Some brave teachers in San Francisco are standing up to the homosexual extremist demand that they post "safe zone" signs in their classrooms.
This is what citizens of Massachusetts will do tomorrow at the State House! They will tell the Education Committee of the state legislature that they are sick and tired of this dangerous propaganda already in the schools, and they will NOT stand for it becoming part of a required "health" curriculum! Promoting an unhealthly lifestyle as a healthy choice is simply "newspeak".
Here's what Robert Knight of the Culture & Family Institute of Concerned Women for America) had to say about the San Francisco situation:
...[T]alk of safety is cover for the homosexual agenda. "What [such policies] produce is intolerance toward anyone who won't accept homosexuality," [Knight] says, adding that in this case, that means "teachers who know that it's not a good thing to sell kids on the idea that it's okay to be gay."
According to Knight, the heated debate going on at San Leandro High is not about safety at all. "This is about bullying people and saying you will kneel down and bow to the Baal god of homosexuality -- or we'll make your life very miserable," he says.
The CFI spokesman maintains the school district is demonstrating intolerance toward the five teachers who are choosing not to display the posters -- and those teachers, he adds, are courageous for standing up to the mandate.
"The school district has no business telling teachers to glorify behavior that has such a long list of known health risks," Knight says. "This ought to be treated as a public health issue -- not a matter of civil rights, as [homosexual activists] like to frame it."
And it is wrong, Knight adds, to force teachers into a situation that implies their approval of an unsafe and unhealthy lifestyle. "When you put a rainbow poster up in your classroom, you're lending the authority of the teacher to the gay-rights movement," he explains. In essence, says Knight, the district is saying: "Kids, go ahead and try this behavior. Even your teacher is for it."
Monday, January 30, 2006
Sunday, January 29, 2006
Who's Behind Mandatory Sex/Homosex Ed in Massachusetts?
Rep. Alice Wolf, former mayor of Cambridge (behind the "domestic partner benefits" ordinance there in the early 90's), has a very dear friend named Arthur Lipkin. So dear that she performed his "marriage" ceremony to another man in May 2004. (See story in Boston Phoenix for a photo of the happily "married" couple.)
Mr. Lipkin's works -- telling educators how to infuse GLBT issues throughout the curriculum -- are cited as resources in the Mass. Dept of Education "Health Curriculum Frameworks." The Frameworks would be the basis for the mandatory "health" education in Rep. Wolf's House Bill 1641.
Lipkin is connected with the Harvard Graduate School of Education, and edits a "scholarly" journal on GLBT issues in the schools. He is a leader of the Cambridge Lavender Alliance, which awarded Rep. Wolf her "honorary lesbian" title. He also was the first teacher in Massachusetts to "come out" to his pupils and school. What an act of courage!
These are the people who want to deny parents their rights to educate their children as they see fit on these sensitive moral issues.
Mr. Lipkin's works -- telling educators how to infuse GLBT issues throughout the curriculum -- are cited as resources in the Mass. Dept of Education "Health Curriculum Frameworks." The Frameworks would be the basis for the mandatory "health" education in Rep. Wolf's House Bill 1641.
Lipkin is connected with the Harvard Graduate School of Education, and edits a "scholarly" journal on GLBT issues in the schools. He is a leader of the Cambridge Lavender Alliance, which awarded Rep. Wolf her "honorary lesbian" title. He also was the first teacher in Massachusetts to "come out" to his pupils and school. What an act of courage!
These are the people who want to deny parents their rights to educate their children as they see fit on these sensitive moral issues.
David Parker on Radio Sunday Night (Jan. 29)
DAVID PARKER -- Radio Star!!!
Subject: H1640, the proposed bill to make "HEALTH" education a requirement in Massachusetts, using the Mass. Curriculum Frameworks. Details about this horrible bill are on our MassResistance website. (And see our posting on its lead sponsor, Rep. Alice Wolf.)
* THIS SUNDAY NIGHT 8-10 pm -- on WRKO Radio (AM680) "Pundit Review" show, David Parker will square off against Rep. Ted Speliotis!
* And from 7-8 pm Sunday David will be a guest on the MassResistance radio show (WTTT AM1150). The MassResistance show also airs 10-11 am Saturday.
Subject: H1640, the proposed bill to make "HEALTH" education a requirement in Massachusetts, using the Mass. Curriculum Frameworks. Details about this horrible bill are on our MassResistance website. (And see our posting on its lead sponsor, Rep. Alice Wolf.)
* THIS SUNDAY NIGHT 8-10 pm -- on WRKO Radio (AM680) "Pundit Review" show, David Parker will square off against Rep. Ted Speliotis!
* And from 7-8 pm Sunday David will be a guest on the MassResistance radio show (WTTT AM1150). The MassResistance show also airs 10-11 am Saturday.
Saturday, January 28, 2006
Woburn Crowne Plaza Hosts Trans Convention
The latest trend in the queer activist world is all things "trans". As we've all noticed, transgenders and transsexuals are more and more "out". Recently, the Tiffany Club of New England held its annual convention at the Woburn Crowne Plaza hotel. Seminars included "Transyouth" and "Transitioning at Work."
The Tiffany Club home page proclaims:
THE TRINITY OF BEING: OF BEING MASCULINE, OF BEING FEMININE, OF BEING ONE, WITH YOURSELF AND NATURE!
Here's a little snippet from the Bay Windows coverage:
And beyond the resources, another goal of the conference was for attendees to kick back and have fun. On Jan. 20 Richard Novic, a psychiatrist from Los Angeles, gave a reading of his cross dressing memoir, Alice in Genderland, to a small but enthusiastic audience. Novic, who was dressed in his “Alice” persona during the reading and said he is equally comfortable with either name and with male or female pronouns, may have made L.A. his home, but he also has deep roots in the Boston area, having received his undergraduate degree at Harvard and having gone to medical school locally. He thrilled the audience by describing his experience dressing as a woman in public for the first time at a Tiffany Club meeting in 1991 and flirting with the drag performers at Jacques and Playland.
Novic, who is married with two kids, who know about his weekly excursions to the clubs as Alice, said that he reconnected with the Tiffany Club for the first time in about 15 years when he signed his book at this past summer’s Pride festival. Of course, there was a complication; he was also in town for his Harvard class reunion.
“I snuck away from the festivities, threw a dress on, and went and sat at the Tiffany Club tent that Saturday afternoon at the Boston Pride festival,” he explained. After the festival, he ditched his female garb, got back into his male attire, and rejoined the reunion festivities.
The Tiffany Club home page proclaims:
THE TRINITY OF BEING: OF BEING MASCULINE, OF BEING FEMININE, OF BEING ONE, WITH YOURSELF AND NATURE!
Here's a little snippet from the Bay Windows coverage:
And beyond the resources, another goal of the conference was for attendees to kick back and have fun. On Jan. 20 Richard Novic, a psychiatrist from Los Angeles, gave a reading of his cross dressing memoir, Alice in Genderland, to a small but enthusiastic audience. Novic, who was dressed in his “Alice” persona during the reading and said he is equally comfortable with either name and with male or female pronouns, may have made L.A. his home, but he also has deep roots in the Boston area, having received his undergraduate degree at Harvard and having gone to medical school locally. He thrilled the audience by describing his experience dressing as a woman in public for the first time at a Tiffany Club meeting in 1991 and flirting with the drag performers at Jacques and Playland.
Novic, who is married with two kids, who know about his weekly excursions to the clubs as Alice, said that he reconnected with the Tiffany Club for the first time in about 15 years when he signed his book at this past summer’s Pride festival. Of course, there was a complication; he was also in town for his Harvard class reunion.
“I snuck away from the festivities, threw a dress on, and went and sat at the Tiffany Club tent that Saturday afternoon at the Boston Pride festival,” he explained. After the festival, he ditched his female garb, got back into his male attire, and rejoined the reunion festivities.
Friday, January 27, 2006
"Honorary Lesbian" Pushes Mandatory State "Health" Curriculum
State Rep. Alice Wolf (D-Cambridge), designated "Honorary Lesbian" by the Cambridge Lavender Alliance, is the chief sponsor of House Bill 1641, which would mandate K-12 "health" education for every public school student in Massachusetts. Wolf is doing her best to spread the word that this bill is just about teaching little children how to brush their teeth, and saving older children from drug addiction and gang involvement.
Needless to say, the definition of "health" in the document of reference -- the Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks -- has been dictated by assorted libertines, Planned Parenthood abortion advocates, and homosexual extremists. And they picked Rep. Wolf to be their lead sponsor for good reasons.
Wolf was endorsed in 2004 by these radical homosexual PACs:
MassEquality
MGLPC (Mass. Gay & Lesbian Political Caucus)
Freedom to Marry Coalition
OutSomerville
Cambridge Lavender Alliance (see above).
She's also been endorsed by Mass. League of Environmental Voters, the Mass.Women's Political Caucus, and Mass. NARAL. Her other leftist awards include the "Progressive Leadership Award" from the Commonwealth Coalition, and the "Woman of Courage Award" from the Mass. chapter of the National Organization of Women.
Wolf's homosexual activism goes way back. Formerly the Mayor of Cambridge, she received the "Friends of the Community Award" given by the Greater Boston Lesbian and Gay Political Alliance in 1992 for her work in passing the Cambridge Domestic Partnership Law.
Need you know more?
Needless to say, the definition of "health" in the document of reference -- the Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks -- has been dictated by assorted libertines, Planned Parenthood abortion advocates, and homosexual extremists. And they picked Rep. Wolf to be their lead sponsor for good reasons.
Wolf was endorsed in 2004 by these radical homosexual PACs:
MassEquality
MGLPC (Mass. Gay & Lesbian Political Caucus)
Freedom to Marry Coalition
OutSomerville
Cambridge Lavender Alliance (see above).
She's also been endorsed by Mass. League of Environmental Voters, the Mass.Women's Political Caucus, and Mass. NARAL. Her other leftist awards include the "Progressive Leadership Award" from the Commonwealth Coalition, and the "Woman of Courage Award" from the Mass. chapter of the National Organization of Women.
Wolf's homosexual activism goes way back. Formerly the Mayor of Cambridge, she received the "Friends of the Community Award" given by the Greater Boston Lesbian and Gay Political Alliance in 1992 for her work in passing the Cambridge Domestic Partnership Law.
Need you know more?
Wednesday, January 25, 2006
Male Friendship Damaged by Sexual Confusion
Albert Mohler's website is full of provocative articles. Last month he summarized a fascinating essay by Anthony Esolen, an English professor at Providence College. (See Mohler, "Sexual Confusion and the End of Friendship.")
Esolen explains that the homosexual and "pansexual" extremists have profoundly affected friendships between heterosexual males, and have made it even more difficult for boys to grow into healthy adult males. His essay, "A Requiem for Friendship: Why Boys Will Not Be Boys & Other Consequences of the Sexual Revolution," appears in the September 2005 issue of Touchstone magazine.
Excerpts from Mohler's artice:
Esolen begins by reminding readers of a scene from J. R. R. Tolkien's great work, The Lord of the Rings. Sam Gamgee, having followed his master Frodo into Mordor, the realm of death, finds him in a small filthy cell lying half-conscious. "Frodo! Mr. Frodo, my dear!" Sam cries. "It's Sam, I've come!" Frodo embraces his friend and Sam eventually cradles Frodo's head. As Esolen suggests, a reader or viewer of this scene is likely to jump to a rather perverse conclusion: "What, are they gay?"
Esolen suggests that this question is an "ignorant but inevitable response" to the context. He goes on to recall that Shakespeare and many other great authors spoke of non-sexual love between men in strongest terms. Similarly, when David is told of the death of his friend Jonathan, he cries: "Your love to me was finer than the love of women."
As Esolen understands, the corruption of language has contributed to this confusion. When words like love, friend, male, female, and partner are transformed in a new sexual context, what was once understood to be pure and undefiled is now subject to sniggering and disrespect.
Esolen insists that this linguistic shift was no accident. He accuses "pansexualists" of corrupting the language in order to normalize sexual confusion and anarchy. They have used language "as a tool for establishing their own order and imposing it on everyone else," he argues....
One of the words and realities most clearly corrupted for the sake of sexual anarchy is friendship--and male friendship in particular. "For modern American men, friendship is no longer forged in the heat of battle, or in the dust of the plains as they drive their herds across half a continent, or in the choking air of a coalmine, or even in the cigar smoke of a debating club," Esolen notes. Most men no longer find themselves in situations that encourage and inculcate straightforward male friendships. As Esolen observes, "the sexual revolution has also nearly killed male friendship as devoted to anything beyond drinking and watching sports; and the homosexual movement, a logically inevitable result of forty years of heterosexual promiscuity and feminist folly, bids fair to finish it off and nail the coffin shut."
What this means for grown men is bad enough, but Esolen is persuasive when he argues that the most vulnerable victims of friendship's demise are boys. "The prominence of male homosexuality changes the language for teenage boys. It is absurd and cruel to say that the boy can ignore it. Even if he would, his classmates will not let him. All boys need to prove that they are not failures. They need to prove that they are on the way to becoming men--that they are not going to relapse into the need to be protected by, and therefore identified with, their mothers." So? Esolen argues that boys, deprived of normal recognitions of masculinity and safe friendships with other boys and men, often turn to aggressive sexual promiscuity with girls in order to prove that they are not homosexual. Boys who refuse to play this game are tagged as homosexuals.
Esolen is on to something of incredible importance here. He reminds us all that boys need the uncomplicated camaraderie of other boys in order to negotiate their own path to manhood....
Esolen explains that the homosexual and "pansexual" extremists have profoundly affected friendships between heterosexual males, and have made it even more difficult for boys to grow into healthy adult males. His essay, "A Requiem for Friendship: Why Boys Will Not Be Boys & Other Consequences of the Sexual Revolution," appears in the September 2005 issue of Touchstone magazine.
