Bishops and Governor support Vote

Our Bishop Robert McManus stood with Gov. Romney and the other Bishops of MA in support of allowing a vote on the definition of Marriage. At the Constitutional Convention, July 12, at least 50 Legislators must recommend that Article #20 go forward, or else the vote on the definition of Marriage in 2008 won't happen. Over 170,000 signatures were gathered in support of allowing the people to vote on this.
Story: http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=gov2homepage&L=1&L0=Home&sid=Agov2
Background: http://www.catholicvote.org/

Defend Marriage - Clinton, MA

There will be a Vote on Marriage 'StandOut' in front of Hannaford's Supermarket, at the corners of Rt. 70 and Rt. 62 in Clinton, MA, from 10AM-noon on Saturday July 1, and July 8. Please help urge State Rep. Harold Naughton to allow the Vote on defining Marriage as the union of one man and one woman to go forward at the State Constitutional Convention, July 12.

Shari Worthington, the Catholic Citizenship Public Policy Coordinator for the Worcester Diocese is coordinating
Call Rep. Naughton at 617 722-2013, or send him the following email at Rep.HaroldNaughton@Hou.State.MA.US
Dear Rep.Naughton,

I urge you to support a vote on Amendment #20, the Marriage Amendment, during the Constitutional Convention July 12th. This proposed amendment passes Constitutional muster, and does not prevent Civil unions, as some Anti-Marriage Amendment lobbyists have been misleading people to believe, nor does this amendment address current same-sex marriages, it simply states;

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

No one wants to discriminate against gay people, we support that they have the same Civil rights as everyone else in America, however redefining marriage to include marrying anyone you choose, instead of the Traditional definition of marrying someone of the opposite or complimentary sex, will lead to a further weakening of the Institution that best protects, nurtures and rears children, that protects women, and civilizes men. This weakening has already happened in Scandinavia and Holland.

Same Sex marriage will also create a Civil right, that cannot be abided by many Christian, Muslim and Jewish religious traditions, forcibly creating a "separate but equal" situation when these Religious groups seek to exercise their right to Religious Freedom. This can only lead to conflict, as even many same-sex marriage proponents such as Chai Feldblum of Georgetown U. and Marc D. Stern of the American Jewish Congress have asserted. The country may not be ready for this new civil right in the redefinition of marriage, nor is the country ready for the coming conflict. This process must begin with a Democratic vote!

Please support the vote on Amendment #20.

Sincerely,

St. Josemaria

Monday evening, June 26, at 7:30PM at the Cathedral of the Holy Cross in downtown Boston, His Eminence Sean Cardinal O’Malley will celebrate a Solemn Mass for the Feast of St. Josemaria Escriva, the Founder of Opus Dei. This is an annual gathering of many friends and members of Opus Dei that has taken on even more significant in the four years since Josemaria’s canonization. All are invited.

Tolerant Governor intolerant

UPI Religion & Spirituality Forum

ANNAPOLIS, June 19 (UPI) — Maryland Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. fired Robert J. Smith of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority for referring…to homosexual behavior as "deviant" on a talk show interview [outside of work].
One of his colleagues on the transit board, who is openly homosexual, complained about the comment during a board meeting on Thursday and demanded Smith retract his comments or resign from the board, the Baltimore Sun said.
Smith declined, saying he stood by his beliefs as a Roman Catholic, and a few hours later he received notice from the governor that he was fired.
The governor said he was intolerant to any view that opposes the full social acceptance of homosexual behavior and its promotion in government.
"The comments I make in public outside of my (Metro board job) I'm entitled to make." His personal beliefs, [Smith] said, have "absolutely nothing to do with running trains and buses and have not affected my actions or decisions on this board."
"The notion that I consider homosexual behavior as deviant behavior is correct," Smith said. He declined to apologize to Graham, saying, "I didn't make the comments to Mr. Graham. I'm sorry that he feels that way, but I don't agree that his lifestyle is an appropriate way to live one's life."

Contact Gov. Ehrlich and let him know how intolerant he is - http://www.governor.maryland.gov/contact.html

Lexington Lies

A month after David Parker's 7-year old son was beaten in the Estabrook schoolyard in Lexington, during recess, Lexington Superintendent Paul Ash is finally asking the State Police and DA to investigate. Ash admitted it was pressure from MassResistance that forced him to confront the issue.
Massresistance has documented the hostile and virilent attacks against David Parker by the Pro-Gay group, Lexingtoncares. Members of Lexingtoncares have protested outside of Parker's home, and several of the Estabrook Elementary students involved in beating David Parker's son have parents involved in Lexingtoncares.
Lexingtoncares issued a press release the day before Superintendent Ash issued his press release. Apparently, the school librarian and several other school officials had spoken with members of the group Lexingtoncares.
"Why are these school officials talking to a local homosexual group about this incident? asked Brian Camenker of Massresistence. "This is not only extremely unprofessional, but troubling and offensive. And the hypocrisy surrounding this whole thing is breathtaking. If this had been the other side, they would have practically closed the schools over it."

