February 2004 Letters to the Editor

Massachusetts and Child kidnapping
February 2004
Please we need your help. The attached letter explains the story of how our two youngest children (Christian, now 15 and Marianne, now 5) were illegally kidnapped across state lines without either our or their consent which is against federal law (Federal Criminal Code & Rules, under Title 18 of the U.S. Code, section 1201) and without our/or their proper due process of law being served. ...MORE

Dear Editor,
February 24, 2004
   Some would say there is no reason to not grant same gender marriages.
Here is a few reasons not to grant them.
    Homosexual couples can never naturally produce offspring. When they raise offspring, at best they compare in many ways with single parents-far below levels of natural married families. In some significant ways, they are inferior to single-parent
households.
   Do their relationships lead to healthy people? No. Adult male homosexuals have a life expectancy twenty years shorter than the total male
population; those with AIDS have even less time. They are statistically
more likely to suffer the entire gamut of mental illness than the rest of
society-as much as 6 times higher.
   Hogg, R. S., S. A. Strathdee, K. J. Craib, M. V O'Shaughnessy, J. S.
Montaner, and M. T. Schechter, "Modeling the Impact of HIV Disease on Mortality in Gay and Bisexual Men," International Journal of Epidemiology, Vol 26, 657-662, 1997. "In a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality were to continue, we estimate that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged 20 years will not reach their 65th birthday."
   Substance abuse is an additional health concern of those in the homosexual
lifestyle: Timothy J. Dailey, "The Negative Health Effects of Homosexuality"
and associated notes, Family Research Council "The Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychologists reports that lesbian women consume alcohol more frequently, and I larger amounts, than heterosexual women. Lesbians were at significantly grater risk than heterosexual women for both binge drinking
(19.4 percent compared to 11.7 percent), and for heavy drinking (7 percent compared to 2.7 percent)….Among men, by far the most important risk group consisted of homosexual and bisexual men, who were more than nine times as likely as heterosexual men to have a history of problem drinking."
   One in almost every two gay men suffers domestic abuse that results in hospitalization. For lesbians an astounding 55% suffer violent domestic abuse. When emotional abuse is included, 83% of males and 84% of females have experienced abuse. FBI statistics for 1999 showed 1,317 incidents of violence motivated by the offender's disapproval of homosexual behavior (hate crime). By comparison, there were 650,000 incidences of violence committed by male homosexual partners, plus a similar number for lesbian partners.
   Studies show that 17% of young men in America are sexually abused before adulthood ; nearly all of these are abused by the 1.1-1.2% of the population that is homosexual. While this by no means shows that all homosexuals are pedophiles, it does imply that the pedophiles among this demographic are particularly dangerous predators. Consider the situation this puts the Boys Scouts in. If they don't allow non-celibate gay leaders, they lose funding and are accused of bigotry. If they allow them, increased lawsuits for not preventing sexual abuse are inevitable. The group NAMBLA-formerly disavowed by the gay community, but now welcomed at gay pride activities-has actually published information instructing pedophiles on how to become Boy Scout leaders, and other ways to profile, lure, befriend, and rape a child, then avoid detection and prosecution.
    At the very least, in order to be honored with marriage, homosexuals should show that they intend to live faithfully committed to each other. But social science has yet to produce evidence that there is such a thing as an exclusively faithful gay couple. Monogamy among gays is a myth.
   For a decade studies have tried-and failed-to document committed gay relationships. The studies are mainly intended to show that gay relationships are stable and therefore worthy of adopting children.
    Homosexual proponents, with an agenda, fund the studies. Yet they have failed to show evidence of a single long-term monogamous couple. Most studies are terminated after about ten months when none of the couples (who self-identified as committed couples) were still together. The longest study found one couple that reached five years before splitting. That was apparently an anomaly. Of course there are some who stay together longer, often much longer. But the studies tried to show monogamy, not simply sharing an address. Until it can be proven otherwise, it is safe to assume that no long-term gay relationship is sexually exclusive.
   A study showing number of sexual partners for gays found the average number at 308. The high in that study was 18,000. Some suggest that the promiscuity results from homophobia in society. But studies in The Netherlands, where there is gay marriage and an open acceptance of homosexuality, have found promiscuity to be the rule. Married gays have on average eight casual sexual partners a year.
   In heterosexual relationships, serial infidelity is grounds for divorce; the gay community insists it is grounds for marriage.
   While the direct causes of homosexuality are not known, there is much evidence that it is not genetic. Identical twins are not identically likely to be gay, for example. While social science has not detected a singular cause, it has discovered common factors, life experiences that are shared by a high number of the demographic. For example, a homosexual male is most likely to have had his first sexual experience at age 12-14 with someone 11 years older. A high percentage have suffered sexual abuse. It is likely that sexual abuse is a causative factor.
   Homosexuality is not immutable. About 30% of those who enter treatment because they want to leave the lifestyle are successful in doing so. For those who combine spiritual and psychological treatment, success is higher than for those employing only psychological treatment.
    Any way you look at it, participating in the gay lifestyle is neither good for the individual nor for society. That doesn't mean we scorn or disdain people who practice homosexuality. They suffer enough from their own behavior; we should have no desire to add to their difficulties.
   What harm will it do to give in to same-sex marriage? It will degrade marriage and deplete it of its meaning. It will equate the most beneficial relationship for society with a destructive lifestyle that has no way to reproduce nor provide for posterity and causes real harm to individuals and society. Real marriage, on the other hand, has the proven potential to sustain civilization. Quite a difference.

