Confirmed Today: Gay Marriage STILL Not Legal in Mass.!

For years now -- since 2005 -- the homosexual lobby has filed and refiled its bill to legalize "gay marriage" in Massachusetts. They know that the law as it now stands refers to "man/woman", "husband/wife" relationships as marriage. Today, the Judiciary Committee once again sent the bill to "study" -- meaning, they killed it. But the very existence of this bill over the years confirms that we are correct that "gay marriage" has never been made legal in Massachusetts.

SHELVED TODAY:
House Bill 1708 
AN ACT TO PROTECT MASSACHUSETTS FAMILIES THROUGH EQUAL ACCESS TO CIVIL 

MARRIAGE 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court assembled, and by the authority 

of the same, as follows: 

SECTION 1. Chapter 207 is hereby amended by adding the 

following new section:— 

Section 37A. Any person who otherwise meets the eligibility requirements of this chapter may 

marry any other eligible person regardless of gender.

Why would the Judiciary Committee continue to bury this bill? We believe they don't want to draw attention to the fact that all the "gay marriages" since 2004 are fraudulent.

The Goodridge couple, who helped start the chaos, are now "divorced".

But they never had a valid "marriage" to begin with!

They don't want the citizens to focus on the overreach by the Supreme Judicial Court. They don't want the citizens to remember that the Court (unconstitutionally) ordered the Legislature to change the marriage statute in 2003 -- and the Legislature failed to act. And they don't want the citizens to focus on the overreach by then-Governor Romney, who without any Constitutional or statutory authority ordered the Department of Public Health to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, and ordered Town Clerks and Justices of the Peace to perform these illegal "marriages".

Don't expect these jokers to tell us WHY they shelved the bill. No transparency here.

Senator Cynthia Creem & Rep. Eugene O'Flaherty

Senate & House Chairmen, Joint Judiciary Committee

Scott Brown Going Wobbly on Gay Rights?

Is this what conservatives supported in electing Scott Brown? I don't think so! Let's hope this is just wishful thinking  on the gay activists' part. Then again, pro-gay Romneyites are advising Brown. Hold the line, Scott!

From EDGEBoston (GLBT news), Feb. 1:

"Are Sen.-Elect Scott Brown’s Views on Gay Rights Changing?"

 

Graham Wilson, a Political Science Professor at Boston University, believes Brown’s views on social issues will evolve in time.

"I don’t know his stand on (gay marriage) in detail but I do think he will moderate and has shown signs of doing so already," Wilson told EDGE. "Now that he has the Republican nomination, his challenge is to avoid defeat in general elections that will be held in what for him are likely to be less favorable circumstances."

Someone who is familiar with Brown’s positions on LGBT issues is Scott Gortikov, the Executive Director of Mass Equality, who said Brown has expressed "consistent opposition to LGBT equality" as a State Senator.

Gortikov does hold out the hope that Brown may be inclined to be more supportive of the LGBT community on certain issues considering the company he will be in.

"He is a junior Senator from a Massachusetts delegation and this is a delegation that has supported issues of equality for a long time," Gortikov said. "(Brown) touts not only his traits of independent thinking but also his conservative credentials. There may be nuances to his thinking when it comes to future votes on LGBT issues."

Bay Windows (linked with EDGE) also posted an "open letter" to Scott Brown, asking for a "dialogue". They're "awaiting his reply."

Martha Coakley Was Keynote Speaker at Lesbian Gay Bar Assoc. Fundraiser

As Attorney General, Martha Coakley had no problem helping the radical Massachusetts Lesbian Gay Bar Association raise money. She was keynote speaker at their May 2007 fundraising dinner.

MLGBA luminaries.

See her speech here. Excerpts:

Access to civil marriage for gays and lesbians is the law of the Commonwealth. I applaud now, as I did at the time, the Supreme Judicial Court's decision in Goodridge. And as your Attorney General, charged with responsibility for upholding the law, I will do whatever I can to see that the rights of same-sex couples to marry is protected. I am also personally committed to that....

We also know that if the proposed [anti-gay marriage] amendment goes on the ballot, Massachusetts will spend the next year and a half besieged by anti-gay activists and will be the recipient of zealous rhetoric and invective from across the country. If that battle is necessary, you have my support....

We cannot allow hate to occupy any legal space in Massachusetts.  We cannot legislate hate away, but we can hold those accountable who act upon it and that's why it is important to develop and implement effective civil rights programs in our schools....

I strongly encourage our legislators to defeat it [the marriage amendment] and to close the door once and for all on prejudice and unequal treatment.

She vowed to uphold the "law" and protect the "right" for gays and lesbians to "marry" -- this despite the fact that the legislature still has not changed the statutes to enable same-sex couples to "marry", as instructed by the Supreme Judicial Court in 2003! (See the homosexual lobby's pending bill here.) What "law" is Attorney General Coakley upholding?

She labeled those who oppose "gay marriage" prejudiced and hateful. She is also committed to "hate-crimes" laws and homosexual programs in the schools. And she won't forget "civil rights" for "bisexuals" and "transgenders". 

If you believe in traditional values, Martha Coakley really despises you -- but labels you the "hater".

Romney Strikes Again: Pushes "Gay & Transgender Rights" Ordinance in Salt Lake City

When we heard the news that the city council in Salt Lake City just approved a "gay rights" ordinance (covering both "sexual orientation" and "gender identity"), we knew in our gut that Mitt Romney was behind it. Remember, he's running for President in 2012. He wouldn't want to appear a "bigot".

