December 2000 Editorials

Are Wellesley Officials Just 'Intolerant'?

Wellesley officials don't seem to understand that there are citizens who have different life-values than they do.

The officials are giving the youths in their town the telephone numbers of abortion clinics and homosexual activists in the form of a permanent, plastic card to carry in their wallets.

Sad to say, this is typical of most of the liberals in Massachusetts. They can't stand diversity or tolerance. They believe that their way is the only way.

They apparently are unable to accept that the parents who don't share their values should have any rights at all. They believe that the "state" should be supreme as long as the liberals control it.

They're just like some religious people who become extremists and believe that they alone know all the answers to life. Many of their goals are admirable, but they turn a good thing into something bad with their extremism.

For example, the Wellesley officials don't appear to realize that almost everyone is already tolerant of homosexuals. That doesn't mean, however, that all of the citizens believe this is a lifestyle which they want to encourage in their - or anyone else's - children.

When I ran my business for almost thirty years before selling it three years ago, some of my best employees were homosexuals. But that was their personal business, not mine. When I was at Williams College, some very nice guys were homosexuals. One of the best and most gifted died in his forties, a terrible loss of talent in a person who died because of his homosexuality. I am sure that when I lived in group houses in Georgetown there were homosexuals there as well.

In my long lifetime, homosexuals have always been treated fairly.

So, who are these officials who tell us that we're all bigots except for them?

Everyone agrees that the "gay gene" theory is dead. Almost no one believes any more that a homosexual is "born that way" except for the liberals in Massachusetts who cling to out-dated theories.

They're flying in the face of the facts. For example, the very psychiatrist who headed the move in 1972 to remove homosexuality from the list of mental disorders at the American Psychiatric Association, Robert Spitzer, has now clarified his position. He says of homosexuality, "We were not saying that it was necessarily a normal variant."

He's been researching whether homosexuals can change. "I'm convinced from people I have interviewed, that for many of them they have made substantial changes toward becoming heterosexual," he says. "I now claim that these changes can be sustained."

Have the liberals in Wellesley heard about that?

If they have, they will be laughing with each other because they are so sure that Dr. Spitzer must have "lost it." But the doctor has not changed from his 1972 beliefs. He still says that homosexuality is not a mental disorder. But he is finding in many people that it is not immutable and it can be changed.

The intolerants don't know about that and won't consider it because, like all extremists, their minds are closed. As a result, we continue to teach their narrow, intolerant point-of-view to every child in our public schools - and now they're spending public money on plastic cards to further spread their agenda. They say that anyone who doesn't agree with them is a hater and bigot. But the truth is that it is they who are living in the past. Do you remember back ten years ago when many people believed in gay genes as they continue to do?

It's too bad that they can't be more tolerant of the honest beliefs of others.

When Will Professional Feminists
Join 'Rest of the World'?
Chief Justice Margaret Marshall: Another Liberal In Trouble

The Chief Justice of our Supreme Judicial Court, Margaret Marshall, is a professional feminist who is a disaster to professional women.

For the second month in a row, we report about the partisan speeches she has made across the state. Her courts are in serious disarray, but she is out there seeking to divide the citizens.

When will she join the rest of the world instead of attempting to divide us?

She's important as the first woman to lead the courts of Massachusetts, which is now a female dominated court system. Many will judge other women by what she accomplishes. Yet, we are seeing courts that are failing. This is not good news for the many capable women who are being judged by her failures.

We've reported many times, for example, about how her courts are illegally tearing children from their fathers in custody battles and tearing them from both mother and father in unlawful attacks by the DSS. None of these would stand scrutiny under the Constitution if anyone had the money to challenge it. Our lead story in this issue is about the unlawful cronyism that exists in one of her courts, which is led by a woman.

Yet Ms. Marshall is not worrying about the fact that she is polarizing our state.

She went to Worcester last month to tell some fellow feminists that they must elect more "women" and "those who are interested in the interests of women." She seems unable to grasp the idea that her role is to represent all the people of Massachusetts, not just one group. Marshall also doesn't appear to understand that a judge must be impartial and not enter into politics, because she also does that with the examples we have reported of her open support of the Democratic party during the last two months.

She believes that all women support her extremist views on abortion. She'd be happy to give a plastic card with the telephone number of Planned Parenthood to every teenager in the entire state. There will be no dissent. After all, she was an important leader in Planned Parenthood before joining the bench.

She's married to the powerful and liberal NYTimes/Boston Globe/Worcester Telegram complex which employs her husband, Anthony Lewis, as its leading columnist and which is just as didactic. We were not informed of the Globe's conflict-of-interest when they were lobbying heavily for her appointment.

She spreads division by telling the women of Massachusetts that "the gender revolution" will continue only so long as you women "exercise your right to vote at every opportunity that you have."

She doesn't want to admit that the women of America have always been treated as equals. The tremendous changes we have seen in the lives of women (and men) are only because of the revolution in technology that has occurred in the last century. This fight is really between the feminists and the other women who don't share their socialist goals. She doesn't know that Betty Friedan wrote in The Feminine Mystique. "The suburban housewife [in the 1950s] - was the dream image of the young American women and the envy, it was said, of women all over the world....[T]he chains that bind her in her trap are chains to her own mind and spirit."

'Fundamental Assault on Marriage'
Many of the women in our state don't realize that the ultrafeminists really meant it when they said in the 1970s that women will not be "free" as long as we have marriage. One leader of NOW expressed it this way, "Any real change in the status of women would be a fundamental assault on marriage and the family. People would be tied together by love, not legal contraptions. Children would be raised communally."

Betty Friedan was diplomatic but others in NOW were more blunt saying that the typical mother and housewife is the "ultimate, useless parasite."

So it will not be a surprise that Marshall is not unhappy to see the breakdown in families that her courts are causing. She and the other ultrafeminists wish to see the Swedish model of socialism where everyone goes to work, including the mothers, and the children are raised by the state.

With the advent of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, we've seen businesses coerced to hire the same number of women employees (including those in high levels) as they do men. This is now required by the 1964 law even though the vast majority of women who apply for those positions are not the typical woman, because 80% of them are telling pollsters they would rather be home with their children than in the work force.

Marshall understands this is a problem for her agenda. She must obfuscate in some way and blame the problem on someone else. So she tells her female audience that the great unfinished business of the women's movement is the harm "we are doing to our children, what it has meant to have women with no alternative but to work full time..." But she won't say that it is her movement which is requiring every woman to work. She doesn't tell them that it's her dogma which has brought these unfortunate changes.

She doesn't tell them that back in the 1950s, the total taxes for an average family were about 4%-5% of their entire income; now it's around 40%. This means that the woman in an average family today is working solely to pay the taxes that the family owes. This is what happens in the socialist society that Marshall is pushing.

Extremists like Marshall will claim that the "patriarchy" was never fair to women. But consider the custody of children as just one example. In the early 1800s, our "patriarchal" society agreed that the custody of children should no longer go to men in the event of a divorce. It was not fair. So, in the 1830s almost every state passed a law that custody thereafter would go to the best parent. But the courts didn't enjoy listening to those cases even back then. So the judges made a presumption that the mother was always the "best" parent for young children. Therefore, we went from automatically giving the children to the father to automatically giving them to the mother. And we still have that system with a vengeance in Marshall's courts.

One could write a book about this and I have. It's called Freedom Will Conquer Racism and Sexism; The Civil Rights Act is damaging everyone in America, especially blacks and women.