Catholic World News reported on Jan 12, "Pope rebukes Italian officials on civil-union proposal...". This is of special interest in light of the Mass. Catholic Bishops' support of the recently proposed "Benefits Fairness" bill they filed with VoteOnMarriage.org in our Mass. legislature.
"Pope Benedict stressed that 'marriage and the family are not a chance sociological construction.' On the contrary, he said, 'the right relationship between man and woman is rooted in the essential core of the human being,' and the state's recognition of that relationship is essential to the health of society. 'What we are talking about here are not norms peculiar to Catholic morality, but elementary truths about our shared humanity,' the Pope continued.
"In a clear reference to the proposal to recognize civil unions-- known as 'PACS' in Italy-- the Pontiff warned that it would be a 'grave error' to grant 'inappropriate forms of legal recognition, for which there is no real social need, to forms of union' other than marriage."
Friday, January 13, 2006
Thursday, January 12, 2006
Romney Violates Constitution on "Gay Marriage" - Part III of Haskins Series
Herewith, Part III of John Haskins' series on judicial tyranny and the Homosexual "Marriage" Ruling. (See "Gays Can't Answer: Where Is Statute Legalizing 'Gay Marriage'?", Part I and Part II below.)
Lawmaking by judges is explicitly illegal and non-binding. Void, null, without meaning, as Jefferson, Madison, Jackson, Lincoln, and many others said.
An oath by a public official to uphold a constitution is primarily an oath to block a creeping coup d'etat by the other branches or by the bureaucracy (or by another level of the local, state, federal system).
On the specifics of the Massachusetts situation: Laws have descriptive terminology in them that reveals the intent of the legislature. Massachusetts law has gender-specific language. This language is legally binding on everyone, including Supreme Court justices. Only the legislature, or the people themselves, can erase it.
If this were not true, judges could deconstruct every single law in existence and give it meanings unrelated to the legislature's intended meaning. Under whose definition would this be democracy? How many American soldiers have died to defend the right of judges to randomly rule over the ratified laws of elected representatives of the people? Zero, I think.
Governor Romney cannot give valid licenses to anyone that are not authorized by law. He is an "executive" sworn to execute only laws ratified by the Legislature within the strict boundaries of the constitutional document.
If a court rules that the state constitution compels that all red-headed boys be refused health care, is a governor to take their word for it or to pull out his copy of the constitution? His oath is not to a court's interpretation. It is to the constitution. Read Jefferson on this.
A governor has not merely the right, but an inescapable obligation to enforce the state constitution as written. Outside of those boundaries he becomes a tyrant -- maybe a handsome, smiley, affable tyrant, but a tyrant -- and no court can give him additional constitutional authority to wander. You may agree with the policy outcome and think him a benevolent tyrant, just as handsome as dictators come, but he nevertheless meets the Founding Fathers' definition of a tyrant.
So Romney violated the constitution by ignoring marriage law as ratified, simply because he was under "pressure" from a court and from the Boston Globe to ignore the law.
If marriage laws "need updating" (to use a loaded phrase that usually reveals a basic belief that laws and moral concepts have a "sell-by" date after which they are obsolete), the people, through their elected legislature or state ballot initiative, are the only ones with constitutional authority to annul or "update" laws.
This is endlessly re-stated -- and very forcefully -- in the language of the Founders and is the core of constitutional (republican) democracy. It is perhaps more explicitly formulated in the Massachusetts Constitution (written by John Adams) than anywhere else.
The point that people just don't get is that we are, sadly, in a post-constitutional phase of our political history. Many judges and legal scholars are frank about this off the record. My recent column,"No More Striking Down Constitutions" in the American Spectator, addresses this.
Lawyers do not even study constitutions in law school. They study case law -- precedent -- and their professors call that "constitutional law."
Aside from the three dissenting justices and the appellate court judge, those who have pointed out the raw tyranny of this ruling are simply not given much access to the media, even to the "establishment" conservative media.
As I recall, except for the overtly anti-constitutionalist Lawrence Tribe, the entirety of Harvard Law faculty who went on record rejected the courts' claimed right to impose any general policy on marriage. It's not rocket science.
Lawmaking by judges is explicitly illegal and non-binding. Void, null, without meaning, as Jefferson, Madison, Jackson, Lincoln, and many others said.
An oath by a public official to uphold a constitution is primarily an oath to block a creeping coup d'etat by the other branches or by the bureaucracy (or by another level of the local, state, federal system).
On the specifics of the Massachusetts situation: Laws have descriptive terminology in them that reveals the intent of the legislature. Massachusetts law has gender-specific language. This language is legally binding on everyone, including Supreme Court justices. Only the legislature, or the people themselves, can erase it.
