Posted on 07/06/2006 6:00:36 AM PDT by A. Pole
Taking on Governor Mitt Romney and the Catholic Archdiocese of Boston, 165 prominent business and civic leaders are publicly calling for the Legislature to reject a proposed constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.
The group, which includes leading bankers, healthcare executives, lawyers, and leaders of the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce, has purchased an ad in The Boston Globe that says the amendment would "take away rights." It urges lawmakers to "move on to other important issues like strengthening the economy, improving our schools, and protecting our neighborhoods."
[...]
The amendment needs the support of 50 lawmakers during the current and next legislative sessions to reach the November 2008 ballot.
Chad Gifford, former chairman of Bank of America, who is one of the ad's signers, said that if the marriage amendment goes to the ballot, the state's political leadership would be consumed by a divisive debate that will divert lawmakers' attention from more important issues, such as education, the economy, and the environment.
[...]
The amendment needs the support of 50 lawmakers during the current and next legislative sessions to reach the November 2008 ballot.
[...]
"This could become obsessive and harmful to the Commonwealth," Gifford said. "I don't think it is good for the state to be involved in a two-year contentious debate, with a lot of national attention."
Arline Isaacson, cochairwoman of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus, said the ad reflects concern among the business community that an emotionally charged debate would hurt the state's business climate. She said that concern will resonate on Beacon Hill.
"They are contributing a unique aspect," Isaacson said. "These people whose expertise are the business and the economy are harping on the topic that banning same-sex marriage is bad for business, bad for job growth, and bad for the economy."
[...]
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
Launch a nationwide ban of their businesses.
The politicians are hurting the state's business climate just fine without the emotionally charged debate.
I used to know Chad Gifford's son. Nice guy. Dumb as a bag of hammers.
Chief Judge Anthony Lewis-Margaret Marshall(S.Africa, Democrat, NewYorkTimes, SJC-Massachusetts):
"If any of you DARE disobey me (or the New York Times/Boston Globe, my sponsors and husband),
then I will make eating, breathing, and shopping, illegal for all you voteless dhimmis."
One more demonstration that there is a class divide in the United States. A majority of the elite are liberal; a majority of the people are conservative. However, through the courts, the elites can effect a revolution from the top and by intimidation make the pols go along.
This is the game: Democrats promote moral values of the elite while Republicans promote economic interests of the elite.
Honestly, this has nothing to do with commerce. If Beacon Hill does not allow the people to vote on this, I will be cross! Unfortunately, I'm probably in the minority in this apathetic state, and the people will keep voting in these horrible legislators.
Same old nonsense just as convincing as always.
What is the economic interest in the destruction of marriage, the institution that secures the unity and bloodline of a family consisting of a man, a woman, and children created through procreation? And, how did Governor William Weld see economic value in appointing Margaret Marshall, the hemophiliac fascist, to the Massachusetts Supreme Court?
Massachusetts population declines as productive middle-class people are leaving Massachusetts while crazy people are granted normalcy. This can't be economically viable.
(The Palestinian terrorist regime is the crisis and Israel's fist is the answer.)
Yet he was "conservative" on economic issues.
Weld wanted the Boston Globe and New York Times to
ENDORSE his runs for Governor in both states (which he wanted).
Marshall is married to New York Times' Anthony Lewis.
Weld pandered for endorsement and perhaps some other gifts, too.
> One more demonstration that there is a class divide in the United States. A majority of the elite are liberal; a majority of the people are conservative.
Well, I don't know...this is only 165 out of thousands of movers and shakers. Ask Ned Johnson what he thinks.
"Chad Gifford...said that if the marriage amendment goes to the ballot, the state's political leadership would be consumed by a divisive debate that will divert lawmakers' attention from more important issues, such as education, the economy, and the environment."
The longer the pols are diverted from meddling in "more important issues," the better.
I would tweek that. Both parties promote the economic interests of the elite and the country club Republicans, of course, promote their moral moral values. Think Souter and Kennedy.
I am just pessimistic. All the polls I have seen say that 80% of the elite in the United States are liberal in their values. What has moderated this to a degree are the true "moderates" in the Republican Party: well-to-do and "orthodox" evangelicals and Catholics. Fifty years ago, wealthy Southern Baptists and Pentacostals were as rare as hen's teeth. "Aristocrats" gravitated toward the Episcopal and Presbyterian churches, if they were members at all. One reason for the surge of the "Radical Right" is that this is no longer the case.
I would say that now the views of the elite and the general population are like a photo negative .
Elite is libertine/liberal on the moral issues (they want to indulge in dissolute life style) and "conservative" on the economic issues (they want to keep all wealth for themselves).
Regular people care more for economic justice (in interest of their families) and they want moral order (also in interest of their families). So you could say that they are left leaning on economy and right leaning on morality.
