "Marriage" Not a Civil Right
Last week's editorial in The Pilot rationally explained why homosexual "marriage" is not about civil rights. ("Marriage is not a civil right", 6-8-07) But then, rationality and facts don't seem to count for much any more. Today's Globe makes it clear that "wavering" legislators are not rational, but swayed by emotional stories by lesbian "married" couples. ("A legislator finds himself tugged in two directions")
Sadly, even if it passes, the VoteOnMarriage amendment would not prevent the state's descent into lunacy. It would keep the "marriage" squabble alive, allowing current "homosexual marriages" (existing before the new amendment would take effect) to stand as valid. But then, MassEquality would argue -- rationally --that there can't be two classes of homosexuals: some allowed to marry, some not, because that would be a violation of federally guaranteed equality under the law.
Nevertheless, the Pilot editorial editorial is good as far as it goes:
Marriage is not a civil right
...[MassEquality's slogan is] “It’s wrong to vote on rights.” The underlying message is that since two people with homosexual orientation may love each other, they have the right to marriage.
First, we note that the very premise of the campaign is ludicrous. Let us not forget that the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights were ratified through the votes of state legislatures. The very statement “It’s wrong to vote on rights” flies in the face of our entire system of government.
More importantly, however, marriage is not a right. Even civil marriage is a very restrictive contract that provides benefits for certain people expected to contribute to society in a particular way -- procreating and raising children. But even that is restricted for the good of society. A mother does not have the right to marry her son. Siblings cannot marry. Married persons cannot marry again without first obtaining a divorce. There is no civil right to marry anyone, at any time.
The consequences of separating marriage from procreation and redefining it as a civil right are far-reaching and catastrophic for the institution of marriage and for society at large. Once marriage becomes a personal right, the institution of marriage fades. It is only a matter of time before polygamy, polyandry, incestuous relations and all other manner of partnerships will be accepted as marriage. And why shouldn’t they be? After all, those engaged in those relationships will surely claim they are as much “loving partners” as anyone else and that they deserve to have their relationships legally recognized.
Another very real consequence of the judicial decision that legalized same-sex marriage in Massachusetts in 2004 is the presumption that all sexual lifestyles are equal. If gay couples can marry, the obvious conclusion -- already evident by recent court decisions -- is that schools should teach that homosexual behavior is fully equivalent to heterosexual behavior. Children will have to learn, as they already are in some school districts, that all lifestyle choices are equal....
Sadly, even if it passes, the VoteOnMarriage amendment would not prevent the state's descent into lunacy. It would keep the "marriage" squabble alive, allowing current "homosexual marriages" (existing before the new amendment would take effect) to stand as valid. But then, MassEquality would argue -- rationally --that there can't be two classes of homosexuals: some allowed to marry, some not, because that would be a violation of federally guaranteed equality under the law.
Nevertheless, the Pilot editorial editorial is good as far as it goes:
Marriage is not a civil right
...[MassEquality's slogan is] “It’s wrong to vote on rights.” The underlying message is that since two people with homosexual orientation may love each other, they have the right to marriage.
First, we note that the very premise of the campaign is ludicrous. Let us not forget that the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights were ratified through the votes of state legislatures. The very statement “It’s wrong to vote on rights” flies in the face of our entire system of government.
More importantly, however, marriage is not a right. Even civil marriage is a very restrictive contract that provides benefits for certain people expected to contribute to society in a particular way -- procreating and raising children. But even that is restricted for the good of society. A mother does not have the right to marry her son. Siblings cannot marry. Married persons cannot marry again without first obtaining a divorce. There is no civil right to marry anyone, at any time.
The consequences of separating marriage from procreation and redefining it as a civil right are far-reaching and catastrophic for the institution of marriage and for society at large. Once marriage becomes a personal right, the institution of marriage fades. It is only a matter of time before polygamy, polyandry, incestuous relations and all other manner of partnerships will be accepted as marriage. And why shouldn’t they be? After all, those engaged in those relationships will surely claim they are as much “loving partners” as anyone else and that they deserve to have their relationships legally recognized.
Another very real consequence of the judicial decision that legalized same-sex marriage in Massachusetts in 2004 is the presumption that all sexual lifestyles are equal. If gay couples can marry, the obvious conclusion -- already evident by recent court decisions -- is that schools should teach that homosexual behavior is fully equivalent to heterosexual behavior. Children will have to learn, as they already are in some school districts, that all lifestyle choices are equal....
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Sex Offender in "Friends of the Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth"
Last summer, State House homosexual lobbyist Bill Conley (right at Youth Pride 2005 parade) was arrested for soliciting
college boys at UMass Amherst.
The Governor's Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth is supported by a "Friends" group, whose purpose is to raise money to support the gay/straight alliance clubs in high schools around the state, and put on the "Youth Pride" event each year. The "Friends of the Governor's Commission" allowed a convicted sex offender on its fundraising committee. Bill Berggren, (currently employed at the radical GLBT newspaper In Newsweekly, and recently resigned from Boston Pride's committee after his conviction was revealed) was listed on the Third Annual [2005] "Sunnyside Up Brunch Committee" as both a Table Captain and a Volunteer.
How many young people did he get to rub shoulders with there? Mind you, this was not a group of adults running Boston Pride. This was an organization that works with high school kids, "mentoring" and supporting their Gay/Straight Alliance clubs, etc. (See the "Friends" 2006 list of volunteering possibilities for adults who want to work with children.) We even asked in an old posting if such groups were doing the legally required background checks on their adult volunteers ... long before we heard about Mr. Berggren. Since then, MassResistance has continued to document these continuing dangerous liaisons, such as Youth Pride 2007, and the BAGLY prom.
Here's the list of 2005 committee members for the "Friends of the Governor's Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth" fundraiser [web page no longer posted]:
Third Annual Sunnyside Up Brunch Committee (2005)
Joblin C. Younger, Chair
Joblin C. Younger, Chair
Vincent McCarthy, Honorary Chair
TABLE CAPTAINS: Cheryl A. Giles, Gerald James, Tim Fink, Kathleen Henry & Kim Marrkand, Jean Chapin Smith, Pierce Durkin & Rob Lowell, Jane Cotter & Barb Cocci, Project 10 East (Ashlee Reed, Executive Director), Mitch Adams & Kevin Smith, Grace Sterling Stowell, Trevor Wright, Bill Berggren, Nick Dennis, Gary Cohen, Michael Motzkin, Paul Hempel, Russ Aims, Sydney Mason-Barrett, AIDS Action Committee (Rebecca Haag, Executive Director).
VOLUNTEERS: Kathleen Henry, Ian J. Snape, Kelly Lydon, Michael Kerkorian, Nick Dennis, Mark Taggart, Jean Chapin Smith, Gerald James, Peter Baker, Rod Ferguson, John Acres, Paige Kruza, Bernie Gardella, James Bryant, Michael Motzkin, Jason Smith, Bill Berggren, Alex Morash, Robert Lowell, Tim Fink, Sylvain Bruni, Trevor Wright, William Rojas, Keri Aulita, Patricia Curran, Derrick Cheeseboro-Weaver.
