|
|---|
|
November 2002
Web Edition: No Diversity in Newton; Total Lack of Tolerance The lack of tolerance in Newton is becoming worse. More parents will be leaving the city, many are predicting. There was a "forum" about gay marriage at the Newton Public Library last night. It was sponsored by the local churches and synagogues and held in the town library building. But only one side of the subject was presented. This problem in Newton has become so bad that even the Globe had a front-page story earlier this year that citizens in Newton are finally getting the message that they should be worried about their schools. According to the Globe, part of the problem is "the recent public debates between [Superintendent Jeffrey] Young and conservative parents . a handful of parents have pulled their children out of Newton schools, disturbed at what they call premature - and open - discussions of sexuality." One of those parents, Sam Washburn, had written an opinion piece in the Globe two weeks earlier. He had moved his family with three children out of town to the Andover schools. "The attitude of the people in the Newton schools is arrogant and intolerant," he had written, "and their social agenda is hurting the academic quality." His advice to Newton residents, parents, real estate agents and business owners, "Wake up and do something. The word is getting out." The speakers at the sex forum last night were the three homosexual organizations which are promoting gay marriage, GLAD, Freedom to Marry Coalition of Mass., and the Religious Coalition for the Freedom to Marry. There was no one to talk about the opposite point-of-view. The "Forum" was sponsored by the usual Unitarian, Congregational and Reform congregations. They make it easy in Newton. You don't have to think if you never hear the other side. The sponsors were United Parish of Auburndale,
Newton Highlands Back in 2000, Sam Washburn had thought that a more "moderate" approach than that used by Brian Camenker to solve the problem might be in order. But he was immediately castigated by Globe columnist Eileen McNamara the day before his first meeting was scheduled. As a result mostly homosexual activists showed. Washburn finally packed his family and left in disgust for Andover. Camenker is still in Newton, attempting to alert the city and the state to what is happening. Many people are wondering if Tom Reilly has any curiosity about how deep the molestation vein runs in Amherst, Lexington, Newton and other schools of the Commonwealth. They say he better have or he will surely become the Cardinal Law of the Massachusetts schools. All Justices of SJC to Hear Case against Birmingham in First Week of December The Supreme Judicial Court has announced that all seven of its Justices will be hearing the case against Sen. President Birmingham during the first week of December. "All we're asking is that the Court clarify for the Legislators their duties under a Constitutional Amendment from the citizens," says J. Edward Pawlick, attorney for the plaintiffs, Massachusetts Citizens for Marriage. "While the law is clear, there were some unfortunate extraneous words in two opinions in the 1990s which were not necessary for the decision. These words have been seized upon by the unscrupulous as permission for them to break the law. "We realize the Court may say that the President of MCM has no more right to sue the Senate President than any other citizen, as did the Single Justice when he heard the case. But we hope that the passion of the Court for the referendum process will encourage it to make it absolutely clear to even Sen. Birmingham that he has no right to do what he is doing. "We are trying to avoid a suit in federal court for damages from this serious violation of our First Amendment rights." Alert from Mass. Citizens for Life Baby Safe-Haven Bill (Senate 2056) in Jeopardy The Massachusetts Baby Safe-Haven law (Senate 2056) is only one vote away from passage in the Senate, but is being held up by the Senator dubbed to be the next Senate President, Robert Travaglini, according to Mass. Citizens for Life. They report the bill is currently under "inspection," which could take weeks. Because the Legislature is in informal session, there has to be a unanimous vote for passage. The Republicans are in favor, but Senator Travaglini is directing several Democrats to withhold their consent until several social service agencies air their complaints, concerns, and requests for state funding programs before they will sign off on their consent. "We're stunned that children's rights advocates are holding up this truly life saving bill so that they can appeal for more funding for other programs, a simple case of ransom," says Mass. Citizens for Life. The bill would allow parents to relinquish custody of their children by dropping them off at hospitals, police stations, and fire stations without fear of prosecution under child abandonment. Mothers and fathers who leave a child at a "safe haven" wouldn't permanently terminate their parental rights. The parent could seek a court order to be reunited with the child. Under the original draft, parents wouldn't face prosecution for child abandonment if they dropped off the infant within 30 days of their birth. To appease critics, the House lowered the time limit to seven days. Some 41 states have Safe Haven laws, and cities in PA have laws, with PA about to pass their law this month. They say that 90% of the U.S. population is covered by Baby Safe Haven laws. National TV shows are accurately depicting Baby Safe Haven surrenderings under the state laws where the stories are taking place (WB networks "Seventh Heaven" program on their season premier). Last year there were 6 cases of newborn abandonments from Massachusetts, 4 were found dead, the other two were safely surrendered at a hospital and church following calls to a national hotline. If the MA law doesn't pass we could become the last state to have a Baby Safe Haven as almost all other states have part-time legislatures that convene right after the new year. If you are in need of some additional
