Articles

Very well said (((((Scott)))))

I saw a pro-8 ad. It discussed schools teaching 5-6 year-olds about how wonderful same-sex marriage will be.

What the hell does that have to do with prop 8? It's sort like connecting Sept. 11th with Saddam and Iraq...

NO CHURCH THAT OPPOSES SAME-SEX MARRIAGES WILL BE REQUIRED TO PERFORM SAME-SEX MARRIAGES UNDER CURRENT LAW.

Then why CHANGE the Constitution of California to discriminate against a group of people?

Grow-up people...

I'm VERY disappointed in the LDS church bulldozing so much church cash into a California Proposition. I have always supported LDS when they are attacked by other groups who consider them to be a "cult" or "not Christian"...

I will no longer say positive things about the LDS church with their funding of this flawed and bigoted proposition.

Prop 8 is legislating morality plain & simple. As far as I'm concerned, Prop 8 is UnAmerican and UnConstitutional...State and Federal Constitutions.

No on legislating morality...No on Prop 8!

'No' on Prop 8...Show the Churches NOT to Hate!

Scott I find your article to be biased and labeling to all who support Prop. 8. I support Prop 8 for non religious reasons. Homosexuality is not the same as heterosexuality and therefore should not have the same title or definition. I am in favor of civil unions and domestic partnerships. I do not believe that homosexual civil unions or domestic partnerships will ever be a threat to heterosexual marriage, I do think that laws regarding infidelity should be enacted to penalize the offending individual. If you feel that marriage has always had a religious connotation to it and if you are truly seeking equal rights for all persons regardless of sexual orientation, then why would you want a religious label put upon a civil, legal issue? We live in the freest country in the world with opportunities others could only dream of, why on earth would the homosexual community fight to have the religious community accept homosexual marriage? Quite frankly anyone is free to start their own religion, with their own interpretations and rules. Isn’t this how the LDS church started? They were rejected by all others so they made their own way, follow their example, do your own thing.

I’m just curious, as a side question, what do think of polygamy and polyandrous? What about the idea of same sex group marriages? Are you okay with what ever goes, live and let live? Are you okay with a person fighting for their legal equality based on the argument that they are the same as all other human beings with the exception of their sexual orientation? Please think about the repercussions of grouping all unions together under the term of marriage. We need specific terms and definitions or we will open a Pandora’s Box.

There are so many biased statements in the above I wouldn't even know where to begin. You state them in such a matter-of-fact-way (love the LDS reference, btw) that I don't think you even see it.

I do not pose to be a journalist writing an article. That is the difference.

Yet, you are complaining about bias. If you are going to do that, the complaint should not be completely based on bias.

Besides, I read it as an editorialization of the issue, which is, in fact, a big word for opinion.

I don't really see how I can blame any pro 8 person for bias. Bias is the only basis to support the measure. However, the slippery slope argument is getting to be so tired. Could you at least come up with something better? Marriage between two consenting adults of any gender is not going to lead to people marrying their cars or any other of the ridiculous situation that is often presented.

I am coming from an different angle as I say this..........

Scott, I am sooooooooooooo happy that you decided to go to your reunion - did you enjoy it and did you have fun?

Equal - equal - equal, in all things. I grew up with all of the men you mention in your article, I was involved in publishing of many of the James Dobson books at Gospel Light Publishing in Ventura - I say again, - black, brown, white, yellow, hetro, gay, rich or poor- equal, equal, equal in everything

What would happen if, today, the Federal Government announced that our boarders are completely open to anyone who decides to enter? How many criminals, terrorists, pedophiles, rapists, and generally lazy people wanting welfare would we assimilate into our society? The answer is completely unknown, and by the time that happened, our society wouldn't be the society we now know anyway. This broad-spectrum equality-for-all approach is simply harmful to our country and citizens. Would it then be acceptable to allow unimpeded immigration of immigrants of just a few countries, say, Mexico, Japan, and Germany only? Of course not, that would be biased.

In the above analogy (as good or bad as it may be) the country is the institution of marriage (traditionally defined), immigrants from the countries of the world represent any type of relationship between any two or more human beings, and immigrants from Mexico, Japan, and Germany represent samesex couples (I don't have any issue with anyone from any country...fyi).