Will Children Be Safe at State House?
The Globe reports that our Secretary of State is worried about the safety of children on field trips at the State House tomorrow, during the Constitutional Convention on the marriage amendment. See "Pupil tours to feature democracy in action: But steps planned to skirt protesters" (6-13-07).
The unexpected confluence has prompted Secretary of State William Galvin to take steps to ensure that the impressionable youngsters will not be exposed to any mischief or chaos that may erupt during the intense debates and large demonstrations. Unlike most other State House visitors tomorrow, the children will enter the building through a rear door and be greeted by park rangers who will provide security and shepherd them through the building ...
"I do think it can be a constructive lesson, if both sides, the activists for and against gay marriage, are civil to one another," Galvin said. "We anticipate that the adults involved in the debate will be respectful to each other and also to the guests at the State House who are students. ... It's a classic, classic example of free speech and action on a controversial issue, no matter which side you are looking at," said a statement he issued yesterday.
Now this seems very odd to us. First, why are passions so high on the street? We don't see anything like this surrounding budget debates, do we? It's not a "classic example of free speech and action on a controversial issue." Our society has never seen anything so lunatic and perverted parading as legitimate political speech. (But the students will not be exposed to that viewpoint.)
This is really about a fringe minority forcing an insane change of the definition of marriage on society. That is what's dangerous to children. It's the people with the rainbow flags and the damage they are doing to society. Yet the Globe story makes it sound like bad things could emanate from either side in this "debate" tomorrow.
Maybe the schools should have cancelled their field trips. Would we want kids observing demonstrations for the legalization of polygamy and prostitution, or lowering the age of sexual consent? Surely those issues will all be pushed by the rainbow-flag group in the next few years. (See the Gay Rights Platform from 1972, which calls for all of these goals.) We already have a lobby for "transgender" rights. But just now, most Massachusetts citizens, asleep as they are, might still object to their kids being immersed in demonstrations for those "rights".
But tomorrow we'll see school officials blinking at -- or speaking favorably for -- sodomy-based marriage. They believe it's perfectly OK for the kids to think about what a same-sex "marriage" bed is all about. This is just a normal day at the State House, the schools will tell their pupils -- it's just a debate about "love" and "equal rights". The colorful rainbow flags will draw the kids in. And our Secretary of State pretends to be worried about the safety of children.
The unexpected confluence has prompted Secretary of State William Galvin to take steps to ensure that the impressionable youngsters will not be exposed to any mischief or chaos that may erupt during the intense debates and large demonstrations. Unlike most other State House visitors tomorrow, the children will enter the building through a rear door and be greeted by park rangers who will provide security and shepherd them through the building ...
"I do think it can be a constructive lesson, if both sides, the activists for and against gay marriage, are civil to one another," Galvin said. "We anticipate that the adults involved in the debate will be respectful to each other and also to the guests at the State House who are students. ... It's a classic, classic example of free speech and action on a controversial issue, no matter which side you are looking at," said a statement he issued yesterday.
Now this seems very odd to us. First, why are passions so high on the street? We don't see anything like this surrounding budget debates, do we? It's not a "classic example of free speech and action on a controversial issue." Our society has never seen anything so lunatic and perverted parading as legitimate political speech. (But the students will not be exposed to that viewpoint.)
This is really about a fringe minority forcing an insane change of the definition of marriage on society. That is what's dangerous to children. It's the people with the rainbow flags and the damage they are doing to society. Yet the Globe story makes it sound like bad things could emanate from either side in this "debate" tomorrow.
Maybe the schools should have cancelled their field trips. Would we want kids observing demonstrations for the legalization of polygamy and prostitution, or lowering the age of sexual consent? Surely those issues will all be pushed by the rainbow-flag group in the next few years. (See the Gay Rights Platform from 1972, which calls for all of these goals.) We already have a lobby for "transgender" rights. But just now, most Massachusetts citizens, asleep as they are, might still object to their kids being immersed in demonstrations for those "rights".
But tomorrow we'll see school officials blinking at -- or speaking favorably for -- sodomy-based marriage. They believe it's perfectly OK for the kids to think about what a same-sex "marriage" bed is all about. This is just a normal day at the State House, the schools will tell their pupils -- it's just a debate about "love" and "equal rights". The colorful rainbow flags will draw the kids in. And our Secretary of State pretends to be worried about the safety of children.
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Former Gov. Bill Weld, Mentor to Romney, Will Make Calls vs. Marriage Amendment
We continue to wonder why the supposed pro-real-marriage crowd (Mass. Family Institute, Mass. Catholic Conference, Mass. Citizens for Life) didn't stand up for the first and BETTER* marriage amendment, instead of letting the Legislature and acting Gov. Swift throw it in the trash in 2002?
And why didn't our supposedly pro-marriage former Governor, Mitt Romney, ever address the issue when he took office in January 2003? The first marriage amendment was arguably still alive then, but Romney said it was "too extreme" -- because it banned civil unions! (Romney went on to twist arms among Republican legislators, getting them to vote for the failed Travaglini-Lees amendment which would have created civil unions.)
Romney's mentor, former Gov. Bill Weld, has decided to stick his nose into the current marriage amendment mess. State House News reports:
Former Gov. Bill Weld held an afternoon visit with House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi, whose chamber is home to the vast majority of the pro-amendment votes. The two-term Republican governor said he might call legislators Wednesday in an effort to influence votes against the ban, which was generated by about 170,000 Bay State citizens' signatures. ...
Weld said he hopes the measure doesn't advance to the popular ballot because "I think it's going be a distraction for the next 18 months if it does get put on the ballot, and I think the best way to handle it is just to get rid of it right now." Weld infuriated gay marriage supporters two years ago when he was running for governor of New York by saying he opposed the expansion of gay marriage outside Massachusetts. Making at least his second appearance in the State House in the last week, Weld said he was in the capitol on behalf of Lehman Brothers, the global finance firm, but said it was not to lobby. In 2003, shortly after the state Supreme Judicial Court delivered the ruling that led to the practice of gay marriage here, Weld endorsed the decision, and later officiated at a same-sex marriage.
Why would a nominal Republican be concerned if the amendment were still an issue for the next 18 months? We thought it was just the Democrats who wanted it to go away, so as not to hurt their vote in the 2008 election.
Meanwhile, Senate President Murray is still counting heads, and won't decide until Thursday morning whether or not to hold the vote.
State House News reports (June 12):
Murray said she expected to vote Thursday, but didn't know whether the gay marriage proponents have swayed the handful of votes needed to draw support for the amendment below the 50-vote threshold. ...
Asked if she would still call for a vote if she were unsure of the result, Murray replied, "We'll decide on Thursday." In May, Murray, responding to reporters' questions about whether she thought there would be a vote on the amendment in June, said, "Well, we're going to ask for one." Asked about the discrepancy, Murray spokeswoman Samantha Dallaire said, "The decision is up to the membership" on how to proceed Thursday.
And why didn't our supposedly pro-marriage former Governor, Mitt Romney, ever address the issue when he took office in January 2003? The first marriage amendment was arguably still alive then, but Romney said it was "too extreme" -- because it banned civil unions! (Romney went on to twist arms among Republican legislators, getting them to vote for the failed Travaglini-Lees amendment which would have created civil unions.)
