Which high schools in Massachusetts have GSAs? Our new Massachusetts Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth has informed us they do not have a list of GSAs in the state -- though it's their job to work directly with them. So we'll publish the best list we have, from GLSEN's "Day of Silence" participating schools list (from 2005), updated by input from our activists around the state, plus info from an out-of-date Mass. Dept. of Education web page (still posted on 7-28-07). Interesting that GLSEN (behind the "Day of Silence") has stopped posting its list of participating high schools shortly after we publicized their web page, though they do now say there are 242 GSAs in Massachusetts. We only have 209 schools on this list; so the reality is even worse than it appears here! We now await corrections from the Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth ... and GLSEN. (For lists of GSAs in other states, check out Mission America's list, also compiled from GLSEN's earlier information.)
Massachusetts High Schools with "Gay-Straight Alliances" (GSAs)
[updated 7-28-07]
ACTON-BOXBOROUGH REG HS
AGAWAM HS
ALGONQUIN REG HS (NORTHBORO)
AMESBURY HS
AMHERST REG HS
ANDOVER HS
APPONEQUET REG HS (LAKEVILLE)
ARLINGTON HS
ATHOL-ROYALSTON REG HS
ATTLEBORO HS
AYER HS
BANCROFT SCHOOL (WORCESTER)
BARNSTABLE HS
BAY PATH REG VOC TECH HS (CHARLTON)
BEACON HS (BROOKLINE)
BEAVER COUNTRY DAY SCHOOL (CHESTNUT HILL)
BEDFORD HS
BELCHERTOWN HS
BELLINGHAM HS
BELMONT HS
BEVERLY HS
BILLERICA MEM HS
BISHOP FENWICK HS (PEABODY)
BLACKSTONE VALLEY HS (UPTON)
BOSTON LATIN HS
BOURNE HS
BRIDGEWATER-RAYNHAM REG HS
BRIGHTON HS
BROCKTON HS
BROMFIELD HS
BROOKLINE HS
BROOKS SCHOOL (ANDOVER)
BUCKINGHAM BROWNE & NICHOLS SCHOOL (CAMBRIDGE)
BURNCOAT HS (WORCESTER)
CAMBRIDGE RINDGE & LATIN HS
CANTON HS
CAPE & ISLANDS HS
CAPE COD ACADEMY (OSTERVILLE)
CAPE COD REG TECH HS (HARWICH)
CARVER HS
CHELMSFORD HS
CHICOPEE COMPREHENSIVE HS
COMMONWEALTH SCHOOL (BOSTON)
CONCORD ACADEMY
CONCORD-CARLISLE REG HS
DANA HALL SCHOOL (WELLESLEY)
DEDHAM HS
DEERFIELD ACADEMY
DENNIS-YARMOUTH REG HS
DIGHTON-REHOBOTH REG HS
DOHERTY MEMORIAL HS (WORCESTER)
DOVER-SHERBORN REG HS
DRURY HS (N. ADAMS)
DURFEE HS (FALL RIVER)
DUXBURY HS
EVERETT HS
FALMOUTH HS
FITCHBURG NCCES
FOXBOROUGH HS
FRAMINGHAM HS
FRANCIS W PARKER CHARTER SCHOOL (DEVENS)
FRANKLIN COUNTY TECH
FRANKLIN HS
GARDNER HS
GEORGETOWN MIDDLE/HS
GLOUCESTER HS
GOVERNOR'S ACADEMY (BYFIELD)
GRAHAM AND PARKS ALTERNATIVE SCHOOL (CAMBRIDGE)
GREATER LAWRENCE VOC TECH HS
GREENFIELD HS
GROTON-DUNSTABLE REG HS
GROTON SCHOOL
HAMILTON-WENHAM REG HS
HAMPSHIRE REG HS (WESTHAMPTON)
HANOVER HS
HAVERHILL HS
HIBBARD ALTERNATIVE HS OF COMMERCE
HIGH SCHOOL OF SCIENCE & TECH (SPRINGFIELD)
HINGHAM HS
HOLLISTON HS
HOPEDALE JR/SR HS
HOPKINTON HS
HULL HS
KING PHILIP REG HS (WRENTHAM)
LANDMARK SCHOOL (PRIDE'S CROSSING)
LAWRENCE ACADEMY
LEE HS
LENOX MEMORIAL HS
LEOMINSTER HS
LEXINGTON HS
LINCOLN-SUDBURY REG HS
LITTLETON HS
LONGMEADOW HS
LOWELL HS
LUNENBURG HS
LYNN ENGLISH HS
MAHAR REG HS (ORANGE)
MALDEN HS
MANCHESTER JR/SR HS
MANSFIELD HS
MARBLEHEAD HS
MARSHFIELD HS
MARTHA'S VINEYARD REG HS
MASCONOMET REG HS (TOPSFIELD)
MASS. ACADEMY OF MATH & SCIENCE (WORCESTER)
MEDFIELD HS
MEDFORD HS
MEDWAY HS
MELROSE HS
METHUEN HS
MIDDLEBOROUGH HS
MIDDLESEX SCHOOL (CONCORD)
MILTON ACADEMY
MILTON HS
MINNECHAUG REG HS (HAMPDEN-WILBRAHAM)
MOHAWK TRAIL REG HS (SHELBURNE FALLS)
MONUMENT MOUNTAIN REG HS (GREAT BARRINGTON)
MOUNT GREYLOCK REG HS (WILLIAMSTOWN)
NASHOBA BROOKS SCHOOL (CONCORD)
NASHOBA REGIONAL HS (BOLTON)
NASHOBA VALLEY TECH HS (WESTFORD)
NATICK HS
NAUSET REGIONAL HS (N. EASTHAM)
NEEDHAM HS
NEWTON NORTH HS
NEWTON SOUTH HS
NIPMUC REGIONAL MIDDLE/HS (UPTON)
NOBLE & GREENOUGH SCHOOL (DEDHAM)
NORFOLK COUNTY AGRICULTURAL HS (WALPOLE)
NORTH ANDOVER HS
NORTH ATTLEBORO HS
NORTH MIDDLESEX REG HS (TOWNSEND)
NORTH QUINCY HS
NORTHAMPTON HS
NORTHBRIDGE HS
NORTHFIELD MOUNT HERMON SCHOOL
NORWELL HS
NORWOOD HS
OAKMONT REGIONAL HS (ASHBURNHAM)
OLIVER AMES HS (N. EASTON)
PEABODY MEMORIAL HS
PHILLIPS ACADEMY (ANDOVER)
PINGREE SCHOOL (S. HAMILTON)
PIONEER VALLEY PERFORMING ARTS CHARTER SCHOOL (S. HADLEY)
PIONEER VALLEY REG HS (NORTHFIELD)
PITTSFIELD HS
PLYMOUTH NORTH HS
PLYMOUTH SOUTH HS
PROVINCETOWN HS
PUTNAM VOC TECH HS (SPRINGFIELD)
QUABBIN REGIONAL MIDDLE/HS (BARRE)
QUABOAG REGIONAL HS (WARREN)
QUINCY HS
RANDOLPH HS
READING HS
REVERE HS
ROCKPORT HS
SALEM HS
SCITUATE HS
SEEKONK HS
SHARON HS
SHORE COUNTRY DAY SCHOOL (BEVERLY)
SHREWSBURY HS
SMITH VOC & AGRICULTURAL HS (NORTHAMPTON)
SOMERSET HS
SOMERVILLE CHARTER SCHOOL
SOMERVILLE HS
SOUTH HADLEY HS
SOUTH SHORE CHARTER SCHOOL (NORWELL)
SOUTHWICK-TOLLAND REG HS
SPRINGFIELD CENTRAL HS
ST. JOHN'S PREPARATORY SCHOOL (DANVERS)
STONEHAM HS
STOUGHTON HS
SUTTON MIDDLE/HS
SWAMPSCOTT HS
TACONIC HS (PITTSFIELD)
TAHANTO REG HS (BOYLSTON)
TANTASQUA REG HS (FISKDALE)
TAUNTON HS
THAYER ACADEMY (BRAINTREE)
TRITON REG HS (BYFIELD)
TURNER'S FALLS HS (MONTAGUE)
WACHUSETT REG HS (HOLDEN)
WAHCONAH REG HS (DALTON)
WALPOLE HS
WALTHAM HS
WAREHAM HS
WATERTOWN HS
WAYLAND HS
WAYSIDE HS (MARLBORO)
WELLESLEY HS
WEST BOYLSTON JR/SR HS
WEST SPRINGFIELD HS
WESTBOROUGH HS
WESTFORD ACADEMY
WESTON HS
WESTPORT HS
WESTWOOD HS
WEYMOUTH HS
WEYMOUTH HIGH/VOC TECH
WHITMAN-HANSON REG HS
WILLISTON-NORTHAMPTON SCHOOL
WILBRAHAM AND MONSON ACADEMY
WINCHESTER HS
WINSOR SCHOOL (BOSTON)
WOBURN HS
WORCESTER ACADEMY
WORCESTER VOC HS
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Monday, July 23, 2007
Truth-Telling About the Culture of Death
From a first-trimester abortion [photo: Priests for Life]
Are graphic images legitimate in the abortion battle? Father Frank Pavone of Priests for Life says YES: They are both legitimate and absolutely necessary.
Fr. Pavone underlined what we said last week, about the need for anti-abortion protesters to use the graphic images that show the reality of little babies being violently murdered. LifeSite News reported on his recent talk to young Canadian pro-lifers.
You can't pussyfoot with the culture of death. You can't allow that destructive force to choose the terms of the debate. How can killing a human baby be a "choice" or a "right"? (Similarly, how can we allow sexual perversion such as sodomy be called a proper basis for state-sanctioned "marriage", or homosexual "marriage" be called a "right"?) And you can't let that mindset infiltrate your forces, and hint that you should moderate your tone, oppose with gentleness and politeness.
You can't pussyfoot with the culture of death. You can't allow that destructive force to choose the terms of the debate. How can killing a human baby be a "choice" or a "right"? (Similarly, how can we allow sexual perversion such as sodomy be called a proper basis for state-sanctioned "marriage", or homosexual "marriage" be called a "right"?) And you can't let that mindset infiltrate your forces, and hint that you should moderate your tone, oppose with gentleness and politeness.
From LifeSite News, "Father Frank Pavone on the Power of Graphic Abortion Images" (7-20-07):
... Let me leave for you what I am convinced is the most powerful tool to change someone's mind about abortion. I told you that I had been involved in this since I was your age, been working on this fulltime across the world, worked with the Holy Father, and Mother Teresa and all these people, worked with the pro-life movement on every level. There is no single thing that I have seen more powerful to change people on abortion than simply showing them the pictures.
