Romney Ignored "Separation of Powers" Requirement of Constitution

This banner from the Spring of 2004 was recently unearthed in a MassResistance activist's garage. It was held at various demonstrations in Boston and environs, including the Faneuil Hall rally for marriage on May 14, and on Boston City Hall Plaza when the phony "marriages" began on May 17, and on overpasses on major highways. Its message was wilfully ignored by Mitt Romney.

(See our 3-part series from Dec. 2007.)

ALL of us Americans in the over-40 crowd (who stayed awake during history and civics class) learned about the basic truth and beauty of our constitutional SEPARATION OF POWERS (most carefully written into our Massachusetts Constitution by John Adams) in junior high and high school. Maybe Mitt Romney forgot his lessons?

Here are clauses of the Massachusetts Constitution Gov. Romney failed to uphold when he implemented homosexual “marriage” in 2004. (Come on, stay awake, these are easy to understand!)

"[T]he people of this commonwealth are not controllable by any other laws than those to which their constitutional representative body have given their consent." (PART I, Article X)

"In the government of this commonwealth, the legislative department shall never exercise the executive and judicial powers, or either of them: the executive shall never exercise the legislative and judicial powers, or either of them: the judicial shall never exercise the legislative and executive powers, or either of them: to the end it may be a government of laws and not of men." (Part I, Article XXX)

"The power of suspending the laws, or the execution of the laws, ought never to be exercised but by the legislature, or by authority derived from it, to be exercised in such particular cases only as the legislature shall expressly provide for." (PART I, Article XX) [So, the one man/one woman marriage statute is still in effect, since it has not been overturned or amended by the Legislature. The Court and Gov. Romney had no power to order or act on changing the statute.]

"All the laws which have heretofore been adopted, used and approved … shall still remain and be in full force, until altered or repealed by the legislature…" (PART THE SECOND, Article VI)

Even the Goodridge majority said they were not suspending the marriage statute: “Here, no one argues that striking down the marriage laws is an appropriate form of relief." In fact, they admitted that under the marriage statute, Chapter 207 of the Massachusetts General Laws, homosexual marriage was (and therefore still is) illegal under the statute in force then -- and now: “We conclude, as did the judge, that M.G.L. c. 207 may not be construed to permit same-sex couples to marry.”

Boston GLBT Newspaper InNewsWeekly Fires Convicted Sex Offender & Others

Bill Berggren, convicted sex offender, makes the news again. Last spring, the GLBT community feigned outrage when it was revealed that Berggren was on the board of Boston Pride. But we've noticed that Berggren continued to be on the staff of In NewsWeekly, in fact was its Associate Publisher, and we often found photos online Berggren had taken of events involving youth.

Now Bay Windows is reporting that In NewsWeekly, its competition in Boston's GLBT news world, has just fired Berggren and four contributors have quit. No mention in Bay Windows' story of Berggren's recent difficulties at Pride. Hmm, what's really going on here?










Photos by Bill Berggren for In NewsWeekly, from a PFLAG event. It's possible that the young men on the right are "gay" or "bisexual" or "questioning" since they're at an event supporting those behaviors.

In Newsweekly assoc. publisher fired, four contributors quit (1-3-08)
Matthew Bank, CEO of HX Media, which owns IN Newsweekly, fired the paper’s associate publisher, Bill Berggren, Jan. 2. Berggren’s termination comes less than a month after four of the paper’s longtime freelancers, including former editor Fred Kuhr and religion columnist Rev. Irene Monroe, left the paper, claiming that the paper has lost editorial focus and that they have waited months for HX Media to pay them for their work. HX Media, a New York-based company that publishes both the New York Blade and HX magazine, purchased IN Newsweekly last year.
Berggren, an eight-year veteran of IN Newsweekly, told Bay Windows that he was fired because of claims that he was selling advertising for another publication." ... While denying that he sold ads for another publication, he did say he is considering starting up a new publication....
Berggren said since HX Media bought the paper IN Newsweekly has increasingly lost its focus on local news."They just want to put all New York and Philly fluff in the paper, and they don’t care about New England anymore," said Berggren....
"In this instance it looks like Boston is losing one of its gay media options, and whenever that happens that is a sad day for the readers and the community that the newspaper purports to serve," said Kuhr.

Romney Can't Be Trusted with National Security

Left: J. Cofer Black, Romney's pick for top adviser on national security, who has been discredited in the 9/11 Commission Report.

In today's Boston Herald, Deroy Murdock reports this bombshell.

