The Mass. Legislature once again has put off dealing with the Protection of Marriage amendment, voting to recess until November 9. Senate President Robert Travaglini, who’s been trying to avoid a vote on the amendment ever since it came up and who’s in the pocket of the gay lobby, thinks we don’t see what he’s doing.
Senate President Robert Travaglini had said he intended to bring all 20 proposed amendments to a vote, but had warned lawmakers might not be able to get to every proposed amendment on Wednesday.
Gee, who put the amendment at the bottom of the list? Maybe if he’d put it at the top of the list they wouldn’t have had to postpone it. But by waiting until November 9, after the election, they can be assured of the maximum time before the next election, counting on voters to forget betrayals and subversion of the voters’ will. This is corrupt and dirty politics at its worst. Welcome to Massachusetts.
Technorati Tags:homeschooling, marriage, Massachusetts, politics, same-sex marriage
bk_keywords:traditional marriage.
According to a Bay Windows(7/12/06,5:30P.M.) report on the Constitutional Convention,Arline Isaacson, head lobbyist and co-chair of the Mass.
Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus (and also head lobbyist for the Mass. Teachers Assoc.(MTA)),said her “lobby team and the house and Senate leadership negotiated about when to bring the marriage amendment up again before the Legislature.” “We asked for as late a date as possible so we could line up as many votes as possible”,said Isaacson.“We asked for late December, but the leadership didn’t want to go that far. So as it stands I think it will be late November.”
Arline Isaacson has so much power at the State House because of her great influence on the MTA, especially in promoting a curriculum to indoctrinate children into the culture of same-sex sex , same-sex marriage and transgendered behaviors. Evidence of this is clear from the Bay Windows article(6/22/06) “Show and Tell” by Ethan Jacobs.“Educators say the pre-school set needs straight talk on gay issues”, which describes how teachers in the Cambridge and Lexington public schools are trained to implement the Massachusetts LGBT Early Childhood Education Initiative. A leader of this initiative, Emmy Howe, said “schools need to accept that whatever the feelings of individual parents, same-sex marriage is the law of the land.” Not only are the parents referred to as Parent 1 and Parent 2 in any written notices, but when the children are taught about trangendered people or partners, they are initiated into the concept of questioning their own gender. Parents, such as David and Tonia Parker, and another lexington couple, who have objected to this indoctrination of their little children from kindergarten on up, have been told that their children must participate in this curriculum. I know for a fact that if teachers do not cooperate in this curriculum, they will lose their jobs. This is the policy that the MTA demands according to their legal counsel, as I found out when I asked about the possibility of getting a conscience clause for teachers. Again, Arline Isaacson’s power is huge!
If only parents could be alerted to what awaits their children this coming September, since the
MTA and the GLBT are working furiously to implement this curriculum in all of the public schools in Mass. If only the Church leaders were more effective in alerting parents about this “Massachusetts LGBT Early Childhood Education Initiative”,parents would not fall for the false belief that same-sex marriage does not effect their marriage. It certainly does when they bring children into the world and send them to the Massachusetts public schools when they reach the age at which education is required by state law!
Alice,
May I make a suggestion—-The above info is tremendously helpful. Communicate it with the Massachusetts Catholic Conference and you own particular bishop (and perhaps Family Life Office) in your diocese
They may or may not know this important info
Father Benedict,I know that Dan Avilla at the Mass. Catholic Conference is very aware of this initiative and he knows all about Arline Isaacson’s position as “Queen of the Hill” at the State House. Marianne Luthin at the Pro-life office knows what is being taught in the public schools as does Linda Thayer. All of them are doing everything they can to help parents understand why the teachings on marriage(esp. The Theology of the Body) are so essential for family life. They know the damage that Arline Isaacson and the GLBT and MTA have done. But somehow the parents are still blind to this damage. So many parents are reluctant to question the principals and teachers at their schools because they know that they will be labelled as trouble-makers and bigots, as David Parker and his wife have been treated by the majority of people in Lexington. It appears that the Catholic parishes in Lexington have not spoken out in their support, but I could be wrong. I wish the Catholic parishes in Lexington and Cambridge would lead the way in alerting parents to the damages of the LGBT Initiative. I’ve written a letter to the Pilot but not many young parents will read it.