Show them what it looks like. I have challenged the media over and over again. Show the public what an abortion is because we can justify anything with our language. If you are a smooth talker, if you know how to manipulate language and logic - you can convince anyone of anything. But pictures, that is another story.When people see what abortion does to a baby, they are stung to the heart and their consciences are awakened. I am not just talking about showing pictures of the baby living in the womb. People understand, by and large, that this is a baby in the womb. Now, they will be very surprised at how much the baby looks like a baby, so early in pregnancy when they do see the pictures, the ultrasound or other ways that we have of viewing the child. Many people will be very surprised to see how well-developed that baby is. But, even if you show them the baby, that still doesn't tell them what abortion does to the baby.
That is a big difference. Some people think abortion just makes the baby kind of disappear. They still don't appreciate that it is an act of violence. It is only the pictures of the aborted children, torn apart, limb from limb that convince people that abortion is an act of violence. Now, at my website, we have one of the largest collections of these pictures - it is priestforlife.org. Right on the front we have a statement on our front page that says, "America will not reject abortion until America sees abortion." And that is true for every country. ...
Saturday, July 21, 2007
Boston Parents' Paper Normalizing GLBT "Families" -- Part III
Is this OK with Boston Parents' Paper?
Back to the Boston Parents' Paper's promotion of "gay parenting" (see our Parts I and II). The sidebars on parental rights (p. 25) and parenting resources (p. 28) bring up some serious concerns.
1. Parents' rights in the schools: The sidebar (p.25) title, "In school, the subject of same-sex marriage is an issue of parental rights," is fair enough. But Evelyn Reilly of the Mass. Family Institute perhaps misspoke when she said the subject of homosexual marriage "shouldn't be shoved down the throats of parents. This is forced indoctrination." It's not the well-grounded parents who are being indoctrinated; it's the young school children.
Reilly mentions that children ideally need both a mother and a father. True. But she fails to mention that homosexual "parenting" puts children in direct touch with unhealthy practices as a valid role model for their own adult lives. Reilly said, "We have no adversity [sic; did she mean aversion?] toward homosexuals. We're just trying to protect marriage." Why protect marriage unless there's something wrong with homosexuality, and especially in this context, homosexual "parenting"?
Well, we do have an aversion toward those homosexuals who -- as "parents" to young children -- encourage them in a GLBT identity. Besides the questionable "love life" models they show their children, it's common for homosexual "parents" to include their children in unseemly adult events such as "Pride" parades. (See the popular homosexual "parenting" book, Gloria Goes to Gay Pride.)
We documented that Meg Soens, a leader of the GLBT extremists (attacking David Parker) in Lexington, was at Boston Pride with two of her young children in 2006. What did her boy learn there? He certainly saw the ManHunt.net float, which encourages anonymous sexual encounters. What did her young daughter learn there? She saw women with bare breasts riding motorcycles, and other women whose breasts had been surgically removed, dressed as "drag kings", and "tranny" parents. Is this the kind of good parenting the Parents' Paper is promoting?
See the paper by Real Women of Canada which points out these documented dangers inherent in "same-sex parented" households: higher incidence of domestic violence; higher incidence of mental health problems in parents; reduced life expectancy of parents; higher incidence of "same-sex orientation" in children; greater risk of sexual involvement with parents*; greater risk of social or psychological problems in the children; higher incidence of child molestation.**
See also Dawn Stefanowicz's web site. Dawn's childhood experiences with a homosexual father, who included her in his depraved and dangerous activities, are a warning to our too accepting society. (Her book is coming out in the fall.)
Parents' rights in the schools are not jeopardized only through "sex ed." "Family" topics of any sort should NOT even be discussed. No newly manufactured stories about Mommy & her boyfriend. No stories about two "daddies". No stories about divorce. No stories about Daddy undergoing sex-change surgery. No stories about Mommy's (or is it Daddy's?) collection of whips. No stories about "Daddy died." No stories about "Grandma's Alzheimer's."
Can't we just leave all this stuff out of the schools? Read classic literature instead. Keep it neutral, non-controversial. It's the old argument we've been putting forward for years: Return to academics, and leave the family therapy for families to deal with on their own. Schools -- and the government -- cannot solve these problems for our children. (It would be nice, however, if the schools didn't worsen things by assaulting our kids with sensitive, emotional materials -- and the government didn't create more problems by financial incentives for family dysfunction.)
2. Parenting Resources Sidebar (p. 28) How can any "parenting" guide that mentions Fenway Community Health and PFLAG (Parents and Friends of Lesbians & Gays) be taken seriously?
Fenway Community Health Center is the group that passed out the Little Black Book to teenagers at the GLSEN Boston Conference in 2005 at Brookline High School. Fenway runs ads in the Boston "gay" newspaper seeking practitioners of "barebacking" anal intercourse -- for "tops and bottoms" -- to take part in HIV drug tests. They send bizarre "entertainers" to the Fens anonymous sex cruising grounds to hand out anal lubricants and condoms. (Some of their advice: "Safer sex is not necessarily about wrapping yourself in latex until no part of you is exposed. Although some people may find this appealing, for many people it comes across as a complete turn-off. So what else can you do?"... read more. And check out their Dr. Cox.) This is a "parenting" resource?
PFLAG bills itself as a group that supports parents whose children "come out" as G L B or T. (Are you ready for your teenage daughter to tell you she wants her breasts removed? If not, PFLAG will help you!) PFLAG is pushing hard for homosexualizing and transgenderizing your children. (See their pamphlet, "Our Trans Children.")They do teacher and counselor training and "GLBT pride days" in our public schools promoting homosexuality and transgenderism. We've drawn attention to their more secretive Transcending Boundaries conference which also promotes transsexuality, poly sexuality and "families" (multiple partner relationships), BDSM (whips & chains), and now hormone-blocking injections to pre-pubescent "transgender children" (making their later transitioning surgery less complicated). PFLAG also has a "straight spouse group"! (We think this means a spouse whose opposite-sex spouse is actively bisexual? So their child is seeing who knows what in the home?) This is a "parenting" resource?
From Real Women of Canada report:
*According to a study published in Adolescence, 29% of the adult children of homosexual parents have been specifically subjected to sexual molestation as a child by a homosexual parent, compared to only 0.6 percent of adult children of heterosexual parents.These findings were confirmed in a study published in the American Sociological Review.
**Proportionately, homosexual men are more inclined to child molestation than heterosexual men.According to American studies, the evidence indicates that homosexual men molest boys and teenagers at rates completely disproportionate to the rates at which heterosexual men molest girls. A study shows that the homosexual child molester accounts for approximately 7 times more victims than the heterosexual molester. When it comes to child sex abuse, men are almost always the perpetrator. Less than 3% of the population is homosexual, yet one-third of the sex abuse cases are committed again boys.
Well, we do have an aversion toward those homosexuals who -- as "parents" to young children -- encourage them in a GLBT identity. Besides the questionable "love life" models they show their children, it's common for homosexual "parents" to include their children in unseemly adult events such as "Pride" parades. (See the popular homosexual "parenting" book, Gloria Goes to Gay Pride.)
We documented that Meg Soens, a leader of the GLBT extremists (attacking David Parker) in Lexington, was at Boston Pride with two of her young children in 2006. What did her boy learn there? He certainly saw the ManHunt.net float, which encourages anonymous sexual encounters. What did her young daughter learn there? She saw women with bare breasts riding motorcycles, and other women whose breasts had been surgically removed, dressed as "drag kings", and "tranny" parents. Is this the kind of good parenting the Parents' Paper is promoting?
See the paper by Real Women of Canada which points out these documented dangers inherent in "same-sex parented" households: higher incidence of domestic violence; higher incidence of mental health problems in parents; reduced life expectancy of parents; higher incidence of "same-sex orientation" in children; greater risk of sexual involvement with parents*; greater risk of social or psychological problems in the children; higher incidence of child molestation.**
See also Dawn Stefanowicz's web site. Dawn's childhood experiences with a homosexual father, who included her in his depraved and dangerous activities, are a warning to our too accepting society. (Her book is coming out in the fall.)
Parents' rights in the schools are not jeopardized only through "sex ed." "Family" topics of any sort should NOT even be discussed. No newly manufactured stories about Mommy & her boyfriend. No stories about two "daddies". No stories about divorce. No stories about Daddy undergoing sex-change surgery. No stories about Mommy's (or is it Daddy's?) collection of whips. No stories about "Daddy died." No stories about "Grandma's Alzheimer's."
Can't we just leave all this stuff out of the schools? Read classic literature instead. Keep it neutral, non-controversial. It's the old argument we've been putting forward for years: Return to academics, and leave the family therapy for families to deal with on their own. Schools -- and the government -- cannot solve these problems for our children. (It would be nice, however, if the schools didn't worsen things by assaulting our kids with sensitive, emotional materials -- and the government didn't create more problems by financial incentives for family dysfunction.)
2. Parenting Resources Sidebar (p. 28) How can any "parenting" guide that mentions Fenway Community Health and PFLAG (Parents and Friends of Lesbians & Gays) be taken seriously?
Fenway Community Health Center is the group that passed out the Little Black Book to teenagers at the GLSEN Boston Conference in 2005 at Brookline High School. Fenway runs ads in the Boston "gay" newspaper seeking practitioners of "barebacking" anal intercourse -- for "tops and bottoms" -- to take part in HIV drug tests. They send bizarre "entertainers" to the Fens anonymous sex cruising grounds to hand out anal lubricants and condoms. (Some of their advice: "Safer sex is not necessarily about wrapping yourself in latex until no part of you is exposed. Although some people may find this appealing, for many people it comes across as a complete turn-off. So what else can you do?"... read more. And check out their Dr. Cox.) This is a "parenting" resource?
PFLAG bills itself as a group that supports parents whose children "come out" as G L B or T. (Are you ready for your teenage daughter to tell you she wants her breasts removed? If not, PFLAG will help you!) PFLAG is pushing hard for homosexualizing and transgenderizing your children. (See their pamphlet, "Our Trans Children.")They do teacher and counselor training and "GLBT pride days" in our public schools promoting homosexuality and transgenderism. We've drawn attention to their more secretive Transcending Boundaries conference which also promotes transsexuality, poly sexuality and "families" (multiple partner relationships), BDSM (whips & chains), and now hormone-blocking injections to pre-pubescent "transgender children" (making their later transitioning surgery less complicated). PFLAG also has a "straight spouse group"! (We think this means a spouse whose opposite-sex spouse is actively bisexual? So their child is seeing who knows what in the home?) This is a "parenting" resource?
From Real Women of Canada report:
*According to a study published in Adolescence, 29% of the adult children of homosexual parents have been specifically subjected to sexual molestation as a child by a homosexual parent, compared to only 0.6 percent of adult children of heterosexual parents.These findings were confirmed in a study published in the American Sociological Review.
**Proportionately, homosexual men are more inclined to child molestation than heterosexual men.According to American studies, the evidence indicates that homosexual men molest boys and teenagers at rates completely disproportionate to the rates at which heterosexual men molest girls. A study shows that the homosexual child molester accounts for approximately 7 times more victims than the heterosexual molester. When it comes to child sex abuse, men are almost always the perpetrator. Less than 3% of the population is homosexual, yet one-third of the sex abuse cases are committed again boys.