information, it is available at the Legislative Department
at Massachusetts Citizens for Life at 617-242-4199 State Senator Robert E. Travaglini, Room 511-B, State House, Boston, MA 02133. Telephone: (617) 722-1634. Fax: (617) 722-1076. Email: RTravagl@senate.state.ma.us Reporter Gets Tough Assignment at Globe Poor Jenna Russell was given a tough assignment at the Globe yesterday. "We haven't attacked John Silber in a few days," she was told. "Go find someone who will say something nasty about him." So Jenna went out for a story to fit under a large, pre-written headline on the front page of the City & Region section, Silber critics pressure BU trustees. Guess who Jenna found to criticize the disbanding of the gay/straight alliance at BU's high school? Guess who the Silber critic was. Cheryl Jacques! !! Surprised that Cheryl is against disbanding the gay/straight alliance? You don't think that was worth a headline on the front page of City & Region? But wait, Jenna did find one other critic in the person of Boston City Councilor Michael Ross, who is always clamoring for this type of thing. She also found some national groups like the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network. And she also found the Mass. chapter of NOW. Now, you must admit you're surprised. You're not? You think that most people are with John Silber on this one? Maybe you're right. It seems like even Jenna thinks so now. Boston Globe: Irish Women Must Vote for O'Brien - Because She's Also Irish Globe Is Getting So Desperate It's Using Explicit 'Race' and 'Gender' to Try and Help Its Candidate The Boston Globe is so desperate to elect Shannon O'Brien for Governor that they appealed to bigotry on Saturday and tried to appeal to Irish women to vote for O'Brien just because they are of the same race and sex. (On Sunday, they finally and formally endorsed O'Brien as their choice, which was not a surprise to anyone.) The bigotry on Saturday was in a prominent piece by Mary McGrory on the Editorial page with a pull-quote, "The Irish Catholics are hungry for victory." The article started, "Greatly to Shannon O'Brien's advantage, the Boston Irish have finally figured something out; that if they knife a Democratic candidate they get a Republican governor, despite the overwhelming preponderance of registered Democrats in the state." McGrory complained that O'Brien was appealing to the women as though they are feminists when she should be playing to their Catholic religion. "She [O'Brien] played to her sisterhood rather than to her ethnic bases, having in mind NOW rather than the Knights of Columbus." She said that O'Brien has "always seen her tight race with the glamorous Romney as a war between the sexes," and there's nothing wrong with that type of bigoted approach if it works. But in this case, it isn't because the Irish women aren't going for it because they see so much wrong with O'Brien. The column ended with this, "O'Brien's lead among women, which was once at 18 points, had shrunk to 8. She could still win, but if she doesn't she won't be able to blame the for once unified Massachusetts Democrats." Regardless, the Boston Globe will continue to play the race and sex card, as it always does, to divide the citizens instead of trying to bring them together and vote on the issues, rather than loyalty to race, religion and gender. Spotlight: Globe's Domestic Violence Propaganda Is Disgustingly Obvious A Boston Globe Editorial has breathlessly told about twenty-nine men who admitted they committed domestic violence and were part of a new study that advises employers on how to help both victims and batterers. It sounded wonderful until you remember poor Harry Stewart -- who spent 6 months in the Dedham jail because he refused to admit that he had abused his wife! Six months in jail! Stewart went to tremendous efforts to clear his name after getting out of jail, and Judge Eileen Shaevel vindicated him after a trial in Dedham court. She found there was "no evidence" at all that he ever threatened or harmed his wife since their separation in 1995. What happened to Stewart and the 29 other men is because any man who is accused by a woman of violence is automatically sent to a batterers class that is conducted by private, feminist groups. If he denies he battered, this just shows that he is incorrigible, according to the feminist mantra at these groups. Harry Stewart went to jail because he refused to tell the lie. But most men go along with the games just to stay out of jail. It's probable that some of the 29 men actually did batter someone. After all, both sexes engage in such conduct in about equal terms, according to recent research. But any knowledgeable person knows that something smelled when the Editorial said these men came from "a self-selecting group of men who attended battering intervention programs." That revelation makes everything in the study suspect, but it didn't bother feminist Emily Rothstein at the Harvard School of Public Health whose study has been accepted by Employers Against Domestic Violence, which according to the Globe is a group of Massachusetts businesses, nonprofit organizations and local government agencies. Employers of the group who have already acted, according to the Globe, includes the City of Boston, the law firm of Mintz Levin and John Hancock Financial Services. Of course, the men in batterers
classes are also taught there is no difference between
married and unmarried couples. They are all "partners."
