In January 2002, early in his run for Governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney told the extremist homosexual publication Bay Windows that he favored overturning laws criminalizing sodomy. (That Romney would even grant an interview to this publication is telling.) Romney's position on sodomy laws, an issue of morality as well as public health, is clearly not conservative.
Romney answered a questionnaire from Bay Windows, so this was not an off-the-cuff answer:
“19 questions for Mitt Romney” January 1, 2002
Bay Windows asked: “What is your position on each of the following issues? … Repeal of sodomy laws -- ”
Romney answered: “I don’t think government should interfere in the private lives of consenting adults.”
Does Romney consider sodomy laws to concern just what goes on in private? Does Romney also believe that the state has no interest in outlawing other “private” sexual behaviors such as prostitution, incest, bigamy, or polygamy -- if they are between “consenting adults”?
When the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against the Texas law that criminalized sodomy in Lawrence v. Texas, Justice Antonin Scalia recognized in his dissent the far-reaching impact that ruling would have: “Scalia … averred that, State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of [previous ruling] Bowers' validation of laws based on moral choices…. The Court has not ruled on statutes prohibiting adult incest, polygamy, adultery, prostitution, and other forms of sexual intimacy between consenting adults. Lawrence may have created a slippery slope for these laws to eventually fall.” (Wikipedia)
Scalia was right. Just months later, the Goodridge ruling in Massachusetts (which said that it was unconstitutional to ban homosexual “marriage”) cited the Lawrence sodomy ruling as precedent.
Not only is decriminalizing sodomy serious as a legal precedent, it also has public health ramifications Romney apparently wishes to ignore. It is established fact that the high-risk behavior of anal intercourse (sodomy) plays a huge role in the spread of AIDS and other sexually-transmitted diseases.
In Massachusetts, sodomy is still on the books as a "crime against nature":
Ch 272, Section 34: Crime against nature. Whoever commits the abominable and detestable crime against nature, either with mankind or with a beast, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than twenty years.
Thursday, December 27, 2007
Monday, December 24, 2007
Faneuil Hall at Christmas
It was great to see that Boston allowed Christmas wreaths to be hung on Faneuil Hall. Here's a photo we took last week, while enjoying dinner at a nearby restaurant.Are those "holiday lights" or "Christmas lights" hanging in Quincy Market? It was beautiful.
MERRY CHRISTMAS, Massachusetts Patriots!!!
MERRY CHRISTMAS, Massachusetts Patriots!!!
Saturday, December 22, 2007
Romney's April 2004 Letter Reveals Weak, Unprincipled Actions During Constitutional Crisis
Part I: Letter from Mitt Romney on Eve of 'Gay Marriage' -- April 2004
Part II: Romney's 2004 Letter -- Analysis
Part III: Gov. Mitt Romney Ignored Our Voices -- and the Constitution
Read the letter (PDF)
Those of us living through the unparalleled Constitutional crisis here in Massachusetts -- beginning with the Supreme Judicial Court's "homosexual marriage" ruling in November 2003, through the beginning of the phony "marriages" in May 2004, and ongoing -- experienced Mitt Romney's duplicity and failure as a leader on a visceral level. Most of us engaged in the research published on our site voted for him in 2002. We feel personally betrayed by a man who surrendered our Constitution, our rule of law, our public health, our traditional values, our schools and our children to a very dangerous "special interest."
Our 3-part series, focusing on a letter we received from Romney in April 2004 (just one month before the "homosexual marriages" began) reveals either a dangerous dissembler, or a disengaged manager with no understanding of the Constitution he swore to uphold. Either way, this man should not be President.
For more information and documentation, see our reports:
How Mitt Romney brought "gay marriage" to Massachusetts and
The Mitt Romney Deception Report.
Thursday, December 20, 2007
Romney's 2004 Letter: Part III - Romney Ignored Our Voices and the Constitution
Citizens rally in West Springfield on a cold day in late February 2004, calling on our Legislature and Governor to block homosexual "marriage".
For sources, see our reports: How Mitt Romney brought "gay marriage" to Massachusetts and The Mitt Romney Deception Report.
Part III: Gov. Mitt Romney Ignored Our Voices -- and the Constitution
Many well remember the feelings of panic and desperation that gripped pro-family citizens throughout the state in late 2003 and early 2004. We went to rally after rally in freezing January, February, and March weather in front of the Supreme Judicial Court, on the Boston Common, in front of the State House, while Romney sat in his cozy corner office and looked down on us. We called, e-mailed, and sent letters to our legislators and the Governor.
Citizens rally at State House calling on Legislature to propose a "clean" amendment with no civil unions. Their voices were ignored by Romney, who worked for civil unions from Nov. 2003 on. [MassResistance photo]
Citizens rally at State House calling on Legislature to propose a "clean" amendment with no civil unions. Their voices were ignored by Romney, who worked for civil unions from Nov. 2003 on. [MassResistance photo]
We were all wondering: Why doesn’t Gov. Romney say something? Do something? Why the silence from the Governor's Office? Why doesn’t he at least make statements supporting our rallies and demonstrations for removal of the judges, and for a strong marriage amendment? We were all continuing to hope against hope that Romney was working behind the scenes to halt the insanity.
We didn't know then that he had promised his homosexual Republican activist friends (while campaigning in 2002) that he would not oppose the expected Supreme Judicial Court ruling for homosexual "marriage." And we didn't fully understand that he was working in late 2003 and early 2004 with the unethical Senate President, Robert Travaglini, and Senate Minority Leader, Brian Lees, to write civil unions into the Massachusetts constitution (through their phony compromise "marriage" amendment) -- as a little insurance policy should anything keep the May "marriages" from going forward.
Senators Travaglini and Lees (seen in late 2003) worked with Romney to craft an unacceptable "marriage" amendment which would have enshrined civil unions in the Constitution. [MassResistance photo]
People were pleading with the Governor to say: "No, Judges, you cannot order either of the other two branches of government to do anything! You may not make law! Nothing will change on May 17. Current law allows for marriage only between one man and one woman, and that is the law I will continue to enforce." But there was only silence. All Romney said was that an amendment to the Constitution should be voted on. (How it should be worded, he never said publicly.) Then on that score, we all pleaded: The amendment must be pure, and not include establishment of “civil unions” alongside one man/one woman marriage! But he bragged in his April 2004 letter of the compromise amendment that included “civil unions”!
Article 8 Alliance [now MassResistance] Press Conference at State House in April 2004, calling for the Legislature and Governor to vote on a Bill of Address to remove the four Supreme Court judges, and revealing Chief Justice Marshall's ethical violations. [MassResistance photo]
Where was Romney in April 2004, when Article 8 Alliance presented shocking information on Chief Justice Margaret Marshall's violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct? Her appearances at fundraising events for groups supporting homosexual "marriage" were not allowed under the code, and she had publicly revealed her bias on the issue. Why didn't he comment on Rep. Emile Goguen's filing of the Bill of Address to remove the four Supreme Judicial Court judges who ruled that John Adams included "homosexual marriage" in his Massachusetts Constitution? What did he believe should happen when judges so flagrantly violate the constitutional separation of powers?
All the while, through February, March, and April 2004, Gov. Romney and his team were busy betraying us, while stringing us along with pretty words on “democracy” and “letting the people vote” on marriage (possibly, some day in the distant future...). Only those paying closest attention noticed the stories in the Boston Globe about Romney’s people working behind the scenes, secretly holding meetings with state officials, to be sure all the paperwork (and threats to state officials of fines or firing) were in place to ensure the homosexual “marriages” began on May 17. Not one word from Romney himself about these plans, only a few leaks from Town Clerks, Justices of the Peace, or an occasional cryptic comment from a spokesman.
Gov. Romney's Chief Legal Counsel Daniel Winslow ran training sessions for Town Clerks and Justices of the Peace, threatening fines or firing if they didn't uphold the "law". Winslow confirmed with MassResistance that our timeline is accurate.
All the while, through February, March, and April 2004, Gov. Romney and his team were busy betraying us, while stringing us along with pretty words on “democracy” and “letting the people vote” on marriage (possibly, some day in the distant future...). Only those paying closest attention noticed the stories in the Boston Globe about Romney’s people working behind the scenes, secretly holding meetings with state officials, to be sure all the paperwork (and threats to state officials of fines or firing) were in place to ensure the homosexual “marriages” began on May 17. Not one word from Romney himself about these plans, only a few leaks from Town Clerks, Justices of the Peace, or an occasional cryptic comment from a spokesman.
Gov. Romney's Chief Legal Counsel Daniel Winslow ran training sessions for Town Clerks and Justices of the Peace, threatening fines or firing if they didn't uphold the "law". Winslow confirmed with MassResistance that our timeline is accurate.
On April 15, 2004 (the same day he wrote the letter to his constituents) Romney created another diversion to make it appear he was trying to halt the homosexual “marriages.” He filed an emergency bill in the Legislature to appeal to the same rogue Court which issued the homosexual “marriage” ruling, to seek a stay on the start date for the “marriages” -- thus acknowledging the Court’s power to enact and enforce “law”! Romney surely knew this bill would be shelved, in any case. (But it would come in useful when he ran for President, to bolster his claim that he did what he could to save marriage.)
