Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

MFI calls for dialogue on same-sex marriage

By

I’d go. But notice how they frame the issue as them being portrayed as poor, put-upon voices of reason, undeservedly being called bigots.

Maybe they’ll disavow the following from October’s Liberty Sunday as reported in Bay Windows:

“We know what a family is. My wife said to me this morning, she said, `Okay then, if the sodomites,’ because they’re not gay, it’s a misnomer, they’re sodomites . . . If God calls homosexuality abomination, if he calls it a vile affection, if he calls this wickedness, I can’t call it inappropriate behavior,” said [Bishop Wellington Boone of Georgia], prompting the crowd to break into cheers and applause. . . .

He continued with a reference to his speech at last month’s FRC conference in Washington, the Orwellian-sounding Values Voter Summit, a conference at which he referred to gay people as “faggots.”

“They got offended at me,” Boone said with some indignation, “because . . . I called this whole idea of trying to get rights and trying to get over there on the African American side, I called it the rape of the civil rights movement.”

MFI may want to distance themselves from this event, and their report on it, October 18, 2006 – Gov. Romney addresses Liberty Sunday, makes no mention of Boone. But then they can’t hold MassEquality responsible for what every opponent of the amendment yells out at a protest.

Still, dialogue would be great. It wouldn’t change minds already made up, but some thoughtful public discussions, with the S, F, H, and B words banned (sodomy, faggot, hate, and bigot), could aid those trying to make up their minds.

I just don’t want MFI to get away with portraying themselves the victims in this–“they’re calling us bigots!”–so committing to taking the high road can only be good for us. Then, when the outside groups come in, such as the Family Research Council (FRC), maybe we can pressure MFI and VoteOnMarriage to kick them back out. (That’ll probably be followed by the North Pole refreezing.)

FRC’s president Tony Perkins spoke at Liberty Sunday. Bay Windows reported:

One of the more powerful alliances being forged in the conservative fight to ban same-sex couples from marrying is that between white evangelical Christians and religiously conservative African-Americans. Given that, one of the more provocative displays by Liberty Sunday protesters was a banner held by members of QueerToday.com featuring a photo of Family Research Council president Tony Perkins in 1997, when he was still a Louisiana state representative. The photo shows Perkins addressing a meeting of the Louisiana Council of Conservative Citizens (CC of C), a white supremacist group that the Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks hate groups in the United States, says has a history of denigrating African Americans, Jews, gay and lesbian people and immigrants. The photo, taken from an issue of the CC of C’s newspaper the Citizens Informer, features Perkins smiling and standing at a podium in front of a Confederate flag.

MFI may end up being the least of our problems.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. they’re clearly trying to positions themselves as the nice voices of reason prior to the vote to repeal civil rights.  good work, Kira, diggin up examples of how they are not what they portray themselves to be – sweet innocent victims of the sodomites.  we need to dig up all the crap they’ve flung at us over the years, so the public can see just how full of sweetness and light they really aren’t.

  2. Aren’t we Liberals very, very, very nice people?

    <

    p>
    We might debate tax policy or social welfare policy or foreign policy with Conservatives, but this is an area where their opinions are based on hatred of “ickiness” and religion. Everything else is rationalization — and weak rationalization at that. Debating them just gives extra cover to rationalization.

    <

    p>
    Don’t debate them, I say, discredit them. I’m trying to practice phrases like taking a break from advocating child-abuse, Dr. Dobson turned his theocratic attention to the issue of gay rights. Really. These guys advocate child-rearing methods that science and soccer moms know are wrong. Pin it on them. Make them shut up. They won’t dare talk about family or “family” again.

    • They’re against same sex marriage because they’re against equality in marriage. Point out how grotesquely patriarchal their view of family is. It’s patriarchal in ways even women who would say they’re not feminist would find abhorrent and most men would find abhorrent too.

      • True enough.  They’re so patriarchical that Concerned Women for America’s policy is always written by men.  They have just hired Matt Barber to replace the infamous Bobby Knight as Policy “Woman” in CHief.

        • They’re against marriage equality because they’re against equality in marriage.

          <

          p>
          Yeah, I had noticed that about CWA. It’s very funny to read “Matt Barber of Concerned Women for America”.

  3. I wonder if the folks at MFI have read the latest report from the CDC that says 38-44% of married HETEROsexuals angage in anal sodomy.  [friendly reminder – “sodomy” includes oral sex, regardless of the recipient’s gender.  They should look home before they fling that word too harshly.]

    <

    p>
    An article re: CDC’s sodomy report

    http://nymag.com/nig…
    The Bottom Line
    Anal-sex talk still makes people blush. But it’s also increasingly popular in the hetero world.  * By Em & Lo  Every couple of years, another once-scandalous sex taboo starts making its way toward the commonplace. A decade ago, blow jobs were what people whispered about; then three-ways became the naughty bedroom act. Now, it’s anal sex-but according to the Centers for Disease Control’s National Survey of Family Growth, it’s rapidly becoming a regular feature of hetero couples’ horizontal activities.