You can't argue for acceptance of samesex marriage on any sturdy ground without acknowledging acceptance of marriage for any couple or group of people, regardless of their fundamental human traits or relationships to eachother, i.e. father/daughter, cousin/cousin, father/son...etc. The whole anti-8 arguement is eqaul rights for all. For all of what? For all those who can't find it in themselves to function as nature intended? For all those who want acception to the governing rules of nature and science? If you are going to argue for samesex marriage acceptance, than you might as well be putting in the word for all other varieties of couples, regardless of any percieved moral or legal wrong, because that is the precedent you are requesting and hoping for.

On the other hand, if you could accept that your practices are in fact different and alternative, then you should accept different and alternative treatment, not necessarily bad treatment. If you're a good student in school, you will be treated like a good student, with awards and recognition (as should be the case!). If you are not a good student you may end up unrecognized, or even punished (as also should be the case!)

Why should I be covered by an umbrella term inclusive of practices and morals I simply don't agree with? How would you like to be classified as a "C student" even though you know you are an "A student." Likewise, how would you like to be paid the same as your coworker who just started and has no experience? Lastly, how would you like to be forced to be classified the same as those in society who really have nothing to do with you, and who believe, act, and live in ways you do not? The broadest umbrella I want to put myself in with those people is "Citizen".

In society, we are afraid of accepting difference in ourselves. We are afraid of somebody looking at us and thinking or saying, "Well, that's not like me, so it must be inferior." Instead, we should embrace difference without trying to mask the differences with political correctness and uni-human definitions. A white guy is white. A black guy is black. A lesbian is a lesbian. Let's work to a point that we can accept eachother and, more importantly ourselves, for our differences. Difference is good. So stop trying to be the same if you are not. On the other side of the coin, if you aren't happy with your differences, then maybe you should change. If you are happy with your differences, then you should be happy with the alternative treatment you recieve as a result of your difference, short of being persecuted.

Let's work to a point that if someone is gay, it doesn't mean that they are a bad person, for they have probably done nothing to you or I personally. If we can get to that, then we can accept that heterosexuals are joined by Marriage, and that homosexuals are joined by Civil Unions or Domestic Partnerships, and it won't matter. A giraffe can't have a zebra's stripes.

Furthermore, while we are not to conduct acts of discrimination, we are all discriminating on a minutely basis. Those of you against Prop 8 are actively discriminating against me in your minds, and thinking what small capacity of mind I have. We have to discriminate; we have minds and we have to use them to make choices about every single thing we do. Otherwise, imagine the chaos! Joe Schmoe could get elected as president of the United States without discrimination. The difference is that, as a people, there is acts of discrimination and intolerance which affect others through physical, mental, and financial trauma (among others) which are unlawful. As it happens, I know and am friends with homosexual individuals. But if I didn't want to like them, that is my choice, and nobody can stop that. Likewise, I believe that most of the pro Prop 8 voters are NOT attempting to limit anyone's individual or religious freedoms; they are trying to preserve their own religious freedom through the use of acceptable discrimination!!!

The author of this blog has not come to grips with the repurcussions of moral relativity. Just because the scales tipped a little way 50 years ago to correct some actual wrongs in society does not mean the scale must continue tipping to accomodate every version of alternative human behavior concievable, or those embraced by a small faction. The Civil Rights movement was monumental in that it created an atmosphere of acceptance and tolerance of individuals born in a given set of circumstances over which they had know control. Due to that, tolerance in the world has increased tremendously and homosexuals are not 'strung up' as they may have been in previous centuries. Interestingly enough, one cannot choose to be "Black" or "Japanese", neither can one choose to be handicapped or un-handcapped. However, to enact homosexuality IS A CHOICE regardless of what anyone says. One may want to be homosexual just the same as one wants to commit adultery with the neighbor's wife; which is not lawful, and the law will not allow you to marry your neighbors wife. Therefore, we should not be altering common law on the basis of something that is a choice made by an individual choosing a given lifestyle. The comparison to equal rights for blacks and interracial marriages is an emotional pullstring aimed to persuade us to believe that samesex Marriage is something which it is not. I'm sorry we disagree so sharply. Boldly accept your differences by recogning embracing that fact there is a term and legal manuevre for samesex couples wishing to be joined by law, and it is called a Domestic Partnership or Civil Union.