Margaret Marshall (impersonator) shreds Constitution before the Supreme Judicial Court building in Boston. Unknown protester on left complains about the $150 million price tag on the renovation of Emperor Margaret's Imperial Judicial Palace. [MassResistance photo]
Lately, Mitt Romney has been shedding tears publicly. Well, many of us shed real tears as May 17 approached, and we knew that Romney was shafting us, our constitutional government, our society. We were in a state of disbelief, feeling helpless and abandoned. How could a Republican Governor be doing this to us?
May 17, 2004 came, and the pseudo-marriages began. Many of us felt the evil that took hold of the state that day. A large group from Article 8 Alliance/MassResistance rallied on Boston City Hall Plaza that day, praying, speaking of the Constitution, and even crying. (Massachusetts Family Institute told its supporters not to attend the rally ... because they had made a strategic alliance with Romney, we later understood.)
And what brief statement did Mitt Romney issue on that hideous day that he made possible? “All along, I have said an issue as fundamental to society as the definition of marriage should be decided by the people. Until then, I intend to follow the law and expect others to do the same.” What “law” was he speaking of? Not the law on the books then, or even now. Homosexual “marriage” is still not legal in Massachusetts!
No one in America was better placed than Gov. Romney in 2003-2006 to take a forceful stand for Constitutional separation of powers and against judicial activism, but he failed miserably. He could have issued an Executive Order to halt the "marriages" -- or simply ignored the ruling. He could have rallied national support to remove the judges, and bring such shame on the Legislature that they'd have to take up the cause. It was a profound failure of leadership and moral courage on Romney's part. As Professor Hadley Arkes said of Romney on “marriage” D-Day, May 17, 2004, he was the “missing Governor" and exemplified "Republican leaders [who have] lost their confidence on basic moral matters.” (That article was published in National Review before they went into denial about Romney's true record as Governor.)
After the "marriages" began, our group focused on the effort to remove the “homosexual marriage” judges. (The marriage amendment proposals were clearly being commandeered by the compromisers, and were not worth investing in.) But Romney never communicated with the 25 legislators who eventually sponsored the Bill of Address to remove the judges. His first public comment came in answer to a question at a June 2005 press conference:
After the "marriages" began, our group focused on the effort to remove the “homosexual marriage” judges. (The marriage amendment proposals were clearly being commandeered by the compromisers, and were not worth investing in.) But Romney never communicated with the 25 legislators who eventually sponsored the Bill of Address to remove the judges. His first public comment came in answer to a question at a June 2005 press conference:
"I'm not looking to recall the judges. I do however believe that justices should not legislate from the bench any more than legislators should adjudicate from the legislature. And I believe that there should be a separation of powers and responsibilities, and I believe that in this case that the Supreme Judicial Court engaged in legislating. I believe it was an improper decision on their part, and that's why I believe that ultimately the citizens should have the opportunity to make this choice, or their elected representatives."
Romney did admit the judges behaved contrary to the Constitution, yet he refused to support the effort to remove them (without giving a reason), and he failed to ignore their ruling. So much for his supposed opposition to activist judges that he is now touting all over America. He simply kicked the can down the road, told the citizens to chase after an elusive marriage amendment, and diverted most eyes from his failure to act as the Constitution required.
If only this had happened ... [MassResistance photo]
Romney made few public statements on marriage during his administration, but they always included a command to respect all citizens, no matter the choices they may make in their lives. So, we must respect the choice of sodomy, or the characteristic promiscuity in the homosexual community? And we must recognize the legitimacy of “families” with same-sex “parents”?
Mitt Romney’s dishonest maneuvering is breathtaking. He undermined the Massachusetts Constitution he swore to uphold, betrayed the institution of marriage, and did not communicate honestly with concerned citizens. He continued to ignore pleas from conservative leaders around the country, 44 of whom urged him to issue an Executive Order overturning his mistaken actions leading to the homosexual "marriages" before he left office (in December 2006). He had one last chance to set it right. But he was silent upon receiving that letter as well.
What else did Romney let loose in Massachusetts that's now adversely affecting our country? GLBT activists everywhere have been energized by what their movement got away with in Massachusetts -- with Romney's help. They are now moving beyond homosexual "marriage", on to "transgender rights." In Massachusetts, they're chanting the mantra, "Gay marriage is legal -- so we have to teach diversity" to our youngest children in the public schools. While Romney stated that Lexington parent David Parker is within his legal rights to demand notification when homosexuality and transgenderism topics are in his children's curriculum, he failed to order his Dept. of Education to enforce Massachusetts law in Parker's defense. Romney's failure on marriage has ripple effects we're only just beginning to see.
GLBT activists in Lexington, Nov. 2004, crashing Article 8 Alliance/MassResistance event on the first anniversary of the Goodridge ruling. Two school committee members and a UU fellow were not very welcoming. Mitt Romney handed over the public schools of Massachusetts to these people.
THANKS, MITT.
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Romney's 2004 Letter: Part II - Analysis
MassResistance's statement at Romney's Photo-Op Rally,Mass. State House, Nov. 2006 [MassResistance photo]
In March 2004, constituents wrote to Governor Romney asking him to please:
(1) defy the Court ruling, as it is only an illegitimate opinion and there is no new law for him to enforce;
(2) issue an Executive Order barring issuance of homosexual “marriage” licenses starting May 17, 2004; and
(3) support the Bill of Address to remove the four errant Judges.
And here is the response they received from Romney, dated April 15, 2004:
Thank you for your letter regarding same-sex marriage. Over the past several months, many people have taken the time to contact my office with their thoughts and concerns on this issue. I am happy to have this opportunity to respond.
Recently, the State Legislature met in a rare joint session and passed an amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution that defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman. For this amendment to become part of our Constitution, it must be passed by the Legislature again and then be approved by the people of Massachusetts in November 2006.
As you know, the definition of marriage is of great concern to many citizens. On a matter of such significance and with such tender sentiment involved, we must show respect and consideration for those with different opinions. There are real people, including traditional couples, gay couples and children, who are deeply affected by this issue.
But, even as we disagree, we must not forget that at the core of American democracy is the principle that the most fundamental decisions in society should ultimately be decided by the people themselves. I support giving the people the opportunity to decide this issue.
Again, thank you for taking the time to contact my office.
(1) defy the Court ruling, as it is only an illegitimate opinion and there is no new law for him to enforce;
(2) issue an Executive Order barring issuance of homosexual “marriage” licenses starting May 17, 2004; and
(3) support the Bill of Address to remove the four errant Judges.
And here is the response they received from Romney, dated April 15, 2004:
Thank you for your letter regarding same-sex marriage. Over the past several months, many people have taken the time to contact my office with their thoughts and concerns on this issue. I am happy to have this opportunity to respond.
Recently, the State Legislature met in a rare joint session and passed an amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution that defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman. For this amendment to become part of our Constitution, it must be passed by the Legislature again and then be approved by the people of Massachusetts in November 2006.
As you know, the definition of marriage is of great concern to many citizens. On a matter of such significance and with such tender sentiment involved, we must show respect and consideration for those with different opinions. There are real people, including traditional couples, gay couples and children, who are deeply affected by this issue.
But, even as we disagree, we must not forget that at the core of American democracy is the principle that the most fundamental decisions in society should ultimately be decided by the people themselves. I support giving the people the opportunity to decide this issue.
Again, thank you for taking the time to contact my office.
Sincerely,
Mitt Romney
Mitt Romney
At first reading, Romney’s letter – written just a month before homosexual “marriages” began in Massachusetts -- may seem just another milquetoast response from a politician. But since this man is now running for President and posing as a conservative committed to Constitutional principles, it bears closer study.
Its historical context is all-important. It was written at the same time that Romney’s Executive branch officers were traveling around the state conducting training sessions for Town Clerks and Justices of the Peace, and his Department of Public Health printing presses were churning out illegitimate “marriage” licenses reading “Party A & Party B” -- with bare notice by the public.
Romney’s letter reveals his blindness to the most outrageous instance of judicial tyranny since Roe v. Wade, his incomprehensible spirit of resignation in face of the Court’s activism, his utter disregard for the Massachusetts Constitution, his ignorance of the meaning of “the rule of law” (i.e., existing statutes), and an almost breezy attitude towards the looming disaster in his state – and all of America.
Its historical context is all-important. It was written at the same time that Romney’s Executive branch officers were traveling around the state conducting training sessions for Town Clerks and Justices of the Peace, and his Department of Public Health printing presses were churning out illegitimate “marriage” licenses reading “Party A & Party B” -- with bare notice by the public.
Romney’s letter reveals his blindness to the most outrageous instance of judicial tyranny since Roe v. Wade, his incomprehensible spirit of resignation in face of the Court’s activism, his utter disregard for the Massachusetts Constitution, his ignorance of the meaning of “the rule of law” (i.e., existing statutes), and an almost breezy attitude towards the looming disaster in his state – and all of America.
MassResistance (then Article 8 Alliance) demonstrator in Feb. 2004 in Boston, reminding Gov. Romney and the Legislature that the Court does not make law. [MassResistance photo] Was Romney unaware that his oath to uphold the Constitution of Massachusetts required that he enforce only laws on the books? Since the Legislature passed no new marriage law (as the Court unconstitutionally advised it to do), there was no reason Romney should act to implement homosexual “marriages.” (The Court never even told him to do anything!)
Demonstration outside the Supreme Judicial Court, Feb. 2004:Ruling Null & Void -- Remove the Judges
[MassResistance photo]
He implies that his only recourse for preserving real marriage was to pass a constitutional amendment, which could only have taken effect long after the looming date of May 17, 2004. He says nothing about what constituents might expect on that date, just a month away, neglecting to mention that he was in fact facilitating a cataclysmic event for all of America.