    The survey, released last year, showed that 38.2 percent of men between 20 and 39 and 32.6 percent of women ages 18 to 44 engage in heterosexual anal sex. Compare that with the CDC’s 1992 National Health and Social Life survey, which found that only 25.6 percent of men 18 to 59 and 20.4 percent of women 18 to 59 indulged in it.

    Anecdotal research also demonstrates curiosity is on the rise. Babeland’s anal-sex workshops are now held three or four times a year, instead of once, and they’re filled with straight couples. “More and more, people are devoting themselves to learning about anal pleasure,” says Carolyn Riccardi, education coordinator for Babeland’s New York retail stores. “Male-to-female anal sex has been happening since the dawn of time,” she says. “What’s different now is that women are actively learning how to enjoy it and have fun with it.”

    “I first did it with my husband,” says Lisa, a recently divorced thirtysomething from across the Hudson. “It was a regular part of our married sex life, and I enjoyed it. I think it can feel good for anyone-except if you’re too uptight about it, meaning, you’re literally tight-assed.”

    Ah, yes, the anal-sex dilemma: If you think it’s going to hurt, it will. Relaxation isn’t the only requirement for a good experience: Too much aggression (and no lube) can put a woman off anal sex permanently.

    And not all guys are anal enthusiasts, either. Jim, a 27-year-old consultant, has been given the opportunity by willing partners but hasn’t taken the plunge. He agrees that it seems to be on the rise among his friends but wonders whether it’s “really a cultural shift or just something we ease into semi-contemporaneously as we age, like marriage or buying real estate or listening to jazz rap.”

    The idea that anal is something couples eventually turn to for sexual variety seems to be supported by the CDC survey, which shows the lowest numbers among those who’ve never been married and are not cohabiting, compared with those who are cohabiting, married, or divorced.

    “For me, anal sex is very intimate, much more so than regular sex. If I care about someone, I’m willing to experiment,” says Irene, a 33-year-old East Village environmentalist who has been doing it with Lex, a 30-year-old Wall Streeter. But when we press Lex on whether he likes to receive anal attention from his girlfriends, he responds, “Call me old-fashioned, but the guy should be the penetrator, not the penetratee, no?”

    It’s an attitude still widely held by many straight men today, and one that’s reflected in the CDC survey: Though the report is chock-full of all kinds of straight, gay, and lesbian sex in fairly graphic detail, there’s absolutely no research on female-to-male anal play. It turns out that the straight-male fear of reciprocal anal play is a potent mix of sexism and homophobia; a straight man can do it to someone else, but having it done to him isn’t okay.

    But the newly discovered anti-cancer benefits of prostate stimulation are giving straight guys-especially the progressive New York breed-a legitimate excuse to be more, shall we say, open to exploration. And men’s magazines, which until recently discussed anal sex only in terms of how to trick a girlfriend into giving it up, now publish articles on the Aneros-the doctor-created, FDA-approved prostate stimulator-and the male G-spot, a.k.a. the P-spot, a.k.a. the He-spot.

    “Straight guys come in looking for the Aneros,” says Riccardi, “but once they get all their questions answered, they’ll walk out with something more fun and less medical for themselves. Or their girlfriends will come in looking for ways they can be the penetrator, too.” When Riccardi first started working at Babeland three years ago, she would gently ask straight female customers if they’d ever tried sticking a finger up their boyfriend’s or husband’s bum, and they’d shoot her looks of horror. “Now when I ask them that question, they almost all say, `Oh, sure.’?” The store’s strap-on sales have never been higher.

    “My wife is totally turned on by the idea of `having’ me, as that’s just not something women really get to do most of the time, and it’s not something that guys have usually had done to them. It really is a reversal in the most primal of ways,” explains newlywed Brooklynite Anthony. “I think anyone who doesn’t enjoy it or thinks they wouldn’t is hindered by their own hang-ups. It feels good, period. And breaking taboos is sexy. Variety is sexy. Being vulnerable is sexy.” 

  6. Roberto Mirando, the leader of Vote on Marriage, likened marriage equality in Massachusetts to the terrorist attacks in New York on Sept. 11th.

    <

    p>
    Larry Cirignano, the leader of the Catholic Citizenship group physically attacked a woman who was carrying a sign.

    <

    p>
    The following is taken from Bay Windows:
    Evelyn Reilly, MFI’s public policy director, said on New England Cable News that she believes gay people are mentally ill.

    <

    p>
    Kris Mineau, who confessed in the documentary Saving Marriage that he believes the advent of civil marriage rights for same-sex couples has diminished his stature as a husband and father.

    <

    p>
    And these are the leaders of their group.

    <

    p>
    And they want a “civil” conversation?

    • I think a useful contribution to MFI’s call for constructive dialogue would be to pose these quotes to them, with sources, and ask them to disavow them.  That’s exactly the kind of “frenzied tone and rhetoric” that they claim they want to get away from.  Let’s see if they’re serious.