Lawrence From Arizona

To the Editor,
February 24, 2004
    According to a January 13, 2004 story in the Salt Lake Tribune, Utah Civil Rights and Liberties Foundation Attorney Brian Barnard has filed suit in U. S. District to force the state to recognize a trio who want to live together as husband and wife and wife. Their suit is based on the alleged violation of a person's right to privacy that was the basis of last June's Lawrence v. Texas decision from the U. S. Supreme Court. The suit's aim is to establish the right to any adult consensual relationship and to overturn the U. S. Supreme Court's 1879 decision in Reynolds v. United States that upheld Utah's anti-polygamy law.
    So, those who say that the proposed Constitutional Amendment will simply violate a person's civil rights are clearly opening up an evil can of worms. The lawsuits are already there. If the amendment doesn't pass, there will simply be more of them.  - Michael Carl

Dear Editor,
February 18, 2004
These days, frankly, it may be necessary, in opposing the SJC's gay marriage edict, to cite arguments that go beyond just the moral and social implications. We need all possible "talking points" for our legislators and our friends. The public would do well to appeal to the self-interest of the legislature in tipping the scales, as the usurpation of the legislature's prerogatives by this rogue court is both blatant and obvious. This usurpation is an issue in itself, as it threatens the existence of the republican form of government our citizens have a right to enjoy.

Both citizens and legislators can go on a quick web search and find numerous sites with the text of the Massachusetts Constitution available. One will quickly be drawn to Part 1, Article 30, which prohibits the very type of judicial usurpation of the legislative function that the present case evidences. Legislators may, at that point, consider that such usurpation of their powers merits impeachment of the responsible parties. They may then wish to explore the plain meaning of Part 1, Article 29, while the citizenry may seek to exercise their right to insist on impeachment of the four guilty justices by citing, for the legislature's benefit, Part 1, Articles 5 and 8.

The governor may likewise be apprised of Amendment Article 98. If these rights and powers are well implemented, the tyrannical judicial edict may simply be ignored as patently illegal, while impeachment proceedings and the Defense of Marriage Amendment move through their processes simultaneously!

Have we come to the point where the plain wording (or, in this case, the absence of any wording whatsoever "mandating" this decision) in our fundamental law means nothing, but airy, puffed-up hubris from a collection of ivory tower pseudo-scholars is an acceptable substitute? If it has come to that, then I suggest that we are at the point where "law" is simply arbitrary, and none of our rights is safe, in the matter of opposing gay marriage in the public forum, or any other matter.

We have two weeks. Let's roll.

Leo from Plymouth

Editor, Massnews :
February 11, 2004

I wish to express my thanks to Attorney J. Edward Pawlick and Massnews for the good work in keeping us informed about the corruption of the Supreme Judicial Court and the gay marriage battle. These events are not just another news story; they are, by all measure, watershed events in our lives.