In this April 2004 letter, Romney seems like a sleepwalker traversing a minefield. Was he really so ignorant of his proper Constitutional role as Governor? Or was there something deeper, even unethical, going on? Was he hoping we all wouldn’t notice that he was, in fact, implementing the unconstitutional Court ruling – perhaps in order to keep his promise to homosexual activists?
A recent article in the New York Times ("Romney’s Tone on Gay Rights Is Seen as Shift," Sept. 8, 2007) may shed light on Romney’s bizarre actions (and vacuous letter) during early 2004. The article reveals that in 2002, he had actually promised his “Log Cabin Republican” (homosexual activist) friends that he would
…obey the courts’ ultimate ruling and not champion a fight on either side of the issue. “I’ll keep my head low,” he said, making a bobbing motion with his head like a boxer … And, in the aftermath of the Massachusetts court decision, Mr. Romney, though aligning himself with the supporters of a constitutional amendment, did order town clerks to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Some members of Log Cabin Republicans say that in doing so, he ultimately fulfilled his promise to them despite his own moral objections.
Another Log Cabin member said Romney did not “[carry] the flag with missionary zeal” for either side of the issue. That describes a man without principle on the crucial issues of judicial activism and marriage. And it squares with his statement to the Log Cabin Republicans “that his perspective on gay rights had been largely shaped by his experience in the private sector where, he said, discrimination was frowned upon.” His approach to “gay rights” was thus apparently not a moral issue for him, but shaped by his business interests.
(Earlier, in 1994 when running for the Senate, he had promised the Log Cabin Republicans: “… as we seek to establish full equality for America's gay and lesbian citizens, I will provide more effective leadership than my opponent” – which, as a Republican and Mormon, he would be able to get away with better than Kennedy.)
In his April 2004 letter, Romney equates natural families with unnatural families (headed by same-sex couples), uses the word “gay” and the squishy phrase “tender sentiment.” He instructs us to tread lightly around the “tender sentiment” of “gay couples” -- which could mean that society should never ban “gay marriage” because it would upset some people -- so we should let anyone who says the word “love” do anything they want. And, if two sodomites feel “tender sentiment” towards each other, that means they can be “married”!
Is Romney saying sentiment should rule, not what’s best for society, children, or the public health? If someone, somewhere is “deeply affected” by something, should this overrule rational, principled, moral discourse and lawmaking? “Tender sentiment” is highlighted, but the Constitution is only indirectly referenced in the context of a proposed amendment, and there is no reference to existing law.
Romney avoids mention of the flawed, compromised nature of the proposed amendment, which would have codified same-sex “civil unions” in the Mass. Constitution at the same time that it defined marriage as “one man + one woman.” He blissfully ignores the fact that many in the state knew that final passage of that amendment was highly unlikely, in part because true pro-family forces (as well as die-hard homosexual activists unwilling to settle for civil unions) would not support it. For him to portray this amendment (which still had to pass two more big hurdles)as the only possible solution to the “marriage” crisis was dishonest. 
Feb. 2004 outside Mass. State House. Mass. Family Institute president Kris Mineau, in trench coat, apparently opposed civil unions at that time, though MFI's later VoteOnMarriage amendment proposal intentionally would not have outlawed civil unions. Romney would twist Republican legislators' arms at the Constitutional Convention in March to support the "compromise" amendment, which would have embedded civil unions in our Constitution if it had eventually passed.
Romney ends his letter with the sop that it’s all about our “democracy.” Leaving aside the issue of republic vs. democracy, why didn’t Romney say that at the core of our government is the Constitutional basis on which it stands? Shouldn’t his first point of reference be the Massachusetts Constitution, his oath to preserve the separation of powers, and his required enforcement of existing law (not imaginary, Court-invented “law”)? He could not bring this up, because that would have exposed that his ongoing implementation of homosexual “marriage” was illegitimate.
Romney’s focus on “giving the people the opportunity to decide this issue” was a ploy to deflect attention from the larger issues of activist judges (whom he should have opposed), and his responsibility as Chief Executive to enforce only actual law (the marriage statute as it existed then). Since the Legislature had not changed the marriage statute after the 2003 ruling, one-man/one-woman marriage was still clearly the only form allowed in May 2004! (And the law still hasn’t changed. The homosexual lobby has a bill pending to allow homosexual “marriage” – House Bill #1710 .)
[MassResistance photo]
For sources, see our reports: How Mitt Romney brought "gay marriage" to Massachusetts and The Mitt Romney Deception Report.
Read more in Part III.
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Letter from Mitt Romney on Eve of "Gay Marriage" - April 2004
Left: Governor Mitt Romney's letter to constituents on "homosexual marriage" in April 2004; read in PDF here.
Part I
In April 2004, just one month before "homosexual marriages" were to begin in Massachusetts by order of Gov. Mitt Romney, he sent this appalling letter to concerned constituents. They had written him pleading that he issue an Executive Order to his departments not to allow any such "marriages" to go forward, and to support the effort underway to remove the four errant judges behind the Goodridge ruling. The constituents pointed out to the Governor that there was no new "law" for him to uphold! And this was his empty response. [Read Romney's letter here.]
Over the next few days, we will print our analysis of this letter. For now, read it yourself and ponder that this is how a man who would be president "thinks" about the most profoundly illegitimate court ruling since Roe v. Wade, and how he condescendingly responded to his constituents while failing to address their concerns. Romney seems like a sleepwalker traversing a minefield in this letter.
First ask: How serious is Mitt Romney about reigning in bad judges, upholding Constitutions, and blocking “homosexual marriage”? His record in Massachusetts is revealing, as much through his silence and inaction as through his sparse and mystifying actions. In the end, he totally failed to lead as a conservative on these issues, but rather was complicit in foisting on our state a most radical, destructive social experiment called “homosexual marriage” -- while pretending to defend the natural family.
MassResistance demonstration outside Supreme Judicial Court in Feb. 2004 upholding the separation of powers written into the Mass. Constitution by John Adams.
Mitt Romney recently called for one of his own Massachusetts judge appointees to resign, after she released a convicted murderer who went on to murder again. But when Romney had the chance -- and constitutional duty -- to call for the dismissal of four rogue Massachusetts Supreme Court justices who ruled “homosexual marriage” was protected by the Massachusetts constitution, he did nothing! He refused to join the effort to remove the judges by Constitutional means (the Bill of Address, eventually sponsored by 25 Legislators), and never even commented on the effort until asked at a press conference in June 2005. And while the Constitution required the Governor to enforce only laws passed by the Legislature, Romney chose to “enforce” a pseudo-law pronounced by four unelected judges. (And the Legislature to this date has not changed the marriage statute in Massachusetts!)
Demonstration banner from Spring of 2004, made by MassResistance (then Article 8 Alliance) activistRomney violated the Massachusetts Constitution when he started “homosexual marriages” here. So can he be trusted with the United States Constitution? Can his complaints about judicial activism be sincere? Can anything he says about his commitment to preserve marriage be believed?
MassResistance (then Article 8 Alliance) demonstration at State House, after Romney implemented unconstitutional "homosexual marriages," calling for removal of the four judges:
"Remove the SJC4" & "Courts are not Legislatures"
For more on Romney's betrayal of pro-family values and constitutional principles: See Part II and Part III in this series.
For sources, see our reports: How Mitt Romney brought "gay marriage" to Massachusetts and The Mitt Romney Deception Report.
More on Bork Endorsement of Romney
Check out BizzyBlog's posting:
Objectively Unfit Mitt Romney’s Bork Endorsement: A Very Painful Critique
Objectively Unfit Mitt Romney’s Bork Endorsement: A Very Painful Critique
Threats to Natural Family Threaten Peace
The Culture of Life, including the natural family, promotes peace. This is an obvious truth which many in this wacky state deny. Most on the dark side have been overtaken by emotion and passion, can't think straight, are in denial, or for some reason just won't give this idea fair consideration. But we offer this New Year's message from the Pope for those in the middle, and to encourage those of us already on board with God's plan. Excerpts from the Pope's speech to be given on New Year's Day, 2008 [from CNS News, 12-11-07]:
... the pope said the fact that a strong, healthy family is the basis of a healthy society is not simply a slogan.
"In a healthy family life we experience some of the fundamental elements of peace: justice and love between brothers and sisters; the role of authority expressed by parents; loving concern for the members who are weaker because of youth, sickness or old age; mutual help in the necessities of life; readiness to accept others and, if necessary, to forgive them....
"Everything that serves to weaken the family based on the marriage of a man and a woman, everything that directly or indirectly stands in the way of its openness to the responsible acceptance of a new life, everything that obstructs its right to be primarily responsible for the education of its children, constitutes an obstacle on the road to peace.
"The first form of communion between persons is that born of the love of a man and a woman who decide to enter a stable union in order to build together a new family. But the peoples of the earth, too, are called to build relationships of solidarity and cooperation among themselves, as befits members of the one human family.... [The family] is in effect the primary agency of peace ...
... the pope said the fact that a strong, healthy family is the basis of a healthy society is not simply a slogan.
"In a healthy family life we experience some of the fundamental elements of peace: justice and love between brothers and sisters; the role of authority expressed by parents; loving concern for the members who are weaker because of youth, sickness or old age; mutual help in the necessities of life; readiness to accept others and, if necessary, to forgive them....
