Rally for Marriage, Boston Common

Self | Feb 8, 2004 | Self

[Little Bill]

I arrived at the Rally for Marriage at 2:30 while Don Feder was speaking missing the first speaker. The crowd was impressive, best guess would be about 3000- 3500, a good draw for a twenty degree day with a wind chill of below 0.

Across Tremont Street a group of sodomites, lesbians, and other off brands, about 125 or so, were cluttering up the sidewalk waving the fag flag and signs complaining about discrimination and despoiling the constitution, yeah.

I met JMT576 and his uncle and we desided to walk around, take some pictures for posting, and generally get a feel for what was going on. The crowd very diverse black, white, oriential and very well ordered, the cops kept a tight lid on disrupters of which there were a few.

I didn't pay a lot of attention to the speakers after Feder, they would be preaching to the converted, I will say that Ray Flynn did a good job running the Rally, it was the first time I have seen him without a Bud in his hand.

The high point of the Rally was Archbishop O'Malley, you could feel the fear and loathing eminating from the State House. The Rally broke up after that, very well done.

[longtermmemmory]

As a statutory creation civil unions under the law will recieve very narrow interpritation. Unlike the Marriage which existed under common law, any item which exists as a statory creature has to have very finite boundaries.

This happened in the 11th circuit court of appeals when the Feds upheld the FL ban on homosexuals adopting children. The homosexuals challenging the law could only rise to the lowest test for upholding the law. This was their last challenge after being beaten back twice in the FL SC.

Plus, if the civil union is adopted it will have to open to normal couples who just live together. Before the civil unions may have been marriage without the "m" word, but thanks to the arrogance of the Mass Judge, she judicially declared civil unions second class status to marriage.

This also becomes a litmus test for future politicians. Civil unions can be abolished in a blink. Many states have said they do not recognize common law marriages entered into after a certain date.

First Marriage is one man one woman, then kick GLSEN out of the Mass public schools, then work on minimizing and then abolishing civil unions.

[longtermmemmory]

oops forgot to mention aoption does not exist at common law. It is a wholey statutory creation. Thus it is severly limited in its scope of interpritation by courts.

[longtermmemmory]

well that is just wrong. They adopted that already?

If they have not, I hope they do not. It makes civil union just another civil marriage.

ok now I am depressed.

[longtermmemmory]

the only solutions at this point is 1. sue under some federal court theory and get a stay. 2. stop issuing marriage licenses to anyone thus all are equal, or 3. SJC is conviced to stay their order pending a vote. (not going to happen)

Then you will have two years of anecdotal stories of don't hurt my feeeeeeeelings.

The only solution for all states and jurisdictions ithe a federal amendment.

[longtermmemmory]

will GLSEN demand homosexuality become mandatory?(/s)

[Aquinasfan]

On the NECN story, there were no wide-angle shots of the homosexual side, which would have shown them to be no more than 100 in strength. Their strength was estimated at "hundreds". Total crowd size, pro-gay and pro-marriage, was estimated at 2,000. It is obvious from the shots of the crowd that at least 5,000 people were in attendance at the pro-marriage side of the rally. And Little Bill's photography clearly shows that no more than 100 pro-gay activists showed up on the steps of the Episcopal Cathedral.

Am I surprised? No. This is standard media protocol. This is the same photographic tactic that is used every year at the March for Life.

We have to do what we can, and leave the rest to God, although complaints to the local media won't hurt either. I was there with my two daughters, 6 and 8. I told them that we were going to see the bishop speak, which we did. Fortunately, I didn't have to explain the purpose of the rally. How could I tell them that we were going to demonstrate in support of marriage between one man and one woman? Then I thought, think of the children who will be raised by two men or two women. It's tragic.

Although there were a lot of pro-marriage demonstrators, the crowd size pales in comparison to the crowd that showed up at the Patriots rally. It was also pretty pathetic to see an enormous Patriots banner covering the front of the State House. We get the government we deserve.

[Aquinasfan]

That says that they are very much planning to adopt civil unions at some point, probably with all the trappings of marriage save the name. And that's too much for me; explicit legislative sanction of homosexuality crosses the line into complicity. We can't declare victory after the amendment is passed; we need to go after the pro-gay politicians, keep the pressure on the justices and get to the bottom of the Globe's role in all this. Otherwise we'll have de facto gay marriage within five years, and this whole fight will be nothing more than a prudish footnote on history's march to degeneracy.

I'd say that you're exactly right. I see mainly indifference here in Mass.

[RepubMommy]

are there any threads with photos of the rally?

[american colleen]

It was also pretty pathetic to see an enormous Patriots banner covering the front of the State House.

Being naturally cynical, that (huge) banner and the thought of the Patriots crowd occurred to me as well. OTOH, the Pat's rally was held on a workday and a lot of people were already in Boston unlike on a Sunday when it is basically empty except for tourists.

Lots of priests were around yesterday... that boyed me somewhat.

[american colleen]

I was really amazed at the turnout because it was COLD, COLD, COLD here yesterday. What impressed me (and my daughter - son is clueless, too young) is that we were standing on the same spot that the colonists stood on over 200 years ago to protest tyranny... those same guys are buried a stone's throw from this particular area.

No matter why we oppose gay marriage (religious or secular reasons) this idea of legislating from the bench and having four judges create laws should be an affront to any thinking American.

The chant "Let the people vote" was very prevalent all during the rally which closed with a hearty rendition of "God Bless America."

