Friday, March 31, 2006

Supreme Court V. Fairness?

The Massachusetts Supreme Court (SJC) ruled yesterday, March 30, 2006, that out-of-state same-sex couples would be prohibited from marrying here in Massachusetts. The ruling stated that Governor Mitt Romney and Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly could uphold a 1913 law that prohibits Massachusetts from marrying any couple, heterosexual or homosexual, if the marriage is not considered legal in their home state.

Assistant Massachusetts State Attorney General Peter Sacks defended the 1913 Bay State law as protecting other states' rights to define marriage the way they want to define it. This principle is continuously cited by the Massachusetts high court in its milestone November 2003 ruling legalizing same-sex "marriage".
That ruling, said Sacks, defines marriage as "two willing spouses and an approving state." Since no other state allows same-sex marriage, he said, that standard is not met anywhere but Massachusetts.
Of the eight out-of-state same-sex couples who are part of the lawsuit suing for the right to get "married" in Massachusetts, five of whom were "married" in the state by city clerks who decided to not follow the 1913 law and three others who were turned down in receiving a marriage license, Attorney General Reilly agreed with the legal standing of the higher court ruling.
Reilly's thought process is that since the eight couples are not from Massachusetts - two are from Connecticut, two are from Rhode Island, and one each are from New Hampshire, Vermont, Maine and New York - they do not have the legal standing to challenge the 1913 law.
Sacks said that Massachusetts' enforcement of the law respects other states' rights. "People can come here from out of state to get married, if they're coming from a jurisdiction where it's recognized".
As Justice Spina wrote in a 38 page opinion on the ruling:
"Massachusetts can reasonably believe that non-resident same-sex couples primarily are coming to this Commonwealth to marry because they want to evade the marriage laws of their home states, and that Massachusetts should not be encouraging such evasion."
The ruling had upset gay-rights advocates who said that state officials had "dusted off" the 1913 law to discriminate against same-sex "married" couples in Massachusetts.
Hold on here a minute. Where is the discrimination coming from? What group is specifically being discriminated here? Can we all look a little harder at HOW the SJC ruled on this case. As stated, the SJC expects ALL city and town clerks to impose this law to ALL married couples. Either these married couples are of a heterosexual or homosexual orientation. It seems that Ms. Granda, the lawyer of the eight involved in the lawsuit, is forgetting this KEY point.
Why, you may ask, is Massachusetts upholding the 1913 law all of a sudden? I thought Assistant Massachusetts State Attorney General Peter Sacks said it best:
"Certainly enforcement has been increased because there's much more reason than there was before to expect violations."
I mean, if you know that your country, for example, is going to be evaded by ILLEGAL outsiders wouldn't you want to protect the integrity of your homeland? President Bush doesn't think so, but that is for another post.
One comment I can not understand came from New Yorker Amy Zimmerman who "married" her same-sex partner in Somerville, MA a couple years ago. Her comments were about the ruling.
''But we're disappointed. We're disappointed for our friends. We've been trying to teach our kids about fairness, and we don't feel this has been fair today."
I have said it once in my posts and I will say it again. Where was the fairness in denying the Commonwealth a chance to vote on their own cultural values? An UNELECTED court official decided the fate of the definition of marriage for ALL of Massachusetts. "Fairness....teach our kids..." What???!!!!!
What is it about what Americans are saying in their opposed views about same-sex "marriage" the radical homosexual community does not understand? The six states that do not have a Defense of Marriage status or amendments to prohibit same-sex "marriage" are going to fight to rid gay "marriage" in their respective states now that the SJC made its ruling.
I think Kris Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute, said it best.
''People are going to take a second look, because a warning shot has been fired across their bows, a warning shot from the Marshall court that says, 'We think Massachusetts marriages might be recognized in your state."
Talk about shooting yourself in the foot. I mean really. How sloppy can you be with how you go about keeping the secret weapons from getting into the hands of the opposing side? Oh, that's right Margaret Marshall was the "Mastermind" behind the 2003 ruling. She is only human...well maybe not democratically human.