New Low in Lexington?

David Parker’s 7 year old son goes to Estabrook School in Lexington, MA. Several months ago, the 2^nd grade teacher read a “fairy tale” where a Prince marries another man – this is Massachusetts after all. David Parker, and other parents, asked that they be notified before this type of content was presented in class, so that his son could opt-out. http://www.wmca.com/weblogs/kmc/date04192006.aspx

Even though this type of same-sex marriage story violated the parent’s conscience and their religious convictions, Lexington School Superintendent Paul Ash denied their request; the book would be taught in 2^nd grade, no parents would be notified when it was taught, and no parent could opt-out their child.

When David Parker went to meet with the Superintendent, Ash refused to meet him, and had David Parker arrested when Parker refused to leave until he met with Superintendent Ash.

Because David Parker wanted to opt-out his kid from classes when homosexuality or transgenderism were discussed, he has been vilified by the School system and by liberal activists, who protest in front of his home, write nasty and false letters about him, and post these letters on a web site and in the school itself. http://www.lexingtoncares.org/

Despite these insults David Parker has continued to fight for his, and our, rights to religious liberty and parental involvement, filing a federal civil rights suit against Lexington. http://www.article8.org/docs/news_events/parker/main.htm#section4

Last May 17, ten students, many the children of other liberal Lexington parents who protested outside of David Parker’s home, “grabbed David Parker's 7-year-old son, dragged him behind the corner of the school, well out of sight from school officials, and proceeded to punch him in the groin, stomach and chest, before he dropped to the ground when they then kicked and stomped on him.” (Worldnet Daily). The kids who beat up David Parker’s son were not punished!

You could help David Parker and his family by praying, making a donation to his legal fund, http://massresistance.com/ or contacting Lexington Superintendent Paul Ash, pash@sch.ci.lexington.ma.us or (781) 861-2550.

Who knew the Liberal activists would sink to this level in the Culture War? Then again, when someone does not believe in absolutes, perhaps we should not be surprised.

Thank you, Lou

Dear Jay,
Thanks for your email. As I've said before, I have voted consistently to
send this matter to the voters and will be voting that way again when
this comes before the Constitutional Convention in July.
Sincerely,
Lew Evangelidis

Making doctrine illegal

Dear Sen. Chandler,

Thank you for your sincere, and detailed reply. I appreciate your honestly, but disagree with your logic. Inevitably, there will be conflict between Religions that teach a traditional interpretation of marriage, and those like yourself who believe marriage needs to be redefined to preserve what you see as rights. It's not really fair to say same-sex marriage will not change Catholic doctrine, when this makes that doctrine illegal to practice.

Jay G.

The Senator responds

Thank you for contacting me recently to express your opinion about the
proposed constitutional amendment that would define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. I appreciate knowing your thoughts on this serious issue.

The issue confronting the Legislature is whether to adopt an amendment that bars a segment of society of rights afforded to others. Because of that, I have twice voted against attempts to prevent same-sex marriage during a joint session of the Legislature known as a Constitutional Convention. The first came in March of 2004 when I voted against the "Travaglini/Lees" amendment, which would have banned same-sex marriage and allowed civil unions. The second came when I voted against it again in September of 2005.

There is another Constitutional Convention scheduled for July 12, 2006. At that time, the Legislature will vote on whether or not the following amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution should go before the voters in November of 2008, "When recognizing marriages entered into after the adoption of this amendment by the people, the Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall define marriage only as the union of one man and one woman."

You should know that I intend to vote against this new amendment because I believe writing discrimination into our state's constitution, and denying the basic rights and protections of marriage to all of our citizens, is simply wrong. In the nearly two years since same-sex couples have had the right to marry, we have seen much joy brought to families throughout the state and in Central Massachusetts. The sky has not fallen, no one has been harmed. In fact, the institution of marriage has only grown stronger as families have been formed.
Again, thank you for contacting my office to express your views on this important issue.

