Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Part I: The Homosexual Agenda: Why Are Most Conservatives So Lily-Livered And Weak?
Toogood Reports ^ | July 30 , 2002 | E. S. Lee

Posted on 07/30/2002 9:09:34 AM PDT by Stand Watch Listen

Due Process Is Dead in Massachusetts.

“It being the public policy of this Commonwealth to protect the unique relationship of marriage in order to promote, among other goals, the stability and welfare of society and the best interests of children, only the union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Massachusetts. Any other relationship shall not be recognized as a marriage or its legal equivalent, nor shall it receive the benefits or incidents exclusive to marriage from the Commonwealth, its agencies, departments, authorities, commissions, offices, officials and political subdivisions. Nothing herein shall be construed to effect an impairment of a contract in existence as of the effective date of this amendment.”

For the last week, I have been reeling with images from the July 17th travesty in the Massachusetts state house, when a special constitutional convention met for the third time in as many months to consider a proposed amendment that would define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

Senate president Tom Birmingham (who is running a dwindling campaign for governor of this state) had said earlier in the week and again that morning that he was going to do “everything in my power to stop this mean-spirited and hateful issue from coming to a vote.” This time, he got someone else to do his dirty work: Brian P. Lees (R-Springfield), the senate minority leader, moved to adjourn the meeting before the amendment could be addressed. 137 members voted to adjourn; 53 voted not to adjourn. Fifty votes were required to carry the issue of the Amendment to the ballot—which obviously could have carried easily, leaving the question of what a marriage is—or is not—up to the voters of this state in 2004.

More than 130,000 voters signed the Protection of Marriage Amendment petition in the fall of 2001. 76,607 of those signatures were certified. 57,100 certified signatures were required in order for the petition to come before the constitutional convention. According to the Massachusetts Family Institute, 83% of Massachusetts voters polled agree that marriage is important to the family, and 60% support defining marriage as between one man and one woman.

On July 17th, I went to the state house to be present for (I presumed) an historic vote. Before I went into the State House, I stood for about a half hour with about sixty staff and volunteers for the Massachusetts Citizens for Marriage for a nearly silent rally. Some of us stood and chatted and others held up signs that said, “Let the People Vote for Marriage in 2004.” And most of us watched somewhat warily as homosexuals and lesbians harassed members of our group. At around 1:15, I went into the State House.

I couldn´t get near the gallery. The doors were closed until about 1:50, but there must have been 750 people in the house chamber area ahead of me, perhaps 250 pro-homosexual rights supporters to the rest of us who favor traditional values. The senators entered the chamber at 2:00 pm. At 2:17, they strolled out with smug smirks on their faces. Opponents of the amendment erupted into cheers, and the rest of us into boos and hisses. Almost immediately, there was a frenzy of sympathetic media interviews with lesbian members of the Massachusetts congress, and their supporters—and then the taunting and jeering began. The Marriage Amendment, for all intents and purposes, was dead. And we all knew it.

The only pro-marriage supporter I know of who made it onto the news that night was a black woman who took issue with a sign that pronounced, “We want OUR civil rights!” When she challenged that statement and was verbally assaulted, she lost her temper and was ushered out of the building by armed guards. The whole episode was filmed; what made it onto the news that evening was the woman being taken out, loud with rage, her little boys in tow. Some of us were standing outside the capitol afterward, pondering the whole mess as we waited for busses to take us back to the places where we had gathered for this momentous day. A homosexual came along and began reviling us. We were silent in response. He then sighted the black woman and got very in-your-face with her, his nose possibly a foot away from hers. He spoke in low, seething tones. We could not hear him, but her demeanor made it pretty obvious that he was being extremely unpleasant to her. The busses came along and the woman and her children crossed Beacon Street—and he walked beside her, puffing smoke into her face and muttering at her the entire time. None of us (including I, shamefully) did anything to try to stop him.

My own involvement with the Protection of Marriage Amendment began when I signed the petition at my local grocery store last fall. I asked for copies and carried them around with me to collect more signatures, rather surprised at how many people were willing to sign it. Very few I asked did not.

After the first constitutional convention met on May 8th of this year to discuss the Amendment, as required by the Massachusetts Constitution, and then closed without a vote, a friend who works for Massachusetts Citizens for Marriage called and asked if I would contact the voters in my town who had signed the petition, and ask them to contact our state senator and representative in support of the Amendment. I said yes, and began calling a few days later. Again, I was amazed at the responses: about a third of those I spoke to, while they had signed the petition, were reluctant to call Ms Walrath or Mr. Antonioni. They expressed concerns about voicing their opinions on such a “controversial” matter to their elected officials. The other two-thirds assured me that they would.