Excerpts from Mohler's artice:
Esolen begins by reminding readers of a scene from J. R. R. Tolkien's great work, The Lord of the Rings. Sam Gamgee, having followed his master Frodo into Mordor, the realm of death, finds him in a small filthy cell lying half-conscious. "Frodo! Mr. Frodo, my dear!" Sam cries. "It's Sam, I've come!" Frodo embraces his friend and Sam eventually cradles Frodo's head. As Esolen suggests, a reader or viewer of this scene is likely to jump to a rather perverse conclusion: "What, are they gay?"
Esolen suggests that this question is an "ignorant but inevitable response" to the context. He goes on to recall that Shakespeare and many other great authors spoke of non-sexual love between men in strongest terms. Similarly, when David is told of the death of his friend Jonathan, he cries: "Your love to me was finer than the love of women."
As Esolen understands, the corruption of language has contributed to this confusion. When words like love, friend, male, female, and partner are transformed in a new sexual context, what was once understood to be pure and undefiled is now subject to sniggering and disrespect.
Esolen insists that this linguistic shift was no accident. He accuses "pansexualists" of corrupting the language in order to normalize sexual confusion and anarchy. They have used language "as a tool for establishing their own order and imposing it on everyone else," he argues....
One of the words and realities most clearly corrupted for the sake of sexual anarchy is friendship--and male friendship in particular. "For modern American men, friendship is no longer forged in the heat of battle, or in the dust of the plains as they drive their herds across half a continent, or in the choking air of a coalmine, or even in the cigar smoke of a debating club," Esolen notes. Most men no longer find themselves in situations that encourage and inculcate straightforward male friendships. As Esolen observes, "the sexual revolution has also nearly killed male friendship as devoted to anything beyond drinking and watching sports; and the homosexual movement, a logically inevitable result of forty years of heterosexual promiscuity and feminist folly, bids fair to finish it off and nail the coffin shut."
What this means for grown men is bad enough, but Esolen is persuasive when he argues that the most vulnerable victims of friendship's demise are boys. "The prominence of male homosexuality changes the language for teenage boys. It is absurd and cruel to say that the boy can ignore it. Even if he would, his classmates will not let him. All boys need to prove that they are not failures. They need to prove that they are on the way to becoming men--that they are not going to relapse into the need to be protected by, and therefore identified with, their mothers." So? Esolen argues that boys, deprived of normal recognitions of masculinity and safe friendships with other boys and men, often turn to aggressive sexual promiscuity with girls in order to prove that they are not homosexual. Boys who refuse to play this game are tagged as homosexuals.
Esolen is on to something of incredible importance here. He reminds us all that boys need the uncomplicated camaraderie of other boys in order to negotiate their own path to manhood....
Tuesday, January 24, 2006
Fenway Community "Health" Center Encouraging Spread of AIDS?
We wish we had time to research ethical standards on drug testing. Surely, there is something unethical about a clinic which entices troubled people to enter into or persist in dangerous, even life-threatening, sexual practices. What is this -- clinic-endorsed "bug chasing"?
Well, if you're into anal sex and you'd like to earn $230, you can try out an experimental anti-HIV product (we suspect it's a lubricant). And while you might just catch HIV/AIDS, you'll be having fun and contributing to medical research! (But remember, no guarantees that the product will work in fighting HIV.) Only those with experience as "bottoms" need apply.
Fenway Community Health's soft-porn ad Bay Windows shows a photo of a man's naked backside, his body on top of another naked body. (Remember, your children can pick this paper up at Stop & Shop supermarkets, and in vending boxes all over Massachusetts!) The text reads:
WHICH DO YOU PREFER? [text superimposed on naked bodies]
Fenway Community Health is conducting a study to help researchers who are developing a new product which may help prevent the transmission of HIV.
To find out what products YOU like best, we need YOUR input!
The products in this phase of the study DO NOT offer HIV protection, but this study is the first step toward new products that may eventually offer protection from HIV transmission.
For this study we're seeking men who:
-Are 18 years or older
-Are currently sexually active
-Are HIV-negative
-Have been a bottom in the past year
The study lasts up to 3 months, and you will be compensated $230 for your time over the course of the study. For more information call 617-927-6450.
Fenway Community Health
Well, if you're into anal sex and you'd like to earn $230, you can try out an experimental anti-HIV product (we suspect it's a lubricant). And while you might just catch HIV/AIDS, you'll be having fun and contributing to medical research! (But remember, no guarantees that the product will work in fighting HIV.) Only those with experience as "bottoms" need apply.
Fenway Community Health's soft-porn ad Bay Windows shows a photo of a man's naked backside, his body on top of another naked body. (Remember, your children can pick this paper up at Stop & Shop supermarkets, and in vending boxes all over Massachusetts!) The text reads:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
WHICH DO YOU PREFER? [text superimposed on naked bodies]
Fenway Community Health is conducting a study to help researchers who are developing a new product which may help prevent the transmission of HIV.
To find out what products YOU like best, we need YOUR input!
The products in this phase of the study DO NOT offer HIV protection, but this study is the first step toward new products that may eventually offer protection from HIV transmission.
For this study we're seeking men who:
-Are 18 years or older
-Are currently sexually active
-Are HIV-negative
-Have been a bottom in the past year
The study lasts up to 3 months, and you will be compensated $230 for your time over the course of the study. For more information call 617-927-6450.
Fenway Community Health
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Monday, January 23, 2006
Judge DelVecchio, Mass. Bar Assoc., Judge Maria Lopez: Together At Last
Judge Suzanne DelVecchio, infamous for coddling a homosexual child-raping teacher last week with a suspended sentence, was defended on national television last Friday by a spokesman for the Massachusetts Bar Association. The Hannity & Colmes hour on Fox News identified their guest, Ed Ryan, as speaking for the Mass. Bar Association Task Force.
Ryan, former president of the Massachusetts Bar, made an utter fool of himself -- and his professional association -- by his comments defending the suspended sentence. He essentially parroted Judge DelVecchio's comment that since the boy was just a few weeks shy of his 16th birthday, it must have been consensual, and therefore not so bad! And besides, Ryan said, the boy lied to investigators at first! Ryan even said he'd hold the same opinion if it were his own 15-year-old child involved!
Both the conservative Sean Hannity and liberal Alan Colmes were aghast. When Hannity asked Ryan about his association with DelVecchio, he said she was one of the most respected jurists in the Commonwealth.
In Agape Press today ("Activist Attests to a Pro-Homosexual Judiciary in His State, Cites Examples"), Brian Camenker of Article 8 Alliance/MassResistance referred to the bias of the Massachusetts Bar Association, which was certainly on display in Mr. Ryan on the Hannity & Colmes show.
Ryan also appeared recently on the O'Reilly Factor (10-13-05):
[Bill O'Reilly:] And then there are the criminal courts. Almost every day, we report another terrible crime against children. And often the judges give violent sexual predators light sentences. Some judges favoring rehab and the like. Now last night on “The Factor", Massachusetts lawyer Ed Ryan accused me of undermining the nation's judicial system because I'm holding judges responsible for their sentences.
Interesting footnote: A few years back, Ryan stuck up for the outrageous lenient sentence handed down by Judge Maria Lopez to the male "transgender" (Ebony Horton) who had abducted and assaulted a young boy. Lopez's sentence and outrageous courtroom demeanor led to her resignation, before the state legislature could act on a Bill of Address to remove her from the bench.
[from Associated Press, "Glamorous Judge Under Fire," 9-14-00):
Ryan, the bar association president, said that reasonable people can debate whether Lopez's sentence was just. But to oust her because of it would be wrong. ''I don't want to think that the outcome of cases is going to be determined by the hue and cry of public opinion,'' Ryan said. ''That's a very dangerous precedent.''
[From TheBostonChannel.com, ABC 5, Sept. 2000:]
Horton, dressed as a woman, pretended he was searching for his son and asked the boy for help. He then took the child to an abandoned warehouse and forced to the boy to simulate sex acts after holding a screwdriver to the child's neck.
Prosecutors from the Suffolk County District Attorney's office had asked Lopez to give Horton an eight- to 10-year jail sentence after he pleaded guilty to charges of assault with intent to rape a child, kidnapping, indecent assault and battery, assault and battery with a dangerous weapon and assault and battery.
Instead, Lopez sentenced Horton to five years' probation and one year of home detention with an electronic monitoring device. He will be allowed to leave home to attend college classes and church three times a week, as well as various medical and counseling appointments....
The victim's grandmother, in tears after the sentencing, said she couldn't understand why Horton wasn't given a stiffer sentence. "He should be in custody, at least eight to 10 years for doing what he did to my grandson. And I don't understand that judge, why she did what she did. Because if it wasn't for the grace of God my grandson could have been dead," she said.
[From the Associated Press story on Lopez]:
Some legal observers say Lopez, 47, is knowledgeable and fair. They say that if she were removed because of a legal, if unpopular, ruling, it would set a dangerous precedent. Others suggest that Lopez's gender has fed the criticism and that questions about her personal style are out of bounds.
''There's something about the coverage of this that has been particularly demeaning to her,'' said U.S. District Judge Nancy Gertner....
She was a most unusual judge: The attractive Lopez was unafraid to paint flashy colors on her fingernails, go in-line skating on city streets in Spandex, or pose coyly for a newspaper photographer.
A 1994 Boston Globe profile raved about her ''energy and joie de vivre.'' Her 1995 marriage to Stephen Mindich, publisher of the alternative weekly The Boston Phoenix, made newspaper feature pages, and stories about the couple often appear in the society and gossip columns.
Some of her previous rulings made headlines and prompted criticism. Among them: an order that the state pay for a transsexual's breast reconstruction, and a requirement that a man who killed his friend in a boating accident build a memorial to his victim.
Complaints of leniency were first loudly made against Lopez over a 1992 case in which she refused to keep a man in jail after his juvenile sentence for killing his 5-year-old neighbor was up.
Ed Ryan, president of the Massachusetts Bar Association, said Lopez is generally considered fair, thorough and not particularly lenient.
But after the Horton decision, Boston Herald columnist Howie Carr called Lopez ''rancid human flotsam.'' [Go for it, Howie!] Ryan said he heard a talk show host suggest that Lopez be locked up with a child molester holding a screwdriver to her throat.
Ryan, former president of the Massachusetts Bar, made an utter fool of himself -- and his professional association -- by his comments defending the suspended sentence. He essentially parroted Judge DelVecchio's comment that since the boy was just a few weeks shy of his 16th birthday, it must have been consensual, and therefore not so bad! And besides, Ryan said, the boy lied to investigators at first! Ryan even said he'd hold the same opinion if it were his own 15-year-old child involved!
Both the conservative Sean Hannity and liberal Alan Colmes were aghast. When Hannity asked Ryan about his association with DelVecchio, he said she was one of the most respected jurists in the Commonwealth.
In Agape Press today ("Activist Attests to a Pro-Homosexual Judiciary in His State, Cites Examples"), Brian Camenker of Article 8 Alliance/MassResistance referred to the bias of the Massachusetts Bar Association, which was certainly on display in Mr. Ryan on the Hannity & Colmes show.
Ryan also appeared recently on the O'Reilly Factor (10-13-05):
[Bill O'Reilly:] And then there are the criminal courts. Almost every day, we report another terrible crime against children. And often the judges give violent sexual predators light sentences. Some judges favoring rehab and the like. Now last night on “The Factor", Massachusetts lawyer Ed Ryan accused me of undermining the nation's judicial system because I'm holding judges responsible for their sentences.
Interesting footnote: A few years back, Ryan stuck up for the outrageous lenient sentence handed down by Judge Maria Lopez to the male "transgender" (Ebony Horton) who had abducted and assaulted a young boy. Lopez's sentence and outrageous courtroom demeanor led to her resignation, before the state legislature could act on a Bill of Address to remove her from the bench.
[from Associated Press, "Glamorous Judge Under Fire," 9-14-00):
Ryan, the bar association president, said that reasonable people can debate whether Lopez's sentence was just. But to oust her because of it would be wrong. ''I don't want to think that the outcome of cases is going to be determined by the hue and cry of public opinion,'' Ryan said. ''That's a very dangerous precedent.''
[From TheBostonChannel.com, ABC 5, Sept. 2000:]
Horton, dressed as a woman, pretended he was searching for his son and asked the boy for help. He then took the child to an abandoned warehouse and forced to the boy to simulate sex acts after holding a screwdriver to the child's neck.
Prosecutors from the Suffolk County District Attorney's office had asked Lopez to give Horton an eight- to 10-year jail sentence after he pleaded guilty to charges of assault with intent to rape a child, kidnapping, indecent assault and battery, assault and battery with a dangerous weapon and assault and battery.
Instead, Lopez sentenced Horton to five years' probation and one year of home detention with an electronic monitoring device. He will be allowed to leave home to attend college classes and church three times a week, as well as various medical and counseling appointments....
The victim's grandmother, in tears after the sentencing, said she couldn't understand why Horton wasn't given a stiffer sentence. "He should be in custody, at least eight to 10 years for doing what he did to my grandson. And I don't understand that judge, why she did what she did. Because if it wasn't for the grace of God my grandson could have been dead," she said.
[From the Associated Press story on Lopez]:
Some legal observers say Lopez, 47, is knowledgeable and fair. They say that if she were removed because of a legal, if unpopular, ruling, it would set a dangerous precedent. Others suggest that Lopez's gender has fed the criticism and that questions about her personal style are out of bounds.
''There's something about the coverage of this that has been particularly demeaning to her,'' said U.S. District Judge Nancy Gertner....
She was a most unusual judge: The attractive Lopez was unafraid to paint flashy colors on her fingernails, go in-line skating on city streets in Spandex, or pose coyly for a newspaper photographer.