Maybe Ed Saunders, our MCC lobbyist, can do something about this tragic situation.
Dan Avila is a hero. I am sure he will do his best. Ed Saunders? Was he even at the state house today? Did anyone see him?
Do you really think he will have what it takes to discuss this non-politically correct topic? If you think he would then could you tell me why he has not had the courage to confront Mitt Romney?
Mitt Romney is the ONE PERSON in Massachusetts responsible for gay marriage coming to America. His executive order was illegal. Every day that passes is a day that he has once again violated the Massachusetts Constitution. He is also the one man who could stop same-sex “marriage” in a heartbeat. And it would not only be the right thing to do, it would be the Constitutional thing to do.
The Massachusetts Constitution as written by John Adams PROTECTS marriage from being bastardized as it has been. That means we don’t need a constitutional amendment. We need to be courageous enough to uphold our current constitution. Don’t get me wrong, I have done everything possible to help get this amendment passed.
But what good does amending it do if the other side and our political leaders ignore its current meaning? Why would we ever expect them to uphold its “amended” meaning—the same meaning as already exists in the Constitution?
Why would we need to amend a Constitution that already protects marriage? The cynical view (and I say this with all due respect to the hardworking people who have worked tirelessly on getting the amendment passed) is that we have neither the honesty, the courage nor the inclination (from our leaders religious and lay) to WIN this battle.
Why has MFI, MCC, RCAB, et al not yet stood up and identified Mitt Romney’s executive order as illegal? One answer (although, truly a pathetic reason, is bad legal advice from uninterested (yet paid) lawyers representing our side). Another (equally outrageous) is that MFI, MCC, RCAB, et al consider themselves (or in actuality are) “friends” with Mitt Romney and MFI, MCC, RCAB, et al’s loyalty to Romney (as they jump up and down about what a tragedy this whole thing is) is far greater than the responsibility they feel to prevent the fall of democracy and to stop the beginning of the end of religious liberties in America.
Why have not MFI, MCC, RCAB, et al demanded that Romney withdraw his illegal executive order? Why have they not identified the fake licenses that have been handed out over the past 2 years to same-sex couples and publicly stated that these falsified certificates are null and void? ALERT: If you weren’t aware (and I don’t know how you could be given our toothless legal and public relations “strategy” to fighting this battle) same-sex “marriage IS NOT LEGAL IN MASSACHUSETTS. Just because everyone is pretending it is does not make it so. Just because you never asked yourself the question “How could it be?” does not make it so. Just because the emperor’s seamstress claims his new suit is handsome does not mean that he is not naked.
Why have MFI, MCC, RCAB, et al not called the SJC decision that claims that there is no rational basis for marriage being between one man and one woman irrational and therefore itself unconstitutional and unenforceable? Why have they not had the courage to say what the New York Court of Appeals found simple to say? How can we win if we don’t demand that our political leaders act rationally?
There is a rational basis for marriage. Anyone who says there is not ought to be locked up and if they currently hold a position on the highest court in the Commonwealth they ought to be removed from the bench. Why have MFI, MCC, RCAB, et al left Brian Camenker dangling alone in the wind? and . Why have they not looked at the Massachusetts Constitution and said that the SJC nor the Governor can make nor enforce laws that DO NOT EXIST? The Constitution says that laws SHALL be made only by the legislature and the people are not required to follow laws that are not made by our legislature. How come the legislature had two opposing bills defininng marriage . . . if the SJC definition somehow miraculously became law?
Where were our religious leaders when democracy fell (on May 17 2004)? Where were they today . . when we were all at the state house? Where will they be on November 9, 2006 when we will all be back at the state house. Could this somehow matter enough to interrupt their schedule? What could be more important than the loss of religious freedom and constitutional democracy that would keep them away from the state house?
There is plenty of work to do and I am uncertain that Ed Saunders will be much help.
