Other Propaganda from the Globe

Most people get angry at the Boston Globe much of the time but they don't realize just how serious the problem is. The Globe has more power than any elected official, says Sarah McVay Pawlick, President of Mass. Citizens for Marriage.

"But who elected them?" she asks. "What right do they have to tell people the Amendment is dead when that is not true? That's what they hope is true, but is it a reality?"

Pawlick notes that the Globe wrote in its news columns on May 2, 2002, "As Senate president, Birmingham could choose to not schedule a proposed amendment for a vote, which would scuttle the measure."

That is not true, she says. When Sen. Birmingham did as the Globe suggested, this violated the law. This was not just another political decision he could "choose," she says.

In another story, the Globe gave public advice on its news pages that if Sen. Birmingham were to see that no vote is taken on the measure, it would "potentially generate some needed excitement about his campaign [for Governor]." The paper did not say whether this would be moral, ethical or legal. According to the Globe, this was strictly a political question for the Senator.

The Globe also indicated that the Senator could use more "subtle" means of avoiding a vote. It said, "He could use more subtle means of squashing it, rallying allies behind the scenes and then putting it up for a vote when he knows it wouldn't get the support it needs to pass."

While such a tactic may not be "nice," says Pawlick, it is usually expected in politics.
But the question about which many want an answer is whether not calling for a vote, despite the mandate by the Constitution, is merely a "political trick" or is it a violation of our state laws?

Lawyer for 'Save Our Horses' Proved That ACLU Blockers Made it Difficult to Hire Signature Gatherers

An affidavit from the people at Save Our Horses confirmed that illegal blockers from the ACLU hurt the marriage amendment.

The California lawyer who represented the horse people in their suit presented his own Affidavit in court which said that he interviewed another Mass. signature-gatherer, Robert Wilkinson, by telephone on April 7, 2002. (It was Wilkinson's company that obtained signatures last fall for bilingual education and for Carla Howell's income tax. Apparently Carla Howell used both signature-gathering companies.)

According to the lawyer's sworn statement, "[An employee of Mass. Citizens for Marriage] told Mr. Wilkinson that he wanted to contract with Mr. Wilkinson's company to collect additional signatures on the Marriage Amendment petition, Petition E.

"Mr. Wilkinson declined. He had been spending time on the street supervising the collection of signatures on other petitions, and knew from what he saw and heard there that the Marriage Amendment was controversial. He saw that many anti-Petition E activists [blockers] were stationed at the shopping malls where most of the signature gathering was going on, and heard them urging voters not to sign Petition E.

"He knew from his experience with past signature drives that controversy makes it harder to collect signatures and therefore makes a controversial petition a bad business venture..."

There's no doubt that the inevitable result of the illegal blocking was a reluctance to ask citizens to volunteer to collect signatures because of concern about their safety. This necessitated paid signature gatherers. But the professional signature gatherers recoiled at the extra work required to gather signatures, due to the presence of the activists who would literally get in their face. The price per signature was driven up because of confrontation and intimidation tactics by ACLU activists.

This is conclusively proven by Atty. Finley's own affidavit. But it was never noticed by anyone during any hearing.

Atty. Arkuss Refuses to Show Letters

Atty. Neil P. Arkuss failed to ever show the "thousands of signatures" from registered voters who were "fraudulently diverted" from the horse petition to that of the Protection of Marriage.

Although this was not important to his lawsuit which was quickly dismissed by Judge Thomas E. Connolly, it was very important as to whether this was just another dirty trick by the opponents of the Marriage Amendment.

Arkuss hoped the whole matter would be forgotten. He had his fun slandering the supporters of marriage and never expected anyone would question him about it.

But MassNews wanted to report the truth. It challenged him because the Chair of "Save Our Horses," Susan Wagner, had sworn in an affidavit before the Suffolk Superior Court that they had received written responses from over 1,000 voters in all parts of Massachusetts. But no impartial person ever saw the 1,000 "written responses" which were alleged.

A box of something was brought to the hearing before Judge Thomas E. Connolly, but no one ever saw the contents of the box. The "responses" were not shown to the lawyers from Atty. Gen. Reilly's office who represented the Commonwealth. They were apparently not given to the judge. The trial lawyer for the horse petition, Atty. Daniel I. Small, told MassNews they were probably in the custody of Susan Wagner.