I am delighted to see so many of my fellow citizens getting involved in this fight. Both in print and on talk radio, many citizens are reporting how they've contacted their state reps to express their views. Most importantly, for many, this is the first time in their lives they've ever made such a call or written such a letter. Keep up the pressure, it will pay dividends.

Many Massachusetts citizens oppose gay marriage and have not yet made their voices heard. May I suggest that, if making calls or writing letters is not for you, consider sending the Massachusetts Citizens for Marriage a much needed donation to keep their message heard on the radio. Advertising works only when it is repetitive, and that costs a great deal of money. You can be sure the proponents of gay marriage are supporting their cause; now we must support ours.

The Massachusetts Citizens for Marriage address is PO Box 812448, Wellesley, MA 02482. I am not a member of the organization, just an concerned citizen who wants to make sure the truth is heard.

Ed from Raynham

Dear Editor
February 11, 2004

The many proponents of gay marriage distort the facts and plead for equal
rights for all. They mean only all gays. Below are two Massachusetts state
statutes which deny equal marriage rights to persons accused of mental illness.
Why is that not an issue before the public if the gay and lesbian lobby, and the  MA Supreme  Judicial Court support equal rights for all? This is one more example of the dictionary definition of BIGOTRY by the Gay and Lesbian Lobby, and the MA Court  system.
Chapter 207 Sec. 12 prohibits anyone who plans to live in another state
from marrying in MA if they are prohibited from marrying in that other state.
How many other states (like MA) have laws to prohibit persons accused of mental
illness from marrying?
Chapter 107 Sec. 16 allows prohibiting persons from marrying, who are
accused of mental illness, by a parent. Nowhere have I heard any of the Gay and
Lesbian advocates in or out of elected offices speak on this issue. Yet it
clearly prohibits certain persons from enjoying the same rights that the gay and
lesbian lobby promotes in MA, by their Court ruling. It shows also the the Court itself does not extend the same rights and  privileges (equal protection of the laws) to persons accused of mental illness.

Roy from Cambridge

Dear Editor:
February 8, 2004
Sunday on the green;

As I watched the 11pm news on channels 5 and 7, I have to say they underreported the story.  Although they gave the homosexuals equal time they seemed to have no representation.

I brought 150 letters with me drafted by Archbishop O Malley.  People were grabbing them and wanting several copies. I did not want to push anyone to take them so I was very happy that folks were as enthusiastic as I was.  One lady said she was going to duplicate them for her whole Church.   There clearly were many faiths represented and actively mingling in the crowds passing out their own literature. 

Two gentlemen who were on the other side tried to stand in the crowd with us and were asked to leave.  With some resistance they left our group and stood some distance.  They were not welcome and they were perceived as aggressive. It could have escalated but they got the message.  That was the only negative point I witnessed. 

I saw a wide range of ages present.  I was surprised so many elderly showed up and they were obviously frozen but hung in there for the whole thing.  The crowd disbanded about 4:15. My friend and I were warming and watching from D & D's. All the speakers were fantastic and received a lot of cheers.  I think the people were really into the talks and would have stayed longer had more speakers been invited.  I know I would still be there if it was still going on. 

I feel very awakened to the horrific extent of this battle we are facing. This rally made me feel like democracy was finally happening.  I hope people will over run the State House on Wednesday to lend their support against gay marriage.
Janet, Wayland

Dear Friends:
February 7, 2004

The left has traditionalists over a barrel on Wednesday's Constitutional Convention vote.

If we lose the vote Wednesday, our side will be demoralized and many will give up the fight. And when we get “gay marriage” on May 14, conservative politicians will become even more cowardly than they already are (if that is possible).

If the constitutional amendment vote passes the legislature Wednesday, traditionalists will claim victory, rest on their laurels, and we will get “gay marriage” anyway on May 14.

Either way, we lose. Either way, we get “gay marriage” for two-and-a-half years or more. Could the homosexual lobby be in a better position?

The failure of those supporting traditional morality is largely due to the fact that they have thrown their entire political influence behind an effort to fix something that doesn't need fixing: the Massachusetts Constitution.