If this were not true, judges could deconstruct every single law in existence and give it meanings unrelated to the legislature's intended meaning. Under whose definition would this be democracy? How many American soldiers have died to defend the right of judges to randomly rule over the ratified laws of elected representatives of the people? Zero, I think.
Governor Romney cannot give valid licenses to anyone that are not authorized by law. He is an "executive" sworn to execute only laws ratified by the Legislature within the strict boundaries of the constitutional document.
If a court rules that the state constitution compels that all red-headed boys be refused health care, is a governor to take their word for it or to pull out his copy of the constitution? His oath is not to a court's interpretation. It is to the constitution. Read Jefferson on this.
A governor has not merely the right, but an inescapable obligation to enforce the state constitution as written. Outside of those boundaries he becomes a tyrant -- maybe a handsome, smiley, affable tyrant, but a tyrant -- and no court can give him additional constitutional authority to wander. You may agree with the policy outcome and think him a benevolent tyrant, just as handsome as dictators come, but he nevertheless meets the Founding Fathers' definition of a tyrant.
So Romney violated the constitution by ignoring marriage law as ratified, simply because he was under "pressure" from a court and from the Boston Globe to ignore the law.
If marriage laws "need updating" (to use a loaded phrase that usually reveals a basic belief that laws and moral concepts have a "sell-by" date after which they are obsolete), the people, through their elected legislature or state ballot initiative, are the only ones with constitutional authority to annul or "update" laws.
This is endlessly re-stated -- and very forcefully -- in the language of the Founders and is the core of constitutional (republican) democracy. It is perhaps more explicitly formulated in the Massachusetts Constitution (written by John Adams) than anywhere else.
The point that people just don't get is that we are, sadly, in a post-constitutional phase of our political history. Many judges and legal scholars are frank about this off the record. My recent column,"No More Striking Down Constitutions" in the American Spectator, addresses this.
Lawyers do not even study constitutions in law school. They study case law -- precedent -- and their professors call that "constitutional law."
Aside from the three dissenting justices and the appellate court judge, those who have pointed out the raw tyranny of this ruling are simply not given much access to the media, even to the "establishment" conservative media.
As I recall, except for the overtly anti-constitutionalist Lawrence Tribe, the entirety of Harvard Law faculty who went on record rejected the courts' claimed right to impose any general policy on marriage. It's not rocket science.
Wednesday, January 11, 2006
Mass. Family Institute & VoteOnMarriage Advocate "New Rights"
The Mass. Family Institute (MFI), VoteOnMarriage.org, and Governor Romney today unveiled their inexplicable "Benefits Fairness" bill. It would "ensur[e] new rights, benefits and protections for adults ineligible for marriage" (their words in quotes). They first promised this bill when promoting their new marriage amendment last June.
The queer activists and MassResistance would agree that this is not a consistent plan: After allowing "marriage" to one group of homosexual couples, later offering only a "benefits" sop to homosexuals will be seen as second-class treatment, a withdrawal of a "right". Homosexuals either are or aren't equal in terms of "domestic" rights. There's no in-between. And if they are equal, why not let them "marry"?
And what, please, does "NEW RIGHTS" mean? We thought true rights were God-given, and that we simply figure out how to define and codify them. We don't make up "NEW RIGHTS"! (Though we may rectify improper denial of true rights, as in the abolition of slavery.) MassResistance first addressed this problem back in September 2005.
Our reaction to this bill is that it's disingenuous. While it's really all about special "rights" for homosexuals, our would-be allies are pretending it's about generic "rights" -- including for mythical groups that have never stormed the State House demanding their "rights". Has there ever been a march by non-next-of-kin groups ("interdependent mutually supportive relationships who are ineligible for marriage but who nevertheless would benefit from a status similar to next-of-kin status") -- other than queer activists?
From MFI's press release (Jan. 11, 2006):
"Newton Upper Falls, MA - VoteOnMarriage.org - the campaign to allow voters to decide on the definition of marriage in Massachusetts - today announced, along with a bi-partisan group of state legislators, the filing of the Benefits Fairness Act.
"The Benefits Fairness Act would ensure that citizens in the Commonwealth who are ineligible for marriage are afforded necessary rights, protections, and benefits not currently provided for under Massachusetts law.
"Specifically the Act entitles two Massachusetts adults who are ineligible for marriage to enter into a legal arrangement which provides for reciprocal hospital visitation, health care proxy designation, after-death decisions, inheritance and estate designation, and mental health decisions. The legislation also enables employers to include this new designation in their life, health and other benefits programs."
(See the complete MFI press release, and details on the bill.)