Sure enough... A homosexual blog connected to an anti-Mormon documentary  ("8: The Mormon Proposition") on the Proposition 8 defeat of "gay marriage" in California posted this:

On November 10, 2009 several highly placed people featured in the upcoming documentary film 8: THE MORMON PROPOSITION were contacted by well-placed people inside the Mormon Church in anticipation of an "historic statement against discrimination" to be made by the Mormon Church.



They were told, "Watch what we are about to do. You will be pleased."



At this hour gays and lesbians all over the world hope that the Mormon Church's announcement will not be yet another Mormon public relations smoke screen and result in action that will result in full marriage equality for the LGBT community world-wide.



Since the release of the trailer for 8: THE MORMON PROPOSITION, intense scrutiny has been focused on Mormon involvement in the passage of Proposition 8 and allegations that the Mormon Church set up the infamous NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR MARRIAGE which was the key player in Maine's recent ban on gay marriage.



Sources close to those who called our cast and production team alerting us to the upcoming Mormon statement on discrimination say that Mormon Mitt Romney has recently put pressure on his own church to extend an olive branch to the gay community to try and deflate the anticipated negative press that will come from the release of 8: THE MORMON PROPOSITION that would likely damage his hope for a successful 2012 presidential bid.



Ironically (and we suspect in step with the Mormon's anticipated statement on discrimination) Mormon-owned KSL TV released an article on their web site saying "Romney appears to be front-runner in 2012 election."




The homosexual blog Towleroad picked up the Mitt Romney connection.

Counterfeit Marriage Rejected in Maine

Press Release from Matt Barber at Liberty Counsel:

Lynchburg, VA – Matt Barber, Director of Cultural Affairs with both Liberty Counsel and Liberty Alliance Action, issued the following statement on news that the voters of Maine have rejected counterfeit “same-sex marriage” by 53% - 47%:

“There’s good news and bad news here,” said Barber. “The good news is that even in one of the most liberal States in the Union, Maine, the people have once again rejected the ridiculous and oxymoronic notion of ‘same sex marriage.’ The momentum has again shifted – hopefully for good this time – in favor of protecting legitimate marriage. A counterfeit is a counterfeit. An orange is an orange no matter how much you want it to be a turnip. This isn’t about ‘marriage.’ It’s about hurting and broken people desperately seeking affirmation of an objectively deviant lifestyle. One that, even in their heart of hearts, they know to be a dead end. As for the militant ‘No on 1’ homosexual activists? I’m reminded of spoiled children dressing up and playing house, refusing to come in when mom calls for dinner.

“Here’s the bad news. The margin of victory could have been greater. Many behind the ‘Yes on 1’ campaign, rather than simply telling the truth, chose the Neville Chamberlain approach. They merely circled the wagons around the word ‘marriage,’ even suggesting that ‘domestic partnerships’ (‘gay marriages’ by another name) are acceptable. This makes no sense. If that’s a viable compromise, then why not simply allow 'gay' duos the word ‘marriage’? It’s an incongruity that demands an explanation. This is an historic battle for the minds and souls of our children – for our very culture. The mealy-mouthed approach must end. This is not just about ‘marriage.’ It has everything to do with forced affirmation of homosexuality – under penalty of law. Indeed everyone who fought hard to defend marriage in Maine is to be congratulated, but if it weren’t for a brave group of truth tellers – Paul Madore, Peter LaBarbera and Brian Camenker [of MassResistance] – who came to Maine in the final hour to hold a press conference and address the pink elephant in the room – homosexual deviancy and the radical ‘gay’ agenda – counterfeit marriage might have prevailed.”

Proof: "Gay Marriage" Still NOT Legal in Massachusetts (July 2009)

Today (July 14, 2009), the Massachusetts Judiciary Committee will consider the bill to legalize "gay marriage". That's right -- "gay marriage" is still NOT LEGAL in Massachusetts!

The current Massachusetts marriage statute allows only man/woman, husband/wife couples. So Rep. Byron Rushing has filed a bill, every session since 2004, to change the law to allow same-sex couples to marry. His bill reads:

H1708: Chapter 207 is hereby amended by adding the
following new section:—
Section 37A. Any person who otherwise meets the eligibility requirements of this chapter may marry any other eligible person regardless of gender.

Why has the Legislature never voted on this? Why has the press never recognized that the law was never changed?

Legal means permitted by law.

Rep. Byron Rushing smiles as he sponsors the most radical bills

in the Mass. legislature, including legalization of "gay marriage"

and decriminalization of sodomy.

Even the Supreme Judicial Court recognized that, and told the Legislature to change the marriage statute back in 2003, which it never did. Only because of Mitt Romney's promise to the Log Cabin Republicans do we have phony "gay marriage" -- now celebrated by 16,000 couples. Romney's orders to his executive branch officials to implement such "marriages" was unconstitutional, lacking statutory authority. So those "marriage" licenses aren't worth the paper they're printed on.

One reason MassResistance is so hated by the GLBT movement is that we've pointed this out for years. And the 16,000 "married" same-sex couples just don't want to admit that they're part of a Big Lie.

Note: The law criminalizing sodomy has still not been overturned either. Since sodomy is the basis for "gay marriage," the GLBT lobby's bill to decriminalize sodomy will also be heard today. Can't have a "marriage" without consummation!

Sodomy:
- Anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex.
- Copulation with a member of the same sex.
- Bestiality.
- Any of various forms of sexual intercourse held to be unnatural or abnormal, especially anal intercourse or bestiality.