The constitution is just fine the way it is; the Supreme Judicial Court is the problem. And when you have a constitution that is functioning correctly and an out-of-control court, the solution is not to amend the constitution and leave the court alone. That's only common sense.

Pursuing a constitutional amendment begs the question: What good is it to amend a constitution that the SJC openly says it is not paying attention to anyway?

What needs amending is not the constitution, but the Supreme Judicial Court, which has usurped the authority of the legislature. After the vote Wednesday it will become clear to everyone that impeachment is -- and always was -- the only option our side has in this battle.

Sadly, our best hope Wednesday is to pray for petty politics to prevent a vote, resulting a corresponding increase in outrage that changes the focus to impeachment.

Only then will we be addressing the problem directly, rather than its effects. Only then will we stand a chance to stop gay marriage before the May 14 deadline, albeit a long shot because so much energy has been wasted on this foolish constitutional amendment campaign.

Impeachment will be easier than a constitutional amendment. A constitutional amendment requires two votes of the legislature and a popular vote, while impeachment requires only one vote. But it takes effect immediately; we don't have to wait two-and-a-half years!

We can win this battle, but we have already wasted too much time on a hopeless side issue.

Impeach now!

Tom from East Taunton

Dear Editor,
February 8, 2004

From the beginning of creation, God made them male and female, for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.." The Bottom Line on this whole gay marriage issue is that it's just not right!! I'm disgusted that Massachusetts has decided to confuse our young people even more, by changing what the meaning of marriage is. I understand that people in long term committed same sex partnerships would like their partners insurance benefits or retirement benefits,let individual companies decide how they want to cater to the needs of same sex couples.
If we continue to distort our constitution then its very sad to say we will continue to have a generation of confused young people.  Isn't anyone strong enough to stop this nonsense.  I can think of a lot more important issues in our world today that deserve just as much attention. Marriage is not the union of two people of the same sex. Marriage is a sacrament, intended for one man one woman.  If we twist the meaning of marriage now don't be surprised if next year man will want to marry his dog, what's Massachusetts going to do then?  So the answer to the question, "No we should NOT have a state constitutional amendment to define marriage!
Sarah from Quincy

January 6, 2004
Dear Editor;

Shortly after the break in the Concerned Women for America-sponsored rally at the Statehouse, I began the hunt for the representatives from both Lynn and Wakefield. As a pastor in Wakefield and a resident of Lynn, this unique situation gives me the opportunity to visit with two sets of Lawmakers. The visits were all cordial and informative. Four of these meetings were with the legislative aides, but that can be just as useful. It is the legislative aide who normally helps write any proposed legislation and who acts as the gatekeeper for the legis-lator.

The one Representative I was able to find was Mike Festa, D-Wakefield/Melrose. The meeting polite, respectful and thoughtful. As I left his office, I realized that what I encountered is what most people have encountered as they lobby their legislators--a man who knows what is right, but is finding it difficult to take a stand for that belief.

For instance, Representative Festa agrees that marriage is the union between one man and one woman. Yet, he cannot bring himself to support an amendment to define marriage in that way.

Secondly, he understands that marriage is the basic sociological unit of all thriving and successful cultures in the six thousand years of recorded human history. Still, he cannot support amending our Commonwealth's Constitution to reflect that reality.

Thirdly, he agreed when I told him that several studies on child development show that children who grow up in a home with their natural parents do better in school, are more psychologically well adjusted and are less likely to do drugs. Yet, he still couldn't bring himself to commit to supporting the MA and PA legislation.

He also understands that gays have a shorter lifespan, have a higher incidence of alcoholism and normally have multiple partners, disproving the idea that homosexuals are also looking for stable, more permanent relationships. Again, he still cannot support an amendment, that if passed, would protect Massachusetts from an increased caseload in family courts.

Respectfully we ended our meeting with a gentleman's handshake and best wishes. Still, Representative Festa, like Senator Richard Tisei, R-Wakefield, will not support passage of the Marriage Affirmation and Protection Amendment in Constitutional Convention on February 11. Senator Thomas McGee, D-Lynn, Representatives Mark Falzone, D-Wakefield/Lynnfield/Lynn, and Bob Fennell, D-Lynn, have all avoided making any public statements on the issue.