On June 19th, the date of the next special constitutional convention to consider the Marriage Amendment, I took a few hours of personal time from work and met my friend at the State House for the vote. When I arrived at the Boston Common, the meeting place for volunteers from the Mass Citizens for Marriage, I was surprised that there weren´t more people there, including, apparently, members of the opposition. I was told that my friend was already inside, so I hurried through the security area into the State House and went to the House gallery where she and her two little sons, aged two and five, were waiting. I sat down next to them.

It was about 1:15. The meeting was scheduled to begin at 2:00.

Although there was one kind guard in the gallery, as we waited for the vote, some of the other guards became verbally abusive. One woman guard in particular was unkind to an MCM staff member seated in front of me. The guard poked her shoulder to get attention, and poked it so hard that the woman winced and rubbed it as she turned to her. The guard spoke provokingly to her, threatening to remove her if she distributed any badges, and then said that she must remove the bag of badges or be ejected from the gallery. After a moment of discussion, a male guard joined them, the staff member said she would not distribute anything (she had not done so to that point) and the guards withdrew. [Most of us in the gallery were already wearing the badges, which said only, “Massachusetts Citizens for Marriage.”]

My friend seemed uncharacteristically quiet and when I asked why, told me of an incident that had just happened to a friend of hers as she was walking into the state house. A group of homosexuals and lesbians approached and began threatening her and the others with her, tormenting them with anti-religious slurs. The attempts met with no response. One of the activists then centered on her and tried more aggressively to get her to respond, verbally abusing her until she was in tears. When she said nothing, the activist spat, “I hope your children choke and die in front of you!”

And we´re called “mean-spirited and hateful?”

At the rally last Wednesday, homosexual and lesbian members of their media (mostly unidentified members, unless we asked them) milled among us asking questions and photographing us. While I was speaking with the brave man who exposed the Fistgate scandal some time back, a photographer from the Bay Windows ("New England's Largest Gay and Lesbian Newspaper") recognized him and began snapping photos of him and then of me, standing only about three or four feet away and zooming in with her lens. She took one after another, until he asked her to stop and said he really thought two was more than enough. She went on to someone else.

Before I entered the capitol building a few minutes later, I was approached by a young man and woman who identified themselves as members of the Homosexual Communist Media. He thrust a microphone into my face and asked why I was there. I did not speak well or smoothly to them, but I did speak: I told them I was there in support of the marriage Amendment. He asked why I supported it, and I told him, and also mentioned that more than 80% of voters polled in Massachusetts felt that [heterosexual] marriage was important to the family structure, and that 60% favored defining marriage as between one man and one woman.

The young man cut me off instantly, “Oh! So you´re in favor of mob rule!”

I frowned and said quietly, “That´s not mob rule—”

“Well, then, call it educated mob rule!”

I frowned again, waved him away and said, “I have nothing left to say to you.”

Before I left him, he insisted that I take a flier for the Homosexual Communist Media. I gave him one of ours, which he refused, but instead of throwing his away, I decided to read it. I´m glad I did. It began:

“The Homosexual Communist Media is an art collective based in Amsterdam. We have just founded a Boston faction, to begin subverting American morality and social culture...” (The italics are mine.)

Had I thought a little quicker, I would have said to him,

“You´re too late. It´s happened already.”



TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; US: Massachusetts
KEYWORDS: homosexualagenda
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 241-247 next last
To: rdb3
Your splitting of hairs is not cute.

You asked a question.

I answered it.

61 posted on 07/30/2002 1:17:52 PM PDT by OWK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Stand Watch Listen
Part I: The Homosexual Agenda: Why Are Most Conservatives So Lily-Livered And Weak?

Because they're politicians, nothing more.

62 posted on 07/30/2002 1:17:53 PM PDT by biblewonk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OWK
Yes, you "answered" it. Nevertheless, you're still defending the indefensible.
63 posted on 07/30/2002 1:21:58 PM PDT by rdb3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: rdb3
Nevertheless, you're still defending the indefensible.

Meaningless sloganeering.

Signifying nothing.

64 posted on 07/30/2002 1:22:50 PM PDT by OWK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: OWK
Why do you believe that the state has the moral authority to dictate the terms and conditions of a contract to which it is not a party?

What is really at issue here--IMO, at least--is adoption. If we allow homosexuals to call their "thing" marriage, we might assist in opening the door to adoption of children by homosexuals.

You might think of "marriage," as involved here, as a trademark. The state has decided to make the use of this "trademark" a requirement for adoptions that are organized by the state. Therefore, the state is a party to a marriage contract in a way.

I don't object to homosexuals doing whatever they please with each other, as long as they do it on their own property and no one can see or hear them. But they shouldn't call it a marriage, because that's not what it is.