By the way, I have seen dozens of YES ON PROP. 8 signs in trash cans, gutters, and blowing down the street, so get over it.

First of all, cammed, stop with the straw man arguments. Nobody is asking abstract rights of marriage -- people, like me, who are gay or lesbian are asking that our existing rights to marry not be taken away. The argument that this will lead to a broader definition of marriage is insulting and intentionally biased.

Marriage allows spouses over a thousand rights and privileges at the State and Federal levels. Some of these are the right to: “file joint tax returns; leave an inheritance to one another tax free; make life-and-death decisions if the other is incapacitated; be included on one or the other's health-insurance plan; be granted family leave or bereavement leave in the case of the other's illness or death; have co-parental rights so that both partners are considered parent of their children in all situations,” writes Hope College Professor of Psychology, David G. Myers. While some of these rights are afforded in civil unions, these rights are not nearly as expansive as the rights of married couples, and they lack the weight of Federal protection. They are, by every count, “separate rights”, in much the same way housing, social, and educational discrimination provided “separate rights” for African Americans up through the twentieth century. There are no “separate but equal” rights – it is a myth.

And, the often hyped “gay agenda”, simply does not exist. The agenda for gay and lesbian people is no different than that of heterosexual people. “Gay people are not asking for the right to marry everybody they love,” notes Myers. “they are asking for the right to marry somebody they love.” The notion that the “gay agenda” endorses polygamy, as I stated earlier, is a gross mis-characterization. National Journal columnist Jonathan Rauch writes, “Children, parents, childless adults and marriage itself are all better off when society sends a clear and unequivocal message that sex, love, and marriage go together. Same-sex marriage affirms that message.” Conservative New York Times columnist David Brooks, in 2003, wrote, “The conservative course is not to banish gay people from making such commitments. It is to expect that they make such commitments. We shouldn't just allow gay marriage. We should insist on gay marriage.”

There is no plausible argument that gay marriage undermines heterosexual marriages. According to Myers, “the flood that threatens the house of marriage is not gay marriage but heterosexual nonmarriage, including cohabitation, domestic partnerships, and other 'marriage lite' alternatives.” In fact, after Massachusetts implemented same-sex marriages, and consequently repelled all other forms of cohabitation, the divorce rate in that state declined to be among one of the lowest divorce rates in the nation.

And, homosexuality is not a choice. Yes, I do have the choice to love or live alone or live a lie. But, I cannot change my orientation. I tried. For 22 years. There is an abundance of evidence that orientation is set before a child born. So, unless you have more credentials that the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychological Association, and countless other scientific and medical entities, then don't even start with this often-repeated line of crap.

"people, like me, who are gay or lesbian are asking that our existing rights to marry not be taken away. The argument that this will lead to a broader definition of marriage is insulting and intentionally biased."

Intentionally biased? That is a far reach. What exactly, then, is the result of extending the right to marriage to samesex couples? Isn't that an extension, isn't it a MUCH broader interpretation of the current and past idea and definition of marriage? I'm not against you, but I'm not for your agenda.

Whatever Meyers (?) says in his books is his own opinion, that doesn't mean it is truth. And, if the problem is that Civil Unions and Domestic Partnerships don't allow equal rights, shouldn't that be your argument, your cause, your justification for action, your call to action, etc.? Why the attempt to change something so obviously traditional? I just don't get that. It's like trying to call a Corporation an LLC...it just doesn't fit no matter how you force it, unless you change the definition. Then, at that point, why attempt to distinguish between the two any which way? We'll just say that LLC's and Corporations are the same thing...

My argument is that samesex marriage easily opens the door, based on the form of the samesex argument, for much more than just homosexual marriage. I'm not saying that samesex couples view this as a good thing, in fact, hopefully (based on their noble frames of mind) they see this as a bad thing. The problem is, you're asking to start a snowball rolling it down the hill, but stopping it at 1/3 of the way down.

