Thursday, June 28, 2007

Fundamental Rights???

I received this e-mail dialog from a friend who had produced the following e-mail to State Representative Angelo J. Puppolo, Jr:

My friend wrote:
"Dear Representative Puppolo:
Unfortunately, it is more important to support one's self-interest, instead of the common good of society at large! Your decision to abandon your support of the marriage amendment was disingenuous and deeply disappointing. Especially since public office is a privilege for those who are put in power through the trust and will of the people.
Your decision is tantamount to turning your backs on the 123,000 citizens who signed the ballot initiative - the highest number of signatures supporting any citizens petition initiative in Massachusetts history.Everyone who counted on your support will not forget your abandonment and denial of the democratic process."
Representative Puppolo then responded with:
"Thank-you for taking the time to contact me relative to your sentiments to continue the process to amend the Massachusetts Constitution to ban gay marriage.
I want you to know that I respect and value your opinion. As a participant and office holder in the democratic process, it is very difficult for me to argue against the fundamental right of citizens to vote and make choices in our system of government. On the other hand, I am required to observe and respect the protections that are established by a constitutional democracy. I can only ask that you appreciate that this question ultimately brought both of these very fundamental rights into conflict as I contemplated my decision. I did not arrive at my decision easily, as it required my absolute attention and devotion to both sides and their respective concerns. In the final analysis, my conscience could not reconcile a vote to continue a process which would have deprived people of rights and which would potentially also strip away any protection of existing benefits or liberties.
Finally, there will be many other matters, I am sure, that receive your concern and attention during the next several years. As you consider your disappointment in my decision on this issue, I most respectfully request that you consider my views and performance on the whole cloth of issues that will affect this entire district and our Commonwealth moving forward. I look forward to the opportunity to hear from you again on any matter that has your concern, and please know that I hope to be able to work together to make a positive difference in the future."
Sincerely, Angelo J. Puppolo, Jr. State Representative 12th Hampden District State House - Room 146 Boston, MA 02133-1054 Tel: (617) 722-2011 Fax: (617) 722-2238
I don't know about you, but Rep. Puppolo's response is NOT filled with facts other than his opinions passed off as such.
"In the final analysis, my conscience could not reconcile a vote to continue a process which would have deprived people of rights..."

What??? Where is it said ANYWHERE that taking part in the institution of marriage is a "right"? I have asked this question time and time again with NO response. ANYONE????

"... and which would potentially also strip away any protection of existing benefits or liberties."

O.K., look!! What protections, benefits or liberties do homosexuals not have that heterosexuals do have? We are all on the same page when it comes to both sexual orientations following the same law: You can marry ANYONE as long as it does not involve a partner of the same-sex (or so the law read BEFORE the courts decided to MAKE law regarding marriage three-years ago).

"Finally, there will be many other matters, I am sure, that receive your concern and attention during the next several years."


"I am in charge here!!

If you do not like the way I agreed to represent/support your views we can have another e-mail exchange on issues that I will continue to disagree with eventhough I said I would not".

It is basically that
Don't worry Rep. Puppolo, I am sure my friend will have many concerns. The only difference is that you are not going to be taking care of these matters for him because you are going to be voted out by a landslide in 2008.
Good luck Rep. Puppolo. You are going to need it.
Scia Ciantee

Flag Day 2007:John Adams RIP

This article by Ray Neary, a respected Catholic pro-life activist , gives us some food for thought.

Bennington flag unfurling beside my front doorway, I drove away destined for Beacon Hill this 14th of June 2007, fully aware that the members of our Great and General Court would do all they could this day to violate the democratic processes on an issue with vast implications for families, this state and the entire nation. They do have a history of doing this.
This Flag Day in 2007 will have special significance in history, as it marked the date on which the elected Legislature of this Commonwealth, in effect, replaced the displaying of the stars and stripes with a banner made up of the colors of the rainbow.
Arm-twisting, lucrative job offers, and influence peddling from Governor Deval Patrick's office to Senator Ted Kennedy's and the Democrat leadership in Washington, D.C. had been amply reported in the media, so no one should have been surprised that these solons thumbed their noses at 170,000 signatories on a petition to bring the status of marriage to the ballot on Nov. 4, 2008. Only 45 legislators of the 50 necessary voted to continue moving the issue to this vote. The process died in its tracks! In the wake, however, I wonder how many interpret the Constitutional Convention's brazen action as one of Divine Providence. I do.
The amendment's wording would allow 99 per cent of the camel into the tent by permitting what would be a "marriage" arrangement under a different label. Then, in only a short period of time, it would morph legally into the same relationship that has been preserved for millennia, one involving only one man and one woman. But above and beyond this gaping flaw, worse still was a grandfather clause which would allow and affirm 10,000-plus "marriages" which would have been performed up to Nov. 4, 2008 and then deny any after that date. A prompt challenge would have ipso facto relegated the dual status to the legal trash bin. And then folks: Go back to Square One!
What also has been sadly overlooked in the surreal political world in which we have been living is that Same Sex "Marriage" (SS"M") still does not exist in this once-proud Commonwealth. And yes, we do owe a monumental apology to John Adams for these last few years. In the Goodridge decision on Nov. 18, 2003 the Supreme Judicial Court never established SS"M"; they ruled that the Legislature had the right to do so, but that was never done. The Legislature knew that it did not have the votes to pass SSM into law in 2003-04, so the 180 days the SJC gave to them came and went on May 17, 2004. Herein started the legal tailspin that gave us the pseudo-marriage situation which exists today.
Governor Mitt Romney, a Harvard Law School graduate, tacked 180 degrees off course as he instructed Town Clerks and Justices of the Peace to start issuing "marriage" licenses to applicants of the same gender. What he clearly should have done at this point was exercise bold leadership by issuing an Executive Order prohibiting any such action until the Legislature took appropriate constitutional steps. Herein lies the genesis of this unconstitutional tailspin, one which has started rapidly to re-design the social, political and religious underpinnings of our society from early education throughout our entire social framework.
Surely, the SJC in Massachusetts in their long-delayed Goodridge decision turned the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, the nation's oldest written constitution, inside out. They were fully aware of their inability to enact law and impose such a radical change to statutory law in this state. The Separation of Powers principle precluded them from invading the legislative domain.
What Chief Justice Margaret Marshall and her narrow phalanx wanted to happen was to create an environment where the public, mainly that enormous number in the soft, tractable middle ground of the political landscape, would be eased over so they would adhere to the postmodern political view of her elitists. After establishing SSM in this state, the U.S. Constitution's Article IV "full faith and credit" provision allows an open window to gain entrance to all the remaining states. Then barriers of consanguinity and duality would soon fall. Interspecies "marriage" might take a little longer.
In the recent Doyle vs. Galvin decision upholding the plaintiffs' call for a vote on this proposed constitutional amendment, the SJC's language can be interpreted to affirm that Goodridge did not have the authority to establish "marriages" between two people of the same sex. In reality, these two decisions affirm that all these "marriages", which have taken place in this state, are not marriages at all.
I have never accepted that any two people of the same gender can have a marriage, notwithstanding many other relationships which exist in our society. The millennia-old institution of marriage involves complementarity, not only on a physical plane but also in the vast psychological, social and spiritual realms. This relationship is unique, joining two diverse human natures into what can be life's most productive, rewarding and enjoyable existence. Diversity not only exists in this complementary relationship; it is the essential ingredient in it. Of course, we are for diversity right at the core of the marriage union!
History will unravel this social, political mess and expose it in the full sunlight down the road somewhere. And it will reveal that SSM never existed in this state - constitutionally or legally. Future courts will rule that to have been the case.
Take heed, traditionalists. Flag Day 2007 may have seen the Democrat leadership show how they really abhor the democratic processes, and how the Republicans' cowardice and turncoat behavior once again demonstrated why they continue to be a shrinking minority. As they receive the blessing of a lesbian minister draped with a rainbow stole on the State House steps and wallow in the syrupy adulation of those to whom they have sold their souls, 151 legislators and the Governor deserved pity.
I still prefer the stars and stripes, which I will continue to display with pride. A Massachusetts Constitutional Convention, which thumbs its nose at 170,000 petitioners and millions of voting citizens in order to continue the imposition of a perverse arrangement, will be viewed some future day in its proper way: an "evolutionary paradigm" of social, political decadence in this once-proud Bay State . Let's assure that its national implications are seen, and that it hastens the day when an amendment to the U.S. Constitution passes and saves our fellow citizens across this nation from the malignancy which has started here.

Friday, June 22, 2007

Secular Progressive Theology

Blah, blah, blah...I could go on and on and bore you to death with what I think about the events of June 14, 2007. The events in which I am referring to are those that led up to the complete usurpation of democracy by 11 "Benedict Arnolds" at the State House during the constitutional convention where the Marriage Protection Amendment was "voted" upon.