"Everything that serves to weaken the family based on the marriage of a man and a woman, everything that directly or indirectly stands in the way of its openness to the responsible acceptance of a new life, everything that obstructs its right to be primarily responsible for the education of its children, constitutes an obstacle on the road to peace.
"The first form of communion between persons is that born of the love of a man and a woman who decide to enter a stable union in order to build together a new family. But the peoples of the earth, too, are called to build relationships of solidarity and cooperation among themselves, as befits members of the one human family.... [The family] is in effect the primary agency of peace ...
Monday, December 17, 2007
Judge Bork's Unfathomable Endorsement of Romney
Is Judge Robert Bork a flip-flopper, like the fellow he just endorsed? It seems Bork has forgotten his own thinking on judicial tyranny in endorsing Mitt Romney! If there ever was a great and appropriate opportunity for a principled Executive to stand up to judicial activism, the 2003 "homosexual marriage" ruling in Massachusetts was it. But Romney was missing in action. Silent. Hoping no one would notice. (Though as we've pointed out, pundits including Hugh Hewitt, Phyllis Schlafly, and Pat Buchanan noticed at the time ... along with Professor Hadley Arkes. But they -- along with the conservative "intelligentsia" -- seem to have "forgotten" they ever thought these thoughts.)
Here's Romney's web site on Bork's unfathomable endorsement:
"I greatly admired his leadership in Massachusetts in the way that he responded to the activist court's ruling legalizing same-sex 'marriage.' His leadership on the issue has served as a model to the nation on how to respect all of our citizens while respecting the rule of law at the same time."
How old is Bork now? What is the average mandatory retirement age around the country for judges? How could this be the same man who wrote Slouching towards Gomorrah?)
Here's Judge Bork ruminating on judicial tyranny back in November 1996 (the good old days) in First Things magazine. (Thanks to BizzyBlog for digging this up.) --
Only a change in our institutional arrangements can halt the transformation of our society and culture by judges. Decisions of courts might be made subject to modification or reversal by majority vote of the Senate and the House of Representatives. Alternatively, courts might be deprived of the power of constitutional review. Either of those solutions would require a constitutional amendment. Perhaps an elected official will one day simply refuse to comply with a Supreme Court decision.
That suggestion will be regarded as shocking, but it should not be. To the objection that a rejection of a court's authority would be civil disobedience, the answer is that a court that issues orders without authority engages in an equally dangerous form of civil disobedience. The Taney Court that decided Dred Scott might well have decided, if the issue had been presented to it, that the South had a constitutional right to secede. Would Lincoln have been wrong to defy the Court's order and continue the Civil War? Some members of the Supreme Court were edging towards judging the constitutionality of the war in Vietnam. Surely, we do not want the Court to control every major decision and leave only the minutiae for democratic government.
Here's Romney's web site on Bork's unfathomable endorsement:
"I greatly admired his leadership in Massachusetts in the way that he responded to the activist court's ruling legalizing same-sex 'marriage.' His leadership on the issue has served as a model to the nation on how to respect all of our citizens while respecting the rule of law at the same time."
How old is Bork now? What is the average mandatory retirement age around the country for judges? How could this be the same man who wrote Slouching towards Gomorrah?)
Here's Judge Bork ruminating on judicial tyranny back in November 1996 (the good old days) in First Things magazine. (Thanks to BizzyBlog for digging this up.) --
Only a change in our institutional arrangements can halt the transformation of our society and culture by judges. Decisions of courts might be made subject to modification or reversal by majority vote of the Senate and the House of Representatives. Alternatively, courts might be deprived of the power of constitutional review. Either of those solutions would require a constitutional amendment. Perhaps an elected official will one day simply refuse to comply with a Supreme Court decision.
That suggestion will be regarded as shocking, but it should not be. To the objection that a rejection of a court's authority would be civil disobedience, the answer is that a court that issues orders without authority engages in an equally dangerous form of civil disobedience. The Taney Court that decided Dred Scott might well have decided, if the issue had been presented to it, that the South had a constitutional right to secede. Would Lincoln have been wrong to defy the Court's order and continue the Civil War? Some members of the Supreme Court were edging towards judging the constitutionality of the war in Vietnam. Surely, we do not want the Court to control every major decision and leave only the minutiae for democratic government.
Calling for a "Mea Culpa" from Mitt Romney
An excellent summary of Mitt Romney's failure to act as a conservative when he was Governor here. Listen up, New Hampshire and Iowa!!! You cannot trust this guy. Posted on Renew America, by R. T. Neary, Director of Pro-Life Massachusetts and past president of Massachusetts Citizens for Life. (Excerpts:)
Please Mitt, at least a mea culpa
An open letter to our former Massachusetts governor
By R.T. Neary (12-17-07)
... On the campaign trail, you're asserting that you are "pro-life" because you are now in favor of overturning Roe v Wade. Are you asking us to believe that this posture is tantamount to being Pro-Life? Your current stance, which is the same as some of your competitors, is a states' rights position which doesn't interfere at all with the right to abort the life of a newly created human being. Why don't you make a firm pronouncement in favor of a Human Life Amendment, an uncompromising call for the protection of all innocent human life? This would be a genuine Pro-life position — and there's still time.
For decades, there has been a culture war raging nationally, and this state where you governed has been the site of major battles. During your tenure, over 100,000 of our future citizens were legally destroyed in this so-called commonwealth. Close to 10,000 couples of the same gender were issued "marriage" licenses, children were subjected to the vilest of sexual practices in tax-funded public schools, and one parent was jailed for voicing objections to it. Mitt, were you blind to all of this?
Are you still blind to the fact that to allow parents to donate embryos for scientific stem cell research is to sanction the willful destruction of an innocent human being? Yet, you're trying to make a fine point that you are opposed to "creating" embryos for scientific stem cell research. Sorry, it skirts the moral issue and doesn't wash. Even the scientists involved in the research have not denied to us that an embryo has all its DNA in place. All that is needed for him or her to breath like you or I do is that two conditions be met: provide the proper environment and the necessary time....
With regard to your opposition on the presidential campaign trail to same-sex "marriage," as Governor of Massachusetts, you literally had your finger on the switch. And you pushed the full speed ahead, rather than locking in the stop lever. You, as a Harvard Law School graduate, knew that the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) had no authority under the Massachusetts constitution to pervert this millennia-old cornerstone of our society....
I reflect on the many calls I made under that Golden Dome on Beacon Hill, attempting to get support from your office for Pro-Life bills and especially a bill which would require advance parental permission for subjecting children to gross perversion in Sex Education in public schools. Never once could we get beyond the lowest contact level. Nor could we get even a discussion about the need for curriculum transparency, and the need for signed parental approval before subjecting children's minds to psychologically damaging material....
Read more ...
Please Mitt, at least a mea culpa
An open letter to our former Massachusetts governor
By R.T. Neary (12-17-07)
... On the campaign trail, you're asserting that you are "pro-life" because you are now in favor of overturning Roe v Wade. Are you asking us to believe that this posture is tantamount to being Pro-Life? Your current stance, which is the same as some of your competitors, is a states' rights position which doesn't interfere at all with the right to abort the life of a newly created human being. Why don't you make a firm pronouncement in favor of a Human Life Amendment, an uncompromising call for the protection of all innocent human life? This would be a genuine Pro-life position — and there's still time.
For decades, there has been a culture war raging nationally, and this state where you governed has been the site of major battles. During your tenure, over 100,000 of our future citizens were legally destroyed in this so-called commonwealth. Close to 10,000 couples of the same gender were issued "marriage" licenses, children were subjected to the vilest of sexual practices in tax-funded public schools, and one parent was jailed for voicing objections to it. Mitt, were you blind to all of this?
Are you still blind to the fact that to allow parents to donate embryos for scientific stem cell research is to sanction the willful destruction of an innocent human being? Yet, you're trying to make a fine point that you are opposed to "creating" embryos for scientific stem cell research. Sorry, it skirts the moral issue and doesn't wash. Even the scientists involved in the research have not denied to us that an embryo has all its DNA in place. All that is needed for him or her to breath like you or I do is that two conditions be met: provide the proper environment and the necessary time....
With regard to your opposition on the presidential campaign trail to same-sex "marriage," as Governor of Massachusetts, you literally had your finger on the switch. And you pushed the full speed ahead, rather than locking in the stop lever. You, as a Harvard Law School graduate, knew that the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) had no authority under the Massachusetts constitution to pervert this millennia-old cornerstone of our society....
I reflect on the many calls I made under that Golden Dome on Beacon Hill, attempting to get support from your office for Pro-Life bills and especially a bill which would require advance parental permission for subjecting children to gross perversion in Sex Education in public schools. Never once could we get beyond the lowest contact level. Nor could we get even a discussion about the need for curriculum transparency, and the need for signed parental approval before subjecting children's minds to psychologically damaging material....
Read more ...
Romney's Bargain Abortions
Kathryn Jean Lopez of National Review online commented on receiving a press release from the Thompson campaign about this last week. And now LifeSite News has linked to it. It was MassResistance that first put out the info on this. (See our report, "Gov. Romney's universal health care program for Massachusetts includes taxpayer-funded abortions.")
Romney supposedly became pro-life long before signing the Massachusetts health care law --which offers baby-killing services for a mere $50.
