Friday, November 24, 2006

"Good"!! - Cynthia Marchand

Emer O'Shea knew something was wrong the minute she picked up her daughter from Franklin Elementary School. The third-grader was normally very perky upon seeing her mother and new baby sister, but this time she glanced at her mother without indicating what was wrong, except to say that the school's social worker had visited the class. But Emer soon heard from another parent about what had happened in her daughter's class that day, and she was both stunned and mortified. The next day her young daughter finally opened up with a question that would baffle most parents of an 8-year-old child, "Mommy, is it possible for a man to have an operation to become a woman?" Read full story here.

I am a little confused. What are the benefits of teaching 8 year-old children about transgenders and transvestites? O.K., O.K. I can understand that diversity and tolerance should be taught...but, and this is a huge but, not by the government run indoctrination camps, AKA public schools. This job is up to the parents of the children attending public school systems. If the parent(s) then want to answer tough questions about transgenderism and write it off as a "teachable moment" then so be it. But don't force your lifestyle on my children and think it is O.K., especially when I am paying taxes for my child to strictly learn about the ABC's and 123's and not about lifestyles that are psychologically unbalanced and dangerous, which is a medical fact and not opinion.
Don't these public schools know that there is a major federal civil rights lawsuit being brought against the Lexington Public School system over very similar circumstances?
I would teach my daughter about different lifestyles if the public school system would teach about Christianity and Judaism. You might be thinking well what about the separation of church and state. Let me tell you something, the phrase church and state does not exist.
The phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the Constitution, but rather is derived from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to a group identifying themselves as the Danbury Baptists. In that letter, quoting the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, he writes: "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between Church and State." Letter to Danbury Baptists (1802).
Once again, there is a double standard when it comes to teaching about diversity and teaching our children right from wrong.
What do you think?

Wednesday, November 15, 2006

A Personal Message From Kris Mineau

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting Last week, Arline Isaacson, co-chair of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus (and chief lobbyist for the Massachusetts Teachers Association), stood boldly before a cheering crowd at the State House shouting "it's over, it's over." By a vote of 109 to 87, legislators recessed the Constitutional Convention to January 2 without taking a vote on the people's amendment on marriage. Each of those 109 legislators personally broke their oath of office and violated the constitution with the clear intention of never taking a vote on the people's business.

Media outlets from the Boston Globe to the Wall Street Journal and all across the Commonwealth and the country have opined about this dereliction of duty by the Massachusetts legislature. I have only one thing to say to Arline Isaacson and those like her: No, it's not over!
But to you and the tens of thousands of concerned, involved citizens who have stood with us since the beginning of this fight, I have this to say: We'll continue to fight until justice and democracy rule in Massachusetts for all citizens! While the legislature intentionally provided few alternatives for us with their blatantly unconstitutional maneuver, we are not without options and we are not without hope.
Backers of the Marriage Amendment are not alone in this fight. In their rush to shut down the Constitutional Convention to run from the same-sex marriage issue, lawmakers also gave a blow to a citizen-initiated amendment on universal healthcare. This measure, too, deserves a legislative vote.
As of now, January 2 is the day of reckoning for a vote on the Marriage Amendment. Then we'll see if House Speaker DiMasi will continue to be successful with his arm-twisting of members - many of whom stood with us not to recess until the Speaker personally pressured them into violating their oath of office.
As you know, gay-rights advocacy organizations, according to their own gay and lesbian newspaper, Bay Windows, poured $1 million into the November 7 election for one key reason: so lawmakers would be indebted to them and return the favor by killing the Marriage Amendment by any means possible.
This is a tragic time in our democracy, and will be a defining moment in our history. The actions of those who oppose real democracy are being exposed and people like you and me are standing up for truth and justice. We're mobilized, and we're not backing down! Your continued presence at the State House during key events is crucial, and we're looking ahead to a January 2 showdown. Your calls to legislators, letters to the editors, and personal dialogues with friends and family to get them involved in this noble fight will ultimately win the day.
Be sure to visit for the names of the 109 legislators who betrayed our constitution and violated their oath of office.
We can move Massachusetts in the right direction by simply standing up in the face of a state legislature dominated by greed and arrogance. It's our state, not theirs. Don't let them take away your right to be heard!
Please, continue to take action as we send updates and alerts on our progress going forward. There are 49 days left between now and January 2. Together, we will win this fight!
May God bless the Commonwealth and all our families,
Kris Mineau President, Massachusetts Family Institute and Spokesman,

Monday, November 13, 2006

Agenda Driven "Journalist"

">David Wedge is the Boston Herald's Chief Enterprise Reporter and also writes Sunday's "Pols & Politics" column. This past Sunday, November 12, Mr. Wedge wrote a piece about the Constitutional Convention that occured this past Thursday at the State House. Read Here for full article.

