Thursday, June 30, 2005
Unfortunately for Romney, he inherited it from previous liberal governors. But he could at least try to change the landscape here in Massachusetts, and set an example for the rest of the country.
Does the Governor's Commission oversee and implement suicide prevention programs for our troubled young people? No. (The myth that "GLBTQI youth" are more prone to suicide is the excuse for having homosexuality promotion clubs and events in our schools.)
The Governor's Commission does, however, sponsor gay clubs and parades, and leads kids to the annual BAGLY prom at Boston City Hall. (BAGLY is a big promoter of transgenderism, transsexualism, intersex issues, and youth "questioning" of their normal sexuality.)
Presidential ambitions are running high. And the patience of average American voters with the radical homosexual agenda is running low. Governor Romney could score big by leading the country on this issue. Get the propaganda out of our schools!
From the Boston Globe, "Romney takes aim with veto pen" (June 30, 2005):
The Romney officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, declined to say what Romney will do about a 70 percent increase in spending on the Governor's Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth. That increase, to $425,000 from $250,000, has sparked the ire of a group that opposes gay rights and it presents a quandary for Romney as he mulls a presidential bid.
''If the governor does have national aspirations, the rest of the country doesn't buy this stuff," said Brian Camenker, director of the Article 8 Alliance. ''The governor has to decide where he stands on some of these issues."
The commission, created by Governor William F. Weld in 1992, is supposed to help prevent teen suicides and combat harassment of gay and lesbian youths. In talking about his opposition to gay marriage around the country, Romney has been careful to note that he does not condone discrimination against gays and lesbians.
Kevin Jennings, founder & executive director of GLSEN, admitted in 1995 that the "safety" issue for "GLBT youth" was a ruse for getting their propaganda into our schools. The Massachusetts legislature and governor fell for it then. And sadly, the whole country followed suit. Here are Jennings' exact words:
“In Massachusetts, the effective reframing of this issue was the key to the success of the Governor’s Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth. We immediately seized upon the opponent’s calling card – safety – and explained how homophobia represents a threat to students’ safety by creating a climate where violence, name-calling, health problems, and suicide are common. Titling our report “Making Schools Safe for Gay and Lesbian Youth,” we automatically threw our opponents onto the defensive and stole their best line of attack. This framing short-circuited their arguments and left them back-pedaling from day one.”
A most clever strategy.
(6-30-05 pm: Sorry to our fans for forgetting the links earlier!)
Wednesday, June 29, 2005
The AP story says "there are an estimated 34,000 gay and lesbian couples in Canada, according to government statistics." As if that somehow makes this vote reasonable. There are also hundreds of thousands of drug addicts in Canada. So should heroin be made legal?
Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin said, "We are a nation of minorities. And in a nation of minorities, it is important that you don't cherry-pick rights." Martin, identified as a Roman Catholic, "has said that despite anyone's personal beliefs, all Canadians should be granted the same rights to marriage." So why not let the polygamists and polyamorists have their rights too, Mr. Prime Minister? (Remember, we shouldn't "cherry pick rights"!)
"The debate in Canada began in December, when the Supreme Court ruled that passage of same-sex marriage legislation would not violate the constitution." No, only common-sense, morally-based legislation violates constitutions these days.
The cruel jokes about our northern neighbors may have some substance after all.
Tuesday, June 28, 2005
A historical parallel is found in ancient Rome, writes Leland D. Peterson (Emeritus Professor of English and Latin at Old Dominion Univeristy) in The New Oxford Review (June 2005). The editors warn that "this article may make you throw up, in which case YOU SHOULD NOT READ IT. If you do read it, don't send us any letter of complaint." (Sounds like a warning we should print for the readers of MassResistance.)
Getting back to sexual perversion and mutilation, Peterson claims that gay "intellectuals" like Andrew Sullivan are wrong to ignore or deny the connection between perverted sexual practices, gay "marriage", and a society's decline. "Gay marriage" was "a key element in the collapse of the Roman Empire," he says. "Something very much like the AIDS epidemic that has been the scourge of such 'gay' meccas as San Francisco, and now a worldwide epidemic, can be identified in the second century A.D."
"Same-sex 'marriage' was the invention of the Emperor Nero in the first-century A.D. In a comparatively long reign among the first-century Caesars (A.D. 54-68), he began as a talented and generous though youthful friend of the people, but degenerated in a mere 14 years to become the prototype of Lord Acton's axiom: Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
"Suetonius, a second-century Roman historian, began 'to list his follies and crimes,' which included at least three same-sex 'marriages.' Nero's first same-sex 'marriage' was preceded by a transgendering operation on his intended bride that was thought to be successful:
Having tried to turn the boy Sporus into a girl by castration, he went through a wedding ceremony with him — dowry, bridal veil and all — which the whole Court attended; then brought him home, and treated him as a wife. He dressed Sporus in the fine clothes normally worn by an Empress and took him in his own litter not only to every Greek assize and fair, but actually through the Street of Images at Rome, kissing him amorously now and then."
Read more, but have the barf bag ready.
Sunday, June 26, 2005
ACLU Now Defends Polygamy, Further Eroding Traditional Marriage
By James L. Lambert
June 24, 2005
(AgapePress) - In comments at an Ivy League school, the president of the American Civil Liberties Union has indicated that among the "fundamental rights" of people is the right to polygamous relationships -- and that the ACLU has defended and will continue to defend that right.