The reason why the New Deal Democrats used to win so easily it is because their views and action reflected the position of the mainstream America.
After post 1960 decadence the Reagan Democrats bolted to the Republicans hoping that they will find what they lost, but they are being taken advantage of. They get the stick but the carrot never materializes.
"They are contributing a unique aspect," Isaacson said.
--other than sex -just what is "unique" let alone a positive contribution premised solely in "homosexuality"? The sexual activities [they] choose to engage in are unique in what is contributed; however, the contribution is at best neutral and is generally severely negative. Good for business? Mortuaries, pharmaceutical, and medical health practitioner businesses MAYBE:
Homosexual Behavior Fuels AIDS and STD Epidemic (Adobe Acrobat PDF).Homosexual Behavior Fuels
AIDS and STD EpidemicDecember, 2003 — The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) announced on November 26, 2003, that AIDS infections increased in 29 states in 2002 among Blacks, Latinos, and Homosexual and Bisexual men. The overall rate of increase was 5.1% over a four-year period between 1999-2002. Fifty-five percent of these infections are among Blacks; there was a 26% increase among Latinos; and a 17% increase among homosexuals and bisexuals. There was a 7% increase in AIDS infections among non-homosexuals. These CDC statistics are published in the November 28 issue of Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR).
Dr. John Diggs, Jr., has recently published statistics on the serious health consequences of engaging on homosexual sodomy. His report, “The Health Risks of Gay Sex,” was published by the Corporate Resource Council. This report is downloadable at: http://www.corporateresourcecouncil.org/white_papers/Health_Risks.pdf.
Dr. Diggs notes that homosexual sodomy is an efficient transmitter of a whole range of STD’s including AIDS. He also points out that human physiology makes it clear that anal intercourse itself is an unhealthy practice that damages the body and can lead to serious health consequences—including anal cancer. “Unhealthy sexual behaviors occur among both heterosexuals and homosexuals. Yet the medical and social science evidence indicate that homosexual behavior is uniformly unhealthy,” observes Diggs.
The sexual activities engaged in by homosexuals inevitably lead to a whole range of viral and bacterial infections that can result in sterility, cancer, and death.
Sex among homosexual males typically includes: oral and anal sex; rimming (mouth-to-anus contact); fisting (insertion of the hand and arm into the rectum); golden showers (urination); insertion of objects such as bottles, flashlights, and even gerbils into the rectum; sadomasochism (beatings with whips, chains, etc.); and other practices. These various behaviors cause trauma to the rectum, contribute to the spread of AIDS; increase incidences of oral and anal cancer; and result in serious infections due to the ingestion of fecal matter.
One of the largest surveys ever conducted of homosexual sex practices was published by two homosexual researchers in 1979. In The Gay Report by Jay and Young, 37% of homosexuals interviewed indicated they had engaged in sadomasochistic activities; 23% had been involved in “water sports,” (urinating on the sex partner); 4% had been involved in defecation; 11% had been involved in giving enemas to their sex partners.
Dr. Gisela L.P. Macphail, a physician at the University of Calgary in Canada, described the serious health risks of homosexual behavior in a letter to the Calgary Board of Education in September, 1996. She is an epidemiologist and regularly treats AIDS patients. According to Dr. Macphail, “Any practice which facilitates direct or indirect oral-rectal contact will enable the spread of fecal and rectal microorganisms to the sexual partner. Thus anilingus (rimming), a common practice among homosexual men, allows direct spread of pathogens such as Giardia, Entamoeba histolytica, and Hepatitis A and of the typical STD organisms such as herpes simplex and gonorrhea.”
She warned the Calgary school district against promoting homosexual behavior among school children because of the serious health risks.
In August, 1984, just three years after AIDS was diagnosed as a public health threat to homosexuals, columnist Patrick Buchanan and researcher Dr. J. Gordon Muir published an in-depth look at the “Gay” lifestyle and the diseases associated with it in The American Spectator. Writing in “Gay Times and Gay Diseases,” the authors described a series of serious diseases comprising the “Gay Bowel Syndrome.”
Those viruses, parasites, and bacteria resulting from homosexual sexual practices include: Amebiasis, a parasitic colon disease which causes dysentery and liver abscesses; Giardiasis, a parasite that causes diarrhea; Shigellosis, another bowel disease causing dysentery, Hepatitis A, a viral liver disease spread by fecal contamination.
According to Buchanan and Muir, San Francisco saw a four-to-ten-fold increase in gay bowel diseases beginning in 1977. As long ago as 1988, San Francisco had a venereal disease infection rate 22 times the national average.
Anal Cancer — Dr. Stephen E. Goldstone, the medical director of GayHealth.com says he has found that 68% of HIV-positive and 45% of HIV-negative homosexual males have abnormal or precancerous anal cells. A 1987 study, “Sexual Practices, Sexually Transmitted Diseases, and the Incidences of Anal Cancer” in the New England Journal of Medicine concluded that “homosexual behavior in men increases the risk of anal cancer: 21 of the 57 men with anal cancer (37%) reported that they were homosexual or bisexual, in contrast to only 1 in 64 controls.”