Thursday, March 30, 2006

Dear parents and concerned citizens
The so-called "Day of Silence" (DOS), sponsored nationally by the Gay Lesbian Straight Education Network (GLSEN), is approaching again. It happens this year on April 26 in some middle schools and high schools across the nation. For some reason, parents appear not to be concerned about it, or its effects on their children, or the intrusion it is in education. Why? No other organization is allowed to intrude into our children's education the way GLSEN does. Their purpose is to make homosexuality accepted and open the door for children to experiment with their sexuality.
Who gives them permission to do this?
By our inaction, have we given them permission?
On January 30, 2006 about 400 citizens from across Massachusetts attended a Public Hearing and testified against Bill H-1641, which would have made Health Education mandatory for graduation and would have made teaching that homosexuality is normal a mandatory part of that curriculum. As a result of the parent and citizen outrage expressed at that hearing, this Bill was defeated and sent to "study" for this year. Why then are we allowing this intrusion of the “Day of Silence” homosexual propaganda into our schools? Its proponents claim that this Day of Silence is a student-led event, but it is actually planned and funded by GLSEN, a national organization that has its own web sites. Some of the details from those sites are given below in the Background Information provided by Brian Camenker of the Article 8 Alliance.

On March 9th, GLSEN sponsored meetings with teachers to plan ways to overcome students' and parents' objections. What parents can do: If you have a problem with GLSEN sponsoring these events in your child's school, this is what you can do:

  • Talk about the Day of Silence (DOS) to other parents in your school.
  • Find school board members who agree with you and have been waiting for parents to stand up on this issue.

Realize that this event is NOT a student sponsored event, but a well-funded, well-promoted event with nationally recognized organizations who want to change the minds of our children against their parent's wishes. Realize that the DOS Organizing Manual shows students how to plan in the 6 weeks leading up to the event and that the conclusion of the DOS is for students to express how they feel about homosexual lifestyles. Realize that this is a day of indoctrination and promotion of the homosexual lifestyle that you would never promote to your own children, so why are you allowing it to happen now? Realize that your child's educational institution is no place for this to happen.

GLSEN is the ONLY external group who has ever done this activity on such a large scale or gets this type of access to your children during the school day. Who gave them permission? Get together as parents and plan your course of action. Include friendly and concerned school board members. Plan your best arguments. Be polite. Be firm. Go to your next school board meeting and request that this event be cancelled in your schools and state your reasons why. (The more parents you have behind you, the better chance of this happening.) Don't give up. Only concerned parents can make this happen. Your children's education is your responsibility. They are only children once. Protect their innocence. Don't allow intimidation to change your children's perspective on what is right and wrong.

What some students are doing: The Day of Truth (April 27)

The Alliance Defense Fund is a Christian legal alliance defending the right to hear and speak the Truth through strategy, training, funding, and litigation. Participating students are encouraged to wear T-shirts and pass out cards (not during class time) with the following message:

I am speaking the Truth to break the silence. Silence isn’t freedom. It’s a constraint. Truth tolerates open discussion, because the Truth emerges when healthy discourse is allowed. By proclaiming the Truth in love, hurts will be halted, hearts will be healed, and lives will be saved.

Background information (from Brian Camenker of Article 8 Alliance)

The Day of Silence is promoted by the Gay Lesbian Straight Education Network (GLSEN), a well-financed national homosexual organization aimed at promoting homosexuality among schoolchildren. On Thursday night, March 9, the Boston office of GLSEN held TWO seminars for "educators" of your children. As listed on their website, they are:

  • Thursday March 9th: Planning the Day of Silence and Dealing with Opposition from the Far Right
  • Thursday March 9th: Day of Silence Planning workshop for GSA advisors

Yes, they're holding workshops to train their people in the schools (1) how to put on the "Day of Silence" and (2) how to deal with YOU: the "opposition." Or, as they put it -- the "far right." Check it out on their website (if they haven't taken it down) at can also register and go yourself!)

The "Day of Silence" is an odious propaganda event held each April in high schools and middle schools across the country, the brainchild of GLSEN. During an entire school day, children (and teachers) are asked to wear pro-homosexual rainbow stickers on their clothes, and remain silent during the school day, in solidarity of the national homosexual movement. They are told that this is a noble cause, equated to the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s.