Friday, July 20, 2007
Romney's Posing on Parents' Rights and Sex Ed
Romney's recent statements on sex ed (see YouTube) are laughable. Look, we're in Massachusetts, and we're the group behind the current Parents' Rights law that guarantees parents advance notice and the right to opt their child out of any school instruction involving human sexuality issues. So we know about this issue of sex ed in the schools. What a joke that Romney is acting as the defender of parents' rights in this matter!
When the rubber hit the road with the David Parker case, then-Gov. Mitt Romney did NOT ENFORCE THE LAW through his Department of Education. All Lexington parent Parker asked for was advance notice when his kindergartner would be exposed to homosexuality and transgender issues, and so he could opt his child out (as Mass. law allows). The school system denied him this legal right. Romney should then have instructed his Commissioner of Education to enforce the law, but he did nothing other than say Parker's demands were within the law. Thanks, Mitt.
Just as bad, Romney's "Governor's Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth" promoted the homosexual extremist agenda in high schools across Massachusetts. Romney only paid attention when WE went to him in 2006 documenting outrages of its Youth Pride event in May 2005, and even then he caved to the homosexual lobby in the State House and backed off disbanding the Commission!
So who is Romney to pontificate against Obama's mention that sex education is the "right thing to do" and should be "age appropriate"? Romney now says that "zero" is the right amount of sex ed for kindergartners. So, why didn't he come to David Parker's defense, and enforce the law (the job of the executive branch), when Parker's son was being given storybooks on "families" with two mommies or two daddies?
Romney: Obama's sex-ed support wrong
Associated Press (7-19-07)
Republican Mitt Romney directly appealed to social conservatives in South Carolina on Thursday, criticizing Democratic rival Barack Obama for supporting age-appropriate sex education for children as young as kindergartners. "Senator Obama is wrong if he thinks science-based sex education has any place in kindergarten," Romney said. "We should be working to clean up the filthy waters our kids are swimming in."
"Romney targets Obama - with a twist," Chicago Sun-Times (7-20-07)
When the rubber hit the road with the David Parker case, then-Gov. Mitt Romney did NOT ENFORCE THE LAW through his Department of Education. All Lexington parent Parker asked for was advance notice when his kindergartner would be exposed to homosexuality and transgender issues, and so he could opt his child out (as Mass. law allows). The school system denied him this legal right. Romney should then have instructed his Commissioner of Education to enforce the law, but he did nothing other than say Parker's demands were within the law. Thanks, Mitt.
Just as bad, Romney's "Governor's Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth" promoted the homosexual extremist agenda in high schools across Massachusetts. Romney only paid attention when WE went to him in 2006 documenting outrages of its Youth Pride event in May 2005, and even then he caved to the homosexual lobby in the State House and backed off disbanding the Commission!
So who is Romney to pontificate against Obama's mention that sex education is the "right thing to do" and should be "age appropriate"? Romney now says that "zero" is the right amount of sex ed for kindergartners. So, why didn't he come to David Parker's defense, and enforce the law (the job of the executive branch), when Parker's son was being given storybooks on "families" with two mommies or two daddies?
Romney: Obama's sex-ed support wrong
Associated Press (7-19-07)
Republican Mitt Romney directly appealed to social conservatives in South Carolina on Thursday, criticizing Democratic rival Barack Obama for supporting age-appropriate sex education for children as young as kindergartners. "Senator Obama is wrong if he thinks science-based sex education has any place in kindergarten," Romney said. "We should be working to clean up the filthy waters our kids are swimming in."
"Romney targets Obama - with a twist," Chicago Sun-Times (7-20-07)
Thursday, July 19, 2007
Pro-Life Activists Who Don't Hold Back the Truth
The Minnesota Supreme Court has ruled that pro-life protesters were exercising their First Amendment rights in showing a graphic photo of an aborted baby. (It's encouraging to hear about a good ruling once in a while!) But the attorney for the defendants noted that, "Graphic photos are controversial even among pro-lifers," and urged "they be used prudently and sparingly – with warning signs wherever possible."
Huh? One reason we still have millions of abortions is that such truthful images are used TOO SPARINGLY! In a somewhat contradictory statement, the attorney goes on to admit that "... our society has to confront the brutal, bloody realities of this murderous atrocity, as mere abstract rhetoric too often fails to trigger the deep, visceral reaction needed to overcome contemporary America's bland indifference to this carnage."
That's what we often say about homosexuality and transsexuality: The reality of the sexual perversions needs to be discussed, or there will be a failure to "trigger the deep, visceral reaction needed to overcome" this harmful movement. But the establishment "conservative" groups definitely want to stay away from "the ick factor" -- this is equivalent to not showing photos of ripped up babies -- and they've essentially complied with the radical homosexual plan to enforce silence concerning homosexual practices and health risks.
The establishment "conservatives" have allowed the debate to move to abstract, positive emotional issues like "families" and "love" and "rights". For example, VoteOnMarriage never said homosexual "marriage" was wrong because it sanctioned sodomy and spread dangerous disease; just that every child needed a father and mother, and the people should be allowed to vote.
See the WorldNetDaily article, "Court allows display of 'bloody' aborted babies; Case addresses 'America's bland indifference to this carnage' " (7-19-07).
... The decision reversed the criminal convictions of pro-life protesters Ron Rudnick and Luke Otterstad, who displayed the signs on an overpass in the Twin Cities suburb of Anoka during the run-up to the 2004 national elections. One sign displayed a large color photograph of an aborted infant; the other branded a local congressional candidate as "pro-abortion." The two were jailed by police, their signs were taken away, and they were convicted of causing a "criminal nuisance." But the state's highest court unanimously reversed the convictions, determining that prosecutors simply failed to prove their case: that the signs created any danger to the public. ...
... But the court's conclusion in the case said the prosecution hadn't proven the signs were a criminal "nuisance" or that the city's sign ordinance even applied. Two other justices agreed with former NFL star-turned-judge Alan Page that the defendants' First Amendment rights were violated because the prosecution was "content-based," or targeting the pro-life message. "[A]bove all else, the First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content," the concurrence said. ... In Page's concurring opinion, he noted that "it is clear on this record that the state's prosecution of appellants under that statute was content-based and therefore barred by the First Amendment."
Huh? One reason we still have millions of abortions is that such truthful images are used TOO SPARINGLY! In a somewhat contradictory statement, the attorney goes on to admit that "... our society has to confront the brutal, bloody realities of this murderous atrocity, as mere abstract rhetoric too often fails to trigger the deep, visceral reaction needed to overcome contemporary America's bland indifference to this carnage."
That's what we often say about homosexuality and transsexuality: The reality of the sexual perversions needs to be discussed, or there will be a failure to "trigger the deep, visceral reaction needed to overcome" this harmful movement. But the establishment "conservative" groups definitely want to stay away from "the ick factor" -- this is equivalent to not showing photos of ripped up babies -- and they've essentially complied with the radical homosexual plan to enforce silence concerning homosexual practices and health risks.
The establishment "conservatives" have allowed the debate to move to abstract, positive emotional issues like "families" and "love" and "rights". For example, VoteOnMarriage never said homosexual "marriage" was wrong because it sanctioned sodomy and spread dangerous disease; just that every child needed a father and mother, and the people should be allowed to vote.
See the WorldNetDaily article, "Court allows display of 'bloody' aborted babies; Case addresses 'America's bland indifference to this carnage' " (7-19-07).
... The decision reversed the criminal convictions of pro-life protesters Ron Rudnick and Luke Otterstad, who displayed the signs on an overpass in the Twin Cities suburb of Anoka during the run-up to the 2004 national elections. One sign displayed a large color photograph of an aborted infant; the other branded a local congressional candidate as "pro-abortion." The two were jailed by police, their signs were taken away, and they were convicted of causing a "criminal nuisance." But the state's highest court unanimously reversed the convictions, determining that prosecutors simply failed to prove their case: that the signs created any danger to the public. ...
... But the court's conclusion in the case said the prosecution hadn't proven the signs were a criminal "nuisance" or that the city's sign ordinance even applied. Two other justices agreed with former NFL star-turned-judge Alan Page that the defendants' First Amendment rights were violated because the prosecution was "content-based," or targeting the pro-life message. "[A]bove all else, the First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content," the concurrence said. ... In Page's concurring opinion, he noted that "it is clear on this record that the state's prosecution of appellants under that statute was content-based and therefore barred by the First Amendment."
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Focus on the Family Still Delusional About Romney?
The Denver Post reported recently that Mitt Romney met with James Dobson and other top officers of Focus on the Family. See "Romney faces skepticism" (7-16-07):
... "I don't believe that conservative Christians in large numbers will vote for a Mormon, but that remains to be seen," James Dobson, founder of the Colorado Springs-based but nationally influential Focus on the Family evangelical ministry, said in a radio interview in October. The observation is momentous. Dobson's first-ever endorsement to the Christian faithful of a presidential candidate is cited by political operatives as crucial to President Bush's 2004 re-election.
Dobson currently is "sequestered," busy writing his latest book and unavailable for interviews. But a top Focus on the Family official said Dobson's observation remains valid, despite a recent visit Romney paid to Dobson at his offices this spring.
During a round of fundraising in Colorado Springs, Romney spoke with Dobson, Focus on the Family senior vice president Tom Minnery and others for a little more than 30 minutes. ... "If Mitt is the (Republican) nominee, I think he'll get a large portion of evangelical votes," Minnery said. ... "I think he's doing a pretty good job so far," Minnery said. "He's asked people to judge him on how he lives his life and how he leads his family and the decisions he's made on social issues. From that standpoint, he's obviously very conservative." ...
John Haskins comments:
Is Tom Minnery still delusional about Slick Willard? So sad, and so destructive. What would it take to open this man's eyes?
"I think he's doing a pretty good job so far," Minnery said. "He's asked people to judge him on how he lives his life and how he leads his family and the decisions he's made on social issues. From that standpoint, he's obviously very conservative."
Huh? Mitt Romney? "Obviously very conservative"? "On social issues"?
Based on decisions he's made? On which planet?
Here on planet Earth, in full public view, while we and our "legal experts" had our eyes tightly shut, Mitt Romney made illegal, unconstitutional decisions tearing down religious freedom, destroying marriage, nullifying parents' rights. He:
* forced public officials to perform sodomy-based "marriages" or resign;
* forced Catholic Charities to give children to homosexuals or close down -- citing a law that, as even liberal former governor Mike Dukakis pointed out, does not exist;
* forced Catholic hospitals to issue abortifacients, violating their Constitutional freedom of religion and reversing the ruling of his own Commissioner of Health that no law required such orders;
* designed and signed a law creating a state health care system that will kill not fewer, but more, babies in the womb, and permanently and unconstitutionally gives Planned Parenthood an official voice as part of state government;
* expanded government funding for pro-homosexuality propaganda for children;
* failed to enforce, even once, the parents' rights law intended to guarantee that parents can protect their children from monstrous, evil homosexual brainwashing.