Red alert on a Romney adviser
J. Cofer Black is Mitt Romney’s chief weapon against Islamo-fascism. The former CIA official chairs Romney’s Counterterrorism Policy Advisory Group.
However, the 9/11 Commission, the Congressional Joint Inquiry on 9/11 and the CIA’s inspector general all condemn Black for dropping the ball before Sept. 11, 2001. Thus, Black’s spot in Romney’s brain trust raises grave doubts about the Bay Stater’s national-security judgment.
At CNN/YouTube’s Nov. 28 debate, Romney said that when pondering terrorist interrogation, “I get that advice from Cofer Black, who is a person who was responsible for counterterrorism in the CIA for some 35 years.” Actually, this is false. Black served the CIA for 28 years and directed its Counterterrorist Center (CTC) for less than three - from June 1999 to May 2002.
[emphasis added]

Read more ...

Listen Up, New Hampshire!

You've been warned about Romney before. A few days ago, WorldNetDaily published this:

"Family leaders call Romney 'disaster': Letter criticizes 'deceptive rhetoric' around candidate" (1-3-05)

A coalition of leaders on family issues has released a letter warning about what they describe as the deception being assembled around former Massachusetts governor and GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney.

"Most of us are not allied with any presidential candidate," the letter says. "But we are troubled by the unethical and Orwellian cover-up of Mitt Romney's role in catastrophic events in Massachusetts, once the cradle of American liberty. "Actions he took as governor were beyond the pale," the letter continued.

Signers include William Greene of RightMarch.com, Ted Baehr of the Christian Film and Television Commission, Linda Harvey of Mission America, Gary Glenn of American Family Association of Michigan, Michael Heath of Christian Civic League of Maine, Ray Neary of Pro-Life Massachusetts, Nedd Kareiva of Stop the ACLU Coalition, Phillip Magnan of Biblical Family Advocates and others.

The letter cites seven issues seen as problematic in the Romney campaign, including a "phony pro-life 'conversion.' " ...

Read more...

Romney Thrilled with His "Silver Medal"

Our latest letter from Mitt, received this afternoon with the subject line "The Beginning":

Dear [Supporter],
As you’ve likely seen by now, we finished a strong second place in Iowa and the mainstream press has been quick to call this devastating.
Well, I’m here to tell you that just like in the Olympics, winning the silver in the first event does not mean you’re not going to come back and win the gold in the final event. And we’re going to win the presidential nomination, by pulling together....
Remember – Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush also finished second in Iowa and went on to win the Republican nomination, and I will too. I’m the only candidate who is competitive in all of the early primary or caucus states – South Carolina, Michigan, Nevada, Florida…and of course New Hampshire.
You know as well as I do that Iowa represents the beginning of the process, and we’re on our way to New Hampshire to win – with your help.
My sincere thanks,
Mitt

Romney Learning that Money Won't Buy Him Love

$10 million spent by Mitt Romney in Iowa. (Outspending Huckabee 10 to 1.) For what? Ambition, power. And a big loss.

So much money, so little conviction. And that's the key. All that money couldn't make up for Romney's lack of conviction ... which the voters could SMELL a mile away.

It wasn't that voters resented Romney's wealth. There would have been a very different reaction if he had used it to underwrite conservative convictions in previous years. His only small (public) donations to Mass. Family Institute and Mass. Citizens for Life came very recently, when he wanted their support for his Presidential run.

What Romney really needed to do as Governor was give us REAL CONSERVATIVES a little face time, and listen to what we had to say. (We barely got an hour-long appointment with his Deputy Chief of Staff, Peter Flaherty, who will remember that event -- which we'll write about in detail in the near future.) Romney didn't have any problem finding time to meet with the Log Cabin (homosexual) Republicans, or even the editorial staff of the extremist GLBT Boston newspaper, Bay Windows. (And oh yes, he apparently was scheming with "moderates" to cook up a compromised marriage amendment back in 2005.)

Romney's FlipFlop on Civil Unions

Here's a Romney flip-flop we need to revisit now: His position on "civil unions."

Romney is busy in New Hampshire bad-mouthing the newly legal civil unions there. (The NH Legislature actually voted for them, unlike the mythical "homosexual marriages" here.)

But while Governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney worked for civil unions.

Check the news from late 2003 (just after the Goodridge marriage ruling) and early 2004 (during the Legislature's phony attempt to come up with a marriage amendment to send to the voters). Romney wanted to be able to say later that he fought for real marriage, and claimed that only a constitutional amendment could solve the problem. He joined Legislative leaders pushing an unrealistic, doomed compromise: the absurd Travaglini-Lees amendment (proposed in early 2004), which would have banned homosexual "marriage" while writing civil unions into the Mass. constitution!