Anti-Prop 8 Demo in Northampton Pushes "Transgender Rights"

Northampton, Massachusetts -- site of the nation's first major "Transgender Rights" march last June (documented by MassResistance, with video and photos) -- saw its own anti-Prop 8 demonstration on Saturday. But in Northampton, the cause includes "transgender rights" too -- not just "homosexual marriage".

What caught our eye on YouTube was this video of a "male-to-female" transsexual speaker, Lorelei Erisis.

You must watch this to see where our society is going. Men wanting to be women, changing their bodies and names (though rarely their faces or voices):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utKIpCqA5-o

"Ladies and gentlemen of all genders and persuasions, thank you for coming out..."

And if you don't want to go along with this insanity, you're a "hater" -- according to our President-elect too, not just the radicals assembling in Northampton.

Here is a photo of Lorelei speaking:
Remember that President-elect Obama has promised equal rights for the whole GLBT community -- "T" meaning transgenders or transsexuals. ("Gender identity" is the code language used for trannies.) Clearly, there is no bottom to this pit of confusion, sadness, and perversion into which these people have fallen. Yet our leftist political leaders will encourage even more troubled people to fall in. (See MassResistance, 3-8-08)

(The GLBT blog Reiter's Block has more photos of the Northampton radicals empowered by Obama's promises.)

Howie Carr Let Romney Off the Hook on "Gay Marriage" Lies

Left: Howie Carr

Right: Gregg Jackson

One of these guys has the courage to stand up to Mitt Romney's lies.

Howie Carr, WRKO talk show host and Boston Herald columnist, had Romney on his show for a few minutes on December 21. Another WRKO host and writer, the alert Gregg Jackson (Pundit Review Radio, Sundays at 7 p.m.), heard Romney was on and called in to ask him a burning question: Why did the Governor issue the unconsitutional orders to his Dept. of Public Health, Town Clerks, and Justices of the Peace that began the phony homosexual "marriages" back in 2004? We broke this story shortly after it happened.

Now Howie should understand this issue, and what Romney was up to. He's received all of our research. Why didn't he challenge Romney when he evaded the question and lied? What's up, Howie?

Romney was specifically asked about changing the MARRIAGE LICENSES to read "Partner A & Partner B" (instead of "husband & wife"). But he did a little sleight of hand, hoping no one would notice he answered about BIRTH CERTIFICATES (which he hadn't ordered be changed from "father & mother"). This is how stupid he thinks we all are ... and maybe he will fool most of the people.

Listen to the audio here.

See Gregg Jackson, Mitt Zombie Calls Me "Delusional."

From BizzyBlog today: Mitt Romney Calls Gregg Jackson ‘Delusional’; What Does That Make Romney?

... Mass Resistance has posted the audio and transcript of a call that took place on the air during the Howie Carr show on the afternoon of December 21 on WRKO in Boston.
The caller was Gregg Jackson, who is co-host of Pundit Review Radio on Sunday evenings on WRKO and is co-proprietor at the Pundit Review blog. Howie Carr’s guest was Objectively Unfit Mitt Romney, who in the course of answering Jackson’s question, showed exactly why he is, indeed, objectively unfit.
Keep in mind that Gregg is the author of “Conservative Comebacks to Liberal Lies,” a book that has earned rave reviews from the likes of Thomas Sowell (”political and media spin are shot to pieces by hard facts”) and David Limbaugh (”There is not a better one-stop-shop item to refute with evidence and examples the liberal lies.”).... [Read more.]

Hugh Hewitt Told Romney to Defy Mass. Marriage Ruling in 2003, Now Fully Backs Romney

[photo: BizzyBlog.com]

So ... in November 2003, Hugh Hewitt, pseudo-conservative talk show host and columnist, told then Governor Mitt Romney to defy the unconstitutional Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court homosexual "marriage" ruling.

Could this be the same Hewitt who has written a fawning biography of Romney (which for some reason is not on his list of books on his TownHall site)? The same Hewitt who constantly sings his praises? The same Hewitt who has demeaned the MassResistance "Romney Deception" report? What could po$$ibly have changed hi$ mind on $omething a$ ba$ic a$ whether a pre$idential candidate re$pect$ and uphold$ the Constitution he $wore to uphold? Maybe Hewitt doesn't think constitutions matter any more?

It's always fun going through old files. Here's what we found, written just two days after the Goodridge ruling from the Massachusetts Court. (Excerpts; emphasis added:)

Just Say "No": Calling Governor Romney and the elected representatives of Massachusetts
by Hugh Hewitt
The Weekly Standard
11/20/2003

"JOHN MARSHALL has made his decision," Andrew Jackson is said to have remarked in the aftermath of a Supreme Court decision he disliked, "now let him enforce it."

Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney would be well advised to ponder that line long and hard over the Thanksgiving holidays.

It is an interesting time for the Massachusetts Supreme Court to have seized control of the elected branches in its state, given the connection between Thanksgiving and the Bay State....Now, in the aftermath of Tuesday's radical diktat from four justices to Massachusetts' elected representatives, Americans are interested in the state's future as well.

Romney should seriously consider indifference. The governor noted that the ruling declaring same-sex marriage a mandate of the Massachusetts constitution is contrary to the sweep of recorded history, but it is more than that. 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.... Editorial writers will shout. Senator Kennedy may even brand Romney a Neanderthal, as he did Justices Brown, Owen, and Judge Kuhl earlier this month.