Romney's mentor, former Gov. Bill Weld, has decided to stick his nose into the current marriage amendment mess. State House News reports:
Former Gov. Bill Weld held an afternoon visit with House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi, whose chamber is home to the vast majority of the pro-amendment votes. The two-term Republican governor said he might call legislators Wednesday in an effort to influence votes against the ban, which was generated by about 170,000 Bay State citizens' signatures. ...
Weld said he hopes the measure doesn't advance to the popular ballot because "I think it's going be a distraction for the next 18 months if it does get put on the ballot, and I think the best way to handle it is just to get rid of it right now." Weld infuriated gay marriage supporters two years ago when he was running for governor of New York by saying he opposed the expansion of gay marriage outside Massachusetts. Making at least his second appearance in the State House in the last week, Weld said he was in the capitol on behalf of Lehman Brothers, the global finance firm, but said it was not to lobby. In 2003, shortly after the state Supreme Judicial Court delivered the ruling that led to the practice of gay marriage here, Weld endorsed the decision, and later officiated at a same-sex marriage.
Why would a nominal Republican be concerned if the amendment were still an issue for the next 18 months? We thought it was just the Democrats who wanted it to go away, so as not to hurt their vote in the 2008 election.
Meanwhile, Senate President Murray is still counting heads, and won't decide until Thursday morning whether or not to hold the vote.
State House News reports (June 12):
Murray said she expected to vote Thursday, but didn't know whether the gay marriage proponents have swayed the handful of votes needed to draw support for the amendment below the 50-vote threshold. ...
Asked if she would still call for a vote if she were unsure of the result, Murray replied, "We'll decide on Thursday." In May, Murray, responding to reporters' questions about whether she thought there would be a vote on the amendment in June, said, "Well, we're going to ask for one." Asked about the discrepancy, Murray spokeswoman Samantha Dallaire said, "The decision is up to the membership" on how to proceed Thursday.
[*Our position on the current VoteOnMarriage amendment: We DON'T like the wording (allowing current homosexual "marriages" to stand; not banning civil unions). But we DO respect the process: The Constitution provides for referendum petitions, VoteOnMarriage got the signatures, and the legislators are required to vote. And bribery is against the law. But its passage would not solve our problem. We'd still have "homosexual marriages" recognized by the Mass. Constitution, and civil unions could follow.]
Monday, June 11, 2007
Shame on Gov. Deval Patrick
Watch this video of Governor Deval Patrick mingling with the crowds after he marched in the Pride parade on Saturday. Then he posed for a picture by the BAGLY banner. He did promise during the campaign to do whatever the homosexuals and transsexuals wanted.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3413868453541066974&hl=en
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3413868453541066974&hl=en
Polluted Streets of Boston Pride
(c) 2007 MassResistance
Left: At "Boston Dyke March". Does D.O.E. stand for Department of Education?
Right: "Transwoman" looking his best.
Here are some of the proud participants in "Boston Pride" this past weekend. There were many children on the parade route who viewed this -- most were probably children of "GLBT parents".
If you don't like this, take it up with Mayor Thomas Menino and Governor Deval Patrick.
Right: "Transwoman" looking his best.
Here are some of the proud participants in "Boston Pride" this past weekend. There were many children on the parade route who viewed this -- most were probably children of "GLBT parents".
If you don't like this, take it up with Mayor Thomas Menino and Governor Deval Patrick.
Saturday, June 09, 2007
Mass. Gov. Deval Patrick Celebrating Porn, Risky Sex & Depravity at Boston Pride
This summary is not available. Please
click here to view the post.
Boston Pride Official Participants: All-Out Assault on Decency
Here is an index of the groups assaulting our community today at the Boston Pride parade. Will the elementary and pre-schools have their little children marching alongside adults of unknown character? What are hospitals and health care companies doing on the list (Beth Israel, Dana Farber, Tufts Health)? From Boston Pride's web site:
Boston Pride Parade Participants 2007 (as of June 4)
All The Kings Men -- Animal Rescue League of Boston -- Arlington Street Church -- Atrium School -- Auburndale, United Parish -- Avalon Night Club -- Backyard Productions -- Barrios Committee -- Bay State Stonewall Democrats -- Bay Windows -- Bedford, First Parish -- Belmont Gay Straight Alliance Committee -- Bentley College -- Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center -- BGLANTS, GLBT Students at Andover Newton Theological School -- Bisexual Resource Center -- Boston Derby Dames -- Boston Gay Men's Chorus -- Boston Living Center -- Boston Prime Timers -- Boston, First Church of -- Braintree, All Souls Unitarian Universalist Church -- Cambridge Friends School -- Cambridge Health Alliance -- Cambridge, First Parish Unitarian Universalist -- Cambridge, The City of -- Chiltern Mountain Club -- Colage of Greater Boston -- Concord, First Parish -- Coro Allegro -- Dana Farber -- Delta Air Lines -- Dignity Boston -- Donor Pride, Inc -- East Coast Biker Chicks Motorcycle Club -- Ellis South End Neighborhood Association -- Emmanuel Church -- Episcopal Dioscese of MA -- Fagbug -- Femmes & Allies -- Fenway Community Health -- FLAG Flag Football -- Franklin, First Unitarian Church -- Freedom Trail Band -- Frontrunners Boston -- Gay Fathers of Greater Boston -- Gay Men's Domestice Violence Project -- Gay Officers Action League -- Gays for Patsy -- GLAD (Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders) -- GLBT Youth Network -- GLSEN -- Greater Boston PFLAG -- Greater Lynn, UU Church -- Groton, First Parish Church -- Harbor To The Bay -- Hub Plumbing & Mechanical Inc -- In Newsweekly -- Independent Pagans of New England -- Ironside Rugby Football Club -- K Street Facilities -- Keshet -- KinshipLanes-Liquid Assets New England Swimming -- Latin American Health Institute -- Lexington Montessori School -- LGBT Aging Project -- Liz Malia [State Rep.] -- MA Conference (UCC) -- Machine Nightclub -- Malden, First Parish -- Map For Health -- MAPS -- MassEquality -- Massachusetts Transgender Political Coalition -- Metropolitan Community Church of Boston -- Michael F Flaherty (Boston City Council) -- Michael Ross, Boston City Council -- Mike Cottei, Committee to Elect -- Moving Violations Motorcycle Club -- Multicultural AIDS Coalition-State Emergency Initiative -- Network Health -- Network La Red -- New England Leather Alliance -- Newton, First Unitarian Society -- North Andover-North Parish of Interweave UU -- Now Greater Boston -- Old South Church in Boston -- Ole [Older Lesbian Energy] -- Phoenix -- Pine Village Preschool -- Queer Soup Inc -- Ramrod -- Rhode Island Pride Committee -- Sam Yoon, Committee to Elect -- Seacost Gay Men, Inc. -- Sexual Orientations United With Pride -- Sidney Borum Jr. Health Center/JRI -- Sidney Frank Importing Co. Inc. (Jagermeister) -- Social Justice Committe-Wellsley Hills Unitarian Church -- Somos Latinos -- Sovereign Bank -- Speak Out -- Starbucks -- Stonewall Communities -- Stow & Acton, First Parish -- Sudbury, First Parish UU -- Team Enterprises, USA -- Theatre Offensive -- Tim Schofield, Commttiee to Elect -- TJX Companies -- Tobin Committee (Boston City Councillor) -- Tufts Health Plan -- United Here Local 26 -- Verizon -- Voices Rising -- Waltham, First Presbyterian Church -- Wellesley Friends Meeting -- Weston, First Parish Church -- Winchester Unitarian Society -- Women Meeting Women -- Yale Appliance & Lighting
Thursday, June 07, 2007
Maine "Church" Performs Transsexual Play
And they encouraged children to attend! It will be no surprise that this took place at a Unitarian "church". The trans desensitization campaign across the country has picked up speed. Reprinted by permission from the Christian Civic League of Maine:
Maine Church Performs Tranny Play; Minors Encouraged to Attend "Hidden: A Gender"
By Mike Hein, Christian Civic League of Maine (6-7-07)
On June 1, 2, and 3, the First Universalist Church of Auburn (Maine), presented the radical transsexual/transgender play "Hidden: A Gender." The play was written by the real-life transgendered Kate Bornstein, formerly Al Bornstein. Bornstein is a self-described "Buddhist, male-to-female transsexual performance artist, and gender educator." He authored the book "Gender Outlaw."