Surely, Romney knew this proposal was doomed to failure. But it allowed him to take everyone's eyes off the real constitutional issues while he illegally implemented homosexual "marriage" behind the scenes. So in March 2004 (according to the Boston Globe), he twisted the arms of hesitant Republican legislators, and convinced them to vote for the phony amendment (which would have established civil unions)!

If that's not supporting civil unions, what is?

• AP (11-20-03), "Massachusetts governor urges gay civil unions, not marriage" -- ... Romney said Wednesday he believes the state could adopt civil unions similar to those allowed in Vermont -- then continue working toward a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages.... "I believe their [the Court's] decision indicates that a provision which provides that benefits, obligations, rights and responsibilities which are consistent with marriage but perhaps could be called by a different name would be in conformity with their decision," Romney said. "Under that opinion, I believe a civil-union type provision would be sufficient."
  
• Boston Globe (3-30-04), "In crucial shift, governor sways 15 in GOP to support measure" Through all the twists and shifts during the gay-marriage debate this year, there was one constant: 22 Republicans in the House of Representatives opposed every measure that would grant gay couples civil unions in the constitution. That all changed yesterday, however, when 15 of that 22-member bloc broke away at the urging of Governor Mitt Romney and voted in favor of a proposed amendment that would ban gay marriage but create Vermont-style civil unions. Those 15 members provided the margin of victory, observers from both camps said yesterday after the measure passed by just five votes.... it was clear that the Republican governor had a major effect on the fracturing of the 22-member bloc....


• Letter from Mitt Romney in April 2004, praising the Travaglini-Lees compromise amendment (which would have written civil unions into the Mass. constitution), reported on MassResistance blog (12-07).


• Boston Globe (2-25-05), "Romney's stance on civil unions draws fire; Activists accuse governor of 'flip-flopping' on issue" -- ... Yesterday the Log Cabin Republicans sharply rebuked the Massachusetts governor, saying his remarks indicate he is backsliding on his 2002 campaign commitment to support some benefits for gay couples. He had also urged GOP lawmakers to vote for a proposed constitutional amendment last spring that would ban same-sex marriage but allow gay couples to enter into civil unions.... A review of Romney's remarks shows that at an October 2002 campaign debate, he said: "Call me old fashioned, but I don't support gay marriage nor do I support civil union." Then, after the SJC decision legalizing same-sex marriage, he told WCVB on Dec. 17, 2003, that if he had to choose, he would favor civil unions over full-fledged gay marriage. However, he added: "But that is not my preference overall. My preference overall would be neither civil union or marriage." Last March, Romney's staff told House Republicans he supported the proposed constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage but allow civil unions....


• Chris Matthews, MSNBC "Hardball" (8-26-05): "Romney plays 'Hardball' on gay marriage; Mass. governor discusses civil unions..." [a must-read interview, as Romney is incoherent] -- ... MATTHEWS: Help me understand Massachusetts politics here.... Why doesn't the state of Massachusetts, through its elected officials, simply overrule the Supreme Court up there and say, there's not going to be any gay marriage; I don't care what some judge says about the Constitution written 200 years ago? Why don't they just do that?
  ROMNEY: Well, well, as you know, it's not that easy. When a court overreaches its bounds and decides to legislate from the bench, it's pretty hard to overturn that. In our case, we have to pass a constitutional amendment. And my legislature is in, some respects, liberal. It has a conservative wing as well. But the liberal wing is fighting very hard for same-sex marriage or its legal equivalent, civil union. And so, as this has gone before the legislature in the past, they've said that the people ought to decide. I agree with them. Let's let the people decide. So, we will have a constitutional convention this year. Hopefully, the decision of our legislature will be to let the people decide. And, specifically, I hope that people will be able to decide that neither civil union, nor same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts.... Of course, if we find ourselves in a setting where the only choice is between civil union and marriage, I will prefer civil union. But I would prefer neither. [This is right after he says same-sex marriage and civil unions are legally equivalent!]


• New York Sun, 4-27-07 --Mr. Giuliani's position on the New Hampshire law [to legalize civil unions] puts him in the company of the former governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney, the only other major presidential candidate from either party who opposes the New Hampshire law. "Governor Romney opposes the New Hampshire bill," Mr. Romney's campaign said yesterday. "He is a champion of traditional marriage. As governor of Massachusetts, he has a clear record opposing same sex marriage and civil unions."

Starting Our 4th Year!

Happy New Year!