But the storm will pass and the people of Massachusetts will applaud. They didn't sign up for a banana republic run by pretenders in robes, and no one in the state's illustrious history ever sacrificed life or limb--from Boston Harbor to Concord, Antietam or the battlefields of Europe and Asia--for the proposition that four judges get to change everything when they decide to conjure up a reason for doing so.

Romney and the legislature ought to stand back and say no. In fact, if the court threatens with penalties, they ought to threaten back. An outrageous overreach is only as strong as the passivity with which it is greeted.

This isn't primarily about gay marriage, and it isn't primarily about Massachusetts. It is primarily about self-government and limiting courts to their constitutional duties. And Massachusetts, again, has a central role to play.

Is Romney Working with Log Cabin Republicans to Remove Stories from Web?

What's happened to the 2002 Bay Windows story on Mitt Romney and his "gay" Log Cabin Republican supporters? (Bay Windows is the Boston GLBT newspaper.) It used to be readily available on the web. (And Bay Windows used to have a neat section called "The Romney Files" -- which they've also removed, along with their archives search page! Hmm...) Now, a search for "Gay GOP touts Romney as good for the community" pulls up a blank page... But we've saved it! And we're reprinting it here for all you Republican primary voters.

Bay Windows
Gay GOP touts Romney as good for the community
By Laura Kiritsy, 3/28/2002

Mitt Romney rode his wild success organizing this year's Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, Utah, all the way back to Massachusetts and right onto center stage as the Republican candidate for governor. But the Olympic gold dust has begun to settle -- Democrats have already taken aim at his inconsistent stance on abortion and criticized his positions on a host of other issues, from fixing the state's budget crisis to managing the Big Dig. And now that gay-friendly Governor Jane Swift has bowed out of the running, gay voters may also be wondering: Is Mitt good for gays?

Good enough, said several gay Republicans who spoke with Bay Windows, including Abner Mason, Swift's deputy chief of staff. "I am absolutely confident that as governor he would continue the commitment to gay equality that was started with [former Republican Governor William] Weld and continued with [former Republican Governor Paul] Cellucci and Swift," said Mason. "He will equal, if not better, the record of Weld, Cellucci and Swift." Mason recently met with Romney in his capacity as Swift's chief policy adviser, and said they discussed ``a wide range of policy issues including gay rights." He declined to disclose the details of that conversation.

Lt. Governor candidate Patrick Guerriero, Swift's gay former running mate, agreed that Romney would be appealing to gay voters. Guerriero noted that Romney did receive support from gay Republicans in his failed 1994 bid for U.S. Senate and currently has gay Republican Jon Spampinato, who actively worked to recruit Romney in the governor's race, on his campaign staff. "The reality is there's a difference between 1994 and now," Guerriero told Bay Windows. "The issues are much more talked about. All the candidates will be called upon to clearly state their positions on gay issues" and the next few months will be a defining period, said Guerriero. "I think you'll see that his policies and stands are going to be rooted in the party of Abraham Lincoln."

Romney got his first chance to prove himself when, just days after announcing his candidacy in the driveway of his Belmont home, it was revealed that his wife, son and daughter-in-law had signed a petition to put the anti-gay "Protection of Marriage" constitutional amendment on the statewide ballot in 2004. Romney campaign spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom told Bay Windows that the family members signed the amendment petition -- which would not only ban gay marriage, but all legal protections for same-sex couples in Massachusetts -- without realizing how restrictive the amendment actually is. "They read the bold print," said Fehrnstrom. "They did not read the fine print."

Romney was unaware his family members had signed the amendment petition, said Fehrnstrom, and he does not support the "Protection of Marriage" amendment. "He is opposed to gay marriage, but in the case of the 'defense of marriage' amendment Mitt believes it goes too far in that it would outlaw domestic partnership for non-traditional couples. That is something he is not prepared to accept." Asked whether Romney supported the domestic-partnership legislation -- which would provide health insurance benefits to the same-sex partners of state employees and give municipalities the choice to do the same -- currently pending before the state legislature's House Ways and Means Committee, Fehrnstrom said he was unsure. In the week since announcing his candidacy, he added, Romney has been involved in "an intense series of issues briefings" intended to bring him up to speed on issues currently facing Massachusetts citizens.

"I think it's very good that Mitt Romney came out and said he opposes the ballot initiative because it goes too far and is extreme," said Gary Daffin, co-chair of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus, a non-partisan organization. But he also adds, "I think we have some more work to do with Mitt Romney" on gay issues.

While Romney's stance against gay marriage -- which is consistent with his position during his '94 senate campaign -- is typical of many political candidates of both major parties, Daffin may have a point. Romney has had to fend off accusations from his fellow members of the Mormon Church that he called gays "perverse" in 1993, and has repeatedly denied the charge. In 1994 he expressed support for "don't ask, don't tell," the U.S. military's ban on openly gay soldiers.

He did, however, pledge to support the federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would ban job discrimination based on sexual orientation, and other civil rights protections for gays in the areas of housing and credit. He also promised to bring the initiatives begun in Massachusetts to protect gay and lesbian youth to the federal level.

But what struck the gay GOP during that campaign, according to Massachusetts Log Cabin Republicans (LCR), was Romney's accessibility to and comfort within the local gay community. Romney and his Republican primary opponent, John Lakian, attended an LCR-sponsored candidate's forum during the campaign, where they both competitively vied for the organization's endorsement -- which Romney eventually won. During the course of his campaign, LCR member and former president Mark Goshko told Bay Windows, Romney held several meetings with group members and at least two LCR members joined his staff. Though gay Republicans were by no means running Romney's campaign, "it was really a multi-level involvement," Goshko stated. "Our people were very involved officially and outside of [the campaign]." Given that past level of involvement, said Goshko, "I have no reason to think that things won't develop similarly this time." Goshko and LCR's current president Chris Ferguson, said they have spoken with Romney campaign advisers and are hoping to schedule a sit-down meeting in the coming weeks.