In a little-reported speech offered at Yale University earlier this year, ACLU president Nadine Strossen stated that her organization has "defended the right of individuals to engage in polygamy." Yale Daily News says Strossen was responding to a "student's question about gay marriage, bigamy, and polygamy." She continued, saying that her legal organization "defend[s] the freedom of choice for mature, consenting individuals," making the ACLU "the guardian of liberty ... defend[ing] the fundamental rights of all people."
The ACLU's newly revealed defense of polygamy may weaken the pro-homosexual argument for changing the traditional definition of marriage. Proponents of same-sex "marriage" have long insisted that their effort to include homosexual couples in that definition would only be that. However, conservative and traditional marriage advocates predict "other shoes will drop" if homosexual marriage is legalized -- perhaps including attempts to legalize polygamy and to changed current legal definitions of child-adult relationships.
Friday, June 24, 2005
In the Worcester Telegram & Gazette, we read about the propaganda film "The Laramie Project" being force-fed to high school students at the Tantasqua Regional High School -- without parents being informed or given the chance to opt their children out. (This is the film which portrays Matthew Shepard's murder in Wyoming as a "hate crime", when in fact the murderers were thieving thugs on drugs.)
[from Worcester Telegram & Gazette, June 23. 2005]
Diversity issue roils Tantasqua
By James F. Russell
STURBRIDGE — The Tantasqua Regional School administration cannot say what the meaning of diversity is. The surprise admission by School Superintendent Kathleen H. Reynolds came during Tuesday’s school board meeting and has fanned the controversy that became public May 17 when some school board members criticized the administration’s decision to screen “The Laramie Project” during Tantasqua’s annual Diversity Week exercises in April.
School Committee members had questioned how the assembly promoted diversity and objected that parents were neither informed of the movie’s showing nor given the opportunity to decide whether their children should have watched the movie.
Reflecting public dissatisfaction with the school not notifying parents, Brimfield resident Ginger Rousseau read a statement at Tuesday’s meeting. She asked the school to provide “written notification to parents/guardians of all students at Tantasqua Senior High School detailing the substance and purpose of any assembly or program” and “that all students be allowed, with parental permission, to decline to attend.”
“The Laramie Project” depicts the 1998 murder of 21-year-old Matthew Shepard in Laramie, Wyo. New York Times theater critic Ben Brantley wrote that Mr. Shepard “in death has become the poster boy for the casualties of antigay violence.”
Ms. Rousseau handed school board Chairman Ronald Levine a petition signed by almost 100 district parents saying that they, “for various reasons, have become concerned about the amount of time spent on extracurricular assemblies.”
The movie screening was part of a mandatory student assembly during Diversity Week that was sponsored by the Gay-Straight Alliance at Tantasqua, according to school board member Susan Hilker of Brimfield. During Tuesday’s meeting, committee member Michael Kennedy of Holland said to Ms. Reynolds, “I asked you at the last meeting (May 17) for a definition of the word diversity; I am prepared to hear it.”
“Unfortunately, we failed to get a definition of diversity,” Ms. Reynolds replied. “You have been teaching it for seven years now. I would think, as an educator, you would be able to define what you taught,” Mr. Kennedy said, referring to the Diversity Week programs that the school has held since 1999.
High School Principal James White said the school should acquaint students with “sexual preference issues” and “people who are not mainstream, so you can appreciate people” and their “different modes of diversity.” “That concerns me a great deal,” Mr. Kennedy said.
After Tuesday’s meeting, committee member Kathleen M. Neal of Sturbridge said some committee members are “stepping on toes” and interfering with the “prerogatives of the high school principal.”
“The logical extension of this is parents telling teachers what to teach,” she said. Meanwhile, Mr. Kennedy, Ms. Hilker and committee member William Gillmeister of Brookfield said the school has confounded the issue of diversity by weaving it to sexuality and that the school has no business encouraging minors to identify with forms of sexuality.
“For me, the overarching issue is about the school assembly promoting the normalcy of homosexuality,” Mr. Gillmeister said after the meeting. “Because Diversity Week and the Gay-Straight Student Alliance are promoting homosexuality at Tantasqua, parents want to know when such subjects are going to be covered at the high school, especially mandatory assemblies, so they can get their children excused from those discussions.”
At Tuesday’s meeting, the board voted 10-4 to approve a motion by James Cooke of Brookfield to request the curriculum subcommittee “to consider policy regarding assemblies”. Mr. Levine said he wants the subcommittee report by February. Last month, the School Committee rejected Mr. Gillmeister’s motion that would have directed the policy subcommittee to come up with a parental notification policy on “human sexuality assemblies in school.”
Wednesday, June 22, 2005
American Episcopalians, renowned for their openly gay bishop in New Hampshire, now parade their Massachusetts Bishop Thomas Shaw at Gay Pride. He was so excited to be participating in his first Pride event! (And let's not forget the Globe recently ran the wedding photo of two brides, one of whom is the Episcopal priest from Bedford's St. Paul's Church.)
Bishop Shaw explained his theology: "You know that, the pope is wrong.... And the Christian fundamentalists are wrong. They think that they know about scripture but they don't -- at least not around the issue of who God loves and who God cherishes."