I admire that samesex couples appear to be more committed and loyal. It sets a bar for all couples to aspire to. However, that does not mean that Marriage is for samesex couples, it's just a statistic, not a right of passage.

The way I see it is this: If you want to do something different...go for it. Experiment away. The quest for truth is ongoing not only for us as a society, but also at an individual level. Society has long long long understood without any question whatsoever, that marriage is for one man and one woman. Always has been, always should be. We've gotten to where we are that way, so why change it? It has obviously been successful for mankind to progress, improve life, and not to mention, procreate. Civil Unions on the other hand are made to accomodate those for whom marriage does not apply. Otherwise, why was a new term and associated definition even created? And why hasn't marriage always encompassed samesex couples? The answer lies in the truth of the definition, both traditional and in most (non-liberal)dictionaries, of marriage.

Separate but equal again had different consequences on groups of people who could not help the conditions they were born into. Nobody is asking gays and lesbians to sit at the back, or use different drinking fountains. We are only asking that you do not impose a selfishly motivated will upon something we find to be sacred.

You see proposition 8 as an "anti-gay" movement. I have not heard one single anti-prop-8 voice acknowledge the flip-side of the coin; which is that maybe these prop 8 advocates aim to preserve something that is special and sacred to them, beyond the limits of civil law. However, I have heard many prop 8 supporters, inluding myself, implore the other side to see that we are not anti-gay. It's not about anti-gay. It's not about being better, or worse than the other guy any which way. It's about perserving something, not having something taken away from us. And regardless of what any author writes, that is how it feels, and no author can predict or understand these sorts of issues except in his own sphere of literal personal experience. Perhaps one collection of scientists believe homosexuality is onset before birth. But for every one doctor that does believe that, I would bet millions of dollars to a dozen donuts that there are at least 2 doctors who will disagree, or suggest that any such study is absolutely inconclusive.

The root of the issue, at least that the samesex society claims, is that marriage has more benefits than civil unions. So again, I pose the question, why isn't that the goal of the group. If their efforts were expended as such, there would probably be little to no resistance whatsoever, and the effort would probably go unnoticed by the heterosexual community.

Then again, maybe that's the whole problem (?).

Of noteworthy addition is this. I admire how you (Scott) are totally comfortable with this issue, and this way of life. You are the beginnings of a model "modern day thinker," who wants to make a difference, and is capable. The fundamental aspect of the roadblock you face today is attempting to alter truth, dignity, and tradition on the basis of acceptance of a practice that is most commonly viewed as immoral, disgusting, and impractical. That should not be considered as a challenge. Just make sure your motives are pure and properly guided by whatever source of truth you follow, and you will find some measure of success, probably beyond most others.

I don't know how this vote will end, but either way, it will be a fight isn't going to end here in this state.

..I have heard many people say that Prop. 8 signs are being stolen from yards....so let me get this straight, although gays want society to accept and vote their way, at the same time violate others rights to expression ? That is counter productive and only serves to incite voters to vote yes on Prop 8 and protect this nation's marital values and end the tissy fits.

William, how do you know the people removing Yes on 8 signs are gay? There are other groups against this prop you know.

For example, people who think it is a civil rights violation are against the prop. People who realizing our state is 16 billion in debt don't want to see any additional costs or loss of potential revenue to the state. People who have a close friend or relative who is gay or perhaps was persecuted by others for gayness. Then there are the people who may had a marriage destroyed because a family member told their spouse to marry straight and pretend not to be gay.

Actually, I believe that there are a few groups who could have the motivation for this - not just gay people.

I'm sure most of the sign removal is teenagers who really don't know how the prop even works. All they know is there is a sign there and they are bored so lets mess with the sign.

I just watched a pro 8 commercial where a fine young Christian couple from Massachusetts complained that their 2nd grade boy came home and said "mommy, daddy, I learned in class today that boys can marry other boys". They claimed that the school informed them that they had no right to object or "pull him out of class". I'm calling BS on that. I'll fact check it and post back. Pro 8 folks should learn a lesson from the McCain campaign - lying and fear mongering are no longer effective tactics. People aren't buying it anymore.