So, just as MFI-VoteOnMarriage did in their new proposed "protection of marriage" amendment (which lets existing homosexual "marriages" stand), they're again trying to placate the queer activists. But the very act of addressing this group implies an acquiescence to their demands for special "rights" -- when such demands aren't worthy of any response at all! This bill legitimizes homosexuality as a basis for a domestic relationships sanctioned by the state.
"The Act is strongly endorsed by VoteOnMarriage.org and the allied organizations that seek to define marriage in Massachusetts as the exclusive union of one man and one woman."
[...Except for those homosexual "marriages" solemnized by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts between May 17, 2004 and the date their amendment should take effect...]
" 'Do we have compassion for the needs of people? Absolutely! However the natural marriage relationship as it has been defined for millennia is fundamental, distinct and unique,' [except for that period between 5/17/04 and the amendment taking effect] said Kris Mineau, spokesman, VoteOnMarriage.org and president, Massachusetts Family Institute."
MassResistance does feel a little bad. We've gone back on our promise not to bring up our disagreement with the amendment again. But this benefits bill was just too much for us!
The queer activists and MassResistance would agree that this is not a consistent plan: After allowing "marriage" to one group of homosexual couples, later offering only a "benefits" sop to homosexuals will be seen as second-class treatment, a withdrawal of a "right". Homosexuals either are or aren't equal in terms of "domestic" rights. There's no in-between. And if they are equal, why not let them "marry"?
And what, please, does "NEW RIGHTS" mean? We thought true rights were God-given, and that we simply figure out how to define and codify them. We don't make up "NEW RIGHTS"! (Though we may rectify improper denial of true rights, as in the abolition of slavery.) MassResistance first addressed this problem back in September 2005.
Our reaction to this bill is that it's disingenuous. While it's really all about special "rights" for homosexuals, our would-be allies are pretending it's about generic "rights" -- including for mythical groups that have never stormed the State House demanding their "rights". Has there ever been a march by non-next-of-kin groups ("interdependent mutually supportive relationships who are ineligible for marriage but who nevertheless would benefit from a status similar to next-of-kin status") -- other than queer activists?
From MFI's press release (Jan. 11, 2006):
"Newton Upper Falls, MA - VoteOnMarriage.org - the campaign to allow voters to decide on the definition of marriage in Massachusetts - today announced, along with a bi-partisan group of state legislators, the filing of the Benefits Fairness Act.
"The Benefits Fairness Act would ensure that citizens in the Commonwealth who are ineligible for marriage are afforded necessary rights, protections, and benefits not currently provided for under Massachusetts law.
"Specifically the Act entitles two Massachusetts adults who are ineligible for marriage to enter into a legal arrangement which provides for reciprocal hospital visitation, health care proxy designation, after-death decisions, inheritance and estate designation, and mental health decisions. The legislation also enables employers to include this new designation in their life, health and other benefits programs."
(See the complete MFI press release, and details on the bill.)
So, just as MFI-VoteOnMarriage did in their new proposed "protection of marriage" amendment (which lets existing homosexual "marriages" stand), they're again trying to placate the queer activists. But the very act of addressing this group implies an acquiescence to their demands for special "rights" -- when such demands aren't worthy of any response at all! This bill legitimizes homosexuality as a basis for a domestic relationships sanctioned by the state.
"The Act is strongly endorsed by VoteOnMarriage.org and the allied organizations that seek to define marriage in Massachusetts as the exclusive union of one man and one woman."
[...Except for those homosexual "marriages" solemnized by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts between May 17, 2004 and the date their amendment should take effect...]
" 'Do we have compassion for the needs of people? Absolutely! However the natural marriage relationship as it has been defined for millennia is fundamental, distinct and unique,' [except for that period between 5/17/04 and the amendment taking effect] said Kris Mineau, spokesman, VoteOnMarriage.org and president, Massachusetts Family Institute."
MassResistance does feel a little bad. We've gone back on our promise not to bring up our disagreement with the amendment again. But this benefits bill was just too much for us!
Level of Discourse, Part V
Finally! We got answers to our question, "Where is the statute legalizing homosexual 'marriage'?" Here it is:
Dear [MassResistance]:
I CAN ANSWER YOUR QUESTION ... why is gay marriage legal. I am very surprised that you dont [sic] know. I though [sic] you had lawyer friends - like the one that helped you spy on those kids in school.
Well, anyone that [sic] has studied law at all (even a beginners [sic] class) know [sic] this..... It is not hard at all. Find a lawyer (a real lawyer, not some scam lawyer like you usually find). The answer that everyone understands, including High school [sic] children I am sure, [sic] is.... I still cant [sic] believe that you dont [sic] know this!!! HAHAHAHHAH!!!
The answer is Judicial review! DUH! Read a law book!!!