He said that Jesus was constantly "having the circle enlarged. What he'd known to be religious truth about who was acceptable and who wasn't acceptable, he let it be enlarged and enlarged and enlarged until with his offering on the cross and his death he says no one is outside the circle of God's love. That every one of us is embraced and loved by God." Shaw seems to be saying that Jesus was a bit confused and had limited understanding at first, but learned and grew as he experienced more of the human condition and saw more of the world! [Does Shaw believe Jesus was God and man?]
The "anything-goes" Unitarians have a long track record on homosexual "marriage". So it was only fitting that "they were hands down the largest contingent at Pride." The nearly 1000 UU marchers from congregations all around the state "filled several city blocks and created a sea of pink streamers." UUs have been "marrying" homosexual couples in their churches for 30 years. So keep your eyes and ears open for their next crusade, Polyamory.
Polyamory: group unions, or "marriages". This is where the Unitarians are taking us next. The age of the participants doesn't seem to be a factor in these group unions. Don't believe us? Check it out. Here's an excerpt from their statement:
"We, the member congregations of the Unitarian Universalist Association, covenant to affirm and promote ... The inherent worth and dignity of every person; Justice, equity and compassion in human relations; These two principles are a cornerstone of Polyamory Awareness."
"UUs for Polyamory Awareness defines polyamory as the philosophy and practice of loving or relating intimately to more than one other person [does not say adult] at a time with honesty and integrity. We advocate for any form of relationship or family structure -- whether monogamous or multi-partner -- which is characterized by free and responsible choice, mutual consent of all involved, and sincere adherence to personal philosophical values. We believe that honesty, integrity, and consent in personal relationships are essential to the affirmation of the inherent worth and dignity of one's partners."
They must come out of the closet: "Spiritual growth requires integration of one's relationships and one's religion, and Polyamory Awareness within UUism promotes this integration for polyamorous UUs. The closet can be a difficult place to live, and leaving a part of oneself behind when crossing the threshold of one's church can interfere significantly with one's spiritual search. Polyamorists need to bring our entire beings, including our relationships, into our religious homes, in order to pursue spiritual growth." ...
"Monogamy freely chosen is healthy. Compulsory monogamy for every person is idolatry. Visibility of an ethical alternative lifts monogamy out of idolatry into free choice."
As we will continue to point out, the radical homosexual movement opens up all these doors. Do you really want them opened?
Monday, June 20, 2005
One of the brides, "Rev." Francis Fornaro, is priest and rector at St. Paul's Church in Bedford. Both brides have connections to Lexington (where they live) and Bedford, where the Rev. Fornaro ministers to his flock. Think of the fun they must be having in Lexington, piling on David Parker. And we have no doubt they helped hand out pink triangles at the "diversity vigil" a few weeks back in Bedford. Here is their "wedding" notice:
Charles A. Frates III and the Rev. Francis Fornaro were married at St. Paul's Episcopal Church in Bedford. Frates is the son of Frances Frates of New Bedford and the late Charles Frates Jr. Retired after 36 years as a teacher and special education administrator in the Boston Public Schools, he is on the faculty of the Academy of Performing Arts in Orleans and the Dance Inn in Lexington. Rev. Fornaro, formerly a teacher and principal in the Boston Public Schools, is priest and rector at St. Paul's Church. He is the son of Grace and the late Sam Fornaro of Roxbury. The couple live in Lexington and Orleans.
Sunday, June 19, 2005
Religious freedom is central to the current debate about the re-invention of marriage. There is a growing spirit of religious intolerance in Canada and an inability to think critically. ...
Two individuals have filed a complaint against the Roman Catholic Diocese of Calgary and myself on the ground of sexual orientation in the area of "goods/services refused and terms of goods/services", and in the area of "publications, notices, signs and statements," based on my January 2005 Pastoral Letter.
These complaints are an attempt to intimidate and silence me and are without any foundation in fact. As a matter of fact, lodging these complaints constitutes a violation of my right of freedom of expression and freedom of religion guaranteed by the [Canadian] Charter [of Rights and Freedoms]....
Particular circumstances might lead to some future court legitimately trying to force religious officials to perform these [same-sex "marriage"] ceremonies against their conscience, though the justices decline to speculate on what those circumstances might be. It is disquieting that the Court would even raise the possibility.
Justice Minister Irwin Cotler has been quoted as saying that " a right is a right is a right." Although not a lawyer, but rather as philosopher-theologian, I would point out that his simple approach ignores two key facts.
Ordinary dictionary definitions of rights have a variety of options and there are vast differences between varied notions of rights, merely asserted, conventional, legal and natural. Governments may euphemistically call mass destruction of civilians "collateral damage." Such definitions misuse language. Definitions of marriage can be misused as well.
Varied uses and notions of rights reflect essential conceptual distinctions. Asserting that I have the right to fly the Concorde to Paris does not establish the right. Legally, I have no right to a university degree unless I meet certain legal University Senate requirements. Claiming the natural right to equality in income with Supreme Court justices does not establish the right. Rights are of various kinds and the application of racial models for same-sex rights claims conflicts in many ways with logical uses of analogies.
Claims of a "right" to same-sex-marriage are not the slam dunk Cotler thinks. The so-called "marriage act" as understood in ordinary language, refers to the unique act of sexual intimacy involving intercourse between a man and a woman.
In spite of Clintonesque interpretations of sexual acts, the ordinary usage remains entrenched in language. The so-called "marriage act" is not possible in same-sex relations. The acts in these relations are vastly different in origin, in real experience, and in goals.