It was three years ago that the MassResistance blog began, and spoke the truth that no one else had the nerve to speak. Not surprisingly, we have been subject to all sorts of harassment and abuse as a result. When they can't disprove the facts or argue convincingly from logic, they come after you personally, your family, and your home. But we will continue to speak the truth.

GLBT Assault on Catholic Church Has New HQ in Boston

Dignity USA, an extremist GLBT group undermining the Catholic Church, has a new national leader and headquarters in Boston (with a P.O. Box in Medford). Marianne Duddy-Burke "led the organization through a difficult period after the priestly sexual abuse scandal unfolded and gay men were scapegoated by the Church hierarchy and its conservative members," according to Bay Windows' account. Now, she's loaded for bear, already criticizing the Pope's New Year's message, calling it "inane and hurtful." Sounds like it's time for her to leave the Church. But no, Dignity USA is on a mission to destroy it from within. Note that they're now pushing not only "gay, lesbian, and bisexual" demands, but also transgender nonsense.

See "Duddy returns to post at Dignity/USA," Bay Windows (12-19-07).

Duddy-Burke stepped down from the executive director position about four years ago, following the birth of her daughter. ... "Honestly, I think that it’s been good for me to have a chance to step away and recharge my batteries," said Duddy-Burke, who has also served in the leadership of Dignity/Boston, the organization’s local chapter. "Being on the frontline, especially during the sexual abuse crisis was emotionally and spiritually very exhausting. Now I’ve got my energy back."

(Forgive us for asking: Why would the sexual abuse crisis have been so exhausting to a homosexual advocacy group?)

Duddy-Burke said she’ll focus on putting out Dignity’s message positively by emphasizing its work on creating LGBT-inclusive theology and liturgical rites. She also wants to lead the organization in engaging Catholics, particularly those who are parents to LGBT children, in the LGBT civil rights struggle....

Of course, she’ll also be busy holding Church leaders accountable for their anti-gay rhetoric. Noting that the Pope’s message to mark World Peace Day on Jan. 1 calls LGBT families "a threat to world peace," Duddy laughs, "I’m sure we’ll be preparing something around that. I sort of wished my first official act would not be to have to respond to another inane and hurtful statement from the Pope."

Romney in 1994: No Homosexual Agenda Threat

In 1994, Mitt Romney denied the serious threat to social stability posed by the radical homosexual movement. He still seems to think that "diversity" is just about respecting all people, whatever the choices they may make in their lives. Yeah, and "gay marriage" and "transgender rights" aren't transforming America now.

Here again, Romney's judgment was seriously flawed. Who would have denied -- even back in 1994 -- that the radical homosexuals had a plan to "proselytize a gay lifestyle"? Romney denied it, and went on to say that Republicans should adopt his view.

Quoted in the Boston Globe:
On whether he would have supported ... the 1994 Elementary and Secondary Education Act to ban federal funding to public schools that encourage or support “homosexuality as a positive lifestyle alternative”:

“I would have opposed that amendment. I don’t think the federal government has any business dictating to local school boards what their curriculum or practices should be. I think that’s a dangerous precedent in general. I would have opposed that. It also grossly misunderstands the gay community by insinuating that there’s an attempt to proselytize a gay lifestyle on the part of the gay community. I think it’s wrong-headed and unfortunate and hurts the party by being identified with the Republican party.”

[emphasis added]

Jacoby Keeps His Nerve on Tax Issue

Jeff Jacoby has a excellent piece in today's Boston Globe: "A resolution: Abolish the income tax" (12-30-07). While Jacoby has lost his nerve on issues that open him up to name-calling (you know which issues we mean), he's kept his nerve on taxes. He's totally behind the new effort to abolish the state income tax, which will be on the ballot in 2008. Currently, the income tax brings in just 40% of state revenues. We'd still be taxed to death even if it went away. Excerpts:

...Massachusetts without a personal income tax would not be a "place with no taxes." It would be a place with corporate income taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, gasoline taxes, meals taxes, hotel taxes, excise taxes, workers' compensation taxes, estate taxes, capital gains taxes, cigarette taxes, wine and liquor taxes, motor vehicle taxes, and real estate transfer taxes, not to mention the taxes ("license fees") imposed on a vast array of professions and occupations. The $11 billion collected in personal income taxes accounts for only 40 percent of state revenue. Take that away and the government of Massachusetts still helps itself to more than $16 billion a year. That's not exactly "no taxes." ...