Sincerely,
Harriette L. Chandler
State Senator
HLC/sk

Dear Sen. Chandler

Dear Sen. Chandler,
I urge you to support a vote on Amendment #20, the Marriage Amendment,
during the Constitutional Convention July 12th.  This proposed amendment
passes Constitutional muster, and does not prevent Civil unions, as some
Anti-Marriage Amendment lobbyists have been misleading people to believe,
nor does this amendment address current same-sex marriages, it simply
states;
"When recognizing marriages entered into after the adoption of this
amendment by the people, the Commonwealth and its political subdivisions
shall define marriage only as the union of one man and one woman."

No one wants to discriminate against gay people, we support that they
have the same Civil rights as everyone else in America, however redefining
marriage to include marrying anyone you choose, instead of the Traditional
definition of marry someone of the opposite or complimentary sex, will lead
to a further weakening of the Institution that best protects, nurtures and rears
children, that protects women,and civilizes men.  This weakening has
already happened in Scandinavia and Holland. 

Same Sex marriage will also create a Civil right, that cannot be abided by
many Christian, Muslim and Jewish religious traditions, forcibly creating a
"separate but equal" situation when these Religious groups seek to exercise
their right to Religious Freedom.  This can only lead to conflict, as even
many same-sex marriage proponents such as Chai Feldblum of Georgetown
U. and Marc D. Stern of the American Jewish Congress have asserted.
The country may not be ready for this new civil right in the redefinition of
marriage, nor is the country ready for the coming conflict.  This process
must begin with a Democratic vote!

Please support the vote on Amendment #20.  
Sincerely,  Jay G. 

Divorce is a Killer

Divorce is a killer for many
New research finds that single or divorced men are twice as likely to die early
COPENHAGEN POST - 1 June 2006

A study by scientists at the University of Copenhagen concludes that divorce is closely linked to poor health. Among other trends, the research indicates that the death rate for single or divorced males aged 40-50 is twice as high as for other groups.

Bama fights back

Alabama voters overwhelmingly approved a statewide constitutional amendment Tuesday [6/6] banning gay marriage...Reports from 84 percent of the precincts showed 81 percent of voters wanted the ban...

Political observers said the measure is largely symbolic, since Alabama already has a law that defines marriage as the union between a man and a woman.

But proponents of the amendment, such as the Christian Coalition, said the ban would be a backstop in case the state law were challenged in court.

"Judicial activism has put us in the posture of making pre-emptive strikes to build a fire wall around the state of Alabama," said John Giles, president of the Christian Coalition of Alabama.

by Anna Velasco, staff writer BIRMINGHAM NEWS link

But every Child is a wanted Child.

The Merchants of Death at Planned Parenthood actually do an enviable job of confusing the country into not thinking clearly about what happens during an abortion. One of their Marketing dirges is “Every Child a wanted Child.” Mother Theresa, Fr. Pavone, and others have lived the linguistic antidote to this canard, “Every Child IS a wanted Child, even if the mother does not want him.” As Mother Theresa used to say of unwanted children, “Bring them to me!”

Bring them to us!

Separate but Equal

Today’s Worcester Telegram has a Letter to the Editor from Christopher Mahan from Worcester applauding Allen Young’s As I See It Editorial supporting legal same sex marriage. Mr. Mahan’s logic is that to deny a person the right to marry someone of their own sex is to deny basic Civil and Constitutional Rights. That’s a rather huge bait and switch, since we never reached the point as a country or a nation that it even is a basic human right to marry whomever one wants.

Mahan adds, “It is crucial for all of us to understand that the legalization of gay marriage does not change the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church or any other religious institution.” The Constitutional Right to same-sex marriage does not change Catholic Doctrine, it merely makes it illegal. The Massachusetts SJC has declared that teaching against same-sex marriage or refusing to hire someone who is married to a member of their sex, is racist. How long do you think it will take for the first lawsuit against a Catholic school that dismisses a teacher who is in a same-sex marriage? After that case is one, the precedent is set to take away the Church’s tax exempt status, followed by the lawsuit against a priest or Diocese for refusing the marry a same-sex couple. After all, it’s the law.

Legal same-sex marriage is incompatible with a separate but equal exemption for the Church’s doctrine, and clearly incompatible with any practice or expression of Catholic doctrine concerning the disordered nature of these acts. As we all should know, “Separate but Equal” was found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1954, so it is only a matter of time before it is applied to the Church in the matter of same-sex marriage.

Police & Thieves

If you don’t think we are in a Culture War over Same-Sex Marriage, this picture should disabuse you of any of your false notions. In this picture, Sunrise City, FL police Officer Stephen Allen, right, mocks Florida Family Policy Council volunteers after illegally taking their Florida4Marriage petitions, threatening them with arrest, and lecturing them on how Jesus supported homosexuality in the Bible. No word if this extremely unprofessional, and lawless behavior by a Law Officer has been punished, though I'm sure he'll have to answer for misquoting Jesus in Scripture.