After the suit was filed against the Secretary of the Commonwealth in March, the President of MCM, Sarah McVay Pawlick urged the Secretary to "conduct an investigation" in order "to examine the evidence" which was claimed in the lawsuit.

She said,"We request that you begin this investigation immediately and complete it as quickly as possible. As you know, the statements made to the media by Save Our Horses have never contained either names or facts. Over the past five months since last November, they have complained repeatedly that a substantial number of people signed our petition while thinking they were signing the horse petition. We have waited vainly for over five months for any proof of those charges. But none has been forthcoming. Nevertheless, now that a suit has been filed against you - still without any proof of the charges - we must request that your office undertake an immediate and thorough investigation of this matter."

Pawlick wrote to Atty. Arkuss, "The names of the thousand or more people you claim have made written responses to you have still not been revealed. But your friends, who are the opponents of the Marriage Amendment, still use your lawsuit to disparage all who signed the Marriage Amendment even though Judge Connolly has dismissed your suit.

"You have made serious charges against the Marriage Amendment, which many believe was done on purpose. It is time for you to prove those charges. If some of the signature-gatherers who were hired by both you and Mass. Citizens for Marriage did indeed defraud anyone, everyone would be upset - and rightly so.

"We request that you allow Massachusetts News to examine those written responses. If that is not satisfactory to you, I would request that you suggest an impartial person of unquestioned integrity to do so.
"Please be kind enough to inform me how this examination would occur."

Atty. Arkuss never responded nor showed anyone the letters he claimed to have.

Sen Kerry Wanted a Vote on Marriage

Senator John F. Kerry made his support for a vote on the Amendment while he was on NBC's "Meet the Press." At the same time, he reiterated his opposition to gay marriage.

When asked whether Massachusetts voters deserved the right to address the issue, Kerry said, "I think people always deserve the right to vote and, if you have a referendum process ... people have a right to exercise it."

The full text of this segment on Meet the Press was:

RUSSERT: A difficult issue for Democrats: In your state, Robert Reich, Democratic candidate for governor, came out in favor of gay marriage. Would you support that?

SEN. KERRY: No, I don't support gay marriage. I support partnership rights. I believe that is important. We've done that in many parts of the country. But I do not support marriage.

RUSSERT: Would you allow a ballot referendum or support a ballot referendum in Massachusetts to allow people to vote yes or no on gay marriage?

KERRY: Well, we actually have a ballot referendum this year that will go to the heart of the matter with respect to gay marriage.

RUSSERT: But it's being blocked by leaders of the state Legislature. Do you believe that the people of Massachusetts deserve a right to vote on it?

KERRY: I think people always deserve a right to vote, and if you have a referendum process, Tim, people have a right to exercise it.

Many Were Influenced by Bogus Poll of Boston Herald

Beacon Hill was greatly influenced by a Boston Herald poll which was released the day before the vote in an obvious attempt to influence the voting. Many political polls are released at the last minute, right before a vote, so that no one has the time to refute its accuracy.

The feminist chief of the Editorial Page, Rachelle Cohen, has written that the Amendment is "childish" and her columnist, Margery Eagan, has compared those who signed the petition to the Taliban. Therefore, many wonder about the timing and accuracy of the poll.

The Herald has refused to release any of the data concerning the poll, which it says was taken of 402 persons. It will not reveal the questions that were asked nor the demographics of the people to whom they talked, although this violates professional ethical standards.

The Herald poll said that 52% oppose the Amendment although this flies in the face of every other poll on the subject.

In a poll taken this year of 500 persons by Wirthlin Worldwide, 86% disagreed with the statement that "marriage is an old-fashioned outmoded institution," and 81% agreed that it is better for children to be raised in a household with a married mother and father. The majority of persons agree that about 60% of the citizens favor the Amendment.

This refusal to release the questionnaire and the demographics makes it impossible for objective observers to determine if the results cited in this article are credible. An official at RKM Research and Communications, Portsmouth, N.H., refused to release any information about their polling.

In addition, the sample size used for this survey, 400 respondents, is smaller than the typical sample size for a state or commonwealth the size of Massachusetts.

According to the Herald, this poll was conducted on a Thursday, Friday, and Saturday. Fridays and Saturdays are days on which it is generally more difficult to reach "family values" conservatives because these people are consumed with family activities at these times.

