Mayoral Meanness

Disclaimer: Having started the off-topic mayoral-race comments, I can't seem to stop.

Before I bring in the papers and shake the incessant rain off their bags, I reflect on last night's debate-like radio appearance by Mayor Tom Menino and City Councilor Maura Hennigan. They were on WBZ from 8 to 9 p.m. on the Paul Sullivan show. There is no indication that BZ will stream it. You heard it or you didn't.

The hour was irritating. She did her best Chihuahua and he was pretty much Droopy the dog. If you were for one or the other, you could have reinforced your affection, but little presented would have changed minds.

Unfortunately for me, I was unaware until I got into the hour that I was still hoping that Maura would emerge as something she is not and will never be, an insightful, charismatic visionary. Expecting that of her is utterly unfair. They are both pretty good politicians who have accomplished some okay things. They have known each other politically for 22 years. They have a history as the cliché would have it.

Ever on the attack, Maura nipped Tom fairly, then unfairly. She made a good point and then offset the advantage with utter drivel and obvious B.S.

To his credit, Sullivan interjected fair better and more pointed questions than the callers. The best example was when he asked what Menino should have harped on months ago. If Maura has been in office 24 years and voted for all these aspects of the city that she claims are bad, isn't she as much to blame as Tom or anyone? Meanwhile, she was returning to the argument that she would bring in fresh ideas and a detachment that Tom cannot. Sullivan quietly noted that she had been there even longer than Tom and couldn't expect anyone to think of her as a clean outsider.

The tone of the evening was like a The Onion send-up. Maura stopped short of calling our long rainy spell Tom's fault, but everything else was laid at his feet. Anything bad with the schools, the (not-true) blip in the murder rate, realty prices, and even the police-caused death of the Emerson College student Victoria Snelgrove. Anything on Menino's watch, as Hennigan put it, was his fault.

Not only did that scattershot approach make her look desperate and discursive, she disproved repeatedly what she claimed was her superior personality. While sniping and barking at Tom, she said he didn't know how to reconcile people. She (insert sniping and nagging and niggling) would bring the feminine touch that helped people get along. Huh?

She left far too many openings for Tom. He continued his Droopy -- Wellllllllll -- reaction most time. However, he didn't have to act too fast or too strongly. She played very loose with the facts, often making them up (numbers of police academy students, whether they were from out of the area, and accusing Menino of an out-of-town playoff trip he didn't take, for example). Also, instead of picking a vulnerable area, such as schools, and following through with a reasoned argument, she took the smallest indicator and tried to jump to the general with it. Honey, it didn't work in Logic 101 and didn't play last night.

Likewise, it was Sullivan and not Menino who asked Maura (very polite that Mr. Sullivan was) how she would fund all the extra programs she proposed. Not only was she willing to spend the whole of the city's surplus, she did not seem to see a problem with committing to recurring budget increases with a fixed surplus. Likewise, a small portion of the 9 or 10-hour school days with after-school she wants would fall under a grant, but she could not point to any revenue source for the rest.

Tom's best moment unquestionably seemed to be when she dragged out the Snelgrove corpse and put it figuratively before Tom. He was quick to point out that it was cheap politics and very insensitive. Maura is likely the only person in town who might disagree. At that moment, she sounded as sleazy as any politician we have ever had.

In the main, it was torture to listen to them. The hour was certainly more like a real debate than anything so far. It also convinced us that a formal debate between them would waste everyone's time. Poor Maura wants this so badly, but picking a few isolated facts does not make a cohesive argument. She must be brighter than she sounds, but she just can't seem to translate her passions into either a program or a campaign.

Now to the papers:

The Globe had the show coverage at the bottom of the local section and as the lead editorial. The Herald seems to be distancing itself from the stumbling Hennigan. Theirs is on page 6, not featured on their Website's front page, and carries the Tommy-favorable head Menino takes the offensive.

Similarly, the Globe's editorial is MENINO REGAINS GROUND. It points out quite accurately that Maura's behavior gave one opening after another for him to highlight his administration's accomplishments, the opposite of what she wanted. No matter how Menino-ish Tom was in his presentation, he plodded back repeatedly after Hennigan's rambling, disconnected attacks. He got to say with good effect, "That's incorrect," repeatedly.

Hennigan was loose with the facts and figures, both papers note. The Globe also mentions that while Hennigan stated incorrectly that Menino, not the unions, delayed negotiations before the Democratic Convention, and she claimed that Menino gave away far too much to the unions, she was out protesting for higher wages on the union picket line. Pots and kettles.

This was Tommy's night. You really have to goof up to hand him the decision on an hour-long one-against-one. Maura managed to shoot herself more frequently than she hit Tom. Buy that woman some glasses and a scope...and rent her a campaign advisor who can provide talking points that make a pattern. Maura is throwing paint at the canvas and not making a recognizable picture. A dozen dots are not a portrait, not even a decent stick figure..