HAHAHHA! You guys are GREAT for a laugh! I show my friends your blog and they laugh too, wondering how anyone could not know this basic legal information!
This person has been communicating with us for some time now. We hope it gives him/her/? satisfaction seeing his/her/? brilliant thoughts published.
And here's another answer we received:
looking at your blog - gays cant answer why gay marriage is legal. Who cares!!! We have won! Marriage discrimination is over in Massachusetts because the SJC said so. That is it! Final! Who cares why! All I care is that I can marry my boyfriend and get the same rights as my parents. I dont care why it is legal, it just is. And that is a wonderful thing!
Dear [MassResistance]:
I CAN ANSWER YOUR QUESTION ... why is gay marriage legal. I am very surprised that you dont [sic] know. I though [sic] you had lawyer friends - like the one that helped you spy on those kids in school.
Well, anyone that [sic] has studied law at all (even a beginners [sic] class) know [sic] this..... It is not hard at all. Find a lawyer (a real lawyer, not some scam lawyer like you usually find). The answer that everyone understands, including High school [sic] children I am sure, [sic] is.... I still cant [sic] believe that you dont [sic] know this!!! HAHAHAHHAH!!!
The answer is Judicial review! DUH! Read a law book!!!
HAHAHHA! You guys are GREAT for a laugh! I show my friends your blog and they laugh too, wondering how anyone could not know this basic legal information!
This person has been communicating with us for some time now. We hope it gives him/her/? satisfaction seeing his/her/? brilliant thoughts published.
And here's another answer we received:
looking at your blog - gays cant answer why gay marriage is legal. Who cares!!! We have won! Marriage discrimination is over in Massachusetts because the SJC said so. That is it! Final! Who cares why! All I care is that I can marry my boyfriend and get the same rights as my parents. I dont care why it is legal, it just is. And that is a wonderful thing!
Tuesday, January 10, 2006
"Gays" Can't Answer: Is "Gay Marriage" Legal? Part II
A few days ago, we posted the first part of John Haskins' response to the queer activists' feeble attempt to answer our question: where is the statute legalizing homosexual "marriage"?
Here is Part II of John Haskins' response (and there's more to come...):
In the spirit of friendship, here are some gifts to those who dedicate their days and nights to ensure that no American child a generation from now will have the faintest clue what it was like when children were allowed to be children and learn of the human family, sexuality, and morality in the manner and definitions that formed their civilization -- Some crib notes on Beacon Hill's homosexual marriage scam (and remember the Boston Globe doesn't get to mark the final examination):
Laws forbid things not only explicitly but implicitly. Laws usually implicitly forbid far more than they explicitly forbid. Existing Massachusetts marriage law HAS gender-specific language which implicitly requires one husband and one wife to fulfill the two enumerated categories of the contract. The language in those laws remains binding. Judges can't tinker with it. Period.
Judges can't just cynically conjure up bizarre new meanings agreed upon at their last cocktail party to (as with Roe v Wade) and ignore actual ratified language in other laws (like Massachusetts marriage law) because they don't like what they mean. That's how the Soviets practiced "jurisprudence:" making it up as they went along, despite what is said to have been a beautiful and glorious Soviet constitution.
Under the Massachusetts constitution, judges have no authority to strike down any law, to change its meaning -- or to order the two elected branches to do anything. When an attorney argues otherwise he is arguing not from the state constitution, but mindlessly importing dubious legal theories on the United States Constitution that do not apply to the Massachusetts Constitution, because the state constitution forcefully rejects judicial policymaking in multiple ways.
Our state constitution explicitly denies the court ANY jurisdiction over marriage -- as the three dissenting justices and an appellate court forcefully pointed out. Whatever opinions on marriage they might issue are categorically illegal rulings, thus non-binding.
(Are we having fun yet?)
Moreover, even if the state constitution did not totally deny judges a voice in marriage, the ruling could only apply to the specific plaintiff in the case, because the state constitution says the people are "not bound by any law not ratified by their elected representatives in the legislature." Even if a Massachusetts court ruling were "law" it would not be binding on the people outside the courtroom. READ the state constitution! We were established as an elective democracy through the bloody sacrifices of American soldiers who would never have died for a Judge's or a cowardly Governor's right to overrule democracy and the constitution in one fell swoop. The state's fundamental legal document denies courts ANY binding role in shaping policy. They sit under the law, never over it.
(Are we having fun now?)
The reasons go on and on. There is no way around them. They are fatal problems for the homosexual "marriage" cause, as more than one judge and attorney has pointed out. Read my article, 'Conservative' Romney buckles and blunders, then study the relevant portions of the Massachusetts Constitution and it will dawn on you that in at least four different ways these homosexual "marriages" exist only outside the law. Void. Null. Illegal. A political fantasy. Well -- that's if constitutions count when they negate left-wing agendas.
