|
April
2002 Print Edition Sightings: 
Opponents
to Marriage Appear Desperate
Opponents to the "Protection of Marriage"
Amendment continue to appear desperate. They know
that the vast majority of citizens are against them.
Most people support the Marriage Amendment.
According to the gay newspaper, Bay Windows, "If
the developments across the country are any indication,
supporters of same-sex marriage [in Mass.] may be
facing an uphill battle." It pointed out that
35 states already have laws similar to the proposed
Amendment in Massachusetts. Some 70% of the voters
in Nebraska approved a similar measure in 2000 and
60% already approve it in Massachusetts.
Mass. Seen
As Important
The man who is leading the opposition in Massachusetts,
Atty. Josh Friedes, told Bay Windows, "At this
moment the majority of people are opposed to equal
marriage rights."
Friedes sees Massachusetts as an important battle
which could decide whether the nation continues with
marriage as a basic core of our society. He called
the Bay State "ground zero." He was elated
by a poll done by Mass. Citizens for Marriage in which
39% said they supported gay marriage. He didn't report
that 50% opposed it or that "Protection of Marriage"
was approved by 60% while only 34% opposed it.
Another activist agreed. Sue Hyde, based in Cambridge
for the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, Washington
DC, told Bay Windows that gay activists have an abysmal
record in successfully combating voter initiative
campaigns. "We're 0 for 5," she observed,
listing Hawaii, Alaska, California, Nevada and Nebraska
as those states where such ballot initiatives have
passed.
After they failed to stop people from signing the
petition last fall, Friedes told Bay Windows on Dec.
6 that if they were unable to mount a challenge to
the signatures and the amendment went to the legislature,
that would be the time for them to make their presence
known to legislators. "We have to now confront
the reality," he said, "that it's possible
that this ballot initiative may be certified and we
have to act now in order to insure victory in 2004."
National
Gays Active in Mass.
There are many national organizations which agree
that the Bay State is "ground zero." The
largest and richest gay group in the U.S. is the Human
Rights Campaign, founded by James Hormel, the scion
of the Hormel meat company and Bill Clinton's Ambassador
to Luxembourg.
Another activist, Tim Gill, gave $18.5 million last
year to homosexual causes according to USA Today.
He made his fortune with the software company, Quark.
Most of the big money for these causes is coming from
other high tech moguls. Kathy Levinson donates about
$500,000 per year and David Bohnett gave about $2
million last year.
Everyone knows that if you have enough money, you
can buy almost anything you want in Washington.
Nobody
Counters Gay Groups
There is not one single group anywhere in the
entire country that is working solely to counter the
efforts or money of the national homosexual groups
- much less one that is rich.
One activist told Bay Windows that the National Gay
and Lesbian Task Force was "doing amazing work
already. I think that if we organize and really mobilize
and take our lead and learn from the mistakes that
some of the states have made, like California, I think
that we have a fighting chance. It's like 50-50 right
now, so it could go either way." That's the organization
that has Sue Hyde on the ground in Massachusetts.
It conducted a training session for activists last
year in Worcester.
They wish to stop the people from voting because they
have a better chance of winning if lawyers and judges
make the decisions. The feminists have many lawyers
in high positions in the courts. Therefore, they would
like lawyers to decide the issue and not the citizens.
One of the lawyers at Gay & Lesbian Advocates
& Defenders, Mary Bonauto, told Bay Windows she
didn't think the matter "should be on the ballot
at all" because it is a civil rights issue. But
many people pointed out that this concerns the writing
of the Constitution. When a country writes a Constitution,
it does not invite only lawyers to do so. But Atty.
Bonauto desires that to happen because she knows it
is the only way her side will win.
According to Bay Windows, Atty. Bonauto "takes
issue with the MCM's attempt to circumvent the judicial
system by putting the issue of gay marriage to voters." [emphasis added]
Bonauto said: "I'd like to think that the majority
of Massachusetts citizens will reject that." [emphasis added]
National
Groups Work Massachusetts
Two other national organizations are actively working
in Massachusetts to defeat the Amendment. One of them,
of course, is the extreme feminist organization, NOW.
Everyone knows that this feminist support would be
the kiss-of-death, so NOW is forced to stay in the
background. However, it is a member of Campaign for
Equality, the group that sent blockers around the
state to stop the people from signing.
The other national group, the ACLU, is also a member
of the Campaign for Equality. One of its lawyers,
Norma Shapiro, says she trained many of the blockers,
in addition to participating on squads herself. She
told Bay Windows that she trained volunteers not to
interrupt people while they're speaking, to talk politely
and to remind potential signers to read what they're
signing. "I have real confidence in the people
that we've trained. I don't believe there's been anything
confrontational to the point where anybody's been
upset about it," she said.