"Civilization costs something," the governor says, echoing the 1904 dictum of Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.: "Taxes are the price we pay for civilized society."
Maybe so. But in Massachusetts lately, taxes are also the price we pay for Big Dig corruption, for larcenous public-employee pensions, for state-owned golf courses, and for wretched public schools. Higher taxes are no guarantee of a more civilized society....

Eliminating the state income tax would reduce government spending by about $11 billion, shrinking the budget to its 1995 level. But that $11 billion would not be lost. It would be back in the private sector - back in the hands of the men and women who earned it, and who are far more likely to spend, invest, or donate it wisely than the bloated state bureaucracy it goes to now....

Romney's Endorsements Reveal Uncomfortable Truth

By John Haskins
Parents' Rights Coalition

Slick Willard's endorsements come from the strangest places. Consider the extreme cognitive dissonance in the following:

Romney has been endorsed by self-styled "evangelicals" like Jay Sekulow, "Evangelical" radio lawyer-pundit Hugh Hewitt, the Alliance Defense Fund's David French, and Right to Life's Jim Bopp -- all ambitious lawyers from the judicial-supremacy wing of "conservatism" who have actively betrayed Judge Roy Moore, Dr. Alan Keyes and many others. Add, Rev. Bob Jones and, shockingly, Paul Weyrich, to Romney's endorsers.

But nestled among them is the unabashedly militant pro-abortion, pro-homosexuality, pro-homosexual "marriage" former Massachusetts governor, William Weld. Weld appointed Margaret Marshall, the driving force behind the Goodridge decision. Romney publicly asked for Weld's endorsement, just as he twice sought the endorsements of the homosexual "Log Cabin" Republicans and the militant abortion lobby.

As governor, Weld not only appointed the most radical, post-constitutional, tyrannical liberal judges in the nation, he backed partial-birth abortion, and poured taxpayer funding into militant gay groups and into pro-homosexuality brainwashing of other people's children.

Weld's lieutenant governor Paul Cellucci, who succeeded him, was identified by James Dobson as someone who opposes "virtually everything we believe in." George Bush's nomination of Cellucci as U. S. Ambassador to Canada provoked perhaps the greatest uprising against any presidential appointment ever, easily exceeding the manufactured "resistance" to Clarence Thomas and Attorney General John Ashcroft. The media mostly refused to report that some fifty U.S. and some fifteen Canadian groups bombarded the White House and the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee with outrage. I know about it because I wrote the petition and built the U.S. Canadian coalition and led the resistance with Peter LaBarbera in 2001. Nevertheless, Romney publicly recently ridiculed the opposition to Cellucci and asked former Governor Paul Cellucci for his endorsement!

But Romney is apparently too untrustworthy and too liberal socially for Cellucci, which says quite a bit, because Cellucci gave Margaret Marshall a promotion to Chief Justice, he boosted government spending on gay propaganda to levels unmatched by any governor until Romney, and he put a Planned Parenthood lawyer on the Supreme Judicial Court.

Instead, Cellucci has endorsed Rudy Giuliani. Romney currently "positions" himself to the right of Giuliani on social issues, but his actual record is even more left-wing than Giuliani's and Cellucci's. Cellucci has privately told people that Romney cleverly imposed gay marriage unnecessarily, and that he (Cellucci) does not support same-sex "marriage" because it will weaken and harm the traditional family. A lawyer himself, Cellucci is aware that Romney used the Goodridge decision and the willing gullibility of "conservatives" to push an agenda he couldn't otherwise have gotten away with.

How do Paul Weyrich, Bob Jones, Jay Sekulow, Hugh Hewitt, David French, Jim Bopp and Rev. Bob Jones feel about being on a list of endorsers with Bill Weld -- the man who appointed the judge who crafted the Goodridge decision, helped illegally impose homosexual adoption and many radical pro-abortion rulings?

Politics do make strange bedfellows.

See "Former Mass. governor endorses Romney," Boston Globe, 12-4-07.

For enlightening background on the legacy of Weld and Cellucci see several of my articles:
Insight magazine: "It's 1984 In Massachusetts -- And Big Brother Is Gay"
WorldNetDaily: "Cellucci: wrong man for the job"
WorldNetDaily: "Read Our Lips, Mr. President"

Romney's Governing Style Not Trustworthy: Too Little Oversight, Too Much Absenteeism

Presidential candidate Mitt Romney is always assuring us he'll appoint excellent advisors (or judges) to help him run our government according to his supposedly conservative principles. This is highly questionable.