A 1994 Boston Globe profile raved about her ''energy and joie de vivre.'' Her 1995 marriage to Stephen Mindich, publisher of the alternative weekly The Boston Phoenix, made newspaper feature pages, and stories about the couple often appear in the society and gossip columns.
Some of her previous rulings made headlines and prompted criticism. Among them: an order that the state pay for a transsexual's breast reconstruction, and a requirement that a man who killed his friend in a boating accident build a memorial to his victim.
Complaints of leniency were first loudly made against Lopez over a 1992 case in which she refused to keep a man in jail after his juvenile sentence for killing his 5-year-old neighbor was up.
Ed Ryan, president of the Massachusetts Bar Association, said Lopez is generally considered fair, thorough and not particularly lenient.
But after the Horton decision, Boston Herald columnist Howie Carr called Lopez ''rancid human flotsam.'' [Go for it, Howie!] Ryan said he heard a talk show host suggest that Lopez be locked up with a child molester holding a screwdriver to her throat.
Sunday, January 22, 2006
Judge DelVecchio - Boston Globe Connection
Judge Suzanne DelVecchio received national attention last week after she gave a suspended sentence to a male teacher who raped a 15-year old boy student. While the Boston Globe didn't even cover the story originally (it was reported in the Boston Herald), DelVecchio is now defended by their columnist Eileen McNamara in Sunday's Globe. (And what a weak defense it is.)
No mention of Judge DelVecchio's apparent double standard for rapists. She sentenced a male teacher convicted of raping two female students in 1997 to eight years. But homosexual rape? No biggie.
And still, no mention of the fact that Judge DelVecchio has violated the Massachusetts Code of Judicial Conduct in the past, as keynote speaker at the Mass. Lesbian Gay Bar Association (MLGBA) fundraiser in 2000, where she advocated for legalized homosexual unions. (Judges may not be active in partisan groups or speak at fundraisers.) When her speech was reported in Mass. Lawyers' Weekly, the Catholic Lawyers' Guild brought it to the attention of Bishop O'Malley (now Archbishop) of Fall River, who disinvited the Judge as speaker at an upcoming Catholic lawyers' event.
Who should then come to DelVecchio's rescue, with a column in the Boston Globe ripping both Bishop O'Malley and the Catholic lawyers? None other than Eileen McNamara. McNamara was then rewarded by the MLGBA who invited her to be keynote speaker at their 2001 fundraiser!
And still, no mention of the fact that according to the Code of Judicial Conduct, Judge DelVecchio should have recused herself on the homosexual marriage lawsuit which came through her Superior Court, on its way to the Mass. Supreme Judicial Court. This is because she had made it clear that she held an opinion on the issue (at the MLGBA dinner), and could not rule impartially.
Del Vecchio shares this distinction -- a double violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct -- with Chief Justice Margaret Marshall, who was keynote speaker at the MLGBA dinner in 1999.
Welcome to the world of homosexual activists and their faithful fellow travelers. Isn't it amazing what they get away with?
No mention of Judge DelVecchio's apparent double standard for rapists. She sentenced a male teacher convicted of raping two female students in 1997 to eight years. But homosexual rape? No biggie.
And still, no mention of the fact that Judge DelVecchio has violated the Massachusetts Code of Judicial Conduct in the past, as keynote speaker at the Mass. Lesbian Gay Bar Association (MLGBA) fundraiser in 2000, where she advocated for legalized homosexual unions. (Judges may not be active in partisan groups or speak at fundraisers.) When her speech was reported in Mass. Lawyers' Weekly, the Catholic Lawyers' Guild brought it to the attention of Bishop O'Malley (now Archbishop) of Fall River, who disinvited the Judge as speaker at an upcoming Catholic lawyers' event.
Who should then come to DelVecchio's rescue, with a column in the Boston Globe ripping both Bishop O'Malley and the Catholic lawyers? None other than Eileen McNamara. McNamara was then rewarded by the MLGBA who invited her to be keynote speaker at their 2001 fundraiser!
And still, no mention of the fact that according to the Code of Judicial Conduct, Judge DelVecchio should have recused herself on the homosexual marriage lawsuit which came through her Superior Court, on its way to the Mass. Supreme Judicial Court. This is because she had made it clear that she held an opinion on the issue (at the MLGBA dinner), and could not rule impartially.
Del Vecchio shares this distinction -- a double violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct -- with Chief Justice Margaret Marshall, who was keynote speaker at the MLGBA dinner in 1999.
Welcome to the world of homosexual activists and their faithful fellow travelers. Isn't it amazing what they get away with?
Saturday, January 21, 2006
Mass. Lesbian Activist Planning Assault on White House Easter Celebration
The Weekly Standard reported that homosexual extremists are planning to politicize the family Easter Egg Roll on the White House lawn this April. The Associated Press picked up the story a few days later. What the articles don't tell you is that one of the activists behind this propaganda ploy, Jennifer Chrisler of the Family Pride Coalition, is from Massachusetts and is "married" to Massachusetts' own Cheryl Jacques, formerly state senator then failed national director of the so-called "Human Rights Campaign." (See their family photo in InNewsWeekly's feature article.)
Chrisler, clearly a religious and political extremist who believes in using her twin boys as political props, says that "religious and political extremists who oppose equality" are trying to spoil her family outing.
From the Weekly Standard, "A Gay Easter? Gay-rights groups make covert plans to crash the annual White House Easter egg roll" (1-17-06):
"FOR OVER A HUNDRED YEARS children have gathered on the South Lawn of the White House on the Monday after Easter to roll Easter eggs across the yard and meet the Easter Bunny. Seemingly few (if any) Washingtonians have ever tried to exploit the annual White House Easter Egg Roll for political purposes. Until now. A church-based homosexual rights group is planning to crash the event with a 'family visibility action' to spotlight their non-traditional families.
" 'On April 17, 2006, when the White House lawn is opened to families for the Annual Easter Egg Roll, imagine if the first 1,000 families onto the lawn were LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender] families,' enthused a January 4 email alert from Soulforce. Once America sees the White House lawn awash in LGBT families, 'there will be no going back,' Soulforce promised.
"Soulforce is the political organizing tool of self-described 'militant gay activist' Mel White, the former Jerry Falwell speech writer who discovered his gayness and became a clergyman in the predominantly homosexual Metropolitan Community Churches."
Family Pride will be dressing their participants in special T-shirts with a "nonpolitical message". Of course, a group that chooses to identify by their unnatural sexual practices -- and demands that everyone else publicly accede their normality -- is making a political statement by their very presence.
[Weekly Standard continues:]
"Recipients of the Soulforce email were asked to be 'discreet' and not to post the information on websites because the 'success of this action depends on keeping it under the radar of the media and the administration!!!'
"OVER THE YEARS Soulforce has become well known for its disruptive demonstrations and acts of civil disobedience at the conventions of religious denominations that do not share its views on sexual ethics. Invariably these churches, even the liberal mainline ones, are portrayed by Soulforce as 'anti-gay.'
Chrisler, clearly a religious and political extremist who believes in using her twin boys as political props, says that "religious and political extremists who oppose equality" are trying to spoil her family outing.
From the Weekly Standard, "A Gay Easter? Gay-rights groups make covert plans to crash the annual White House Easter egg roll" (1-17-06):
"FOR OVER A HUNDRED YEARS children have gathered on the South Lawn of the White House on the Monday after Easter to roll Easter eggs across the yard and meet the Easter Bunny. Seemingly few (if any) Washingtonians have ever tried to exploit the annual White House Easter Egg Roll for political purposes. Until now. A church-based homosexual rights group is planning to crash the event with a 'family visibility action' to spotlight their non-traditional families.
" 'On April 17, 2006, when the White House lawn is opened to families for the Annual Easter Egg Roll, imagine if the first 1,000 families onto the lawn were LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender] families,' enthused a January 4 email alert from Soulforce. Once America sees the White House lawn awash in LGBT families, 'there will be no going back,' Soulforce promised.
"Soulforce is the political organizing tool of self-described 'militant gay activist' Mel White, the former Jerry Falwell speech writer who discovered his gayness and became a clergyman in the predominantly homosexual Metropolitan Community Churches."
Family Pride will be dressing their participants in special T-shirts with a "nonpolitical message". Of course, a group that chooses to identify by their unnatural sexual practices -- and demands that everyone else publicly accede their normality -- is making a political statement by their very presence.
[Weekly Standard continues:]
"Recipients of the Soulforce email were asked to be 'discreet' and not to post the information on websites because the 'success of this action depends on keeping it under the radar of the media and the administration!!!'
"OVER THE YEARS Soulforce has become well known for its disruptive demonstrations and acts of civil disobedience at the conventions of religious denominations that do not share its views on sexual ethics. Invariably these churches, even the liberal mainline ones, are portrayed by Soulforce as 'anti-gay.'
"Soulforce's main partner in crashing the White House Easter Egg roll is the Family Pride Coalition (FPC), which is the 'only national non-profit organization solely dedicated to equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) parents and their families.' "
Haskins Six-Part Series: "Gay Marriage" Still Not Legal in Mass.
Here is our complete six-part series by John Haskins on the illegality and unconstitutionality of "gay marriage" in Massachusetts:
Part I - Gays Can't Answer: Where Is Statute Legalizing "Gay Marriage"?
Part II - The Law, the Constitution, and "Gay Marriage"
Part III - Gov. Romney Violates Constitution on "Gay Marriage"
Part IV - The Elephant In the Room: "Gay Marriage" Still Not Legal
Part V - We've Surrendered the Language
Part VI - Conclusion: Wake Up, Conservatives!
Bonus - Exchange with a Critic: They're Still Stumped
Part I - Gays Can't Answer: Where Is Statute Legalizing "Gay Marriage"?
Part II - The Law, the Constitution, and "Gay Marriage"
Part III - Gov. Romney Violates Constitution on "Gay Marriage"
Part IV - The Elephant In the Room: "Gay Marriage" Still Not Legal
Part V - We've Surrendered the Language
Part VI - Conclusion: Wake Up, Conservatives!
Bonus - Exchange with a Critic: They're Still Stumped
Friday, January 20, 2006
The Other Side Still Stumped: Haskins Answers Objections
We received a polite objection from Steve to the series by John Haskins on the illegality and unconstitutionality of "gay marriage". [For Haskins' complete series, see Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV, Part V, Part VI.] Here is Steve's objection, followed by Haskins' response below.
[Steve:] Let me preface this by saying I am no lawyer, I'm a biologist, so legally my opinion is second hand and observational only, as I suspect is your own.
I understand by the latest post on your MassResistanceBlog that you think just because the General Court of the Massachusetts legislature and the Governor never enacted specific statutes to enact same sex marriage, that these marriages have no legal status. I disagree. The SJC decided it was unconstitutional and therefore illegal for the Commonwealth to deny same sex marriages.
This invalidated all mention of the sex of any two marriage participants in the existing statutes of the state. In May last year, the Commonwealth has changed its marriage certificates for ALL marriages. So whether a man and a woman marry, or two men marry, or two women marry, they all get the same form to recognize their Civil Marriage. It would be nice if the Commonwealth rewrote its marriage statues to clearly legalize same sex marriage, but it is not strictly necessary.
My comment on your legal and moral philosophy: If the Judicial Courts had only acted as you say they should have, never having struck down unconstitutional laws, our state and our nation would be a far more unfair place than it is now. We would have states where interracial marriage is illegal, where segregation existed in schools and businesses, where people owned slaves. No doubt people would defend these evils as being allowed by law, and supported by Christian religion in the Bible. Even though the Supreme court has struck down racist laws, there are still Christian Identity adherents that cite Biblical passages to support their bigotries.
I think that since homosexuality is not unique to humans, and can be the basis for loving relationships between people (and even rearing children successfully), it would be unfair to deny the legal and contractual benefits of Civil Marriage to same sex couples (and their children, if any). So I applaud the courts for Lawrence v. Texas and Goodridge v. Massachusetts. These decisions stand up for my inalienable and self-evident rights to love the man I love, and perhaps to someday to marry him.
[Steve:] Let me preface this by saying I am no lawyer, I'm a biologist, so legally my opinion is second hand and observational only, as I suspect is your own.
I understand by the latest post on your MassResistanceBlog that you think just because the General Court of the Massachusetts legislature and the Governor never enacted specific statutes to enact same sex marriage, that these marriages have no legal status. I disagree. The SJC decided it was unconstitutional and therefore illegal for the Commonwealth to deny same sex marriages.
This invalidated all mention of the sex of any two marriage participants in the existing statutes of the state. In May last year, the Commonwealth has changed its marriage certificates for ALL marriages. So whether a man and a woman marry, or two men marry, or two women marry, they all get the same form to recognize their Civil Marriage. It would be nice if the Commonwealth rewrote its marriage statues to clearly legalize same sex marriage, but it is not strictly necessary.
My comment on your legal and moral philosophy: If the Judicial Courts had only acted as you say they should have, never having struck down unconstitutional laws, our state and our nation would be a far more unfair place than it is now. We would have states where interracial marriage is illegal, where segregation existed in schools and businesses, where people owned slaves. No doubt people would defend these evils as being allowed by law, and supported by Christian religion in the Bible. Even though the Supreme court has struck down racist laws, there are still Christian Identity adherents that cite Biblical passages to support their bigotries.
I think that since homosexuality is not unique to humans, and can be the basis for loving relationships between people (and even rearing children successfully), it would be unfair to deny the legal and contractual benefits of Civil Marriage to same sex couples (and their children, if any). So I applaud the courts for Lawrence v. Texas and Goodridge v. Massachusetts. These decisions stand up for my inalienable and self-evident rights to love the man I love, and perhaps to someday to marry him.
Our society should strive for fairness, don't you think? I know you disagree with me about what is fair, but your opinions on same sex marriage are no longer the majority in our state. Your approach seems to lack true compassion.
[Haskins:] Unfortunately for the court, the state Constitution denies judges any voice at all in marriage policy. Their rulings are illegal.