[NYer]

From Bettnet blog:

I attended the rally for marriage on Boston Common this afternoon and while I'm often skeptical of the effectiveness of rallies, I was impressed with this one. Although it was one of the coldest days of the year, with a very cold wind chill caused by heavy winds, there was still a decent turnout. If it had been a warm spring day in May, the crowd would have been huge. As it was, the organizers estimated 2,000- 3,000 people and I think that’s about right. There were counter-demonstrators as well, of course. Across Tremont Street, a few hundred people gathered on the steps of a (non-Catholic) church for a counter-rally and about a dozen of them carrying signs stood directly behind the podium of our rally. Their signs said things like "Shame on you Sean" (referring to Archbishop O'Malley) and other hate-filled rantings. It's ironic that we're the ones accused of hatred, but it's the other side that manifested it. Meanwhile one speaker noted the irony that while we had several American flags spread throughout the crowd, the counter-protestors only brought their rainbow flags. We're fighting for our democracy and our nation's best interests. They're interested in their own individuals wants and desires.

To counter the signs behind the podium, the Knights of Columbus carrying the US, Vatican, and K of C flags, as well as groups of individuals made their way back there to stand in front of them. They were not treated kindly. One woman, a regular reader here, said she and her 65-year-old mother were mocked and insulted, heckled and called bigots. So much for the forces of compassion.

The picture to the right shows the warm up act. Local Catholic musician Bernie Choiniere and his band performed some songs before the event to keep everybody's blood pumping. One impression I had was that some people kept forgetting that even though the rally was organized by the "Your Catholic Voice" organization, it was an ecumenical gathering. A lot of references were made to the Catholics in the crowd, until someone told them to widen the application of their exhortations. A lot of groups were present: The seminarians from St. John’s Seminary were present with a large sign and a banner which they held in front of the counter-protesters, garnering a lot of abuse no doubt. I also saw plenty of Knights, the America First Party of Massachusetts, and the American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family, and Property. Interestingly enough, there wasn't a single indentifiable group from Voice of the Faithful. I guess they only show up in organized ranks to protest in favor of their liberal agenda.

The speakers were very good. Fr. Tim Murphy gave the opening prayer and was followed by the introduction of four of the legislators who are sponsoring the constitutional amendment. The point they made, and which was repeated often, was that all we're asking is for the people to be allowed to decide whether to throw out a 5,000-year-old institution that spans all cultures and religions, rather than have it imposed on us by an unelected slate of judges. The chairman of the event, Phil Moran, welcomed the counter-protestors and said their presence proved our point that all we want is to have a public debate and a chance for the people of the Commonwealth to vote.

I have to say that I'm a little uncomfortable with that language. It implies that if a majority of people vote in favor of gay marriage, it somehow makes it permissible and valid. It's the same reasoning that Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia gives when he says that if a majority of Americans voted for a law legalizing abortion, he'd uphold it. I'm no constitutional scholar, but I believe that it is possible to pass an amendment that would undermine the very fabric of the constitution and the society it is designed to protect and thus should not and could not be allowed.

To be fair, most of the speakers reiterated that gay marriage undermines the foundation of society, that it destroys the legal understanding of marriage's role in civilization, and that the constitution, in the words of John Adams, who authored the Massachusetts Constitution, is made for a moral and religious people, and is wholly inadequate for any other kind of people. Ray Flynn, president of the national Your Catholic Voice organization spoke, then a number of others including the president of Concerned Women for America—with 500,000 members, it's the largest women's public policy organization, much bigger than NOW—and Tony Perkins of Family Research Council. Both were excellent. Don Feder, the conservative Jewish syndicated columnist who used to write for the Boston Herald, received a rousing welcome and he provided quite a few neat turns of phrase. At the end was Archbishop Sean O'Malley. He's a very different kind of bishop. Most bishops show up to public events in their best black suits, as dapper as the politicians, head intentionally uncovered so as not to be mussed when interviewed on TV. The archbishop looked very much like a Franciscan would: black knit hat and a brown overcoat to match his brown habit. He was quite elegant if not as forceful and rousing as the others. He did recall that some accuse us hatred, when it is not hatred that impels us, but love and a desire to do what is in the common interest and benefits the common good. Protecting marriage benefits gay people, even if they don't realize it.

The event ended on time, we headed back to our bus and came home. The news reports I saw weren't bad. The local ABC affiliate said there were "hundreds" at the rally. The national broadcast was more accurate with the 2 to 3 thousand figure.

Catholic Ping - let me know if you want on/off this list

[Aquinasfan]

Thanks for posting this report. It's a great one. I thought the following line was especially humorous.

there wasn't a single indentifiable group from Voice of the Faithful.

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

The secular state should not be in the business of promoting weird modern half-assed ideology, derived from half-baked nouveau sociology and psychobabble. The anatomy of sodomy doesn't work as a "marriage." Marriage in the West has been a religious institution which forms the basis of society and civilization through the production and raising of CHILDREN in a family. That's what a marriage is. If you look at the history of civil and canon law regarding marriage the procreative aspects are essential and integral, property law, inheritance, etc., the welfare and protection of wives and children. This is what it has been all about. It's not about buggery. For the state to try to force everyone, every business, every employer, and every social institution, including churches, church schools, and church hospitals to provide medical and financial benefits to promote sodomy is ABSURD.

Marriage has always involved the union of man and woman in common affection, together with their offspring. It's at the essential core of human identity. A sodomy relationship is not comparable. Thisn episode has been a misadventure in liberal gnostic fantasy. Americans by and large will never accept it or tolerate it.

[longtermmemmory]

(s)But its now about feeelings. If two beings love each other, they should be alowed to have their feeeelings validated by the public in a marriage. It is a marriage of feeeeelings and what people feeeling in a feeeling and sharing of feelings way. Can't you feeeeel the love? (/s)

[apackof2]

Excellant turn out

How was this promoted?

I am thinking about organizing a rally myself in my home town