State Senator Brian Lees Has to Go
Arrogant Leader of Gay Marriage Is Intolerable
By Attorney J. Edward Pawlick
March 22, 2004
When the politicians threw our state Constitution into the trash can in July 2002, there were two ringleaders, Senate President Tom Birmingham and the Republican leader in the Senate, Brian Lees (R-Springfield).
Birmingham paid the ultimate price for breaking the law. He was forced into obscurity.
But Brian Lees is still here. Worse! He continues his scheming to stop the citizens from voting on homosexual marriage.
The Globe reported last week that Lees made a “minor change” to an Amendment which bans homosexual “marriage” but enacts civil unions. He calls it a “compromise.” If successful, Lee’s change will make the “compromise” one of the first measures to be voted upon when the Legislature returns next Monday, March 29.
If the plan wins, the citizens will never get a meaningful vote on anything. Here’s how the Globe spun the Lees maneuver:
“The idea … was to force an early vote on the compromise, in the hope of avoiding votes on competing proposals.
“Lees, meanwhile, said he sees his measure as a middle-of-the-road solution that he hopes can draw a majority. The measure is cosponsored by [Senate President] Travaglini, who controls the gavel in the session.
“‘I am cautiously optimistic that the revised compromise will succeed,’ said Lees, of East Longmeadow. ‘It still meets the needs of the folks that want a ballot question, but also protects the rights and benefits of gay and lesbian couples, which would clearly be lost if a different measure was on the ballot.’” [Emphasis added]
Baloney, Brian Lees!!!
The “competing proposals” are from Reps Paul Loscocco (R-Holliston) and Vinny de Macedo (R-Plymouth). They would give the voters a real choice. The Lees proposal will enact civil unions no matter how the people vote. That’s no choice. What a charlatan!
Tom Birmingham Had Some Sense of Shame
At least Tom Birmingham had some sense of shame. He tried to fight the powerful forces of the AFL-CIO and the owner of the Boston Globe, Pinch Sulzberger, but they were too much for him. When the Globe pushed him to violate the Constitution during the weeks before the vote on July 17, 2002, Birmingham responded that the people put him there to vote on issues, like the Protection of Marriage Amendment. But he eventually capitulated to the intense pressure from the bosses.
He had risen to power as a labor lawyer for the union and he could not disengage from them at this point in his career. (Why the AFL-CIO is a national leader for homosexual marriage is anybody’s guess. The only thing certain is that they are a leader and there is an awful lot of activist money floating around that is getting into the hands of someone.)
What Is Lees’ Problem?
But what is Lees’ problem?
The plan in 2002 to violate the state Constitution because of a desperate need to enact gay marriage came almost totally from the Democratic Party. (Sen. Joanne Sprague, R-Walpole, has been a prominent exception but she is not running again this year.) But it was Lees, the Republican leader, who rose on July 17, 2002, to move that the Constitutional Convention adjourn without voting on the Amendment.
He threw it in the trash even though 130,000 citizens had signed the petition and $1.7 million had been spent in the effort. Worse, Lees said afterward that the Legislature didn’t do anything wrong. It was their right, he said, to simply discard the measure. But after I sued and Jane Swift responded, the SJC said on Dec. 20, 2002 that Brian Lees and his cohorts had violated the state Constitution.
Why does Lees want so badly to enshrine mutual masturbation among women and among men? Most people in this state believe that homosexuals must be allowed to masturbate each other in private if that turns them on even though it does terrible things to their health and to public health with increases in syphilis, tuberculosis and drug use, not to mention AIDS. (If the SJC ruling is allowed to stand, every company in the state will be required to provide health insurance for all the partners of their employees. Think what that will do to the cost of everyone’s health insurance.)
But when did mutual masturbation become enshrined as a constitutional right to marry?
Lees’ desire to push this upon the citizens, and then lie about what he is doing, is difficult to understand. He gets high ratings from groups such as Citizens for Limited Taxation, but of course, they do not consider social issues. The most common belief is that his friendship with a homosexual (now deceased) is probably behind his unusual and arrogant behavior.
If Brian can keep us all confused a few weeks longer, he wins AGAIN.
Let’s remove Margaret Marshall. Brian can’t hide on that vote!!!