General question to those who from one corner of your mouths say you have no objection to same sex domestic partnership arrangements, with some or all of the same state recognition of rights and responsibilities assigned to heterosexual married couples.. while from the other corner expressing concern that allowing same sex "marriage" in the legal tradition enjoyed by heterosexual couples won't stop at one man/one man or one woman/one woman. What's to stop us from marrying our cats, dogs, horses, coffee tables, or our favorite coffee mug after all?

What's the difference? Would you support domestic partnership protections for us and our cats, dogs, horses, coffee tables, favorite coffee mugs?

Come on. Can't you see how ridiculous that "pandora's box" argument really is?

cammed wrote:

"Separate but equal again had different consequences on groups of people who could not help the conditions they were born into. Nobody is asking gays and lesbians to sit at the back, or use different drinking fountains. We are only asking that you do not impose a selfishly motivated will upon something we find to be sacred."

Oh, lord, the hypocrisy in that statement. It cuts right to the chase of what the anti same sex marriage position is all about, regardless of motive - be it religious, social prejudice, ignorance or something else. You are saying that we are selfishly insisting that we be recognized, by law, as deserving of the benefits of the same institution that you, [selfishly,] believe should be reserved for your own enjoyment and sacred fulfillment.

I ask you - which position is actually "selfish"?

And please explain how your finding of marriage to be "sacred" should restrict same sex couples from a similar finding and enjoyment of its benefits.

So far all you've typed is unintelligible noise.

"William, how do you know the people removing Yes on 8 signs are gay? There are other groups against this prop you know."

I haven't stolen any signs yet and I am a happily married, white, upper middle class, college educated American woman....I have thought about stealing them...I have thought up my plan of attack...but I haven't done it.

Prop 8 is discrimination, pure and simple.

Heidi

What same-sex "marriage" has done to Massachusetts
It's far worse than most people realize
October 20, 2008
by Brian Camenker

Anyone who thinks that same-sex “marriage” is a benign eccentricity which won’t affect the average person should consider what it has done in Massachusetts. It’s become a hammer to force the acceptance and normalization of homosexuality on everyone. And this train is moving fast. What has happened so far is only the beginning.

On November 18, 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court announced its Goodridge opinion, ruling that it was unconstitutional not to allow same-sex “marriage.” Six months later, homosexual marriages began to be performed.

The public schools
The homosexual “marriage” onslaught in public schools across the state started soon after the November 2003, court decision.

At my own children's high school there was a school-wide assembly to celebrate same-sex “marriage” in early December, 2003. It featured an array of speakers, including teachers at the school who announced that they would be “marrying” their same-sex partners and starting families either through adoption or artificial insemination. Literature on same-sex marriage – how it is now a normal part of society – was handed out to the students.

Within months it was brought into the middle schools. In September, 2004, an 8th-grade teacher in Brookline, MA, told National Public Radio that the marriage ruling had opened up the floodgates for teaching homosexuality. “In my mind, I know that, `OK, this is legal now.' If somebody wants to challenge me, I'll say, `Give me a break. It's legal now,'” she told NPR. She added that she now discusses gay sex with her students as explicitly as she desires. For example, she said she tells the kids that lesbians can have vaginal intercourse using sex toys.

By the following year it was in elementary school curricula. Kindergartners were given picture books telling them that same-sex couples are just another kind of family, like their own parents. In 2005, when David Parker of Lexington, MA – a parent of a kindergartner – strongly insisted on being notified when teachers were discussing homosexuality or transgenderism with his son, the school had him arrested and put in jail overnight.

Second graders at the same school were read a book, “King and King”, about two men who have a romance and marry each other, with a picture of them kissing. When parents Rob and Robin Wirthlin complained, they were told that the school had no obligation to notify them or allow them to opt-out their child.

In 2006 the Parkers and Wirthlins filed a federal Civil Rights lawsuit to force the schools to notify parents and allow them to opt-out their elementary-school children when homosexual-related subjects were taught. The federal judges dismissed the case. The judges ruled that because same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts, the school actually had a duty to normalize homosexual relationships to children, and that schools have no obligation to notify parents or let them opt-out their children! Acceptance of homosexuality had become a matter of good citizenship!