Romney has also come under suspicion for his Mormon beliefs, given the church's leadership on anti-gay efforts in the U.S., and its generally conservative reputation. His opponents have attempted to use his religion to paint him as conservative on social issues, a characterization both Fehrnstrom and Ferguson said is unfair. "There's a rush to characterize Mitt Romney as a right-wing social conservative. I don't think that's entirely fair," said Ferguson. "There may be a lot of reasons at the end of the day not to support him or not to like him, but he should have the opportunity to define for himself what his positions are and not to have people mischaracterize him," he said.

NY Times: Romney Kept Promise to Gays to Allow "Gay Marriage"

The New York Times is finally looking into Romney's "gay rights" record in Massachusetts. See "Romney’s tone on gay rights is seen as shift" (New York Times, 9-8-07). Romney doesn't want this to come out:

[I]n the aftermath of the Massachusetts court decision, Mr. Romney, though aligning himself with the supporters of a constitutional amendment [banning homosexual "marriage" but establishing civil unions], 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.

In the year prior to the Court's marriage ruling, Romney promised homosexual activists he'd "keep his head low" and do whatever the Court ordered. From the Times:

Calling Mr. Romney a flip-flopper on gay rights would be overly simplistic, Mr. Spampinato [a homosexual activist and former aide) said. But he conceded that his old boss had promised the Log Cabin members that he would not champion a fight against same-sex marriage. ...

Mitt Romney seemed comfortable as a group of gay Republicans quizzed him over breakfast one morning in 2002. Running for governor of Massachusetts, he was at a gay bar in Boston to court members of Log Cabin Republicans. Mr. Romney explained to the group that his perspective on gay rights had been largely shaped by his experience in the private sector, where, he said, discrimination was frowned upon. When the discussion turned to a court case on same-sex marriage that was then wending its way through the state’s judicial system, he said he believed that marriage should be limited to the union of a man and a woman.

But, according to several people present, he promised to 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, one participant recalled.

Romney has never been an advocate for real marriage, but in fact a facilitator for the establishment of homosexual "marriage", or its twin, "civil unions." But the Times reports,"Mr. Romney bristles when he is accused of shifting on the issue, as he has on abortion, pointing out that he has been consistent in personally opposing both marriage and civil unions between people of the same sex." No -- Romney has NOT always opposed civil unions. Our Romney Report documents that he immediately went to work with legislative leaders after the Mass. court ruling (Fall 2003) to craft a civil-unions style law (Washington Post report, 11-20-03). Then in 2004 he strong-armed conservative Republican legislators into supporting a constitutional amendment that included civil unions, while banning homosexual "marriage." From the Boston Globe(3/30/2004):

Through all the twists and shifts during the gay-marriage debate this year, there was one constant: 22 Republicans in the House of Representatives opposed every measure that would grant gay couples civil unions in the constitution. That all changed yesterday, however, when 15 of that 22-member bloc broke away at the urging of Governor Mitt Romney and voted in favor of a proposed amendment that would ban gay marriage but create Vermont-style civil unions. Those 15 members provided the margin of victory, observers from both camps said yesterday after the measure passed by just five votes. In the end, the 15 agreed that approving a measure that they viewed as highly undesirable was preferable to the possibility that nothing would be sent to the state ballot for voters to weigh in on.

Also, Romney refused to support the original proposed Massachusetts marriage amendment in 2002, absolutely defining marriage as one man and one woman, apparently now wanting to ban domestic partnerships and civil unions. Bay Windows reported at the time (3-28-02):

"Romney was unaware his family members had signed the amendment petition, said [spokesman] Fehrnstrom, and he does not support the "Protection of Marriage" amendment. "He is opposed to gay marriage, but in the case of the 'defense of marriage' amendment Mitt believes it goes too far in that it would outlaw domestic partnership for non-traditional couples. That is something he is not prepared to accept."

Lawsuit Against Church in NJ: Coming Soon to Mass.

One of the many ways "the sky is falling": LifeSite News reports that a lesbian couple in New Jersey is suing a church for refusing to let them have their "civil union" ceremony on church property. It won't be long before we see similar lawsuits in Massachusetts against churches that refuse homosexual "marriage" ceremonies on their properties. Just as in New Jersey law, Massachusetts bans discrimination in public accommodations on the basis of "sexual orientattion." Freedom of religion? What's that?

Lesbian Couple Files Complaint against Church for Refusing Civil Union Ceremony
OCEAN GROVE, New Jersey (LifeSiteNews.com) - A New Jersey lesbian couple has filed a civil rights complaint against a Christian seaside retreat association that refused to facilitate their "civil union." Harriet Bernstein and Luisa Paster filed the complaint June 19 with the state attorney general's office on the grounds of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation after the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association declined the use of their Boardwalk Pavilion for their civil union ceremony, planned for September.

Bernstein and Paster demanded "whatever relief is provided by law" including unspecified "compensatory damages for economic loss, humiliation, [and] mental pain." New Jersey's anti-discrimination laws currently forbid those who "offer goods, services, and facilities to the general public" from "directly or indirectly denying or withholding any accommodation, service, benefit, or privilege to an individual" on the basis of sexual orientation.