In addition, women are most likely to oppose the Amendment. In the Vermont legislature, the men legislators voted against civil unions, with only 41 favoring it and 60 against, while the women voted for it by a four-to-one margin of 35-9. The final vote was 76 in favor and 69 against. But the Herald won't tell how many of the persons in their poll were women, whether they were married or whether they lived in cities, etc.

The Wirthlin poll commissioned by MassNews was 500 adults 18-years or older, randomly generated and stratified by county according to census population data. In addition, the sample was validated according to gender, age, and educational attainment to ensure accurate representation of the county's adult population. The margin of error for a sample size of 500 is 4.38 percentage points in 95 out of 100 cases.

Violates Code of Ethics

The code of ethics for the American Association of Public Opinion researchers states in Section III of the code:

Good professional practice imposes the obligation upon all public opinion researchers to include, in any report of research results, or to make available when that report is released, certain essential information about how the research was conducted. At a minimum, the following items should be disclosed:

1) Who sponsored the survey, and who conducted it.

2) The exact wording of questions asked, including the text of any preceding instruction or explanation to the interviewer or respondents that might reasonably be expected to affect the response.

Source: AAPO website (www.aapor.org/ethics/code.html).

How Many Lies Can You Find?

How many lies can you find in the following paragraph that was on the website of the main opponent, 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.

National Gays Active in Massachusetts

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.

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]

Extreme Liberal Groups Work Mass.

Two other national organizations are actively working in Massachusetts to defeat the Amendment. One of them is the extreme feminist organization, NOW. Everyone knows that support from this feminist group 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.

Why Is This Important to Average Fathers?

An intense battle is now underway by those who are trying to force everyone to follow the socialist model.

They are strongly opposed to the "Protection of Marriage" Amendment to our state Constitution because it would damage their plans. They even forced Senate President Tom Birmingham to break the law in an attempt to defeat it.

Why are they so against the Marriage Amendment? Because they are the ones who would have the children raised by the government. They are pushing the homosexuals out in front and telling everyone that the Amendment is only an attack on homosexuals.

If fathers don't realize the importance of this threat to all parents, both fathers and mothers, they will be like the people who were arguing about who was going to sit with the Captain of the Titanic on its cruise through the icebergs.

It is good to know that Shannon O'Brien is with the fathers on shared parenting, but now the fathers must ask her where she stands on the more important questions. Is she in favor of lowering taxes for all parents? Does she oppose the standard feminist dogma of putting the state more and more in charge of all children? Those, and many others, appear to be important questions.

Afraid to Let People Decide

A staunch supporter of gays, Rep. Alice K. Wolf (D-Cambridge), admitted that the gays are afraid to let the people decide the issue because they know they will lose. According to the Globe, Wolf told it, "Gay-rights advocates have long feared that conservative groups would take their campaign to the voting booth."

According to 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 had laws, at that time, 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.

Bay Windows Columnist Asks, Why Not Recognize Groups of Three?

A columnist in Bay Windows, has raised the point that if two homosexuals can raise a child successfully, why couldn't a group of three do it even better? Her article was titled, "Is Monogamy Normal?" It is impossible for anyone to argue against that as a legal principle if we change the definition of marriage.

The columnist 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 and a grandmother petitioned for custody. The columnist said, "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."

It's difficult to argue with that logic in a courtroom when we've all seen children raised by an extended family of grandmothers, aunts and uncles.

ï Can we logically deny that many people have successfully been raised by three or four relatives? Is there any logical reason to deny health and other benefits to those people? How about a commune? Where will you stop?

ï A basic decision about morality was made by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1986. It said our laws are "constantly based on notions of morality, and if all laws representing essentially moral choices are to be invalidated under the Due Process Clause, the courts will be very busy indeed." It refused to decide whether a state was wrong when it made the moral judgment that sodomy is a crime. The Supreme Court says that we, the citizens, are constantly making decisions about morality every day. It is part of our duty as citizens in a democracy.

ï What should we do about the intelligent, professional adults who say that they help children by having sexual relations with them? Many professionals agree with them. Can we prove with logic that they 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 a year ago 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 resolution from Congress, the APA apologized for printing the study. The American Psychiatric Association also changed its diagnostic manual a few years back so that a person no longer has a "disorder" simply because he "molests" children. To be diagnosed as "disordered," the psychiatrists look to the psyche of the adult. If the adult does not feel anxious about the relationship with the child or if he is not impaired in his work or social relationships, then he has no "disorder." Can we deny these people the right to marry and defend that position in court if we change the definition of marriage?

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.

