Thursday, June 8, 2006

Macy's Male Mannequins and Margery Eagan's Smear Tactics

Normal

Abnormal
Margery Eagan's smear of our mainstream group in today's Boston Herald once again makes us wonder if there's some profound, unresolved personal "issue" driving her vitriol. It makes us think of stories we've heard from crisis pregnancy center counselors, who have told us that this sort of anger and lashing out may be a sign of post-abortive guilt feelings that have never been properly dealt with. Just think: A quarter or more or all American women have had at least one abortion. This probably includes a disproportionate number of "liberal" women -- ACLU types, bitchy columnists -- who defend their "right" to kill babies.

It seems Margery is also confused over male-female physiology, and can't quite bring herself to admit that Macy's "gay" male mannequins do NOT exhibit normal pectoral muscles. (And she also seems to be strangely focused on Victoria's Secret mannequin breasts. Have they "undermined [her] confidence" in her own body? Why bring up Victoria's Secret in a discussion of radical homosexual propaganda?)

Margery asks how MassResistance learned about the Macy's Pride display. The answer is, in her own newspaper in
an article entitled "Pride and Joy" (June 1), pushing the glories of Pride Week on everyone.

Wednesday, June 7, 2006

MassResistance "Like Wet Paper"?

Mumbles Menino supporting diversity at an AIDS walk

The ever eloquent Boston Mayor Mumbles Menino slammed the mainstream supporters of MassResistance who dare to call his office to question the rainbow flag flying over Boston City Hall, or who demand that Macy's remove its window display of rainbow-skirt draped, breasted male mannequins.

Menino told Bay Windows that it was the "radical right wing" causing all the recent unpleasantness. “They call, but I treat them like they’re a piece of wet paper. They’ll disappear eventually. I don’t take them very seriously.”

MassResistance to Mumbles: No, we're NOT going to disappear! And it's hard to believe anyone has to take you seriously.
Mumbles can be reached at Boston City Hall: 617.635.4500

Tuesday, June 6, 2006

"Daddy is a Tranny" at "Boston Pride"

NOTE (6-13-06): The photos originally appearing in this posting have been removed as a courtesy to the innocent children involved. See our posting on 6-13-06 for further explanation. If you want to view the photos once posted here, go to:
Look for the two adults and children in the orange T-shirts. But who knows how long these links will remain active?
[original 6-6-06 posting:]
What really goes on at Boston Pride? One event is the "Boston Dyke March." Here are some photos from their 2004 event, of a "family" sanctioned by Governor Mitt Romney and Empress Margaret Marshall.

[XXX Censored photo]
Take a good look at "Daddy". Mommy thinks there's lots to smile about with their "cute" T-shirt slogans.
These photos are proudly posted on the Boston Dyke March website -- so we don't want to hear any complaints that WE are violating anyone's privacy!

[XXX Censored photo]
Shirt caption on woman on left reads: "Daddy is a Tranny"

[XXX Censored photo]
Shirt reads: "Kid of Queers." Are we having fun yet?
(Sticker on shirt reads: "This child supports MassEquality.")

Monday, June 5, 2006

Calling Reasonable People Bigots is Bigotry, Sen. Kennedy

Sen. Ted Kennedy is calling reasonable people -- who support the federal marriage amendement -- "bigots". This is bigotry on his part. (See his absurd editorial, "GOP Says 'I Do' to Bigotry" in the Boston Herald, 6-6-06.)

MassResistance doesn't even support the federal amendment. Among other problems, it doesn't ban civil unions. But Kennedy gets that wrong too! Nothing in the amendment stops states from establishing civil unions, domestic partnerships, whatever. Kennedy says:


Proponents use fear tactics and claim that marriage is under attack by activist judges. That’s simply not true. The country is divided over gay marriage; within the laws of each state, there is ongoing debate in which Congress should not intervene. A vote for this amendment is a vote for bigotry - pure and simple. A vote for it is a vote against civil unions, against domestic partnerships, and against efforts by states to treat gays and lesbians fairly under the law.

How is it a "fear tactic" or "bigotry" to discuss the effect of homosexual "marriage" on societal stability? This is the latest Democrat/liberal line: that conservatives are instilling "fear" and "being divisive" if they dare to question some bizarre idea that goes against millennia of tradition and common sense. And clearly the liberals aren't happy that America has awakened to the fact that they're getting their way only through the activist courts, so they're trying to deny that.