Romney -- $50 Abortions in Massachusetts
Contact: Press Office, 571-730-1010; www.Fred08.com
MC LEAN, Va., Dec. 12 /Christian Newswire/ -- Romney claims to be pro-life. But under his health care plan, Massachusetts residents now have access to taxpayer-funded abortions for $50.
Romney's Health Care Plan:
Provides Taxpayer-Funded Abortions. Abortions are covered in the Commonwealth Care program that Romney created as Governor. Under the program, abortions are available for a copay of $50. (Menu of Health Care Services: www.mass.gov/Qhic/docs/cc_benefits1220_pt234.pdf)
Guarantees Planned Parenthood A Seat At The Table. Romney's legislation created an advisory board and guarantees, by law, that Planned Parenthood has a seat at the table. Romney's plan established a MassHealth payment policy advisory board, and one member of the Board must be from Planned Parenthood. No pro-life organization is represented. (Chapter 58 Section 3 (q) Section 16M (a), www.mass.gov/legis/laws/seslaw06/sl060058.htm)
Romney used his line-item veto authority to strike eight sections of the bill that he found objectionable, including the expansion of dental benefits to Medicaid recipients. Yet, he did not strike Planned Parenthood's guaranteed Board representation and he did nothing to prohibit taxpayer-funded abortions as part of his plan. ("Romney's Health Care Vetoes," Associated Press, 4/12/06)
Romney supposedly became pro-life long before signing the Massachusetts health care law --which offers baby-killing services for a mere $50.
Romney -- $50 Abortions in Massachusetts
Contact: Press Office, 571-730-1010; www.Fred08.com
MC LEAN, Va., Dec. 12 /Christian Newswire/ -- Romney claims to be pro-life. But under his health care plan, Massachusetts residents now have access to taxpayer-funded abortions for $50.
Romney's Health Care Plan:
Provides Taxpayer-Funded Abortions. Abortions are covered in the Commonwealth Care program that Romney created as Governor. Under the program, abortions are available for a copay of $50. (Menu of Health Care Services: www.mass.gov/Qhic/docs/cc_benefits1220_pt234.pdf)
Guarantees Planned Parenthood A Seat At The Table. Romney's legislation created an advisory board and guarantees, by law, that Planned Parenthood has a seat at the table. Romney's plan established a MassHealth payment policy advisory board, and one member of the Board must be from Planned Parenthood. No pro-life organization is represented. (Chapter 58 Section 3 (q) Section 16M (a), www.mass.gov/legis/laws/seslaw06/sl060058.htm)
Romney used his line-item veto authority to strike eight sections of the bill that he found objectionable, including the expansion of dental benefits to Medicaid recipients. Yet, he did not strike Planned Parenthood's guaranteed Board representation and he did nothing to prohibit taxpayer-funded abortions as part of his plan. ("Romney's Health Care Vetoes," Associated Press, 4/12/06)
Friday, December 14, 2007
Roe v Wade and Fuzzy Thinking on the "Rule of Law"
Matt Barber of Concerned Women for America has another good piece in WorldNetDaily: "Do You Really Know Roe"? The better people understand what this 35-year-old ruling actually said, the more likely they are to oppose it, he explains. But here's another point Barber does not make:
This horrible Supreme Court ruling did not actually "legalize" abortion, but in fact just ushered in an era of fuzzy "thinking" across America about the power of the Court and the true meaning of words. A whole nation (in including nominal Republicans and "conservatives") has been trained by the media to say and believe that "a woman's right to choose" to murder her own child is the "law of the land."
Roe v. Wade laid the groundwork for the public's acceptance of future outrageous court rulings, including the Goodridge homosexual "marriage" ruling here in Massachusetts. It allowed former Gov. Mitt Romney to enact this radical social plan now transforming all of America -- while claiming he was just "following the law."
From Barber's article:
Due to circumstances beyond our control, the term "September 11th" almost instantly became a household phrase. It represents a day of great tragedy and outrage wherein over 3,000 people were murdered at the hands of Islamic extremists who callously chose to sacrifice innocent human life to further a narrow and selfish political agenda.
But another date, Jan. 22, which is not so well-known, signifies an equally outrageous and solemn occasion. Jan. 22, 2008, marks the 35th anniversary of what is, unquestionably, one of the U.S. Supreme Court's most highly controversial and divisive rulings in its 200-plus year history – Roe v. Wade.
The Roe decision, authored by Justice Harry Blackmun, found for the first time that the U.S. Constitution somehow guaranteed the phantom "right" for a mother to have the innocent child which grew within her summarily killed.
Since that time, what seems an endless string of misguided women and innocent children have been victimized by this much more subtle, yet equally deadly form of politically motivated violence. And those to blame are, once again, extremists with an almost religious zeal who callously "choose" to sacrifice innocent human life to further a narrow and selfish political agenda. ...
The number of those slaughtered as a direct result of Roe far exceeds that of Americans killed in all U.S. wars combined. Yet, in this war – the war for our culture – it is innocent children whose bodies are strewn across the battlefield, buried – unceremoniously – in mass graves behind the local Planned Parenthood. ...
Matt Barber is one of the "like-minded men" with Concerned Women for America. He is an attorney concentrating in constitutional law and serves as CWA's policy director for cultural issues.
This horrible Supreme Court ruling did not actually "legalize" abortion, but in fact just ushered in an era of fuzzy "thinking" across America about the power of the Court and the true meaning of words. A whole nation (in including nominal Republicans and "conservatives") has been trained by the media to say and believe that "a woman's right to choose" to murder her own child is the "law of the land."
Roe v. Wade laid the groundwork for the public's acceptance of future outrageous court rulings, including the Goodridge homosexual "marriage" ruling here in Massachusetts. It allowed former Gov. Mitt Romney to enact this radical social plan now transforming all of America -- while claiming he was just "following the law."
From Barber's article:
Due to circumstances beyond our control, the term "September 11th" almost instantly became a household phrase. It represents a day of great tragedy and outrage wherein over 3,000 people were murdered at the hands of Islamic extremists who callously chose to sacrifice innocent human life to further a narrow and selfish political agenda.
But another date, Jan. 22, which is not so well-known, signifies an equally outrageous and solemn occasion. Jan. 22, 2008, marks the 35th anniversary of what is, unquestionably, one of the U.S. Supreme Court's most highly controversial and divisive rulings in its 200-plus year history – Roe v. Wade.
The Roe decision, authored by Justice Harry Blackmun, found for the first time that the U.S. Constitution somehow guaranteed the phantom "right" for a mother to have the innocent child which grew within her summarily killed.
Since that time, what seems an endless string of misguided women and innocent children have been victimized by this much more subtle, yet equally deadly form of politically motivated violence. And those to blame are, once again, extremists with an almost religious zeal who callously "choose" to sacrifice innocent human life to further a narrow and selfish political agenda. ...
The number of those slaughtered as a direct result of Roe far exceeds that of Americans killed in all U.S. wars combined. Yet, in this war – the war for our culture – it is innocent children whose bodies are strewn across the battlefield, buried – unceremoniously – in mass graves behind the local Planned Parenthood. ...
Matt Barber is one of the "like-minded men" with Concerned Women for America. He is an attorney concentrating in constitutional law and serves as CWA's policy director for cultural issues.
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Mass. Commission on Gay & Lesbian Youth Designing "Safe Schools" Programs
Here are two prominent "transsexual/transgender" members of the Mass. Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth. You can learn more about their vision for our children at the Commission's next public meeting coming up Monday, Dec. 17, 7-9 p.m. at the Brockton Holiday Inn.
Grace Sterling Stowell, Vice Chairman of the Commmission on Gay and Lesbian Youth, and Executive Director of BAGLY (Boston Alliance of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Youth), which puts on the annual Queer/Trans prom at Boston City Hall, ending the Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth's Pride Day celebration every May. Until we brought attention to it, Stowell directed youth to a "male-to-female" surgery web site on the BAGLY resource page.
Grace Sterling Stowell, Vice Chairman of the Commmission on Gay and Lesbian Youth, and Executive Director of BAGLY (Boston Alliance of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Youth), which puts on the annual Queer/Trans prom at Boston City Hall, ending the Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth's Pride Day celebration every May. Until we brought attention to it, Stowell directed youth to a "male-to-female" surgery web site on the BAGLY resource page.Gunner Scott, founder of GenderCrash and trans activist about town, is pushing hard for the "Transgender Rights and Hate Crimes" Bill H1722 now filed in the Mass. Legislature. Here's Scott, profiled in Bay Windows: Scott believes that there is a whole group of people who are trans amorous (even if those individuals don’t comprise an identifiable community) and these “transam” folks also face transphobia. Scott, who now identifies as a genderqueer female-to-masculine person, speaks from experience on both sides of that romantic situation. “Before I came out as trans I was partnered with a transwoman. I was lesbian-identified and I lost more [queer] friends being with her than I did when I first came out [as trans].” Scott hopes that his trans activism will help create a world in which all people feel free to live in the identity that they most relate to....
Now, the Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth is looking for new members. Their plan is to increase the number of youth members and "transgender" commissioners. The new transgender members will probably be in addition to the four openly trans members already on the Commission.
We're not sure if the Commission has re-defined "youth" yet, as Scott proposed at a meeting last March, to include ALL public school students, grades K-12. But possibly we'll soon be seeing a kindergartner or 1st-grader on the Commission! We're sure his contributions will be on a par with the current members' thoughtful ideas for inclusive, diverse, and safe schools.
Here's a list of current Commission members.