Individual Catholics need to be more vocal. We need to be more educated. We need to be more angry. We need to have more courage. We need to stop relying on leaders who don’t have their heart in this. We need to look beyond our own lives and personal day to day struggles and feel the stewardship and imagine the world we will leave to future generations that our forefathers thankfully had for us.
And we need to fight. Have we not had enough sand kicked in our face? Birmingham’s illegal actions, Swift’s illegal actions, the Pawlick legislature’s illegal actions, the Goodridge SJC’s irrationality and unconstitutional declaration, Romney’s illegal order, this legislature’s delay tactics, etc. etc. etc.?
When will we get mad? What will have to happen to cause us to desire a stop to this nonsense? What will we tell our children? What will we tell them to tell our grandchildren? Where were we when democracy fell? Do you remember where you were?
We had a man of 1776 in the person of Fr. Thomas DiLorenzo, who daily prayed the Rosary, sang hymns, in front of Travaglini’s house (as well as calling out the Senate Pres for in injustices). He was called names, shot with squirt guns, etc..
Then the men of 2006 in the Chachery told him to cease and desist.
In the spirit of obedience, he did.
So, what’s the battle plan?
For the moment, here are some thoughts on the plan:
1. I like the idea of blocking the legislature, it would require massive amounts of people willing to do that. It can’t be 20 diehards and it can’t even be 400, it needs to be thousands and it needs to be planned out. It probably needed the help of MFI who has the list of people directly impacted, you know 123000 – 170000 people who signed the petition and WILL NOT BE ALLOWED TO VOTE . . . in America. Disenfranchising voters is not a civil right.
I wonder if MFI et al would have the will to mount that effort it would require for a blockade. Call them and ask them?
2. Does anyone know of any town clerks or justices of the peace who are conscientious objectors to being told to violate the law (c. 207§50—which prohibits “marriages” that violate the marriage laws to be solemnized and certified)? Have they lost their jobs, or quit, or unhappily remained hoping not to be confronted with a situation, or have they simply acquiesced to the coercion of Mitt Romney? They would need to have the will to sign up for a class action law suit against romney. Romney is running for president and claims to be against same-sex “marriage” to the unsuspecting people of Iowa, South Carolina, etc. America needs to know that it is he who is responsible and he needs to lose any shot he has at the white house for engaging in such illegal conduct.
3. Did you know anyone who signed the petition? Stood out and handed out postcards at church? Showed up to the state house? Do they have the will to become part of a class action lawsuit against the legislators for violating your civil rights to vote?
4. Have you demanded that Fr. DiLorenzo be allowed to lead us to the State House. I heard, and I may be wrong about this, that now that Lennon is gone, DiLorenzo might be able to resume his courageous (and effective) efforts, if he started them up again (obviously he would need to get permission and not be disobedient)? And his plan is a good one as well. Blockade the state house, but picket in their front yards, each of the leaders, Travligni, Margaret Marshall, Romney, etc. Let their neighbors know. Let their embarrassment be the talk of the cocktail parties they attend.
5. Have you spoken in person with or written to Cardinal O’Malley to ask him to come up with a plan? Two years ago, Cardinal O’Malley said it was up to Catholic lawyers to protect us, but the lawyers for our side all scoffed at the legal ideas that had the greatest likelihood of success . . and they put all of their eggs in “amend the constitution that needs no amendment” basket.
6. Our leaders need to think WIN and they need to think BIG, and they need to read our Constitution, and they need to demand compliance with it. And they need to order us to help them, not order us to stand down. Why would DiLorenzo be ordered to stop? Because it was working. You think Travaligni likes to look in the mirror everyday and realize he is who he is? Denial is so much easier when no one points out you flaw.
7. Have you asked MFI what is the next step? How can they have a game plan which relies on a startegy with such a low likelihhod of success without having multiple backup plans?
The answer: We have already lost in our minds. Now it is simply time to look like we tried our best. The problem that we have is that failure IS an option.
Oh yeah
8. Has anyone asked Cardinal O’Malley, why he closed Catholic Charities? The organization that was created to prevent Catholic orphans from “falling into the hands of protestants (yet still Christians)? Is this the most outrageous thing ever a Cardinal could do . . . now allow them to be handed over to same-sex couples? Not fight for our religious liberties? Guess what. Walk away from Catholic Adoptions because we can’t “discriminate” (i.e., practice our faith . . .you know freely exercise our religion . . . you know our Constitutional right explicitly written into the US and Massachusetts Constitutions) and we have walked away from Catholic hospitals not doing abortions and catholic schools teaching catholicism and prohibiting gays from infiltrating us. Homeschooling will be gone like it is in Germany where people are having to leave that country to be able to teach their children morals and prevent indoctrination. Good christians will be arrested, put out of business and treated as third class citizens. It’s on its way and the surrender of Catholic Charities is DIRECTLY to blame.
A group of people and myself are working on a massive project to tackle the gay lobby’s “intellectual” arguments in a way they haven’t been. Hopefully, it turns out better than others who have tried.
1. I do not like the idea of blocking the legislature. As long as they vote on it within this year, they are legal. I know that Bishop McManus of Worcester is aware of the fact that article 48 says they must vote and can’t just set it aside. I also wrote to Cardinal Sean telling him the same.
2. I don’t.
3. They haven’t violated it yet by waiting, but I signed and would be willing to be part of the law-suit, depending on what the cost would be.
4. First you need to ask Fr. DiLorenzo is he is willing to begin standing at the guy’s doorstpe again? Then ask him to ask Cardinal Sean.
5. I have spoken with Cardinal Sean about a plan to help restore orthodoxy and discipleship among more lay people in the archdiocese, and the intellectual project I mention above is part of that. I have not spoke to him about legal action on gay marriage other than my letter telling him about article 48.
8. Have you asked him? Because I’m sure he’d give you an answer. He responds to every letter he receives.
Robert Payne et al, we need to add one more action to your list, pray! I’m thinking novenas to St Jude. Is there a novena to St Michael? His assistance would be most beneficial, given that this a battle of heroic proportions against Satan.
Early November is a perfect time for a battle like this!
How about to Our Lady of Perpetual Help and Our Lady of Victory? Actually, I’m going to begin one to St. Max Kolbe today!
Lastly, I thought of something on part 8. Do you think we’d win a court case? Could the case be made that we are obligated to help with adoptions? I know if we’d win against the law.
Also, it doesn’t matter that the ConCon will take place after the election. Most of our solons don’t have any opponents running against them anyways.
It is kind of stupid to taunt your constituents, however…
A lively discussion!
The Lord said “I am the true Vine and My Father is the vinegrower. He prunes away every barren branch, but the fruitful ones He trims clean to increase their yield…I am the Vine, you are the branches. He who lives in Me and I in Him will produce abundantly, for apart from Me you can do nothing.” (John 15.1,5)
As with the churches described in Revelations 2-3 the Risen Lord and Head of the Church is indeed pruning and putifying His Church-yes even the Church in Boston! It has been happening for some time but has accelerated with the sexual abuse crisis.
Within the Church in Boston we need to heed the Gospel and the fundamental message of what the Spirit said in the Second Vatican Council: the call to ongoing conversion and ever deeper faith hope and love.
I will leave for a moment the translation of this into ‘political action’ within the Commonwealth-these are prudential decisions, each must make. But over the years we have been called:
1. to discipleship of Christ instead of being conformed to the world (60’s when Catholics in Boston esp “arrived” as Americans)
2. to witness to the unity of the “trinity” of
marriage-love and openess to life
(Humanae Vitae Crisis)
3. to witness to and truly become pro-life-
respecting human life from the moment of
conception til natural death (1973 Roe vs
Wade)
4) to be faithful and devoted “to the Apostles’
teaching (crisis of ‘orthodoxy’)
5) to be devoted to “The Breaking of the
Bread”-that the Eucharist is the source
and center of Christian lives and truly
the Body Blood Soul and Divinity of Christ
and Keeping Holy the Lord’s Day (Sunday)
(crisis of Mass attendance and the
observance of ‘the weekend’ versus ‘the
Lord’s Day”
6) and now witnessing to the truth that
marriage is the first covenant God made
with ‘man’. He created marriage for man
and woman [‘what God has joined together’]
(and thus not merely a human institution
that can be changed on a whim)-God
created marriage as a loving faithful and
life-giving ‘institution’ and the
foundation of the family, the cornerstone
of human society.
It is the one institution that was not
ended by original sin or swept away by the
flood
Christ has renewed and elevated human
marriage to a new and wonderful state in
which by His grace, husband and wife image
Christ and His Bride the Church in
faithful life-giving love
(versus ‘marriage’ and various forms of
unions today)
Just a few thoughts
Infanted said:
A group of people and myself are working on a massive project to tackle the gay lobby’s “intellectual” arguments in a way they haven’t been. Hopefully, it turns out better than others who have tried.
Great . . . A group of people and myself are working on a massive project to tackle the legal and PR aspects in a way they haven’t been. Hopefully, it turns out better than others who have tried.
We might want to see if we can help each other.
Infanted regarding #4
I will get someone to ask Fr. DiLorenzo who knows him well. But it would be ideal if Cardinal O’Malley asked DiLorenzo to lead this blockade. I know, I have just entered la la land.
Infanted regarding #8
I am about to ask O’Malley personally . . . if I am permitted. But I will care less about receiving his response (and I know what you meant . . . that he is responsive) and more about his personal action (i.e., I don’t need to receive words from him).
Lynne
Oh yeah . . . pray. Thanks.
And I mean no disrespect to your idea which is absolutely correct and stands on its own, but it made me realize that these novenas should be done at the Cathedral once a week or once a month and they should be publicly and officially touted as part of our PR strategy. Maybe they should also be carried out in the churches where our political leaders reside (Romney, Travaligni, Marshall, etc.) Let’s educate Catholics, christians and non-christians, neighors, citizens through our faith and reliance on God Almighty.
My last post above should say I DON’T know.
Mr. Paine, I will suggest to my priest friend’s this public novena idea. Furthermore, suggest that Cardinal Sean allow Fr. DiLorenzo to continue his work.
Regarding whether we win a court case on catholic charities adoptions issue:
1. who cares . . . we have a constitutional right that we are surrendering if we don’t fight. And they will continue to take that right away from us in all areas of our lives. We must fight. We may win. But surrender and we lose for certain. We have thus far surrendered.
2. How can we be prevented from doing God’s work, legitimate public service, social good, because of our religious beliefs. This is outrageous. We do not have to accept the falsehood of sexual orientation being immutable. There is no evidence of it being so. We therefore, do not have to accept the falsehood that this is a civil right. How about the civil right to be permitted to vote. How about the civil right to be able to live and act in society without being forced out of every legitimate line of business because of our honestly held religious beliefs. It is not hate speech to call homosexuality deviant behavior. So why did the Governor of Maryland fire his employee a catholic who stated this? We are in trouble. We need to stand up for ourselves. We need leadership to be in charge and have the vision to see where their surrender is leading us. We need to stop compromising everything. The middle is not nice. The middle is not good. The middle is dangerous. Right is right and wrong is wrong. Jesus said something like: be hot or cold but lukewarm I will vomit from my mouth. We are way too lukewarm. We are afraid to be called extremists. But it is not extreme to look at the Constitution and demand the rights that we are entitled to and guaranteed. It is just that we fear we will be called extreme if we don’t learn to get along as they continually kick more and more sand in our face and we say, please, if you don’t stop, i’ll . . . do nothing.
My whole point was that they will say that you are not understanding what the first amendment says. We can still be Catholic. We just can’t have a state license to do adoptions.
Nor can we teach kids in Catholic schools because what we teach is hate speech. Nor can we prevent gay teachers from infiltrating our catholic schools. Nor can we run video businesses that will not produce gay propoganda videos like the guy in British Columbia who was put out of business and the guy in Virginia who is about to be put out of business. Nor can we work for the Governor of Maryland. Nor can we homeschool our children and teach religious morals because they violate hate speech laws like in Germany. Nor can we preech from the pulpit that homsexuality is sinful because it is hate speech and the minister who went to jail for two years to win that battle in the Suprem Court of Swededn probably would have rathered the fight start before they took his rights away and he had to reclaim them after the fact.