He's been mayor for 12 years and involved in hundreds of major efforts across the entire spectrum of a major city. You would think that any high-school junior could spend a day or two researching his record, and then come up with cohesive (that word again) criticisms that stand the light of day and the best counterarguments Droopy could return. Maura's had a couple of chances in public fora and failed at them.

It is probably far too late for a real vision with a program to implement it. She certainly seems to lack the debating ability and knowledge to prove Tom incompetent. Was she really the best competition available?

Bang!, Then Stillness from Black Ministers

Pick up the current Bay Windows for an insightful piece on the nebulous role of black ministers in anti-gay, anti-same-sex marriage politics. Ethan Jacobs points out the undercurrents.

Our key player is Bishop Gilbert Thompson. He is:

• Main pastor at the Mattapan neighborhood's Jubilee Christian Church (a.k.a. New Covenant Christian Church)
• President of the Black Ministerial Alliance (BMA)
• Unabashed basher of gubernatorial candidate Deval Patrick
• Liaison who tied the BMA to the VoteOnMarriage.org anti-same-sex marriage group

So, it ought to be pretty straightforward. The BMA is or is not politically involved in the 2008 ballot initiative to rescind same-sex marriage here.

It is not obvious though. Some black ministers are in the traditional Christian welcoming mold. They see homosexuals as just other congregants, who are worthy of love and respect. For example, Rev. Martin McLee at the Union United Methodist Church in the South End is a BMA board member who "certainly will not be fighting to support that (new) amendment." His church welcomes gays.

Also, even though the 80-congregation member BMA released a statement last year (February) supporting the first anti-SSM amendment and opposing SSM, it has been silent since. Their political-affairs chair, Rev. Richard Richardson says they are still in favor of one-man/one-woman marriages and that the 2004 announcement still holds.

Jacobs says the BMA is remaining low-key and a silent partner. It did not join the Roman Catholic leaders in pushing the petitions on its parishioners. In a pretty cagy reply, Richardson said that the BMA's "main goal as a member of the coalition is to articulate its opposition to same-sex marriage. He said the BMA does not feel it must make a specific statement in favor of every marriage amendment that comes up for a vote."

We can speculate on whether Thompson thinks playing a heavy Sean-O'Malley-style hand might divide the BMA. Perhaps his group thinks that playing cool on this gives the appearance by default that all black clerics are anti-gay and anti-SSM.

We do know that from his own pulpit, Thompson called Deval Patrick "demonic" for supporting gay marriage. This is when many black Bostonians see Patrick as a good guy and do not share the pretty and charismatic bishop's sexual self-righteousness.

Maura's a Mudder!

It's about time Maura showed some oomph instead of just whining (and generalizing). Talking Politics points to her new and nasty radio spot. Listen to it here.

In contrast to her lame and tame mailing, this one should get voters talking and make Da Mare fume.

A pseudo-newscaster guy hits potholes, murder and test scores. This leads to Maura saying she's not afraid to tackle the hard issues. Meanwhile, Menino is voiced by crickets.

The only nit to pick with this hard-hitting, mud-slinging, old-fashioned vocal is the debate whine. By now, everyone knows Tommy is doing the smart thing in staying away from her strength and his weakness. This is a playground double-dare and doesn't fit.

Overall though, this is what she should have done months ago. Nasty, provocative, and in the tradition of Boston politics.

Czech the Spines on That Cactus

Ignorance buster number two this week: We were definitely not aware that the Czech Republic gay-rights folks were so strong in the graphics arts.

The Gay and Lesbian League has powerful images. Their campaigns are easily the equal or better of comparable U.S. ones. Of course, the site is in Czech, with no other language options. Even with a little college Russian, we did not get much from the words, but the images are clear.

One example pair is the current print and billboard campaign aimed at the House of Deputies, which is debating legalizing same-sex partnerships.

The cartoons of a cactus and bonsai contrast what happens with and without legal partnership protections. "One of the cartoons, for instance, shows what happens when one of the plants dies. In the first version the other plant stays with the family, while in the other one the family places it on the street next to the waste bin. This should illustrate that the bill gives the same-sex partners a right to be each other's heir."

If you can take the linguist dissonace, the site is well worth clicking around for the images. Check the Czech art in the current campaigns. On that page, the links to the posters are the bulleted items in bold. The images of gray-haired gay couples are powerful in their ability to show just how normal they are.

Maura at the Door-a

No sooner did we post than Maura Hennigan's slick campaign flyer flew our way.

It was addressed to Our Friends At, which is at least better than Resident. We can forgive her not going with more expensive mailing lists. As she is quick to mention, Tommy has all the money.