      • MFI/VOM/Romney should be compelled to explain why they dropped their lawsuit against non-voting legislators after the concon.  If they were really all for democracy, they would not have celebrated all over the pages of the Globe when the hate amendment was voted on but the health care one wasnt.  They claim to be all about democracy and not bigotry, but their deeds show them otherwise.  Quoted in the Globe after the hate amendment advanced, Kris Mineau stated

        “This is a victory for democracy, it’s a victory for the people’s right to petition, and . . . it’s a victory for the constitution, the oldest living constitution in the world,” said Kris Mineau, the president of Massachusetts Family Institute, which is spearheading the drive for the proposal defining marriage as between only a man and a woman.  “We are a nation of laws and we proved that,” Mineau said.

          Source here

        <

        p>
        Their lawyer thinks justice was done with only 1 or 2 amendments getting a up/down vote:

        “Now that the Legislature has chosen to do the right thing and vote, there is no need for this lawsuit to continue,” said Glen Lavy, a lawyer with the Arizona-based Alliance Defense Fund, which represented VoteOnMarriage.org in the lawsuit.

        source here

      • Perhaps the bishop doesn’t understand that gay people do form families just like non-gay people do? 

        <

        p>

        Remarks of Bishop Gilbert Thompson
        President, Black Ministerial Alliance of Greater Boston
        June 16, 2005 Press Conference
        Gardner Auditorium – 10:00 a.m.
        As a Christian, I believe the family is foundational to the health of society. The Scriptures contend that to destroy the foundations is NOT in the best interest of righteousness. Therefore, I am critical of this socio-political experiment to redefine marriage and family. I believe it threatens the future health of our communities in general and our children in particular.

        source here

      • Rev. Roberto Mirnada, Pastor of the Lion of Judah Congregation in Boston, helped draft a Master Plan:  A Strategic Plan for the Church in Massachusetts  after the SJC recognized equal marriage in the state.

        <

        p>

      • Miranda sees marriage equality as literally Satan’s work

        • Satan has warred mightily against this region, and has effectively neutralized it through the influence of principalities of rationalism, humanism, intellectual pride and spiritual arrogance. Massachusetts, as well as all of New England, has become a cemetery of churches, a breeding ground for heretical doctrine, and intellectual furnace energizing attitudes of godlessness, rational arrogance and secularism It is no coincidence, of course, that something as dramatically distant from the Christian worldview as gay marriage would be originated in this region.

        source here

        <

        p>

      • Miranda links marriage equality and the September 11th terrorist attacks

        • <

        blockquote>Is it exaggerated to see prophetic significance in the fact that on September 11, 2001 Boston served as the point of departure for the deadly forces that spread so much destruction and havoc in this nation and all over the world? What took place at the material level is now being carried out at the moral and spiritual level, as the virus of homosexuality and gay marriage begins to spread dramatically all over this nation and perhaps the world.
        source here

        <

        p>

      • Miranda calls homosexuality a virus

        • <

        blockquote>What took place at the material level is now being carried out at the moral and spiritual level, as the virus of homosexuality and gay marriage begins to spread dramatically all over this nation and perhaps the world.
        source here

      • Read the letter signed by Hinckley himself here

        <

        p>
        It refers to a 1995 Proclamation to the World, in which gay families are defined out of existence, and ends with this dire  warning

        Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.

        Source here

      • Is it civil to say that it is doing violence to an orphan by placing it in a home with loving parents who happen to be gay?  According to the CC near and far, yep.  Read here for local outfall (= homeless orphans – thanks Cardinal Sean!)

      • James Dobson is head of Focus on teh Family.  He’s around Boston a lot these days, taking part with MFI/VOM in many completely civl-to-gays activities such as the Love One Out conference (next post).  But first, let’s let James himself set the civility of the tone:

        Homosexual activists seek not to end discrimination because laws do not preclude homosexuals from marrying. Rather, they seek to completely redefine – and thus undermine – the foundational institution of marriage. And no one has the right to do that. Indeed, some prominent gay activists have gone so far as to state this as their goal. This powerful, advantaged, vocal special interest group is seeking not to be left alone, not to be simply tolerated or even respected, but to force its views on the rest of society. They are asking each of us to radically change our understanding of marriage and family. And this new defintion of marriage and family will be force-fed to our children at every grade level. Groups like the ACLU will force churches to perform such “weddings” in order to maintain their tax-exempt status.

        Source here
        Just how is manufacturing facts and misreading the 1st amendment of the US Constitution, not to mention stating that gays are trying to undermine the very civil institution they wish to strengthen as participants – just how are these things “civil”?

        • No? Maybe not useful, but civil.  This is as civil statement of the opponents’ argument I can imagine:

          <

          p>
          The marriage statutes don’t disqualify individuals on the basis of sexual orientation from entering into marriage. All individuals are free to marry. Whether an individual chooses not to marry because of sexual orientation doesn’t imply inequality.