However the OGCMA has stated that it must adhere to the rules of the United Methodist Book of Discipline, which forbids homosexual civil unions from being performed in churches and other areas for worship. "The facility that they requested is a facility we have used exclusively for our camp meeting mission and worship celebrations since 1869," Scott Hoffman, OGCMA's chief administrative officer told LifeSiteNews.com. ...

Here's the Mass. law:
Chapter 272: Section 98. Discrimination in admission to, or treatment in, place of public accommodation; punishment; forfeiture; civil right
Section 98. Whoever makes any distinction, discrimination or restriction on account of race, color, religious creed, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, which shall not include persons whose sexual orientation involves minor children as the sex object, deafness, blindness or any physical or mental disability or ancestry relative to the admission of any person to, or his treatment in any place of public accommodation, resort or amusement, as defined in section ninety-two A, or whoever aids or incites such distinction, discrimination or restriction, shall be punished by a fine of not more than twenty-five hundred dollars or by imprisonment for not more than one year, or both, and shall be liable to any person aggrieved thereby for such damages as are enumerated ... All persons shall have the right to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any place of public accommodation, resort or amusement subject only to the conditions and limitations established by law and applicable to all persons. This right is recognized and declared to be a civil right.

Jeff Jacoby Holds Back on Reason for Opposing "Gay Marriage"

Jeff Jacoby, Boston Globe columnist, continues to hold back. Today ("Love, marriage, and the baby carriage") he comments on the proposal in Washington state by homosexual extremists -- which we discussed two weeks ago -- to confine marriage to heterosexual couples who have children within three years of marriage. The homosexual activists are tring to make a point that "it is only fair because they are being denied the right to marry because they cannot have children." Jacoby tries to shoot this down by saying that no "mainstream opponent" of homosexual "marriage" focuses just on the "raising children" argument.

But as we pointed out, an exclusive focus on children has been Mitt Romney's line (and even Massachusetts Family Institute/VoteOnMarriage, before they switched to "let the people vote"). When Romney, for instance, says we must protect traditional marriage, he gives only one reason: "because every child deserves a mother and a father." So Jacoby is wrong when he says "No mainstream opponent of same-sex marriage claims that having children is the sole purpose of wedlock."

These "mainstreamers" never do discuss the other reasons for real "marriage", because they know that they could apply equally to homosexual couples, or even polygamous arrangements. With one exception. In Jacoby's long list of marriage purposes, only one -- "having a legitimate sexual outlet" -- would not apply to homosexual couples.

It's nice to know that Jacoby still thinks there's such a thing as "legitimate" and "illegitimate" sexuality. But if homosexual sex is "illegitimate", why does Jacoby never himself write of this problem with homosexual "marriage" -- that it's based on sexual perversion, and therefore illegitimate? How odd that Romney, VoteOnMarriage, the Mass. Family Institute, et al. also never bring this up as a reason to oppose homosexual "marriage". Why is that? What are they afraid of?

Jacoby wrote:

... activists are assaulting a straw man. No mainstream opponent of same-sex marriage claims that having children is the sole purpose of wedlock. Marriages can serve any number of purposes -- cementing the bond between partners, guaranteeing financial security, having a legitimate sexual outlet, ensuring companionship, and so on. People get married for various reasons; the desire to raise a family is only one of them.

What makes marriage a public institution, however -- the reason it is regulated by law and given an elevated legal status -- is that it provides something no healthy society can do without: a stable environment in which men and women can create and bring up the next generation, and in which children can enter the world with mothers and fathers committed to their well-being.

Homosexual Lobby Still Trying to Legalize "Gay Marriage"

A story the Boston Globe and the phony "conservative" media will never cover:

The homosexual lobby in the Massachusetts legislature has again filed a bill to legalize homosexual marriage. Because it's still not legal, and they know it. No statute has ever been passed to change existing law which still refers to marriage as only between man/woman, husband/wife.

The homosexual lobby filed a bill last session too, but strategically decided not to bring it up for a vote. Now, with a Governor who favors sodomy "marriage", they'll probably push it through without a hearing on some midnight vote. Who knows, maybe they had an agreement with Mitt Romney last session not to bring it up and embarrass him, and blow open their whole scam.

And no one (except us) will point out that this bill proves "gay marriage" has not been legal in Massachusetts these past three years. Not even National Review, Maggie Gallagher, Massachusetts Family Institute, Human Events, Jay Sekulow's ACLJ, the Alliance Defense Fund, James Dobson, or Mitt Romney.

Here's what Rep. Byron Rushing has filed. The title of the bill is so clever: "An Act to Protect Massachusetts Families Through Equal Access to Marriage." He could have chosen a more accurate title, for instance: "An Act Protecting Sodomy-Based Households Posing as Natural Families."

House Bill 1710:
An Act to Protect Massachusetts Families Through Equal Access to Marriage
SECTION 1. Chapter 207 is hereby amended by adding the
following new section:—
Section 37A. Any person who otherwise meets the eligibility
requirements of this chapter may marry any other eligible person
regardless of gender.

Weakness of "Marriage-is-about-children" Argument

This story from Washington state points out the weakness of the argument that we must protect marriage so every child will have a mother and father. This is the exclusive line used by Mitt Romney and Massachusetts Family Institute/VoteOnMarriage to justify real marriage.