These pro-propaganda events are ostensibly organized by "Gay-Straight Alliance" clubs in the schools. But the level of organization has always been very sophisticated, and the money involved quite substantial. And somehow a lot of adults seem to be doing things behind the scenes. Well, now we know more. . . Click here for the GLSEN-sponsored Day of Silence website. (And check out their "Day of Silence” organizing manual, which you can download there.)

Click here for GLSEN's website.

Here's GLSEN's national website.

And check out GLSEN's list of gay clubs in Mass. schools (And we know there are more!)

I have no problem with the homosexual community expressing their viewpoints, but to indoctrinate our children during regular school hours to think homosexuality is O.K.? Children can learn about toleration of groups at home especially when it comes to sexual orientations.

Children learn about the ABC's and 123's at school not how to accept radical propaganda. The radical homosexual agenda should not be pushed upon our children in any way shape or form. The people of Massachusetts have already spoken up about House Bill 1641, and that bill was crushed. Now parents need to speak out against this indoctrination of our children's minds and take action!!

One thing that I can not understand is that the homosexual community is comparing their fight for equal rights to the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s. None of our great civil rights leaders ever advocated for same-sex "marriage" as a fundamental human right because it ISN't a fundamental human right. Marriage is not a right, it is a privlage that was not imposed on culture by any religous institution, government, or any other authoritarian power structure from which it must be “set free.” It was imposed on us by the people who make up the very culture we live in.

19 of the 19 states where a gay "marriage" amendment was defeated can tell you this. As for the whole “equality” issue that is being pushed, this is an argument that was deliberately picked up by the homosexual political community as a rhetorical device to gain advantage among those outside of their constituency. This “freedom to marry” argument was something that the homosexual activists began to use on the advice of a Los Angeles PR firm, based on how well they believed it would play in the heterosexual mainstream. (Michelangelo Signorile, “I DO, I DO, I DO, I DO, I DO,” OUT magazine, May 1996, p. 32). ---Emphasis of “I do’s” is original---

Thursday, March 16, 2006

Beliefs or Agenda?

It seems the issue of same-sex adoptions is heating up in Massachusetts and around the country. Boston Catholic Charities just recently pulled itself out of the adoptive services rather than comply with state laws requiring gays and lesbians to be considered as prospective parents.

As of Wednesday April 15th, 2006 governor Mitt Romney has filed legislation that would allow religious groups to not provide adoptive services if the practice violates their belief structure. In the bill their is no mention of sexual orientation.
Many Catholic Charities agencies are not having a problem with gay adoptions because the practice is banned by state law. In Florida, gay couples are barred from adopting, and Mississippi and Utah have laws that restrict gay adoptions.
Ohio is currently considering a bill that would stop gays from being adoptive parents, and last year at least seven states weighed bills that would stop gay adoptions.
If the law says to not discriminate based on sexual orientation for those who want to adopt a child then that law must be followed. On the other hand, why a religious institution has to throw away their belief structure just to provide a family for a child is not very settling to me. Why is it that a single judge in Massachusetts can decide a cultural value, the definition of marriage in this case, for all of the cultures people without them having a democratic vote on the issue but their is current law that will not budge to please the Catholic faith and their belief structure? Do not give me an argument of 'separation of church and state' because that does not exist. For those of you who want a history lesson on that topic I will provide it, but for argument sake do not jump on that one-wheeled band wagon.
Why is it O.K. in other states that Catholic Charities can refer homosexual clients who want to adopt to other adoptive services that do not follow divine religious beliefs? It seems that there can be a piece of legislation, that was recently defeated in Massachusetts, that would require to have all churches to provide financial records to the state but if legislation is being written that separates a church's belief structure from a states law then the likely hood of this bill to be defeated is very high. It seems a certain AGENDA is being propagated by the homosexual community in Massachusetts. Where is democracy being practiced in this situation and where is propaganda being practiced?

Thursday, March 09, 2006

Let The People Vote!