Look what happened here: MassDevelopment, the state's economic development agency, just granted a big loan to Planned Parenthood for a new abortion clinic in Worcester. Though the deal was finalized in February 2007, just after Romney left office, crucial earlier action was taken while Romney was still Governor in November 2006, when a $5 million tax-exempt bond was approved that "laid the groundwork for Planned Parenthood to begin planning the center..." Where was Romney's oversight then? The Romney campaign said the Governor "was not aware [the loan] was under consideration" in November.

The economic development agency, MassDevelopment, "is an autonomous authority, [but] it was controlled by Romney appointees," according to the Boston Globe. "Several of its 11-member board were top officials in the Romney administration..."

His agency appointees must not have shared his supposed pro-life views. Maybe he appointed them before he converted? And Romney's abseenteeism while Governor was a continuing concern here in Massachusetts. How would he know what was going on in his agencies if he was never around? Romney was out of Massachusetts for most of his last year in office (at least 219 days out of 365). So much for his vaunted oversight of complex organizations.

"Romney officials approved clinic loan; Worcester facility to provide abortions," Boston Globe, 12-29-07.

See also, on Romney's absenteeism while Governor:

"Report: Romney out of state 212 days so far in 2006," Boston Globe, 12-25-06:
Gov. Mitt Romney, who is preparing for a possible run for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination, has spent all or part of 212 days outside Massachusetts in 2006 ... Romney plans to spend the rest of the year vacationing with his family in Utah, putting him on track to be away from Massachusetts for all or part of 219 days this year. Since announcing he would not seek re-election a year ago, Romney has traveled to 35 states and eight countries -- and been out of the state an average of more than four days each week ... New Hampshire, home to the first presidential primary contest and Romney's summer home, is one of the states he visited more than 10 times in 2005....

"Romney says new post won't hinder duties; Named vice chair of GOP group," Boston Globe, 11-20-04:
...the chair of the state Democratic Party criticized him as an absentee governor interested only in furthering his ambitions...."I've been around for 30 years, and I can't remember any governor traveling this much, except when Dukakis was actually running for president," he said.... Romney has repeatedly emphasized his commitment to serving out all of his first term, which ends in 2006.... He has said he expects to run for reelection, but has not committed to a second term....

Transgender Threat Recognized in WSJ

The Wall Street Journal is acknowledging the recent explosion of transgender cases around the country. And that any common sense response or honest analysis of "trans madness" is met with nasty attacks by GLBT activists. So how will corporate America respond?

"Elites have noticed this ferocity and have begun to accommodate it."

That's right -- another surrender has begun. The Human Rights Campaign will only give top rating to corporations that support "transgender" employee benefits. And corporations want top ratings from everyone. Or at least they want to avoid lawsuits. So get ready for crazy goings-on.

Crossing Over
By Naomi Schaefer Riley
December 28, 2007; Page W13

Deconstructionist professors have been trying for years to convince us that gender is a social construct. Now, it seems, politicians and even employers are doing their best to put this theory into practice -- 2007 may go down in history as the year of the transgendered person....

The transgendered are now grouped with gays, lesbians and bisexuals in the abbreviation GLBT. This makes sense in certain ways, but not in others. For one thing, the transgendered part of the acronym makes a claim on public accommodation that the "GLB" part does not -- and thus poses a radically different challenge to social norms.

... "What will prevent the 250-pound linebacker from deciding he wants to share the locker room with the cheerleaders?" That sounds like a silly question but isn't really.

While the American Psychiatric Association is being pressured by trans activists (as they were by homosexual activists back in the 1970s) to give in to their demands -- and sure enough, the APA is waffling -- there are still dissenters who hold to common-sense views.

Paul McHugh, a former director of the department of psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University, notes that the transgendered patients he has come to know were no happier after sex-change surgery than before. He writes in "The Mind Has Mountains": "I concluded that to provide a surgical alteration to the body of these unfortunate people was to collaborate with a mental disorder rather than to treat it."

In certain quarters, the findings of Dr. McHugh and a few like-minded professionals have been met with outrage. To question the narrative of the transgendered -- all that is wrong, they say, is our society's "social construct" -- is to invite a ferocious response. Michael Bailey, a psychologist at Northwestern University, published a book in 2003 suggesting that some men who want to change genders are living in a kind of fantasy. They are motivated by an erotic idea of themselves as women. He was met with a campaign of harassment -- one critic even posted pictures of Mr. Bailey's children on the Internet with sexually explicit captions under them....
[emphasis added]

Romney Exposed as Big Government Governor

Time to reread this piece by Carla Howell from last May. Her group has just gotten enough signatures to get an income-tax repeal question on the Massachusetts ballot in 2008 [hooray!]:

"Mitt Romney: Champion of Big Government" [topics Howell addresses:]

• Mitt Romney has been a champion of new taxes....
• [N]ot only did Mitt Romney refuse to cut the overall Massachusetts budget, he expanded it. Dramatically.... Romney initiated massive new spending – without any prodding....
• But his grande finale was the worst of all: RomneyCare, Mitt Romney's version of socialized medicine....Ted Kennedy has pushed for socialized medicine for decades. Romney fulfilled his dream. Kennedy lobbied the legislature hard to get Romney's bill passed. It was a Romney-Kennedy alliance....