It also denies them the right to nullify laws that they claim are unconstitutional.
It also says that all laws remain in effect until the legislature revokes them.
It also says the people are bound only by laws passed by the legislature -- that is why we are not bound by legal opinions of a court.
As the court admitted, heterosexual marriage was clearly the intent of the legislature. The intent behind a law is binding -- on the governor and the towns and the clerks and the courts.
The new marriage certificates that you mention are in violation of the law, and thus void when presented to two persons of the same gender. The Governor violated the Constitution and his oath of office by obeying illegal orders from judges who are forbidden by the Constitution from ordering him to act in any way.
He also is forbidden to ignore laws passed by the legislature. You may prefer a dictatorship when you get what you want from the dictator, but don't call it "constitutional democracy."
As for your other points, Steve, I've had close friends who were homosexuals, bisexuals, or had been, or were heading in that direction. I have never judged them worse than I as a human being. By and large they have admitted the element of choice in their sexuality and have admitted unhappiness following from choosing homosexuality. So my opposition to homosexuality is in large part based on the compassion that you claim I do not have. I do not want you or anyone else to destroy yourself while pursuing pleasure.
Further, courts did not end slavery, they enforced it. As for slavery endorsed on the Old Testament, it was in no way similar to what was practiced in other contexts. Slaves of the Israelites were prisoners of war who had mostly sacrificed their own children to idols, raped boys, and in numerous ways were deserving of capital punishment. So in being spared -- both as prisoners of war and as practitioners of infanticide, human sacrifice, torture, child rape and murder, and given a chance to live a new life after crimes against humanity -- they were getting a good deal. Moreover, their Israelite masters were forbidden, on penalty of death, to buy and sell slaves.
I regard it as one of the most selfish things an adult can do to subject children to what you would call a "gay family." You are a liar if you claim to have researched what we know objectively about children and their need for both a father and a mother in one home, if you also pretend that homosexuals can offer that. Children are hard-wired to need one father and one mother. Stop passing off love of yourself as love for children. This only highlights the incredible selfishness into which homosexual behavior spirals downward.
I go from that hard criticism to a constructive, and I hope, encouraging suggestion: You can escape from homosexuality and you will be happier over the long run if you choose to do so. Don't fall for the lies about your lack of choice. I've known people who have chosen to do so. Look around you. Look at the homosexuals who are over 40. Over 50. Over 60. Think about what you see. And also think about how few of them there are.
Steve, if my opinion is not the majority, then why fear a vote? My opinion is the majority by a wide margin. In fact, many homosexuals know that what I am saying is true -- that homosexual marriage remains illegal. Most homosexuals have no desire to marry. Many homosexual activists openly seek the destruction of marriage and write about this goal as a way of liberating society. Homosexual relationships almost never last long enough to make "marriage" an honest option. University researchers can't even find enough lasting homosexual relationships to study. The tiny number that last five years are virtually all "open relationships." Wow. That's just what children need -- two fathers who are not even going to stick together for five years.
Thursday, January 19, 2006
John Haskins, Series Conclusion: Unconstitutionality of "Gay Marriage" Ruling
The 6th and concluding article from John Haskins on the illegality and unconstitutionality of homosexual "marriage" in Massachusetts. [See Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV, and Part V.]
Bluffing tyrants in black robes now sell new "rights" to the highest bidder, guaranteed on "licenses" printed on the back sides of shredded constitutions. This is happening so fast, it is tempting not to peer down the table to see where the billiard balls are going to ricochet next.
Laboratories might well bypass nature and produce engineered human infants to cater to homosexual couples - an easy majority of whom will divorce during the tender childhood years of their custom-designed, factory babies. But judges will always be available to strike down the rights of infants and children, while taking the accumulation of "rights" of the adult "preferential victim" homosexuals to new, undreamed-of heights.
We should fear such consequences after Gov. Mitt Romney suspended several parts of the state constitution to appease homosexual activists -- some of whom call "homosexual marriage" a step toward the eradication of marriage itself -- which they see as an "archaic, oppressive institution."
But smart, well-read conservatives (forget those on the other side or in the squishy middle) will mostly drift along, protesting mildly any inhuman "advance" that the so-called "progressives" demand.
Whatever the consequences of homosexual marriage -- whether a legalized kind in the future or the current illegal ones -- would be for children and the rest of us, we have already surrendered the necessary weapons to fight such battles in the future. We cannot continue indefinitely without an enforcable constitution, and the will to punish severely those who swear to defend it but then openly violate its very core.
Our "constitutionalist" conservative leaders and scribes have overwhelmingly abandoned their weapons in the field and withdrawn to the clubhouse where they can dispute the details of surrender to the enemy.
Surely, if this were not true, pro-marriage, pro-family forces -- for that matter, all decent Americans -- would have heard constant calls in recent years to unite behind the goal of imprisoning those who slice babies apart or vacuum their brains out days or weeks before they would otherwise come wiggling and wide-eyed into the world, crying for their mother's breast.
Sadly, we've been Orwellianized on the pro-family, pro-children, pro-marriage side, so that we now treat such imhumanity as an abstract, legal matter to be addressed with an annual article, a speech and scattered protest.
Looking at our record of accepting the illegal as legal, the outrageous as questionable, the inhumane as debatable, who will believe that we have any moral gravitas left for resisting the mere manufacture of babies to entertain illegally "married" homosexual couples whose unions will dissolve on average after -- what -- five years?
I recently published a commentary in the American Spectator, "No More Striking Down Constitutions: Why can't even conservatives call things by their name?". My hope is to shake "conservatives" out of their sleep.
Bluffing tyrants in black robes now sell new "rights" to the highest bidder, guaranteed on "licenses" printed on the back sides of shredded constitutions. This is happening so fast, it is tempting not to peer down the table to see where the billiard balls are going to ricochet next.
Laboratories might well bypass nature and produce engineered human infants to cater to homosexual couples - an easy majority of whom will divorce during the tender childhood years of their custom-designed, factory babies. But judges will always be available to strike down the rights of infants and children, while taking the accumulation of "rights" of the adult "preferential victim" homosexuals to new, undreamed-of heights.
We should fear such consequences after Gov. Mitt Romney suspended several parts of the state constitution to appease homosexual activists -- some of whom call "homosexual marriage" a step toward the eradication of marriage itself -- which they see as an "archaic, oppressive institution."
But smart, well-read conservatives (forget those on the other side or in the squishy middle) will mostly drift along, protesting mildly any inhuman "advance" that the so-called "progressives" demand.
Whatever the consequences of homosexual marriage -- whether a legalized kind in the future or the current illegal ones -- would be for children and the rest of us, we have already surrendered the necessary weapons to fight such battles in the future. We cannot continue indefinitely without an enforcable constitution, and the will to punish severely those who swear to defend it but then openly violate its very core.
Our "constitutionalist" conservative leaders and scribes have overwhelmingly abandoned their weapons in the field and withdrawn to the clubhouse where they can dispute the details of surrender to the enemy.
Surely, if this were not true, pro-marriage, pro-family forces -- for that matter, all decent Americans -- would have heard constant calls in recent years to unite behind the goal of imprisoning those who slice babies apart or vacuum their brains out days or weeks before they would otherwise come wiggling and wide-eyed into the world, crying for their mother's breast.
Sadly, we've been Orwellianized on the pro-family, pro-children, pro-marriage side, so that we now treat such imhumanity as an abstract, legal matter to be addressed with an annual article, a speech and scattered protest.
Looking at our record of accepting the illegal as legal, the outrageous as questionable, the inhumane as debatable, who will believe that we have any moral gravitas left for resisting the mere manufacture of babies to entertain illegally "married" homosexual couples whose unions will dissolve on average after -- what -- five years?
I recently published a commentary in the American Spectator, "No More Striking Down Constitutions: Why can't even conservatives call things by their name?". My hope is to shake "conservatives" out of their sleep.
Wednesday, January 18, 2006
Invalid "Marriages" -- A Sad Farce
Leather "Wedding" in Massachusetts
Photo credit: Bay Windows
Invalid "Marriages" -- A Sad Farce
We're sorry we have to break this, but it seems the rest of the media is unwilling to speak the truth: All the homosexual "marriages" in Massachusetts are invalid. The portraits in the Bay Windows marriage announcements section (example above) will bring home the reality of this sad farce, hurtful to all of society, including these couples.
Are we compassionate conservatives? Absolutely. Compassion includes speaking the truth: homosexual couples cannot really marry in Massachusetts. They can fill out a form joining "Party A" and "Party B" and have a party, and no one is stopping them from living together. But they cannot marry. The Legislature has not passed and the Governor has not signed any law to this effect.
Excerpts from the announcement for the couple pictured above:
They laughed, they cried, they shared an experience that moved them in ways they never anticipated. [They] were married Sept. 17, 2005 on Martha's Vineyard... Nontraditional indeed. From the couple's wedding attire - each wore black leather pants and dress shirts hand-beaded by a friend - to the Xanadu (their favorite film)-inspired wedding cake, this was not your parents' wedding. Except perhaps for the flower girls, 11-year-old A ... and the couple's nieces, who wore traditional floor length dresses....
Their first date began with drinks at the South End gay watering hole Fritz and while they had an instant rapport, X confesses there wasn't much physical spark. Z had taken the unfortunate step of shaving before the date, X says, "and I have a facial-hair pre-req!" Nonetheless they continued to Giacomo's at dinner and finished things off with dessert at The Four Seasons. That's when they noticed snow falling over the Boston Public Garden, making a romantic backdrop for a first kiss. Z made the move, and all thoughts of facial hair flew from X's head. "He's like, the best kisser in the world."
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
John Haskins, Part V: We've Surrendered the Language
[See earlier entries in John Haskins' series: Part I, Part II, Part III, and Part IV.]
Now that we've separated government from law (understanding that court rulings cannot outweigh real laws), and we've separated law from constitutions, and constitutions from language, and language from logic, we would be wasting our time unless we backtrack and re-fight the battles we've surrendered that made it possible for judges to rule us.
At this juncture nuanced arguments about whether a right to homosexual "marriage" should exist are beside the point of the coup d'etat that is under way on Beacon Hill. We have to impeach judges and other officials when they deserve that fate, or nothing that we argue or that is in our constitution will have any weight.
Conservatives have already accepted so much of the twisted political language and false legal and constitutional doctrine of the anti-constitutional left that every new concession of yet another aspect of constitutionally-constrained government is a step closer to final surrender on whatever remains of the moral and social order, and of the right to rule ourselves.
Language and terminology are absolutely vital, since words convey ideas. We constantly use the misnomers and subversive phrases of our opponents, so we convey their ideas -- not ours -- even when we think we are resisting them.
This is one of the biggest reasons we are losing the Culture War, the war to preserve some kind of humane and sensible ideal of the family and society that children are entitled to grow up in. The other sides lies pathologically -- never one lie at a time, but in laminated multi-tiered condominium lies. Big lies and little lies together. And "conservatives" accept the big, earth-shaking lies that will haunt us in every battle we will ever face to preserve our children's right to govern themselves in a society worth preserving. But "conservatives" debate the little lies that are related to the details of conditions after surrender. We have surrendered our Constitution. Everything from here on out is up for grabs -- with no firm boundaries.
A blogger responded in agreement with these points elsewhere:
"The purpose of this doublespeak campaign is the corruption of the language to the extent that concepts become so vague and mushy that the voice struggles to find the words to give expression to essential concepts such as equality, liberty, rights, rule of law, and good governance. Perfectly useful words are gutted and their meaning replaced. This is emblematic of the same sex marriage campaign. It is not so much a slippery slope as a series of dominos."
And if we do not identify the the thing within ourselves that answers with gentle words of moderation the steady supply of costly losses to the American family and the American child, the appropriate metaphor will be: "a line of dominos on a slippery slope."
Read Original Intent by David Barton to get a sense of how far the mentality and language of gradual surrender, which pervades conservative journalism, public policy, law and constitutional matters, has taken us outside the boundaries of the Constitution.
Now that we've separated government from law (understanding that court rulings cannot outweigh real laws), and we've separated law from constitutions, and constitutions from language, and language from logic, we would be wasting our time unless we backtrack and re-fight the battles we've surrendered that made it possible for judges to rule us.
At this juncture nuanced arguments about whether a right to homosexual "marriage" should exist are beside the point of the coup d'etat that is under way on Beacon Hill. We have to impeach judges and other officials when they deserve that fate, or nothing that we argue or that is in our constitution will have any weight.
Conservatives have already accepted so much of the twisted political language and false legal and constitutional doctrine of the anti-constitutional left that every new concession of yet another aspect of constitutionally-constrained government is a step closer to final surrender on whatever remains of the moral and social order, and of the right to rule ourselves.
Language and terminology are absolutely vital, since words convey ideas. We constantly use the misnomers and subversive phrases of our opponents, so we convey their ideas -- not ours -- even when we think we are resisting them.
This is one of the biggest reasons we are losing the Culture War, the war to preserve some kind of humane and sensible ideal of the family and society that children are entitled to grow up in. The other sides lies pathologically -- never one lie at a time, but in laminated multi-tiered condominium lies. Big lies and little lies together. And "conservatives" accept the big, earth-shaking lies that will haunt us in every battle we will ever face to preserve our children's right to govern themselves in a society worth preserving. But "conservatives" debate the little lies that are related to the details of conditions after surrender. We have surrendered our Constitution. Everything from here on out is up for grabs -- with no firm boundaries.
A blogger responded in agreement with these points elsewhere:
"The purpose of this doublespeak campaign is the corruption of the language to the extent that concepts become so vague and mushy that the voice struggles to find the words to give expression to essential concepts such as equality, liberty, rights, rule of law, and good governance. Perfectly useful words are gutted and their meaning replaced. This is emblematic of the same sex marriage campaign. It is not so much a slippery slope as a series of dominos."