A law that prevents us from engaging in civil society because of our religious beliefs is an unconstitutional law.
They, the gay couples can go to adoption agencies that will allow gays to adoopt, but we should be allowed to exercise our religious beliefs and for us to give those up without a fight is a far greater bad than the original taking of the rights away.
A major problem with the current amendment is that it will leave intact all the same-sex marriages performed between 2004 and 2008. Moreover, it does not address same-sex civil unions. On March 29, 2004 the Massachusetts Legislature approved an earlier state constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage but grant same-sex civil unions a legal status equivalent to marriage. Unfortunately, at the time, Bishop J. Kevin Boland of Savannah, Ga., chairman of the the U.S. bishops’ Committee on Marriage and Family said the amendment was not the “ideal” solution but could be acceptable because it defends the institution of marriage. Cardinal McCarrick in Washington recently said much the same thing as Bishop Boland. I have a hard time accepting this, as I see about the same difference between between same-sex marriage and same-sex civil union as between weddings handled by a judge in the town hall and weddings done by a clergyman in church.
As Alice points out, the saddest thing is that children are going to be continued to be taught that relationships based on perverted sexual activity somehow are acceptable. Before voting on these matters, legislators should demonstrate that they understand the consequences of foisting hard-core material off on youngsters. As a starter, I would recommend they be required to pass a test on the outrageously pornographic student instruction manual, “Little Black Book: Queer in the 21st Century.”
I agree with you. What I’m saying is, I don’t know if the case would be won. Although, the more I think of it, I’m sure that with Alito on the Supreme Court now, it would be won. So why don’t you tell Cardinal Sean that you think he should assemble a legal team to fight this. As the Hub of the Universe, we should have the intellectual muster to do this.
Charles, I don’t think an amendment that didn’t leave intact those performed would be found legally able to pass. That’s the type of amendment that would “reverse” the court-ruling and Reilly would have to disqualify.
Charles is correct that civil unions are just as problemsome as same-sex “marriage.” They will permit the indoctrination of our children.
Here is the problem—we went at this iisue the wrong way and there is still time to go at it the right way; but time is of the essence. There is an overwhelming amount of Massachusetts case law that clearly establishes how to glean the constitutional definition of the word marriage (which exists in our constitution and therefore whose definition is codifed as that which was intended when John Adams wrote the Constitution—i.e., one man one woman). By attempting to “amend” a document that already says what we want it to say, we weaken the document. Ouur Constitution has the defined word so we have undermined our argument. We should be fighting about the Constitutional meaning of the word marriage—everytime the issue comes up (e.g., the 1913 law and even if we lose every time). Eventually, the SJC would look foolish for saying what it did in Goodridge that the actual definition of a word contained in the constitution is “unconstitutional.” WRONG it IS the Constitution.
Our legal strategy of amending the constitution instead of demanding that the Constitution be complied with is why art 48 even comes up. Then they get to argue that we were overruling Goodridge. No we are technically affirming the current definition of the meaning of marriage so article 48 does not apply but our legal team has no idea that it doesn’t apply and as a result, we (and the AG’s office who is not on our side on this) argue the weaker of the arguments.
step 1 is demand that we follow the constitutional definition of marriage which has existed since John Adams wrote the Constitution.
Step 2. Identify the SJC decision that “a word in the Constitution is unconstitutional” as fraudulent and in and of itself an unconstitutional act for numerous reasons that I will not bore you with
Step 3. Identify the legal status of the current “marriages”—which are null and void. You cannot obtain better title than the title that was given to you. If I steal a car from infanted and give it to charles, Charles does not have legal title to the car. His title is void. Since the SJC cannot make law and the Governor cannot order the law to be violated i.e. make new law, and since the SJC order to the legislature to change the law expired without the legislature ever changing the law, no new marriage law exists. So the marriage certificates being handed out are as legal as the Mayor of San Fransisco’s marriage licenses. They are null and void. No legal authority.