HIV from Oral Sex — In August, 2001, researchers at the University of California released the results of a preliminary study of the risk of getting HIV from oral sex. They claimed that homosexuals are at a zero to 2% risk of getting HIV from oral sex. But a study released earlier in 2001 indicated that oral sex is implicated in at least 8% of HIV infections. This earlier study was published in February by the CDC and the University of California at San Francisco.
HIV from Anal Intercourse — In the U.S., anal intercourse continues to be the primary transmission route of HIV infection for homosexuals. The CDC says there are 40,000 new infections each year and the rate of infection is climbing because many younger homosexuals are engaging in risky behaviors. Many have become complacent about the epidemic because of new drugs that control the progression of the disease. As a result, homosexuals are staying alive longer and infecting more individuals. As of 1998, 54% of all HIV infections were homosexuals. An estimated 1 million Americans have been infected with HIV since it was first discovered in the early 1980s. Worldwide, 21 million people have died; 450,000 Americans have died so far from HIV-related diseases.
Sexually Transmitted Diseases — A 1999 study published in the American Journal of Public Health indicated that homosexuals are five times as likely to have Hepatitis B as their heterosexual counterparts. A 1999 study in Sexually Transmitted Diseases indicated that 25% of homosexuals have rectal Gonorrhea and Gonorrhea of the throat is prevalent because of oral sex practices. The book, The Ins and Outs of Gay Sex: A Medical Handbook for Men states that more than 50% of homosexual males have the Human Papilloma Virus. Homosexuals are acquiring Syphilis in record numbers. The CDC released two reports on Syphilis in February, 2001. One report said that Syphilis rates had declined by 22% in the U.S. since 1997. The second indicated that Syphilis rates among homosexuals in Southern California had risen from 26% to 51% in one year. The report also noted that in Southern California alone, 60% of Syphilis-infected homosexuals were also HIV positive.
Tuberculosis — Homosexuals are at high risk for spreading Tuberculosis. In June-August 1998, the Baltimore Health Department tracked the spread of TB by four black transgendered homosexual prostitutes. They had infected 22 others with TB through their sexual activities. TB infection was also spread from Baltimore to New York City.
HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVIOR IS UNSAFE AND SHOULD NOT BE PROMOTED AS A HEALTHFUL OR HARMLESS LIFESTYLE!
Dr. Diggs notes, “A compassionate response to requests for social approval and recognition of GLB [gay, lesbian, bisexual] relationships is not to assure gays and lesbians that homosexual relationships are just like heterosexual ones, but to point out the health risks of gay sex and promiscuity. Approving same-sex relationships is detrimental to employers, employees, and society in general.”
Homosexual sex leads to serious venereal diseases, anal and oral cancer, and death from HIV infection. This behavior must be discouraged—not promoted as an alternative lifestyle. HOMOSEXUAL SEX KILLS.
I was in Massachusetts this past weekend and visited a friend who has been working with pro-family groups the past three years, especially Focus on the Family (James Dobson's group). She explained to me that tomorrow, Wednesday, July 12th, the Mass. legislature is scheduled to vote on whether or not to put on the ballot in November 2008 a referendum on gay marriage.
Only 1/4 of the Mass. legislature has to vote for this referendum, which means only 50 legislators. BUT they have to repeat this legislative vote once more next year (2007). IF 1/4 of the legislators in Mass. vote YES -- to put the gay marriage issue to a vote of the people in 2008 -- and they vote YES two years in a row, then it will indeed go to the people of Massachusetts.
Of course, the people of Mass., by a large majority, want to protect the traditional definition of marriage as one man, one woman. So the gays of Mass. know they will lose if it is ever allowed to come before the people.
I ask all here on FreeRepublic to please pray (if you are so inclined) for the legislators of Massachusetts to vote YES for the people's referendum on Wednesday, July 12th.
Also, in case anybody here actually lives in Massachusetts, would you please, please call your state legislator and voice your approval of traditional marriage?
If there were no other reason, the most fundamental reason is the most important: Children cannot come into this world without a biological mother and father. They cannot function properly either, in the most healthy and productive way, without a loving mother and father. Of course, no law can force all heterosexual familes to be good for children, but the law should never work AGAINST public acknowledgement of the needs (and RIGHTS) of kids.
PLEASE, PLEASE do not give up on Massachusetts. There are many good, decent, God-loving people there who need to be supported. Also, don't descend to gay-bashing. Just uphold the positive, assert the rights and needs of the most vulnerable people in society (children), and stand firm. God is the author of the laws of Creation, and no human society can long thwart those laws and continue.
Thank you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.