And if we do not identify the the thing within ourselves that answers with gentle words of moderation the steady supply of costly losses to the American family and the American child, the appropriate metaphor will be: "a line of dominos on a slippery slope."
Read Original Intent by David Barton to get a sense of how far the mentality and language of gradual surrender, which pervades conservative journalism, public policy, law and constitutional matters, has taken us outside the boundaries of the Constitution.
Monday, January 16, 2006
M.L. King: Say "No" to Unjust Laws
MassResistance advocates removal of the judges who ruled that homosexual "marriage" is protected by our state constitution, that it should be the "law" of the land. For the sake of argument, let's say it is now "law" in Massachusetts (which of course it isn't). Then the question arises, should we acknowledge and obey this "law"? Is it a just law?
The Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote in his "Letter from the Birmingham Jail" (1963):
"One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that 'an unjust law is no law at all.'
"Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust."
And to recognize "marriages" based on sodomy and other unnatural sexual acts is degrading to all of us in the end. Homosexual "marriage" is clearly contrary to God's law and natural law.
King also called on the religious leaders of Birmingham to act as moral leaders in the political community. He was deeply disappointed with their lack of courage. While some came forward, "too many others have been more cautious than courageous and have remained silent behind the anesthetizing security of stained-glass windows."
The Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote in his "Letter from the Birmingham Jail" (1963):
"One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that 'an unjust law is no law at all.'
"Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust."
And to recognize "marriages" based on sodomy and other unnatural sexual acts is degrading to all of us in the end. Homosexual "marriage" is clearly contrary to God's law and natural law.
King also called on the religious leaders of Birmingham to act as moral leaders in the political community. He was deeply disappointed with their lack of courage. While some came forward, "too many others have been more cautious than courageous and have remained silent behind the anesthetizing security of stained-glass windows."
Sunday, January 15, 2006
Feedback from a Troubled Young Man
We've received a response from the gay analyst we quoted recently, who tried to answer our question, "Where is the statute legalizing homosexual 'marriage'?" (See "Level of Discourse, Part V"). Besides childish name calling, all he could come up with was "judicial review."
Now this same fellow challenges us to "open our hearts," and is certain we'd never publish his follow-up letter (which we do below). What we'd like him to know is that we are aware of, and concerned for, the pain he felt as a child and his continuing distress. But we also believe that he's being drawn into a world which will only lead him deeper into sadness, loneliness, and health problems (both mental and physical). We wish him the best, and hope he might contact a group such as Exodus International or Stephen Bennett Ministries -- people who've been there, done that, and know how to help.
Before his letter, we think it would be enlightening to share this bit about Mike Haley, ex-gay speaker and one of the leaders of Focus on the Family's "Love Won Out" ministry. He was explaining to a reporter from the Harvard Independent what the "Love Won Out" conference (in Boston last October) hoped to convey. [Reported by Jon Liu:]
... I'm ferried to a tiny library towards the back of the church. I'm here to speak to Mike Haley, the director of gender issues for Focus on the Family's Public Policy division.... "Our goal with this conference," Haley tells me, "is to teach the Christian community to balance truth and love when responding to the issue of homosexuality. Oftentimes the church has not done a good job understanding the issue... We find either one of two extremes. One extreme completely condones homosexuality; [the other] takes God's word and thwarts it to the other extreme which says, 'God hates fags....' We're helping [people with a gay loved one] to understand how they can uphold a standard and a belief without doing so in a hateful manner."
Whether the protestors outside like it or not, of course, Haley's sentiments roughly represent those of mainstream America.... "You're gonna have to start dealing with the fact that your child may never walk away from homosexuality," he says. "You have to stop beating them over the head with the Bible. You have to stop treating them like they have no place in your life. You need to continue to love your child and be open to whatever conversation that needs to be had."
I ask Haley how he responds to the critics who argue that treating homosexuality as curable puts young people at risk for depression, self-hatred, and suicide. He turns inward. "All I can say is I look at the situation when I was a sixteen-, fifteen-, fourteen-year-old boy dealing with same-sex attractions, and I was told that I was born gay. Let me tell you the depression and the suicidal feelings that that brought in my life. So what we're promoting today is that we tell truth to students.... There is no study that proves that homosexuality is genetic, but yet we see that over and over..."
Haley gives a list of mistruths he says are spread by schools and the mainstream media about sexual orientation. He wants public school students to have the "accurate information" - namely that homosexuality is a condition, not an essence. "If they decide that homosexuality is for them, then they have a right in America to embrace that. But I also want a right as a person who doesn't want homosexuality in my life...to walk away from homosexuality."
It's a conciliatory stance, and a telling one. The frame becomes that of self-determination - the idea that one can simply "walk away" - and it echoes quite noticeably the position held by the leftists at the war protest: We must break through the mental constraints, to transcend what we are told and make an approach towards truth. Haley, who lived for fifteen years as a gay man and still attends pro-gay conferences, tells me, "I wish the gay activists that are outside would come in and listen to what we're saying." But would he let them in now, off the street and unregistered? "Absolutely not. Because they're not willing to dialogue. What are they afraid of?" [emphasis added]
With Haley's comments in mind, read the comments from the young "gay" man:
I am very pleased to see my words on the blog! The [sic] thing is pretty funny, as I did not know you were looking for perfect english in email comments! HAHA! This is how I really feel, as do many gay people. Maybe it would give your readers some insight into our minds.....
I am 24 years old. I came out when I was 14. I told my parents, family, friend, and school that I am gay 10 years ago. I remember realizing I am gay when I was about 12. For two years I prayed to god to change me. To make me "normal". I, like many many other young gay teens, tried to take my own life rather than admit my sexuality. Fortunately my attempt was not successful.
In time I realized that I was born gay, all homosexuals are. I am gay the same was that Martin Luther King is black. We cannot change who we are. God made me gay because he loves me and he wants me to be gay. That is OK, it is not a bad thing. Homosexuality is natural and normal. Science is proving that more and more everyday. You and your friends are living in the dark ages. Just as people used to attack black people, you know attack me and other gays and lesbians.
I told you of my attempted suicide. Why did I attempt? I did that because when I was 13 I thought that it would be better to be dead than gay. Why did I feel that way? I tried to kill myself because of people like you. People like you that spread the lies of homophobia. Many children commit suicide because of your actions.
I pray for you to stop harming children that are growing up in this homophobic society. Real people of god would do everything they could to stop this epidemic. And lucky there are many many people who are fighting the terrible problem of homophobia. Unfortunately you are on the wrong side.
Your actions are dangerous. Your actions are harming the lives of many families and many many young people.
I will fight you and your colleagues everyday in every way to protect the lives of young people realizing they were born gay. I will fight you everyday in my efforts to tell the truth about homosexuality. And because God is on the side of Love, I know I will win. Every minority gets their civil rights eventually. Just look at the last 40 years. Gays have made HUGE strides in gaining their civil rights. We are well on our way. Maybe it is time for you to stop fighting to take away a minority's civil rights.
I pray for you and your colleagues to see the light. It is possible if you open you eyes, open your ears, but most importantly open your heart. I will be surpised if you post this. I imagine that you would only post things I write that you can use in some way.
[emphasis added]
Now this same fellow challenges us to "open our hearts," and is certain we'd never publish his follow-up letter (which we do below). What we'd like him to know is that we are aware of, and concerned for, the pain he felt as a child and his continuing distress. But we also believe that he's being drawn into a world which will only lead him deeper into sadness, loneliness, and health problems (both mental and physical). We wish him the best, and hope he might contact a group such as Exodus International or Stephen Bennett Ministries -- people who've been there, done that, and know how to help.
Before his letter, we think it would be enlightening to share this bit about Mike Haley, ex-gay speaker and one of the leaders of Focus on the Family's "Love Won Out" ministry. He was explaining to a reporter from the Harvard Independent what the "Love Won Out" conference (in Boston last October) hoped to convey. [Reported by Jon Liu:]
... I'm ferried to a tiny library towards the back of the church. I'm here to speak to Mike Haley, the director of gender issues for Focus on the Family's Public Policy division.... "Our goal with this conference," Haley tells me, "is to teach the Christian community to balance truth and love when responding to the issue of homosexuality. Oftentimes the church has not done a good job understanding the issue... We find either one of two extremes. One extreme completely condones homosexuality; [the other] takes God's word and thwarts it to the other extreme which says, 'God hates fags....' We're helping [people with a gay loved one] to understand how they can uphold a standard and a belief without doing so in a hateful manner."
Whether the protestors outside like it or not, of course, Haley's sentiments roughly represent those of mainstream America.... "You're gonna have to start dealing with the fact that your child may never walk away from homosexuality," he says. "You have to stop beating them over the head with the Bible. You have to stop treating them like they have no place in your life. You need to continue to love your child and be open to whatever conversation that needs to be had."
I ask Haley how he responds to the critics who argue that treating homosexuality as curable puts young people at risk for depression, self-hatred, and suicide. He turns inward. "All I can say is I look at the situation when I was a sixteen-, fifteen-, fourteen-year-old boy dealing with same-sex attractions, and I was told that I was born gay. Let me tell you the depression and the suicidal feelings that that brought in my life. So what we're promoting today is that we tell truth to students.... There is no study that proves that homosexuality is genetic, but yet we see that over and over..."
Haley gives a list of mistruths he says are spread by schools and the mainstream media about sexual orientation. He wants public school students to have the "accurate information" - namely that homosexuality is a condition, not an essence. "If they decide that homosexuality is for them, then they have a right in America to embrace that. But I also want a right as a person who doesn't want homosexuality in my life...to walk away from homosexuality."
It's a conciliatory stance, and a telling one. The frame becomes that of self-determination - the idea that one can simply "walk away" - and it echoes quite noticeably the position held by the leftists at the war protest: We must break through the mental constraints, to transcend what we are told and make an approach towards truth. Haley, who lived for fifteen years as a gay man and still attends pro-gay conferences, tells me, "I wish the gay activists that are outside would come in and listen to what we're saying." But would he let them in now, off the street and unregistered? "Absolutely not. Because they're not willing to dialogue. What are they afraid of?" [emphasis added]
With Haley's comments in mind, read the comments from the young "gay" man:
I am very pleased to see my words on the blog! The [sic] thing is pretty funny, as I did not know you were looking for perfect english in email comments! HAHA! This is how I really feel, as do many gay people. Maybe it would give your readers some insight into our minds.....
I am 24 years old. I came out when I was 14. I told my parents, family, friend, and school that I am gay 10 years ago. I remember realizing I am gay when I was about 12. For two years I prayed to god to change me. To make me "normal". I, like many many other young gay teens, tried to take my own life rather than admit my sexuality. Fortunately my attempt was not successful.
In time I realized that I was born gay, all homosexuals are. I am gay the same was that Martin Luther King is black. We cannot change who we are. God made me gay because he loves me and he wants me to be gay. That is OK, it is not a bad thing. Homosexuality is natural and normal. Science is proving that more and more everyday. You and your friends are living in the dark ages. Just as people used to attack black people, you know attack me and other gays and lesbians.
I told you of my attempted suicide. Why did I attempt? I did that because when I was 13 I thought that it would be better to be dead than gay. Why did I feel that way? I tried to kill myself because of people like you. People like you that spread the lies of homophobia. Many children commit suicide because of your actions.
I pray for you to stop harming children that are growing up in this homophobic society. Real people of god would do everything they could to stop this epidemic. And lucky there are many many people who are fighting the terrible problem of homophobia. Unfortunately you are on the wrong side.
Your actions are dangerous. Your actions are harming the lives of many families and many many young people.
I will fight you and your colleagues everyday in every way to protect the lives of young people realizing they were born gay. I will fight you everyday in my efforts to tell the truth about homosexuality. And because God is on the side of Love, I know I will win. Every minority gets their civil rights eventually. Just look at the last 40 years. Gays have made HUGE strides in gaining their civil rights. We are well on our way. Maybe it is time for you to stop fighting to take away a minority's civil rights.
I pray for you and your colleagues to see the light. It is possible if you open you eyes, open your ears, but most importantly open your heart. I will be surpised if you post this. I imagine that you would only post things I write that you can use in some way.
[emphasis added]
Saturday, January 14, 2006
Haskins Part IV - Elephant in the Room: "Gay Marriage" Still Not Legal
Here is Part IV of our series by John Haskins on why "gay marriage" is still not legal in Massachusetts. [See Part I, Part II, Part III.]
The elephant in the living room that the Boston Globe's homosexual editors won't allow to be reported honestly is that the gender-specific language in Massachusetts law does itself already preclude same-sex "marriage."
Let's set up a remote analogy to get some perspective. If a treaty is ratified between the United States and France, no separate law is needed to stop Germany claiming in an American court that it is party to that treaty. The parties were already enumerated: the United States and France (or in the case of marriage, a man and a woman.) The Supreme Court cannot legally re-interpret that treaty to include Germany. Courts have no jurisdiction over treaties as long as they do not compromise U.S sovereignty, etc. Legislators could ratify a new treaty with Germany, or perhaps modify the old treaty to include Germany. But Courts cannot tamper with treaties. Germany is not mentioned in the treaty, and courts have no jurisdiction in foreign policy. Clear.
Similarly, Massachusetts courts have no jurisdiction in marriage policy. Zero. Period. Under the state constitution they can "rule" any way they want, but it is meaningless noise -- no more binding than if an eight-year-old announces that he is emperor of the United States. That is what the three dissenting justices in the Goodridge case essentially pointed out. So the court's ruling is out of the picture -- totally unenforceable.
We are left only with an ambitious governor who wants to please the Boston Globe. Let's not forget Governor Romney's record includes: banishing the Boy Scouts from the Olympics for their policy of refusing homosexual applicants for scoutmaster; publicly rebuking his wife, son, and daughter-in-law for signing the original petition to amend the Mass. Constitution to define marriage; and calling those behind the petition "religious bigots".