On Tuesday the 7th of March 2006, the Wisconsin state Assembly voted overwhelmingly, 62-31, to allow the citizens of Wisconsin to decide whether or not to ban homosexual "marriage". By huge margins in passing state constitutional amendments banning homosexual "marriages", (an average of 71%), American voters are saying no to this abomination. This year at least six more states (Alabama, Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Virginia) will have on their ballots, constitutional amendments banning homosexual "marriages". There are already 19 states, which ban such "marriages". There may be as many as 15 states before the end of 2006 passing such amendments. Even the liberal state of Maryland -- reacting to a radical state judge, M. Brooke Murdock, who ruled homosexual "marriage" was constitutional -- may have another opportunity. Maryland voters just may get to vote on an amendment banning homosexual "marriages" but not banning "civil unions".
It is anticipated that the new House Majority Leader, John Boehner, (R-OH), and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, (R-TN), will schedule a vote on a constitutional amendment to ban homosexual "marriages' before the 2006 Election. The House bill has not been introduced yet. In 2004, Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave, (R-CO), had a vote on her Marriage Protection Amendment, which received a majority vote, but not the 2/3 necessary to pass a constitutional amendment. On the other hand in 2004, left-wing Democrat Senators filibustered Senator Wayne Allard's Marriage Protection Amendment and did not allow a Senate floor vote.
Senator Wayne Allard, (R-CO), introduced the very first Senate resolution in the 109th Congress: Senate Joint Resolution 1. The text of the Allard marriage constitutional amendment is: "Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the Constitution of any State or Federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups." Call the U.S. Capitol switchboard at 202-224-3121 or you can go to and urge your 2 Senators to sponsor S.1, the "Marriage Protection Act".

Friday, March 03, 2006

Florida Town Being Built on Family Values

According to published news reports, a controversial new town in Naples Florida is expected to be completed by the fall of 2007. The town of Ave Maria is being built around Ave Maria University, the first Catholic university to be built in the United States in about 40 years. The headlines have been filled with speculation that this new town is to be governed by strict Roman Catholic laws, especially when it concerns sexual matters. It is alleged that no pornography will be sold within town limits, no special cable channels for X-rated movies and no abortion clinics or birth control will be allowed. According to Thomas S. Monaghan, financier of the project, and his web site, the media has twisted the truth to fit there agenda driven propaganda:

"I think the faculty would be very distressed if this was only a Catholic community. We have many people on our staff and a few on our faculty who are not Catholic. Really, I think this has been blown all out of proportion."
The ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) of Florida claims the town is being built on unconstitutional grounds. According to Howard Simon, executive director of the ACLU of Florida:
none (no communities) can "wield governmental power along the lines of religious principle"
As far as I am concerned I see no problem with building a town on family values. No one is being prohibited from living in Ave Maria no matter what race, religion, sexual orientation, or belief structures they may hold.
Our federal constitution is based on 'religous principals'
and this never has been a problem until now when the civil libitarians are whole-heartedly attacking the religious values that make up this country.
In a time when the Christian faith is under heavy scrutiny, especially when it comes to family values such as traditional marriage, many other groups that oppose such values can go about constructing communities that are "designed" for their kind without any fears of being sued by civil rights advocates. Take for example
the story in Boston where developers bought land near Fenway Park two weeks ago and are applying for zoning variances that would allow them to build a retirement community especially for gays and lesbians. In this community their will be no restrictions on who can live there. You can be either homosexual or heterosexual, black or white, ect, ect.
Why is it that society needs to declassify a sub-group of people, such as the gay community, to the level of a minority status? Certain races is this world are part of a minority group, but your race is not a choice, it is a fact of life. People can not decide what race they are going to be when they are born. The same argument goes for homosexuality. It is not determined by birth, it is determined by making a choice. Their has never been ANY peer reviewed study that concludes homosexuality is genetic in any way, shape or form
(Dr. Jeffery Satinover, The Gay Gene? The Journal of Homosexuality.)
Question: Why are we giving extra privileges such as marriage, to a group that simply makes a choice? Why is it O.K. that the gay community can segregate themselves from society because they feel uncomfortable, but when an individual constructs a town based on family values there ideas are considered unconstitutional and uncivil?

Powered by Blogger

Sign my Guestbook from Get your Free Guestbook from