Wednesday, May 31, 2006

Dirty Tricks

Recently a legislator said that he couldn't support the marriage amendment (in Massachusetts) because "it PROHIBITS civil unions." Not so!

Much to his surprise, it does no such thing. The amendment deals strictly with the definition of marriage, and was carefully written to pass constitutional muster.
Apparently, anti-marriage amendment lobbyists had intentionally misled him regarding the text of the amendment in the hope of getting his vote!
I want you to share the full and exact text of the marriage amendment with your legislators, so they have the correct facts, and are not misled.
The full text reads:
"When recognizing marriages entered into after the adoption of this amendment by the people, the Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall define marriage only as the union of one man and one woman."
Click Here to find your senator and representative to explain to them what Marriage Amendment # 20 is all about. Use this script when calling:
The people's marriage amendment, #20 on the Constitutional Convention calendar, deals only with MARRIAGE, not civil unions. Despite what some unscrupulous individuals may be telling you, the amendment clearly states:
"When recognizing marriages entered into after the adoption of this amendment by the people, the Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall define marriage only as the union of one man and one woman."
This amendment says nothing about civil unions. Leave that for another day, but fix marriage now. Please vote to let the people vote on July 12th.
Thank you.

Monday, May 29, 2006

Activist Judge Overturns Marriage Laws; Homosexual Marriage Now Legal In All 50 States!!

How would you like to wake up one morning and learn that the above headline was the top story in every newspaper in America? That hasn't happened—YET! But gradually, little by little, that is where we are headed. A similar headline will appear in your paper soon unless enough people send a message to their legislative officials!
There has been some confusion recently amongst MA state legislators because there are TWO marriage amendments on the schedule of matters to be taken up by the Constitutional Convention on July 12th at the State House in Boston.
Item #20 is the marriage amendment supported by VoteOnMarriage, the people's amendment that garnered 170,000 signatures last Fall, the one that meets the constitutional muster, and the one that requires only 50 votes to proceed.
In a move to create confusion among legislators, another amendment relating to marriage was placed AHEAD of it on the schedule by Senator Jarrett Barrios, a gay senator opposed to a vote on our amendment. This is a different item number on the schedule that is ahead of the one sponsered by VoteOnMarriage. We need to let the legislators know we need their support on AMENDMENT #20.
Your legislators need to hear from you today! Click Here to find your senator and representative from your town or city and tell them you want them to vote for amendment #20 on July 12th.

Friday, May 26, 2006

Support the Marriage Protection Amendment

Show your support for the Federal Marriage Protection Amendment that is up for a vote on June 5th by signing this petition. Speaker of the House J. Dennis Hastert, (R-IL) and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, (R-Tenn) are fully behind the amendment, which would define marriage as being only between one man and one woman.

Sign the petition and send a message to congress that marriage is only for one man and one woman as it has been before any form of religion or government was ever formed!!

Wednesday, May 24, 2006

A Message from the American Family Association

You Will Absolutely Not Believe What Ford Has Done Now.
Ford's magazine sponsorship now includes promotion of repugnant activity.
When Ford responds to those who write concerning their promotion of homosexual marriage, the response they get from Ford's Customer Relationship Center says their support "is a strong commitment we intend to carry forward with no exception." For Ford, that support also includes homosexual polygamy.
To show those supporting traditional marriage they mean business, Ford sponsored the June 6 issue of the homosexual publication The Advocate. The cover reads: "Polygamy & Gay Men. Dirty laundry or sexual freedom? How gay men handle multiple partners." The article promotes homosexual polygamy.
Ford sponsored the publication with a full page back cover advertising Ford Motor company product Volvo and a full page ad for all Ford brands with the line: "Ford Motor Company. Standing strong with America's families and communities."
Ford's support for the magazine's promotion of homosexual polygamy leaves no doubt that Ford means to continue pushing the homosexual agenda, even including homosexual polygamy.
To see the front cover, the contents page and the ads for Ford and Volvo, click here. I must warn you, it will be offensive to many. The pages show the contents of the magazine which Ford helped sponsor with two full-page ads, but I felt we must include the proof. If you don't want to see it, please don't click the link.
At their stockholders meeting on May 11, Ford voted 95% of the ballots cast to continue their support of the homosexual agenda rather than be neutral in the cultural battle.
The boycott is working. The value of Ford stock has gone down 13% since the boycott began, while sales continue to drop.
Take Action
  • Forward this email to a Ford dealer near you. Click here (then click on the logo) to find email addresses of Ford dealers near you. It is very important that Ford know of your participation in the boycott.
  • Sign the Boycott Ford Pledge if you haven't already done so.
  • Print out and distribute the Boycott Ford Petition. Click here.
  • Finally, forward this to your friends and family so they can be aware of Ford's support of homosexual marriage.