Then in 2004 Romney, under no legal pressure at all from an illegal ruling, decided to demand the resignations of any state officials who valued their oaths to the constitution more highly than the illegal court ruling. No one stood up for them and they lost their jobs. The Globe's homosexual editors provided cover for Romney and -- stupidly-- some pro-family activists, conservative pundits, and politicians pretended (and still pretend) there was some kind of constitutional obligation pushing Romney to start handing out licenses to homosexual couples!
In fact, Romney has no legal right to issue such licenses since they violate the laws of the state. The new same-sex "marriage" licenses are legally void because they do not include the two parties enumerated in the law: "husband" and "wife." (The new licenses say "Party A and Party B"!) That's the prohibition that people are missing. "Husband" and "wife" are an essential part of the marriage law. Romney cannot get around that. Only the legislature could negate the "husband" and "wife" requirement. Even if they ever do change the law, the licenses issued prior would remain legally null.
We'll keep losing battles and arguments if we do not hammer away tirelessly at the constitutional contradictions of the Massachusetts homosexual "marriage" ruling. It is much more obviously anti-constitutional than almost any ruling that I know of in American history -- including the fraudulent Roe v. Wade. It is a terrible mistake -- surrendering something strategically indispensable, actually -- to say "homosexual marriage is now legal in Massachusetts" or that the court "gave same-sex couples the right to marry." Courts cannot give rights.
The elephant in the living room that the Boston Globe's homosexual editors won't allow to be reported honestly is that the gender-specific language in Massachusetts law does itself already preclude same-sex "marriage."
Let's set up a remote analogy to get some perspective. If a treaty is ratified between the United States and France, no separate law is needed to stop Germany claiming in an American court that it is party to that treaty. The parties were already enumerated: the United States and France (or in the case of marriage, a man and a woman.) The Supreme Court cannot legally re-interpret that treaty to include Germany. Courts have no jurisdiction over treaties as long as they do not compromise U.S sovereignty, etc. Legislators could ratify a new treaty with Germany, or perhaps modify the old treaty to include Germany. But Courts cannot tamper with treaties. Germany is not mentioned in the treaty, and courts have no jurisdiction in foreign policy. Clear.
Similarly, Massachusetts courts have no jurisdiction in marriage policy. Zero. Period. Under the state constitution they can "rule" any way they want, but it is meaningless noise -- no more binding than if an eight-year-old announces that he is emperor of the United States. That is what the three dissenting justices in the Goodridge case essentially pointed out. So the court's ruling is out of the picture -- totally unenforceable.
We are left only with an ambitious governor who wants to please the Boston Globe. Let's not forget Governor Romney's record includes: banishing the Boy Scouts from the Olympics for their policy of refusing homosexual applicants for scoutmaster; publicly rebuking his wife, son, and daughter-in-law for signing the original petition to amend the Mass. Constitution to define marriage; and calling those behind the petition "religious bigots".
Then in 2004 Romney, under no legal pressure at all from an illegal ruling, decided to demand the resignations of any state officials who valued their oaths to the constitution more highly than the illegal court ruling. No one stood up for them and they lost their jobs. The Globe's homosexual editors provided cover for Romney and -- stupidly-- some pro-family activists, conservative pundits, and politicians pretended (and still pretend) there was some kind of constitutional obligation pushing Romney to start handing out licenses to homosexual couples!
In fact, Romney has no legal right to issue such licenses since they violate the laws of the state. The new same-sex "marriage" licenses are legally void because they do not include the two parties enumerated in the law: "husband" and "wife." (The new licenses say "Party A and Party B"!) That's the prohibition that people are missing. "Husband" and "wife" are an essential part of the marriage law. Romney cannot get around that. Only the legislature could negate the "husband" and "wife" requirement. Even if they ever do change the law, the licenses issued prior would remain legally null.
We'll keep losing battles and arguments if we do not hammer away tirelessly at the constitutional contradictions of the Massachusetts homosexual "marriage" ruling. It is much more obviously anti-constitutional than almost any ruling that I know of in American history -- including the fraudulent Roe v. Wade. It is a terrible mistake -- surrendering something strategically indispensable, actually -- to say "homosexual marriage is now legal in Massachusetts" or that the court "gave same-sex couples the right to marry." Courts cannot give rights.
Friday, January 13, 2006
Would Pope Approve of "Benefits Fairness" Legislation?
Catholic World News reported on Jan 12, "Pope rebukes Italian officials on civil-union proposal...". This is of special interest in light of the Mass. Catholic Bishops' support of the recently proposed "Benefits Fairness" bill they filed with VoteOnMarriage.org in our Mass. legislature.
"Pope Benedict stressed that 'marriage and the family are not a chance sociological construction.' On the contrary, he said, 'the right relationship between man and woman is rooted in the essential core of the human being,' and the state's recognition of that relationship is essential to the health of society. 'What we are talking about here are not norms peculiar to Catholic morality, but elementary truths about our shared humanity,' the Pope continued.
"In a clear reference to the proposal to recognize civil unions-- known as 'PACS' in Italy-- the Pontiff warned that it would be a 'grave error' to grant 'inappropriate forms of legal recognition, for which there is no real social need, to forms of union' other than marriage."
"Pope Benedict stressed that 'marriage and the family are not a chance sociological construction.' On the contrary, he said, 'the right relationship between man and woman is rooted in the essential core of the human being,' and the state's recognition of that relationship is essential to the health of society. 'What we are talking about here are not norms peculiar to Catholic morality, but elementary truths about our shared humanity,' the Pope continued.
"In a clear reference to the proposal to recognize civil unions-- known as 'PACS' in Italy-- the Pontiff warned that it would be a 'grave error' to grant 'inappropriate forms of legal recognition, for which there is no real social need, to forms of union' other than marriage."
Thursday, January 12, 2006
Romney Violates Constitution on "Gay Marriage" - Part III of Haskins Series
Herewith, Part III of John Haskins' series on judicial tyranny and the Homosexual "Marriage" Ruling. (See "Gays Can't Answer: Where Is Statute Legalizing 'Gay Marriage'?", Part I and Part II below.)
Lawmaking by judges is explicitly illegal and non-binding. Void, null, without meaning, as Jefferson, Madison, Jackson, Lincoln, and many others said.
An oath by a public official to uphold a constitution is primarily an oath to block a creeping coup d'etat by the other branches or by the bureaucracy (or by another level of the local, state, federal system).
On the specifics of the Massachusetts situation: Laws have descriptive terminology in them that reveals the intent of the legislature. Massachusetts law has gender-specific language. This language is legally binding on everyone, including Supreme Court justices. Only the legislature, or the people themselves, can erase it.
If this were not true, judges could deconstruct every single law in existence and give it meanings unrelated to the legislature's intended meaning. Under whose definition would this be democracy? How many American soldiers have died to defend the right of judges to randomly rule over the ratified laws of elected representatives of the people? Zero, I think.
Governor Romney cannot give valid licenses to anyone that are not authorized by law. He is an "executive" sworn to execute only laws ratified by the Legislature within the strict boundaries of the constitutional document.
If a court rules that the state constitution compels that all red-headed boys be refused health care, is a governor to take their word for it or to pull out his copy of the constitution? His oath is not to a court's interpretation. It is to the constitution. Read Jefferson on this.
A governor has not merely the right, but an inescapable obligation to enforce the state constitution as written. Outside of those boundaries he becomes a tyrant -- maybe a handsome, smiley, affable tyrant, but a tyrant -- and no court can give him additional constitutional authority to wander. You may agree with the policy outcome and think him a benevolent tyrant, just as handsome as dictators come, but he nevertheless meets the Founding Fathers' definition of a tyrant.
So Romney violated the constitution by ignoring marriage law as ratified, simply because he was under "pressure" from a court and from the Boston Globe to ignore the law.
If marriage laws "need updating" (to use a loaded phrase that usually reveals a basic belief that laws and moral concepts have a "sell-by" date after which they are obsolete), the people, through their elected legislature or state ballot initiative, are the only ones with constitutional authority to annul or "update" laws.
This is endlessly re-stated -- and very forcefully -- in the language of the Founders and is the core of constitutional (republican) democracy. It is perhaps more explicitly formulated in the Massachusetts Constitution (written by John Adams) than anywhere else.
The point that people just don't get is that we are, sadly, in a post-constitutional phase of our political history. Many judges and legal scholars are frank about this off the record. My recent column,"No More Striking Down Constitutions" in the American Spectator, addresses this.
Lawyers do not even study constitutions in law school. They study case law -- precedent -- and their professors call that "constitutional law."
Aside from the three dissenting justices and the appellate court judge, those who have pointed out the raw tyranny of this ruling are simply not given much access to the media, even to the "establishment" conservative media.
As I recall, except for the overtly anti-constitutionalist Lawrence Tribe, the entirety of Harvard Law faculty who went on record rejected the courts' claimed right to impose any general policy on marriage. It's not rocket science.
Lawmaking by judges is explicitly illegal and non-binding. Void, null, without meaning, as Jefferson, Madison, Jackson, Lincoln, and many others said.
An oath by a public official to uphold a constitution is primarily an oath to block a creeping coup d'etat by the other branches or by the bureaucracy (or by another level of the local, state, federal system).
On the specifics of the Massachusetts situation: Laws have descriptive terminology in them that reveals the intent of the legislature. Massachusetts law has gender-specific language. This language is legally binding on everyone, including Supreme Court justices. Only the legislature, or the people themselves, can erase it.
If this were not true, judges could deconstruct every single law in existence and give it meanings unrelated to the legislature's intended meaning. Under whose definition would this be democracy? How many American soldiers have died to defend the right of judges to randomly rule over the ratified laws of elected representatives of the people? Zero, I think.
Governor Romney cannot give valid licenses to anyone that are not authorized by law. He is an "executive" sworn to execute only laws ratified by the Legislature within the strict boundaries of the constitutional document.
If a court rules that the state constitution compels that all red-headed boys be refused health care, is a governor to take their word for it or to pull out his copy of the constitution? His oath is not to a court's interpretation. It is to the constitution. Read Jefferson on this.
A governor has not merely the right, but an inescapable obligation to enforce the state constitution as written. Outside of those boundaries he becomes a tyrant -- maybe a handsome, smiley, affable tyrant, but a tyrant -- and no court can give him additional constitutional authority to wander. You may agree with the policy outcome and think him a benevolent tyrant, just as handsome as dictators come, but he nevertheless meets the Founding Fathers' definition of a tyrant.
So Romney violated the constitution by ignoring marriage law as ratified, simply because he was under "pressure" from a court and from the Boston Globe to ignore the law.
If marriage laws "need updating" (to use a loaded phrase that usually reveals a basic belief that laws and moral concepts have a "sell-by" date after which they are obsolete), the people, through their elected legislature or state ballot initiative, are the only ones with constitutional authority to annul or "update" laws.
This is endlessly re-stated -- and very forcefully -- in the language of the Founders and is the core of constitutional (republican) democracy. It is perhaps more explicitly formulated in the Massachusetts Constitution (written by John Adams) than anywhere else.
The point that people just don't get is that we are, sadly, in a post-constitutional phase of our political history. Many judges and legal scholars are frank about this off the record. My recent column,"No More Striking Down Constitutions" in the American Spectator, addresses this.
Lawyers do not even study constitutions in law school. They study case law -- precedent -- and their professors call that "constitutional law."
Aside from the three dissenting justices and the appellate court judge, those who have pointed out the raw tyranny of this ruling are simply not given much access to the media, even to the "establishment" conservative media.
As I recall, except for the overtly anti-constitutionalist Lawrence Tribe, the entirety of Harvard Law faculty who went on record rejected the courts' claimed right to impose any general policy on marriage. It's not rocket science.
Wednesday, January 11, 2006
Mass. Family Institute & VoteOnMarriage Advocate "New Rights"
The Mass. Family Institute (MFI), VoteOnMarriage.org, and Governor Romney today unveiled their inexplicable "Benefits Fairness" bill. It would "ensur[e] new rights, benefits and protections for adults ineligible for marriage" (their words in quotes). They first promised this bill when promoting their new marriage amendment last June.
The queer activists and MassResistance would agree that this is not a consistent plan: After allowing "marriage" to one group of homosexual couples, later offering only a "benefits" sop to homosexuals will be seen as second-class treatment, a withdrawal of a "right". Homosexuals either are or aren't equal in terms of "domestic" rights. There's no in-between. And if they are equal, why not let them "marry"?
And what, please, does "NEW RIGHTS" mean? We thought true rights were God-given, and that we simply figure out how to define and codify them. We don't make up "NEW RIGHTS"! (Though we may rectify improper denial of true rights, as in the abolition of slavery.) MassResistance first addressed this problem back in September 2005.
Our reaction to this bill is that it's disingenuous. While it's really all about special "rights" for homosexuals, our would-be allies are pretending it's about generic "rights" -- including for mythical groups that have never stormed the State House demanding their "rights". Has there ever been a march by non-next-of-kin groups ("interdependent mutually supportive relationships who are ineligible for marriage but who nevertheless would benefit from a status similar to next-of-kin status") -- other than queer activists?
From MFI's press release (Jan. 11, 2006):
"Newton Upper Falls, MA - VoteOnMarriage.org - the campaign to allow voters to decide on the definition of marriage in Massachusetts - today announced, along with a bi-partisan group of state legislators, the filing of the Benefits Fairness Act.
"The Benefits Fairness Act would ensure that citizens in the Commonwealth who are ineligible for marriage are afforded necessary rights, protections, and benefits not currently provided for under Massachusetts law.
"Specifically the Act entitles two Massachusetts adults who are ineligible for marriage to enter into a legal arrangement which provides for reciprocal hospital visitation, health care proxy designation, after-death decisions, inheritance and estate designation, and mental health decisions. The legislation also enables employers to include this new designation in their life, health and other benefits programs."