The pictures of the blockers in action tell an entirely
different story. (See pages 8-11)
Signatures
Again
Although the opponents were screaming about the dirty
tricks that were used to get signatures, a spokesman
told Bay Windows on November 15 that the accusations
"may" have some basis in fact. Bay Windows
reported: "The Campaign for Equality is documenting
the numerous reports of such abuses it has received.
While such accusations are difficult to prove, they
may have some basis in fact." [emphasis added]
How Many
Lies Can You Find?
How many lies can you find in this article that is
now on the website of The Campaign for Equality?
"One week after September 11, a paid signature
gathering firm from Arizona arrived in Massachusetts
to work for anti-gay extremists. At a time when most
Americans, in some way, were sifting through the rubble
of fear and fanaticism - seeking unity - these signature-hustlers
hit our streets, seeking 'support' for a Constitutional
Amendment that would make it permanently illegal for
gay and lesbian families here to have basic protections."
In the first place, this firm was here many weeks
before Sept. 11, working for two other campaigns in
Massachusetts. It did not "arrive in Massachusetts"
after that day. In the second place, it was never
working for "anti-gay extremists." In the
third place, the only reason it was necessary to hire
professionals was because the Campaign for Equality
had already indicated it was going to be a nasty,
physical confrontation.
Yet Another
Group Surfaces in Boston
Another opponent to traditional marriage has surfaced
in Boston known as the "Alternatives to Marriage
Project." This is a nationwide organization which
lists the following as its goals.
"The ATMP advocates for equality and fairness
for unmarried people, including people who choose
not to marry, cannot marry, or live together before
marriage. We provide support and information for this
fast-growing constituency, fight discrimination on
the basis of marital status, and educate the public
and policymakers about relevant social and economic
issues. We believe that marriage is only one of many
acceptable family forms, and that society should recognize
and support healthy relationships in all their diversity."
One must wonder where all these groups get their money,
but the Gill Foundation and the Human Rights Campaign
are likely suspects.
This new organization represents all the groups that
oppose the Amendment.
"The Alternatives to Marriage Project is open
to everyone, including singles, couples, married people,
people in relationships with more than two people,
and people of all genders and sexual orientations.
We welcome our married supporters, who are among the
many friends, relatives, and allies of unmarried people."
Doesn't marriage make people healthier and happier?
The Alternatives to Marriage Project spends a lot
of its time rejecting the studies which show that
married people are happier and healthier than unmarried
ones. But it misses the entire point.
There would not be an institution of marriage if people
were just trying to be happy and healthy. The purpose
of marriage is to protect, nurture and love the children
who are usually born from such a union.
'Gay Marriage'
Always Follows 'Domestic Partnerships'
It is no secret that domestic partnerships are only
the beginning of the road to gay marriage.
When editorializing about the "partner"
bill that was working its way through the Vermont
legislature, the New York Times, which is the owner
of the Boston Globe, said that domestic partnerships
are a "crucial step forward" to gay marriage:
"[T]hough imperfect, [it] is a crucial step forward.
It sensibly promotes the security and stability of
gay families. In time, Vermont's example will show
the rest of the country that same-sex unions are not
a threat to traditional marriage and deserve the name
of marriage as well as the law's full protection."
The Washington Post went even further, saying that
we must have "gay marriage" because domestic
partnerships make homosexuals into second-class citizens:
"[M]any advocates will say that endorsing 'civil
unions' but not marriage codifies gays' second-class
status. We are still in the early stages of a long
debate, as society gradually comes to terms with an
open acceptance of gays, and history may judge Thursday's
vote in the Vermont House to have been a relatively
small step. But it will be judged, we think, to have
been a healthy one."
Bay Windows
Agrees
Bay Windows, agrees with the NYTimes and the Washington
Post. It says that homosexuals are making a serious
mistake if they link the two issues. It wrote:
"[A] greater concern among activists is that
legislators and the public alike are beginning to
openly link the push for [domestic partner] legislation
as a step towards same-sex marriage…"
The paper agreed that most citizens are against "gay
marriage." It said, "[P]ublic sentiment
is still against same-sex marriage. The majority of
the public is not yet ready to accept same-sex marriage,
even here in Massachusetts, despite what the most
optimistic activist may want to tell you. And if the
public confuses [domestic partnership] legislation
with same-sex marriage, the bills are far more likely
to go down to defeat when legislators hide behind
public sentiment to vote against them."
It quoted a homosexual lobbyist, Arline Isaacson,
as telling the paper: "We have intentionally
described [domestic partner legislation] as a question
of equal pay for equal work, and we do that for two
reasons. Firstly, it is accurate and it is truthful.