Interview with Know Thy Neighbor.org

In a brief e-mail dialog, Mark Nystedt, a resident of Haverhill, MA, talked with Tom Lang, director of Know Thy Neighbor.org.

Mr. Nystedt wanted to know why Know Thy Neighbor, KTN, posted the names of those who signed the traditional marriage petition amendment this past Fall. The dialog is brief and I will post more responses as they become available.
Mark Nystedt marknystedt@yahoo.com wrote:
"A few weeks ago, I asked Tom Lang, director of KnowThyNieghbor, why KTN posted the names of the marriage amendment signers if not to intimidate potential signers as would a hate group do. His first response was to tell me to go to the KTN website and "You tell me." I responded that I had made a similar inquiry of the not-so-good people at the GodHatesFags web site and that their response was similar to Tom's. So, Tom responded more politely informing me that the KTN list of petition signers was to facilitate dialog between the pro and anti-amendment camps. That didn’t pass my smell test; so I asked him if I posted the names of gay and lesbian married couples "to facilitate dialog" if that would pass his smell test."
Tom Lang responded:
“Here we go again with this analogy. If those "legally married gay and lesbian couples" got together and sponsored an initiative petition to take away the rights of another group of people and they went out and deceived and tricked voters into signing and they focused their attention on other gay and lesbians to sign this petition that would change our Constitution to allow for discrimination....then knock yourself out and post their names. I would even post them for you on KTN."
Mr. Nystedt responded:
“If the analogy aint broke,.... I have no interest in posting names because I know it wouldn't facilitate dialog anymore than you know that your posting names would facilitate dialog. So, why did you post the names of petition signers if not to intimidate potential signers?
So far your responses have been "You tell me," "to facilitate dialog," and "here we go again." So, to use your words, "here we go again with" the "discrimination" and "change the Constitution" arguments. There is nothing wrong with discrimination - elected officials need to be a certain age, people need to be of a certain age to marry, polygamy is illegal, etc. Dealing with the financial interests of couples can be done by other means. And there is nothing wrong with changing the Constitution. The Constitution permits changes.
So far, you haven't convinced me that KTN is not a hate group. Your responses have been sarcastic, and KTN people have acted hostile to me in the past, which are all characteristics of hate groups. Do you want to try again?
P.S. You talk of VoteOnMarriage petition fraud; but you neglect to mention GLBT(Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgenderism - an organization to protect the rights of these individuals) /KTN disqualifying of signatures with their extraneous marks/scribbles and other misconduct. Your silence is deafening.
When I began this email dialog, it was to confirm what I already suspected - that KTN is an East Coast citified hate group a la the redneck godhatesfags hate group. There was no interest in attempting to change your mind in the amendment petition matter. Now, it appears as if you have stopped dialoging which belays your contention that the KTN posting of petition names was to facilitate dialog, not to intimidate. You have painted yourself into a corner and have probably blamed it on my supposed homophobia.
I don't expect you to respond to this P.S. as I have proved to myself the true nature of KTN. Maybe someday you will be convinced of this also."

Saturday, May 20, 2006

"Just the Facts Ma'm"

It is important that the people are allowed to vote on the marriage amendment, and that legislators cast their votes for it on July 12th.