          <

          p>
          Civil union doesn’t do it for you as a middle ground?

          <

          p>
          Without an imaginable middle ground, it’s hard to imagine civil discourse as anything but a waste of time.

          <

          p>
          Kinda like that with abortion.  If one side says and believes it’s killing, it’s hard to envision a compromise.

          • accusing gays of undermining the very civil institution they want to share in is not civil, it is obnoxious. 
          • lying that churches will be forced to conduct gay marriages is pure fear mongering, it is not civil or even logical discussion.

            • lying that churches will be forced to conduct gay marriages is pure fear mongering, it is not civil or even logical discussion.

              <

              p>
              You know, I’m not so sure they’re wrong. Just as examples,

              <

              p>
              -Bob Jones University lost its 501(c) status because it didn’t allow inter-racial dating.
              -501(i) social clubs aren’t allowed to discriminate in sex or race without forgoing exempt status.

              <

              p>
              I’m imagining, admittedly without any research, that a church that advertised “WE ONLY MARRY WHITE FOLKS IN THIS BUILDING” could well lose its exempt status.

              • churches frequently discriminate about who they will marry, and it is perfectly legal (and I am ok with that).  for example, many churches won’t remarry someone who is divorced, or won’t marry people of different faiths.  ask your own clergy if you don’t believe me.  ask any constitutional lawyer.  ask the IRS.  it’s legal.  to say otherwise is being deceitful.

                • I think that with some research, a tax attorney or two might conclude there is at least some measureable risk to a church’s exempt status were it to take actions that were constitutionally discriminatory.

                • can discriminate against non-christians and against gays and still keep their tax-free status, churches can refuse to perform marriages whenever they want.  it is not a threat to their 501c3 status unless they receive government money, and that gov’t entity has a non-discrimination law.  that was the situation catholic charities found itself in, for example.  however, cc wasn’t the catholic church, but an affiliated separate org.  you see the difference?

                  <

                  p>
                  but feel free to not believe me and go convince yourself elsewhere.  then please post back with a credible source if you wish to refure me further.  thanks.

                • without losing their 501c3 status.  That was the discussion.  If they didn’t want to discriminate against gays, why did they waste the Supreme Court’s Time with this case?

                  <

                  p>
                  Try to keep on point.

                • ..that I was commenting on your false assertion that the Scouts discriminate against non-christians.

                  <

                  p>
                  You try to keep on point.

                • you were off-topic, which was regarding the legal ability of 501c3s to discriminate and not lose status.

                • OK, I see that I made a mistake by saying “non-christian”.  The BSA now apparently “only” discriminates against gays and atheists.  But the fact remains that they are allowed, under IRS regs, to discriminate against those they do and still keep their non-profit status, which was the point of the discussion above.

                • IMHO, the church that discriminates, and I’m sure it depends on facts and circumstances, has some exposure to losing its exempt status: speak out on politics, lose your 501(c)(3).  Discriminate on race, maybe.  Discriminate against gay marriage in the state of Massachusetts, I can see the argument, and it’s not illogical.

                  <

                  p>
                  I’d consult a constitutional lawyer, but seriously, what does a Con Lawyer know about the tax code?

                  <

                  p>
                  Gay marriage is, I’ve no doubt, very important to you.  Me, I got no axe to grind. Gay, straight, married, single, civilly unionized…I care less. It’s a wedge issue.  I’m just a mercinary, nothing more.  Feel free to diagree with my conclusion.

                • I followed your link to learn that you’re an attorney.  As such, you should have been able to find a solid answer to the question you raised, even if outside of your specialty.  But you didn;t bother.  I see now that you’re a troll.  I will treat further posts from you as troll drool.

          • Civil unions are recognized by a single state, but there is no expectation that without explicit law these would recognized by other states or the federal government. Putting aside DOMA and anti-SSM constitutional amendments in most states, Massachusetts both recognizes same-sex relationship and puts forward the expectation that these relationships should be recognized by other states and the federal government.

            <

            p>
            Does MFI want to join a campaign to have civil unions if not same-sex marriage recognized in other states, working with religious leaders and conservative politicians?  I think that would indeed be a middle ground, but don’t hold your breath.

            • Source of below here

              <

              p>
              June 16, 2005 Press Conference
              Remarks of Kris Mineau
              President, Massachusetts Family Institute
              Gardner Auditorium – 10:00 a.m.

              <

              p>
              Good morning. I’m Kris Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute speaking today on behalf of the Coalition for Marriage and Family, an alliance of 20 state and national organizations committed to preserving the definition of marriage in Massachusetts as the exclusive union of one man and one woman.

              <

              p>
              In 18 states across the country, citizens have amended their state constitutions to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Thirty-nine states now have laws defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. However, an activist court has redefined marriage in Massachusetts without the citizens ever having their say; the citizens of Massachusetts deserve to have their voices heard.