Secondly, we are painfully aware that there are legislators
who would feel that they can't oppose the concept
of equal pay for equal work while they would unfortunately
oppose gay and lesbian marriage and gay and lesbian
rights in general. So there needs to be a real differentiation
between the approaches and the strategies you use
on these two different issues."
She continued, "Public opinion polls indicate
that the public is far more supportive of [domestic
partner] benefits framed as equal pay for equal work
than they are of gay and lesbian marriage."
Remember
What Happened in Liberal Newton
"They sure do want to keep it quiet because they
remember what happened in Newton in 1997," says
Brian Camenker, President of the Parents' Rights Coalition.
In that year, the Board of Aldermen in Newton, one
of the most liberal cities in the state, overwhelmingly
passed a domestic partner program for city employees.
Within 15 days, the citizens gathered 3500 signatures
against the bill and presented them to the City, which
had the choice of rescinding the measure or putting
the question to the voters. The Board promptly rescinded
the bill because, they told the town newspaper, they
knew that it wouldn't be approved by the voters.
Libertarians
Only Ones in Favor
The Libertarian Party is the "only group that
has seriously pushed a pro-gay marriage bill in Massachusetts,"
Isaacson told Bay Windows. She said it was not a good
idea because it "would go down to a flaming defeat."
Polyamory
(Group Sex) Is Growing
If two homosexuals can raise a child successfully,
why couldn't a group of three do it even better? A
columnist in Bay Windows raised that point in March
2000, in an article, "Is Monogamy Normal?"
She says that "polyamorists" have 250 web
and in-person support groups. She noted a case in
Time magazine about a woman who lived with her daughter
and two men. A grandmother petitioned for custody
because this "endangered" the child's "morals
and health." The child was removed from the home
but returned after one of the men moved out.
The columnist believes, "We all practice some
degree of polyamory in our lives, and it's essential
to our well being. Some of us should practice even
more than we do."
Can anyone argue with that logic when we've all seen
children raised by an extended family of grandmothers,
aunts and uncles?
What about
Molesters?
What should we do about the intelligent, professional
adults who say that they help children by having sexual
relations with them?
Can we prove with logic that these people are not
correct? They will argue that they are discriminated
against and should be allowed to marry and adopt children.
The American Psychological Association caused a brouhaha
in 1999 when it published a study which indicated
that these people can have a positive influence on
a child. It said that we should eliminate the use
of "judgmental terms" such as "child
abuse," "molestation," and "victims."
We should use neutral, value-free terms like "adult-child
sex." We should not talk about "the severity
of abuse," but instead refer to "the level
of sexual intimacy." After great pressure, including
a unanimous condemnation from Congress, the APA apologized
for printing the study. Although the North American
Man/Boy Love Association is under attack, its members
are still there. A long and friendly article about
them was printed in Boston magazine last year.
Are Fathers
Needed Anymore?
Another study that was published by the American Psychological
Association last year said that fathers are not "essential"
for children.
It said fathers can even be a detriment because of
the male tendency to consume "resources in terms
of gambling, purchasing alcohol, cigarettes, or other
nonessential commodities," which "increase
women's workload and stress."
The authors admitted they have a strong political
agenda, "We acknowledge that our reading of the
scientific literature supports our political agenda,"
they said.
The "agenda" is to create a socialist state
such as exists in Sweden. Their present concern is
with what they see as a "backlash" against
"the gay rights and feminist movements."
They believe that any attempt to reintroduce the father
into the American culture through the use of marriage
is "an attempt to reassert the cultural hegemony
of traditional values, such as heterocentrism, Judeo-Christian
marriage, and male power and privilege."
The article was the lead story in the June 1999 issue
of the American Psychologist, which is the only publication
sent to every member of the organization and which
is used routinely to espouse the viewpoint of the
APA leadership.
U.S. Supreme
Court Said Voters Should Decide
According to a 1986 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court,
the citizens of any state, such as Massachusetts,
must decide the moral issue as to whether the unusual
sexual habits of homosexuals should be 1) criminalized,
2) tolerated, or 3) made a civil rights issue.
The Court said our laws are "constantly based
on notions of morality, and if all laws representing
essentially moral choices are to be invalidated under
the [Constitution], the courts will be very busy indeed."
If the citizens of Massachusetts decide to make homosexuality
into a civil right, then the legal logic that follows,
according to the Vermont Supreme Court, is that "gay
marriage" is guaranteed by their constitution.
"Gay marriage" or "domestic partnership"
might "destabilize" the institution of marriage,
acknowledged the Vermont Supreme Court in its opinion
about gay marriage. They said they don't know what
will happen as a result.
The only way that Massachusetts can guarantee that
"gay marriage" is not forced upon the state
by the courts is through an amendment to the Massachusetts
Constitution.
|
