Majority Leader John Rogers Announces Support for Homosexual Agenda
            Last Wednesday night John Rogers (D) announced to his constituents in Norwood that henceforth he was supporting the homosexual agenda.
            “In fact, they'll be standing right in front of the State House steps,” Rogers told Bay Windows, “probably singing freedom songs and hugging one another in plain sight, not cowering.”    
            This raises the question whether Mass. Democrats, who are mostly Catholic, will quietly go along with Roger’s plans or whether they will seek to remove him.
            One person who will not be quiet is Ray Neary, who was in Roger’s district for many years until Medfield was recently moved to another District.  He sent this letter to Rogers today.

 May 30, 2006

Dear John:
            The announcement that you had reversed your life-long support of traditional marriage and the Marriage Amendment petition which we have signed prompted me to call your State House office to confirm the report.  It was true.
            After your aide gave the reasons for your change, I politely informed her that they were specious and an insult to the intelligence of those who always respected you and your political career as a Pro-life/Pro-family legislator.
            You were always perceived as an individual loyal to the Judeo-Christian underpinnings which built the society in which we were reared.  To witness you now succumbing to the intimidating techniques of a well-funded contemporary movement aimed at destroying our bedrock institutions is not only disappointing, but offensive.  Sadly, I believe that your actions will ultimately come back to haunt you.
            My memory naturally brought me back to giving you the Massachusetts Citizens For Life's Pro-Life Legislator of the Year award.  You received it with pride, and that was amplified by your family, as well as all the others who were in attendance at the MCFL Annual Dinner.  Your words seemed sincere, well-received, and I remember relating to people how nice it had been to have had John Rogers as my representative on the hill.  That John Rogers epitomized commitment to our proven values – dedication to the sanctity of all innocent human life, marriage, family, and to all those pillars which always brought stability to society over millenia.
            Yes, John, I noticed some slippage in the past few years, and it had become obvious that our opponents in this great struggle to preserve the Culture of Life had perceived some cracks in your armor - and they were seeking to exploit them.  Your generic year-end card, which we received while we celebrated the Christmas season, left me wondering too.  But the announcement now that you are in favor of an attempt to deny our household the right to vote on the marriage petition. which we signed with 170,000 others reeks of haughty indifference to citizenry and to the constitutional processes. In effect, you have chosen to sever your relationship with those who nurtured your career and signed on now with the homosexual community and their allies, Planned Parenthood included.  Currently, they are singing your praises as could be expected.  Allow me to offer you some sage advice from one a little more traveled than you:  Make sure you always can discern the difference between syrupy praise and genuine respect. 
            I'll leave you to wallow in these newly-found murky waters, but I am going to relay some reflections I have.   John, not to try to salve your conscience, but as a historical fact here in Massachusetts, you're only one of many politicians who “grew” to embrace our opponents' positions.  Since the first salvo was fired on Jan 22, 1973 in this Culture War, we've seen many “evolutions”.  Coincidentally, the overwhelming number of these epiphanies occurred with a call to ascend the political career ladder.
            Some chose the state's largest newspaper in which to announce, one went directly to Planned Parenthood's abortion chamber in Boston, some selected the Golden Dome, and you chose the leading bugle of the homosexual and transvestite community to debut for the Cultural Elite.
            Needless to say, GLBTs have been leaping with glee. You're a big fish, John.  Majority Leader – leader of the majority party: the Democrats.  Please note:  not the Democratic party.  Yes, I was at the State House in 2002 when the Constitutional Convention was abruptly adjourned by the “Democratic” Senate President before a vote was taken to allow 130,000 of us signatories, as well as the rest of the state-wide electorate, to have a vote on this traditional marriage issue - before the Marshall Plan was enacted.
            John, last Wednesday night I listened to you in Norwood double-talk and attempt to rationalize what will be your plans, but in what's billed as NE's largest GBLT newspaper, you took pains to explain how we will be denied a vote by your peers.  “Legislators won't be hiding in Oklahoma,” you advised us.    Thanks for the info!     Provincetown would be more appropriate, anyway!   
            What struck me most when reading the interview was your follow up, “In fact, they'll be standing right in front of the State House steps probably singing freedom songs and hugging one another in plain sight, not cowering.” 
            As the House Majority Leader, with your influence will you spare us the hugs, lest it lead to “lip kissing” as all of you receive the joyful adulation of the members of Queer Nation who will gravitate to you on those steps, rainbow flags unfurled.  And, please, no male legislators in high heels, fishnet body stockings, lipstick, and spiked orange hair. 
            The state is still not ready for that.    Not yet!

            “Johnny, we hardly knew ye”.                          
            /s/ Ray