|
|---|
|
Mass. Citizens for Marriage Senator Cheryl Jacques Broke the Law on July 17 Denied Citizens their Constitutional Right to Vote on Marriage Amendment Violated Her Oath to Obey the Mass. Constitution Has Every Right to Work for Gay Marriage; But Not to Break the Law She Plans to Do So Again this Fall Please Tell Cheryl Jacques: She, of All People, Must Obey the Law On July 17, Senator Cheryl Jacques was a leader, along with Sen. Tom Birmingham, in voting to adjourn without taking a vote on a referendum for an Amendment to the state Constitution even though:
Call her office. Tell her your thoughts at 617-722-1555. Outrage about Sen. Jacques & Her Friends Many are outraged at Jacques' illegal conduct. If we allow this violation of our Constitution to stand, then our referendum system has been thrown into the trashcan. When one man, such as Tom Birmingham, can order Legislators, with the help of Jacques, to violate their oath and the state laws, we have become a lawless society. We've worked hard at MCM for two years so the citizens can decide this issue. Over 130,000 people signed the petitions last fall. We're honest citizens who obey the law. Why doesn't Cheryl Jacques urge Birmingham and the Democrat legislature to also obey the law? That's the way a democracy works. Tell her you want the law obeyed. Send the Amendment to the people for their vote as they have demanded. It's our Constitution! Before July 17, Birmingham, Jacques and others attempted to defeat the "Protection of Marriage" Amendment by a series of crude and libelous attacks and dirty tricks. When they realized they were failing and that more than 60% of the citizens were still solidly behind the Amendment, they decided they had to break the law because if it went to a vote of the people, they would surely lose. Sen. Jacques told Bay Windows, the homosexual newspaper in Boston, that she was fighting to stop a vote from ever taking place in the Legislature: "I'm fighting.to see that [the Marriage Amendment] never comes up for a vote. I'm happy to throw my body in front of the train to block this question." She said that Sen. Birmingham's action was "heroic." She told the Globe after the illegal action on July 17, "I'll take a victory any way I can get it." Jacques serves on the Public Service Committee which considered the measure. Its report was so full of lies (that may sound harsh but no other word can describe it) that a very gentle article from the Mass. Catholic Church said that the Report made "claims so extreme and so utterly unsubstantiated that it is an embarrassment." As an example, the following hysterical language came from the Committee in a calculated attempt to destroy the measure. It wrote, "The effects of this amendment would be far reaching. It would be bad for business and bad for labor. Massachusetts would not only allow discrimination, but require it, forbidding employers from granting key benefits to their employees, hampering employers' efforts to recruit and retain workers by offering fair, competitive benefits, and making it unconstitutional to bargain collectively for important employee rights and benefits." But the truth is that a simple reading of the Amendment shows that any company or other private institution could provide any benefits to anyone it wishes. There is absolutely no question about that. There is no effect - none, zero, zilch - on private companies. As for government employees, the Legislature is only forbidden to enact an across-the-board benefit package which is "marriage" by another name, as happened in Vermont. The Legislature remains free to skillfully craft benefits for those non-traditional citizens that they wish to help. But they cannot enact "marriage" by another name. As for children, they will remain protected under state law as they are now or the Legislature could simply write a new law to protect them. The most obvious accomplice to all of this is the Boston Globe and its owner, the New York Times. The Globe was so brazen that it encouraged Sen. Birmingham, right in its news columns, to break the law. The Times has long been an active supporter of gay marriage. ccording to an editorial in the August 19 issue of Bay Windows, the other people most prominent in the opposition to the Marriage Amendment were NOW, ACLU, AFL-CIO and the Anti-Defamation League, while the gays appeared to not even be interested. It was like pulling teeth to get gays to contribute to the effort, one activist said. "This confirms what we have been saying," says Sarah McVay Pawlick, President of Mass. Citizens for Marriage. "This is not primarily about homosexuality. It's about a powerful, extreme liberal agenda to change our sexual morality. These extreme liberals are seeking big government, with a socialist state similar to Sweden or Cuba, and a sexually promiscuous society in which children belong to the state, not their parents. "That's why the national, liberal organizations are so interested in what is happening up here in Massachusetts, even though we're far from New York. They're hiding behind gays like Jacques to achieve their objectives. They wish to diminish the institution of marriage which has been the bedrock of our country since its founding. In those early days, everyone knew what 'marriage' meant. So it was never written down. But it's obvious to everyone that we must do so now." What Were the Dirty Tricks that Jacques Approved? Bay Windows acknowledged two dirty tricks in its August 19 editorial. (They've since removed this editorial from their website, but it remains in their print edition.) The dirty tricks were about "blockers" and about horses. It was the ACLU who trained hundreds of blockers to harass the voters as they attempted to sign the petition in the fall of 200l, according to Bay Windows. This was an illegal violation of voting rights under the U.S. Constitution. This illegal confrontation caused everyone to worry about the safety of the petition gatherers and forced MCM to go to the expense of hiring paid gatherers. The Bay Windows editorial bragged, "As a result, the petitioners received thousands fewer signatures than they otherwise would have." The right to solicit signatures in public places is clear and is protected by both the U.S. and Massachusetts Constitutions, according to a Memorandum from the Secretary of State dated August 30, 2001. Pictures of the blockers in action taken by a hidden camera show how the voting rights of citizens were intentionally violated. Another dirty trick was a libelous lie which was heavily publicized by both the Globe and the Times. They wrote that many were deceived into signing the petition because they were tricked and told they were signing a petition to stop the slaughter of horses. Although this story about trickery and deceit turned out to be a complete hoax, both the Globe and the Times continued to report it in an effort to destroy the Amendment. Full Text of 'Protection of Marriage' Amendment 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. We Are 'Massachusetts Citizens for Marriage' We Need Volunteers and Financial Support We Believe in We believe that marriage is always between one man and one woman, because every child deserves a mother and a father. We can never achieve that goal, because no one can change human nature. Some parents will not be good ones. But it is worth striving for. We believe that almost everyone would choose to have both a mother and a father if he or she were being born again. That's why we're working to send the Protection of Marriage Amendment to the people to decide if they agree. Massachusetts Citizens for Marriage,
1277 Main St., Waltham, MA 02451 This entire story has been reported in detail by Massachusetts News in its print editions and at www.massnews.com | 781-239-3305. 
|
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Copyright 2008 ©All Rights Reserved MassNews.com® 508-410-2087 |
|---|
Attorney General Tom Reilly ruled this was a proper
issue for the voters to decide.