The radical re-definition affects every order of human life from uses of logic to healthy moral and cultural life. This radical cultural shift accounts for the resistance of the majority of Canadians to redefinition of marriage on both religious and rational grounds. It is a mystery to the majority of Canadians as to why parliamentarians just don't seem to get it.
Friday, June 17, 2005
We've communicated with her often, and she is most distressed to see what is happening in Massachusetts. She wants to be sure we're aware of the very serious threats to free speech already shutting down any dissent in Canada on homosexual issues. And she is warning us about the dangers to the children in many homosexual households. Read her first-person account [excerpts]:
"My name is Dawn Stefanowicz, I grew up in a homosexual household during the 60s and 70s in Toronto, exposed to many different people, the GLBT subcultures, and explicit sexual practices. I am currently writing a book, soon to be published, on this experience. As well, I was a witness at the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs on Bill C-250 (hate crimes), and I have presented at the local school board.
"My biggest concern is that children are not being discussed in this same-sex marriage debate. Yet, won't the next step for some gay activists be to ask for legal adoption of children if same-sex marriage is legalized? I have considered some of the potential physical and psychological health risks for children raised in this situation. I was at high risk of exposure to contagious STDs due to sexual molestation, my father's high-risk sexual behaviors, and multiple partners. Even when my father was in what looked like monogamous relationships, he continued cruising for anonymous sex.
"I came to deeply care for, love and compassionately understand my dad. He shared his life regrets with me. Unfortunately, my father, as a child, was sexually and physically abused by older males. Due to this, he lived with depression, control issues, anger outbursts, suicidal tendencies, and sexual compulsions. He tried to fulfill his legitimate needs for his father's affirmation, affection and attention with transient and promiscuous relationships. He and his partners were exposed to various contagious STD's as they traveled across North America. My father's (ex)partners, whom I had deep caring feelings for and associated with, had drastically shortened lives due to suicide, contracting HIV or Aids. Sadly, my father died of AIDS in 1991.
"Are my childhood experiences unique? According to a growing number of personal testimonies, experts, and organizations, there is mounting evidence of strong commonalities to my personal experiences."
Click here to READ MORE...
Thursday, June 16, 2005
"We just received a letter from Michael Jones, Principal of the high school, informing us about how to opt-out from having our child's name given to armed forces recruiters, which is provided for as part of the No Child Left Behind Act....
"Very interesting that the school is sending this information and opt-out form to the families of every junior and senior, just to keep from getting on a list for possible solicitation by our armed forces recruiters vs. providing similar information for the Mass. Parental Notification Law !!"
Another parent writes:
"It baffles my mind, why I can't do the same thing with the homosexual recruiters. Jones is a Gay Activist supporter - without a doubt. His '... as soon as possible...' plea made me sick."
Here's the letter from the Principal:
[postmarked June 10th, 2005]
Lexington High School
251 Waltham Street, Lexington, Massachusetts 02421
Michael P. Jones, Ph.D. 781- 861-2320, ext.1000 Principal
email: email@example.com. us
Dear Parents of Seniors and Juniors:
On January 8, 2002, President George Bush signed into law the "No Child Left Behind Act of 2001." Part of the law -" Armed Forces Recruiter Access to Students and Student Recruiting Information" -requires that we give names, addresses, and phone numbers of seniors and juniors unless parents give us written instructions not to do so. Please complete the form below and return it to me as soon as possible if you do NOT want your child's name given to recruiters for the armed services.
Michael P. Jones
Tuesday, June 14, 2005
"If [Moore] wins, some party strategists speculate, he could defy a federal court order again by erecting a religious monument outside the Alabama state Capitol building. With the 2008 presidential race looming, President Bush would then face a no-win decision: either call out the National Guard to enforce a court order against a religious display on state grounds or allow a fellow born-again Christian to defy the courts.
"The pitched political warfare over the direction of the nation's courts has energized many GOP voters, but it has also produced a restless Christian right movement that contends Bush has been too moderate on issues ranging from gay marriage to judicial nominations to the Terri Schiavo case. These conservatives want Moore to run for president as a platform for their cause."
Here in Massachusetts, conservatives' frustration with supposed Republicans has become old-hat. Governor Romney has disappointed again and again, when even without the legislature behind him, he could have made many bold moves. (Ever hear of an Executive Order?)
We would love to see Republicans brought back to where they should be on the religious basis of our legal system and government . Maybe a Moore candidacy will accomplish that.
Monday, June 13, 2005
"We have to face facts. Today, there are people who want to arrest us not because of what we do, but simply because of who we are." *
They claim that there is some distinct, inborn identity that makes one a homosexual ("who we are"). This is a ruse by the homosexual activists to squelch any objection to granting them the "rights" they demand. After all, if they are "born that way", how can we deny them anything they "need" in order to be self-actualized and confirmed? This "sexual identity" claim is important, because it's the basis of their portrayal of homosexual "marriage" as a "civil rights" issue.
Dr. John Diggs points out that we are all born either male or female, period. He employs the analogy of a hockey player who is not born a hockey player, but becomes one through inclination, which in turn leads him to learn and practice hockey-playing behaviors. Note that this analogy does not deny the inclination some may possess to engage in homosexual behavior.