These arguments must be pursued, and I will be asking the Cardinal and others to pursue them.
These same-sex ‘marriages’ which have taken place since May of 2005 are fake. If any of these couples move out of Massachusetts, poof, the ‘marriage’ is gone. None of these couples can file joint federal tax returns, none of these couples are eligible for SS benefits.
That’s why I don’t have a problem with the current amendment that doesn’t (and legally can’t) declare them null and void. They already are.
oops, that should be 2004…
Don’t we now have in Massachusetts a problem similar to that faced by the Ninevites. The king of Nineveh addressed the situation by proclaiming a fast, removing his robe, putting on sackcloth and covering himself with ashes as a symbol of repentence. Novenas are an excellent idea, but novena prayer would be more powerful if accompanied by fasting. Some time ago I proposed to Cardinal O’Malley that he proclaim some sort of fast (abstinence?), but he has not yet responded to my suggestion.
Great point, Charles.
I agree with Charles. I hope that Cardinal O’Malley leads the way to setting aside days for prayer and fasting for the intention of protecting marriage between one man and one woman as the foundation for all families in Massachusetts.
What’s the first miracle at the basilica? Why do we need only one novena? Why can’t we have one in every parish to every saint? And I like the fasting idea. Suggest it again.
While we’re at it, why not have the people involved in Courage give public testimony about how following Christ in all things, including for them chastity, is live-giving?
Excellent ideas.
Alice, can you forward me that letter you sent The Pilot on the LGBT Early Childhood Education Initiative so that I can pass on to my evangelical, Jewish, and Muslim friends? span id=’eeEncEmail_DfOhDR05BI’>.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
Thanks.
I have to wonder what other proposed constitutional amendments were up for discussion and got placed ahead of the marriage amendment.
It is already enshrined in the current constitution . . .so why enshrine it again? What makes you think this cabal of leftist judicial activist nutjobs would not overturn our new “amendment?”
I have a better idea. Lets get Mitt Romney sued by the poor innocent justice’s of the peace and town clerk’s whose jobs he threatened. And let’s let the entire counry know that he has violated Massachusetts law, and that he is personally responsible for gay marriage coming to America. Let’s make sure he gets nowhere near the white house. And once we have destroyed his political future, let’s go after each and every public official who ignores the will of the people and who violates the law until we have cleaned house. What good id our constitution if we let nutjobs take it away from us? I know this may sound crazy, but there is this Constitution and it actually has an answer for nutjobs. It is called Article 8 and I would hate to be you know associated with those “nutjobs” over at the article8 alliance (who had the crazy idea of looking at the Constitution and removing the judges, but lets start removing judges and impeaching legislators who stand in the way of the will of the people.
But our side is too “nice” fo that type of work. Our side is “kind.” Our side would never tell all of the truth, because we might be called “mean” or “bigots.” Or we might be called intolerant or uncaring. Or we might be shunned. Or we might be looked at the wrong way. Or we might offend our friends in the Governor’s office or in the state house.
Our side would never stand up for what is right and demand that we get it. Well, if that’s the case, we have lost. Notwithstanding our the gravity of the stewardship with which we have been entrusted, we will endlessly relinquish what is good and what is right with the hopes of being called tolerant and “nice.” And God help the society and troubles we leave to our children and our grandchildren.
We live in a free country. There is a cost to freedom. If you are unwilling to pay the price, you will lose your freedom. We are lying to ourselves that we are free if we are not allowed to vote. If we accept this, it is OUR fault and we are the nutjobs.
If somebody’s going to sue Romney to overturn his legalization of same-sex marriage by fiat, I hope there are grounds to take the case to Federal court; we can’t trust the state’s Supreme Court to be any more correct now than they were in Goodridge.
Please tell us more about the Guarantee Clause. I don’t know about it.
May I add consecrating ourselves and our state to Immaculate Mary to our list of to-do’s?
So suing Romney is out?