I have not written a piece about the convention, better know as the Con Con, because of my complete disgust of what occurred in the 15 minutes on the House floor of June 14th. I sat in the House Gallery waiting to see what the outcome of marriage itself would be for the rest of the world...yes, for the rest of the world. I say this because Massachusetts is the only plot of land on the PLANET that is trying to reverse same-sex "marriages". Everyone and their dog was watching to see how democracy could involve the people. But wait, why would anyone depend on Beacon Hill to represent the "in's and out's" of democracy? Sorry for the letdown!!
None-the-less, as I have been taking part in an active recovery phase in the campaign to protect traditional marriage, I have been reading some interesting news articles about the marriage amendment. I came across one today, June 22, 2007, in the Boston Herald titled "Backwash of hate proves rep was right". Click HERE to read full article before reading anymore of this post. Now, Rep. Brian Wallace, as pictured above, has been behind Vote On Marriage regarding his support of the marriage amendment. His support was so concrete and trustworthy that you could sell your first born on it. I mean this guy was not going to flip!! So much for trusting someone's word or the other 10 traitors.
O.K., so Rep. Wallace received an e-mail from a stout supporter of same-sex marriage who expressed her thanks for the representatives support in "sticking up for her 'rights'. I never knew marriage was a right. Can anyone show me a timeline of when this campaign started and ended with marriage being labeled as a right?
This statement really threw me for a loop:
"...It would have been the ugliest, most divisive election this state has ever seen" (if the marriage amendment had been involved in the 2008 elections).
What Nancy Pelosi bandwagon did you get a ride on Rep. Wallace? This election process would of divided the men from the boys and the girls from the women regarding morality and faith. Imagine, an election that was centered on faith and morals like our U.S. Constitution is centered on. Maybe, just maybe the good Word, the Bible that is, would actually be voted back into schools as a piece of important literature if morals were a part of the upcoming elections. I know, most of you are saying "separation of church and state." Let me just say this - the legal ramifications or the words 'separation of church and state' do NOT exist in our government....anywhere!!!! I will touch base on this during another post or in my comments to anyone who wishes to comment on said matter.
And by the way Rep. Wallace, I would like to see those "hate" e-mails and phone calls. Were they "hate" centered or did they just express a different opinion that you SPIN off as "hate"?
Then the South Boston e-mailer to Rep. Wallace goes on to say:
"...that their marriages (same-sex marriages) are a lie?"
No, you are to say that same-sex marriages are not legal in Massachusetts, because 4 un-elected officials MADE law without legislative approval.
And this comment just makes me role with laughter:
"Both Brian and I (Sen. Jack Hart) are married fathers and church-going Catholics."
That's right Sen. Hart, you and Rep. Wallace are just "45 minute" church-going Catholics. You two are good little Catholics for the amount of time it takes for the pastor to finish his sermon and then once you walk out of the church doors it's back to your tossed-salad version of what is righteous.
The last paragraph in this article inspired me to write this post:
"In time, I think the vitriol will fade. When people want to challenge me over this issue," Hart said, "I ask them what they think Jesus would do? Would Jesus shower the same kind of hate upon these people? Or would He love them anyway and treat them with compassion"?
Yes, Sen. Hart, Jesus would treat these people with compassion but you are missing the point of scripture and the Lord's word if you stop there. Jesus would show compassion like he did to the prostitute woman at the water well. Jesus THEN went on to say to the woman, do not sin no more and you will enter my kingdom. Show compassion but then teach repentance. Right Rep. Wallace and Sen. Hart? You do remember this during your 45-minute lessons don't you?

Monday, June 04, 2007

Dating vs. Desires

The online dating service, eHarmony, is in a legal battle to protect its policy of heterosexual dating and not caving into radical homosexual agenda item number 2: Portray gays as victims, not aggressive challengers. This agenda item was devised in part by homosexual activists Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen and publicized in two publications: A 1987 article titled "The Overhauling of Straight America" and a 1989 book titled "After the Ball".

Read the full article by clicking HERE.
I guess all Christians, Jews, ect can only express their religious beliefs behind closed doors of their place of worship because less than 3% of the population, homosexuals, feel uncomfortable in a predominately heterosexual society. I guess some day I will be "coming out of the closet" into a homosexual ensued world.
As far as I am concerned every lifestyle, either heterosexual, homosexual, transgender, ect is to follow the same standards when it comes to the dating rules of eHarmony. I, as a heterosexual, can not date a potential partner of the same-sex, why should eHarmony therfore give special privlages to the homosexual community to do such a thing? The sexual desires of the homosexual community is not in the better interest of eHarmony and neither should it be as it is a dating service not a call service. Being a portal for healthy relationships is in the better interest of eHarmony and nothing more.
Suing online dating services that strictly serve the heterosexual community is the wave of the future for radical homosexuals. Sooner or later the state will have to punish anyone who "interferes" with the so-called "civil right" of same-sex marriages.
The punishment will be severe. Laws banning interference with "civil rights" will impose stiff fines and, after Goodridge, will authorize serious damage awards against anyone who on moral grounds refuses to recognize or honor the so-called "civil right" of same-sex marriages. If the people are denied a vote on marriage, then the persecution will begin in earnest.
Don't be fooled by the homosexual slogan: "We are the victims" because someday all of us are going to be victims to a lack of democracy at the State House.
Let the people, heterosexual or homosexual, decide the fate of marriage, not the black robes whose sole purpose is to apply democracy, not deny democracy.
Take Action
TAKE A MINUTE TO SUPPORT Write them via their Contact page or call their corporate offices in Pasadena, California, at 626-795-4814 (hit #9 when you get the machine). Their snail-mail address is, P.O. Box 60157, Pasadena, CA 91116. Also, call or write your U.S. Representative and Senators (202-224-3121; and urge them to oppose H.R. 2015, the “Employment Nondiscrimination Act (ENDA), the pro-homosexual/pro-trannsexual employment bill which will only embolden “gay” harassment lawsuits against tradition-minded companies.

Powered by Blogger

Sign my Guestbook from Get your Free Guestbook from