[From Bay Windows:] Mass. Youth Commission to meet in Brockton (12-12-07)
The Massachusetts Commission on GLBT Youth will meet Dec. 17 at the Holiday Inn in Brockton , the latest in a series of meetings held in different regions of the state to conduct commission business and meet with local youth and advocates to assess the situation of LGBT youth in Massachusetts. Thus far the commission has held meetings in Boston, Hyannis and Worcester, and in March the commission will hold a meeting in Springfield.
Jason Smith, chair of the commission, said a group of local youth will address the commission at the Brockton meeting and talk about the issues facing LGBT youth in their city. Prior to the public meeting the commission will also hold a private discussion forum with local LGBT and allied youth to hear firsthand about their experiences at schools, in their families and in their neighborhoods. The commission held a similar event at the Worcester meeting in October that brought out about 20 young people involved in local gay/straight alliances....
The meeting will include discussion of LGBT youth funding in the fiscal year 2009 budget and the state of the Department of Education’s Safe Schools program. Commissioners will also vote on a slate of new candidates to fill the slots of commissioners who have resigned. Smith said he was unsure how many prospective commissioners were on the slate, but many of them help the commission achieve its goal of increasing representation of various communities, including LGBT youth themselves.
"Most of the commissioners that have applied and that we’re looking at are youth or potential commissioners who are transgender, and there’s also a lot of people representing Western Mass," said Smith, who added that there are commissioners from southern Mass. and Cape Ann as well. "We’re definitely looking to regionalize." [emphasis added]
The Commission's next meeting (open to the public) is taking place at the Holiday Inn in Brockton next Monday, Dec. 17, from 7-9 p.m.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
National Review's Romney Endorsement -- Our Challenge
After their fawning endorsement of their donor, Mitt Romney, we sent this note to the National Review Online editors (for whom we had emails):
You have a whole blog dedicated to judicial activism … yet your magazine just endorsed Mitt Romney, who is guilty of causing the worst incidence of judicial activism since Roe v Wade to be treated as “law”. Professor Hadley Arkes even wrote an important piece in NATIONAL REVIEW highly critical of Romney on the day the “homosexual marriages” began in Massachusetts (thanks to Romney’s orders): "The Missing Governor" by Hadley Arkes (May 17, 2004). Arkes asked: "Have Republican leaders lost their confidence on moral matters?"
Does no one remember that prominent conservatives pleaded with Romney in 2003-4 to uphold the Mass. Constitution, and defy the illegitimate Court ruling on homosexual "marriage"? Phyllis Schlafly, Pat Buchanan, Mat Staver (Liberty Counsel), and even HUGH HEWITT (Weekly Standard, 11-20-03) told Romney to stand up against judicial tyranny. But Romney ignored them and singlehandedly began homosexual "marriage" in Mass. (The Legislature still has not changed our statutes to allow it, as ordered by the Court...which didn't even tell Romney to do anything!)
Why did Romney issue orders to his executive branch officials to change the marriage licenses and perform the marriages? There was no new LAW to enforce! If we couldn't trust Romney with the Mass. Constitution, how can we trust him with the U.S. Constitution? See our report: http://massresistance.org/docs/marriage/romney/
Only one of the 19 editors contacted, Jim Geraghty of their "Campaign Spot" blog, has responded: "Mass e-mailing editors who had nothing to do with the endorsement just pisses them off."
We answered: "I would love to know how NR arrived at a decision to endorse, if the editors weren't involved? Seriously, what was the process? (P.S. I don't appreciate language like "p off" – lots of us regular people still don't talk like that.)"
He then said: "I think I don't appreciate mass e-mails berating me for a decision I had no role in about as much as you don't appreciate the term 'pisses them off.' " (He just had to repeat that.) And then he sent us to his earlier post:
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
MIKE HUCKABEE, MITT ROMNEY
Another Thought On The Endorsement [by Jim Geraghty, on NRO's Campaign Spot]
Last night Rich [Lowry, editor-in-chief] explained a bit about NR's endorsement process to Hugh Hewitt:
HH: Take me inside first the process by which National Review arrived at its endorsement.
RL: (laughing) I don’t know, Hugh. It’s a really tightly held process here. It’s like selecting the Pope. We can’t reveal too much, but…
HH: How many people got a say in this?
RL: Well, it’s our senior editors, our publisher, our president and our Washington editor and myself. And we’ve been talking about it the last two weeks or so, just because this is our, through the quirks of our publication schedule, this is our last issue before people vote in Iowa and New Hampshire.
[Geraghty continues:]
So complaining to anybody else at NR or NRO is not really going to do any good. In fact, complaining won't do any good, period. If the magazine endorsed somebody besides your guy, you say, "I disagree," you hope it does Romney as much good as it did Phil Gramm, and then life goes on....
In other words, no feedback, no discussion welcome. The court has ruled, and that's that. (And he even continues with silly putdowns of Ron Paul's and Mike Huckabee's campaigns.) But these people rarely answer the substance of the question. Maybe Geraghty could do a little research on this all-important fact in Romney's record as Governor, then get back to us with a little more thoughtful response. He is the editor of NR's Campaign blog, after all.
You have a whole blog dedicated to judicial activism … yet your magazine just endorsed Mitt Romney, who is guilty of causing the worst incidence of judicial activism since Roe v Wade to be treated as “law”. Professor Hadley Arkes even wrote an important piece in NATIONAL REVIEW highly critical of Romney on the day the “homosexual marriages” began in Massachusetts (thanks to Romney’s orders): "The Missing Governor" by Hadley Arkes (May 17, 2004). Arkes asked: "Have Republican leaders lost their confidence on moral matters?"
Does no one remember that prominent conservatives pleaded with Romney in 2003-4 to uphold the Mass. Constitution, and defy the illegitimate Court ruling on homosexual "marriage"? Phyllis Schlafly, Pat Buchanan, Mat Staver (Liberty Counsel), and even HUGH HEWITT (Weekly Standard, 11-20-03) told Romney to stand up against judicial tyranny. But Romney ignored them and singlehandedly began homosexual "marriage" in Mass. (The Legislature still has not changed our statutes to allow it, as ordered by the Court...which didn't even tell Romney to do anything!)
Why did Romney issue orders to his executive branch officials to change the marriage licenses and perform the marriages? There was no new LAW to enforce! If we couldn't trust Romney with the Mass. Constitution, how can we trust him with the U.S. Constitution? See our report: http://massresistance.org/docs/marriage/romney/
Only one of the 19 editors contacted, Jim Geraghty of their "Campaign Spot" blog, has responded: "Mass e-mailing editors who had nothing to do with the endorsement just pisses them off."
We answered: "I would love to know how NR arrived at a decision to endorse, if the editors weren't involved? Seriously, what was the process? (P.S. I don't appreciate language like "p off" – lots of us regular people still don't talk like that.)"
He then said: "I think I don't appreciate mass e-mails berating me for a decision I had no role in about as much as you don't appreciate the term 'pisses them off.' " (He just had to repeat that.) And then he sent us to his earlier post:
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
MIKE HUCKABEE, MITT ROMNEY
Another Thought On The Endorsement [by Jim Geraghty, on NRO's Campaign Spot]
Last night Rich [Lowry, editor-in-chief] explained a bit about NR's endorsement process to Hugh Hewitt:
HH: Take me inside first the process by which National Review arrived at its endorsement.
RL: (laughing) I don’t know, Hugh. It’s a really tightly held process here. It’s like selecting the Pope. We can’t reveal too much, but…
HH: How many people got a say in this?
RL: Well, it’s our senior editors, our publisher, our president and our Washington editor and myself. And we’ve been talking about it the last two weeks or so, just because this is our, through the quirks of our publication schedule, this is our last issue before people vote in Iowa and New Hampshire.
[Geraghty continues:]
So complaining to anybody else at NR or NRO is not really going to do any good. In fact, complaining won't do any good, period. If the magazine endorsed somebody besides your guy, you say, "I disagree," you hope it does Romney as much good as it did Phil Gramm, and then life goes on....
In other words, no feedback, no discussion welcome. The court has ruled, and that's that. (And he even continues with silly putdowns of Ron Paul's and Mike Huckabee's campaigns.) But these people rarely answer the substance of the question. Maybe Geraghty could do a little research on this all-important fact in Romney's record as Governor, then get back to us with a little more thoughtful response. He is the editor of NR's Campaign blog, after all.
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Polyamory On the Way
We've reported before on polygamy/polyamory activists in Massachusetts. See "Polygamy & BDSM Advocate Behind Anti-Bullying Programs in Schools" (2-6-07):
Valerie White (see her web site) is an activist for "alternative sexual expression" -- including polygamy, polyamory, and BDSM (torture, sadomasochism, dangerous sexual perversions, etc.). She's a board member of the Unitarian pro-polyamory group called "Unitarian Universalists for Polyamory Awareness," and an ordained "Humanist" minister. (Now recall that the Unitarians have been a huge prime mover for "homosexual marriage." Their national headquarters building is immediately adjacent to the Mass. State House; how convenient!) White has set up a legal foundation to defend practitioners of "alternative sexual expression," including BDSM, the Sexual Freedom Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc. (See "BDSM & the law" ...)
Recently, NARTH (Nat'l Assoc for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality) brought our attention to "Poly Pride Week" in New York last October. Polyamorous NYC ("Expanding the depth of human relationships with strength in numbers") hosted a big event in Central Park including a huge "cuddle party" for "all orientations and genders." (The Massachusetts activist noted above, Valerie White, is also associated with the NY group.)