The play was recently described this way: "Through transgressively gendered performances, eight actors converge on the battlefield called gender and bring to life the struggles of Herculine Barbin, an eighteenth century woman with ambiguous [physical characteristics] later forced to assume a male role in society, and Herman Amberstone, a present-day male-to-female transsexual who's life experiences are remarkably similar to those of the author.
After three failed marriages and many years as a Scientology spokesman, Al Bornstein decided to become Kate. Bornstein eventually decided that he was neither male nor female, but a separate gender of his own. In his book , Bornstein writes, "I know that I'm not a man...and I've come to the conclusion that I'm probably not a woman, either..."
[The play] was sponsored by the church's Social Justice Committee, whose mission is to educate the church and wider community about Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgendered issues. The First Universalist Church of Auburn's minister is the Reverend Doctor Jodi Cohen Hayashida....
Perhaps more disturbing than either the transsexual nature of the play itself or the play being performed in a church by church members is who was encouraged to attend the play: minor children....
The First Universalist Church of Auburn (ME) can be reached at 169 Pleasant Street , Auburn , ME 04210 , (207) 783-0461, and by email at uuauburn@verizon.net. The Rev. Dr. Jodi Cohen Hayashida can be reached at (207) 777-3196 and by email at jodihaya@gmail.com.
Maine Church Performs Tranny Play; Minors Encouraged to Attend "Hidden: A Gender"
By Mike Hein, Christian Civic League of Maine (6-7-07)
On June 1, 2, and 3, the First Universalist Church of Auburn (Maine), presented the radical transsexual/transgender play "Hidden: A Gender." The play was written by the real-life transgendered Kate Bornstein, formerly Al Bornstein. Bornstein is a self-described "Buddhist, male-to-female transsexual performance artist, and gender educator." He authored the book "Gender Outlaw."
The play was recently described this way: "Through transgressively gendered performances, eight actors converge on the battlefield called gender and bring to life the struggles of Herculine Barbin, an eighteenth century woman with ambiguous [physical characteristics] later forced to assume a male role in society, and Herman Amberstone, a present-day male-to-female transsexual who's life experiences are remarkably similar to those of the author.
After three failed marriages and many years as a Scientology spokesman, Al Bornstein decided to become Kate. Bornstein eventually decided that he was neither male nor female, but a separate gender of his own. In his book , Bornstein writes, "I know that I'm not a man...and I've come to the conclusion that I'm probably not a woman, either..."
[The play] was sponsored by the church's Social Justice Committee, whose mission is to educate the church and wider community about Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgendered issues. The First Universalist Church of Auburn's minister is the Reverend Doctor Jodi Cohen Hayashida....
Perhaps more disturbing than either the transsexual nature of the play itself or the play being performed in a church by church members is who was encouraged to attend the play: minor children....
The First Universalist Church of Auburn (ME) can be reached at 169 Pleasant Street , Auburn , ME 04210 , (207) 783-0461, and by email at uuauburn@verizon.net. The Rev. Dr. Jodi Cohen Hayashida can be reached at (207) 777-3196 and by email at jodihaya@gmail.com.
More Romney Doublespeak on Homosexual Parenting
Mitt Romney constantly repeats that every child needs a mother and a father, and that's the only reason he gives for protecting marriage between a man and a woman. (He never says anything about the moral or health issues of homosexuality, or homosexual behaviors by adults before children.) If he really believes heterosexual married parents is the ideal circumstance, then logically he must think other circumstances are not as good, and also not "normal". So why did he praise the family circumstances of lesbian mother, when she questioned him on his support of real marriage?
It's a classic case of Romney trying to have it both ways. He says he supports the traditional family, but he supports homosexual parenting too. Both are "the American way" for him! See the AP story:
"N.H. woman challenges Romney on gay marriage" (6-6-07):
... Romney paused, asked [the woman] about her children and then praised her. "Wonderful," Romney said. "I’m delighted that you have a family and you’re happy with your family. That’s the American way. ... People can live their lives as they choose and children can be a great source of joy, as you know. And I welcome that."
But then Romney repeated his view of marriage. "Marriage is an institution which is designed to bring a man and woman together to raise a child and that the ideal setting for society at large is where there is a male and a female are associated with the development and nurturing a child," Romney said.
The former Massachusetts governor acknowledged other scenarios that raise children. "There are other ways to raise kids that’s fine: single moms, grandparents raising kids, gay couples raising kids. That’s the American way, to have people have their freedom of choice," he said.
It's a classic case of Romney trying to have it both ways. He says he supports the traditional family, but he supports homosexual parenting too. Both are "the American way" for him! See the AP story:
"N.H. woman challenges Romney on gay marriage" (6-6-07):
... Romney paused, asked [the woman] about her children and then praised her. "Wonderful," Romney said. "I’m delighted that you have a family and you’re happy with your family. That’s the American way. ... People can live their lives as they choose and children can be a great source of joy, as you know. And I welcome that."
But then Romney repeated his view of marriage. "Marriage is an institution which is designed to bring a man and woman together to raise a child and that the ideal setting for society at large is where there is a male and a female are associated with the development and nurturing a child," Romney said.
The former Massachusetts governor acknowledged other scenarios that raise children. "There are other ways to raise kids that’s fine: single moms, grandparents raising kids, gay couples raising kids. That’s the American way, to have people have their freedom of choice," he said.
