December 2002 Web Edition:
Sightings

Globe Continues to Attack Marriage Amendment without Admitting It

December 17, 2002

The story on the front page of the Boston Globe yesterday about couples living together without marriage was not just a random story.

It was an attack on the Protection of Marriage Amendment which will be in the news more this week when the Supreme Judicial Court issues its opinion.

The Globe still has not informed its readers that Sen. Tom Birmingham has asked the SJC for an opinion on what his duties will be as Senate President when the Amendment comes up for a vote again this year.

It did print a large story on page 1 on Dec. 3 when Gov. Swift asked for an advisory opinion from the Court. But when Birmingham followed her and asked for his own advisory two days later, Thursday, the 5th, they couldn't bring themselves to tell their readers.

Now they're back attacking the Amendment with stories like the one on the front page yesterday.

Again, they used the bogus issue about the census as an excuse for their story. They wrote, "As America's cohabitation rates soar …" But they've tried that many times before. And it still doesn't work.

The Globe isn't the only one in the Mass. media to do so. Emily Rooney of WGBH cited the census numbers to Atty. Dwight Duncan who appeared on her show about the Protection of Marriage Act in June 2001. She inquired whether the new census showed that families with a mother and father are becoming extinct and not worth saving.

We reported in our August 2001 edition when the Globe hyped a story about lesbians in West Roxbury and how there weren't many nuclear families there any more. They said this reflected a "national trend." But then they reported further down that this was not really part of a "national trend" in that fewer nuclear family and children wish to live in the city with its poor schools and other problems.

But the truth about the census flap was told in our December 2001 issue when Martha Minow, Harvard Law School professor and plaintiff in the lawsuit for gay marriage, told why she and other lawyers were more qualified to make the decisions about marriage than mothers, engineers, accountants, construction workers, farmers or any other group.

Minow told many falsehoods before reporting about the census. We answered her entire article at the time. Can you imagine all these untruths being taught at what used to be one of the best law schools in the country?
The article in yesterday's paper told how young couples without children think it's cool to live without being married.

Falsehoods Told by Harvard Law Prof. Minow about Marriage

This is a portion of the article that was printed in the Globe on October 27, 2001, by Harvard Law Prof. Martha Minow. We printed her article in boldface type, with comments (indented and in regular type) from our Publisher, Atty. J. Edward Pawlick.

Census data indicate that married couples occupy only 52 percent of households,

That's not true. Over 68% of households in Massachusetts are married couples, according to the 2000 census. The opposing lawyer got her misleading 52% by including as a "household" the following: any widow who lives alone, young people who live alone, etc. But obviously the fact that there are more such people living alone today does not diminish marriage in any way. She only wishes it did.

You can determine the truth of what I say by going to the data of the Census Bureau at www.census.gov.

and the number of unmarried couples living together grew over the past 10 years by 72 percent.

If it were true that the number of unmarried couples had grown, this might give her solace, but it would make most of us very sad to see the plight of many of our children who would be without both a mother and father. There are very few of us who are anxious to see that number increase.

Indeed, only 25 percent of households in the nation are composed of a married couple with one or more children under the age of 18.

So what? Now she is arguing that when a child becomes 18-years-old or moves out of the house and goes to college, that that "household" becomes dysfunctional. Or when a husband dies and leaves a widow, that household is dysfunctional because it no longer has "a married couple." The statistic she cites also shows that we have smaller families than before and therefore, the parents are without "children under the age of 18" much earlier than they used to be. What obvious distortions and silly talk.

It is difficult to get a fully accurate picture of the number of households composed of same-sex couples and their families; people are often reluctant to identify themselves this way, and the US Census did not count such couples in the past. Nonetheless, nearly 1.2 million people reported in the 2000 Census that they are part of gay and lesbian couples.

And those people who are "part of gay and lesbian couples" total less than 1% of all the households in the country (.56% to be exact). Even if you subtract the households of people living alone, it would not come close to 1% of the households. (Do you remember two or three years ago when we were told that homosexuals were 10% of the population?)

Additionally, multigenerational households and households where grandparents care for grandchildren and stepparents care for children are increasing nationwide.

When the law tries to impose norms out of step with actual lived experiences, enforcement and legitimacy of the law become serious problems. Moreover, legal rules bearing little relationship to how people live is not law, it's ideology. Legal rules out of touch with people's lives means that government expresses beliefs about how to distribute status and value instead of guiding behavior effectively.