Here is Part II of John Haskins' response (and there's more to come...):
In the spirit of friendship, here are some gifts to those who dedicate their days and nights to ensure that no American child a generation from now will have the faintest clue what it was like when children were allowed to be children and learn of the human family, sexuality, and morality in the manner and definitions that formed their civilization -- Some crib notes on Beacon Hill's homosexual marriage scam (and remember the Boston Globe doesn't get to mark the final examination):
Laws forbid things not only explicitly but implicitly. Laws usually implicitly forbid far more than they explicitly forbid. Existing Massachusetts marriage law HAS gender-specific language which implicitly requires one husband and one wife to fulfill the two enumerated categories of the contract. The language in those laws remains binding. Judges can't tinker with it. Period.
Judges can't just cynically conjure up bizarre new meanings agreed upon at their last cocktail party to (as with Roe v Wade) and ignore actual ratified language in other laws (like Massachusetts marriage law) because they don't like what they mean. That's how the Soviets practiced "jurisprudence:" making it up as they went along, despite what is said to have been a beautiful and glorious Soviet constitution.
Under the Massachusetts constitution, judges have no authority to strike down any law, to change its meaning -- or to order the two elected branches to do anything. When an attorney argues otherwise he is arguing not from the state constitution, but mindlessly importing dubious legal theories on the United States Constitution that do not apply to the Massachusetts Constitution, because the state constitution forcefully rejects judicial policymaking in multiple ways.
Our state constitution explicitly denies the court ANY jurisdiction over marriage -- as the three dissenting justices and an appellate court forcefully pointed out. Whatever opinions on marriage they might issue are categorically illegal rulings, thus non-binding.
(Are we having fun yet?)
Moreover, even if the state constitution did not totally deny judges a voice in marriage, the ruling could only apply to the specific plaintiff in the case, because the state constitution says the people are "not bound by any law not ratified by their elected representatives in the legislature." Even if a Massachusetts court ruling were "law" it would not be binding on the people outside the courtroom. READ the state constitution! We were established as an elective democracy through the bloody sacrifices of American soldiers who would never have died for a Judge's or a cowardly Governor's right to overrule democracy and the constitution in one fell swoop. The state's fundamental legal document denies courts ANY binding role in shaping policy. They sit under the law, never over it.
(Are we having fun now?)
The reasons go on and on. There is no way around them. They are fatal problems for the homosexual "marriage" cause, as more than one judge and attorney has pointed out. Read my article, 'Conservative' Romney buckles and blunders, then study the relevant portions of the Massachusetts Constitution and it will dawn on you that in at least four different ways these homosexual "marriages" exist only outside the law. Void. Null. Illegal. A political fantasy. Well -- that's if constitutions count when they negate left-wing agendas.
Monday, January 9, 2006
"Gay" Activists Will Use "Any Means Necessary"
The queer activists at MassEquality and KnowThyNeighbor made charges of fraudulent signatures on the VoteOnMarriage.org marriage petition, but the deadline for filing formal complaints with the Secretary of State has past, and no complaints were filed! After KnowThyNeighbor made fools of themselves on the O'Reilly Factor last week, we now read that MassEquality hasn't been able to come up with the goods they promised either.
Some conservatives (including yours truly) are not personally allied with this particular marriage amendment proposal. Nevertheless, we believe in an honest political process. But clearly, the queer activists do not. Here is what the homosexual newspaper Bay Windows' editorial has to say about the new marriage petition (Editorial: "2006 To Do List", Jan. 5 issue). Note that they plan to take down the amendment "through any means necessary"and "through procedural maneuvering" in the Legislature (key to that being Senate President Travaglini):
The most crucial fight this year is the campaign to defeat the constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. MassEquality is leading the charge to squash this amendment, which is expected to come before the Legislature this spring or summer. A date will most likely be set during the May 10 constitutional convention. But the odds are stacked against defeat of this amendment. As a citizen-petition amendment, it only needs the support of one quarter of lawmakers in two successive sessions to wind up on the ballot, and even with MassEquality’s electoral successes in the last few years, VoteOnMarriage.org, the proponents of the amendment, should have no trouble getting enough votes.
Between now and the ConCon, legislators need to hear from you, your family, your friends and anyone else who cares about LGBT equality. Let them know that they need to stop this amendment by any means necessary, whether that means pulling together a supermajority to vote it down or killing it through procedural maneuvering before it comes up for a vote. You and your friends must also contact Senate President Robert Travaglini. As the man who holds the gavel at the ConCon, Travaglini will be instrumental in the success of any parliamentary quashing of the amendment.