Romney's anti-moral, anti-parent, anti-constitution, anti-marriage record goes on and on. The sheer volume and cravenness of it sickens the stomach. Never in my years of following politics closely have I known of any candidate whose record offered more abundant and meticulously documented proof that he is NOT conservative, than the record of Willard Mitt Romney. Yet Focus On the Family's Tom Minnery still calls Romney, "obviously very conservative on social issues"!
Malcolm Muggeridge observed that we believe political lies not because they are believable, but because we want to. It is truly sad and discouraging to read that someone with the influence that Minnery is so completely in denial about Mitt Romney's willing role in the relentless debauching of childhood, the natural human family, and our constitutional form of government. This is freakish, tragic denial, utterly divorced from reality. What terrible damage such public statements do to Americans' -- and especially Christians' -- efforts to identify moral leadership. Every such public denial of the proven facts about Romney is instantly seized upon by the pro-abortion, pro-sodomy, anti-Christian establishment and by their enablers in the "conservative" establishment. If a Democrat had done such things he would be opposed at every turn by "pro-family conservatives." Only a clean-cut Republican with a photogenic family and "great presidential hair" could have pulled this off and still have the Minnerys, Sekulows, David Frenches and Hugh Hewitts covering up for him.
We are witnessing a truly poisoned placebo "conservatism" collaborating in its own destruction. This "pro-family social conservatism" has many of the characteristics which George Orwell, Whittaker Chambers and Malcolm Muggeridge found among the writers, clergy. lawyers and intellectuals of the first half of the 20th Century, whose relentless, aggressive, self-righteous denial served communism's liquidation of over 100 million human beings. Imagined intellectual and moral superiority is a truly addictive and dangerous thing. Facts no longer mean anything, as Orwell, Muggeridge and others warned.
Whittaker Chambers' biographer Sam Tanenhaus wrote that Lenin's authoritarianism was "precisely what attracts Chambers… He had at last found his church." We are witnessing something very similar as "conservative" and "pro-family" careerists deny the provable anti-constitutional, anti-child, anti-family, anti-marriage, anti-morality legacy of Willard Mitt Romney. What is the fatal attraction? It is Romney's utter moral emptiness -- beautified by the total aesthetic picture of his wealth, Ivy League credentials, photogenic family, endless repetition of assigned conservative mantras, and that great hair. These are precisely what attracts many "conservatives" to him. This moral hollowness, dignified by the lovely and seductive picture of worldly success, is the essence of the church that calls itself "conservatism."
How revealing of the obsession with outward appearances that has made spiritually impotent the elite of what we trusted as "social conservatism," the pro-family movement and the Christian Church. Orwell, Chambers and Muggeridge at least finally saw and accepted the obvious truth and escaped the ambush their own willful delusions had prepared for them. The will to be seduced that Muggeridge described is exactly what the reaction will be among many when the Antichrist finally gets his turn to seduce them: "And power was given to him to deceive the peoples."
Other than that, this is just another article shifting attention from Romney's rampage through the Massachusetts Constitution, his sodomy-based "marriages," etc. to the unrelated issue of his Mormonism -- a win-win for liberals, since they mock Mormonism, but they get to paint Christians as intolerant bigots for rejecting Mormonism as a cult.
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
Boston Parents' Paper Normalizing GLBT "Families" -- Part II
The July issue of the Boston Parents' Paper (PP) uses a typical propaganda ploy in its attempt to normalize homosexual "parenting": It focuses on the innocent beauty of children, and the child's emotions regarding his "parents." The PP starts with the glowing face of a strawberry blonde imp on their cover, whose sideways smile leads your eye directly to the feature headline, "Gay Parenting: 'See Us as Family'." And whose heart wouldn't go out to the smiling boy "who is happy his parents got married" in a half-page color photo of a smiling "family" -- two men and a boy -- on the beach. We learn the boy was adopted from Russia. And we respond: "What a wonderful thing!"
But who are the "parents"? One assumes the two men partake of anal intercourse. If they were habitual smokers, or drug users, what would the PP say? Would they hold them up as model "parents"? Yet it is medical fact that anal intercourse and other typical homosexual sex practices are inherently unhealthy, even if the couple is monogamous and "committed." And the boy will of course accept it as normal, and perhaps be drawn into the very unhealthy and dangerous GLBT world. (Studies show children of homosexual parents are more likely to identify as homosexual themselves.) What sort of role models are they for the boy?
State Senator Jarrett Barrios, who has adopted two sons with "his spouse," Democrat consultant Doug Hattaway, is quoted. Why didn't the PP say "his husband"? Would that be unpalatable to most of their readership? Somehow the word "spouse" softens the conjured image a bit ... And there is no challenge to Barrios' claim that homosexual "marriage" is about "civil rights." This after the editor carefully states the PP takes no stand on "gay marriage."
Then we get to the part about special support groups for "gay and lesbian parents," sponsored by Beth Israel Deaconess Hospital, Jewish Family & Children's Service, and Fenway Community Health Services. PFLAG and COLAGE are listed as resources. But PP wouldn't dare mention the support groups for "poly" parented families ... at least not for a few years!
What's really going on here is a propaganda assault on hetero parents, because the "gay and lesbian parents" already know about their special support groups! There is no need for the PP to write about these for that limited, already informed audience. You don't go through an adoption process without already knowing all the support systems available for your special case! This is also just a lot of whining from the "gay and lesbian parents" who are facing many of the same emotional issues heterosexual adoptive parents face. But this article is all about building sympathy for the former.
We read about the Home for Little Wanderers in Boston, which places many children with homosexual couples. But nothing is said about its "Waltham House," which actually encourages transgenderism in teenagers. It's well known that the Dept. of Social Services, also connected to Waltham House, favors placement of children including those without special needs with homosexual couples. Adoptions to "gay and lesbian parents" have been going on for many years, and gave a major political weapon to homosexual activists, who could then lobby in the State House with babies and children in tow: "You can't break up our family by banning gay marriage!" (Even VoteOnMarriage bought this line.)
Last but not least, the article errs in saying that "gay marriage" was "legalized" in Massachusetts. Governor Romney issued Partner A/Partner B marriage licenses, but no laws changed to allow for this alteration of the marriage statutes.
[Coming soon: Part III on the PP article's sidebars: parents' rights, and resources.]
Contacts page: http://boston.parenthood.com/articles.html?article_id=8872
Editor: alison.murray@parenthood.com
Publisher: deirdre.wilson@parenthood.com
Email: boston.parentspaper@parenthood.com
But who are the "parents"? One assumes the two men partake of anal intercourse. If they were habitual smokers, or drug users, what would the PP say? Would they hold them up as model "parents"? Yet it is medical fact that anal intercourse and other typical homosexual sex practices are inherently unhealthy, even if the couple is monogamous and "committed." And the boy will of course accept it as normal, and perhaps be drawn into the very unhealthy and dangerous GLBT world. (Studies show children of homosexual parents are more likely to identify as homosexual themselves.) What sort of role models are they for the boy?
State Senator Jarrett Barrios, who has adopted two sons with "his spouse," Democrat consultant Doug Hattaway, is quoted. Why didn't the PP say "his husband"? Would that be unpalatable to most of their readership? Somehow the word "spouse" softens the conjured image a bit ... And there is no challenge to Barrios' claim that homosexual "marriage" is about "civil rights." This after the editor carefully states the PP takes no stand on "gay marriage."
Then we get to the part about special support groups for "gay and lesbian parents," sponsored by Beth Israel Deaconess Hospital, Jewish Family & Children's Service, and Fenway Community Health Services. PFLAG and COLAGE are listed as resources. But PP wouldn't dare mention the support groups for "poly" parented families ... at least not for a few years!
What's really going on here is a propaganda assault on hetero parents, because the "gay and lesbian parents" already know about their special support groups! There is no need for the PP to write about these for that limited, already informed audience. You don't go through an adoption process without already knowing all the support systems available for your special case! This is also just a lot of whining from the "gay and lesbian parents" who are facing many of the same emotional issues heterosexual adoptive parents face. But this article is all about building sympathy for the former.
We read about the Home for Little Wanderers in Boston, which places many children with homosexual couples. But nothing is said about its "Waltham House," which actually encourages transgenderism in teenagers. It's well known that the Dept. of Social Services, also connected to Waltham House, favors placement of children including those without special needs with homosexual couples. Adoptions to "gay and lesbian parents" have been going on for many years, and gave a major political weapon to homosexual activists, who could then lobby in the State House with babies and children in tow: "You can't break up our family by banning gay marriage!" (Even VoteOnMarriage bought this line.)
Last but not least, the article errs in saying that "gay marriage" was "legalized" in Massachusetts. Governor Romney issued Partner A/Partner B marriage licenses, but no laws changed to allow for this alteration of the marriage statutes.
[Coming soon: Part III on the PP article's sidebars: parents' rights, and resources.]
Contacts page: http://boston.parenthood.com/articles.html?article_id=8872
Editor: alison.murray@parenthood.com
Publisher: deirdre.wilson@parenthood.com
Email: boston.parentspaper@parenthood.com
Monday, July 16, 2007
Defining Treason Down: Alliance Defense Fund & Romney
More on Saturday's big story in WorldNetDaily, "Experts: Credit Romney for homosexual marriage; 'What he did was exercise illegal legislative authority' " featured in our July 14 post.
Defining treason down: Why Did the ADF's Stovall hold back on Romney's criminal actions?
By John Haskins
Alliance Defense Fund attorney Chris Stovall presumably told WorldNetDaily reporter Robert Unruh more than ended up in the blockbuster WND article, "Experts: Credit Romney for Homosexual Marriage." One hopes Stovall had the courage and integrity to go on the record as Dr. Titus did, in stating the obvious: Romney used authority he did not have when he ordered homosexual marriage after Goodridge rendered a merely "declaratory judgment" with "no consequential relief."
Stovall undoubtedly feels bound to understate Romney's pro-active -- almost certainly criminal -- role in illegally ordering public officials to perform these void homosexual "marriages." After all, his firm, the Alliance Defense Fund, like Jay Sekulow, Cardinal O'Malley's attorneys, the Massachusetts Family Institute, and radio lawyer Hugh Hewitt, bungled this catastrophically -- either failing to read the Massachusetts Constitution at all, or if they bothered to consult it at some point, by treating it as irrelevant, since it so totally contradicts Mitt Romney's entire story and the snickering Boston Globe's flood of propaganda supporting Romney's lies about reluctantly enforcing "the law."
Stovall's colleague at Alliance Defense Fund, Atty. David French -- who has sold his soul ingratiating himself to such placebo "conservatives" as Slick Willard Romney, the National Review kids and Jay Sekulow -- is proceeding full speed ahead with his gross and flagrant malpractice, subverting the oldest functioning constitution in the world. Messrs. French, Sekulow and Hewitt are post-constitutional legal nihilists who claim a preference for "conservatism," but for whom constitutions can be nullified by judges drunk with power and seething with malice toward Judeo-Christian morality. These ruthless, arrogant and frankly, quite incompetent attorneys are doing such damage to the ragged remnants of constitutionalism that they ought, in my view, to be disbarred from the practice of law. Notice that at no point do these mercenaries dare mention the Massachusetts Constitution in their marketeering for "Slick Willard" Romney, Founding Father of Sodomy-Based "Marriage."