Think about that: Because same-sex marriage is “legal”, a federal judge has ruled that the schools now have a duty to portray homosexual relationships as normal to children, despite what parents think or believe!

In 2006, in the elementary school where my daughter went to Kindergarten, the parents of a third-grader were forced to take their child out of school because a man undergoing a sex-change operation and cross-dressing was being brought into class to teach the children that there are now “different kinds of families.” School officials told the mother that her complaints to the principal were considered “inappropriate behavior.”

Libraries have also radically changed. School libraries across the state, from elementary school to high school, now have shelves of books to normalize homosexual behavior and the lifestyle in the minds of kids, some of them quite explicit and even pornographic. Parents complaints are ignored or met with hostility.

Over the past year, homosexual groups have been using taxpayer money to distribute a large, slick hardcover book celebrating homosexual marriage titled “Courting Equality” into every school library in the state.

It’s become commonplace in Massachusetts schools for teachers to prominently display photos of their same-sex “spouses” and occasionally bring them to school functions. Both high schools in my own town now have principals who are “married” to their same-sex partners, whom they bring to school and introduce to the students.

“Gay days” in schools are considered necessary to fight “intolerance” which may exist against same-sex relationships. Hundreds of high schools and even middle schools across the state now hold “gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender appreciation days”. They “celebrate” homosexual marriage and move forward to other behaviors such as cross-dressing and transsexuality. In my own town, a school committee member recently announced that combating “homophobia” is now a top priority.

Once homosexuality has been normalized, all boundaries will come down. The schools are already moving on to normalizing transgenderism (including cross-dressing and sex changes). The state-funded Commission on Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Youth includes leaders who are transsexuals.

Public health
The Commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Public Health is “married” to another man. In 2007 he told a crowd of kids at a state-sponsored youth event that it’s “wonderful being gay” and he wants to make sure there’s enough HIV testing available for all of them.

Since homosexual marriage became “legal” the rates of HIV / AIDS have gone up considerably in Massachusetts. This year public funding to deal with HIV/AIDS has risen by $500,000.

Citing “the right to marry” as one of the “important challenges” in a place where “it’s a great time to be gay”, the Massachusetts Department of Public Health helped produce The Little Black Book, Queer in the 21st Century, a hideous work of obscene pornography which was given to kids at Brookline High School on April 30, 2005. Among other things, it gives “tips” to boys on how to perform oral sex on other males, masturbate other males, and how to “safely” have someone urinate on you for sexual pleasure. It also included a directory of bars in Boston where young men meet for anonymous sex.

Domestic violence
Given the extreme dysfunctional nature of homosexual relationships, the Massachusetts Legislature has felt the need to spend more money every year to deal with skyrocketing homosexual domestic violence. This year $350,000 was budgeted, up $100,000 from last year.

Business
All insurance in Massachusetts must now recognize same-sex “married” couples in their coverage. This includes auto insurance, health insurance, life insurance, etc.

Businesses must recognize same-sex “married” couples in all their benefits, activities, etc., regarding both employees and customers.

The wedding industry is required serve the homosexual community if requested. Wedding photographers, halls, caterers, etc., must do same-sex marriages or be arrested for discrimination.

Businesses are often “tested” for tolerance by homosexual activists. Groups of homosexual activists often go into restaurants or bars and publicly kiss and fondle each other to test whether the establishment demonstrates sufficient “equality” — now that homosexual marriage is “legal”. In fact, more and more overt displays of homosexual affection are seen in public places across the state to reinforce "marriage equality".

Legal profession
The Massachusetts Bar Exam now tests lawyers on their knowledge of same-sex "marriage" issues. In 2007, a Boston man, Stephen Dunne, failed the Massachusetts bar exam because he refused to answer the questions in it about homosexual marriage.

Issues regarding homosexual “families” are now firmly entrenched in the Massachusetts legal system. In many firms, lawyers in Massachusetts practicing family law must now attend seminars on homosexual "marriage". There are also now several homosexual judges overseeing the Massachusetts family courts.

Adoption of children to homosexual “married” couples
Homosexual “married” couples can now demand to be able to adopt children the same as normal couples. Catholic Charities decided to abandon handling adoptions rather submit to regulations requiring them to allow homosexuals to adopt the children in their care.