(See the complete MFI press release, and details on the bill.)
So, just as MFI-VoteOnMarriage did in their new proposed "protection of marriage" amendment (which lets existing homosexual "marriages" stand), they're again trying to placate the queer activists. But the very act of addressing this group implies an acquiescence to their demands for special "rights" -- when such demands aren't worthy of any response at all! This bill legitimizes homosexuality as a basis for a domestic relationships sanctioned by the state.
"The Act is strongly endorsed by VoteOnMarriage.org and the allied organizations that seek to define marriage in Massachusetts as the exclusive union of one man and one woman."
[...Except for those homosexual "marriages" solemnized by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts between May 17, 2004 and the date their amendment should take effect...]
" 'Do we have compassion for the needs of people? Absolutely! However the natural marriage relationship as it has been defined for millennia is fundamental, distinct and unique,' [except for that period between 5/17/04 and the amendment taking effect] said Kris Mineau, spokesman, VoteOnMarriage.org and president, Massachusetts Family Institute."
MassResistance does feel a little bad. We've gone back on our promise not to bring up our disagreement with the amendment again. But this benefits bill was just too much for us!
The queer activists and MassResistance would agree that this is not a consistent plan: After allowing "marriage" to one group of homosexual couples, later offering only a "benefits" sop to homosexuals will be seen as second-class treatment, a withdrawal of a "right". Homosexuals either are or aren't equal in terms of "domestic" rights. There's no in-between. And if they are equal, why not let them "marry"?
And what, please, does "NEW RIGHTS" mean? We thought true rights were God-given, and that we simply figure out how to define and codify them. We don't make up "NEW RIGHTS"! (Though we may rectify improper denial of true rights, as in the abolition of slavery.) MassResistance first addressed this problem back in September 2005.
Our reaction to this bill is that it's disingenuous. While it's really all about special "rights" for homosexuals, our would-be allies are pretending it's about generic "rights" -- including for mythical groups that have never stormed the State House demanding their "rights". Has there ever been a march by non-next-of-kin groups ("interdependent mutually supportive relationships who are ineligible for marriage but who nevertheless would benefit from a status similar to next-of-kin status") -- other than queer activists?
From MFI's press release (Jan. 11, 2006):
"Newton Upper Falls, MA - VoteOnMarriage.org - the campaign to allow voters to decide on the definition of marriage in Massachusetts - today announced, along with a bi-partisan group of state legislators, the filing of the Benefits Fairness Act.
"The Benefits Fairness Act would ensure that citizens in the Commonwealth who are ineligible for marriage are afforded necessary rights, protections, and benefits not currently provided for under Massachusetts law.
"Specifically the Act entitles two Massachusetts adults who are ineligible for marriage to enter into a legal arrangement which provides for reciprocal hospital visitation, health care proxy designation, after-death decisions, inheritance and estate designation, and mental health decisions. The legislation also enables employers to include this new designation in their life, health and other benefits programs."
(See the complete MFI press release, and details on the bill.)
So, just as MFI-VoteOnMarriage did in their new proposed "protection of marriage" amendment (which lets existing homosexual "marriages" stand), they're again trying to placate the queer activists. But the very act of addressing this group implies an acquiescence to their demands for special "rights" -- when such demands aren't worthy of any response at all! This bill legitimizes homosexuality as a basis for a domestic relationships sanctioned by the state.
"The Act is strongly endorsed by VoteOnMarriage.org and the allied organizations that seek to define marriage in Massachusetts as the exclusive union of one man and one woman."
[...Except for those homosexual "marriages" solemnized by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts between May 17, 2004 and the date their amendment should take effect...]
" 'Do we have compassion for the needs of people? Absolutely! However the natural marriage relationship as it has been defined for millennia is fundamental, distinct and unique,' [except for that period between 5/17/04 and the amendment taking effect] said Kris Mineau, spokesman, VoteOnMarriage.org and president, Massachusetts Family Institute."
MassResistance does feel a little bad. We've gone back on our promise not to bring up our disagreement with the amendment again. But this benefits bill was just too much for us!
Level of Discourse, Part V
Finally! We got answers to our question, "Where is the statute legalizing homosexual 'marriage'?" Here it is:
Dear [MassResistance]:
I CAN ANSWER YOUR QUESTION ... why is gay marriage legal. I am very surprised that you dont [sic] know. I though [sic] you had lawyer friends - like the one that helped you spy on those kids in school.
Well, anyone that [sic] has studied law at all (even a beginners [sic] class) know [sic] this..... It is not hard at all. Find a lawyer (a real lawyer, not some scam lawyer like you usually find). The answer that everyone understands, including High school [sic] children I am sure, [sic] is.... I still cant [sic] believe that you dont [sic] know this!!! HAHAHAHHAH!!!
The answer is Judicial review! DUH! Read a law book!!!
HAHAHHA! You guys are GREAT for a laugh! I show my friends your blog and they laugh too, wondering how anyone could not know this basic legal information!
This person has been communicating with us for some time now. We hope it gives him/her/? satisfaction seeing his/her/? brilliant thoughts published.
And here's another answer we received:
looking at your blog - gays cant answer why gay marriage is legal. Who cares!!! We have won! Marriage discrimination is over in Massachusetts because the SJC said so. That is it! Final! Who cares why! All I care is that I can marry my boyfriend and get the same rights as my parents. I dont care why it is legal, it just is. And that is a wonderful thing!
Dear [MassResistance]:
I CAN ANSWER YOUR QUESTION ... why is gay marriage legal. I am very surprised that you dont [sic] know. I though [sic] you had lawyer friends - like the one that helped you spy on those kids in school.
Well, anyone that [sic] has studied law at all (even a beginners [sic] class) know [sic] this..... It is not hard at all. Find a lawyer (a real lawyer, not some scam lawyer like you usually find). The answer that everyone understands, including High school [sic] children I am sure, [sic] is.... I still cant [sic] believe that you dont [sic] know this!!! HAHAHAHHAH!!!
The answer is Judicial review! DUH! Read a law book!!!
HAHAHHA! You guys are GREAT for a laugh! I show my friends your blog and they laugh too, wondering how anyone could not know this basic legal information!
This person has been communicating with us for some time now. We hope it gives him/her/? satisfaction seeing his/her/? brilliant thoughts published.
And here's another answer we received:
looking at your blog - gays cant answer why gay marriage is legal. Who cares!!! We have won! Marriage discrimination is over in Massachusetts because the SJC said so. That is it! Final! Who cares why! All I care is that I can marry my boyfriend and get the same rights as my parents. I dont care why it is legal, it just is. And that is a wonderful thing!
Tuesday, January 10, 2006
"Gays" Can't Answer: Is "Gay Marriage" Legal? Part II
A few days ago, we posted the first part of John Haskins' response to the queer activists' feeble attempt to answer our question: where is the statute legalizing homosexual "marriage"?
Here is Part II of John Haskins' response (and there's more to come...):
In the spirit of friendship, here are some gifts to those who dedicate their days and nights to ensure that no American child a generation from now will have the faintest clue what it was like when children were allowed to be children and learn of the human family, sexuality, and morality in the manner and definitions that formed their civilization -- Some crib notes on Beacon Hill's homosexual marriage scam (and remember the Boston Globe doesn't get to mark the final examination):
Laws forbid things not only explicitly but implicitly. Laws usually implicitly forbid far more than they explicitly forbid. Existing Massachusetts marriage law HAS gender-specific language which implicitly requires one husband and one wife to fulfill the two enumerated categories of the contract. The language in those laws remains binding. Judges can't tinker with it. Period.
Judges can't just cynically conjure up bizarre new meanings agreed upon at their last cocktail party to (as with Roe v Wade) and ignore actual ratified language in other laws (like Massachusetts marriage law) because they don't like what they mean. That's how the Soviets practiced "jurisprudence:" making it up as they went along, despite what is said to have been a beautiful and glorious Soviet constitution.
Under the Massachusetts constitution, judges have no authority to strike down any law, to change its meaning -- or to order the two elected branches to do anything. When an attorney argues otherwise he is arguing not from the state constitution, but mindlessly importing dubious legal theories on the United States Constitution that do not apply to the Massachusetts Constitution, because the state constitution forcefully rejects judicial policymaking in multiple ways.
Our state constitution explicitly denies the court ANY jurisdiction over marriage -- as the three dissenting justices and an appellate court forcefully pointed out. Whatever opinions on marriage they might issue are categorically illegal rulings, thus non-binding.
(Are we having fun yet?)
Moreover, even if the state constitution did not totally deny judges a voice in marriage, the ruling could only apply to the specific plaintiff in the case, because the state constitution says the people are "not bound by any law not ratified by their elected representatives in the legislature." Even if a Massachusetts court ruling were "law" it would not be binding on the people outside the courtroom. READ the state constitution! We were established as an elective democracy through the bloody sacrifices of American soldiers who would never have died for a Judge's or a cowardly Governor's right to overrule democracy and the constitution in one fell swoop. The state's fundamental legal document denies courts ANY binding role in shaping policy. They sit under the law, never over it.
(Are we having fun now?)
The reasons go on and on. There is no way around them. They are fatal problems for the homosexual "marriage" cause, as more than one judge and attorney has pointed out. Read my article, 'Conservative' Romney buckles and blunders, then study the relevant portions of the Massachusetts Constitution and it will dawn on you that in at least four different ways these homosexual "marriages" exist only outside the law. Void. Null. Illegal. A political fantasy. Well -- that's if constitutions count when they negate left-wing agendas.
Here is Part II of John Haskins' response (and there's more to come...):
In the spirit of friendship, here are some gifts to those who dedicate their days and nights to ensure that no American child a generation from now will have the faintest clue what it was like when children were allowed to be children and learn of the human family, sexuality, and morality in the manner and definitions that formed their civilization -- Some crib notes on Beacon Hill's homosexual marriage scam (and remember the Boston Globe doesn't get to mark the final examination):
Laws forbid things not only explicitly but implicitly. Laws usually implicitly forbid far more than they explicitly forbid. Existing Massachusetts marriage law HAS gender-specific language which implicitly requires one husband and one wife to fulfill the two enumerated categories of the contract. The language in those laws remains binding. Judges can't tinker with it. Period.
Judges can't just cynically conjure up bizarre new meanings agreed upon at their last cocktail party to (as with Roe v Wade) and ignore actual ratified language in other laws (like Massachusetts marriage law) because they don't like what they mean. That's how the Soviets practiced "jurisprudence:" making it up as they went along, despite what is said to have been a beautiful and glorious Soviet constitution.
Under the Massachusetts constitution, judges have no authority to strike down any law, to change its meaning -- or to order the two elected branches to do anything. When an attorney argues otherwise he is arguing not from the state constitution, but mindlessly importing dubious legal theories on the United States Constitution that do not apply to the Massachusetts Constitution, because the state constitution forcefully rejects judicial policymaking in multiple ways.
Our state constitution explicitly denies the court ANY jurisdiction over marriage -- as the three dissenting justices and an appellate court forcefully pointed out. Whatever opinions on marriage they might issue are categorically illegal rulings, thus non-binding.
(Are we having fun yet?)
Moreover, even if the state constitution did not totally deny judges a voice in marriage, the ruling could only apply to the specific plaintiff in the case, because the state constitution says the people are "not bound by any law not ratified by their elected representatives in the legislature." Even if a Massachusetts court ruling were "law" it would not be binding on the people outside the courtroom. READ the state constitution! We were established as an elective democracy through the bloody sacrifices of American soldiers who would never have died for a Judge's or a cowardly Governor's right to overrule democracy and the constitution in one fell swoop. The state's fundamental legal document denies courts ANY binding role in shaping policy. They sit under the law, never over it.
(Are we having fun now?)
The reasons go on and on. There is no way around them. They are fatal problems for the homosexual "marriage" cause, as more than one judge and attorney has pointed out. Read my article, 'Conservative' Romney buckles and blunders, then study the relevant portions of the Massachusetts Constitution and it will dawn on you that in at least four different ways these homosexual "marriages" exist only outside the law. Void. Null. Illegal. A political fantasy. Well -- that's if constitutions count when they negate left-wing agendas.
Monday, January 09, 2006
"Gay" Activists Will Use "Any Means Necessary"
The queer activists at MassEquality and KnowThyNeighbor made charges of fraudulent signatures on the VoteOnMarriage.org marriage petition, but the deadline for filing formal complaints with the Secretary of State has past, and no complaints were filed! After KnowThyNeighbor made fools of themselves on the O'Reilly Factor last week, we now read that MassEquality hasn't been able to come up with the goods they promised either.
Some conservatives (including yours truly) are not personally allied with this particular marriage amendment proposal. Nevertheless, we believe in an honest political process. But clearly, the queer activists do not. Here is what the homosexual newspaper Bay Windows' editorial has to say about the new marriage petition (Editorial: "2006 To Do List", Jan. 5 issue). Note that they plan to take down the amendment "through any means necessary"and "through procedural maneuvering" in the Legislature (key to that being Senate President Travaglini):
The most crucial fight this year is the campaign to defeat the constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. MassEquality is leading the charge to squash this amendment, which is expected to come before the Legislature this spring or summer. A date will most likely be set during the May 10 constitutional convention. But the odds are stacked against defeat of this amendment. As a citizen-petition amendment, it only needs the support of one quarter of lawmakers in two successive sessions to wind up on the ballot, and even with MassEquality’s electoral successes in the last few years, VoteOnMarriage.org, the proponents of the amendment, should have no trouble getting enough votes.
Between now and the ConCon, legislators need to hear from you, your family, your friends and anyone else who cares about LGBT equality. Let them know that they need to stop this amendment by any means necessary, whether that means pulling together a supermajority to vote it down or killing it through procedural maneuvering before it comes up for a vote. You and your friends must also contact Senate President Robert Travaglini. As the man who holds the gavel at the ConCon, Travaglini will be instrumental in the success of any parliamentary quashing of the amendment.
