Skip to comments.Few Winners as Finneran Crawls in Bed With Mitt.(Mass. gay marriage.)
Posted on 02/15/2004 9:57:00 AM PST by Redcoat LI
Few winners as Finneran crawls in bed with Mitt By Howie Carr Recent Columns by Howie Carr Sunday, February 15, 2004
In the end, the only same-sex marriage performed at the State House last week was between Gov. Mitt Romney [related, bio] and House Speaker Tommy Finneran.
The homosexuals and their enablers stayed on message throughout - it was ``a civil-rights issue.'' But that lie was exposed by the way they ran out the clock, with Sen. Brian Joyce, an empty suit's empty suit, filibustering to deny the electorate an opportunity to vote, which is also a civil right.
A filibuster - the same parliamentary sleight-of-hand that Strom Thurmond et al used to employ back in the '50s to derail real civil-rights legislation. Of course, if you complain about the denial of civil rights to the other 98 percent of society, you are instantly branded a homophobe, and anything you say is dismissed as ``hate speech.''
Anyway, at halftime, Adam and Steve are clinging to a small lead over Adam and Eve. Here's an analysis of who else is winning and losing:
Gov. Mitt Romney, winner nationally, loser locally. If he can somehow stop this abomination, he's a national hero. But his strategy to elect more Republicans to the Senate now looks ridiculous. He only could manage to get one of six GOP senators to vote for his and Finneran's amendment, compared with eight of the 34 Democrats. Maybe Mitt should stick to trying to elect more House Republicans. They do what they're told.
House Speaker Tommy Finneran. Loser, for now, but didn't have the gavel, so how much could he really accomplish? And hearing Tommy Taxes pontificate about the need to ``abide'' by the people's will as expressed in ballot questions - that was priceless.
Senate President Bob Travaglini. Loser. Was he really blindsided by Finneran's amendment, or just in way over his head? Remember, Trav was so flummoxed he moved for a vote even before Tommy Taxes spoke on the amendment, and Finneran got to give him the needle: ``Do it on a voice vote if you want.'' The more you think about Trav running the Senate, the more you remember the old saying: ``In the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man shall lead.''
Senate Minority Leader Brian Lees. Loser. The more you think about the Longmeadow lifer, the more you remember the old saying: ``Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt.''
House Majority Leader Sal DiMasi. Loser. He had to vote against his boss, the speaker, but what choice did Sal have in his ``changing'' district? The only things left in the North End that are Italian are the restaurants.
The Roman Catholic Church. Loser. Tough break for the new archbishop, railing for morality on the Common a couple of days before the bishop of Springfield goes down amid a new spate of diddling accusations.
Organized labor. Loser. The bad news is, many of the brothers aren't working. The good news is, they'll soon be able to marry their brother.
Arline Isaacson, lesbian lobbyist. Winner. By the way, this woman is still a registered lobbyist for the Mass. Teachers Association. Any of you public educators think you're getting your money's worth?
Sen. Bob Havern. Loser. Said he didn't want to be remembered as a Pontius Pilate. Too late - just ask Bill Keating.
Priscilla's of Boston. Losers. If only the venerable bridal-gown shop could have held on a few months longer, it'd be rolling in dough from the upcoming boom in the wedding business, both inside and outside the Senate.
( Howie Carr's radio show can be heard every weekday afternoon on WRKO-AM 680, WHYN-AM 560, WGAN-AM 560, WEIM-AM 1280 and WXTK-FM 95.1. )
Until this changes, we are in trouble, people...
Please Freepmail me if you want on or off my infrequent Massachusetts ping list.
And this approach is winning, because the other side has nothing except "let's let the people decide." Seems pretty weak in comparison. Few of those who oppose homosexual "marriage" can bring themselves to call it unnatural, perhaps because they're afraid of alienating a constituency, but more likely because they're incapable of promoting that argument. In fact, most legislators are in the camp of one lawyer/legislator who I heard say, "I still don't know what 'natural law' is." Sad but true.
The fact is, most people in our culture who are no longer practicing Christians (or Jews) have nonetheless internalized the principles that define the way of life that has made us so successful. Many of us (for I am one of these) truly extol devotion to marriage and family without understanding the word "sacrament."
The opposition knows that, due to the fading influence of the church, we are now dealing with a "softer" form of tradition. It has been removed from theology, and they argue (and believe) that devotion to marriage and family is just as available to gay couples.
But from a purely cold, calculated public policy perspective, it is nonsense. How many gay couples are going to produce healthy booming families, that pass their family-producing practices down through generations? Almost none. So all that remains is that they are selfish. They want what others have. Well, the government doesn't exist to protect the feelings of those who are different. It exists, in great part, to preserve institutions like the rule of law. "Gay marriage" is only a distraction from this purpose.
One of them said "if two people love each other they should be allowed to get married" and I said "what if I love two men and want to marry both of them, by your definition, you'd be discriminating against me if you didn't allow me to marry them both" - all of them thought I was nuts and that situation would never happen. None of them were aware that there is a couple of cases of polygamists waiting before the supreme court... and looking to us here in Mass to see how our situation ends up.
All in all, I was distressed and realized (as does my husband) that civil unions will indeed probably go through in March.
The debate on the floor of the legislature was an eye-opener for me. It was divided between the true-believing "civil rights" crowd and the "let the people vote" crowd. I didn't hear one legislator criticize homosexual "marriage" itself.
So all during this "thing" I wrote many senators and representatives from Massachusetts. Last Friday I got a personal letter from Barney Frank explaining his stance on this issue! If I have time this week (but the kids are home on school vaca), I am going to sit down and write him back.
LOL! You'll have to post it and the response.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.