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
"GLBT Holocaust Commemoration" Tonight
Tonight, the Boston Pride festival held its "GLBT Holocaust commemoration" as part of their week-long bacchanal. We doubt they were handing out copies of The Pink Swastika -- because it debunks the "gay" myth that homosexuals were a major target of the Nazis in the same manner as the Jews and Gypsies. The commemoration was at Boston's Holocaust Memorial near Faneuil Hall, close by lots of great bars. See Scott Lively & Kevin Abrams, The Pink Swastika (available online). From their Preface:
[The book contradicts] the common portrayal of homosexuals as exclusively victims of the Nazi regime. For this reason we were scrupulous in our documentation of homosexuals as the true inventors of Nazism and the guiding force behind many Nazi atrocities. We purposefully drew heavily upon homosexual writers and historians for our source material and used direct quotations from their writings whenever possible. The remainder of our sources are primarily mainstream historians of the Nazi era. ...
In the [pre-"politically-correct"] 1960s, Nazi homosexuality was so widely acknowledged in America (at least among the “social elites”) that the portrayal of Nazi thugs as homosexual was a frequent occurrence in Hollywood movies. One of the best examples is in Exodus (United Artists, 1960), the film adaptation of the Leon Uris novel about the creation of the State of Israel after World War II. In the film, actor Sal Mineo, playing a young man attempting to join the Irgun (the Jewish underground movement), fails to convince Irgun leaders that he is a genuine Nazi concentration camp survivor. Finally they are convinced — only when he breaks down and confesses that the Nazi guards “used me as a woman.” To the Irgun, this was definitive proof that he had been a Nazi prisoner.
Allen Ginsberg, the homosexual “beat” poet was asked by a Justice of the Supreme Court in 1966 (during an obscenity trial related to the book Naked Lunch, by William Borroughs) whether at “some time in the future there will be a political party, for instance, made up of homosexuals.” Ginsberg replied, saying “this has already happened in a sense -- or of sex perverts -- and we can point to Hitler, Germany under Hitler” (The New York Times, August 10, 1997).
These are but two examples which reveal the extent to which homosexuality was openly associated with Nazism in the past.
Tuesday, June 05, 2007
Romney Not Pro-Life: Letter to Mass. Citizens for Life Directors
Mitt Romney is NOT pro-life. So says a director of Massachusetts Citizens for Life (MCFL), John O'Gorman. He is calling on MCFL's voting members to speak out at their annual meeting this Friday, June 8, 7 p.m. at Boston College against the erroneous award made to Romney for "political leadership" (at their western Massachusetts dinner on May 10). Here is the open letter from Mr. O'Gorman to MCFL members, concerning both his efforts to expose pro-abortion elected officials in the Knights of Columbus, and Romney's false identification as "pro-life":
31/May/2007
DEAR MASSACHUSETTS CITIZENS FOR LIFE DIRECTORS,
At the Directors' Meeting on Friday 11/May/2007, MCFL President Joe Reilly again attempted to have me removed as a director because of my efforts to expose Pro-Abortion politicians in the Knights of Columbus. His previous effort was on Friday 9/Feb/2007.
Joe Reilly, a K of C member, refused to address the issue of Pro-Abortion politicians in the K of C. His wife, MCFL Director Evelyn Reilly, who works for Mass Family Institute - a state associate of Focus on the Family - proposed a motion seeking to have me removed for "cause". Curiously, she failed to mention what the "cause" was! Evelyn Reilly’s motion failed by a 10-7 majority. I wish to thank those 10 MCFL directors who took a principled stand, and also those directors who chose to ignore Joe and Evelyn Reilly by abstaining, remembering that MCFL is an affiliate only of National Right to Life.
Earlier, the directors heard a report of the previous evening's dinner (10/May/2007) held by the Pioneer Valley branch of MCFL in western Massachusetts . Mitt Romney, former Governor of Massachusetts and a recent "convert" to Pro-Life, was a speaker and was given a "political leadership award".
MCFL's endorsement of Mitt Romney is wrong. To see where Mitt Romney stands, one only needs to visit his own website at mittromney.com [see: Issue Watch/Affirming America's Culture and Values]. It reads: Governor Romney: "I am pro-life. I believe that abortion is the wrong choice except in cases of incest, rape, and to save the life of the mother...I believe that the states, through the democratic process, should determine their own abortion laws, and not have them dictated through judicial mandate." This does not reflect a genuine conversion to Pro-Life principles, but rather a transition to a mainstream Republican Party position on abortion in anticipation of his presidential run. Mitt Romney is wrong on 2 counts:
1. ROMNEY'S EXCEPTIONS AMOUNT TO ABORTION ON DEMAND. UNDER THESE EXCEPTIONS ANY WOMAN CAN CLAIM SHE WAS RAPED, OR THREATEN SUICIDE, THEN DEMAND AN ABORTION. MITT ROMNEY FAILS TO SEE THAT EVERY CHILD HAS THE RIGHT TO LIFE WHATEVER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF CONCEPTION.
2. Roe v Wade needs to be overturned by the Supreme Court, but foremost by an amendment to the United States Constitution outlawing abortion. Letting the states decide is NOT THE ANSWER. Abortion, the murder of unborn children, is wrong everywhere. We need a decision at the federal level to make this clear to the people in every state, and to the whole world.
Yours in Pro-Life,
John O’Gorman
Winthrop, MA
cc: Others
31/May/2007
DEAR MASSACHUSETTS CITIZENS FOR LIFE DIRECTORS,
At the Directors' Meeting on Friday 11/May/2007, MCFL President Joe Reilly again attempted to have me removed as a director because of my efforts to expose Pro-Abortion politicians in the Knights of Columbus. His previous effort was on Friday 9/Feb/2007.
Joe Reilly, a K of C member, refused to address the issue of Pro-Abortion politicians in the K of C. His wife, MCFL Director Evelyn Reilly, who works for Mass Family Institute - a state associate of Focus on the Family - proposed a motion seeking to have me removed for "cause". Curiously, she failed to mention what the "cause" was! Evelyn Reilly’s motion failed by a 10-7 majority. I wish to thank those 10 MCFL directors who took a principled stand, and also those directors who chose to ignore Joe and Evelyn Reilly by abstaining, remembering that MCFL is an affiliate only of National Right to Life.
Earlier, the directors heard a report of the previous evening's dinner (10/May/2007) held by the Pioneer Valley branch of MCFL in western Massachusetts . Mitt Romney, former Governor of Massachusetts and a recent "convert" to Pro-Life, was a speaker and was given a "political leadership award".
MCFL's endorsement of Mitt Romney is wrong. To see where Mitt Romney stands, one only needs to visit his own website at mittromney.com [see: Issue Watch/Affirming America's Culture and Values]. It reads: Governor Romney: "I am pro-life. I believe that abortion is the wrong choice except in cases of incest, rape, and to save the life of the mother...I believe that the states, through the democratic process, should determine their own abortion laws, and not have them dictated through judicial mandate." This does not reflect a genuine conversion to Pro-Life principles, but rather a transition to a mainstream Republican Party position on abortion in anticipation of his presidential run. Mitt Romney is wrong on 2 counts:
1. ROMNEY'S EXCEPTIONS AMOUNT TO ABORTION ON DEMAND. UNDER THESE EXCEPTIONS ANY WOMAN CAN CLAIM SHE WAS RAPED, OR THREATEN SUICIDE, THEN DEMAND AN ABORTION. MITT ROMNEY FAILS TO SEE THAT EVERY CHILD HAS THE RIGHT TO LIFE WHATEVER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF CONCEPTION.