If you think you are different because you are a married
man, forget it because that will just bring you more
punishment. You are no different than a man who was
shacking-up with a woman he met two days ago. Marriage
is archaic, according to the courts in Massachusetts. Everyone in Cheryl Jacques' District Gets Letters About Her Violation of Law Full Text of Letter which was Sent to Jacques' Voters All of the voters in Cheryl Jacques' District received a letter from Mass. Citizens for Marriage yesterday telling how she broke the law on July 17. The letter said she is going to violate the law and her oath of office again this fall when the Protection of Marriage Amendment comes up for a vote unless her constituents convince her not to do so. It said that Jacques has "every right to work for gay marriage, but not to break the law." It asked her constituents, "Please tell Cheryl Jacques: She, of all people, must obey the law." It revealed that a poll of 500 voters showed that 64% favor the Legislature being called back by the Governor so that a vote will be held on the Amendment. The letter showed how Jacques bragged to the Globe and other newspapers that she was going to break the law to stop the Amendment from passing. After she was successful in stopping a vote from taking place on July 17 as required by the Constitution, she said, "I'll take a victory any way I can get it." NY Times Subsidiary in Worcester Carries Attack Against Marriage Sen. Harriette Chandler Is Unnerved by Truth; Worcester Telegram Leaps to Her Defense Full text of letter that was sent to 8,000 voters in Chandler's district The subsidiary of the NY Times in Worcester, the Worcester Telegram, leapt to the defense of Sen. Harriette Chandler yesterday after she refused to talk about her illegal conduct and lies after Sen. Tom Birmingham put her in charge of stopping the Protection of Marriage Amendment. "We mailed a letter to 8,000 voters in her district telling in detail what she did," says Sarah McVay Pawlick, President of Mass. Citizens for Marriage, "but she tried to blow them away by calling it a 'personal attack.' But it is not a personal attack when you tell about a state Senator violating her oath of office to obey the state Constitution. Most people think that is a serious matter." The Telegram, which is owned by the Times, ran an opinion piece by Dianne Williamson which did not address any of the misdeeds of Chandler. She quoted the Senator as saying "she's never been subject to such dirty campaigning," and she was "dismayed by the mud- slinging in the campaign." Pawlick said they did not know or case that Chandler had an opponent. They are alerting the public across the state that the Amendment will be voted on later this fall. Those who favor the Amendment should be contacting their Legislators to urge them not to violate the law again. They should vote on the Amendment as required under the Constitution. The letter from MCM revealed that an October poll of 500 voters across the state showed that 64% want a vote now. The poll indicated that Democratic voters are more outraged than Republicans. It has been become evident, say many observers, that the New York Times and its two subsidiaries in Massachusetts, the Boston Globe and the Worcester Telegram, are the principal opponents of the Amendment. Suit Against Tom Birmingham Scheduled by SJC for December The suit against Sen. President Tom Birmingham by the President of Mass. Citizens for Marriage, Sarah McVay Pawlick, has been scheduled to be heard by all seven Justices of the Supreme Judicial Court during the week of December 2. Pawlick is asking the Court to make clear to the President of the Senate, to the individual Legislators and to the Governor exactly what their roles are under a citizens' referendum for an Amendment to the state Constitution. "Although we expect to win a vote on the Marriage Amendment in the Legislature sometime later this fall regardless of what the Court does, we are concerned that some extraneous language (called dicta by the courts) that was written during the 1990s is being used by unscrupulous politicians to thwart the will of the people. This language should be corrected by the Court so that the will of the people is not ignored in smoke-filled rooms on Beacon Hill. Otherwise, there will be many more cynical voters who are upset with the Legislature and the courts than there are now. Although the law is clear now, the Court could shame the parties into quickly taking the action that everyone knows they should do. It's a little bit like the meaning of 'is,' except this is about the meaning of 'shall' in the Constitution, as in the Governor 'shall' call them back and the Legislature 'shall' vote." The case was heard in October by one Justice, Francis X. Spina, who dismissed it on Oct. 10 because he said that Pawlick had no more right to sue the Senate President than any other citizen. Justice Spina did not reach the merits of the case as to whether Birmingham had violated his duties under the Constitution. This was no surprise to Pawlick because her brief had stated, "Although the parties could argue this case for hours, the personal, policy beliefs of the Justices will decide the issue. The Justices will be able to justify their decision whether they choose to hear this case or not. The law allows them to go either way. It is a judgment call." However, in view of the magnitude of the offense and the damage to the Court if they sidestep this issue, she believes they will tackle it. "This is particularly true in that the Court has always been a strong supporter of the referendum process which was initiated by the Progressives in 1918. Like everyone else, they are very busy, but we hope they will take the time to look at this. Many thousands of people worked for countless hours last fall to gather 130,000 signatures and thousands of dollars were spent in this effort. We all obeyed the law. Why should Tom Birmingham be allowed to break the law and throw all that in the trashcan?" Pawlick says that a poll of 500 voters in October showed that 64% of them want the Legislature called back to vote. Those who are Democrats were more outraged than Republicans. 
|
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Copyright 2008 ©All Rights Reserved MassNews.com® 508-410-2087 |
|---|