              <

              p>
              For the past four years, the citizens of Massachusetts have taken aggressive action to codify the definition of marriage and the legislature has continually impeded that process.

              <

              p>
              In 2002, then Senate President Tom Birmingham, in violation of the state constitution, refused to take up the matter in a Constitutional Convention despite the fact that the lawful number of signatures was collected by the citizens of the Commonwealth to bring the matter before the convention.

              <

              p>
              Last year, in response to a tremendous outpouring from citizens across the Commonwealth who wanted the opportunity to vote on the issue of marriage, Representative Phil Travis successfully brought the Marriage Affirmation and Protection Amendment before a Constitutional Convention. But once again the will of the people was thwarted when Senate President Robert Travaglini and Senate Minority Leader Brian Lees changed the amendment to establish Civil Unions fully equal to marriage. We oppose this flawed amendment.

              <

              p>
              First, the Travaglini-Lees amendment precludes a clear vote on marriage. Many citizens who oppose gay marriage, also oppose Civil Unions. Asking citizens to vote on the Travaglini-Lees amendment is like asking them to vote for George Bush and John Kerry on the same ticket.

              <

              p>
              Second, we are convinced that the Travaglini-Lees Amendment was drafted in a manner designed to fail both at the ballot box and in the courts. No less a legal luminary than Prof. Laurence Tribe at Harvard Law School, a supporter of same-sex marriage, said that the Travaglini-Lees amendment is, and I quote, “a dead sure loser from the word go.”

              <

              p>
              Because of the amendment’s equal treatment of marriage and civil unions, Tribe continued, “it’s ideally written to get zero votes” at the ballot box. Prof. Tribe went on to say that he believed the amendment would be struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court, and I again quote Prof. Tribe: “There are things about it that make it very vulnerable under the Federal constitution.” Specifically, Prof. Tribe thinks the amendment would not survive judicial review under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. Now, we rarely agree with Prof. Tribe, but we agree with him on this. The Travaglini-Lees Amendment was designed to fail, and we will not support it.

              <

              p>
              Therefore, we are here today to announce three objectives.

              <

              p>
              Our first objective is to oppose and defeat the Travaglini-Lees Amendment. We will mobilize our grassroots as we did last year, calling on legislators to vote “No” on this amendment.

              <

              p>
              Our second objective is to enable the citizens of the Commonwealth to have a clear up or down vote on the definition of marriage. We have formed a Ballot Question Committee to accomplish a citizens’ initiative petition for a constitutional amendment, in accordance with Article 48 of the Massachusetts constitution. The name of the Ballot Question Committee is VoteOnMarriage.org. The language of the amendment reads as follows:

              <

              p>
              When recognizing marriages entered after the adoption of this amendment by the people, the Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall define marriage as only the union of one man and one woman.

              <

              p>
              Our third objective is to address the needs of all citizens across the Commonwealth who are in mutually-dependent adult relationships that are ineligible for marriage. We believe Civil Unions to be discriminatory because they provide benefits only to a small segment of the population based on sexual preference, while there are many other citizens needing benefits who are in a non-sexual relationship. An example would be two elderly sisters living together, an uncle caring for a disabled nephew, or even adults taking care of elderly parents.

              <

              p>
              Upon approval of our initiative petition by the Attorney General, we will work with the legislature to introduce, “reciprocal beneficiary” legislation. The state of Hawaii adopted reciprocal beneficiary legislation in 1997 providing benefits such as:

              <

              p>  * Hospital visitation and medical decision-making  * Survivorship and funeral rights  * Durable power of attorney for health care and terminal care documents  * Legal standing relation to wrongful death and victim’s rights and  * Auto insurance coverage.

              <

              p>
              Reciprocal beneficiary legislation is non-discriminatory and serves all citizens equally.

              <

              p>
              Our agenda is straightforward and fair: We want the citizens of Massachusetts to decide what marriage is, not the courts. We want to ensure that all citizens with the need for benefits are served equally. And we want this process to be free from the legislative maneuverings of the last four years, which have thwarted the lawful efforts of citizens to participate in their democracy.

              <

              p>
              Thank you.

              • “We believe Civil Unions to be discriminatory because they provide benefits only to a small segment of the population based on sexual preference,while there are many other citizens needing benefits who are in a non-sexual relationship.”

                <

                p>
                — 

                <

                p>
                So to emphasize:

                <

                p>
                CUs are discriminatory because they supposedly provide benefits based on sexual preferences (unless of course they were an option for heterosexuals as well). Marriage in 49 states provide benefits based on the presumption of heterosexual preference, but this is not discriminatory, it is the bedrock of our society.

                <

                p>
                From the CU angle, no one would prevent heterosexual people from entering CUs of convenience with a person of the same sex. (If this seems unfair or wrong to you, think how generations of gay people must have felt forced into heterosexual marriage).

                <

                p>
                Yet the bloody crime for MFI is that people could presume that sex is going on behind the scenes in a civil union, potentially shaming people with non-sexual motives. Reciprocal beneficiary relationships are the proposed remedy to this.  Elderly sisters can then get benefits without anyone having to think about gay sex. 