2. Roe v Wade needs to be overturned by the Supreme Court, but foremost by an amendment to the United States Constitution outlawing abortion. Letting the states decide is NOT THE ANSWER. Abortion, the murder of unborn children, is wrong everywhere. We need a decision at the federal level to make this clear to the people in every state, and to the whole world.
Yours in Pro-Life,
John O’Gorman
Winthrop, MA
cc: Others
Corporate Sponsors of "Gay" Porn at Boston Pride
When Boston officials and corporations celebrate "Pride Week", what exactly are they celebrating? Here's one answer: "gay" pornography. Yesterday, Borders Bookstore in Downtown Crossing held a book signing. This event appears on the official Boston Pride calendar. The book: Hard -- a pornographic chronicle of the sexual adventures of a young "gay" male in New York City.
Are Mayor Menino and the executives at all the Boston Pride sponsors receiving promotional copies of Hard? Are they enjoying the porn, as in this online excerpt? This trashy book is so bad we can't show the cover or print this excerpt. But we encourage you to follow the links, and see what's really being celebrated this week.
Who are the government, agency, and corporate sponsors of Boston Pride who celebrate this book?
Mayor Thomas Menino
Boston City Council/City of Boston
Macy's (lead sponsor of AIDS Walk)
Borders Bookstore
Bank of America
Delta
Wainwright Bank
Verizon
Hyatt Regency Boston
Stoli Vodka
Budweiser
Boston Volvo Village
Spirit Boston
Mix 98.5 FM
Orbitz
Hotels.com
Dowtown Crossing Association
Jurys Boston Hotel
Amtrak
Faneuil Hall Marketplace
Greater Boston Convention & Visitors Center
Zipcar
Massachusetts Office of Travel & Tourism
Are Mayor Menino and the executives at all the Boston Pride sponsors receiving promotional copies of Hard? Are they enjoying the porn, as in this online excerpt? This trashy book is so bad we can't show the cover or print this excerpt. But we encourage you to follow the links, and see what's really being celebrated this week.
Who are the government, agency, and corporate sponsors of Boston Pride who celebrate this book?
Mayor Thomas Menino
Boston City Council/City of Boston
Macy's (lead sponsor of AIDS Walk)
Borders Bookstore
Bank of America
Delta
Wainwright Bank
Verizon
Hyatt Regency Boston
Stoli Vodka
Budweiser
Boston Volvo Village
Spirit Boston
Mix 98.5 FM
Orbitz
Hotels.com
Dowtown Crossing Association
Jurys Boston Hotel
Amtrak
Faneuil Hall Marketplace
Greater Boston Convention & Visitors Center
Zipcar
Massachusetts Office of Travel & Tourism
Monday, June 04, 2007
Radical GLBT Activists Not Into Military Fetish
This summary is not available. Please
click here to view the post.
Sunday, June 03, 2007
Macy's Thinks Being "Gay" Means Holding Hands?
Top: Macy's offensive 2006 window display, before breasted male mannequins were removed due to our pressure (MassResistance photo). Bottom: Macy's 2007 window (Boston Herald photo).So Macy's has toned it down its "celebration" of Pride Week in its display window in Downtown Crossing. But it's still there: the calendar, and a big pride flag.
Yesterday's Boston Herald reported that the GLBT community is still hurt by "something that was really painful for the community" --namely, by Macy's removal of its transgender mannequins from last year's window -- after our photograph appeared revealing the breasted men. Now the Herald is reporting that these were two "presumably 'gay' " mannequins, saying nothing about the odd breasts that made the window even more disturbing to normal people. More accurately, they were presumably transgendered mannequins. Why is the Herald engaging in this cover-up?
So to make it up to the GLBT community, Macy's is the lead sponsor of the AIDS Action Committee's walk today. And the Herald can report that Macy's has actually "stepped up it support" of Boston Pride. We guess the AIDS Action message they're sponsoring is still: "Go out and do it all. Have fun! Just use a condom -- if you remember; and get tested for HIV/AIDS -- if you're emotionally ready." This is how they plan to "stop the spread of AIDS."
See MassResistance's recent report on AIDS Action Committee -- and Mitt Romney's misguided donation to that organization.
Now if Macy's REALLY wants to stop the spread of AIDS (we thought their business was selling clothes?), maybe their window display should have some mannequins showing how to put on a condom properly, recommending the right lube, and sending a message about asking one's anonymous partner if he has HIV/AIDS before engaging in anal intercourse. Now who could be offended by that message? (No, Macy's, it's not just about hand-holding.)
See the Boston Herald: "Apologetic Macy’s supporting Pride" (6-2-07).
Macy’s has stepped up its support of Boston Pride Week this year, its first as presenting sponsor of tomorrow’s AIDS Walk Boston. The chain’s increased backing of the annual gay, lesbian, bisexual and trans-gendered celebration follows what was considered a public relations debacle last year, when Macy’s bowed to an anti-gay group and removed presumably “gay” mannequins [or were they presumably transgendered?] from its Boston Pride window display at its Boston store. The CEO of Macy’s East later apologized for the move, blaming an “internal breakdown in communication.” This year, Macy’s allowed a Boston Pride Committee member to design the window display, which went up Thursday and depicts a silhouette of two men holding hands [so innocent and sweet] against a rainbow flag backdrop, a calendar of the week’s events and the words: “Macy’s celebrates Boston Pride 2007. Pride, united for equality.” ...
Will the Overweight Get "Hate Crimes" Protection?
And then it occurred to us that whoever filed the bill to protect overweight people from employment discrimination dropped the ball! Why is there no hate crimes provision in the bill for the weighty class?
When seeking special rights as a protected class, you need to go all the way, and make it a hate crime if anyone physicially assaults you or even verbally insults you. Or even says something negative about your weight, or overweight people in general. (No "fat jokes" allowed! That would be hate speech.) Or even discusses the health risks of being overweight.
When seeking special rights as a protected class, you need to go all the way, and make it a hate crime if anyone physicially assaults you or even verbally insults you. Or even says something negative about your weight, or overweight people in general. (No "fat jokes" allowed! That would be hate speech.) Or even discusses the health risks of being overweight.
Saturday, June 02, 2007
"Weight Discrimination" & Parallel Cases
In a Boston Globe op-ed today, "Jumping the gun on weight discrimination," the authors (both employment lawyers) worry about a bill now in the Mass. legislature which would outlaw discrimination on the basis of weight. Their concerns over a new protected class of people based on "weight" apply equally to a class defined by "sexual orientation", or "gender identity and expression"! They point out:
- Weight is not clearly defined in the bill.
- Since weight is not an immutable characteristic, it is not "worthy of protected status on par with an individual's race or sex."
- Enactment of the weighty bill "would divert scarce state resources from serious issues."
- "A basic tenet of American law has been that businesses have had the freedom to choose employees and those with whom they wish to deal."
- "The burden this proposed legislation would put on employers, landlords, and others in commerce, would be substantial. It is no answer to state that a defendant who can establish that discrimination did not occur will be exonerated by the court system. Defense costs in discrimination cases are astronomical, win or lose."