Polyamorous NYC will host the 7th Annual Poly Pride Day on Great Hill in Central Park, Sat., Oct. 6th from Noon to 6 p.m. The organizers are planning multiple polyamorous events for the entire weekend. All poly-friendly, poly-curious and polyamorous people welcome! "Nuclear families are beginning to disappear. Non-traditional relationships, often involving three or more consenting adults are taking their place" says Polyamorous NYC member, Barbara Foster. "Poly Pride Day gives us an opportunity to publicly celebrate these non-traditional families."
Resources on Polyamorous NYC's web site -- all available on Amazon -- include:
The Ethical Slut: A Guide to Infinite Sexual Possibilities
Polyamory: The New Love Without Limits: Secrets of Sustainable Relationships
Redefining Our Relationships: Guidelines for Responsible Open Relationships
Valerie White (see her web site) is an activist for "alternative sexual expression" -- including polygamy, polyamory, and BDSM (torture, sadomasochism, dangerous sexual perversions, etc.). She's a board member of the Unitarian pro-polyamory group called "Unitarian Universalists for Polyamory Awareness," and an ordained "Humanist" minister. (Now recall that the Unitarians have been a huge prime mover for "homosexual marriage." Their national headquarters building is immediately adjacent to the Mass. State House; how convenient!) White has set up a legal foundation to defend practitioners of "alternative sexual expression," including BDSM, the Sexual Freedom Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc. (See "BDSM & the law" ...)
Recently, NARTH (Nat'l Assoc for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality) brought our attention to "Poly Pride Week" in New York last October. Polyamorous NYC ("Expanding the depth of human relationships with strength in numbers") hosted a big event in Central Park including a huge "cuddle party" for "all orientations and genders." (The Massachusetts activist noted above, Valerie White, is also associated with the NY group.)
Polyamorous NYC will host the 7th Annual Poly Pride Day on Great Hill in Central Park, Sat., Oct. 6th from Noon to 6 p.m. The organizers are planning multiple polyamorous events for the entire weekend. All poly-friendly, poly-curious and polyamorous people welcome! "Nuclear families are beginning to disappear. Non-traditional relationships, often involving three or more consenting adults are taking their place" says Polyamorous NYC member, Barbara Foster. "Poly Pride Day gives us an opportunity to publicly celebrate these non-traditional families."
Resources on Polyamorous NYC's web site -- all available on Amazon -- include:
The Ethical Slut: A Guide to Infinite Sexual Possibilities
Polyamory: The New Love Without Limits: Secrets of Sustainable Relationships
Redefining Our Relationships: Guidelines for Responsible Open Relationships
Monday, December 10, 2007
Sandy Rios Challenges Mitt Romney
John Haskins, political analyst for the Parents' Rights Coalition, comments on Sandy Rios's great new column (excerpt below):
As so often before, Sandy boldly stands up and tells the unvarnished truth -- when so many mercenary "pro-family leaders" and "conservative" super-lawyers remain silent about one of the biggest, best funded and most socially destructive cover-ups in modern American politics. If you are too lazy to read the letter Sandy references, and see how Romney brilliantly trashed the oldest functioning constitution in the world, I sure hope you are also too lazy to vote!
What Sandy is reporting here is the absolute truth. I can personally vouch for the fact that it's been affirmed by numerous constitutional experts. They include Professor Herbert Titus and Alan Keyes, whose Harvard Ph.D. in constitutional governance makes him far more qualified than the celebrity "conservative" lawyers who are dishonestly steering people away from the plain English in the state constitution that Romney gutted. Much of the pro-family establishment is failing in their sacred duty at this decisive moment in American history. As I've written before, our constitutions are not for "legal experts" to lock away from your prying eyes. They were written for you --for ordinary citizens as protection against the lawyers, judges and politicians who are telling you that judges make the law and have absolute tyrannical power over our elected representatives.
Romney has spread huge amounts of money around the conservative and "pro-family" movement to buy silence and even loyalty. The financial incentives and other pressure to keep the people's eyes off the absolute proof in the Massachusetts Constitution are intense! One reason is that so many respected "conservative" lawyers committed gross malpractice by failing to do due diligence and actually read the Massachusetts Constitution. Once they went on record in support of Romney's blatant lies, they found themselves unable to publicly backtrack without a huge loss of prestige. They are now putting their own reputations over their sacred duty to defend the rule of law under our state and federal constitutions, from outlaw politicians and judges who routinely lie to the people.
Here's the letter Sandy referred to -- that she signed, with many other social conservatives and veteran pro-family leaders and activists. It seems TownHall.com removed the link from Sandy's letter to discourage people from reading it. TownHall, National Review, Human Events, Fox News and most of the blindly pro-Republican establishment media have betrayed conservatives and constitutionalists by refusing to inform people about how Romney brilliantly used the court's non-binding opinion as a smokescreen to illegally impose "gay marriage." They are dominated by career "conservatives" including lawyers like Hugh Hewitt, who have been aggressively steering people away from the absolute proof in the Massachusetts Constitution that Mitt Romney misrepresented his constitutional duty and gave illegal orders to town clerks and justices of the peace and thereby, himself unconstitutionally imposed homosexual "marriage."
As Sandy points out, while desperately seeking the endorsement of the homosexual activist group the Log Cabin Republicans in 2002, Romney secretly promised to ignore the state constitution and violate his solemn oath to defend it against arrogant judges. That's right, folks. Mitt Romney, according to eyewitnesses -- including one of his own former staff members -- secretly promised homosexual activists that he would step aside and let the court reach far beyond its constitutional jurisdiction and unconstitutionally get sodomy-based "marriage" past the legislature and the people.
Mitt Romney May Have Had No Choice, But I Do
By Sandy Rios
Monday, December 10, 2007
Exactly one year ago I signed a letter of challenge to Mitt Romney along with Paul Weyrich and 42 other pro-family leaders asking the governor to use the time he had left in office to “reverse the damage that has been done to the sacred institution of marriage.” We urged him to “declare immediately that homosexual ‘marriage’ licenses issued in violation of the law are illegal and to issue an order to all state and local officials to cease violating the law.”
Why did we make such a difficult and uncomfortable request? After all, Governor Romney had done everything he could to stop homosexual marriage, hadn’t he? And as he explained to the people of Massachusetts and to the country, he had “no choice” but to “execute the law.” He had no choice when he ordered marriage licenses changed from “husband and wife” to “party A and party B”… no choice when he ordered city officials to immediately begin performing same-sex marriages … no choice when he threatened them with losing their jobs if they didn’t comply … no choice but to be the very instrument, the expeditor, the person responsible for ushering in same-sex marriage.
You will find our letter filled with passages from the Massachusetts Constitution quite convincing, but you can also read the words penned by Hugh Hewitt at the time in an article he wrote in The Weekly Standard on November 20, 2003.
It was titled “Just Say ‘No.’ ” Hugh begins with a quote attributed to President Andrew Jackson in the aftermath of a Supreme Court decision he disliked: “John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.” “Romney should seriously consider indifference,” Hugh wrote. “The ruling is also absurd in its reasoning and breathtaking in its arrogance…. The decision is illegitimate, and the appropriate response will be to ignore it. Romney and the legislature ought to stand back and say no.” Hugh continued, “In fact, if the court threatens with penalties, they ought to threaten back.” ... (Read more of Sandy Rios's column.)
As so often before, Sandy boldly stands up and tells the unvarnished truth -- when so many mercenary "pro-family leaders" and "conservative" super-lawyers remain silent about one of the biggest, best funded and most socially destructive cover-ups in modern American politics. If you are too lazy to read the letter Sandy references, and see how Romney brilliantly trashed the oldest functioning constitution in the world, I sure hope you are also too lazy to vote!
What Sandy is reporting here is the absolute truth. I can personally vouch for the fact that it's been affirmed by numerous constitutional experts. They include Professor Herbert Titus and Alan Keyes, whose Harvard Ph.D. in constitutional governance makes him far more qualified than the celebrity "conservative" lawyers who are dishonestly steering people away from the plain English in the state constitution that Romney gutted. Much of the pro-family establishment is failing in their sacred duty at this decisive moment in American history. As I've written before, our constitutions are not for "legal experts" to lock away from your prying eyes. They were written for you --for ordinary citizens as protection against the lawyers, judges and politicians who are telling you that judges make the law and have absolute tyrannical power over our elected representatives.
Romney has spread huge amounts of money around the conservative and "pro-family" movement to buy silence and even loyalty. The financial incentives and other pressure to keep the people's eyes off the absolute proof in the Massachusetts Constitution are intense! One reason is that so many respected "conservative" lawyers committed gross malpractice by failing to do due diligence and actually read the Massachusetts Constitution. Once they went on record in support of Romney's blatant lies, they found themselves unable to publicly backtrack without a huge loss of prestige. They are now putting their own reputations over their sacred duty to defend the rule of law under our state and federal constitutions, from outlaw politicians and judges who routinely lie to the people.
Here's the letter Sandy referred to -- that she signed, with many other social conservatives and veteran pro-family leaders and activists. It seems TownHall.com removed the link from Sandy's letter to discourage people from reading it. TownHall, National Review, Human Events, Fox News and most of the blindly pro-Republican establishment media have betrayed conservatives and constitutionalists by refusing to inform people about how Romney brilliantly used the court's non-binding opinion as a smokescreen to illegally impose "gay marriage." They are dominated by career "conservatives" including lawyers like Hugh Hewitt, who have been aggressively steering people away from the absolute proof in the Massachusetts Constitution that Mitt Romney misrepresented his constitutional duty and gave illegal orders to town clerks and justices of the peace and thereby, himself unconstitutionally imposed homosexual "marriage."