So if Stovall failed to explicitly agree with Professor Titus about the grossly illegal nature of Romney's actions, he cited the Alaska situation as a roundabout way of agreeing with Titus, Atty. Robert Paine and others (including us), that constitutionally, Romney was not forced to impose homosexual "marriage."
Of course that's not nearly good enough.
It is true to say that a governor is not forced to impose slavery tomorrow. But that is pantywaist silliness and requires neither thought nor courage. Neither courts nor governors have authority to impose things that statutes and/or constitutions have outlawed. When they impose them they are acting criminally, as tyrants.
If the plain words of the Massachusetts Constitution are binding, Romney not only was not forced (by a declaratory opinion -- meaning "without consequential relief"!) he chose an option he legally did not have. Romney was absolutely obliged to do exactly the opposite of what he did. This is simply too shocking and too painful for people to face, though it is proven beyond honest debate in the Letter by 44 Pro-Family Leaders to Romney. The cowardice and denial in the body politic, including the "conservative" end of it, are symptoms of an apparently fatal disease that the Founding Fathers warned about.
So-called "conservatives" and "constitutionalists" are in total and rapid breakdown, having surrendered the very rules of the game (constitutions) to the ravenous left, and everything from here on out is merely protracted surrender, sprinkled with illusory successes here and there to justify the steady pro-family and GOP fundraising.
The Massachusetts Constitution is so explicit in proving Romney's orders to be grossly illegal, null and void, and French's, Hewitt's and Sekulow's propaganda to be malpractice (if they are bound by their oath on joining the bar to uphold constitutionalism), that the only possibly debatable question is this: Does the oath of office that Romney and the neo-Bolshevik judges of the Massachusetts high court took on entering office tell us that their failure to uphold the state constitution is a felony? Did the Founding Fathers, in particular, John Adams, the original Robert Paine, et al. intend for actions like Romney's to be prosecuted in criminal court? Having examined the oath, I think the answer is that they did (although, technically speaking, "treason" is probably not the correct charge, constitutionally).
Apparently, when Romney got away with what the Founding Fathers regarded as criminal subversion of the state constitution he swore to uphold, the Alaska governor following suit, ignored her solemn duty to execute the law as ratified by the legislature, rather than judges' non-binding fantasy opinions. I've not read the Alaska judges' opinion, but one of the most striking things about the Goodridge opinion that Romney cynically used as a Trojan horse to impose sodomy-based "marriage" is that (as Professors Titus and Fitzgibbon point out) it contains no order that Romney could even assert forced him to act. Moreover, the Massachusetts court has repeatedly admitted it has no power to order the governor or the legislature to do anything.
The layers upon layers of legal deception that Romney, the ADF, Sekulow, Hugh Hewitt, and National Review have used to sell their lies are simply mind-boggling. This is why Benjamin Franklin warned as he emerged from the Constitutional Convention "[It's] a republic, Madame, if you can keep it."
Here are the comments from ADF's Stovall, in reporter Unruh's context:
Titus noted the 1857 Dred Scott decision, in which the U.S. Supreme Court had declared a slave was the property of the master, even if they both were physically in a free state. But President Lincoln rejected the authority of that opinion.
"[I]f the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made – the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of the eminent tribunal," he said.
Lincoln simply declined to enforce the court's opinion.
Stovall told WND that a much more recent confrontation between branches of government played out recently in Alaska.
After a statewide vote, executive branch officials refused to grant benefits to partners of state employees in same-sex duos; a lawsuit was filed and the state Supreme Court sided with the same-sex couples. The governor, Frank Murkowski, called the Legislature into special session, but lawmakers didn't want to be hurried. They approved legislation that no such changes to the state benefits could be made until they met in general session.
The court then refused to extend its deadline, and lawmakers refused to yield.
The standoff collapsed when a new governor was inaugurated and without benefit of authorizing legislation, instituted the changes demanded by the court.
Mass Resistance leaders note that to this day, the Massachusetts Legislature still has not authorized a change in the state's marriage laws.
Defining treason down: Why Did the ADF's Stovall hold back on Romney's criminal actions?
By John Haskins
Alliance Defense Fund attorney Chris Stovall presumably told WorldNetDaily reporter Robert Unruh more than ended up in the blockbuster WND article, "Experts: Credit Romney for Homosexual Marriage." One hopes Stovall had the courage and integrity to go on the record as Dr. Titus did, in stating the obvious: Romney used authority he did not have when he ordered homosexual marriage after Goodridge rendered a merely "declaratory judgment" with "no consequential relief."
Stovall undoubtedly feels bound to understate Romney's pro-active -- almost certainly criminal -- role in illegally ordering public officials to perform these void homosexual "marriages." After all, his firm, the Alliance Defense Fund, like Jay Sekulow, Cardinal O'Malley's attorneys, the Massachusetts Family Institute, and radio lawyer Hugh Hewitt, bungled this catastrophically -- either failing to read the Massachusetts Constitution at all, or if they bothered to consult it at some point, by treating it as irrelevant, since it so totally contradicts Mitt Romney's entire story and the snickering Boston Globe's flood of propaganda supporting Romney's lies about reluctantly enforcing "the law."
Stovall's colleague at Alliance Defense Fund, Atty. David French -- who has sold his soul ingratiating himself to such placebo "conservatives" as Slick Willard Romney, the National Review kids and Jay Sekulow -- is proceeding full speed ahead with his gross and flagrant malpractice, subverting the oldest functioning constitution in the world. Messrs. French, Sekulow and Hewitt are post-constitutional legal nihilists who claim a preference for "conservatism," but for whom constitutions can be nullified by judges drunk with power and seething with malice toward Judeo-Christian morality. These ruthless, arrogant and frankly, quite incompetent attorneys are doing such damage to the ragged remnants of constitutionalism that they ought, in my view, to be disbarred from the practice of law. Notice that at no point do these mercenaries dare mention the Massachusetts Constitution in their marketeering for "Slick Willard" Romney, Founding Father of Sodomy-Based "Marriage."
So if Stovall failed to explicitly agree with Professor Titus about the grossly illegal nature of Romney's actions, he cited the Alaska situation as a roundabout way of agreeing with Titus, Atty. Robert Paine and others (including us), that constitutionally, Romney was not forced to impose homosexual "marriage."
Of course that's not nearly good enough.
It is true to say that a governor is not forced to impose slavery tomorrow. But that is pantywaist silliness and requires neither thought nor courage. Neither courts nor governors have authority to impose things that statutes and/or constitutions have outlawed. When they impose them they are acting criminally, as tyrants.
If the plain words of the Massachusetts Constitution are binding, Romney not only was not forced (by a declaratory opinion -- meaning "without consequential relief"!) he chose an option he legally did not have. Romney was absolutely obliged to do exactly the opposite of what he did. This is simply too shocking and too painful for people to face, though it is proven beyond honest debate in the Letter by 44 Pro-Family Leaders to Romney. The cowardice and denial in the body politic, including the "conservative" end of it, are symptoms of an apparently fatal disease that the Founding Fathers warned about.
So-called "conservatives" and "constitutionalists" are in total and rapid breakdown, having surrendered the very rules of the game (constitutions) to the ravenous left, and everything from here on out is merely protracted surrender, sprinkled with illusory successes here and there to justify the steady pro-family and GOP fundraising.
The Massachusetts Constitution is so explicit in proving Romney's orders to be grossly illegal, null and void, and French's, Hewitt's and Sekulow's propaganda to be malpractice (if they are bound by their oath on joining the bar to uphold constitutionalism), that the only possibly debatable question is this: Does the oath of office that Romney and the neo-Bolshevik judges of the Massachusetts high court took on entering office tell us that their failure to uphold the state constitution is a felony? Did the Founding Fathers, in particular, John Adams, the original Robert Paine, et al. intend for actions like Romney's to be prosecuted in criminal court? Having examined the oath, I think the answer is that they did (although, technically speaking, "treason" is probably not the correct charge, constitutionally).
Apparently, when Romney got away with what the Founding Fathers regarded as criminal subversion of the state constitution he swore to uphold, the Alaska governor following suit, ignored her solemn duty to execute the law as ratified by the legislature, rather than judges' non-binding fantasy opinions. I've not read the Alaska judges' opinion, but one of the most striking things about the Goodridge opinion that Romney cynically used as a Trojan horse to impose sodomy-based "marriage" is that (as Professors Titus and Fitzgibbon point out) it contains no order that Romney could even assert forced him to act. Moreover, the Massachusetts court has repeatedly admitted it has no power to order the governor or the legislature to do anything.
The layers upon layers of legal deception that Romney, the ADF, Sekulow, Hugh Hewitt, and National Review have used to sell their lies are simply mind-boggling. This is why Benjamin Franklin warned as he emerged from the Constitutional Convention "[It's] a republic, Madame, if you can keep it."
Here are the comments from ADF's Stovall, in reporter Unruh's context:
Titus noted the 1857 Dred Scott decision, in which the U.S. Supreme Court had declared a slave was the property of the master, even if they both were physically in a free state. But President Lincoln rejected the authority of that opinion.
"[I]f the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made – the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of the eminent tribunal," he said.
Lincoln simply declined to enforce the court's opinion.
Stovall told WND that a much more recent confrontation between branches of government played out recently in Alaska.
After a statewide vote, executive branch officials refused to grant benefits to partners of state employees in same-sex duos; a lawsuit was filed and the state Supreme Court sided with the same-sex couples. The governor, Frank Murkowski, called the Legislature into special session, but lawmakers didn't want to be hurried. They approved legislation that no such changes to the state benefits could be made until they met in general session.
The court then refused to extend its deadline, and lawmakers refused to yield.
The standoff collapsed when a new governor was inaugurated and without benefit of authorizing legislation, instituted the changes demanded by the court.
Mass Resistance leaders note that to this day, the Massachusetts Legislature still has not authorized a change in the state's marriage laws.
Saturday, July 14, 2007
Experts Say Romney Created Homosexual "Marriage" -- WorldNetDaily
(from our 12-21-06 posting:)DEFENDING THE CONSTITUTION OF MASSACHUSETTS
MassResistance at the State House, Boston, November 19, 2006
[photo (c) 2006 MassResistance]
MassResistance at the State House, Boston, November 19, 2006
[photo (c) 2006 MassResistance]
In November 2006, Governor Mitt Romney held a phony "marriage rally" on the steps of the Massachusetts State House. MassResistance was there, calling on the Governor to reverse his unconstitutional orders (before leaving office in January 2007) to his Department of Public Health, Town Clerks, and Justices of the Peace that implemented illegal "homosexual marriage" in Massachusetts. We received no response from the Governor either in November, or to a formal letter signed by 44 prominent national conservative leaders in December. Finally, the national conservative press is beginning to understand and report the truth about Mitt Romney's subversion of Constitutional government in Massachusetts. It's amazing how, in this world of controlled media, it took three years to get this "NEWS" out. Thanks to WorldNetDaily for their courage in reporting the truth! In today's WorldNetDaily:
Breaking News!