The Millbury Catechism

Today’s Worcester Telegram has a letter to the Editor from Ronald Stacy of Millbury, claiming that he is miffed by the furor about the Da Vinci Code, but not offended one bit by the movie. Mr. Stacey also says of those who believe author Dan Brown’s claim that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene: “Maybe they’re right, maybe not.” Mr. Stacey is ashamed of “the Vatican even getting involved.”

The clincher is that Mr. Stacey claims to be Catholic, a lector and catechist, and a member of St. Vincent DePaul.

Since the premise of Brown’s Da Vinci Code is that Jesus was not divine, not the Son of God, merely human, and did not rise from the dead on the third day, it is more than a little disconcerting that Mr. Stacy appears not to know if the basic fundamental tenets of his Catholicism are true. The point of Da Vinci is that people are chumps or fools if they believe in Jesus as he is presented in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. As character Leigh Teabing [Ian McClellan] says in the Da Vinci Code, “Many scholars claim that the early Church literally stole Jesus from His original followers…What I mean is that almost everything our fathers taught us about Christ is false.” Dan Brown offers the antidote to Christian suckerdom – the new Gnosis, the secret knowledge of the Neo-Gnostics that we are our own gods, and do not need the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Brown’s ‘proof’ is that “scholars have known this for ages.”

In the thousands of pages written by the early Christians, there is no mention that Mary Magdalene was married to Jesus. Not even the false Gnostic Gospels make this claim. Mary Magdalene is honored as a Saint by the Church, a repentant sinner, whom Jesus cast 7 demons out of, who was present at the foot of the Cross with the Blessed Virgin Mary, and the first to see the resurrected Jesus and bring the news to the Apostles.

Gnostics believed in the evilness of the body and of the physical world, and sought liberation of the body to a purely spiritual world. The false Gnostic Gospel of Phillip, written in Coptic, not Greek, at least 100 years after the Canonical Gospels, makes a claim that Jesus loved Mary Magdalene the most, and used to kiss her. Though the text is unclear because a word is missing, some scholars think that the Gospel of Phillip says Jesus used to kiss Mary Magdalene on the lips. This is Gnostic symbolism, secret knowledge is passed by the mouth, and the Gnostic interpretation of this would have been Jesus was passing along the secret knowledge of Gnosticism to Mary. Since Gnostics believed the body was evil, many were against marriage. Which is why Brown’s claim is so preposterous, and why it is so disconcerting that Mr. Stacey does not understand the preposterousness of Brown’s premise.

I’d suggest Mr. Stacey take a leave of absence from his catechism classes, and learn his faith, and learn to recognize a bold face and blatant attack on his faith when he sees it. As Da Vinci Code co-producer, and former chairman of Sony Pictures Entertainment John Calley, told The New York Times (9/7/2005), this movie was "conservatively anti-Catholic" even though it might not have been "destructively so." Destructive Anti-Catholicism comes from within.

The Sky isn't falling?

Many defenders of same sex marriage claim that since it became legal in Massachu- setts 2 years ago, the sky has not fallen for traditional marriage. Since these same-sex marriage proponents basically argue that marriage is not about children, gay marriage does not affect Traditional Marriage. It appears however that the Dutch have bought into this argument about marriage not being about children. The Dutch have historically been known as both tolerant and traditional, but that is changing. Out-of-wedlock childbirths have skyrocketed in the last nine years, increasing 2 percentage points every year, and 2.5 points last year, to 33.5% of all births being out-of-wedlock. This increase coincides with the drive for gay marriage that started in the Netherlands in 1990. That drive brought the recognition of same-sex partnerships 9 years ago, and legal same-sex marriage 5 years ago. That's what the chart above shows

The Dutch used to be known for their liberal social policies while maintaining some degree of tradition themselves. These statistics indicate the Dutch have joined the Scandinavians in eschewing Marriage. Stanley Kurtz at National Review has written some excellent articles documenting this collapse of marriage due to same-sex unions.

http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz200406030910.asp

http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz200407210936.asp

http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz200602230800.asp

We can’t forget the kids in this debate, because as British demographer David Coleman and Holland's premier demographer Joop Garssen pointed out in 2002, this situation produces “burdened children reared in fragile cohabiting families.”

"Marriage is what makes fatherhood more than a biological event. Marriage is the social glue that unites the two halves of the human race to share in the enterprise of parenting--increasing the chance that children will be raised with a mother and a father." said Dr. Matt Daniels, Alliance For Marriage, AFM.