"Homosexuals" are not a separate class of human beings, but are just men and women who choose to engage in homosexual behaviors. They claim their identity is homosexual, but what they are really talking about is a chosen behavior.
Take another example: an adult heterosexual male who likes sex with as many young teenage girls as he can get his hands on. That's his inclination. What is his "sexual identity"? Serial statutory rapist? Is this a chosen behavior, or an inborn identity? If he claims it as his "sexual identity", should we then allow him free reign to engage in it, because it's "who he is"?
Or an adult heterosexual male who has sex only within the confines of a monogamous marriage to a woman. This may or may not be his inclination. (How often do we hear, from men especially, how difficult it is to be faithful?) What is his "sexual identity"? Faithful husband? Is this a chosen behavior, or an inborn identity?
Other questions arise from within the "GLBTQI family":
"Bi-sexuals" include sex with both same-sex and opposite-sex partners in their repertoire. To say that "bi-sexuality" is an "identity", an inborn trait, is therefore laughable, since it includes almost any sexual behavior imaginable. This is a contradiction, since identity as a concept is limiting, not all-inclusive.
The "trans" community themselves say their "identities" are "fluid". If an identity is fluid, isn't it meaningless?
One last example: Ex-gays, or former homosexuals, will tell you that for a period in their lives they engaged in homosexual sex and other "gay" behaviors. That is what they did. But they changed their behaviors. Their homosexuality was not an unchangeable, inborn "identity". This is why practicing homosexuals want to deny the very existence of ex-gays: They give the lie to the concept of inborn "sexual identity".[*Let's leave aside their silly accusation that people are advocating arresting homosexuals on sidewalks. Their story below doesn't ring true; something seems to be missing. Here's an excerpt from the MassEquality email:]
At the Boston Marathon, we had a canvasser holding a small MassEquality sign and a clipboard to gather supporters' names. A woman came up and asked if the sign was about "gay marriage." Our canvasser politely explained our role in opposing the antigay amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution.
"That's disgusting!" the woman said. "I have children here. I'm calling the police."
And she did.
A policeman came, and said there was nothing he could do. Why? Because right now, the law is on our side. But it may not be for long.
We have to face facts. Today, there are people who want to arrest us not because of what we do, but simply because of who we are....
Sunday, June 12, 2005
What even MassResistance wouldn't have expected was a second feature story in the same issue, called of all things, Coupling: Seats of Power. We read a male wife's simpering, affected confessions about his inability to drive, and how that onerous responsibility falls completely in his "husband's" lap.
The cutesy, excusifying tone is enough to make you nauseous. This fellow has truly taken on the identity of an annoying, demanding wife. For all his protestations of normality, their false, unnatural union is staring us right in the face.
"Our partnership is equal on every level except for one: He drives, I ride, and that's that. ... I don't drive.
"There, I said it. Let the snickering and eyebrow-raising begin. Like a dirty little secret that isn't that dirty (having a foot fetish, say, rather than shooting up drugs with used hypodermic needles), not driving isn't illegal, but it still occasions disbelief, judgment, even pity – and that's just from my husband.
"Considering that I have no good reason for this, and keeping in mind how long-suffering my husband has been, you might think I would have the good sense to keep my mouth shut when we're on the road and he's doing all the heavy lifting. Oh, no. I am the only traveling companion more irksome than a back-seat driver: a front-seat driver, directing my chauffeur from right there next to him in the passenger seat.
"If I think we're headed the wrong way, or going too fast, or annoying other drivers, I blurt out, 'Honey!' That's an innocuous word, you think, until you hear me say it, rendering the first syllable as a growl, and the second both high and shrill."
Etc., etc. Bear in mind we're not reading this in Bay Windows. It's the Boston Globe. Can you take it?
"The event had a laid-back feel, as marchers -- some in leather vests, some in polo shirts, some in not very much at all -- made their way from Copley Square through the South End and on to Boylston Street in the hot weather.
"As usual, there were plenty of explicit displays of sexuality -- shirtless men in skimpy underwear dancing on floats and women wearing nothing but tape over their breasts.
"A trio of men protesting President Bush, wearing women's bathing suits with wigs, sent Elijah Berger, 8, scampering into his father's Berkeley Street restaurant, Laurel Grill & Bar. 'Being that it was his first pride parade, he was shocked to see men wearing women's bathing suits,' said his father, Russ Berger.
Who wouldn't be revolted?
But the Boston Globe (and the father?) implies this little boy just needs re-education (it was only his first time, after all). His reaction indicates his coercive indoctrination center (a.k.a. public school) has NOT done its job! How pleased the Globe must be with this family, who celebrated the perversion on the street:
"A number of onlookers said the parade was less racy than in the past. Beth Niernberg, 39, of Brookline, said she did not hesitate to bring her three young children, who set up camp in front of the Hard Rock Cafe on Clarendon Street.
"In another sign of the parade's increasing appeal to the mainstream, dozens of corporations, political campaigns, and church groups marched alongside gay activist organizations and dance club floats pumping house music."
One corporate sponsor (included in our "Hall of Shame"), Wainwright Bank, sponsored a float with "a blonde drag queen wearing a beaded yellow gown on a truck decorated with marigolds, daisies, and petunias." For another man who "wore a pink mohawk, a glittery feather boa, and sparkly jewels glued to his face, flamboyance itself was a political statement. 'If anything, the political climate of the past year has made me want to be out here even more,' " he said.