As Sandy points out, while desperately seeking the endorsement of the homosexual activist group the Log Cabin Republicans in 2002, Romney secretly promised to ignore the state constitution and violate his solemn oath to defend it against arrogant judges. That's right, folks. Mitt Romney, according to eyewitnesses -- including one of his own former staff members -- secretly promised homosexual activists that he would step aside and let the court reach far beyond its constitutional jurisdiction and unconstitutionally get sodomy-based "marriage" past the legislature and the people.
Mitt Romney May Have Had No Choice, But I Do
By Sandy Rios
Monday, December 10, 2007
Exactly one year ago I signed a letter of challenge to Mitt Romney along with Paul Weyrich and 42 other pro-family leaders asking the governor to use the time he had left in office to “reverse the damage that has been done to the sacred institution of marriage.” We urged him to “declare immediately that homosexual ‘marriage’ licenses issued in violation of the law are illegal and to issue an order to all state and local officials to cease violating the law.”
Why did we make such a difficult and uncomfortable request? After all, Governor Romney had done everything he could to stop homosexual marriage, hadn’t he? And as he explained to the people of Massachusetts and to the country, he had “no choice” but to “execute the law.” He had no choice when he ordered marriage licenses changed from “husband and wife” to “party A and party B”… no choice when he ordered city officials to immediately begin performing same-sex marriages … no choice when he threatened them with losing their jobs if they didn’t comply … no choice but to be the very instrument, the expeditor, the person responsible for ushering in same-sex marriage.
You will find our letter filled with passages from the Massachusetts Constitution quite convincing, but you can also read the words penned by Hugh Hewitt at the time in an article he wrote in The Weekly Standard on November 20, 2003.
It was titled “Just Say ‘No.’ ” Hugh begins with a quote attributed to President Andrew Jackson in the aftermath of a Supreme Court decision he disliked: “John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.” “Romney should seriously consider indifference,” Hugh wrote. “The ruling is also absurd in its reasoning and breathtaking in its arrogance…. The decision is illegitimate, and the appropriate response will be to ignore it. Romney and the legislature ought to stand back and say no.” Hugh continued, “In fact, if the court threatens with penalties, they ought to threaten back.” ... (Read more of Sandy Rios's column.)
Saturday, December 08, 2007
Rhode Island Gets It: Laws Are Passed by Legislatures Only
Rhode Island's high court has just ruled that a lesbian couple supposedly "married" in Massachusetts may not be granted a divorce in Rhode Island, because R.I. does not recognize the validity of their "marriage."
The only thing missing from this story is the recognition, by Alliance Defense Fund attorneys involved (and other "conservatives") that this "marriage" wasn't valid in Massachusetts either, for the same reason it wasn't valid in Rhode Island: THE LEGISLATURE NEVER CHANGED THE LAW to allow same-sex "marriage" here!
The majority on the R.I. Court, the R.I. Governor, and even the attorney for GLAD (Gay & Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, who pushed "homosexual marriage" in Massachusetts), understood that only the R.I. legislature could change the law there.
So why is it any different in Massachusetts??? That's the question we've been asking for three years now. Our legislature NEVER changed our law, which clearly recognizes marriage as between a man and a woman. Why did the Alliance Defense Fund not point that out in this case? Could it have something to do with some of their members' support for Presidential candidate Mitt Romney, who sneaked "homosexual marriage" through here without it ever being legalized?
See the Boston Globe, "R.I. won't let gay couple divorce" (12-8-07; emphasis added):
... The court concluded that a key 1961 Rhode Island law defines marriage as an legal union between a man and a woman, not same-sex couples. Unless and until the Legislature changes the wording, same-sex couples married in Massachusetts cannot get divorced in Rhode Island family courts, it said.
Cassandra Ormiston, who married Margaret Chambers in Fall River in 2004 after Massachusetts became the first state in the country to legalize same-sex marriages, denounced the ruling, saying it discriminates against same-sex couples....
In a statement, Governor Donald L. Carcieri of Rhode Island and at least one group that opposes gay marriage praised the ruling. "I believe this is the appropriate result based on Rhode Island law," Carcieri said. "It has always been clear to me that Rhode Island law was designed to permit marriage, and therefore divorce, only between a man and a woman."
The lawyer for the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian-based group, said the ruling affirms that marriage is between a man and woman and anything else is "counterfeit." "Not only is today's ruling a victory for marriage, it's also a tremendous step forward against judicial activism," Austin R. Nimocks, a lawyer for the Arizona group, said in a statement....
Karen Loewy, a staff lawyer with GLAD, which filed an amicus brief siding with the couple, said she was "incredibly distressed" for them. Short of persuading the Rhode Island General Assembly to legalize gay marriage, she said, the only certain way the couple can get a divorce is for one of the spouses to move to Massachusetts and establish legal residency....
The court's majority said the Legislature, not the courts, should change state law.
The only thing missing from this story is the recognition, by Alliance Defense Fund attorneys involved (and other "conservatives") that this "marriage" wasn't valid in Massachusetts either, for the same reason it wasn't valid in Rhode Island: THE LEGISLATURE NEVER CHANGED THE LAW to allow same-sex "marriage" here!
The majority on the R.I. Court, the R.I. Governor, and even the attorney for GLAD (Gay & Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, who pushed "homosexual marriage" in Massachusetts), understood that only the R.I. legislature could change the law there.
So why is it any different in Massachusetts??? That's the question we've been asking for three years now. Our legislature NEVER changed our law, which clearly recognizes marriage as between a man and a woman. Why did the Alliance Defense Fund not point that out in this case? Could it have something to do with some of their members' support for Presidential candidate Mitt Romney, who sneaked "homosexual marriage" through here without it ever being legalized?
See the Boston Globe, "R.I. won't let gay couple divorce" (12-8-07; emphasis added):
... The court concluded that a key 1961 Rhode Island law defines marriage as an legal union between a man and a woman, not same-sex couples. Unless and until the Legislature changes the wording, same-sex couples married in Massachusetts cannot get divorced in Rhode Island family courts, it said.
Cassandra Ormiston, who married Margaret Chambers in Fall River in 2004 after Massachusetts became the first state in the country to legalize same-sex marriages, denounced the ruling, saying it discriminates against same-sex couples....
In a statement, Governor Donald L. Carcieri of Rhode Island and at least one group that opposes gay marriage praised the ruling. "I believe this is the appropriate result based on Rhode Island law," Carcieri said. "It has always been clear to me that Rhode Island law was designed to permit marriage, and therefore divorce, only between a man and a woman."
The lawyer for the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian-based group, said the ruling affirms that marriage is between a man and woman and anything else is "counterfeit." "Not only is today's ruling a victory for marriage, it's also a tremendous step forward against judicial activism," Austin R. Nimocks, a lawyer for the Arizona group, said in a statement....
Karen Loewy, a staff lawyer with GLAD, which filed an amicus brief siding with the couple, said she was "incredibly distressed" for them. Short of persuading the Rhode Island General Assembly to legalize gay marriage, she said, the only certain way the couple can get a divorce is for one of the spouses to move to Massachusetts and establish legal residency....
The court's majority said the Legislature, not the courts, should change state law.
Thursday, December 06, 2007
Bishop Gene Robinson: "I always wanted to be a June bride!"
"I always wanted to be a June bride," gushed Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson of New Hampshire recently at a speech in Florida. Robinson is going to be legally joined to his long-time sodomy partner next June. New Hampshire legalized "civil unions" there starting this January.Unlike New Hampshire, Massachusetts has still not legalized either "civil unions" or "homosexual marriage." They're just a fiction of some GLBT activists, four judges, and a former Massachusetts governor named Romney. So Bishop Robinson must be thanking his god that he's in a state where he can legally become a bride this June.
(photo source: Nova Southeastern Shepard Broad Law Center)
by Priscilla Greear
U/Miami News Service
Tuesday Dec 4, 2007
The nation’s first openly gay Episcopal bishop told a crowd of about 200 that come June he’s marching down the aisle with his longtime male partner Mark Andrew. "I always wanted to be a June bride," said Bishop Gene Robinson at a talk on Nov. 27 at Nova Southeastern University.
"It may take many years for religious institutions to add their blessing for same-sex marriages and no church, mosque or synagogue should be forced to do so. But that should not slow down progress for the full civil right to marry," Robinson said. "Because New Hampshire will have legal unions beginning in January, my partner of 20 years and I will enter into such a legal union next June." ...
Wearing a raspberry clergy shirt with a cleric collar and pectoral cross, Robinson characterized the "religious right" as close-minded, taking a literal interpretation of Bible condemnation of homosexuality."The greatest single hindrance to achievement of full rights for gays and lesbians can be laid at the doorstep of the three Abrahamic faiths-- Judaism, Christianity and Islam. It’s going to take people of faith to end discrimination," said Robinson, who was invested as the ninth bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of New Hampshire in 2004.... [emphasis added]
Now if an Episcopal Bishop slams the supposed foundation of his own faith ("the three Abrahamic faiths -- Judaism, Christianity and Islam"), to what faith does he now plan to appeal to bolster his belief in sodomy "marriage"?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)