                <

                p>
                The word ‘homophobia’ is an overused, mentally sloppy trope, but in this instance, I think it is quite fairly applied.

          • gary wrote:

            <

            p>
            All individuals are free to marry. Whether an individual chooses not to marry because of sexual orientation doesn’t imply inequality.

            <

            p>
            You’re trolling.  Even MFI has dropped this argument because it’s so dishonest.

            • Not trolling, I was just reciting what I thought was a reasonable argument those in opposition the SSM amendment have.  I was not aware that MFI dropped the argument nor do I see why it’s dishonest.  Afterall, it came from the dissent’s opinion in Goodridge:

              <

              p>

              Similarly, the marriage statutes do not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. As the court correctly recognizes, constitutional protections are extended to individuals, not couples. Ante n.15. The marriage statutes do not disqualify individuals on the basis of sexual orientation from entering into marriage. All individuals, with certain exceptions not relevant here, are free to marry. Whether an individual chooses not to marry because of sexual orientation or any other reason should be of no concern to the court. 

              • If you read the decision, you know the majority opinion explicitly fins this argument discriminatory.

                <

                p>
                In fact, the first sentence after the paragraph you quote is: The court concludes, however, that G.L. c. 207 unconstitutionally discriminates against the individual plaintiffs because it denies them the “right to marry the person of one’s choice” where that person is of the same sex.

                <

                p>
                I’m sure you also know the dissenting judges wrote separate opinions.  Your quote is from Justice Spina.

                <

                p>
                I’m sure you’re also aware the argument could easily be applied to laws banning inter-racial marriage.

                • I’m sure you’re also aware the argument could easily be applied to laws banning inter-racial marriage.

                  <

                  p>
                  That’s absurd.

                  <

                  p>
                  My quote came from one of the dissenting 3 vote minority, I don’t remember which justice.  The 4 vote majority rejected it.  There but by the vote of 1 person….

                  <

                  p>
                  I think it’s a perfectly legitimate argument to say, as that one Justice said, that there’s no discrimination because, regardless of sexual orientation, a gay man has the same rights as a straight man: either may choose to marry a woman.  And, probably, my view is the broad national consensus, not that necessarily means anything.

                  <

                  p>
                  The difference in our opinion is our perspective:  you care deeply while I think SSM is a wedge issue and I have no strong feelings whatsoever on the issue. 

      • Sounds cozy, doesn;t it?  It’s the name of a conference run by Focus on the Family.  It’s for “loving” parents who can’t stand the thought of having a normal gay child, so go to learn tips ‘n tricks on how to guilt/frighten/”love” the gay away from their sick and depraved children.  The LWA conference in Boston was proudly held at Tremont Temple.  The Temple’s Rev Ray Pendleton expressed his “love” and “civility” towards gays thusly

        “The Biblical view of sexuality is pretty clear,” he said. “It says that genital sexuality is to be expressed between a man and woman in the context of marriage, period.” Pendleton was careful to make a distinction between homosexual orientation and the practice itself. “When you look at what the Bible teaches, the Bible doesn’t talk about orientation; the Bible talks about behavior.”

        Source here
        Gee, is one’s mis-reading of the Bible to vilify gay people as merely “genital” creatures civil?

        <

        p>
        Luckily other local religious folk see through this brand of “love” here

      • Yes, that sure felt civil, having my own governor take public part in a conference meant only to vilify gays. Liberty Sunday was run by infamous white supremecist Tony Perkins of the “Family” Research Council.  Purpose?  To defend the right of “religious” institutions to discriminate against gays, not just in their sanctuaries (where they have every right to do so), but in our Constitution. Tony’s sound bite here

        <

        p>
        Go to Queertoday.com  for great coverage and priceless picture of frm Gov. Romney’s colleague Perkins at a Council of Conservative Citizens meeting.  CCC is a well-known racist & anti-semitic org

        • Is this a civil way to speak of parents bringing forth new, cherished life into the world?

          • ”Some [same-sex couples] are actually having children born to them,” Romney said.  ”It’s not right on paper; it’s not right in fact,” he said.

          Source here

          <

          p>

        • At Liberty Sunday, Romney spake thusly

          • But what [the SJC] ignored is that marriage is not primarily about adults. Marriage is about the nurturing and development of children. A child’s development is enhanced by the nurturing of both genders. Every child deserves a mother and a father…Of course, the principal burden of this court’s ruling doesn’t fall on adults — it falls on children.

          Now, we know Romney realizes that gay people are parents, because he said so in that first quote above.  Yet he clearly wants to deny them the ability to protect their children through the best legal means available: marriage.  Is that a civil position to take?  Sounds like he’s willing to put children in jeopardy to promulgate his religious beliefs.  Is that civil behaviour towards the children?  And what is he saying to kids who have only one parent due to death, divorce or paternal dessertion?  “Your parent is selfish because they are raising you alone”?  Not a nice thing to lay on a kid. 