Now the question remains, will this sway voters, any voters, enough voters?

We can flash back to content-analysis courses. Impressions include:

The cover portrait is very dark and has mixed messages. She has the standard turkey-neck-hiding hand to the jaw. That successfully softens her and makes her less haggard. She wears a business-like blazer, good. She has an American flag lapel pin, important to older voters. She wears a costume jewelry necklace, feminizing and not too flashy, and a good offset to her butchy haircut. Unfortunately, the effect is fairly funereal. The darkness, setting and her indifferent stare remind one of a mortician at the viewing.

The words are "Maura Hennigan for Mayor" and "A lifetime of Service...A vision for Boston" (punctuation and capitalization as appearing). That will only work if there is an innovative and believable program inside.

Overall, the cover is positive but still chilly.

The meat is the opposite side. The heading has a slogan left, "True to the people she will serve." That is fairly weak. There is nothing about leadership or that vision she promised. The implication seems to be that she will do as she said in the town meeting, ask the neighborhoods what they want and react. That is not a vision, rather tepid populism.

The three small images on top show her with three representative contingencies — white-collar white folk, a black couple, and an elderly woman. That's the predictable knish/hot dog/cannoli eating routine. No substance there, but a hint again that there will be specifics in her visionary program for each type.

The real pitch is a set of four columns, with bullet points under each.

• Putting Education First — Despite her education experience, this features only small beer, helping start a pilot school, helping get money for another school building, lead on a public-building air-quality ordinance, and again, listening to parents.
• Increasing Neighborhood Safety— She's against the bio lab, wants more police, wants quicker announcements of rape alerts, and worked with the cops on a school program.
• Supporting Responsibile Development — She votes for rent stabilization, says she advocates low-income and senior housing, wants more community input to the BRA, and joins in calls for a master plan for all business areas.
• Fighting for Better City Services — She makes a vague claim of wanting fair allocation of services across neighborhoods, wants higher quality street repair, and tried to get the City Council to pass a spot-inspection ordinance for infrastructure.

Without putting too fine a point on it, she brings to mind the Leonard Cohen line "A scheme is not a vision." The main message is pretty low on content.

If these are the best she can produce from 24 years as a Councilor, she should go run her realty business. Those are not impressive accomplishments. It looks as though she also failed at many of her efforts despite her tenure. Voting for something is far shy of making it happen.

More important, she promises in person and on the front of the flyer that she has a vision for the city. It is not there. No major aims appear, just tinkering with what exists, improving here and there.

It would have been far better for her to say it is time for her to come into real power, where she can get away from that lame City Council. If elected, she would...and then list a half dozen major themes and projects that would transform Boston. Instead, we have a set of bullet points that individually and collectively add up to a promise of incremental improvements.

I have my doubts this will convince significant numbers of voters to turn out a mayor who cannot articulate very well for the wanna-be who cannot articulate why she is any better.

Alas, Maura, you need to dream bigger dreams.

Afterthought: By the bye, if Maura really wanted to earn debates, she could have gotten them by putting out a killer vision and platform to match. If citizens heard her or read her flyers, and then said, "Damn, that's what I want for Boston!," Tommy would have had to react with his own and go head to head with her.

More Petition Fraud

Just when you thought it might be safe to go to the supermarket, the Worcester Telegraph & Gazette publishes the latest on the hired-gun signature gatherers. The investigative report is here.

Among the new twists are petition guys forging signatures from the wine-and-beer-in-groceries to the anti-same-sex-marriage initiative.

Yet, even if fraud is common, one must wonder it will affect the outcome. The way the law is written, fraud must be obvious on the face of it (a page of signatures in the same handwriting, for example) or individuals must complain that their names are not petitions they did not sign.

At least for the latter, you can go to KnowTheyNeighbor.org, fill in an email address and click Go under Get notified when someone in your town signs it! Then, if your name appears and you did not sign one, you can act.

How `bout Those Gay Parents?

One study seldom means much. On the other hand, 15 pointing to positive same-sex parents may have some significance.

Our prejudices include disdain for medical and mental health professionals who grab the latest study or survey results and wave them. "Now we know!" is the cry. "Maybe," and "Duh," are the refrains.

The WebMD site has a piece on numerous studies of how having gay parents affects kids. A Tufts pediatrics professor, Ellen C. Perrin, M.D., presented to the American Academy of Pediatrics Conference and Exhibition in D.C. a few days ago. A major conclusion is:

The combined data presented by Perrin showed that children whose parents are lesbian have no more problems than the rest of the children and actually may be more tolerant of differences, she says. There was suggestive evidence that there were more stresses due to the gender of same-sex parents, but the children also reported greater well-being, more nurturing, and a greater tolerance for differences.