ELECTION 2008
WorldNetDaily Exclusive
Experts: Credit Romney
for homosexual marriage
'What he did was exercise illegal legislative authority'
--WND
Friday, July 13, 2007
Resistance to Federal Hate Crimes Bill
Hey, "radical right": You'd better be mobilizing against the federal "hate crimes" bill, S1105, like the radical left says you are. Our pitiful Mass. Senator Teddy has SNEAKED his "Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Bill" into a Senate Defense Reauthorization Bill! Here's
(1) a video of a press conference by pastors speaking out against this assault on Christianity in Washington, D.C. last Wednesday (July 11);
(2) an alert from the Liberty Counsel;
(3) an alert from the transgender crowd (the most radical left).
(1) Here is the video of the recent Hate Crime rally -- calling America to wake up -- that we videotaped in Washington DC this last week. ... PLEASE consider what [hate crimes legislation] is going to do to ALL Christians who preach using God's word to condemn sin. PLEASE pass this on.....
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2481333456096867929&hl=en
Joe Rizoli
(2) From the Liberty Counsel:
The so-called "hate crimes" legislation took a new formyesterday when Senators Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Gordon Smith (R-Ore.)introduced the controversial amendment to a Defense Reauthorization bill. This move will could push senators to vote on the issue as early as thisweek. Introduced as the Matthew Shepard Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, the Kennedy amendment is one of more than 100 amendments attached to the Defense Reauthorization bill. An ABC 20/20 investigation showed that the Matthew Shepard murder, portrayed by activists as a hate crime because Shepard was homosexual, was in fact a bungled robbery that had nothing to do with Shepard's homosexuality.
Hate crimes laws are actually "thought crimes" laws that violate the right to freedom of speech and of conscience and subject individuals to scrutiny of their beliefs rather than focusing on a person's criminal actions. Hate crimes laws will have a chilling effect on people who have moral or religious objections to homosexual behavior. Evidence of a person's beliefs will be used against any individuals who are even suspected of committing a crime. In a debate on a similar bill that passed the House in May, Rep. Artur Davis, who supported the bill, admitted that under this law a minister could be charged with the crime of incitement if the minister preached that homosexuality is a serious sin and a person in the congregation left church and committed a crime against a homosexual. Liberty Counsel has published alegal memo that explains the dangers of hate crimes legislation.
The White House called this bill "unnecessary" and "constitutionally questionable," pointing out that "State and local criminal laws already provide criminal penalties for the violence addressed by the new Federal crime." President Bush has promised to veto the bill. Mathew Staver, Founder of Liberty Counsel and Dean of Liberty University School of Law, commented: "Hate Crimes legislation that includes sexual orientation is bad law because it criminalizes speech and does nothing toprevent violent crimes. All crimes are motivated by hate. Hate Crimes laws will not be used to punish the perpetrator, but will be used to silence people of faith, religious groups, clergy, and those who support traditional moral values."
(3) From the National Center for Transgender Equality and the Massachusetts Transgender Political Coalition:
Today Senators Kennedy (D-MA) and Smith (R-OR) introduced the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act as an amendment to the Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 1585), which is being debated in the Senate this week and next. This amendment could be voted on as early as today. In short, today transgender people are one giant step closer to gaining federal hate crimes protections! The language of today's amendment is identical language to that of S. 1105, which the Senators introduced in April.
"[T]he Radical Right is mobilizing their base to oppose the federal hate crimes bill. They're using scare tactics and flat-out lies in hopes of killing Kennedy's amendment. Make sure that your Senators hear your voice and the true importance of this bill. The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act would:
- Extend existing federal protections to include "gender identity, sexual orientation, gender and disability"
- Allow the Justice Department to assist in hate crime investigations at the local level when local law enforcement is unable or unwilling to fully address these crimes
- Mandate that the FBI begin tracking hate crimes based on actual or perceived gender identity
- Remove limitations that narrowly define hate crimes to violence committed while a person is accessing a federally protected activity, such as voting
- Allow the Justice Department to assist in hate crime investigations at the local level when local law enforcement is unable or unwilling to fully address these crimes
(1) a video of a press conference by pastors speaking out against this assault on Christianity in Washington, D.C. last Wednesday (July 11);
(2) an alert from the Liberty Counsel;
(3) an alert from the transgender crowd (the most radical left).
(1) Here is the video of the recent Hate Crime rally -- calling America to wake up -- that we videotaped in Washington DC this last week. ... PLEASE consider what [hate crimes legislation] is going to do to ALL Christians who preach using God's word to condemn sin. PLEASE pass this on.....
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2481333456096867929&hl=en
Joe Rizoli
(2) From the Liberty Counsel:
The so-called "hate crimes" legislation took a new formyesterday when Senators Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Gordon Smith (R-Ore.)introduced the controversial amendment to a Defense Reauthorization bill. This move will could push senators to vote on the issue as early as thisweek. Introduced as the Matthew Shepard Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, the Kennedy amendment is one of more than 100 amendments attached to the Defense Reauthorization bill. An ABC 20/20 investigation showed that the Matthew Shepard murder, portrayed by activists as a hate crime because Shepard was homosexual, was in fact a bungled robbery that had nothing to do with Shepard's homosexuality.
Hate crimes laws are actually "thought crimes" laws that violate the right to freedom of speech and of conscience and subject individuals to scrutiny of their beliefs rather than focusing on a person's criminal actions. Hate crimes laws will have a chilling effect on people who have moral or religious objections to homosexual behavior. Evidence of a person's beliefs will be used against any individuals who are even suspected of committing a crime. In a debate on a similar bill that passed the House in May, Rep. Artur Davis, who supported the bill, admitted that under this law a minister could be charged with the crime of incitement if the minister preached that homosexuality is a serious sin and a person in the congregation left church and committed a crime against a homosexual. Liberty Counsel has published alegal memo that explains the dangers of hate crimes legislation.
The White House called this bill "unnecessary" and "constitutionally questionable," pointing out that "State and local criminal laws already provide criminal penalties for the violence addressed by the new Federal crime." President Bush has promised to veto the bill. Mathew Staver, Founder of Liberty Counsel and Dean of Liberty University School of Law, commented: "Hate Crimes legislation that includes sexual orientation is bad law because it criminalizes speech and does nothing toprevent violent crimes. All crimes are motivated by hate. Hate Crimes laws will not be used to punish the perpetrator, but will be used to silence people of faith, religious groups, clergy, and those who support traditional moral values."
(3) From the National Center for Transgender Equality and the Massachusetts Transgender Political Coalition:
Today Senators Kennedy (D-MA) and Smith (R-OR) introduced the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act as an amendment to the Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 1585), which is being debated in the Senate this week and next. This amendment could be voted on as early as today. In short, today transgender people are one giant step closer to gaining federal hate crimes protections! The language of today's amendment is identical language to that of S. 1105, which the Senators introduced in April.
"[T]he Radical Right is mobilizing their base to oppose the federal hate crimes bill. They're using scare tactics and flat-out lies in hopes of killing Kennedy's amendment. Make sure that your Senators hear your voice and the true importance of this bill. The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act would:
- Extend existing federal protections to include "gender identity, sexual orientation, gender and disability"
- Allow the Justice Department to assist in hate crime investigations at the local level when local law enforcement is unable or unwilling to fully address these crimes
- Mandate that the FBI begin tracking hate crimes based on actual or perceived gender identity
- Remove limitations that narrowly define hate crimes to violence committed while a person is accessing a federally protected activity, such as voting
- Allow the Justice Department to assist in hate crime investigations at the local level when local law enforcement is unable or unwilling to fully address these crimes
Romney Doesn't Fool WorldNetDaily
This is big in the conservative world: WorldNetDaily's founder/editor Joseph Farah hits Mitt right between the eyes. See "Don't Be Fooled by Romney" (7-13-07). MassResistance's work over the past year, exposing Romney's injury to our Constitution, has paid off! Excerpts from Farah's article, on Romney's implementation of homosexual "marriage" in Massachusetts:
He claims today to be a supporter of traditional marriage and an opponent of same-sex marriage. Yet, as governor of Massachusetts, he did more than any other person alive in the United States to ensure same-sex marriage would be the law of the land in his state. How?
When the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ordered the state Legislature to write a new law permitting same-sex marriages, Romney, the governor, the chief executive of the state's government, fell all over himself to do something that was not required of him – issuing homosexual marriage licenses. Not only did this action reveal his gutlessness and lack of knowledge of the separation of powers in our system of government, it also suggests he is merely masquerading as someone committed to defending marriage as an institution between one man and one woman. ...
Romney is one of those politicians – not unlike Hillary Rodham Clinton and her husband – who will do anything and say anything to get elected. That's what certain politicians believe is more important than principle – getting themselves elected. ...
If President George W. Bush set back the Republican Party years, perhaps decades, a politician like Romney, an empty suit with lots of money and good looks, could prove to be the death of the GOP if he should ever be elected president. Today I pledge earnestly and without reservation that I will not vote for Romney under any circumstances, no matter who his opponent might be. That's how bad he is. That's how unacceptable he is as a presidential candidate. ...
He claims today to be a supporter of traditional marriage and an opponent of same-sex marriage. Yet, as governor of Massachusetts, he did more than any other person alive in the United States to ensure same-sex marriage would be the law of the land in his state. How?
When the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ordered the state Legislature to write a new law permitting same-sex marriages, Romney, the governor, the chief executive of the state's government, fell all over himself to do something that was not required of him – issuing homosexual marriage licenses. Not only did this action reveal his gutlessness and lack of knowledge of the separation of powers in our system of government, it also suggests he is merely masquerading as someone committed to defending marriage as an institution between one man and one woman. ...
Romney is one of those politicians – not unlike Hillary Rodham Clinton and her husband – who will do anything and say anything to get elected. That's what certain politicians believe is more important than principle – getting themselves elected. ...
If President George W. Bush set back the Republican Party years, perhaps decades, a politician like Romney, an empty suit with lots of money and good looks, could prove to be the death of the GOP if he should ever be elected president. Today I pledge earnestly and without reservation that I will not vote for Romney under any circumstances, no matter who his opponent might be. That's how bad he is. That's how unacceptable he is as a presidential candidate. ...
Thursday, July 12, 2007
The National Review "Mothership" and Romney
Left: The MothershipDon't miss this in WorldNetDaily today:
"Romney's 'constitutional bungling' criticized: Leaders say he ordered 'homosexual marriage' even though court never asked him to" (7-12-07). National Review's puffy coverage of Romney is the topic.