It has been argued that the Protection of Marriage Amendment would violate the Federal Constitution.
However, this Amendment looks forward, not backward. If approved by the people in 2008, it would apply the traditional definition of marriage—the union between man and woman—for all new marriage licenses.
Existing marriage licenses given to same-sex couples before 2008 would neither be endorsed nor repealed.
Opponents argue that this violates the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause by creating two groups—same-sex couples who get to keep their licenses and those barred from getting new ones.
This would not be irrational discrimination because of the following rulings by the US Supreme Court:
a) Gradual reform complies with equal protection law. New Orleans v. Dukes, 427 U.S. 297 (1976).
b) The effect of “grandfathering in” existing licenses based on reliance interests is rational and common. Ibid, New Orleans v. Dukes.
c) “The 14th Amendment does not forbid statutes and statutory changes to have a beginning, and thus to discriminate between the rights of an earlier and later time.” Sperry & Hutchinson Co. v. Rhodes, 220 U.S. 502 (1911).
Like thousands of other laws that create groups of eligible and ineligible people based on timing, deadlines and grandfathering exemptions, the Marriage Amendment seeks a gradual reform that brings the Commonwealth back within the prevailing national consensus that understands marriage to be a union between one man and one woman.
Those who say that the federal courts will strike down the Amendment are not listening to national leaders of the same-sex marriage movement, who are discouraging federal lawsuits because they know they will lose.
LET THE PEOPLE VOTE during the Constitutional Convention!

Friday, May 19, 2006

U.S. Senate Panel Backs Gay Marriage Ban

A Senate panel approved a controversial proposal to write a gay marriage ban into the US Constitution.

The proposed amendment will go to the full Senate on June 5 for what is expected to be a heated debate on a ban backed by President George W. Bush.
"The American people support protecting traditional marriage, and we should give this amendment due consideration through the full legislative process," Republican Senator Sam Brownback said. "We must continue to fight for the protection of traditional marriage."
The proposed constitutional amendment faces an uphill battle as it must be passed by two-thirds of senators, two-thirds of representatives in the House and then approved by two-thirds of the 50 US states.
However, the numbers of legislators, both for and against gay marriage, who say the matter is better left to the individual states, are too many to allow passage. A previous attempt failed in Congress in 2004.
The measure was approved Thursday by all Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Democratic Senator Edward Kennedy called the the proposal right-wing demagoguery. His colleague Russ Feingold called it a maneuver by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist to mobilize the religious right prior to November legislative elections, which look increasingly difficult for Republicans.
A poll released in March showed 51 percent of Americans oppose gay marriage, down from a high of 63 percent in 2004.
According to the Human Rights Campaign, a group defending gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transsexuals, 18 states have adopted amendments to their own constitutions specifically defining marriage as a union of one man and one woman and 27 others have laws to that effect.
Gays say that without marriage they lose important rights such as inheritance of property, immigration, adoption or making medical decisions for an ill or disabled partner.
Vermont and Connecticut allow same-sex couples to join in civil unions, which grant many of the rights of marriage.
Only one state, Massachusetts, now allows same-sex marriages, based on a decision handed down by its supreme court.
"I'm not prepared to surrender to the courts," said Republican Senator Wayne Allard, backer of the constitutional amendment. He said that a Senate debate was necessary to advance the cause of stopping gay marriage. "It's important to move the issue forward," he said.
In Maryland, which borders Washington, a judge found in January that local law prohibiting gay marriage was unconstitutional.
The legality of same-sex marriage is also before courts in the states of Nebraska, California, New Jersey, New York and Washington.

"...inheritance of property, immigration, adoption or making medical decisions for an ill or disabled partner."
Same-sex relationships provide no essential social good; instead they primarily address the personal or emotional needs and desires of consenting adults.
Same-sex marriages only hold the benefits of a fiscial or medical need.
How do same sex-marriages benefit the institution of marriage? What beneficial role does same-sex marriage hold for society?
I think James Q. Wilson, one of our nations most noteworthy political scientist and social thinkers, defined the benefits of marriage best when he said:
"[T]he purpose of marriage...has always been to make the family secure, not to redefine what constituates a family. The family is a more fundamental social reality than a marriage, and so pretending that anything we call a marriage can create a family is misleading...By family, I mean a lasting, socially enforced obligation between a man and a women that authorizes sexual congress and the supervision of children...There is no society where women alone care for each other and their children; there is none where fathers are not obligated to support their children and the mother to whom they were born. Not only do men need women, women need men" James Q. Wilson, The Marriage Problem: How Our Culture Has Weakened Families (New York: Harper Collins, 2002), pp. 24,29.

