Haters Are Radical Feminists from NOW and ACLU, Not Male Homosexuals

       When still flush from their “victory” on July 17, 2002 where the Democratic legislature violated the state Constitution and refused to vote on (and thus illegally but effectively, killed the Protection of Marriage Amendment, because they knew it would be sent on to the people if a vote were allowed in the legislature), Bay Windows published a congratulatory editorial.

       In it, they revealed that the main proponents of homosexual “marriage,” are not male homosexuals but radical feminists from NOW and their allies, who hate men. Their agenda is to destroy traditional marriage in any way they can because they believe it hurts all women.  

       If anyone is interested in the agenda of NOW and their friends, they should read my book written in 1998, “Freedom Will Conquer Racism and Sexism,” which tell this fascinating story of people and politics. It is available on our website.

       The following story was run by us on September 3, 2002.

Liberals Are Responsible for Illegal Vote against Marriage, Bay Windows Confirms
AFL-CIO, ACLU, Anti-Defamation League and NOW Are Named
Tom Birmingham Acted on Orders of Union
Most Homosexuals Not Interested in 'Marriage'

By MassNews Staff
       Bay Windows has confirmed it was powerful, national forces from the AFL-CIO, ACLU, Anti-Defamation League, NOW and other liberals who were behind the illegal adjournment of the vote on the Protection of Marriage Amendment on July 17.
       The newspaper also indicated that most homosexuals are not interested in the subject. It was like pulling teeth to get them to contribute to the effort, one activist reported.
       "This confirms what we have been saying," says Sarah McVay Pawlick, President of Mass. Citizens for Marriage.
       "This is not primarily about homosexuality. 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."
       The Bay Windows editorial emphasized the importance of liberal allies when it wrote the following: "Gays and lesbians cannot win these fights on their own. They must have strong and committed straight allies, such as labor unions and the ACLU." It also listed other organizations and said, "Our hats are off to them."
       Although Bay Windows did not say so, it is also 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 reported about the Amendment only in a negative manner that was an attempt to damage it.

Some of Bay Windows Editorial Was Comical, Some Was Sad
       Some of the Bay Windows Editorial is comical. Here are sound bites from the editorial with replies by Sarah McVay Pawlick, President of Mass. Citizens for Marriage.
       Bay Windows: The Right chose Massachusetts because if they can win here, they can win anywhere: In their eyes we are the prize.
       Pawlick: The truth is we chose Massachusetts because we live here. Our children and our grandchildren live here. The opposition has enormous help from national, liberal organizations, which are pouring in money and resources. We don't.
       Bay Windows: They are zealots. They hate us with a passion.
       Pawlick: The people at Bay Windows have known us since 1999. They know we hate no one.
       Bay Windows: They view us as a good way to raise money.
       Pawlick: This is comical. This is a good way to lose money. They complain in their article about the difficulties of raising money.
       Bay Windows: A major defeat for the radical right.
       Pawlick: They know we are not the radical right. We are part of the Greatest Generation which survived the depression, served in World War II and Korea. We love our country. We hate to see a further erosion of the traditional family and the free-fall in our society of sexual morality.
       Sad Part
       Pawlick: Unlike reporters from the Boston Globe or other media, we have always trusted reporters from Bay Windows because they report what we say accurately and completely. They do not play games with what we say. Although we disagree on most issues, we respect each other and agree to disagree. We received a call the other day from Scott Giordano who used to report for Bay Windows and is now with the Blade in Washington. Although very busy, we returned his call right away. That is why we are sad to see an Editorial such as this which has many inaccuracies in it.

ACLU Taught Blockers to Violate Voter Rights of Mass. Citizens

          It was the ACLU who trained hundreds of blockers to harass the voters as they attempted to sign the petition last fall, according to the Bay Windows editorial of August 22.

       This was an illegal violation of voting rights under the U.S. Constitution. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, no campaigning can be done anywhere near where people are exercising their voting rights. But the ACLU put blockers in-your-face as voters were in the act of signing.

       This illegal confrontation caused everyone to worry about the safety of the petition gatherers, says Pawlick, and forced MCM to go to the expense of hiring paid gatherers. The Bay Windows editorial bragged, "As a result, the petitioners received thousands fewer signatures than they otherwise would have."

       The right to solicit signatures in public places is clear and is protected by both the U.S. and Massachusetts Constitutions, according to a Memorandum from the Secretary of State dated August 30, 2001.

The blockers operated mostly at shopping centers and malls.

The operation was done in conjunction with a local group called the Campaign for Equality, of which the ACLU is a member.
       The ACLU used the euphemism, "truth squads," to describe the illegal activities. The purpose, they said, was to "convince" voters not to sign the petition.

       Reports from petitioners in the field, said the "truth squads" were quite aggressive, obnoxious and dangerous.

       A petitioner who asked that his name be withheld reported that the "truth squads" descended on signing tables at various malls and stores and harassed petitioners and blocked the public as they approached the tables.

       "They try to head the public off at the pass. They will get between the public and us before we can talk to them. They are not only intimidating the public, but now we are being intimidated. Any time people enter your personal space, put their face close to your face, or spit at you or try to hit you with a petition board, we feel a certain amount of concern for the safety of those out there gathering signatures.

       "Generally there are three to seven people in a 'truth squad,' male and female. They come in shifts. They never identify themselves and always work in teams. If we are there eight hours, they are there with us the whole eight hours.

       "One of my friends two days ago was in Greenfield gathering signatures. A member of a 'truth squad' went up to him and spit in his face and screamed so loud that the manager came out to see what was happening.

       "I personally have been grabbed by one of the blockers and moved out of the way so that they could talk to someone. I had to tell the guy, 'Look, that's assault and battery. I realize this is a heated debate, but let's not physically touch each other.'

       "When using a quiet voice doesn't work, they just start to scream and yell that we are the 'religious right' and that we have targeted the gay community, that we don't care about people, that we are lying about the petition so people will vote for it. One of their main arguments is that single women and children will lose their health care benefits.

       "Three of them went up to me and a friend when we were gathering signatures in Springfield. They were handing out flyers. They were crowding us. They would surround us and tell people not to sign the petition, that it was going to take health care benefits from their children, things like that. It's made it extremely difficult to gather signatures because when you bring up children, people become confused.

       "If you have a camera, they will stay a foot or two away, but if you don't, they will surround you on three sides and block you from talking to people. People coming out of the store don't know what we are doing, so it just creates a massive amount of confusion."

       A fund-raising email from the Campaign for Equality said, "If we can ramp this effort up statewide, we have an excellent chance at slowing down the signature drive enough to stop the ballot campaign before it starts."

       The e-mail boasts that efforts to block signatures were "phenomenally successful." It said that whenever a "truth squad" was near a petitioner, signature totals drop by as much as 80%.

       The e-mail mentioned that "truth squads" were organized to work four-hour shifts. "All you need to do is hand out leaflets and talk to passers-by. Everyone who has worked in a Truth Squad says it's an empowering and 'downright fun' experience."

       Training sessions for the blockers were held at the Hotel and Restaurant Workers Union Hall, 58 Berkley St. in the South End of Boston.