Carla Howell was the Libertarian candidate for Governor of Massachusetts in 2002. She sponsored the 2002 Massachusetts ballot initiative to End the State Income Tax – which Romney opposed. Her initiative nearly won with 45% of the vote. She is Co-Founder and President of the Center For Small Government.

Mitt Romney Favors Overturning Laws against Sodomy

In January 2002, early in his run for Governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney told the extremist homosexual publication Bay Windows that he favored overturning laws criminalizing sodomy. (That Romney would even grant an interview to this publication is telling.) Romney's position on sodomy laws, an issue of morality as well as public health, is clearly not conservative.

Romney answered a questionnaire from Bay Windows, so this was not an off-the-cuff answer:

“19 questions for Mitt Romney” January 1, 2002
Bay Windows asked: “What is your position on each of the following issues? … Repeal of sodomy laws -- ”
Romney answered: “I don’t think government should interfere in the private lives of consenting adults.”

Does Romney consider sodomy laws to concern just what goes on in private? Does Romney also believe that the state has no interest in outlawing other “private” sexual behaviors such as prostitution, incest, bigamy, or polygamy -- if they are between “consenting adults”?

When the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against the Texas law that criminalized sodomy in Lawrence v. Texas, Justice Antonin Scalia recognized in his dissent the far-reaching impact that ruling would have: “Scalia … averred that, State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of [previous ruling] Bowers' validation of laws based on moral choices…. The Court has not ruled on statutes prohibiting adult incest, polygamy, adultery, prostitution, and other forms of sexual intimacy between consenting adults. Lawrence may have created a slippery slope for these laws to eventually fall.” (Wikipedia)

Scalia was right. Just months later, the Goodridge ruling in Massachusetts (which said that it was unconstitutional to ban homosexual “marriage”) cited the Lawrence sodomy ruling as precedent.

Not only is decriminalizing sodomy serious as a legal precedent, it also has public health ramifications Romney apparently wishes to ignore. It is established fact that the high-risk behavior of anal intercourse (sodomy) plays a huge role in the spread of AIDS and other sexually-transmitted diseases.

In Massachusetts, sodomy is still on the books as a "crime against nature":
Ch 272, Section 34: Crime against nature. Whoever commits the abominable and detestable crime against nature, either with mankind or with a beast, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than twenty years.

Faneuil Hall at Christmas

It was great to see that Boston allowed Christmas wreaths to be hung on Faneuil Hall. Here's a photo we took last week, while enjoying dinner at a nearby restaurant.

Are those "holiday lights" or "Christmas lights" hanging in Quincy Market? It was beautiful.
MERRY CHRISTMAS, Massachusetts Patriots!!!

Romney's April 2004 Letter Reveals Weak, Unprincipled Actions During Constitutional Crisis

Part I: Letter from Mitt Romney on Eve of 'Gay Marriage' -- April 2004

Part II: Romney's 2004 Letter -- Analysis

Part III: Gov. Mitt Romney Ignored Our Voices -- and the Constitution



Read the letter (PDF)

Those of us living through the unparalleled Constitutional crisis here in Massachusetts -- beginning with the Supreme Judicial Court's "homosexual marriage" ruling in November 2003, through the beginning of the phony "marriages" in May 2004, and ongoing -- experienced Mitt Romney's duplicity and failure as a leader on a visceral level. Most of us engaged in the research published on our site voted for him in 2002. We feel personally betrayed by a man who surrendered our Constitution, our rule of law, our public health, our traditional values, our schools and our children to a very dangerous "special interest."

Our 3-part series, focusing on a letter we received from Romney in April 2004 (just one month before the "homosexual marriages" began) reveals either a dangerous dissembler, or a disengaged manager with no understanding of the Constitution he swore to uphold. Either way, this man should not be President.

For more information and documentation, see our reports:

How Mitt Romney brought "gay marriage" to Massachusetts and
The Mitt Romney Deception Report.

Romney's 2004 Letter: Part III - Romney Ignored Our Voices and the Constitution

Citizens rally in West Springfield on a cold day in late February 2004, calling on our Legislature and Governor to block homosexual "marriage".

