|
|---|
 |
Why Do Women Want Gay Marriage? When Vermont voted on civil unions in 2000, men in the legislature voted against the idea by a margin of 60-41. Women favored it, by a four-to-one margin, 35-9. As a result, the final vote was 76 legislators in favor of civil unions and 69 against. Women were the decisive factor. That appears to be true among citizens in our state also. Why? No one disagrees that marriage was initiated by the Jewish people 4000 years ago in order to revolutionize the status of women. If she became pregnant, the man was now legally responsible for her and the child. He could no longer jump from woman to woman without some responsibility. For a Jew with religious faith, which was certainly not everyone, that added to the strength of his commitment. Since our sexual "revolution" of the 1960's, which was actually a reversion to the practices before the Jews, many women, especially the strongest feminists, believe they no longer need the support of a man. They say that with the help of welfare, their own earnings, birth control and abortion, they will do better without a man. They have accepted the canard that most American men have always been promiscuous even though it is obvious that if that were true, they were not alone. There had to be a woman joining in. Those at NOW and elsewhere have said that traditional marriage must be removed and the government should raise the children as in Norway , Sweden and Cuba . They have convinced many young women that they will do better without a man. In addition, women are more compassionate than men and vote largely with their feelings. Many of those women do not consider the effect on their own children of living without a male. The studies show that children who do not have a mother and a father do not do as well. Many also fail to consider that when the government starts raising the children, they will be in charge of everyone's child, not just those mothers who desire it. "So What If a Gay Couple Moves Next Door?" Anyone who asks this question still believes the "gay gene" theory. However, it was declared dead by everyone five years ago. Even Pinch Sulzberger's Boston Globe published on February 7, 1999 in a prominent article: “The [gay] gene still has not been found, and interest in, and enthusiasm for, the ‘gay gene' research has waned among activists and scientists alike. And there is a growing consensus that sexual orientation is much more complicated than a matter of genes.” The well-known psychiatrist, Dr. Robert Spitzer, who led the fight in 1973 to remove homosexuals from the "disordered" list of the American Psychiatric Association, is now reporting that he is being successful in changing the orientation of many homosexuals. If homosexuality is not genetic and the gay couple simply made a choice to masturbate each other, then most people would not feel "sorry" for them or approve their choice, particularly where children are concerned. It is indisputable that children do better where they have both a mother and a father. It is also obvious that not every mother and father can be a good parent, but that is the desire of every child. As for the molestation question, there is no doubt that homosexuals are divided into moral and immoral, just like everyone else. The vast majority, some 70%, of molesters of children are heterosexual men seeking young girls. However, that means when you consider that homosexuals commit 30% of the molestation even though they are only 3% of the population, they are ten times more likely to molest than are the rest of the population. In addition, marriage was established over 4000 years ago not to protect partners, but to protect children. Chief Justice Margaret Marshall argued passionately both at oral argument and in her written opinion imposing gay marriage, that marriage was established for "economic" reasons. She is married to a man twenty-years older than she, 57 and 77, and she has no children. One feels sorry to hear her argue that neither romantic love nor the desire for children are the reason that marriage was established, only "economics." Can Just the Religious Decide Gay Marriage? Nobody, not even the most religious, argues that only the religious should decide the important issue of marriage. The preachers, priests and rabbis have no right to tell us how to live, but they do have a right to express their opinion, the same as everyone else. After all, no one believes we should release all murderers from jail just because the Ten Commandments instructs that no one should murder. Many Libertarians and others, who are atheists or agnostics, understand on an intellectual, practical level that it is much cheaper and more efficient to let parents care for their own children. This is many times better than creating another huge government bureaucracy with the inordinate taxes that it would require. One does not need to be religious to understand that the desire of every child is to have a mother and a father. This Is a Rogue CourtThis is a rogue court, say the three liberal judges who voted against Margaret Marshall. They say she didn't have the power to hear the case. She should have thrown it out without deciding it. They were polite in their language, but they were clearly stating that this is a court that is acting illegally. It was a 3-3 decision with three judges voting with Marshall and three against her."Be Conservative, Don't Amend Constitution" Some homosexual groups are chiding conservatives that they should be "conservative" with the Constitution. "Don't amend it," they say. But it is Margaret Marshall who is amending the Constitution with her Nov. 18 opinion. The majority of citizens, not just conservatives, are seeking to have Chief Justice Margaret Marshall withdraw her opinion. If left standing, it would amend the Constitution we have always known. Those who say marriage violates Civil Rights are using code words to allow lawyers and judges to decide this issue, not citizens. Traditional Marriage Ain't Great Those men and women who enter into marriage are not "saints" anymore than other people. But all lesbians aren't kind and gentle either. You would think from the poster-like seven couples who were painstakingly chosen as plaintiffs in the Goodridge suit, that they are all saints. There's a group of lesbians in our state who denounce the tremendous domestic violence between lesbians. The group is endorsed by the Commonwealth. Their website is www.thenetworklared.org/english/network. They say that lesbians are just as dangerous as men. Statistics show that they are the most violent group, more so than heterosexuals and gay men. Is This Story Written Anywhere? he attorney for Massachusetts Citizens for Marriage, J. Edward Pawlick, has just written a book titled: "Libel by New York Times, Gay Marriage Didn't Just Happen in Massachusetts , It Was Engineered by the New York Times." MCM successfully led thousands of citizens in 2001-2002 to get 130,000 signatures for an Amendment to the state Constitution which would prohibit both gay marriage and civil unions. Then the Democratic legislature violated the state Constitution and refused to allow a vote on the Amendment. Only 25% of the legislators were necessary to send it to the voters for a vote at the elections in 2004. But the majority refused to allow them to vote. As a result, Senate President Tom Birmingham said publicly that it caused him to lose the Democratic primary for Governor. Shannon O'Brien was nominated, only to waffle on gay marriage and see Romney elected. Atty. Pawlick shows in his book that the member of the Sulzberger family, which has owned the Times since 1896 and has owned the Boston Globe since 1993 and also owns the Worcester Telegram, Pinch Sulzberger, great grandson of the founder, is using the awesome power of those papers to force gay marriage upon us. He is doing so in cooperation with Margaret Marshall, who is the wife of the Times' most radical and famous columnist, Anthony Lewis. They planned in 1999, when Marshall was named to the post by Gov. Cellucci, to impose gay marriage upon Massachusetts . The book is available at www.libelbynewyorktimes.com Profits from book, if any, will be used to tell this message |
|
|
Archives | Letters | Bookshop |