          <

          p>
          And finally, did he have his fingers crossed behind his back when he wrapped up the Liberty Sunday speech with this?

          As Americans, we must vigorously reject discrimination and bigotry.

          Very believable.
          Source here

      • As anyone can see, it will not be difficult to find that the very people calling for “civil dialogue” have spoken and acted (and continue to act) quite uncivilly themselves.  They are usually careful not to spout hateful things in their emails to their foot soldiers, but one need not drill down too deeply to find their true thoughts on gay people, and that they don’t approach us from a position of love or respect.

    • I’m disappointed in you, although not completely surprised.  But just this once, I’ll give you what you apparently want:  “Yess Miss Peter, thank you for trying to strip me of my civil rights!  You are so kind to do it so thoroughly!  Can I please beg you to let me pay for those fake signatures that helped get me my rights stripped?  Pleeeeease let me, Miss Peter!”

        • you like to confuse polite, civil conversation with real politeness and civility.  The latter does not entail conparing a minority to the devil and stripping them of their civil rights.

        • the equivalent of calling somebody a “faggot” and a “sodomite”? Not to mention all that stuff about working for Satan..? Anyway, it sounds like “rationality” is one of the evils they are campaigning against.

          • PP isn’t exactly a supporter of gay rights or gay marriage.

            <

            p>
            Here’s a couple of excerpts from a delightful PP blog post entitled “A Variant of Normal, Elevated to Respectability” and subtitled “When did the Love That Dare Not Speak It's Name' become the Love that cannot shut up about itself?"<p>
            I'm assuming her comments about "level of discourse" are ironic. <p>
            <a href="http://capecodporcupine.blogspot.com/2005/07/variant-of-normal-elevated-to.html">http://capecodporcup...</a><p>
            <i>I freely admit that I come from a time when gay meant cheerful. <b>Sodomites</b>, as we called them then, certainly existed and many were socially received - but they were expected to be discreet in their relationships, as were heterosexuals, also known as normal men. Only a cad would speak of carnal relations with his wedded wife, but only a beast would speak openly about bedding a person who was not.</i><p>
            and<p>
            <i>Rather than amend the Constitution, amend Mass. General Laws, Chapter 25, and strike the word            marriage’ and replace it with registered union'. We don't have laws about communion or confirmation ceremonies, so why should we have laws about marriages? Authority for marriages would then revert to clerical authorities, where they belong (along with religious divorces). Regardless of sexual persuasion, you would register your union, and celebrate a ceremony calledmarriage’ – or not – in your own way. You would be invested with legal protection, yet `marriage’ – which is a touchstone for so much apprehension – would remain a matter of religion.

            • “Only a cad would speak of carnal relations with his wedded wife, but only a beast would speak openly about bedding a person who was not.”

              <

              p>
              Thats some good boddice-ripperey there, Mme. Pete!  Tres dra-ma-tique!

        • For Valentine’s day 2006, Edward Pawlick of MassNews and Massachusetts Citizens for Marriage, proposed a “truce.”

          <

          p>
          The gist of it is they would stop fighting gay marriage if we  admitted it was just a ploy by the feminists and give up advocating it (and gay rights). Seriously.

          <

          p>
          Here’s his concluding proposal, but please read the whole thing.

          <

          p>
          http://www.massnews….

          <

          p>
          Our suggestions to end the gay marriage battle are:

          <

          p>
          (1) Whatever a person wants to do in the privacy of his or her own bedroom is his or her own decision.
          (2) We must stop the “try it” programs in schools or other settings that target impressionable youth.

          <

          p>
          (3) The gay marriage struggle must be defused because very few gays really want it.

          <

          p>
          Mr. Pawlick was dead serious, but he unintentionally pointed out the fatal flaw in the discourse.  We want to be able to marry; MFI, MCM, and MassResistance want homosexuals removed from the public arena.  What are we supposed to do, thank them as they take away our rights?

          <

          p>
          Many of us did think it was possible to have a dialog with the Republican party, but that was before Mitt used the Log Cabin folks as a stalking horse. It’s amusing that he’s now attacking Brian Camenker of MassResistance as a cover-up.

            • From Pawlick’s other writings, I’d guess this really means “homosexuality should not be mentioned in schools.” 

              <

              p>
              He views homosexuality as a choice, so to him, any discussion of homosexuality is recruiting. He may also be talking about gay straight alliances, since he wants them banned.

              <

              p>
              Both the MassNews and MassResistance folks oppose any teaching that homosexuality is normal or acceptable.  They also oppose sex education and, in fact, want any presentation of material which mentions homosexuality classified as sex education.

              <

              p>
              The groups are deeply intertwined, BTW.  Amy Contrada of MassResistance/Article8/Parent’s Research Council wrote for Pawlick’s MassNews for years.

