Future of the Two-Party System in Massachusetts
Part IV
Radical Feminists Are Responsible for Gay Marriage;
They’re Empowered by Their Civil Rights Act of 1964

News Analysis
Male Homosexuals Do Not Want to Become “Married”
By Atty. J. Edward Pawlick
       The last thing that most male homosexuals want is to get “married.” They are not the people who are promoting “gay marriage” in Massachusetts or across the nation.
       The villains are radical feminists at NOW, many, if not most, of whom are strident homosexuals. The women at NOW have been forthright from their founding in 1966 that this is their goal. They sincerely believe that traditional marriage is a serious threat to the independence of women. They dub married women as the “ultimate parasites.”
       After Betty Friedan wrote her famous book in 1963, “The Feminine Mystique,” she began the modern womens movement. But Friedan was not a homosexual. Therefore, she was quickly shoved aside in 1970 and labeled as a “grandmother” by the radicals, who have steadfastly stuck to their dream of removing marriage from our society.
        This history was proudly trumpeted here in Massachusetts in 2002 when NOW was given the credit for coercing the legislature into violating the state’s Constitution by refusing to vote on the Protection of Marriage Amendment. If approved, it would have forbad Margaret Marshall from imposing “gay marriage.”
       The majority in the legislature did so anyhow because the Democrats were getting huge amounts of money from homosexuals. (One man alone, Tim Gill, who founded Quark software for desktop publishing, gave over $5 million/year, $50 million total over the ten year period beginning in 1995 to homosexual causes.)
       The Democrat leaders here understood that if they allowed a vote to take place in the legislature, it would have been approved by 25% of the legislators, which was all that was required to send it on to the voters for their approval. If they allowed that to happen, they would turn off the tremendous amount of money that was pouring into the state from the activists.
       Therefore, the state Democrats, under the leadership of Senate President Tom Birmingham and the Majority Leader of the House, Tom Finneran, violated the state Constitution in order to keep the money flowing.
       After that huge “victory,” an ecstatic Bay Windows (Boston’s homosexual newspaper) wrote a celebratory editorial. But they were troubled also because the male homosexuals expressed only boredom with the whole thing. It was the people from NOW who were responsible for the “victory,” they opined.
    But NOW had to stay quietly in background because they were no longer popular anywhere in Massachusetts, even among young women on the college campuses. 

Civil Rights Act of 1964 Gave Feminists the Power; This Was Never Reported by New York Times.
      I wrote a book in 1998 about the Civil Rights Act in which I showed that it was not intended that women be included in the law (which was proposed only for the protection of black people). Even Eleanor Roosevelt opposed any move to include women. The only reason women were included was because a Southern Congressman, who was against black people, tried a trick on a Saturday afternoon (February 8, 1964) He believed that if he included women, this would kill the Act.
       Therefore, he strolled to the well of the House and began a circus atmosphere, laughing and joking about the need for an amendment to include women in the bill. All the women except for the highly respected leader, Edith Green, who had written the Equal Pay Act for women which had just been passed, joined in the festivities and passed the amendment in less than two hours.
Rep. Green attempted to make the Congressmen act maturely. "For every discrimination that has been made against a woman in this country,” she said, “there has been 10 times as much discrimination against the Negro of this country. There has been 10 times -- maybe 100 times -- as much humiliation for the Negro woman, for the Negro man and for the Negro child.   Yes; and for the Negro baby who is born into a world of discrimination."
       However, she was unsuccessful, as were the liberal leaders, including Roosevelt’s son, who opposed the amendment on that Saturday afternoon.
       The bill quickly passed, not because of the liberal vote but because every segregationist (all Democrats) voted to add women to the “protected” status in the new law.
       The New York Times never reported this to its readers (except for a very brief mention) and thus the country was unaware of what was happening. When Lyndon Johnston signed the Civil Rights Act in a huge celebration at the White House on July 2, 1964, he never mentioned women at all.
       Only the radical women, who would soon establish NOW, knew exactly what was happening. But they didn’t complain. They were very silent as this trick was played on the American people. Even the radical women failed to realize the tremendous power this new law would eventually give them. No one could fully comprehend what damage about to unfold in our society.  
       The black people also failed to understand. But it became clear to blacks a few years later that white, suburban women had become the primary beneficiaries of a law which was designed to help blacks. As a result, they became very bitter.
       This is now cynically used by the Democrats every year (including John Kerry in 2004) to get 90% of the black voters even though it was Republicans who voted for and passed the bill, while the majority of Democrats voted against it.

New Demand for My Book about Civil Rights Act
      As I begin to promote my new book nationwide (“Libel by New York Times”), the interest in my book about the Civil Rights Act has increased dramatically. The books are selling as a pair to many people.
       I first understood that the Times is no longer a “newspaper of record” when I began researching in the 1980s for my book, “Freedom Will Conquer Racism.” Prior to that, I thought that I would quickly obtain most of my history from old copies of the Times, but I quickly learned that that description of the Times was no longer applicable.
       I did not know then that the world famous paper was a shambles in 1964 due to the fact that Pinch Sulzberger’s father, Punch Sulzberger, had suddenly become Chairman the year before at age 39. Due to his inability to read, the place was a shambles as everyone grabbed for power. It was years before Punch was finally able to gain power, not retiring until he reluctantly named Pinch as Chairman in 1997.
       I also learned later that the title “newspaper of record” had been formally jettisoned by Pinch’s radical/liberal grandparents when they seized power in 1935 at the death of the conservative founder of the modern paper, Adolph Ochs. They had determined that being a newspaper-of-record was boring, and henceforth the reporters would interpret the news for the readers, with their own biases included.
       All of this fascinating true story about the very beginning of “gay marriage” is available in “Freedom Will Conquer Racism and Sexism,” which is recommended by Alan Keyes, and many other scholars, including Walter Williams, the black professor at George Mason University, and guest host on the Rush Limbaugh show.