"Gay marriage" proponents in Washington are pushing a ballot measure "that would require heterosexual married couples to have a child within three years or the marriage will be annulled. They say it is only fair because they are being denied the right to marry because they cannot have children."

All those who don’t want to touch the perverted, unnatural, unhealthy, and immoral aspects of homosexuality cannot satisfactorily answer this line of thinking. Also, note that the pro-homosexual marriage group in Washington state calls itself “Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance”… intentionally sowing confusion.

No Kids, No Marriage?
FOX News, 2-8-07

This is a partial transcript of The Big Story With John Gibson, February 7, 2007, that has been edited for clarity.

JOHN GIBSON, HOST: The "Big Buzz" is about the theater of the absurd going on in the state of Washington . Get this: Gay marriage proponents there are trying to get a measure on the November ballot that would require heterosexual married couples to have a child within three years or the marriage will be annulled. They say it is only fair because they are being denied the right to marry because they cannot have children.

Is what's good for gays also good for straights? "Big Story" correspondent Douglas Kennedy has the rest of the story in this in-your-face ballot initiative.

DOUGLAS KENNEDY, "BIG STORY" CORRESPONDENT: Yes, John, even the backers of this are calling it absurd. But they maintain it makes a point, namely, exposing the hypocrisy of those who say the sole purpose of marriage is to procreate.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

KENNEDY (VOICE OVER): If you can't have babies, you can't get married. That would be the law in Washington State if voters there pass a possible ballot initiative. It is a proposal its sponsor says is simply trying to make a point.

GREGORY GADOW, WASH. DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ALLIANCE : If same-sex couples can be denied marriage because of that premise, it logically follows that all couples unable, or unwilling, to have children together, should likewise be prohibited from marriage.

KENNEDY: In addition, the initiative would require that couples unable or unwilling or unable to have babies within three years would have their marriage declared unrecognized. The language is in direct response to a July 2006 state supreme court decision, which upheld a law denying gay people the right to marry.

LISA STONE, NW WOMEN'S LAW CENTER : Essentially, that decision, which my organization, the Northwest Women's Law Center , litigated to the Washington Supreme Court said that the state has an interest in procreation, and that that interest is sufficient to deny marriage to same-sex couples.

TONY PERKINS, FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL: They're lampooning those who are supporting marriage across this country for very legitimate reasons.

KENNEDY: Tony Perkins heads the Family Research Council, a national group that does not want the gays to marry.

PERKINS: One of the core fabrics of our society is the family. It's preparing the next generation. It is raising children. It is procreation.

STONE: Families come in all shapes and sizes these days. There are inter-generational families, grandparents raising grandchildren. There are single-parent headed families and there are families for one reason or another that don't have children. There are also same-sex families that do have children and that raise those children in loving households.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

KENNEDY: Supporters of the initiative say they are now gathering the signatures needed to get it on the November ballot. Still, even if it passes they say they are hoping, John, that it will not pass any constitutional muster.

GIBSON: It will be real weird. Douglas , thank you very much.

Wall Street Journal: Romney Flip-Flops on "Gay Marriage"

The Wall Street Journal has serious doubts about Mitt Romney. We highlighted their editorial trashing his Massachusetts health insurance plan -- which he was so proud of, until about a month ago. Now, WSJ is voicing hesitation on his free market bona fides:

Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts Governor, has had some success exploiting conservative unease with Mr. McCain. He has shown he can win votes in a blue state, and he was successful both as a capitalist and as manager of the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympics.

However, he too is something of an empty policy slate. The former business consultant made a big deal of the health-care "reform" he steered through the Massachusetts legislature last year, and we suppose he deserves credit for trying. But he oversold the results--to the applause of the national health-care lobby--and imposed an insurance mandate without reforming the state insurance market.

As it unfolds, this law is turning out to be far from a free-market success. And so now Mr. Romney is distancing himself from it--never mind that he upbraided his critics last year for not understanding its virtues. The episode suggests a thin political skin and perhaps a too malleable policy core.

Also, WSJ today noted that Romney's not only a flip-flopper on abortion and gay rights, but also has changed his position on gay marriage ("Election 2008: A Crowded Field Forms Early"):

Mitt Romney
Strengths: The Republican governor from liberal Massachusetts brokered a bipartisan universal health-care initiative last year. The Bain Capital founder's $6.5 million in pledges last month have built early credibility.
Weaknesses: The fact that Mr. Romney is a Mormon could hurt his support among evangelicals. Attempts to woo social conservatives have been hampered by shifting positions on gay marriage and abortion rights.

Hmm... did the WSJ really mean to say this? "Gay marriage" rather than "gay rights"? A big fan of the editorial page told us, "YES -- they have the best editors, and they probably did pay attention to MassResistance's report."

Well, even if it was a slip, here's the truth about Mitt Romney: HE HAS NOT BEEN CONSISTENT ON HIS SUPPORT FOR REAL MARRIAGE. First, in 2001-2, Romney opposed a proposed constitutional amendment in Massachusetts, which would have banned "gay marriage" and also "civil unions". Romney said that was "too extreme". Understand that he thinks we need to respect all citizens, no matter what choices they may make in their lives. So apparently, in 2001-2, Romney supported civil unions. And if that wasn't the basis for opposing the amendment, maybe he just didn't want to ban "gay marriage"? We ask his Mr. Romney to clarify his opposition to the 2002 Mass. marriage amendment. And further, why didn't he make a stink then that the Legislature unconstitutionally threw it into the dustbin? (He became Governor in January 2003, days after that happened.)