- People who truly suffer a weight disability -- if their obesity "has a physical cause" and "limits their life activities" -- are already protected by disability laws, and can seek accommodations.
- There is no proven discrimination against this (however loosely defined) class of people.
Thursday, May 31, 2007
"Gay" Historical Revisionism
We just heard a story about a recent keyboard performance seminar at one of America's premier conservatories. In a class focusing on pianoforte performance techniques, and specifically on the music of Franz Schubert, one of the students asked the professor if he was familiar with the information suggesting Schubert was gay. The professor responded pointedly: "Would that change the way you play the trills?" In other words, shut up already!
And we say SHUT UP, ALREADY to Mr. Tom Lang (founder of KnowThyNeighbor.org, intimidator who published the signers' names for the VoteOnMarriage petition) who introduced similar questions at the State House on Tuesday, when he testified against our Parents' Rights Opt-In bill (S321). Enough of such "gay" historical revisionism being crammed down the throats of schoolchildren! When people study Michelangelo, what's important is the beauty and meaning of the Bible scenes he painted in the Sistine Chapel and the way he chiseled the Pieta. We don't need (or want) to know that the homosexual movement makes the "historical" claim that he shared their perversions. If the artist's rumored "sexual orientation" were brought up in a junior or high school classroom, then kids would immediately STOP thinking about his art and START thinking about anal intercourse.
While many fine people turned out on Tuesday to support our side, few came to oppose. But Mr. Lang was there with his petite, blond-bombshell "husband" . . . because he wants to be sure the kids DO keep thinking about sodomy in their art history class. (Also testifying for GLBT brainwashing in the schools was the co-chair of the Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth, who took the occasion to add the terms "Bisexual and Transgender" to the name of his commission when he delivered his testimony.)
Mr. Lang whined that if our Parents' Rights bill is passed, schoolchildren wouldn't be able to discuss how Michelangelo's "gayness" informed his artistic genius (and therefore these poor children would lose all self-esteem and commit suicide). And that any discussion of the genius (ha!) of Gertrude Stein's "A rose is a rose is a rose" must make reference to her lesbianism. His testimony simply underscored our suspicion that he and his activist buddies are totally focused on sex and sexuality. Nothing else in life stands on its own. A case of arrested development?
Here's the homosexual newspaper Bay Windows' account of Mr. Lang's testimony, and Brian Camenker's objection: "Nazis? AIDS? Camenker must be talking about the gays again" (5-31-07):
Discussion of the Holocaust was prompted by the testimony of KnowThyNeighbor founder Tom Lang, who argued that the “opt-in” bill backed by MassResistance would essentially require that schools wallpaper over the history of LGBT people and their lives unless parents gave their approval to include them. He said teachers would have to discuss figures such as Gertrude Stein, Leonardo Da Vinci, Michelangelo and British World War II code-breaker Alan Turing while steering clear of their homosexuality and the impact that had on their works and their lives. He said the silencing of discussion about LGBT people would extend into topics where sexuality figures centrally, such as the Holocaust.
“A trip to the Holocaust memorial would be fine unless a teacher includes homosexuals among the list of the six million Jews, Gypsies, dissenters and social outcasts murdered by the Nazis in their death camps,” said Lang. He added that while the bill would limit discussions on sexuality for all students, the ones who would be hurt the most by the bill would be LGBT students. “But the true intent of S.321 is to take away the identity of LGBT children and to prevent them from reaching their full potential and achieving their greatest self-worth,” said Lang.
Camenker responded to Lang with his own testimony, arguing not only in favor of the restrictions on discussions of homosexuality and other “alternative sexual behaviors” but also disputing the persecution of gay men by the Nazis.“Being Jewish myself with many relatives from Eastern Europe, I was able to study the Holocaust and not have to deal with homosexuality. ” said Camenker. “One of the things that the gay movement is trying to do that drives parents crazy is to push that subject into the public school system.”
And we say SHUT UP, ALREADY to Mr. Tom Lang (founder of KnowThyNeighbor.org, intimidator who published the signers' names for the VoteOnMarriage petition) who introduced similar questions at the State House on Tuesday, when he testified against our Parents' Rights Opt-In bill (S321). Enough of such "gay" historical revisionism being crammed down the throats of schoolchildren! When people study Michelangelo, what's important is the beauty and meaning of the Bible scenes he painted in the Sistine Chapel and the way he chiseled the Pieta. We don't need (or want) to know that the homosexual movement makes the "historical" claim that he shared their perversions. If the artist's rumored "sexual orientation" were brought up in a junior or high school classroom, then kids would immediately STOP thinking about his art and START thinking about anal intercourse.
While many fine people turned out on Tuesday to support our side, few came to oppose. But Mr. Lang was there with his petite, blond-bombshell "husband" . . . because he wants to be sure the kids DO keep thinking about sodomy in their art history class. (Also testifying for GLBT brainwashing in the schools was the co-chair of the Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth, who took the occasion to add the terms "Bisexual and Transgender" to the name of his commission when he delivered his testimony.)
Mr. Lang whined that if our Parents' Rights bill is passed, schoolchildren wouldn't be able to discuss how Michelangelo's "gayness" informed his artistic genius (and therefore these poor children would lose all self-esteem and commit suicide). And that any discussion of the genius (ha!) of Gertrude Stein's "A rose is a rose is a rose" must make reference to her lesbianism. His testimony simply underscored our suspicion that he and his activist buddies are totally focused on sex and sexuality. Nothing else in life stands on its own. A case of arrested development?
Here's the homosexual newspaper Bay Windows' account of Mr. Lang's testimony, and Brian Camenker's objection: "Nazis? AIDS? Camenker must be talking about the gays again" (5-31-07):
Discussion of the Holocaust was prompted by the testimony of KnowThyNeighbor founder Tom Lang, who argued that the “opt-in” bill backed by MassResistance would essentially require that schools wallpaper over the history of LGBT people and their lives unless parents gave their approval to include them. He said teachers would have to discuss figures such as Gertrude Stein, Leonardo Da Vinci, Michelangelo and British World War II code-breaker Alan Turing while steering clear of their homosexuality and the impact that had on their works and their lives. He said the silencing of discussion about LGBT people would extend into topics where sexuality figures centrally, such as the Holocaust.
“A trip to the Holocaust memorial would be fine unless a teacher includes homosexuals among the list of the six million Jews, Gypsies, dissenters and social outcasts murdered by the Nazis in their death camps,” said Lang. He added that while the bill would limit discussions on sexuality for all students, the ones who would be hurt the most by the bill would be LGBT students. “But the true intent of S.321 is to take away the identity of LGBT children and to prevent them from reaching their full potential and achieving their greatest self-worth,” said Lang.
Camenker responded to Lang with his own testimony, arguing not only in favor of the restrictions on discussions of homosexuality and other “alternative sexual behaviors” but also disputing the persecution of gay men by the Nazis.“Being Jewish myself with many relatives from Eastern Europe, I was able to study the Holocaust and not have to deal with homosexuality. ” said Camenker. “One of the things that the gay movement is trying to do that drives parents crazy is to push that subject into the public school system.”