65 posted on 07/30/2002 1:25:57 PM PDT by Smile-n-Win
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: OWK
It really sounds to me like you want anarchy. You want to be able to do whatever you damn well please, legal or otherwise, regardless of the consequences. Our government, while far from perfect, gives us more freedom and liberty than any other government on the face of the earth. Should we fight to keep government as small and unevasive as possible? Of course. Should we abandon all moral, ethical, and civil values that our founding fathers so eloquently laid out for us in order to achieve that end? Absolutely not.
66 posted on 07/30/2002 1:26:09 PM PDT by American Blood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Khepera
It's tough to argue with a Libertarian!

For what it's worth, though, the Constitution is pretty limiting on the Federal government, pretty much specifying that anything not specifically addressed in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights as being a Federal authority was reserved to the states or the people. So it pretty much depends on what the state constitution says if it is not specifically covered in the the Constitution or BOR.

That is not to say, however, that the Federal government, over the years, has not usurped a lot of authority that is not granted to it by either the Constitution or the BOR. That, I think, is really a gray area, but a lot of it has been upheld by the Supreme Court at one time or another. So we really have a situation where the government intrudes into our lives where they had no original constitutional authority to do so and, as I would suspect that a lot of Libertarians and constitutionalists would argue, they still do not have the authority.

Marriage is a state issue, so I would look to the individual state constitutions for guidance there, or at least how it ties to administrative law as addressed in the state constitutions.

67 posted on 07/30/2002 1:26:36 PM PDT by CalConservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: American Blood
"Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual."

--Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1819.
68 posted on 07/30/2002 1:28:45 PM PDT by OWK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: 1_Of_We
Perhaps you misunderstood my question. I'll rephrase it for you. Does something become moral because it is made legal under the law?
69 posted on 07/30/2002 1:29:52 PM PDT by Alan Chapman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: American Blood
Should we abandon all moral, ethical, and civil values that our founding fathers so eloquently laid out for us in order to achieve that end?

Should we abandon them?

Certainly not.

Should we enlist government guns to enforce them?

No.

The only morally legitimate purpose of government, is defense of individual rights.

If an action violates rights, then by all means prevail upon state to restrain it.

Otherwise... not.

70 posted on 07/30/2002 1:31:04 PM PDT by OWK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: OWK
I'm not a sloganeer. But, if you say so. . .
71 posted on 07/30/2002 1:31:10 PM PDT by rdb3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: rdb3
I'm not a sloganeer.

Not a particularly good one, anyway. ;^]

72 posted on 07/30/2002 1:32:28 PM PDT by OWK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: OWK
Can you name another place on earth where you have as much oppurtunity and freedom as you do here in this country you so despise?
73 posted on 07/30/2002 1:34:49 PM PDT by American Blood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: OWK
Anyway. . .
74 posted on 07/30/2002 1:35:47 PM PDT by rdb3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: American Blood
Can you name another place on earth where you have as much oppurtunity and freedom as you do here in this country you so despise?

Correcting two fallacies.

1) I do not despise this country.

2) Rights are not "opportunities" granted by state.

Rights are an inherent part of each and every individual, and they are either respected by state, or not.

75 posted on 07/30/2002 1:37:07 PM PDT by OWK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: BARGE
AIDS; THE Solution.....PATIENCE:THE Method

LOL That's right, AIDS may very well be a part of the solution. But I don't think we should just sit patiently and do nothing while homosexuals are infiltrating our schools, companies, and governments, subjecting our children to their propaganda, and using the government to deny us our rights.

They are inherently repulsive, even when they're not trying--and they are trying hard, as this article shows. But we should not let them scare us away. We should speak up and keep explaining to people what's wrong with the homosexual agenda.

76 posted on 07/30/2002 1:37:22 PM PDT by Smile-n-Win
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: OWK
Should we enlist government guns to enforce them?

If not, then who? Eric Rudolph? Bo Greitz? A civilian militia?

77 posted on 07/30/2002 1:37:33 PM PDT by American Blood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: OWK
Can you not answer the questioin?

Is there another place on this earth where you have as many freedoms and liberties as this country?

78 posted on 07/30/2002 1:39:36 PM PDT by American Blood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: American Blood
If not, then who? Eric Rudolph? Bo Greitz? A civilian militia?

You seem to be missing the point.

Actions which do not infringe upon the rights of others, may not be morally restrained by force AT ALL.

Certainly you may protest against them... boycott their practitioners, reject their association, or whatever other means you may choose to reject their position.

But you may not morally restrain their actions by force, unless their actions violate rights.

79 posted on 07/30/2002 1:40:55 PM PDT by OWK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: American Blood
Is there another place on this earth where you have as many freedoms and liberties as this country?

Once again.. rights are not granted by state.

Rights are an inherent part of each and every individual, and they are either respected by state, or not.

The United States was once far better at respecting rights than it is today, but it has most certainly never been perfect.

But I don't understand what your "another place on this earth" question is driving at.

Are you suggesting that these legitimate moral questions simply be ignored because other countries happen to be worse?

80 posted on 07/30/2002 1:44:18 PM PDT by OWK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 241-247 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson