John Kerry Lies, Cheats and Breaks the Law to Impose “Gay Marriage”

By MassNews Staff

       Boston  --  John Kerry lied, cheated and assisted in violating this state’s Constitution in 2002 and again in 2004 in desperate attempts to force gay marriage upon Massachusetts --- and the entire nation!!!

         If not elected to the Presidency by the American people, he will never be re-elected by Massachusetts voters to the U.S. Senate. 

       Voters here are finally learning all this about him despite the fact that Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr., owner of the New York Times and Boston Globe, is the primary advocate of gay marriage across the entire nation and completely controls the media here. Kerry encouraged our Democratic legislature in 2002 and 2004 to violate the state Constitution in order to help force gay “marriage” on this state.

       Lied, Cheated and Broke the Law in 2002

       In July 2002, the legislature absolutely refused to obey the Constitution and vote on the Protection of Marriage Amendment (which had received far more signatures than necessary) even though the legislators were required to do so under the Constitution in order that the Amendment could obtain the 25% approval that was necessary to send it on to the people at the ballot box.

       Even the Globe agreed the day after the legislature voted to adjourn that the reason they refused to vote on the issue itself was because they knew that the people would approve the Amendment if allowed to vote. The Globe said: “The legislative opponents of the ballot question ... lacked the votes necessary to defeat it outright, instead they voted 137-53 to adjourn the constitutional convention indefinitely, effectively blocking the question from appearing on the election ballot.”

       The Globe continued: “The ballot question appeared to have that support [25% of the legislators] and more, but no vote was taken on the question itself.”

       There’s no question that Sen. Kerry knew what was happening because he had been trapped by Tim Russert on Meet the Press on June 23, 2002, less than a month before the vote: 

       RUSSERT: A difficult issue for Democrats: In your state, Robert Reich, Democratic candidate for governor, came out in favor of gay marriage. Would you support that?
       SEN. KERRY: No, I don't support gay marriage. I support partnership rights. I believe that is important. We've done that in many parts of the country. But I do not support marriage.
       RUSSERT: Would you allow a ballot referendum or support a ballot referendum in Massachusetts to allow people to vote yes or no on gay marriage?
       KERRY: Well, we actually have a ballot referendum this year that will go to the heart of the matter with respect to gay marriage.
       RUSSERT: But it's being blocked by leaders of the state Legislature. Do you believe that the people of Massachusetts deserve a right to vote on it?
       KERRY: I think people always deserve a right to vote, and if you have a referendum process, Tim, people have a right to exercise it.

      
     But it quickly became clear that Kerry didn't want a vote to take place. Even though the Democrats made a mockery of our democracy by refusing to allow legislators to cast votes on the issue (our state supreme court on Dec. 20, 2002 held that the legislature had violated the state Constitution, which has never been accurately reported by the Globe), the Senator was nowhere to be seen after he appeared on the television show. Some 500 citizens assembled from across the state on the day of the vote. They thought they would be cheering but ended up loudly, but peacefully protesting in the Chamber and through the halls. They were ignored by Kerry and the rest of the Democratic leadership.

      But Kerry was heard. He signed a highly unusual, and some say illegal, letter from the state’s Congressional delegation officially telling Party members of the state legislature that they should vote against the proposed Amendment.

       (Kerry will technically claim that he advised them to vote against the Amendment but did not advise that they should adjourn and not vote on it at all. But everyone knew that they planned to deep-six the matter, and nowhere in the letter did it caution against such an illegal action.)

       The letter was delivered on Monday, July 15, two days before the vote of the legislators.

     Kerry has never been heard from since this egregious violation of our state Constitution in 2002 even though he has had plenty of opportunity to do so.

       Lied, Cheated and Broke the Law Again in 2004

       The state legislature has repeated its illegal conduct this year by refusing to allow a vote by the legislators on the Removal of Chief Justice Margaret Marshall and her three cohorts who proclaimed homosexual “marriage.” That vote is required by the state Constitution, but Kerry is again trying to avoid any knowledge of that illegal conduct.

       The Removal process was put in our state Constitution by John Adams in 1780 in order to prevent tyranny by state judges. It allows the legislature to summarily remove any judge for any reason if a majority of the legislature votes to do so. Of course, Adams understood that no legislator would vote to do so without good reason because he always has to face his constituents in the next election.  

       When it became clear this year that a majority of legislators wished to remove the four judges who voted last year to impose gay marriage on the state and the nation, the Democrat leaders, once again, have refused to allow them to vote on the issue.

       These are monumental events that have never been reported because Arthur Sulzberger Jr. has tremendous power over the media in this state and the nation, who accept him as their leader because of his unbridled power.

Other Evidence of Kerry’s Chicanery on “Gay Marriage”

The former leader of homosexuals in the Massachusetts legislature, Sen. Cheryl Jacques, who resigned early this year to run the powerful Human Rights Campaign in Washington, was allowed to address the Democratic National Convention in Boston in July even though many others were not, including the mayor of San Francisco. She proceeded to endorse Kerry with a carefully written speech (which had undoubtedly been thoroughly reviewed by Kerry) in which she talked about:

       --- “A fully fortified battle against HIV and AIDS that spares this generation the ravages of the last.” Many wonder if we haven’t been “battling” AIDS for many years.

       --- “That violent hate crimes are aggressively prosecuted.” Many wonder if all other violent crimes should also be prosecuted.

       --- An aggressive affirmative action program for homosexuals. The majority of the country is going the other way on affirmative action and quotas and seeing it as a serious detriment to blacks, women and the country. They do not want to add more people to the list of quotas, including homosexuals.

       --- “We’re working for marriage equality - so we can do what families do best.” She is the surrogate for Kerry as she endorses homosexual “marriage.”

       This is the woman who told the Boston Globe after the legislature violated the state Constitution in 2002 that she was thrilled with the result and didn’t care how she obtained victory as long as she won.

The leader of those who worked for homosexual “marriage” in Massachusetts, Josh Friedes of the Freedom to Marry Coalition, told the New York Post which covered a caucus of more than 200 openly-gay delegates that: “We’re not going to ask John Kerry to lead with his chin.” The Post wrote: “The Kerry campaign has gone to great lengths to sanitize speeches.” They want to keep the implications of “gay marriage” under wraps until after the election.

Leaders of the Democratic Party were warned by the attorney for Mass. Citizens for Marriage, J. Edward Pawlick, that: “This state is in a furor over the revelation that Justice Margaret Marshall assured the attorney for the homosexual plaintiffs, Mary Bonauto, that she would win if she brought her suit here in Massachusetts. This corruption couldn’t be any worse. The stench is nauseating.” A Democratic Representative from Fitchburg has filed the original Resolution calling for Removal of the four judges who imposed “marriage.” As a result, the Legislature is required to vote on the Removal resolution. Rather than deal with the issue, the Speaker of the House recently resigned.

       The decision to force marriage on the state was a tie with the six judges splitting 3-3 on whether to go along with Justice Marshall. She had to break the tie to make it a 4-3 decision. The dissenting judges (all Massachusetts liberals) were passionate in their refusal to go along, saying that it was Marshall who was violating the Constitution with her illegal usurpation of the power of the legislature.

Freedom of speech was seriously violated during the Democratic Convention in Boston where all protestors were required to stand in a small enclosure. This was not reported by the media. (See pictures of enclosure below.)  

A poll of 500 voters in 1999 showed that 92% of Massachusetts citizens believe that teenagers should not be encouraged to be sexually active. And yet the state is teaching all students that they should be sexually active, both in heterosexual and homosexual sex, and Kerry has no objections. 

Many legislators tell us they are concerned with the tremendous sums of money flowing into the state from sources outside the country. It is apparent to them that this money is being sought by the Democratic Party, both at the local and national levels. They worry it could be from the mob, who now have legal prostitution in parts of the U.S. and are seeking to destroy our morality so they can have a legal, worldwide prostitution syndicate.

Kerry was given a ranking of 100% on his voting record on homosexual issues this year by the Human Rights Campaign. 

Kerry was one of a tiny group which voted against the Defense of Marriage Act in 1995 (which Bill Clinton signed) even though his mail was 10-1 in favor of the Act. Kerry wrote in a homosexual newspaper, The Advocate, at the time: “For every letter I receive from a gay or gay-friendly constituent, I get ten from well-organized and well-funded opponents of gay rights.” We responded that if anyone was part of a “well-organized and well-funded” effort in Massachusetts to defeat “gay rights,” we hoped they would please tell us where it is located. According to the A.P., he also said: “This is an unconstitutional, unprecedented, unnecessary and mean-spirited bill.”

Unlike our previous Presidential candidate from this state, Michael Dukakis is an honorable -- if misguided man. On the other hand, Kerry is a liar and a cheat.