Maybe the procedural maneuvering will include using House Bill H653, which was filed by Article 8 Alliance back in Dec. 2004 to define marriage in statute (one man, one woman). Openly "gay" Sen. Barrios somehow maneuvered our bill into a constitutional amendment proposal last year! (No one quite understands how or why he did this, though we suspected at the time he was positioning it for future use -- possibly to block the VoteOnMarriage citizens' petition amendment.) Only time will tell.
Here's the Mass. Family Institute's email alert today (1-9-06) on the signature issue:
VoteOnMarriage.org Seeks Investigation of Anti-Vote Websites and Prosecution of Paid Circulator; No Formal Challenges Filed by Signature Opponents
Newton Upper Falls, MA - VoteOnMarriage.org - the campaign to allow voters to decide on the definition of marriage in Massachusetts - today issued a letter to Secretary of the Commonwealth William Galvin with a copy to Attorney General Thomas Reilly regarding complaints and practices related to the campaigns for and against the marriage-vote effort.
The letter details that VoteOnMarriage.org sought to comply fully with all applicable laws during the signature gathering process and had been found in full compliance by the Attorney General. However, the only case of fraud of which VoteOneMarriage.org is aware - the admission before a legislative committee and to the media by paid circulator Angela McElroy that she misrepresented the marriage petition in potentially 269 cases - has yet to be investigated by authorities.
VoteOnMarriage.org calls on the proper authorities to prosecute this and any other circulator who intentionally misrepresented the petition. (Of note, VoteOnMarriage.org's sub-contracted agent dismissed Ms. McElroy from her employment, with cause, prior to her public admission.) VoteOnMarriage.org pledges to cooperate fully in any investigation and welcomes the opportunity to bring to justice anyone who has violated the law.
The letter also raises grave concerns about the legitimacy of petition complaint reporting processes established by the anti-vote organizations KnowThyNeighbor.org and MassEquality.org. Both organizations offer searchable, online databases listing the names of marriage petition signers. Each website invites citizens to search their database and make a complaint to their office and/or to the offices of Secretary Galvin, Attorney General Reilly and state legislators if their name was listed but they did not wish to sign the petition.
While VoteOnMarriage.org respects the First Amendment rights of these organizations, their online complaint process itself invites fraud in that it fails to authenticate the identity of the citizens filing complaints. Any person may pose as a disgruntled marriage petition signer, in essence stealing a legitimate signer's identity, and lodge a fallacious complaint of fraud.
In addition, VoteOnMarriage.org has received a significant number of contacts from petition signers who themselves have received harassing and intimidating live and automated phone calls, as well as mailings, from MassEquality. As has been cited in media reports, these citizens have been frightened that their identities have been stolen and believe the calls and letters are intended to harass and intimidate them - a clear civil rights violation.
"We have no objection to efforts to expose as-of-yet unknown instances of alleged fraud, however, we do object to the manner in which they are carrying out their anti-vote campaign," said Kris Mineau, spokesman VoteOnMarriage.org and president, Massachusetts Family Institute.
VoteOnMarriage.org calls on Secretary Galvin and Attorney General Reilly to take appropriate action to protect petition signers from online, telephone and direct mail threats against their civil liberties, personal safety and security.
The deadline period for filing complaints with the Election's Division of the Secretary of the Commonwealth's office related to the petition process was January 6. No formal challenges to the VoteOnMarriage.org signature-gathering effort were filed.
Some conservatives (including yours truly) are not personally allied with this particular marriage amendment proposal. Nevertheless, we believe in an honest political process. But clearly, the queer activists do not. Here is what the homosexual newspaper Bay Windows' editorial has to say about the new marriage petition (Editorial: "2006 To Do List", Jan. 5 issue). Note that they plan to take down the amendment "through any means necessary"and "through procedural maneuvering" in the Legislature (key to that being Senate President Travaglini):
The most crucial fight this year is the campaign to defeat the constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. MassEquality is leading the charge to squash this amendment, which is expected to come before the Legislature this spring or summer. A date will most likely be set during the May 10 constitutional convention. But the odds are stacked against defeat of this amendment. As a citizen-petition amendment, it only needs the support of one quarter of lawmakers in two successive sessions to wind up on the ballot, and even with MassEquality’s electoral successes in the last few years, VoteOnMarriage.org, the proponents of the amendment, should have no trouble getting enough votes.
Between now and the ConCon, legislators need to hear from you, your family, your friends and anyone else who cares about LGBT equality. Let them know that they need to stop this amendment by any means necessary, whether that means pulling together a supermajority to vote it down or killing it through procedural maneuvering before it comes up for a vote. You and your friends must also contact Senate President Robert Travaglini. As the man who holds the gavel at the ConCon, Travaglini will be instrumental in the success of any parliamentary quashing of the amendment.