No matter how hard she tries, she will never get people to agree that having a mother and a father is "out of step with actual lived experiences." What is out-of-step with actual experience is a child living with two mothers or two fathers. Or a heterosexual couple having children without taking the responsibility to care for them. Or a group relationship which wants the other citizens to financially support their relationship.

As a single parent for fifteen years while raising three girls and a boy, I can personally attest to the fact that my children would have had a better childhood if they had had a mother present as well as their father.

There are many children who are successfully raised by arrangements other than a mother and father, but if we had to choose where we would be born, practically 100% of us would choose to have a mother and a father. Even most homosexuals agree with that.

But what really haunts me are the children growing up right now in households that do not include a married man and woman. For these children, the adults who matter to them matter because of the daily care they provide, not because of their ability to fit the traditional definition of marriage. For children, the marital status, biological or nonbiological connection, and sexual orientation of parenting figures is irrelevant. Children form strong attachments without asking about such things; indeed, children form strong attachments before they even know what it is to ask about such things. It is difficult to understand why two adults who share responsibility for children - whether they are partners, siblings, or a mother and her mother - would offer less of what children need than do married couples.

Those children also "haunt" most of us. That is why we do not want to increase their numbers. The research at best for her side shows that they are unable to demonstrate any inaccuracy in our innate belief that children are damaged by not having a mother and a father. The research for our side shows that they are damaged.

The homosexual activists are constantly saying that children who are "different" have serious problems in life. What a burden they put on these innocent children to fight the battle for homosexuals out in the world. How can anyone who loves a child place that burden on the child?

It's difficult to understand how this lawyer finds it "difficult to understand" why homosexual couples "would offer less of what children need than do married couples." It's difficult for her only because she does not want to believe that all children desire a mother and a father. Many of them do not get that happy combination, but that is no reason for us to deny it to as many as we can.

Studies show that children raised in households with same-sex couples show no difficulties in school performance or emotional development when compared with children raised in households with opposite-sex couples. If the petitions pass, these children risk economic and custodial uncertainty as well as an upsurge of intolerance or rejection by peers. The state could tell these children and everyone who knows them that the government will not recognize their parent or give their parent the economic benefits given others. Even though the petitions would directly implicate only the benefits accorded by government, their adoption would feed discrimination and negative feelings spilling over to employers, insurers, and playground bullies.

The studies do not show that at all. There are studies on both sides of the question. Most of us do not need a "study" to answer this.

We must also remember that homosexual activists are deep into every professional group today. The prestigious American Psychological Association got into serious trouble in 1999 after publishing a study indicating that sexual molestation can have a positive influence on a child. It said we must eliminate terms like "molestation," and "victims." We should use neutral, value-free terms like "adult-child sex." We should not talk about "the severity of the abuse," but instead refer to "the level of sexual intimacy." The psychologists were thereafter chastised by Congress by a vote of 355-0, after which they changed their minds and apologized.

So much for "studies" from many of these social scientists.

If Prof. Minow is truly concerned about the feelings of these children, she would not put them into the environment as she is doing now where they face serious problems of trying to defend and protect partners. That is not the role for any child.

The precise legal question of the lawsuit concerns whether these topics are even proper for voting by popular initiative. Our Constitution makes clear that rights of individuals and minorities would be jeopardized if any topic could be put to a referendum or initiative vote, and therefore, "No measure that relates to the powers, creation or abolition of courts shall be proposed by initiative petition."

The petitions would do just this: They would deprive the courts of the ability to adjudicate matters about family obligations and benefits or even family status. It is to courts we have entrusted the responsibility to determine the best interests of children,

We have entrusted our children to the courts only if, and when, a family has failed, not before. Too many judges in our state are quick to impose their decisions on children and families that have not failed.

when a marriage should be ended, and what intimate partners owe one another. Defining who is in a family and who is eligible for what benefits may pose some difficult factual questions. But that is precisely the context in which judges - not voters flipping a switch on an abstract proposition - are capable of attending to the needs and merits in particular situations. I am confident of the judiciary's ability to do what is right.

This lawyer/professor wants to reject having the people decide this issue because she knows they will reject her ideas. She knows that the courts are her only hope (although it is a terribly slim one). But the Constitution was not written by judges, but by the people. And the Constitution should not be amended by the judges but by the people. Once the Constitution is written, then the judges can interpret it, but they do not write it.