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Who Is Hugh Hewitt?
Mr. Hugh Hewitt. Big in Salem Radio Network. Editor of TownHall.com (owned by Salem). HUGE Romney booster, wrote fawning biography, A Mormon in the White House?: 10 Things Every American Should Know about Mitt Romney (2007). Romney posts frequently on Hewitt's (Salem Network's) TownHall. Hewitt is clearly more "center" than "right".
From Wikipedia:
Hewitt became Executive Editor of Townhall.com in 2006, when Salem Communications purchased it and re-engineered it from a web magazine into a conservative new-media and activism forum. ...Hewitt's nationally syndicated radio show, The Hugh Hewitt Show, is broadcast from Los Angeles and can be heard from 6pm-9pm eastern time; 3pm-6pm pacific. The show can be heard on 112 stations on weekdays and is syndicated by the Salem Radio Network. ... A self-described "Center-Right" opinion machine and "the best in intelligent political talk," The Hugh Hewitt Show covers a wide variety of subject matter. ...
But Mr. Hewitt does not want to honestly cover Mitt Romney's record in Massachusetts.
From Wikipedia:
Hewitt became Executive Editor of Townhall.com in 2006, when Salem Communications purchased it and re-engineered it from a web magazine into a conservative new-media and activism forum. ...Hewitt's nationally syndicated radio show, The Hugh Hewitt Show, is broadcast from Los Angeles and can be heard from 6pm-9pm eastern time; 3pm-6pm pacific. The show can be heard on 112 stations on weekdays and is syndicated by the Salem Radio Network. ... A self-described "Center-Right" opinion machine and "the best in intelligent political talk," The Hugh Hewitt Show covers a wide variety of subject matter. ...
But Mr. Hewitt does not want to honestly cover Mitt Romney's record in Massachusetts.
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Mandatory HPV Vaccine for Schoolgirls? State House Forum Wednesday
From State House News:
On Wednesday, May 30, 2007
11:30.....The Caucus of Women Legislators hosts a legislative forum to discuss the pros and cons of requiring pre-teen girls to be immunized to guard against cervical cancer. A panel is scheduled to include Health and Human Services Secretary JudyAnn Bigby, Boston University Medical Center Dr. Katherine Hsu, Health Care Financing Committee co-chair Sen. Richard Moore (D-Uxbridge), and Merck senior director of medical affairs Dr. Gregg Sylvester. The panel will also discuss funding proposals for a vaccine.....Room 350 [at the State House]
See our previous posting
Will Mass. Require HPV Vaccine -- Now Linked to Deaths? (5-25-07)
And see the Washington Times, "HPV vaccine concerns give legislatures pause" (4-25-07). Other states including California, New Mexico, and Maryland have had the sense to step back from this foolishness:
The initial rush to require the inoculation of preteen girls with the new HPV vaccine Gardasil fueled by Merck & Co.'s lobbying is meeting resistance as state lawmakers nationwide begin to question its safety, long-term effectiveness and cost.
... "It is far too early for this vaccine to be mandatory. We don't know about its long-term effectiveness or safety," said Lawrence Gostin, director of the Center for Law and the Public's Health at Johns Hopkins and Georgetown Universities. "A response to the rush to mandate could backfire on us with public dissatisfaction and serve as a deterrent to all vaccinations." ...
Merck's lobbying efforts are widely credited with the speed at which a legislative initiative was begun in nearly 40 states. Working with Women in Government, an advocacy group for female state legislators, Merck prodded state lawmakers to prepare legislation while Food and Drug Administration approval was still pending. Many of the bills across the country have been introduced by members of Women in Government.
Merck called off its Gardasil lobbying effort in February after public criticism over the company's motives began to swell. Merck had the backing of a number of prominent public-health organizations, including the American Cancer Society and the American Academy of Pediatrics, which have recommended that girls receive the vaccine. The groups stopped short of pressing for the mandate that Merck wants. Some say they are not ready to endorse a mandate so soon after the vaccine gained FDA approval.
On Wednesday, May 30, 2007
11:30.....The Caucus of Women Legislators hosts a legislative forum to discuss the pros and cons of requiring pre-teen girls to be immunized to guard against cervical cancer. A panel is scheduled to include Health and Human Services Secretary JudyAnn Bigby, Boston University Medical Center Dr. Katherine Hsu, Health Care Financing Committee co-chair Sen. Richard Moore (D-Uxbridge), and Merck senior director of medical affairs Dr. Gregg Sylvester. The panel will also discuss funding proposals for a vaccine.....Room 350 [at the State House]
See our previous posting
Will Mass. Require HPV Vaccine -- Now Linked to Deaths? (5-25-07)
And see the Washington Times, "HPV vaccine concerns give legislatures pause" (4-25-07). Other states including California, New Mexico, and Maryland have had the sense to step back from this foolishness:
The initial rush to require the inoculation of preteen girls with the new HPV vaccine Gardasil fueled by Merck & Co.'s lobbying is meeting resistance as state lawmakers nationwide begin to question its safety, long-term effectiveness and cost.
... "It is far too early for this vaccine to be mandatory. We don't know about its long-term effectiveness or safety," said Lawrence Gostin, director of the Center for Law and the Public's Health at Johns Hopkins and Georgetown Universities. "A response to the rush to mandate could backfire on us with public dissatisfaction and serve as a deterrent to all vaccinations." ...
Merck's lobbying efforts are widely credited with the speed at which a legislative initiative was begun in nearly 40 states. Working with Women in Government, an advocacy group for female state legislators, Merck prodded state lawmakers to prepare legislation while Food and Drug Administration approval was still pending. Many of the bills across the country have been introduced by members of Women in Government.
Merck called off its Gardasil lobbying effort in February after public criticism over the company's motives began to swell. Merck had the backing of a number of prominent public-health organizations, including the American Cancer Society and the American Academy of Pediatrics, which have recommended that girls receive the vaccine. The groups stopped short of pressing for the mandate that Merck wants. Some say they are not ready to endorse a mandate so soon after the vaccine gained FDA approval.
Response to Our Memorial Day Message
We received this thoughtful response to Brian Camenker's Memorial Day message (posted on our web site, www.MassResistance.org).
Well spoken. I don't know how I was placed on your mailing list but I am grateful to whomever is responsible. I believe the sin of sodomy and lesbianism is the height of rebellion against God's established order. This battle is not about homosexual and lesbian rights. That is only the fruit. The root of the problem is the same as it was in Genesis 3 when Satan challenged God's sovereign right as Creator to establish the rules of life for his creatures. Keep the faith, and fight the good fight, in Jesus' Name.
In His service,
Mr. X
Well spoken. I don't know how I was placed on your mailing list but I am grateful to whomever is responsible. I believe the sin of sodomy and lesbianism is the height of rebellion against God's established order. This battle is not about homosexual and lesbian rights. That is only the fruit. The root of the problem is the same as it was in Genesis 3 when Satan challenged God's sovereign right as Creator to establish the rules of life for his creatures. Keep the faith, and fight the good fight, in Jesus' Name.
In His service,
Mr. X
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)