That's exactly the problem. You WILL be seeing much more of this perversion on our streets and in public places. If your little 8-year-old boy flees the scene in revulsion, you had better re-educate him, or you'll be called a BIGOT.
Saturday, June 11, 2005
Those who don't think clearly, i.e. homosexual activists and their fellow travelers, use this latter element -- the Phelps disapproval of homosexuality -- to try to connect them with anyone who disapproves of homosexuality, or same-sex "marriage". Well, it doesn't wash.
One group of Bedford clergy tried to make it look like they spoke for all churches in town (when of course they didn't). They led a "diversity vigil" on the town common Monday night. Two hundred participants (including young children) smugly marched around, pumped up by their spiritual pride. The Bedford Minuteman played along, and spoke of of the "voice of unity" at this demonstration:
"A handful of anti-gay protesters from Kansas succeeded in galvanizing opposition on Bedford's Town Common Monday night as several hundred residents gathered at the stairs of First Parish [Unitarian] on the Common to hear the voice of unity.
" 'We are here to say that today is also a day that we may confirm the power of love that will not allow hate to grow,' the Rev. John Gibbons said from the steps of his church.
"He was joined by many members of Bedford's religious communities, including additional members from First Parish, St. Paul's Episcopal Church, First Church of Christ, Congregational, First Baptist Church and Burlington's Temple Shalom Emeth."
(The Catholic and Lutheran churches did not participate, as they do not support homosexual extremism and the coercive indoctrination of Bedford schoolchildren.)
The extremist demonstrators wrapped themselves in rainbow flags and wore pink triangles imprinted with "No Place for Hate". Their message, in other words: If you don't agree that homosexuality if fine, normal, and beautiful, and that same-sex "marriage" is a blessing from God, YOU ARE A HATER!
"We in this town will not let voices of division prevail," said one minister. Another praised the town's teachers and school administrators (who fly rainbow flags and propose middle school cross-dressing days) for "ensuring safety for the student population." A few days earlier, the Bedford Selectmen had adopted a "Unity Statement", which says "[W]e maintain a zero-tolerance policy of any and all forms of hate speech and hate crimes."
How convenient that they don't bother to define "hate speech and hate crimes." If a parent objects to the rainbow flag at the middle school, is that "hate speech"? If a citizen questions the "Day of Silence" at the high school, is that a "voice of division" which must be stomped out?
Apparently, the police agree with the minister who's worried "hate" might "grow" in town. We hear they are keeping a list of citizens who MIGHT be haters.
Thursday, June 09, 2005
Is this really a "lifestyle" we want promoted to our boys, and our neighbors' boys, in our public schools? And by our state government? Homosexuality, especially the male variety, often means this sort of thing (going on all over in Boston this week):
When people find out you used to be a slobbering drug addict they eventually - usually after they've had a few drinks - work up enough courage to ask some variation of the question: "What was your most embarrassing moment?" which, loosely translated, means: "At what point did you realize you were such a mess you needed help?"
I always have the same response: Do I have to pick just one?
The thing about doing crystal meth is that the bar gauging what constitutes aberrant behavior keeps getting lowered on you. Things that would have seemed odd when I started doing it seemed commonplace by the end. Why wouldn't it seem strange to find yourself dashing madly around London with your barrister/escort friends at 4 a.m. looking for lube - even as you never saw daylight or any of the rest of that beautiful, historic city while there? Doesn't everyone do that? You say you went three days without eating anything solid or sleeping a minute? Isn't that normal?
So rather than try to pick any single event, I always say that one question stands out in my mind more than any other: How was I ever so shallow to have spent so much time at circuit parties?
With Pride season upon us - and its attendant ramping up of the schedule for these parties - it seems appropriate to revisit the popularity of these events. Events that see tens of thousands of mostly gay men spend countless hours at the gym preening like waxed, tan debutantes, and then two to three days getting so shit-faced they don't remember much of the weekend. (And then complain that they never meet anyone nice.)
Oh, I can hear the protests now: I've heard all of the expansive bullshit about how these events are transcendental in nature; how even as you're surrounded by blaring music and thousands of sweaty, shirtless glassy-eyed men who will never remember your name, you feel as one with your brothers. Never mind that nearly all of your brothers couldn't pick you out of a line-up the following day...
Don't get me wrong: I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with going to a circuit party - just not as the way of life they've become for many people. I don't even think there's anything inherently wrong with getting high in moderation - though some of us clearly have a problem with that moderation concept....
I've heard it said that circuit parties offer something lost and found again: the dances, crushes and wild abandon many of us were denied in high school and college because while we were partying with our friends we were also carrying a secret that prevented us from truly letting go and celebrating.
In the end, everyone is avoiding the really hard part: developing our humanity and gaining the ability to make emotional connections with one another on an everyday basis. For gay men, that means developing something that is sorely lacking in many of us: the ability to treat one another as something other than pieces of meat. Now that would be something of which we can be proud.
Wednesday, June 08, 2005
Last Friday in Boston, in honor of "Gay Pride Week", the rainbow flag was raised at City Hall Plaza. At the Glenn Middle School in Bedford, the rainbow "freedom" flag has been hanging in the hall with flags of nations for over a year. Who needs federal judges here?
A federal judge is siding with homosexual activists in America's oldest city, ordering St. Augustine, Fla., to fly 49 "gay-pride" flags on its Bridge of Lions.