Like many lawyers, she does not trust the people. She wants an elite group of judges to decide the important issues for the country. As one who spent some time at Yale Law School in the 1950s (which was considered by everyone to be the best law school in the country), I, and many others, do not stand in awe of Prof. Minow or her friends at Harvard.

We all know that the courts have done much good in our country and protected the people from tyranny. They have also done much harm such as the infamous Dred Scott decision of 1857 where the U.S. Supreme Court held that a black man had no right to sue in our courts, or where it held that a state could require separate railway facilities for blacks (1896) or that a state could tell a private school it must remain segregated (1908).

The Attorney General, Tom Reilly, who is an acknowledged friend of homosexuals, decided correctly the legal issue the Professor is challenging and the SJC approved it unanimously when the homosexual activists appealed it. He approved the question to be on the ballot in 2004. He said that the Amendment does not concern the power of the courts. He was right and the Professor knows it.

Sidebar: The Truth About the Census Numbers

Globe Attempts to Revive Shannon O'Brien

December 17, 2002

The Boston Globe attempted to revive Shannon O'Brien in yesterday's paper with a large front-page story in the "City & Region" section.

But she totally blew it when she whined: "O'Brien said her style during the debates would not have been such an issue if she were not a woman.' Women have to prove they're tough enough to be able to stand up to powerful political interests within state government, yet they have to also show that softer side,' she said. 'And sometimes the balance is difficult to maintain.'"

But she didn't mention that the only reason she won the primary was because she was a woman. The star reporter, Yvonne Abraham, said it was a "bruising campaign," but she didn't say that it was much more "bruising" on Romney, who was even told by the Democrats that he isn't a resident here.

And don't forget the tear she wiped away during the interview.

She said at times she appeared too liberal. Such as when she favored gay marriage, a position probably pushed upon her by the Globe, in return for its endorsement. Or when she wanted to lower the age of abortion to 16-years.

If only she had more money or were as "stylish," as Romney.

But those are all excuses. Shannon lost because she thought she would be elected just because she is a woman. But that wasn't' enough, particularly when the voters discovered the real feminist/liberal underneath.

The last line was a quote from O'Brien: "It doesn't matter if it's fair. I lost."

There she goes whining again. What was there about the election that wasn't "fair," Shannon?

Nasty Spirit of Globe Shows in Front Page Picture of Grieving Mother

December 17, 2002

When the Boston Globe featured a picture at home of the grieving mother of a boy who fell through the ice in Lawrence, it made many wonder who would do such an unkind deed -- to invade her home and broadcast her saddest moment to the entire world.

Many people expressed their revulsion at the nastiness of the Globe.

Mass. Members of U.S. Civil Rights Commission Deplore Sen. Lott's Statement

December 12, 2002

Two Massachusetts residents joined the other two Republican members of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights in issuing a statement yesterday deploring Senator Lott's recent comments that if Strom Thurmond had been elected president in 1948, "We wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years."

The statement from Abigail Thernstrom, Lexington, and Jennifer C. Braceras, Concord, said:

"The central issue on which Thurmond ran was support for racial segregation. Senator Lott thus lends credibility to the view that such civil rights advances as President Truman's executive order mandating an end to racial segregation in the U.S. armed forces, the Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education, the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1964, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 were grave mistakes. Certainly, in 1948, Strom Thurmond opposed all of them.

"This is a particularly shameful remark coming from a leader of the Republican Party, the party of Abraham Lincoln, and the party that supported all of these essential steps forward far more vigorously than did the Democratic Party, which at the time was the home of southerners committed to white supremacy.

"The civil rights era was a shining moment in American history. We believe Senator Lott agrees, and invite him to join us in celebrating the revolutionary change in the status of African Americans that flowed from a movement in which blacks and whites joined hands to make a better America."

Globe Continues to Advocate Violation of Constitution

December 11, 2002

The Boston Globe advocates that our Governor continue to violate the state Constitution on the Protection of Marriage Amendment.

They published a letter on Monday with the headline, Stand your ground, governor.

The letter from a woman in Cambridge said, "Under the rules, she is not obligated to recall the Legislature." Whose "rules" is the writer referring to. To those of the Boston Globe? Most of us are not following the "rules" of the Boston Globe, but the rules of our state Constitution.

Maybe some day, someone at the New York-based headquarters of the Globe will stop urging people to defy our Massachusetts Constitution.