Maybe the procedural maneuvering will include using House Bill H653, which was filed by Article 8 Alliance back in Dec. 2004 to define marriage in statute (one man, one woman). Openly "gay" Sen. Barrios somehow maneuvered our bill into a constitutional amendment proposal last year! (No one quite understands how or why he did this, though we suspected at the time he was positioning it for future use -- possibly to block the VoteOnMarriage citizens' petition amendment.) Only time will tell.
Here's the Mass. Family Institute's email alert today (1-9-06) on the signature issue:
VoteOnMarriage.org Seeks Investigation of Anti-Vote Websites and Prosecution of Paid Circulator; No Formal Challenges Filed by Signature Opponents
Newton Upper Falls, MA - VoteOnMarriage.org - the campaign to allow voters to decide on the definition of marriage in Massachusetts - today issued a letter to Secretary of the Commonwealth William Galvin with a copy to Attorney General Thomas Reilly regarding complaints and practices related to the campaigns for and against the marriage-vote effort.
The letter details that VoteOnMarriage.org sought to comply fully with all applicable laws during the signature gathering process and had been found in full compliance by the Attorney General. However, the only case of fraud of which VoteOneMarriage.org is aware - the admission before a legislative committee and to the media by paid circulator Angela McElroy that she misrepresented the marriage petition in potentially 269 cases - has yet to be investigated by authorities.
VoteOnMarriage.org calls on the proper authorities to prosecute this and any other circulator who intentionally misrepresented the petition. (Of note, VoteOnMarriage.org's sub-contracted agent dismissed Ms. McElroy from her employment, with cause, prior to her public admission.) VoteOnMarriage.org pledges to cooperate fully in any investigation and welcomes the opportunity to bring to justice anyone who has violated the law.
The letter also raises grave concerns about the legitimacy of petition complaint reporting processes established by the anti-vote organizations KnowThyNeighbor.org and MassEquality.org. Both organizations offer searchable, online databases listing the names of marriage petition signers. Each website invites citizens to search their database and make a complaint to their office and/or to the offices of Secretary Galvin, Attorney General Reilly and state legislators if their name was listed but they did not wish to sign the petition.
While VoteOnMarriage.org respects the First Amendment rights of these organizations, their online complaint process itself invites fraud in that it fails to authenticate the identity of the citizens filing complaints. Any person may pose as a disgruntled marriage petition signer, in essence stealing a legitimate signer's identity, and lodge a fallacious complaint of fraud.
In addition, VoteOnMarriage.org has received a significant number of contacts from petition signers who themselves have received harassing and intimidating live and automated phone calls, as well as mailings, from MassEquality. As has been cited in media reports, these citizens have been frightened that their identities have been stolen and believe the calls and letters are intended to harass and intimidate them - a clear civil rights violation.
"We have no objection to efforts to expose as-of-yet unknown instances of alleged fraud, however, we do object to the manner in which they are carrying out their anti-vote campaign," said Kris Mineau, spokesman VoteOnMarriage.org and president, Massachusetts Family Institute.
VoteOnMarriage.org calls on Secretary Galvin and Attorney General Reilly to take appropriate action to protect petition signers from online, telephone and direct mail threats against their civil liberties, personal safety and security.
The deadline period for filing complaints with the Election's Division of the Secretary of the Commonwealth's office related to the petition process was January 6. No formal challenges to the VoteOnMarriage.org signature-gathering effort were filed.
Sunday, January 8, 2006
More on "Love Won Out" Ex-Gay Conference in Boston
We were there: MassResistance broke the story to the nation on the near-riot instigated by the radical queer activists (and their anti-war, anti-American Leftist allies) against the ex-gay conference in Boston last October 30. We published the photos, we reported the story. The organizers of the conference in fact tried to prevent us from leaving the building to observe the action on the street, and then tried to keep us from snapping photos and recording the sound (yes, we did that too!).
Then, we well remember the efforts (by conference organizers and hosts) immediately after the conference to downplay the shocking "demonstration", the efforts to "SHUT IT DOWN!" -- to disrupt the conference, and perhaps storm the church.
We suspect that the organizers and their hosts didn't appreciate the significance of the near-riot at first. So we are happy to see they apparently have come to a clearer understanding. Two reports have just surfaced from Focus on the Family with details on what actually happened that day.
First, Focus on the Family's magazine, Citizen Link -- which uses our photo -- reports on the "vitriol" of the demonstrators: "Hate meets hope in Boston" (Jan. 2006):
Their shouts echoed up the canyon-like walls of the buildings on either side: Many made obscene gestures at people watching from inside. A row of shoulder-to-shoulder police officers guarded the church doors from the threatening mob.