...[The judge's] decision was based in part on First Amendment violations and "irreparable harm and loss if they are prohibited from flying their rainbow flags during the week of the annual gay pride celebration," according to the Florida Times-Union.
... The "gay-pride" flag, designed by Gilbert Baker, debuted in 1978 at San Francisco's Gay and Lesbian Freedom Day Parade, with the colors said to represent life, healing, the sun, harmony and spirit.
Tuesday, June 07, 2005
A very sad story in the Boston Herald ("Quilt makes big impression for mom who lost both sons", June 5), briefly (and confusingly) profiles a mother who lost two sons to the "gay" lifestyle. How can this story be part of a celebratory "pride week"? There seems to be some disconnect...
The woman found out one of her sons was "gay" when he told her at age 15. He committed suicide at 27 in a Florida hotel room, 19 years ago. Her younger son, also "gay", died of AIDS 17 years ago.
The story says she still has trouble accepting these deaths. She said, "You don't know what you've lost until it's gone.... I hear the way some parents talk to their children, and I feel like telling them, 'Love them. No matter what, just love them, because tomorrow, they could be gone.' "
In light of her sons' needless and tragic deaths in the "gay" lifestyle, how can the article push us to celebrate "gay pride"? Should we be celebrating the lie that tells us that "gay" life is gay, that homosexual sex is safe and OK?
''The various forms of the dissolution of matrimony today, like free unions, trial marriages and going up to pseudo-matrimonies by people of the same sex, are rather expressions of an anarchic freedom that wrongly passes for true freedom of man," he said.
Note that the Church's condemnation includes heterosexual unions outside of marriage. So how can Charles Martel (of the Mass. Religious Coalition for the Freedom to Marry) claim that, ''The pope is creating a dangerous climate of inciting hatred towards gays and lesbians, and needs to be held accountable in attempting to encourage civil societies to perpetuate this prejudice."
What nonsense! Is the Pope also creating a dangerous climate of hatred towards unmarried hetero couples engaging in sexual activity? We think not.
But it's no wonder the homosexuals targeted the Catholic Church decades ago. When you come across a solid doctrinal statement, as in the new Pope's writings while he was still Cardinal Ratzinger (and the Pope's doctrinal "enforcer"), you'll understand. He wrote in 2003:
''Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development."
You don't have to be Catholic to appreciate what he signed onto in 1986:
''It is only in the marital relationship that the use of the sexual faculty can be morally good. A person engaging in homosexual behavior therefore acts immorally. ... This does not mean that homosexual persons are not often generous and giving of themselves, but when they engage in homosexual activity they confirm within themselves a disordered sexual inclination which is essentially self-indulgent."
Monday, June 06, 2005
But what of her obsession with our friend Brian Camenker (director of Article 8 Alliance)? For the second time in a month, she has singled him out for abusive treatment in her not-so-witty column. Why? Is he dashingly handsome? (I think not. ... Sorry, Brian.) Has she been publicly debating him? (No.) Has she been calling him on the phone to chat? (No.)
It must annoy her no end that he points out the BIG LIE of the "gay" movement. While most of the "elite" of this state have agreed to avert their eyes to the public health scandal of homosexual sex, Brian refuses to do so. And he refuses to let the lisping, self-professed intellectuals intimidate him.
Margery's back must be up because she knows in her gut that her "chic" acceptance of all things "gay" is, as Brian puts it, "a house of cards". And when it comes crashing down, Margery will be exposed for the fool she has always been. Her sour attacks on a man of courage and principle suggest her own insecurities.
Today's column makes fun of Brian for his objection (quoted in a Herald story) to the "Queer Eye" guys throwing out the first pitch at a Red Sox game. From her childish and bitchy screed, here's her amateurish attempt to link Brian and Fred Phelps (of the wacky Kansas Westboro Baptist Church [WBC] protesters):
"I am of course aware that many people find nothing funny in all this foolishness [queer pitching at Fenway Park]. Indefatigable anti-gay crusader Brian Camenker, for one. He's a veritable Energizer Bunny in the war to preserve what's righteous and pure. He's outraged. Again. ... Maybe Brian and Fred would like their own movie title: 'The Unnatural'? Think they'd like that? But how natural, or not, are these two in the wee, wee hours?"
Margery does get a bit carried away with her sexual innuendoes in this piece. But more to the point, doesn't she realize that Fred's group doesn't like Jews (Brian is Jewish), Catholics (many of the Article 8 supporters are Catholic), or David Parker? They are all on the WBC hit list, too.
Saturday, June 04, 2005
One of the "stars" of the Bravo series "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" will be throwing out the first pitch at Sunday's Red Sox game. And some of the Sox players are featured in a "Queer Eye" episode set to air June 7. All to celebrate "Gay Pride" week here in Boston.
We're told to "lighten up", it's all just good fun, according to the Boston Globe ("Sox prove good sports primping for 'Queer Eye' "). Did you get that? If you don't go along with this queer politicization of Red Sox Nation, YOU are the bad sport. Sadly, the players don't understand how they're being used by the savvy queer propaganda movement. From the Globe:
"Who said gay was bad?" [Sox player Kevin] Millar says at one point, swathed in a white bathrobe, sinking his feet into a tub of water laced with rose petals. "I am now gay!"