Here is the 'Letters To The Editor' response from State Rep. MARIE J. PARENTE even if the Herald does not publish it:
Naturally, I believe that David Wedge's 11-12-06 attack on my 26-year legislative career that ended recently and involuntarily was unwarranted. He never contacted me about my recent primary election, nor did he inquire why I sought to speak at the recent Constitutional Convention. I had asked the legislator at the microphone to yield for a question and when he did not, I asked for a point of personal privilege. The noise of many on going conversations in the House Chamber was deafening and I had to raise my voice to be heard.
David Wedge chose to ridicule me and ignored the real story i.e. that the hard work, time, effort and money put forth by one hundred and seventy thousand petitioners to place a question on the Massachusetts ballot was disregarded, disrespected and callously discarded. Many of the petitioners are Herald readers.
In addition, I have never won a contested primary election, as my support is broad based. After one primary loss, over six thousand, seven hundred voters wrote my name in. Why? Because I did what they sent me to Boston to do. Stand up, be counted, and speak up loudly above the crowd if necessary. That is how I got the first Vietnam Veteran out of prison. That is how I successfully authored over one hundred and fourteen laws for my district and co-authored one hundred laws that have improved the lives of families, children, foster children, laborers, elderly and veterans. I wrote dozens of reports on the Big Dig, Privatization, Foster Care, Cell Towers, Teen-age suicide, Fraud and Waste in Government Land helped craft the new School Building Reimbursement Program. Call me what you will, David, you can never diminish my sense of achievement and the thrill of helping people. Unlike your invectives, a young marine described me thus, "I would rather die standing tall than live on my knees."
I just got off the phone with Rep. Parente to thank her for her courages speech she did in the House Chambers Thursday regarding the work of those who collected the historical number of signatures for the marriage amendment to be voted on in 2008. Rep. Parente was sharp and to the point with her words and raised her voice only to be heard over the House Chamber's conversations. Rep. Parente is a dedicated, hard working and passionate legislator who will be greatly missed as of 12:01 a.m. of January 3rd 2007 when the changing of the guard occurs at the State House.
Also to go un-noticed are Rep. PAUL J.P. LOSCOCCO
and Rep. PHILIP TRAVIS who both worked very hard all day at the convention to push for a vote on the citizen initiated marriage amendment. To the three representatives already mentioned and all of those who voted down a recess to the convention: THANK YOU!
Yes, Mayor Menino “The American Revolution started here in Boston, and the (petition signer's)Revolution will continue..."


Wednesday, November 08, 2006

54% of the Country Say "NO" to Gay "Marriage"

Voters have approved "defense of marriage" amendments in Colorado, Idaho, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and Wisconsin. But it appears Arizona is the first of more than two dozen states that have considered such measures to defeat a move to constitutionally define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

On Election Day two years ago, ballot measures amending state constitutions to protect traditional marriage made a clean sweep, passing in 11 states. That brought to 20 the total number of states taking it upon themselves to define marriage as a heterosexual relationship, effectively banning same-sex "marriage" in those states. Seven of the eight states considering similar initiatives on Election Day 2006 followed suit, with victories ranging from a 80-20 margin in Tennessee to a relatively close 52-48 margin in South Dakota. But with practically all precincts counted, the amendment in Arizona appears to have suffered a narrow defeat (49 percent to 51 percent).
(for - against)
1. Arizona 49% - 51%
2. Colorado 56% - 44%
3. Idaho 63% - 37%
4. South Carolina 78% - 22%
5. South Dakota 52% - 48%
6. Tennessee 80% - 20%
7. Virginia 57% - 43%
8. Wisconsin 59% - 41%
On an election day in which voters may have been sending any number of messages to President Bush or to the Republican-controlled Congress, their message to homosexual activists was clear and overwhelmingly unified.
"Americans believe overwhelmingly that marriage is the union of one man and one woman," says Jim Pfaff with Colorado-based Focus on the Family, where the marriage amendment passed comfortably with 56 percent of that tally. "They know it's a vital institution to our country and to our government despite its faults," he adds.
Voters in Colorado also turned away a measure that would have granted domestic-partnership rights to same-sex couples, effectively establishing "civil unions." Pfaff calls the outcome of the two measures a reflection of voters -- Christians and non-Christians alike -- who "believe in the value of marriage."
Slightly more than 2.3 million Virginians cast their vote on that state's marriage amendment issue, with approximately 1.3 million of those (~57 percent) saying yes to traditional marriage. Chris Freund with is convinced Virginians made a real difference in the outcome.
"Virginians have made it very clear that they do not want marriage redefined ...," says Freund. "We're just very pleased that Virginians -- and in particular, the Church in Virginia -- really stepped up to the plate and sent a very clear message."
In South Carolina, some opponents of traditional marriage are being accused of resorting to illegal tactics in their attempts to defeat the constitutional amendment measure. But Oran Smith with the Palmetto Family Council says voters in his state were not fooled.
"We were very distraught about all the work we put into putting signs at the key precincts and such that were just absolutely stolen, because they were replaced in the wee hours of the morning with signs from the opposition," says Smith. Despite those attempts, the South Carolina amendment won with an overwhelming 78 percent of the vote.
Though marriage in the majority of U.S. states is now constitutionally defined as the legal union of only one man and one woman, Focus on the Family's Pfaff says the work for pro-family activists is far from over.
"What we need to do now is to continue to press forward to protect marriage nationwide, and then thereafter we need to strengthen marriage," Pfaff urges. He believes that one way to do that is by reforming the nation's no-fault divorce laws.
The people have voiced their vote. This is part of the democratic process that makes laws in this country. So lets all vote on marriage and put this issue to rest shall we.
I will keep you informed of the results of the Constitutional Convention at the State House tomorrow. A second formal session of the convention is to take place around 1pm and dirty tricks to prevent the voters of Massachusetts their right to vote on marriage are expected to swing into action.
Flood the phone lines to the State House and call your representative and senator now to tell them to...


Powered by Blogger

Sign my Guestbook from Get your Free Guestbook from