The article contains hysterically funny quotes from Kathryn Jean Lopez (Romney cheerleader) of National Review Online. She claims NRO provides in-depth coverage, yet we've NEVER seen anything there approaching the detail of this WND story. In fact, Lopez reverts to childish name-calling, continuing the NR pattern of complete avoidance of the constitutional issues. From WND:
The publication responded that the criticism was nothing more than a public relations stunt. "National Review Online has run pieces and blog posts criticizing and lauding Governor Romney on marriage and a whole host of other issues, as we have with others of the Republicans up for primary consideration next year. ..." Kathryn Jean Lopez, National Review Online's editor, told WND. "Both marriage and the presidential election deserve more serious treatment than Mass Resistance's public-relations stunt. That's what we strive to do here at National Review Online and our mothership, National Review," she said.
We suggest that NR take lessons from WND on thoughtful political reporting! And maybe it's time for Kathryn Jean to return to the "mothership" -- National Review magazine -- in some more controlled role. Maybe the mothership needs to clean house. We suggest the mothership hire a few more real conservatives (and grown-ups). And maybe it's time for NR to stop taking big donations from Presidential candidates and their surrogates.
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Lawsuit Against Church in NJ: Coming Soon to Mass.
One of the many ways "the sky is falling": LifeSite News reports that a lesbian couple in New Jersey is suing a church for refusing to let them have their "civil union" ceremony on church property. It won't be long before we see similar lawsuits in Massachusetts against churches that refuse homosexual "marriage" ceremonies on their properties. Just as in New Jersey law, Massachusetts bans discrimination in public accommodations on the basis of "sexual orientattion." Freedom of religion? What's that?
Lesbian Couple Files Complaint against Church for Refusing Civil Union Ceremony
OCEAN GROVE, New Jersey (LifeSiteNews.com) - A New Jersey lesbian couple has filed a civil rights complaint against a Christian seaside retreat association that refused to facilitate their "civil union." Harriet Bernstein and Luisa Paster filed the complaint June 19 with the state attorney general's office on the grounds of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation after the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association declined the use of their Boardwalk Pavilion for their civil union ceremony, planned for September.
Bernstein and Paster demanded "whatever relief is provided by law" including unspecified "compensatory damages for economic loss, humiliation, [and] mental pain." New Jersey's anti-discrimination laws currently forbid those who "offer goods, services, and facilities to the general public" from "directly or indirectly denying or withholding any accommodation, service, benefit, or privilege to an individual" on the basis of sexual orientation.
However the OGCMA has stated that it must adhere to the rules of the United Methodist Book of Discipline, which forbids homosexual civil unions from being performed in churches and other areas for worship. "The facility that they requested is a facility we have used exclusively for our camp meeting mission and worship celebrations since 1869," Scott Hoffman, OGCMA's chief administrative officer told LifeSiteNews.com. ...
Here's the Mass. law:
Chapter 272: Section 98. Discrimination in admission to, or treatment in, place of public accommodation; punishment; forfeiture; civil right
Section 98. Whoever makes any distinction, discrimination or restriction on account of race, color, religious creed, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, which shall not include persons whose sexual orientation involves minor children as the sex object, deafness, blindness or any physical or mental disability or ancestry relative to the admission of any person to, or his treatment in any place of public accommodation, resort or amusement, as defined in section ninety-two A, or whoever aids or incites such distinction, discrimination or restriction, shall be punished by a fine of not more than twenty-five hundred dollars or by imprisonment for not more than one year, or both, and shall be liable to any person aggrieved thereby for such damages as are enumerated ... All persons shall have the right to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any place of public accommodation, resort or amusement subject only to the conditions and limitations established by law and applicable to all persons. This right is recognized and declared to be a civil right.
Lesbian Couple Files Complaint against Church for Refusing Civil Union Ceremony
OCEAN GROVE, New Jersey (LifeSiteNews.com) - A New Jersey lesbian couple has filed a civil rights complaint against a Christian seaside retreat association that refused to facilitate their "civil union." Harriet Bernstein and Luisa Paster filed the complaint June 19 with the state attorney general's office on the grounds of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation after the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association declined the use of their Boardwalk Pavilion for their civil union ceremony, planned for September.
Bernstein and Paster demanded "whatever relief is provided by law" including unspecified "compensatory damages for economic loss, humiliation, [and] mental pain." New Jersey's anti-discrimination laws currently forbid those who "offer goods, services, and facilities to the general public" from "directly or indirectly denying or withholding any accommodation, service, benefit, or privilege to an individual" on the basis of sexual orientation.
However the OGCMA has stated that it must adhere to the rules of the United Methodist Book of Discipline, which forbids homosexual civil unions from being performed in churches and other areas for worship. "The facility that they requested is a facility we have used exclusively for our camp meeting mission and worship celebrations since 1869," Scott Hoffman, OGCMA's chief administrative officer told LifeSiteNews.com. ...
Here's the Mass. law:
Chapter 272: Section 98. Discrimination in admission to, or treatment in, place of public accommodation; punishment; forfeiture; civil right
Section 98. Whoever makes any distinction, discrimination or restriction on account of race, color, religious creed, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, which shall not include persons whose sexual orientation involves minor children as the sex object, deafness, blindness or any physical or mental disability or ancestry relative to the admission of any person to, or his treatment in any place of public accommodation, resort or amusement, as defined in section ninety-two A, or whoever aids or incites such distinction, discrimination or restriction, shall be punished by a fine of not more than twenty-five hundred dollars or by imprisonment for not more than one year, or both, and shall be liable to any person aggrieved thereby for such damages as are enumerated ... All persons shall have the right to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any place of public accommodation, resort or amusement subject only to the conditions and limitations established by law and applicable to all persons. This right is recognized and declared to be a civil right.
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Maryland Schools to Promote Anal Sex
The public health consequences of state-sanctioned sodomy-based "marriages" will be profound, compounding the decades of denial regarding HIV/AIDS transmission (dictated by radical homosexual activists). We already see the effect in our Massachusetts public schools, which now claim they must teach that anal sex is the equivalent of natural and healthy heterosexual intercourse -- because "gay marriage is legal."
Where were the physicians in the great non-debate on homosexual "marriage" in our State House? In the subsequent push to force homosexual sex on our schoolchildren, for example through Rep. Alice Wolf's "comprehensive health education" bill, a prominent public health physician stepped forward to point out that anal intercourse was five times more likely to result in HIV infection than vaginal intercourse (according to CDC statistics), and should not be presented to children as an acceptable behavior. But would it have made a difference if there had been 250 physicians joining with him? It didn't in Maryland! It seems most of our legislators are brain dead, and can't even absorb the most obvious facts any more.
Even in states without the fantasy of "legal" homosexual "marriage", the education establishments are out of control. PFOX (Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays) tells us that despite a petition signed by 270 PHYSICIANS, the Maryland Department of Education will forge ahead with an extreme and dangerous message to their children, that anal sex is an option just as valid and safe as vaginal intercourse! See today's press release from PFOX:
Maryland State School Board Advances “Sexual Diversity” Above Children’s Safety
News Advisory: July 10, 2007
Contact: PFOX@pfox.org www.pfox.org
ROCKVILLE , Maryland – In its ruling last week regarding a controversial sexuality curriculum in Montgomery County , the Maryland State Board of Education (MBOE) has implicitly authorized local school boards to promote “sexual diversity” to students and teach about anal sex while excluding warnings of the medical dangers pertaining to such practices.
Both the MBOE and Montgomery County School Board rejected a petition from 270 local medical doctors to include warning about anal sex critical to student safety as issued by the Office of the Surgeon General and National Institutes of Health.
The MBOE has also ruled that Maryland schools may teach questioning and confused students that homosexuality is “innate,” a controversial and unproven theory advanced by gay advocacy groups serving on the Montgomery County School Board’s curriculum advisory committee.
“In order to pander to these forces, sound education doctrine will now be turned on its head in Maryland ,” said Regina Griggs, Executive Director of Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays (PFOX). “The MBOE has taken the preposterous position that questioning children can now be taught that they are ‘born that way’ until science proves otherwise ‘with a preponderance of evidence.’”
“Millions of dollars and three decades of research have failed to prove that homosexuality is innate or that change is not possible,” said Griggs. “After our expert testimony and briefs, it became obvious that science failed to justify the Montgomery County Public Schools’ biased and anti-exgay curriculum. Because they know that what they want to teach is not factual, MBOE instead claims that teaching children to ‘respect differences in sexuality’ of transgenders, transsexuals, homosexuals and cross-dressers is a ‘civic virtue.’ ” The Montgomery County School Board reappointed the curriculum advisory committee members who openly attack ex-gays and discourage equal access by ex-gay supporters.”...
PFOX leads the nation in providing outreach, education, and public awareness in support of families and the ex-gay community. They can be reached via their website at www.pfox.org
A copy of this press release is online.
Where were the physicians in the great non-debate on homosexual "marriage" in our State House? In the subsequent push to force homosexual sex on our schoolchildren, for example through Rep. Alice Wolf's "comprehensive health education" bill, a prominent public health physician stepped forward to point out that anal intercourse was five times more likely to result in HIV infection than vaginal intercourse (according to CDC statistics), and should not be presented to children as an acceptable behavior. But would it have made a difference if there had been 250 physicians joining with him? It didn't in Maryland! It seems most of our legislators are brain dead, and can't even absorb the most obvious facts any more.
Even in states without the fantasy of "legal" homosexual "marriage", the education establishments are out of control. PFOX (Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays) tells us that despite a petition signed by 270 PHYSICIANS, the Maryland Department of Education will forge ahead with an extreme and dangerous message to their children, that anal sex is an option just as valid and safe as vaginal intercourse! See today's press release from PFOX:
Maryland State School Board Advances “Sexual Diversity” Above Children’s Safety
News Advisory: July 10, 2007
Contact: PFOX@pfox.org www.pfox.org
ROCKVILLE , Maryland – In its ruling last week regarding a controversial sexuality curriculum in Montgomery County , the Maryland State Board of Education (MBOE) has implicitly authorized local school boards to promote “sexual diversity” to students and teach about anal sex while excluding warnings of the medical dangers pertaining to such practices.
Both the MBOE and Montgomery County School Board rejected a petition from 270 local medical doctors to include warning about anal sex critical to student safety as issued by the Office of the Surgeon General and National Institutes of Health.
The MBOE has also ruled that Maryland schools may teach questioning and confused students that homosexuality is “innate,” a controversial and unproven theory advanced by gay advocacy groups serving on the Montgomery County School Board’s curriculum advisory committee.
“In order to pander to these forces, sound education doctrine will now be turned on its head in Maryland ,” said Regina Griggs, Executive Director of Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays (PFOX). “The MBOE has taken the preposterous position that questioning children can now be taught that they are ‘born that way’ until science proves otherwise ‘with a preponderance of evidence.’”
“Millions of dollars and three decades of research have failed to prove that homosexuality is innate or that change is not possible,” said Griggs. “After our expert testimony and briefs, it became obvious that science failed to justify the Montgomery County Public Schools’ biased and anti-exgay curriculum. Because they know that what they want to teach is not factual, MBOE instead claims that teaching children to ‘respect differences in sexuality’ of transgenders, transsexuals, homosexuals and cross-dressers is a ‘civic virtue.’ ” The Montgomery County School Board reappointed the curriculum advisory committee members who openly attack ex-gays and discourage equal access by ex-gay supporters.”...