The battle is joined. The lines are clear. The vote is next week.

Michael Carl

Dear Editor:
February 6, 2004

Representative Travis' office told me today that he has removed language that might prohit civil unions.  The amendment was weak as it was now it's terrible.  All we are left with, if it passes, is saving the word "marriage" and even that may disappear sometime.
It would be better to go down in flames now with stronger language than have a false sense of victory.

Dave from Newton

February 6, 2004
To The Editor:

This not so much a letter about the decision yesterday by the SJC regarding homosexual marriage as it is a question. As many of us are, I am deeply grieved by this decision. But I wonder - Is there any possible way to impeach our activist judges according to Chapter 211C Section 2 of the General Laws of Massachusetts? Surely there must be some way to hold these people accountable for their actions.

Rob from Lakeville

February 6, 2004
Dear Editor;
The Revolutionary War was fought on the basis of “no taxation without representation.” The founders of our country were men and women of strong moral principle. They knew that to continue to live under the tyrannical rule of King George was tantamount to slavery, something they refused to accept. Today, we here in Massachusetts , the very state in which that war started, find ourselves once again without representation in the area of homosexual marriage.

In the place of an arrogant king, we have instead a rogue Supreme Judicial Court , four members of which have taken it upon themselves to do what only our legislators are allowed to do….make law, supposedly based on our state Constitution. Under that Constitution, only our elected legislators, who are solely responsible to the citizens who voted them into office, have the right to make our laws.

Unelected judges, who are responsible only to themselves, are called upon merely to interpret law, not to make it. By decreeing that heretofore homosexuals can be legally married in Massachusetts , a decision which has no basis in law , the citizens of Massachusetts have been robbed of their right to be represented. Their voices have been effectively stifled, a condition so odious that were we back in pre-Revolutionary days, it would be cause for war.

In contrast, what are our legislators doing in response to the action taken by Chief Justice Marshall and her 3 cohorts, unelected judges all. They will wring their hands and debate the matter to death over a period of several days, and in the end, they will give in and the judicial tyrants will prevail.

Our forefathers, those brave patriots who refused to bend the knee to King George, who lost their lives in the bloody conflict that led to the birth of our great country, who pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor in order to gain our freedom from all tyrants, then and now, would weep if they could see how easily we have forfeited that precious freedom to our modern day tyrants.

Jennie from Framingham

February 6, 2004
Dear Editor

You've have heard how the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has told the Legislature, to enact a marriage law for same sex marriages.

Although an amendment was submitted to the Legislature by the citizens to define marriage, which is their right, the Democrats controlling the legislature refused to vote on the amendment. Even though according to the Massachusetts Constitution, they are mandated to vote.

The don't need no "stinkin' Constitution" in Massachusetts.

In Massachusetts, there is no constitutional right for lawful Americans to keep and bears arms in defense of their life and liberty, but there is a constitutional right for same sexes to marry.

Yup

Dear Editor;
February 5, 2004
I'm listening to Jay Severin on 96.9 FM. There was a discussion about how the Boston Globe was praising Margaret Marshall for her judicial activism. One caller thought that she was somehow related to someone at the Boston Globe or the New York Times so they might not be impartial. Perhaps you could send some concise facts to Jay. I read something about this at massnews but I can't recall the exact connection.

John L.

Response from Editor:
Margaret Marshall is the wife of the New York Times most famous columnist, Anthony Lewis, who has entree to any office in their New York headquarters.    The 77-year-old Lewis was removed a few years ago from the paper itself because he was too radical in his views about Afghanistan. But he continues to write for their news service which provides columns for newspapers across the country and he tells everyone he is a columnist for the Times

Dear MassNews:
February 4, 2004
While I think your organization has done some heroic work, Mr. Pawlick's claim that Justice Marshall will resign over her collusion with the NYTimes is unfortunately not tenable.  How does he plan on bringing such facts to light?  He does not say.
Best wishes, Matthew

Response from Editor:

I have written a 356-page book about the facts. It, "Libel By New York Times," came off the press last week and is available for sale on this site.