Then in 2005-6, suddenly Romney favored the new proposed Mass. marriage amendment, which would NOT ban civil unions, and which would let stand the existing "gay marriages" (since May 2004).

So first he's against a marriage amendment, then he's for one. Is this a flip-flop? Or -- is there some consistency? Romney seems to want to keep open the possibility for civil unions in both instances. Interesting.

Hello, Romney campaign. Please explain!

Linguine Spines in Maine State House

Mike Heath, Executive Director of the Christian Civic League of Maine, tells the truth there, as we do in Massachusetts. In this spineless age, that can make you pretty unpopular in places like State Houses. Here is the depressing news from Maine -- plus Heath's CALL TO ACTION. Where are the men and women of principle? Heath writes:

Want to Join Me?
You may have noticed that no proposal has surfaced in Maine's legislature to enact sodomy-based marriage, otherwise known as same sex marriage. I don't like to use the phrase "same sex marriage" because that is their term of art.... The only reason Maine didn't beat Massachusetts and become the first state in America with sodomy-based marriage is because the Christian Civic League of Maine looked around at the army and decided that someone needed to confront the giant.

We haven't slain Goliath yet. We are still polishing our stones. Many Christian forces are more like Saul and his army camped in the field drinking and making merry while Goliath wanders out to the middle of the field each day to taunt them and their God. Just as Saul's army was entertained by Goliath, Christians allow themselves today to be entertained by the antics of the anti-God crowd. They'd prefer not to confront the giant.

And make no mistake, the anti-God crowd is in power in Maine.

The leader of Maine's REPUBLICAN party says he has no interest in social issues. His number two man defends the foolish "diversity days" that are popping up in public schools all over Maine. The most recent one at Cony High School included a "transgendered" teenager as a workshop leader.

Make no mistake. The anti-God crowd runs the Maine State House. They are happy with abortion and homosexuality. And the Christians who serve there do not have the stomach to fight them. When I angered the anti-God left a few years ago the State House stopped business to craft a letter condemning me. Every Senator signed the letter condemning me, even some I consider to be friends. I consider the letter to be a badge of honor.

And you know something. I don't blame the Christians for camping out. Goliath is big and scary while the army that camps behind him on the battlefield is bigger and scarier.

The bigness and scariness of the enemy army isn't important to God. He always works though individuals. He works through men like David. Individuals like you. Your courage, clear- headedness and morality will glorify God today. God isn't impressed by armies, nations and technology. David was called a man after God's own heart.

See the news from the Christian Civic League of Maine.

Gill's Homosexual $Millions Coming Into Massachusetts

We've warned Massachusetts that millionaire homosexual activist "philanthropist" Tim Gill was sending $MILLIONS into Massachusetts to help overturn sane government. He's already targeted State Rep. Phil Travis (and maybe others). We're sure he'll donate massive funds to defeat VoteOnMarriage's amendment in any way he can. Remember his chief operative on this, Patrick Guerriero, is a Massachusetts boy working closely with Arline Isaacson (Mass. Gay & Lesbian Political Caucus) and the MassEquality crowd.

From today's Bay Windows, "On Snickers bars, ... and political activist Tim Gill":

Worth a read: This month’s Atlantic Monthly includes a terrific piece by Joshua Green on the state-by-state strategy of defeating anti-gay politicians taken by wealthy gays like Tim Gill. Titled “They Won’t Know What Hit Them,” the piece includes an interview with the reclusive Gill, who explains his strategy of targeting state lawmakers for defeat: “The strategic piece of the puzzle we’d been missing — consistent across almost every legislature we examined — is that it’s often just a handful of people, two or three, who introduce the most outrageous legislation and force the rest of their colleagues to vote on it. If you could reach these few people or neutralize them by flipping the chamber to leaders who would block bad legislation, you’d have a dramatic effect.”Gill had a list of 70 lawmakers targeted for defeat; it included Massachusetts representative Phil Travis (who ultimately resigned rather than seek reelection). Fifty of those Gill set out to unseat lost their jobs. He’s already at work on a much bigger list for 2008.

Romney Has NOT Shifted to Right on "Gay Rights"

The Boston Globe persists in portraying Gov. Mitt Romney as shifting to the right on "gay rights." That's because they refuse to discuss what he really accomplished for the "gay rights" movement: the implementation of homosexual "marriage" in Massachusetts, and the entrenchment of radical GLBT organizations in our public high schools.

While Scott Helman ("Romney's journey to the right," 12-17-06) grudgingly acknowledges MassResistance as the instigator of the ongoing national re-examination of Romney's positions, he does not seem to have digested the parts of our report outlining:

• Romney's role in homosexual "marriage";
• Romney's role pushing homosexuality in our public schools (through his "Governor's Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth"); and
• Romney's appointment of liberal and "gay" activists to administrative posts and judgeships (and leaving many judgeships open for Governor-elect Patrick to fill).

If this isn't forceful advocacy for the homosexual movement, we don't know what is!

In today's Herald, George Will's commentary, "Ghosts of comments past haunt McCain, Romney," also fixates on Romney's 1994 statements to the Log Cabin Republicans, and ignores these major problems with his record.

For now, it seems, we have to settle for the mainstream media's hyper-focus on Romney's 1994 statements and the abortion issue. But they cannot go on ignoring these major stories much longer. Eventually they'll be forced to notice (by his Republican primary opponents) that his advocacy and implementation of "gay rights" has extended throughout his tenure as Governor. Will the Globe then refer to such information as a "screed" from the McCain or Brownback campaign headquarters?