Allison Silva, a member of MassEquality, stood near an upright coffin bearing a sign that equated the conference with death.
“What they’re doing is causing suicides,” she said. “It’s causing people (to have) severe mental illness after they’ve gone through treatment that is not successful. Being gay is natural. Homosexuality is natural. It’s just a part of everyone’s life.”
Ashlee Reed, director of Project 10 East, said the conference was “not acceptable.”
“Groups such as these that have programs where they attempt to change people and attempt to make people into something they’re not—it’s a form of bullying,” she said.
Our report included a photo of a poster from the demonstration, which read:
James Dobson:
Racist
Sexist
Anti-gay
The Citizen Link column explains the absurdity of this poster. Besides equating racism with opposition to special "rights" for homosexuals, this poster shows an ignorance of the history of the special church, Boston's Tremont Temple, which hosted the conference.
The church is no stranger to controversy. Though one sign tagged the conference as “racist,” Tremont Temple was the first racially integrated church in America. It was part of the Underground Railroad. It’s where the Emancipation Proclamation was first read in New England. All of that in the face of great opposition.
Pendleton [pastor of the church] said taking a stand for truth ultimately brings people together, including teaching a biblical view of homosexuality.
“I think having such a strong, positive, loving, redemptive message is something that unites a church,” he said. “And that’s what I’m about.”
Then, we well remember the efforts (by conference organizers and hosts) immediately after the conference to downplay the shocking "demonstration", the efforts to "SHUT IT DOWN!" -- to disrupt the conference, and perhaps storm the church.
We suspect that the organizers and their hosts didn't appreciate the significance of the near-riot at first. So we are happy to see they apparently have come to a clearer understanding. Two reports have just surfaced from Focus on the Family with details on what actually happened that day.
First, Focus on the Family's magazine, Citizen Link -- which uses our photo -- reports on the "vitriol" of the demonstrators: "Hate meets hope in Boston" (Jan. 2006):
Their shouts echoed up the canyon-like walls of the buildings on either side: Many made obscene gestures at people watching from inside. A row of shoulder-to-shoulder police officers guarded the church doors from the threatening mob.
Allison Silva, a member of MassEquality, stood near an upright coffin bearing a sign that equated the conference with death.
“What they’re doing is causing suicides,” she said. “It’s causing people (to have) severe mental illness after they’ve gone through treatment that is not successful. Being gay is natural. Homosexuality is natural. It’s just a part of everyone’s life.”
Ashlee Reed, director of Project 10 East, said the conference was “not acceptable.”
“Groups such as these that have programs where they attempt to change people and attempt to make people into something they’re not—it’s a form of bullying,” she said.
Our report included a photo of a poster from the demonstration, which read:
James Dobson:
Racist
Sexist
Anti-gay
The Citizen Link column explains the absurdity of this poster. Besides equating racism with opposition to special "rights" for homosexuals, this poster shows an ignorance of the history of the special church, Boston's Tremont Temple, which hosted the conference.
The church is no stranger to controversy. Though one sign tagged the conference as “racist,” Tremont Temple was the first racially integrated church in America. It was part of the Underground Railroad. It’s where the Emancipation Proclamation was first read in New England. All of that in the face of great opposition.
Pendleton [pastor of the church] said taking a stand for truth ultimately brings people together, including teaching a biblical view of homosexuality.
“I think having such a strong, positive, loving, redemptive message is something that unites a church,” he said. “And that’s what I’m about.”
Second, Dr. James Dobson's radio broadcast interviewed Mike Haley, one of the main ex-gay speakers of the conference, on his radio show on December 27. Haley described the demonstration:
Dobson: You were just in Boston, and there was an unbelievable protest there. Tell us how that happened.
Haley: Well, absolutely. The same day that we had planned our Love Won Out conference, there was also a protest – an anti-war protest with Cindy Sheehan. Well, they had joined sides. We had two thousand protesters in front of our event. About 10-12 policemen shoulder-to-shoulder blocking the entrance of the church. It was just an incredible episode. One of the things that we realized as we looked out on the protesters was the amount of venom that they had for the message…
Dobson: Were they screaming?
Haley: Screaming: “Shut it down! Shut Focus down! Shut it down! Shut this church down!
Dobson: You told us even the police were shaken.
Haley: Absolutely. Dan Patterson, who comes with us on all of our events said that after he was able to talk with some of the policemen that were there -- He said they were visibly shaken and said that absolutely, if they had not been there, they would have stormed the church.
Dobson: How many people were inside?
Haley: We had 900 people in attendance, and that was in Boston....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)