See Part I, "Letter from Mitt Romney on Eve of 'Gay Marriage' - April 2004" and Part II.

For sources, see our reports: How Mitt Romney brought "gay marriage" to Massachusetts and The Mitt Romney Deception Report.

Part III: Gov. Mitt Romney Ignored Our Voices -- and the Constitution

Many well remember the feelings of panic and desperation that gripped pro-family citizens throughout the state in late 2003 and early 2004. We went to rally after rally in freezing January, February, and March weather in front of the Supreme Judicial Court, on the Boston Common, in front of the State House, while Romney sat in his cozy corner office and looked down on us. We called, e-mailed, and sent letters to our legislators and the Governor.


Citizens rally at State House calling on Legislature to propose a "clean" amendment with no civil unions. Their voices were ignored by Romney, who worked for civil unions from Nov. 2003 on. [MassResistance photo]

We were all wondering: Why doesn’t Gov. Romney say something? Do something? Why the silence from the Governor's Office? Why doesn’t he at least make statements supporting our rallies and demonstrations for removal of the judges, and for a strong marriage amendment? We were all continuing to hope against hope that Romney was working behind the scenes to halt the insanity.

We didn't know then that he had promised his homosexual Republican activist friends (while campaigning in 2002) that he would not oppose the expected Supreme Judicial Court ruling for homosexual "marriage." And we didn't fully understand that he was working in late 2003 and early 2004 with the unethical Senate President, Robert Travaglini, and Senate Minority Leader, Brian Lees, to write civil unions into the Massachusetts constitution (through their phony compromise "marriage" amendment) -- as a little insurance policy should anything keep the May "marriages" from going forward.

Senators Travaglini and Lees (seen in late 2003) worked with Romney to craft an unacceptable "marriage" amendment which would have enshrined civil unions in the Constitution. [MassResistance photo]

People were pleading with the Governor to say: "No, Judges, you cannot order either of the other two branches of government to do anything! You may not make law! Nothing will change on May 17. Current law allows for marriage only between one man and one woman, and that is the law I will continue to enforce." But there was only silence. All Romney said was that an amendment to the Constitution should be voted on. (How it should be worded, he never said publicly.) Then on that score, we all pleaded: The amendment must be pure, and not include establishment of “civil unions” alongside one man/one woman marriage! But he bragged in his April 2004 letter of the compromise amendment that included “civil unions”!

Article 8 Alliance [now MassResistance] Press Conference at State House in April 2004, calling for the Legislature and Governor to vote on a Bill of Address to remove the four Supreme Court judges, and revealing Chief Justice Marshall's ethical violations. [MassResistance photo]

Where was Romney in April 2004, when Article 8 Alliance presented shocking information on Chief Justice Margaret Marshall's violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct? Her appearances at fundraising events for groups supporting homosexual "marriage" were not allowed under the code, and she had publicly revealed her bias on the issue. Why didn't he comment on Rep. Emile Goguen's filing of the Bill of Address to remove the four Supreme Judicial Court judges who ruled that John Adams included "homosexual marriage" in his Massachusetts Constitution? What did he believe should happen when judges so flagrantly violate the constitutional separation of powers?

All the while, through February, March, and April 2004, Gov. Romney and his team were busy betraying us, while stringing us along with pretty words on “democracy” and “letting the people vote” on marriage (possibly, some day in the distant future...). Only those paying closest attention noticed the stories in the Boston Globe about Romney’s people working behind the scenes, secretly holding meetings with state officials, to be sure all the paperwork (and threats to state officials of fines or firing) were in place to ensure the homosexual “marriages” began on May 17. Not one word from Romney himself about these plans, only a few leaks from Town Clerks, Justices of the Peace, or an occasional cryptic comment from a spokesman.


Gov. Romney's Chief Legal Counsel Daniel Winslow ran training sessions for Town Clerks and Justices of the Peace, threatening fines or firing if they didn't uphold the "law". Winslow confirmed with MassResistance that our timeline is accurate.

On April 15, 2004 (the same day he wrote the letter to his constituents) Romney created another diversion to make it appear he was trying to halt the homosexual “marriages.” He filed an emergency bill in the Legislature to appeal to the same rogue Court which issued the homosexual “marriage” ruling, to seek a stay on the start date for the “marriages” -- thus acknowledging the Court’s power to enact and enforce “law”! Romney surely knew this bill would be shelved, in any case. (But it would come in useful when he ran for President, to bolster his claim that he did what he could to save marriage.)