In 2006 the Massachusetts Department of Social Services (DSS) honored two men “married” to each other as their “Parents of the Year”. The men already adopted a baby through DSS (against the wishes of the baby’s birth parents). According to news reports, the day after that adoption was final DSS approached the men about adopting a second child. Homosexuals now appear to be put in line for adopting children ahead of heterosexual parents by state agencies in Massachusetts.

Government mandates
In 2004, Governor Mitt Romney ordered Justices of the Peace to perform homosexual marriages when requested or be fired. At least one Justice of the Peace decided to resign.

Also thanks to Gov. Romney, marriage licenses in Massachusetts now have “Party A and Party B” instead of “husband and wife.” Romney did not have a legal requirement to do this; he did it on his own. (See more on this below.)

Since homosexual relationships are now officially “normal”, the Legislature now gives enormous tax money to homosexual activist groups. In particular, the Massachusetts Commission on Gay Lesbian Bisexual and Transgender Youth is made up of the most radical and militant homosexual groups which target children in the schools. This year they are getting $700,000 of taxpayer money to go into the public schools.

In 2008 Massachusetts changed the state Medicare laws to include homosexual “married” couples in the coverage.

The public square
Since gay “marriage”, annual gay pride parades have become more prominent. There are more politicians and corporations participating, and even police organizations take part. And the envelope gets pushed further and further. There is now a profane “Dyke March” through downtown Boston, and recently a “transgender” parade in Northampton that included bare-chested women who have had their breasts surgically removed so they could “become” men. Governor Patrick even marched with his “out lesbian” 17-year old daughter in the 2008 Boston Pride event, right behind a “leather” group brandishing a black & blue flag, whips and chains!

The media
Boston media, particularly the Boston Globe newspaper, regularly does feature stories and news stories portraying homosexual “married” couples where regular married couples would normally be used. It’s “equal”, they insist, so there must be no difference in the coverage. Also, the newspaper advice columns now deal with homosexual "marriage" issues, and how to properly accept it.

A growing number of news reporters and TV anchors are openly “married” homosexuals who march in the “gay pride” parades.

Is gay marriage actually legal in Massachusetts?
Like everywhere else in America, the imposition of same-sex marriage on the people of Massachusetts was a combination of radical, arrogant judges and pitifully cowardly politicians.

The Goodridge ruling resulted in a complete cave-in by politicians of both parties on this issue. Same-sex “marriage” is still illegal in Massachusetts. On November 18, 2003 the court merely ruled that it was unconstitutional not to allow it, and gave the Legislature six months to “take such action as it may deem appropriate.” Note that the Massachusetts Constitution strongly denies courts the power to make or change laws, or from ordering the other branches to take any action. The constitution effectively bans “judicial review” – a court changing or nullifying a law. Thus, the court did not order anything to happen; it simply rendered an opinion on that specific case. And the Legislature did nothing. The marriage statutes were never changed. However, against the advice of many, Gov. Romney took it upon himself to alter the state's marriage licenses to say "Party A and Party B" and order officials to perform same-sex "weddings" if asked, though he had no legal obligation to do so. Technically, same-sex marriages are still illegal in Massachusetts.

Nevertheless, we are having to live with it. And furthermore, this abdication of their proper constitutional roles by the Legislature and Governor has caused a domino effect as "copycat" rulings have been issued in California and Connecticut, with other states fearful it will happen there.

In conclusion
Homosexual “marriage” hangs over society like a hammer with the force of law. And it’s only just begun.

It’s pretty clear that the homosexual movement’s obsession with marriage is not because large numbers of them actually want to marry each other. Research shows that homosexual relationships are fundamentally dysfunctional on many levels, and “marriage” as we know it isn’t something they can achieve, or even desire. (In fact, over the last three months, the Sunday Boston Globe’s marriage section hasn’t had any photos of homosexual marriages. In the beginning it was full of them.) This is about putting the legal stamp of approval on homosexuality and imposing it with force throughout the various social and political institutions of a society that would never accept it otherwise. To the rest of America: You've been forewarned.