(Compare this to the welfare "debate". Was it a "fear tactic" to talk about the effect on children of fatherless homes? Was it "divisive" to question the wisdom of replacing responsible fathers with welfare checks? Well, yeah -- the liberals did manage to put a damper on this debate by labeling any questions "racist"! Even now there's an effort to squelch the understanding that the liberal "Great Society" led to the drug and crime problems in our inner cities.)

While we don't support the VoteOnMarriage amendement here in Massachusetts either, Kennedy should be ashamed of himself for falsely claiming that there is legitimate "ongoing debate". We all know that constitutional requirements and parliamentary rules are ignored by our state Legislature, at least concerning marriage amendments!

Gov. Romney Untrustworthy on Marriage Since 2004

A sure sign of a supposedly "pro-family" politician's unreliablity is his willingness to attend a same-sex "wedding."

A friend recently unearthed this item on Gov. Mitt Romney [as reported by WCVB Channel 5, just days before the phony "marriages" started in May 2004]:

Gov. Mitt Romney called on protesters to be respectful and hospitable to those getting married on Monday [May 17, 2004]. The state's most prominent opponent of gay marriages, Romney said he might attend same-sex wedding ceremonies in the future. But he declined the first invitation from radio personality Darrell Martini, known as the Cosmic Muffin. Romney said he had a scheduling conflict.

We've also heard that a former steadfast ally of the pro-family cause, State Senator Robert Hedlund (R - Weymouth), attended a "wedding" of two men, and told a constituent he's "under a lot of pressure" to vote against the marriage amendment. And State Rep. Garrett Bradley (D - Hingham) recently stated, "If two men or two women want to get married, that's okay with me." ("Battle Continues in Bay State Over Definition of Marriage," by Gail Besse, National Catholic Register, 5-21-06.)

Saturday, June 3, 2006

Prominent Blacks Expose Phony "Civil Rights" Argument by Homosexual Activists

The Weekly Standard just published a piece by Boston's own Rev. Eugene F. Rivers, and Kenneth D. Johnson, black Americans who see through the phony claim by homosexual propagandists that same-sex "marriage" is a "civil right." Logical and historically correct as their piece is, it will probably have little impact on radical homosexuals who are all about emotions and selfish desires, and irrational concerning the greater good of society.

From Same-Sex Marriage: Hijacking the Civil Rights Legacy:

"... [T]here is nothing invidious or discriminatory about laws that decline to treat all sexual wants or proclivities as equal."

The movement to redefine marriage to include same-sex unions has packaged its demands in the rhetoric and images of the civil rights movement.... As an exercise in marketing and merchandising, this strategy is the most brilliant playing of the race card in recent memory. Not since the "poverty pimps" of 35 years ago, who leveraged the guilt and sense of fair play of the American public to hustle affirmative action set-asides, have we witnessed so brazen a misuse of African-American history for partisan purposes....

As the eminent historian Eugene D. Genovese observed more than 30 years ago, the black American experience as a function of slavery is unique and without analogue in the history of the United States. While other ethnic and social groups have experienced discrimination and hardship, none of their experiences compare with the physical and cultural brutality of slavery....

Whatever wrongs individuals have suffered because some Americans fail in the basic moral obligation to love the sinner, even while hating the sin, there has never been an effort to create a subordinate class subject to exploitation based on "sexual orientation."

It is precisely the indiscriminate promotion of various social groups' desires and preferences as "rights" that has drained the moral authority from the civil rights industry. Let us consider the question of rights. What makes a gay activist's aspiration to overturn thousands of years of universally recognized morality and practice a "right"? ...

Friday, June 2, 2006

Genital Mutilation: Some Bad, Some Good?

Photo credit: Bay Windows
(Photo from the 2005 "Boston Dyke March" -- part of Pride Week -- which went through the Back Bay, featuring the female "Tranny Bois" marching down the street. Look very carefully. These are women who have had their breasts surgically removed, and are parading as "bois" with their chests bared.)

Genital Mutilation: Some Bad, Some Good?

The Boston Globe ran a story today (from the International Herald Tribune) on a study that shows "Genital cutting raises risk of childbirth mortality." It's about time we started seeing more discussion of this hideous practice of "female circumcision." But because the practice is African and/or Muslim, it's usually not touched by the liberal media. So this is a refreshing change.

Why can't our own culture start dealing honestly with the scandal of "sex-change" genital and breast mutilations? Why is modern America afraid to discuss the abomination of "sex reassignment" surgeries and hormone treatments? What are the long-term health effects on people electing the treatments? Why is the "transgender/transsexual" fad getting a free pass?