Tuesday, May 16, 2006

Message from Focus on the Family

Greetings from Colorado Springs! As you may know, the Marriage Protection Amendment (MPA) will be coming to the floor of the U.S. Senate in early June - just a few days from now - and we need your help to ensure that your senators vote to protect marriage.

As this is written, the traditional definition of marriage is under attack in state and federal courts in Nebraska, Michigan, California, Minnesota and Oklahoma. Moreover, the Defense of Marriage law as it currently exists in Washington state is under intense scrutiny, and we fully expect the debate to end in favor of same-sex unions. This is particularly troubling because, unlike Massachusetts where out-of-state couples are barred from acquiring marriage licenses, Washington has no residency requirement. It would only be a matter of time before states from coast to coast would face lawsuits filed on behalf of homosexual couples demanding recognition of the marriages they obtained in the Evergreen State.
The threat to marriage has never been more brazen, and as the debate intensifies, we must step up our efforts to defend the foundational institution of our nation. Already, we are daily confronted with the fact that traditional marriage in a given state or region is never more than one federal judge away from being declared unconstitutional, and of course, the U.S. Supreme Court represents the greatest concern. That very issue will be decided in coming months for future generations. It is our duty to make certain that the outcome is determined by the people and their representatives rather than unelected, unaccountable judges. Our answer is found in the federal Marriage Protection Amendment. We desperately need what the MPA will readily accomplish: the traditional definition of marriage placed beyond the reach of all judges - directly in the U.S. Constitution.
Please make every effort to get in touch with your senators and urge them to support the MPA. Do not assume that your senators will vote to protect marriage or that they understand the extent to which their constituents value this sacred institution. They need to hear from you as soon as possible. Contact information for your senators along with additional details on this subject are available in the Marriage Protection Amendment Action Center on our CitizenLink Web site.
Given the issues at stake, we trust you will take action on behalf of America. This is one matter we cannot afford to ignore, especially if we hope to bestow upon our children and grandchildren a nation that esteems the family. Thank you in advance for making your voice heard in defense of one-man, one-woman marriage.

Saturday, May 13, 2006

A Moment

Take a deep breath. Ask yourself: Can I see, can I smell, can I taste, can I touch, can I hear....It?

Thursday, May 11, 2006

Agenda Driven Joe

Starbucks Coffee is back in the news again. According to Know Thy Homosexual Opponent, by Tyler Dawbin, Starbucks is supportive of a gay pride event where pedophiles were involved in the homosexual celebration.

This, after a period of left winged opinions were printed onto Starbucks coffee cups in late 2005 (Inserted article and this news article), event was sponsored by Starbucks even though they new known child molesters took part in the event.
I am not sure why a company such as Starbucks would want to promote a sexual orientation that is known to be part of the following recent statistic:
The median death age for homosexual males is 42 years old. The median death age for homosexual women is 49 years old. Less than 2 percent of homosexual males live until age 65. Source: Cameron, Playfair, Wellum, “The Longevity of Homosexuals: Before and After the Aids Epidemic,” Omega Journal of Death and Dying,” 1994.
How is this a benefiting lifestyle for our society? I have presented this question time and time again and have not received responses with factual significance?

"Life is too damn short" when homosexuals account for 3-4% of all gonorrhea cases, 60% of all syphilis cases, and 17% of all hospital admissions (other than for STDs) in the United States. They make up only 1-2% of the population. Source: "Changes in Sexual Behavior and Incidence of Gonorrhea." Lancet, April 25, 1987.

Wednesday, May 10, 2006

The Constitutional Convention is Hear by...

Thank you to everyone who turned out today at the State House to send a clear message that the people want to vote on marriage!