  9. As others have noted, this is a PR ploy pure and simple. Marc Solomon ought to respond quickly and decisively along the lines suggested here. As in, We’ll met once MFI denounces and cuts ties with those who commit acts of violence against gays and supporters of marriage, etc.

    <

    p>
    Even better would be if Solomon were to select his own “dialog” initiative–not with the extremists but with the middle voters who will be the targets of antimarriage campaigns should the amendment ever make it onto the ballot. There might be some interfaith organizations, or clerical leaders, who could find ways to bring this dialogue to their congregations.

    <

    p>
    I hope I am wrong, though, but I sense a pro-marriage movement in disarray that will not be able to respond nimbly to this kind of campaign. This is a real weakness that MFI is deliberately exploiting.

    <

    p>
    I hope this challenge from MFI will help to focus the movement to keep marriage safe and legal in Massachusetts. MFI clearly plans to play this game for as long as it works to their advantage.

  10. Bigot isn’t a “four letter word.”  It implies a negative quality about a person, but if the shoe fits, you’ve got to wear it.

    <

    p>
    Bigot is a term to describe people who are strongly partial to their own race, ethnicity, religion, politics, or ________ and intolerant of those who differ.

    <

    p>
    So how are members of the MFI and their supporters not bigots, if _______ refers to sexuality?  Isn’t the restriction of the rights and privileges of marriage, a restriction that results in no additional benefit for a third party, blatantly intolerant?

  11. This move by Kris Mineau is a cynical attempt to one-up the Religious Coalition for the Freedom to Marry, which has been seeking for months a dialogue with Cardinal O’Malley to tone down the rhetoric coming from both sides of the marriage debate, but particularly those trying to ban same-sex marriage. The call for dialogue was a centerpiece of last night’s vigil on the Common, called a month ago after the head of “Catholic Citizenship” perpetrated violence himself against a pro-equality demonstrator in Worcester.

    <

    p>
    It’s noteworthy that MFI doesn’t even acknowledge the hate and violence being fueled by the rhetoric coming from the anti-equality crowd. They don’t like being called bigots; but that’s an understandable characterization of attempts to brand gays as “immoral” and a threat to healthy childrearing. While there’s no doubt that many on the equality side have gotten carried away emotionally, we’ve never resorted to hatemongering and “straightbashing.”

    <

    p>
    Only if there is an interest in dialogue, not monologue, does this make any sense. And if a dialogue is to be fruitful it must include the leaders who have been the most outspoken in their anti-gay rhetoric like O’Malley. Mineau’s oneupsmanship is little more than a political stunt.

  12. But that’s generally the way with bullies. The quote about sodomy being condemned in the Bible as an “abomination” reminds me of a great old story about Gerry Studds, who was confronted with bible quote at a forum on Cape Cod, and he responded that one should be careful how they quote that book on the Cape because it says the same thing about eating lobster.

  13. I support gay marriage.  If he keeps his letters from constituents, you can find a letter I wrote to my representative a couple years ago regarding his vote on the gay marriage amendment.  I was pleased that since then his vote changed (to NO) this past month.  I support gay marriage.  I feel I need to say that here because there are some who make assumptions about me that are not true.  But onto my point…

    <

    p>
    As a school committee member, I have been approached by parents regarding what has been referred to as the homosexual agenda in public schools.  Some of the material they showed me was of concern, not because of its sexual orientation but because of its graphic nature and the alleged conditions upon which it was diseminated. 

    <

    p>
    During one conversation, I felt it best to acknowledge the fact that I supported gay marriage so that the person wouldn’t at some later time think I had been lying.  That really opened up our conversation, and I began to understand how someone who does not accept homosexuality, and especially if that person’s only known encounter with gays had been through the public schools or media, would feel attacked and angry. 

    <

    p>
    And you know what?  We had a great conversation.  This person asked questions about my gay relative, and I gladly answered.  I think some of the answers might have been surprising.  I am not religious, but I came away with an appreciation and respect for what this person thought and believed.  While it didn’t change my opinion of the issue (and I’m sure theirs didn’t change either), it changed my opinion of the people. 

    <

    p>
    Both sides of the debate can point to extreme behavior and rhetoric.  But it would be a mistake for either to make blanket statements or judgments based on those fringe people.  I’m sure many of you have had similar discsussion, but if you haven’t, I encourage you to find someone who you know and respect but who disagrees with you on this issue and talk to them.  Ask them questions and find out how they came to believe what they believe.  Don’t try to change them, and don’t give in.  Just listen and try to understand.

    <

    p>
    I found it to be a very enlightening experience. 

    • I agree that one-on-one discussions are often the best forum for understanding.

      <

      p>
      I also think that it is vital that straight people, especially, have these conversations.  Why?  Because you can’t be accused of being biased by a very personal vested interest in the outcome**.

      <

      p>
      I hope people will follow your wonderful example.  Thank you!

      <

      p>
      **By this I mean the amendment won;t affect an LGBT ally’s access to civil marriage – I understand it would hurt and ally psychicly, as it would LGBT people).

Archives