PFOX leads the nation in providing outreach, education, and public awareness in support of families and the ex-gay community. They can be reached via their website at www.pfox.org
A copy of this press release is online.
Monday, July 09, 2007
Boston Parents' Paper Normalizing GLBT "Families" - Part I
Same-sex "parenting" is not a biological possibility. It is a twisted social construct of 21st-century secular Western values and IVF clinics.God's construct is one man/one woman marriage with children. The failure of heterosexual marriage and parenting is the failure of man, not of God's design. (That's called "original sin".) And when it happens, our society used to be quick to label it a failure: the words used were dysfunction, abandonment, desertion; illegitimacy, etc. But now, not only are such judgments (on us all) silenced, but we may not even speak out against a "family" based on parents bonded through sexual perversions.
And worse, the July issue of the Boston Parents' Paper promotes "gay parenting" as legitimate. The very fact that the issue is addressed in the magazine means it's equated with normal parenting. Allowing such illegitimate use of the words "parenting" and "family" for such unnatural social arrangements is the first step to total acceptance of the other, the abnormal as the real thing. Yet the editor of the Parents' Paper [alison.murray@parenthood.com] dishonestly claims in her "Editor's Note" on p. 8:
"... we don't take sides on the issue of gay marriage; instead, we seek to illuminate -- to bring understanding -- to the plight of same-sex couples raising children. They face all of the same obstacles that the rest of us do, and then some. These parents are always mindful that others are watching, and sometimes disapproving, of their childrearing. The solution for many is to build their own communities of support. Read [our] article ... for some enlightening insight into how that's done."
Note the word "plight" -- the magazine clearly sides with same-sex parents. (The "plight" was very consciously chosen by the adults involved.) Anyone who doesn't accept same-sex parenting clearly is lacking understanding, is not "illuminated". The feature article "See Us As a Family" [discussed Part II of our commentary, coming soon] clearly supports and encourages such "families" by giving helpful tips, just as the magazine does for normal families.
But what of the plight of the children being brought up by "same-sex couples"! Last weekend's Boston Globe Magazine ran another article normalizing "two mommies" -- where one of the mommies actually admitted her son's verbalized yearning for a father he'll never really know. See "Two Moms and No Dad -- For Now" ("for now" meaning, that's because the lucky kids might get to meet their sperm-donor "dad" when they get older, and are past all those annoying years when they wanted him to do stuff with them.) If you don't get the heebie-jeebies when reading this, you're ABNORMAL:
When 10-year-old John was 3, he told me one morning as I was driving him to preschool that not having a dad made him feel sad. He has said this on a number of occasions over the past seven years. We do what we can to fill the gap. He's very athletic, and we take him to play baseball, soccer, basketball, and ice hockey, anywhere that men congregate to coach and cheer on their sons.
I have come to love the fathers of his teammates at the testosterone- soaked hockey rink who slap my son's helmet and say, "Way to go, John!" I love his first-grade teacher, who has become his unofficial Big Brother and who takes him to Red Sox and Celtics games, Northeastern hockey games, mini-golfing, and bowling. I love the father of one of my son's friends who takes him camping and teaches him to build rocket launchers.
These men are godsends, but sometimes I wish we could have provided my son with a real live father. The scourge of HIV ended the lives of some of my gay men friends whom I had asked to help me start a family 15 years ago, and the two straight men friends who volunteered were subsequently un-volunteered by their girlfriends. In the end, I scoured the country for donors who would agree to meet the children at a specified later date. When I became pregnant with our first child, I bought $10,000 worth of his sperm so that all our children would be genetically related.
I feel him with us much of the time. He is on the Brookline soccer fields when the mother of one of Katie's friends says, "Your donor must be an Olympian!" Katie runs like a gazelle. I feel his presence when I look at the children and see a wonderful similarity among them, despite two being born to me, and one to my partner. He is there when our Christmas cards go out, and we get back notes referring to "your beautiful children." In six years, when Katie turns 18, John will be 16 and Meg 10.
That is when they can meet him. I don't know what level of interest he will have in them or they in him. I can only hope that it will be mutual, and it will be strong.
I have come to love the fathers of his teammates at the testosterone- soaked hockey rink who slap my son's helmet and say, "Way to go, John!" I love his first-grade teacher, who has become his unofficial Big Brother and who takes him to Red Sox and Celtics games, Northeastern hockey games, mini-golfing, and bowling. I love the father of one of my son's friends who takes him camping and teaches him to build rocket launchers.
These men are godsends, but sometimes I wish we could have provided my son with a real live father. The scourge of HIV ended the lives of some of my gay men friends whom I had asked to help me start a family 15 years ago, and the two straight men friends who volunteered were subsequently un-volunteered by their girlfriends. In the end, I scoured the country for donors who would agree to meet the children at a specified later date. When I became pregnant with our first child, I bought $10,000 worth of his sperm so that all our children would be genetically related.
I feel him with us much of the time. He is on the Brookline soccer fields when the mother of one of Katie's friends says, "Your donor must be an Olympian!" Katie runs like a gazelle. I feel his presence when I look at the children and see a wonderful similarity among them, despite two being born to me, and one to my partner. He is there when our Christmas cards go out, and we get back notes referring to "your beautiful children." In six years, when Katie turns 18, John will be 16 and Meg 10.
That is when they can meet him. I don't know what level of interest he will have in them or they in him. I can only hope that it will be mutual, and it will be strong.
Whose emotional well-being are the Parents' Paper and Boston Globe most concerned for -- the children's? or the adults'? And is it just a coincidence that the Boston Parents' Paper and the Boston Globe Magazine both feature articles promoting same-sex parenting in this lazy month of July?
In case you missed our posting from some months back, read this very sad piece by a young woman who was the product of an anonymous sperm donation: "The Pain of Not Knowing Your Biological Parent."
Boston Parents' Paper (offices in Jamaica Plain ... are we surprised?)
Contacts page: http://boston.parenthood.com/articles.html?article_id=8872
Editor: alison.murray@parenthood.comPublisher: deirdre.wilson@parenthood.com
Sunday, July 08, 2007
WorldNetDaily on How to Bring Down "Big Sodomy"
Time for the ex-gays suffering from HIV/AIDS and other "gay" diseases to take it to the courts. Sue all those complicit in covering up the truth about the health dangers of the GLBT "lifestyle", just like the smokers suffering from lung cancer did against "Big Tobacco". See the WorldNetDaily, "Will ex-gays bring down 'Big Sodomy'?".
... After all, the biggest losers aren't the Christian right or grass-roots Americans, who have voted overwhelmingly against "alternative" definitions of marriage. The biggest losers are those who gaily fling themselves into the arms of the deadly beast that devours them whole. ...
Once enough of the victims have seen how they have been duped by the universities, politicians, media, business (deep pockets), Hollywood, politicians and, yes, the gay agenda itself, to throw away their health and life expectancy, they will come out swinging, marching boldly behind their lawyers.
The reverse "coming out" of Michael Glatze is the first major chink in the ramparts of Big Sodomy. More major players will be announcing themselves in time, demonstrating the fallacy of "once gay always gay," the sandy foundation on which the gay agenda is premised. And once science does its work, they will "win." The way the smokers "won."
Hopefully Americans aren't as slow this time to accept the findings, as we were when all we did was smoke. If you have a friend or relative who has been persuaded by the media, big business, politicians, university programs, including courses of study, or any person or group to try this deadly lifestyle, and especially if your friend or relative is already suffering from a serious disease contracted as a result of it, talk to him or her at the first opportunity about the very real possibility of starting a class-action lawsuit against the group or groups that persuaded them to enter into the activity that did them in. If you happen to be in a care-giving profession, that is a shoe in the door. ...
... After all, the biggest losers aren't the Christian right or grass-roots Americans, who have voted overwhelmingly against "alternative" definitions of marriage. The biggest losers are those who gaily fling themselves into the arms of the deadly beast that devours them whole. ...
Once enough of the victims have seen how they have been duped by the universities, politicians, media, business (deep pockets), Hollywood, politicians and, yes, the gay agenda itself, to throw away their health and life expectancy, they will come out swinging, marching boldly behind their lawyers.
The reverse "coming out" of Michael Glatze is the first major chink in the ramparts of Big Sodomy. More major players will be announcing themselves in time, demonstrating the fallacy of "once gay always gay," the sandy foundation on which the gay agenda is premised. And once science does its work, they will "win." The way the smokers "won."
Hopefully Americans aren't as slow this time to accept the findings, as we were when all we did was smoke. If you have a friend or relative who has been persuaded by the media, big business, politicians, university programs, including courses of study, or any person or group to try this deadly lifestyle, and especially if your friend or relative is already suffering from a serious disease contracted as a result of it, talk to him or her at the first opportunity about the very real possibility of starting a class-action lawsuit against the group or groups that persuaded them to enter into the activity that did them in. If you happen to be in a care-giving profession, that is a shoe in the door. ...
Saturday, July 07, 2007
The Myth of "Gays" Wanting "Gay Marriage"
[Graph from Boston Globe, 5-17-07]We posted on the dramatic decline in homosexual "marriages" taking place in Massachusetts a few months back. People are starting to notice. At Boston Pride, the Ramrod anonymous sodomy bar and the "Bears" with their folding chairs made a lot louder statements than that dishonest lobbying organization called MassEquality. Now we hear that in Toronto (a very "gay" city), hardly any homosexual "marriages" are taking place!
Along these lines, see this piece by Matt Barber of Concerned Women for America: " 'Gays' don't want 'marriage' after all" (WorldNetDaily, 7-6-07). Excerpts from Barber:
The homosexual lobby has fine-tuned its rhetoric in recent years. Through the hyperbolic and repetitive use of such concocted expressions as "marriage equality" and "gay rights," the left has dishonestly but effectively framed the debate over homosexual behaviors.
...But getting married isn't even on the radar screen for the vast majority of homosexuals who choose to engage in a lifestyle largely delineated by short-lived and unstable relationships at best – and more often by casual and promiscuous sexual encounters.
Consider that according to the latest Massachusetts Department of Public Health statistics, there have been only 9,695 total "gay marriages" in Massachusetts since 2004 when then-Gov. Mitt Romney began issuing marriage licenses to homosexuals. Of those 9,000 plus, some 6,121 took place in just over the first six months while the "gay marriage" novelty toy still had its sheen.
In 2005, only 2,060 same-sex couples took the "gay-pride" plunge; and in 2006 only 1,427 tied that queer little knot. By the end of April of this year, a mere 87 "gay" couples had "married" in Massachusetts.
Even more telling – though not particularly surprising – are statistics coming out of Canada where "gay marriage" is now legal nationwide. For instance, in the city of Toronto – which boasts of having one of the world's largest homosexual populations –only one Canadian "gay" couple has "married" so far this year, according to a report by Reuters....
The good news is Americans are catching on to the disingenuous motives behind the homosexual activist push for "same-sex marriage." A recent survey by the Pew Center ...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)