Abigail Thernstrom Exposes U.S. 'Civil Rights Commission'

Paul Moreno
December 10, 2002

A Lexington resident, Abigail Thernstrom, is leading the fight to keep the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights from becoming a total mockery.

A Republican member of the 8-person commission, Thernstrom is also on the Massachusetts Board of Education and is a fellow at the Manhattan Institute. She is an expert on voting rights whose book, Whose Votes Count?, is highly regarded by scholars across the political spectrum.

She's battling for fairness and open debate against the commission's chairman, Mary Frances Berry, a Jimmy Carter appointee who was made chairman by Bill Clinton. Though Berry calls herself an "independent," she is far to the left of most Democrats and has contributed large sums of money to Democratic candidates.

Earlier this year, Berry told White House counsel that he would need federal marshals to force her to seat Peter Kirsanow, President Bush's first appointment to the committee. Prior to this, Berry and the Democrats were a controlling majority of the committee.

Now that the commission is evenly divided, Berry has resorted to more hi-jinx to keep Thernstrom and the Republicans from being heard. She is using filibuster tactics as ingenious as the Senate segregationists of the 1950s.

In May, she decided to hold meetings outside of Washington, DC. In order to avoid scrutiny from the media and the House Judiciary Committee.

When she failed to provide an agenda or a specific location for the commission's September meeting, Thernstrom and the Republicans threatened to boycott the meeting.
Thernstrom says that Berry promised but failed to provide a telephone hookup for the meeting.

"It's as if they put up a sign that said, 'You are not wanted,'" she told the Washington Times.

In November, Berry released a report on racial preferences in higher education without consulting the Republican members of the commission.

The report concluded that plans which guarantee that an upper portion of high school graduates will gain admission to state universities, but which do not use race as a factor, will harm minority students. These plans are known as "percentage plans."

"This was not put to a vote, and I never even knew that it was going to be released," Thernstrom said. "This is a report that is wrong, the numbers are ridiculous, the process is ridiculous. I don't even know what my function is at the Commission. There are reports being worked on and issued that we don't even know about in advance."

(It is no coincidence that Governor Bush of Florida was behind the percentage plan in his state. Last year, Berry issued a report that accused Bush of helping to steal the 2000 election for his brother. Berry also released this report before the Republican members had seen it and refused to publish their dissenting report on the commission web site. Thernstrom called this move "scandalous" and "a procedural travesty.")

Berry is fighting for old-fashioned racial quotas in college admissions when the Supreme Court is about to rule on whether colleges can use "diversity" as a pretext for racial discrimination. The Court is likely to strike down racial preferences, leaving "percentage plans" as the only legal way to increase minority numbers in state universities.

Associated Press Gives Credit to MCM for Gov. Swift's Action

December 6, 2002

The Associated Press gave credit to Mass. Citizens for Marriage in its story on Dec. 3 about Gov. Jane Swift seeking advice from the Supreme Judicial Court.

It said that she was finally thinking of calling back the Legislature for a vote on the Protection of Marriage Amendment because she was "under pressure" from Mass. Citizens for Marriage.

According to A.P., MCM had "fiercely campaigned for legislative action [and] had been actively lobbying Swift to step in."

The story continued with a quote from an MCM spokesman: "In our humble opinion, the Constitution is very clear. She is required to call them in until they did what their oath and constitutional responsibility is."

MCM said that one of the reasons they know that a large majority of the citizens want Jane Swift to call the Legislature back for a vote is because MassNews conducted a poll of 500 likely voters, which was done for them by The Tarrance Group on October 6-8, 2002.

Some 64% of the voters favor a recall with only 14% opposing and 22% unsure.

Only a small number of voters at the time of the poll, 23%, had seen, read or heard about the conduct of Senate President Tom Birmingham, who ended the Constitutional Convention without allowing a vote on the Amendment as he was required to do under the state Constitution.

But due to their efforts, more and more people are hearing about this. They say that the number of people who are outraged is increasing dramatically.

The surprising part about the support for a special session is that it reaches across the entire spectrum with even a majority of Democrats (65%) and self-described liberals (60%) supporting a special session. Some 61% of men favored the recall, while 67% of women did.

In fact, a majority of likely voters in every major demographic group supports a special session to vote on the Protection of Marriage Amendment.

Those who knew about Birmingham's illegal actions favored a recall by 69% while those who had to be told were only at 63%, which means that as more and more people learn what happened, it is likely that even more voters are going to favor a recall by the Governor.

Only 19% agreed with Birmingham's decision not to hold a vote.