Maybe the procedural maneuvering will include using House Bill H653, which was filed by Article 8 Alliance back in Dec. 2004 to define marriage in statute (one man, one woman). Openly "gay" Sen. Barrios somehow maneuvered our bill into a constitutional amendment proposal last year! (No one quite understands how or why he did this, though we suspected at the time he was positioning it for future use -- possibly to block the VoteOnMarriage citizens' petition amendment.) Only time will tell.
Here's the Mass. Family Institute's email alert today (1-9-06) on the signature issue:
VoteOnMarriage.org Seeks Investigation of Anti-Vote Websites and Prosecution of Paid Circulator; No Formal Challenges Filed by Signature Opponents
Newton Upper Falls, MA - VoteOnMarriage.org - the campaign to allow voters to decide on the definition of marriage in Massachusetts - today issued a letter to Secretary of the Commonwealth William Galvin with a copy to Attorney General Thomas Reilly regarding complaints and practices related to the campaigns for and against the marriage-vote effort.
The letter details that VoteOnMarriage.org sought to comply fully with all applicable laws during the signature gathering process and had been found in full compliance by the Attorney General. However, the only case of fraud of which VoteOneMarriage.org is aware - the admission before a legislative committee and to the media by paid circulator Angela McElroy that she misrepresented the marriage petition in potentially 269 cases - has yet to be investigated by authorities.
VoteOnMarriage.org calls on the proper authorities to prosecute this and any other circulator who intentionally misrepresented the petition. (Of note, VoteOnMarriage.org's sub-contracted agent dismissed Ms. McElroy from her employment, with cause, prior to her public admission.) VoteOnMarriage.org pledges to cooperate fully in any investigation and welcomes the opportunity to bring to justice anyone who has violated the law.
The letter also raises grave concerns about the legitimacy of petition complaint reporting processes established by the anti-vote organizations KnowThyNeighbor.org and MassEquality.org. Both organizations offer searchable, online databases listing the names of marriage petition signers. Each website invites citizens to search their database and make a complaint to their office and/or to the offices of Secretary Galvin, Attorney General Reilly and state legislators if their name was listed but they did not wish to sign the petition.
While VoteOnMarriage.org respects the First Amendment rights of these organizations, their online complaint process itself invites fraud in that it fails to authenticate the identity of the citizens filing complaints. Any person may pose as a disgruntled marriage petition signer, in essence stealing a legitimate signer's identity, and lodge a fallacious complaint of fraud.
In addition, VoteOnMarriage.org has received a significant number of contacts from petition signers who themselves have received harassing and intimidating live and automated phone calls, as well as mailings, from MassEquality. As has been cited in media reports, these citizens have been frightened that their identities have been stolen and believe the calls and letters are intended to harass and intimidate them - a clear civil rights violation.
"We have no objection to efforts to expose as-of-yet unknown instances of alleged fraud, however, we do object to the manner in which they are carrying out their anti-vote campaign," said Kris Mineau, spokesman VoteOnMarriage.org and president, Massachusetts Family Institute.
VoteOnMarriage.org calls on Secretary Galvin and Attorney General Reilly to take appropriate action to protect petition signers from online, telephone and direct mail threats against their civil liberties, personal safety and security.
The deadline period for filing complaints with the Election's Division of the Secretary of the Commonwealth's office related to the petition process was January 6. No formal challenges to the VoteOnMarriage.org signature-gathering effort were filed.
Some conservatives (including yours truly) are not personally allied with this particular marriage amendment proposal. Nevertheless, we believe in an honest political process. But clearly, the queer activists do not. Here is what the homosexual newspaper Bay Windows' editorial has to say about the new marriage petition (Editorial: "2006 To Do List", Jan. 5 issue). Note that they plan to take down the amendment "through any means necessary"and "through procedural maneuvering" in the Legislature (key to that being Senate President Travaglini):
The most crucial fight this year is the campaign to defeat the constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. MassEquality is leading the charge to squash this amendment, which is expected to come before the Legislature this spring or summer. A date will most likely be set during the May 10 constitutional convention. But the odds are stacked against defeat of this amendment. As a citizen-petition amendment, it only needs the support of one quarter of lawmakers in two successive sessions to wind up on the ballot, and even with MassEquality’s electoral successes in the last few years, VoteOnMarriage.org, the proponents of the amendment, should have no trouble getting enough votes.
Between now and the ConCon, legislators need to hear from you, your family, your friends and anyone else who cares about LGBT equality. Let them know that they need to stop this amendment by any means necessary, whether that means pulling together a supermajority to vote it down or killing it through procedural maneuvering before it comes up for a vote. You and your friends must also contact Senate President Robert Travaglini. As the man who holds the gavel at the ConCon, Travaglini will be instrumental in the success of any parliamentary quashing of the amendment.
Maybe the procedural maneuvering will include using House Bill H653, which was filed by Article 8 Alliance back in Dec. 2004 to define marriage in statute (one man, one woman). Openly "gay" Sen. Barrios somehow maneuvered our bill into a constitutional amendment proposal last year! (No one quite understands how or why he did this, though we suspected at the time he was positioning it for future use -- possibly to block the VoteOnMarriage citizens' petition amendment.) Only time will tell.
Here's the Mass. Family Institute's email alert today (1-9-06) on the signature issue:
VoteOnMarriage.org Seeks Investigation of Anti-Vote Websites and Prosecution of Paid Circulator; No Formal Challenges Filed by Signature Opponents
Newton Upper Falls, MA - VoteOnMarriage.org - the campaign to allow voters to decide on the definition of marriage in Massachusetts - today issued a letter to Secretary of the Commonwealth William Galvin with a copy to Attorney General Thomas Reilly regarding complaints and practices related to the campaigns for and against the marriage-vote effort.
The letter details that VoteOnMarriage.org sought to comply fully with all applicable laws during the signature gathering process and had been found in full compliance by the Attorney General. However, the only case of fraud of which VoteOneMarriage.org is aware - the admission before a legislative committee and to the media by paid circulator Angela McElroy that she misrepresented the marriage petition in potentially 269 cases - has yet to be investigated by authorities.
VoteOnMarriage.org calls on the proper authorities to prosecute this and any other circulator who intentionally misrepresented the petition. (Of note, VoteOnMarriage.org's sub-contracted agent dismissed Ms. McElroy from her employment, with cause, prior to her public admission.) VoteOnMarriage.org pledges to cooperate fully in any investigation and welcomes the opportunity to bring to justice anyone who has violated the law.
The letter also raises grave concerns about the legitimacy of petition complaint reporting processes established by the anti-vote organizations KnowThyNeighbor.org and MassEquality.org. Both organizations offer searchable, online databases listing the names of marriage petition signers. Each website invites citizens to search their database and make a complaint to their office and/or to the offices of Secretary Galvin, Attorney General Reilly and state legislators if their name was listed but they did not wish to sign the petition.
While VoteOnMarriage.org respects the First Amendment rights of these organizations, their online complaint process itself invites fraud in that it fails to authenticate the identity of the citizens filing complaints. Any person may pose as a disgruntled marriage petition signer, in essence stealing a legitimate signer's identity, and lodge a fallacious complaint of fraud.
In addition, VoteOnMarriage.org has received a significant number of contacts from petition signers who themselves have received harassing and intimidating live and automated phone calls, as well as mailings, from MassEquality. As has been cited in media reports, these citizens have been frightened that their identities have been stolen and believe the calls and letters are intended to harass and intimidate them - a clear civil rights violation.
"We have no objection to efforts to expose as-of-yet unknown instances of alleged fraud, however, we do object to the manner in which they are carrying out their anti-vote campaign," said Kris Mineau, spokesman VoteOnMarriage.org and president, Massachusetts Family Institute.
VoteOnMarriage.org calls on Secretary Galvin and Attorney General Reilly to take appropriate action to protect petition signers from online, telephone and direct mail threats against their civil liberties, personal safety and security.
The deadline period for filing complaints with the Election's Division of the Secretary of the Commonwealth's office related to the petition process was January 6. No formal challenges to the VoteOnMarriage.org signature-gathering effort were filed.
Sunday, January 08, 2006
More on "Love Won Out" Ex-Gay Conference in Boston
We were there: MassResistance broke the story to the nation on the near-riot instigated by the radical queer activists (and their anti-war, anti-American Leftist allies) against the ex-gay conference in Boston last October 30. We published the photos, we reported the story. The organizers of the conference in fact tried to prevent us from leaving the building to observe the action on the street, and then tried to keep us from snapping photos and recording the sound (yes, we did that too!).
Then, we well remember the efforts (by conference organizers and hosts) immediately after the conference to downplay the shocking "demonstration", the efforts to "SHUT IT DOWN!" -- to disrupt the conference, and perhaps storm the church.
We suspect that the organizers and their hosts didn't appreciate the significance of the near-riot at first. So we are happy to see they apparently have come to a clearer understanding. Two reports have just surfaced from Focus on the Family with details on what actually happened that day.
First, Focus on the Family's magazine, Citizen Link -- which uses our photo -- reports on the "vitriol" of the demonstrators: "Hate meets hope in Boston" (Jan. 2006):
Their shouts echoed up the canyon-like walls of the buildings on either side: Many made obscene gestures at people watching from inside. A row of shoulder-to-shoulder police officers guarded the church doors from the threatening mob.
Allison Silva, a member of MassEquality, stood near an upright coffin bearing a sign that equated the conference with death.
“What they’re doing is causing suicides,” she said. “It’s causing people (to have) severe mental illness after they’ve gone through treatment that is not successful. Being gay is natural. Homosexuality is natural. It’s just a part of everyone’s life.”
Ashlee Reed, director of Project 10 East, said the conference was “not acceptable.”
“Groups such as these that have programs where they attempt to change people and attempt to make people into something they’re not—it’s a form of bullying,” she said.
Our report included a photo of a poster from the demonstration, which read:
James Dobson:
Racist
Sexist
Anti-gay
The Citizen Link column explains the absurdity of this poster. Besides equating racism with opposition to special "rights" for homosexuals, this poster shows an ignorance of the history of the special church, Boston's Tremont Temple, which hosted the conference.
The church is no stranger to controversy. Though one sign tagged the conference as “racist,” Tremont Temple was the first racially integrated church in America. It was part of the Underground Railroad. It’s where the Emancipation Proclamation was first read in New England. All of that in the face of great opposition.
Pendleton [pastor of the church] said taking a stand for truth ultimately brings people together, including teaching a biblical view of homosexuality.
“I think having such a strong, positive, loving, redemptive message is something that unites a church,” he said. “And that’s what I’m about.”
Then, we well remember the efforts (by conference organizers and hosts) immediately after the conference to downplay the shocking "demonstration", the efforts to "SHUT IT DOWN!" -- to disrupt the conference, and perhaps storm the church.
We suspect that the organizers and their hosts didn't appreciate the significance of the near-riot at first. So we are happy to see they apparently have come to a clearer understanding. Two reports have just surfaced from Focus on the Family with details on what actually happened that day.
First, Focus on the Family's magazine, Citizen Link -- which uses our photo -- reports on the "vitriol" of the demonstrators: "Hate meets hope in Boston" (Jan. 2006):
Their shouts echoed up the canyon-like walls of the buildings on either side: Many made obscene gestures at people watching from inside. A row of shoulder-to-shoulder police officers guarded the church doors from the threatening mob.
Allison Silva, a member of MassEquality, stood near an upright coffin bearing a sign that equated the conference with death.
“What they’re doing is causing suicides,” she said. “It’s causing people (to have) severe mental illness after they’ve gone through treatment that is not successful. Being gay is natural. Homosexuality is natural. It’s just a part of everyone’s life.”
Ashlee Reed, director of Project 10 East, said the conference was “not acceptable.”
“Groups such as these that have programs where they attempt to change people and attempt to make people into something they’re not—it’s a form of bullying,” she said.
Our report included a photo of a poster from the demonstration, which read:
James Dobson:
Racist
Sexist
Anti-gay
The Citizen Link column explains the absurdity of this poster. Besides equating racism with opposition to special "rights" for homosexuals, this poster shows an ignorance of the history of the special church, Boston's Tremont Temple, which hosted the conference.
The church is no stranger to controversy. Though one sign tagged the conference as “racist,” Tremont Temple was the first racially integrated church in America. It was part of the Underground Railroad. It’s where the Emancipation Proclamation was first read in New England. All of that in the face of great opposition.
Pendleton [pastor of the church] said taking a stand for truth ultimately brings people together, including teaching a biblical view of homosexuality.
“I think having such a strong, positive, loving, redemptive message is something that unites a church,” he said. “And that’s what I’m about.”
Second, Dr. James Dobson's radio broadcast interviewed Mike Haley, one of the main ex-gay speakers of the conference, on his radio show on December 27. Haley described the demonstration:
Dobson: You were just in Boston, and there was an unbelievable protest there. Tell us how that happened.
Haley: Well, absolutely. The same day that we had planned our Love Won Out conference, there was also a protest – an anti-war protest with Cindy Sheehan. Well, they had joined sides. We had two thousand protesters in front of our event. About 10-12 policemen shoulder-to-shoulder blocking the entrance of the church. It was just an incredible episode. One of the things that we realized as we looked out on the protesters was the amount of venom that they had for the message…
Dobson: Were they screaming?
Haley: Screaming: “Shut it down! Shut Focus down! Shut it down! Shut this church down!
Dobson: You told us even the police were shaken.
Haley: Absolutely. Dan Patterson, who comes with us on all of our events said that after he was able to talk with some of the policemen that were there -- He said they were visibly shaken and said that absolutely, if they had not been there, they would have stormed the church.
Dobson: How many people were inside?
Haley: We had 900 people in attendance, and that was in Boston....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)