But as we all know, gay doesn't just mean soaking your feet in rose water. It's more usually connected with activities described in the Little Black Book, which often leads to lives filled with loneliness, unhappiness, and disease.
Thank God for WEEI "sports-talk agitators" (as the Globe calls them), who still know in their gut that this stuff is bad for America. For this, and pitcher Mike Timlin's honesty, they are castigated by the Globe: "[They] have been working to drum up outrage about the cross-promotions ... and goaded reliever Mike Timlin into joining in. (He said, on the air, that gays are 'not living correctly'.)"
Sen. Jarrett Barrios, openly "gay" state senator, says it's the critics of "Queer Eye" at Fenway who are making the queer opening pitch at Fenway a political issue. (Boston Herald, "Some see Red over Sox pitch for 'Queer' " .) Excuse me? The queers have politicized the ball game.
A group defined only by its sexual behavior, which happens to be demanding special rights (e.g., "marriage") across the country through political means, is now receiving special recognition by the Red Sox management. We all know that "Queer Eye" is not just innocent old-Disney-style entertainment -- it's politicized entertainment.
The Globe makes the propaganda technique of "Queer Eye" crystal clear (perhaps without intending to do so):
"But another advance is the way the show plays with old stereotypes of sports machismo. There's something deliciously modern about watching Mirabelli, hand extended delicately for a manicure, razzing Millar about his hair. And about the mix of fear and pride on Wakefield's face when Carson Kressley sits on his lap, pats him encouragingly on the shoulder, and says, 'You're so good; you're so comfortable!'
"That has always been the best conceit of ''Queer Eye": the way it acknowledges its straight protagonists' unease, then watches them evolve. Most episodes end with their deep appreciation for the Fab Five's humanity and practical tips." [Emphasis added.]
No, this isn't just something we should "lighten up" about. It's very serious business. Check out Congressperson Barney Frank's proposed hate crimes legislation. And look at Canada and Sweden, where not a word can be uttered or printed criticizing homosexuality. It won't be long before they start using stadiums for public floggings of the "intolerant" citizens who courageously speak out, once speaking the truth becomes a "hate crime" ... unless America wakes up.
Thursday, June 02, 2005
It came to our attention that Lexington uber-activist Meg Soen's "wife", Cecilia d'Oliveira, published a letter in the Lexington Minuteman today attacking yours truly. She seems not to have gotten the points intended by this blog's various references to the GLBTQI crowd in Lexington. Yes, we did write these words: "the jackbooted thugs currently in control of the Lexington schools"; "the fascists of Lexington are marching in lockstep!"; "Lexington lemmings"; and (MassResistance's favorite) "Lexington LGBTQI Fourth Reichers".
So let us try to explain to our friends what they just don't get:
- We thought we'd treat the radical homosexual activists and their fellow travelers to their own tactics, and call them some names. They don't like it very much.
- The Nazi allusion is a particular favorite with radical homosexuals for branding their opponents. Brian Camenker (director of Article 8), who is Jewish, has often been called "Mr. Hitler" and "Nazi". Ironies abound here. It is the radical homosexuals who are experts in Hitlerian propaganda, and who are perfecting totalitarian thought-control, defining their concept of "hate speech" and hate crimes", and repeating their BIG LIES that unnatural sex practices and family structures are perfectly natural and a "civil right" to boot.
- This blog has also pointed out that Ms. d'Oliveira's "wife" Meg Soens led a workshop at GLSEN's infamous "Fistgate" conference in 2000 on how to incorporate gay and lesbian issues into the elementary curriculum. Sound familiar? See Who's In a Family, the arrest of David Parker, etc. (Oh, but we forgot... There's no homosexual curriculum in the schools!) What a coincidence Ms. Soens is a parent at the same school with the Parker family.... Funny, Ms. d'Oliveira doesn't mention these facts in her letter, though she does note we're looking at something "statewide" going on. (Yeah, there's homosexual propaganda in every school in Massachusetts, not just in Lexington!)
We suspect that Ms. d'Oliveira is also burning mad because we linked to Meg's and her "wedding" photo.P.S. Article 8 Alliance is behind anti-judicial-tyranny legislation, not "anti-judicial" legislation (as Ms. d'Oliveira labels it). And Article 8 is behind anti-gay-"marriage" legislation, not "anti-gay legislation". This means we're happy for Cecilia and Meg to live together. Just don't make us, and our children, call it "marriage".
Marshall began by saying, "I am a conservative. I conserve institutions; I conserve the Constitution." She said she protects the three branches of government. She said it's her job at the SJC to be sure laws are impartially interpreted. (Clearly, Marshall was NOT impartial in her same-sex "marriage" ruling. See www.Article8.org.)
Marshall also said, "I'm a new judge. I'm finding my way." After deciding a case, she doesn't dwell on it. She just moves on to the next case.
She stumbled quite a bit in this interview, often having trouble finding the right word or phrase. She certainly did not come across as highly articulate.
Wednesday, June 01, 2005
The mother is told to "encourage your husband to be more open-minded, and help [your son] forgive his father." The father needs forgiveness. It is the father who is at fault.
"Annie" ends with a referral to PFLAG (Parents, Family and Friends of Lesbians and Gays), a group which embraces the radical homosexual activist agenda.
Why doesn't Annie give contact info for PFOX (Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays)? They offer support and advice on how to love the family member who's been drawn into the homosexual "lifestyle", while at the same time not approving of that choice.