h a n

 





So what if a gay couple moves next door?
‘Gay marriage’ would be the final triumph of NOW’s sexual ‘revolution’

By Attorney J. Edward Pawlick

       The radical feminists from NOW have been seeking since the 1960s to impose a sexual “revolution” upon the country. Their goal is to eliminate traditional marriage, which they believe is the ultimate oppressor of women.

       We’re witnessing the final triumph of their sexual “revolution" with their ongoing attempt to impose homosexual “marriage.”

       There’s no question that NOW has been successful in influencing women. We see homosexual “marriage” being promoted predominately by the fair sex. When the Vermont legislature voted in 2000, the men were solidly against civil unions with only 41 in favor and 60 against, while women voted for it by a four-to-one margin of 35-9. The same phenomenon is apparent in Massachusetts. It happened in Vermont even though their Supreme Court warned that its decision could “destabilize” the institution of marriage and affect it in “unpredictable” ways.

       It will soon be evident to everyone that we have not had a "revolution" in the last forty-five years but a reversion to what the world was like before the Jews introduced marriage some 4000 years ago in order to ameliorate the condition of women and their children.

       Many citizens are beginning to understand. They’re seeing the frantic attempts of homosexual leaders, like Barney Frank, as they try to stop the Mayors of San Francisco, Portland, New Paltz, etc. from revealing what is truly in store if gay marriage is ultimately successful here.

       "Not now," Frank is essentially pleading. "The people here are agitated. They are not happy. Please wait just a few more months until we nail this down!"

       He’s right. The citizens of Massachusetts are aroused and angry. That’s why the forces who are pushing gay marriage want to do this quickly. They can see the opposition rapidly gaining strength.

       This knowledge by many women is the beginning of an understanding of the perennial, childish  but very effective  question, "What harm will it do if a gay couple moves next door?"

       Betty Freidan was aghast in 1960 when she saw what was occurring to her dream. She quickly lost her leadership position in NOW, which she had organized only a few years earlier, to the younger, more glamorous Gloria Steinem in 1970, after Betty refused to embrace homosexuality. At a public rally, Betty let a lavender arm band drop to the ground. According to a biographer of the movement, "[The other members of NOW] would come to feel that Betty's approach had dealt only with 'symptoms,' that only those willing to explore the significance of 'women loving women' would come to grips with the underlying causes of women's oppression."

       But this is rapidly changing. The radical feminists at NOW are no longer popular on college campuses or elsewhere among young women. They are kept in the background. The majority of women have come to understand that mutual masturbation with other women is not comparable to a meaningful relationship with a man, preferably a husband for life.

       They’ve discovered they do not have much in common with those who do not like men and wish to live apart from them. They realize that their children desire and need both a mother and a father. They’ve seen the severe damage that has resulted to the fabric of our society when children fail to have both.

Many Don’t Realize that NOW Is in Control
       But the majority of women still don’t realize that NOW is a primary behind-the-scene advocate of gay marriage in Massachusetts.

       When the homosexuals in Massachusetts were celebrating their “victory” in 2002 over the Protection of Marriage Amendment (which would have forbad our Supreme Judicial Court from imposing gay marriage as was subsequently done the following year), they revealed in a moment of exuberance that NOW was a silent, but important, reason for their victory.

       The homosexual newspaper, Bay Windows, confirmed that it was the powerful, national force from NOW and other liberal organizations who were behind the illegal maneuver by our legislature when it refused to vote on the marriage amendment on July 17, 2002. They knew the amendment would pass if the legislature was permitted to vote. If they allowed that to happen, it would destroy their plan to inflict gay marriage.

       The newspaper also indicated that most homosexuals were not interested in the subject. It was like pulling teeth to get them to contribute to the effort, one activist reported.

Most homosexuals are not interested
“This confirms what we have been saying,” said Sally Pawlick, President of Mass. Citizens for Marriage which had sponsored the amendment.

       “This is not primarily about homosexuality,” she continued. “It’s about a powerful, liberal agenda to change our morality. These liberals are seeking a socialist state similar to Sweden or Cuba, with a free-love society in which children are the responsibility of the state, not their parents.

       “That’s why the national, liberal organizations are so interested in what is happening in Massachusetts. They are hiding behind homosexuals and others to achieve their political objectives.

       “They wish to diminish the institution of marriage which has been the bedrock of our country since its founding. When the state was first founded, everyone knew what ‘marriage’ meant. So it was never written down. But it’s obvious to everyone that we must do so now.”

Liberal allies are crucial
       The Bay Windows editorial, which wrote about the feelings of the activists, not the ordinary homosexuals, emphasized the importance of liberal allies. It wrote: “Gays and lesbians cannot win these fights on their own. They must have strong and committed straight allies.” It listed four straight allies: NOW, ACLU, Anti-Defamation League and “labor unions.”

       Although Bay Windows did not say so, it is painfully obvious that the powerful Boston Globe and its owner, the New York Times, are important players in this attempt to increase the power of the state in our lives. Both papers lie and distort the facts. They committed libel 16 times in 2002 against MCM and Sally Pawlick in order to defeat the amendment.

       Did the falsehoods of the Times (which also owns the Boston Globe) hurt? Of course they did. The Bay Windows editorial said: “If lawmakers were reluctant to defeat an anti-gay measure, the blatant fraud persuaded them to do so,” and “Activists also called attention to the fraud being perpetrated by the signature gatherers.” Of course, the truth is that no “fraud” was ever committed except in the machinations of the Times.

       The homosexual newspaper also pointed out why they were so desperate to defeat the measure. They exalted that the unhappy supporters of the amendment could “forget about getting the voters to approve a ban on gay unions in the 2004 election.” As to why they had to act illegally, they said, “Let’s not forget that the Right only needed 50 votes to have it approved if the Constitutional Convention had not adjourned [in violation of the law].”

       Because the Bay Windows editorial appeared on August 15, it considered the July 17 adjournment a victory. But when I quickly filed my first lawsuit, they suddenly realized they were very premature. The struggle had just begun here in the Bay State.

       We’ve witnessed since the 1990s what has occurred since Gov. Bill Weld (R) brought “tolerance” and “diversity” that year to Massachusetts in the form of homosexuality after winning a cliffhanger to Boston University President John Silber (D). Weld set out to reward his supporters. He allowed them access to vulnerable teenagers in the schools and even gave state money to instruct them that mutual masturbation was not only enjoyable, but beneficial. Will such mutual masturbation now become a constitutional “right.”

HOME
Make MassNews Your Home Page

© Copyright 2004 Massachusetts News. All Rights Reserved.

Archives  |  Letters  |  Bookshop
About Us    |  Local Papers  |   Selected Sites  |  Government