The State House News Service reported that supporters of the Marriage Amendment outnumbered the opponents.
The Constitutional Convention was held today and immediately recessed until Wednesday, July 12. This postponement was expected. Please take the time now to mark July 12th on your calendar and make a note that you will be in Boston at the State House!
VoteOnMarriage.org is now entering the most critical 60-day period to date of the process to amend the constitution. Pressure must be kept on the legislators through letter writing and phone calling. They must know that this issue is not going away. Do you know where your legislators stand? It may have changed since the last time you spoke to them.
I will continue to update you on any developments in the battle for marriage. Please stay engaged and remember that this is our last stand for marriage in Massachusetts. Don't allow these 60 days to go down in history as the time when good people forgot to stand up for what is right.
Attend the Constitutional Convention being held on Wednesday, July 12th. This is the real deal, and if there is no crowd, the legislators will think no one is watching them. More information will be distributed as the date approaches, but for now: MARK YOUR CALENDAR: July 12, 2006.
Check out the latest telephone poll by the State House News Service:

Let The People Vote!!

Tuesday, May 09, 2006

The Constitutional Convention is ON!

Regardles of what you have read regarding the postponement of the Constitutional Convention, it still needs to be put up for a vote.

The Legislature will convene Wednesday May 10th at 1pm to consider if the Convention should be held. We must show every drop of support for the convention so the traditional marriage amendment can be put up for a vote.

Thursday, May 04, 2006

News for Just One Day

Fintan Steele served as a board member of the Massachusetts Biotechnology Education Foundation, the educational arm of the Massachusetts Biotechnology Council (MBC), for the past couple of years. When he discovered that Tom Finneran, the President of MBC, had signed the petition to protect the definition of marriage between a man anda women, he decided to resign from his post.

"Steele said that in several e-mail and voice mail exchanges, Finneran explained his signing of the petition by saying that the people of Massachusetts should have the opportunity to vote on the definition of marriage."
This is America that I live in right? We as citizens of this DEMOCRATIC country do have a right to voice our opinions......don't we?
"I believe that your action is a terribly inaccurate reflection of the industry by its official organization in Massachusetts." Steele said in a letter in regards to Finneran signing the petition.
No, Mr. Steele, your inability to see that Know Thy Neighbor is exposing those who practice their right to affiliate themselves with a cause in a negative light is against the law and protected under the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act (MCRA).
So, let me get this straight. If some CEO of a major corporation had signed the traditional marriage petition, that is not “anti-gay” in any way because it recognizes those same-sex couples who are now getting "married", then they should be harassed by such organizations such as MassEquality and Know Thy Neighbor because they practiced democracy?
"He (Finneran) can say, 'I signed the petition as a private citizen,' Steele told Bay Windows an openly gay magazine, "but he knows that this is going to be a public record."
The only way to find out who signed the petition is by going to a town or city hall and finding out who signed it. So, with every citizen-initiated petition, the public should go to a town hall to see who practiced democracy and ridicule them for practicing their rights? I just don't get it!!
I love then what Know Thy Neighbor says of Mr. Steele's decision to resign:
"Thank you, Fintan, for your courage and personal sacrifice and for refusing to sit back while others work to take your rights away."
Things, once again, are not balancing out, as is the case for a previous celebration from Know Thy Neighbor regarding the volunteer board of fire engineers’ candidate Leo Childs.
Please leave your comments here and on Know Thy Neighbors Blog page to express your viewpoints on Mr. Steele's decision.

Monday, May 01, 2006

Know Thy Legislature

Here is a list of how legislatures in Massachusetts have voted on various bills:

Testified in opposition to marriage amendment on 4/11:
- Representative Byron Rushing - Representative Frank I. Smizik - Representative Alice K. Wolf - Representative Michael E. Festa - Representative Rachel M. Kaprielian - Representative Kay Khan - Representative Deborah D. Blumer - Representative Anne M. Paulsen - Representative James B. Eldridge - Representative Elizabeth A. Malia - Representative Kathleen M. Teahan - Representative Jay R. Kaufman - Representative Carl M. Sciortino, Jr. - Representative David P. Linsky
Decriminalize bestiality, sodomy, and other perversions:
David Paul Linsky 5th Middlesex District
Ruth B. Balser 12th Middlesex District
Douglas W. Peterson 8th Essex District
Michael E. Festa 32nd Middlesex District
Robert A. O’Leary Cape and Islands
Ellen Story 3rd Hampshire
Alice Hanlon Peisch
Would "officially" legalize homosexual marriage: By Mr. Havern, a petition (accompanied by bill, Senate, No. 967) of Robert A. Havern, Pamela P. Resor, Harriette L. Chandler, Jarrett T. Barrios and other members of the General Court and another for legislation to protect Massachusetts families through equal access to civil marriage:
Byron Rushing 9th Suffolk William G. Conley MGLPC, State House, Boston Elizabeth A. Malia 11th Suffolk Gloria L. Fox 7th Suffolk Alice Hanlon Peisch 14th Norfolk Alice K. Wolf 25th Middlesex David Paul Linsky 5th Middlesex Deborah D. Blumer 6th Middlesex Douglas W. Petersen 8th Essex Ellen Story 3rd Hampshire Frank I. Smizik 15th Norfolk J. James Marzilli, Jr. 23rd Middlesex Jay R. Kaufman 15th Middlesex John W. Scibak 2nd Hampshire Kathi-Anne Reinstein 16th Suffolk Kay Khan 11th Middlesex Martin J. Walsh 13th Suffolk Michael A. Costello 1st Essex Michael E. Festa 32nd Middlesex Peter V. Kocot 1st Hampshire Ruth B. Balser 12th Middlesex Theodore C. Speliotis 13th Essex Denis E. Guyer 2nd Berkshire Martha M. Walz 8th Suffolk Carl M. Sciortino, Jr. 34th Middlesex Tom Sannicandro 7th Middlesex John D. Keenan 7th Essex Cory Atkins 14th Middlesex Kathleen M. Teahan 7th Plymouth Kevin G. Honan 17th Suffolk Rachel Kaprielian 29th Middlesex Barbara A. L’Italien 18th Essex Matthew C. Patrick 3rd Barnstable Anne M. Paulsen 24th Middlesex Robert P. Spellane 13th Worcester Timothy J. Toomey, Jr. 26th Middlesex David M. Torrisi 14th Essex Thomas M. Stanley 9th Middlesex Benjamin Swan 11th Hampden Cheryl A. Rivera 10th Hampden Stephen Kulik 1st Franklin Patricia D. Jehlen 27th Middlesex Cleon Turner 1st Barnstable
Out-of state homosexual marriage in Mass:
Robert P. Spellane 13th Worcester Michael E. Festa 32nd Middlesex Douglas W. Petersen 8th Essex Ellen Story 3rd Hampshire David Paul Linsky 5th Middlesex Matthew C. Patrick 3rd Barnstable Patricia D. Jehlen 27th Middlesex Jay R. Kaufman 15th Middlesex Ruth B. Balser 12th Middlesex Byron Rushing 9th Suffolk David M. Torrisi 14th Essex William G. Conley MGLPC, Statehouse, Boston Frank I. Smizik 15th Norfolk Thomas M. Stanley 9th Middlesex Rachel Kaprielian 29th Middlesex Elizabeth A. Malia 11th Suffolk J. James Marzilli, Jr. 23rd Middlesex Timothy J. Toomey, Jr. 26th Middlesex Alice K. Wolf 25th Middlesex Deborah D. Blumer 6th Middlesex John W. Scibak 2nd Hampshire Kathi-Anne Reinstein 16th Suffolk Kay Khan 11th Middlesex Peter V. Kocot 1st Hampshire Martha M. Walz 8th Suffolk Carl M. Sciortino, Jr. 34th Middlesex John W. Keenan 7th Essex Michael A. Costello 1st Essex Barry R. Finegold 17th Essex Cleon H. Turner 1st Barnstable Denis E. Guyer 2nd Berkshire Karen E. Spilka 2nd. Worcester
Please click on the title of this post and find your state legislature to tell them to LET THE PEOPLE VOTE! Use the following script when calling and please be polite:
“My name is _____ and I live at [home address]. I am calling to urge [Rep. _____ OR Sen. _____] to support the marriage amendment. The citizens of Massachusetts deserve the right to make this important decision. Will [Rep. _____ or Sen. _____] vote to let the people vote on the marriage amendment?”
Let me know what their response was as soon as you can so Vote On Marriage.org can take the appropriate next step to put the pressure on our state officials.

Powered by Blogger

Sign my Guestbook from Bravenet.com Get your Free Guestbook from Bravenet.com