Summary of Amendment as Written by Attorney General

This proposed constitutional amendment would add to the state Constitution a provision that only the union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Massachusetts. It would prohibit any other relationship from either (1) receiving the benefits or incidents exclusive to marriage from the state or from any of its authorities, cities or towns, or other political subdivisions; or (2) being recognized as a marriage or its legal equivalent. The proposed amendment would also declare the state's public policy to be that marriage is a unique relationship and is to be protected in order to promote the stability and welfare of society and the best interests of children.

649 Teens Commit To Abstinence Until Marriage

Over 850 young people packed the gym at a school in North Easton last month to hear a faith-based message about abstinence at a dynamic presentation called "The Silver Ring Thing." At the end of the three-hour event, 649 teens put on silver rings to symbolize their commitment to stay sexually pure until marriage.

Wall-to-wall teens, some with their younger siblings in tow, soaked up a positive message about abstinence in a fun way through skits, music videos, mock commercials, comedy, heart-to-heart talks and even some medical information from a physician.

The kids learned about the advantages of waiting until they are married, and how they rob themselves and their future spouse of a once-in-a-lifetime gift of their virginity. They heard about the emotional and physical damage that often results from early sex. They heard about the lies of "safe sex." They learned to look at relationships in a different way than has been portrayed in the media.

"We didn't have any idea how many kids would show up. It's a miracle," said Lynn Payne, a parent who was instrumental in bringing the event to Massachusetts."

Attacks on Marriage Began in 1949

The first attacks on marriage began to waft across the Atlantic from France in 1949. This was the year in which The Second Sex was written by Simone de Beauvoir. She talked about the "submission" of women that was an intrinsic part of marriage and how it was really nothing more than prostitution.

By the time that NOW was organized in the United States in 1966, after the Civil Rights Act became effective in 1965, there were many extreme feminists eager to denounce marriage.

As feminist Marcia Cohen says in her book, The Sisterhood, those feminists believed that women who chose to stay home to take care of their children become the "ultimate, useless parasite." This was the standard feminist mantra, Cohen said.

The president of the influential New York chapter of NOW, Ti-Grace Atkinson, told the New York Times back in 1968: "We're afraid of the truth. To say that you can be both a career woman and a wife and mother, and that the institutions won't change and won't be threatened - that's a cop out. . . . Any real change in the status of women would be a fundamental assault on marriage and the family. People would be tied together by love, not legal contraptions. Children would be raised communally; it's just not honest to talk about freedom for women unless you get the child rearing off their backs. We may not be ready for any of this yet, but if we're going to be honest, we've got to talk about it. Face it, raise the questions."

She also said, "The institution of marriage has the same effect as the institution of slavery had. It separates people in the same category, disperses them, keeps them from identifying as a class. The masses of slaves didn't recognize their condition, either. To say that a woman is really 'happy' with her home and kids is as irrelevant as saying that the blacks were 'happy' being taken care of by 'Ol Massa.' ... I think it's time for us to go on the offensive."

Atkins thought the nuclear family should be abolished and children should be raised communally.

The more conservative Betty Friedan was just a trifle more gentle: "[W]hether we will finally have to challenge the institutions, the concepts of marriage and the nuclear family - I don't know, I just don't know." She also said: "[W]hen a woman defines herself as a housewife [i.e., a mother], the house and things in it are, in a sense, her identity; she needs these external trappings to buttress her emptiness of self..."

The extremist feminist organization that they began, NOW, has not changed since its inception. But it has had a problem in Massachusetts because most women do not dislike men. The Boston Globe recognized this in an article on April 14, 2001.

Therefore, NOW is not allowed to appear publicly in the battle against the Marriage Amendment, but it is working actively with the opponents as is seen by its listing on the website of www.massequality.org.

It also reports on its national website, news from Massachusetts about the fight against the Amendment.

Basic Unit of a Healthy Society

The family, led by a married husband and wife, has always been the basic unit of a healthy and stable society, say historians. This assertion is based on thousands of years of historical and cultural continuity in law and tradition in every culture and civilization in recorded history. Marriage between a man and a woman expresses the accumulated wisdom of humanity and has been well established as the best model for raising children.

Therefore, anyone proposing radical change to the longstanding structure of the family in Massachusetts, as the opponents do, incontrovertibly has the burden of proof that such change not only will cause no harm, but will be beneficial to society. Until that is proven conclusively, most believe that no such changes should be made to public policy.