She reported very consistent finding across the 15 studies. These are of over 500 children, evaluated for "possible stigma, teasing and social isolation, adjustment and self-esteem, opposite gender role models, sexual orientation, and strengths."

Findings include:

• "(C)hildren of same-sex parents do as well as children whose parents are heterosexual in every way. In some ways children of same-sex parents actually may have advantages over other family structures."
• Comparing households with heterosexual and with lesbian moms after divorce, there was no difference in "intelligence, type or prevalence of psychiatric disorders, self-esteem, well-being, peer relationships, couple relationships, or parental stress."
• "Some studies showed that single heterosexual parents' children have more difficulties than children who have parents of the same sex. They did better in discipline, self-esteem, and had less psychosocial difficulties at home and at school."

Estimates for the nation are that there are between 1 and 6 million reared by homosexual couples.

No Stumbles for Mumbles

Disclaimer: This is off topic.

Pundits promised and sensationalists sought scandal, but yesterday's co-appearance (not debate) at Boston University settled nothing about next month's mayoral race.

In his Wednesday Talking Politics column, Adam Reilly tried his best to build up the college forum as "If things go badly for incumbent Tom Menino again today, we'll have a real race on our hands. In fact, we may have one already."

In today's recap, he stopped short of kicking himself for his fantasies or coming down on Maura for her LITE message. His headline was enough — Zzzzzzzzzzz.

Today's Herald buried Maura's Parthian shot at Tommy on page 6, albeit with a picture. As he was leaving his successful non-encounter, she called out, "How about a real debate, Tom? What about a real debate?" The article quoted his response as, "Friday night," an allusion to their joint appearance on WBZ-AM's Paul Sullivan talk show (8 p.m., WBZ, 1030 AM).

The Globe reporters heard it a little differently, and noted Tom's picking up points and steam.

But Menino could not be rushed. He stopped to sign autographs and then sauntered toward the door, smiling. He suddenly accelerated when he spotted Hennigan waiting for him and stretched out his hand for a quick shake.

''Councilor! How are ya?" he said, without missing a step. Hennigan shook his hand. ''Will you agree to a real debate Tom?" she demanded loudly. Said Menino, ''Yeah, all the time."

And then he was off, down the stairs and out the door, followed by a few aides.

Layout Note: The Globe had graphics and text fun with this story on both the print and online version. The normally boring crown-to-bellybutton dais shots of each candidate are the primary devices. They are back-to-back and separated by the text or white space. They reinforce the Never the twain shall meet headline. Nicely done.

Key points of the actual event include:

• Only about 140 students from all over the city attended. Low interest reinforces that Maura doesn't have enough loaves or fishes to feed the minds or heat the blood.
• Maura went first and only glimmered a bit. Again, she did not shine brightly as she would have had to. After the previous town meeting quasi-debate, many claimed she skunked Tommy, but the public and we don't see the content behind her confidence.
• Her best shot was a pop. After a career of teaching and 24 years on the City Council, her best proposal of the evening was to have college students mentor public-school ones. Ho hum.
• Tommy hit his stride. Da Mare is not an orator, knows it and admits it. However, he is eminently likable. Last night with a half-hour solo, he got the students laughing and was his folksy self. The Globe implies Maura was rambling then shrill. She was neither entertaining nor wise when she absolutely had to be.
  

Maura seems convinced that she deserves this office. She has even played the time-for-a-woman-mayor card — a weak effort. She comes from a family with a history of modest political attempts and offices. She wants a big one, which is not a convincing reason to vote for her.

Reilly at the Phoenix notes:

The mayoral candidates should be talking about their vision for the Boston Public Schools, or how to contain the Manhattanization of Boston, or the recent uptick in violent crime, not offering platitudes about how important students are to the city.

She has a couple more chances. There's that radio show. Also, she has a slick piece of propaganda about to hit the mail.

Maura might, but only might, be as good a mayor as Tommy. She shows nothing that makes people want to chuck it all for her. Tommy is the devo we know.

Money Talking in Maine

In advance of the self-pitying whining from anti-gay forces in Maine, the plain talk is that is that more folk there who want to keep the current rights legislation are ponying up. As a report in the Portland Press-Herald put it today:

Financial backing is "one indicator of the support that an issue has" in the community at large, and Maine Won't Discriminate has a lot more contributors than the other side does, said Ted O'Meara of Maine Won't Discriminate.

Of course, he's a tad biased. The group he speaks for leads the pro side.

The PAC numbers are over two to one. The pro-rights folks have taken in over $490,000 to the repeal folks' $220,000. Cash on hand runs $276,000 to $19,000.

The largest contributors are:

SUPPORTERS OF THE LAW

• $60,000 - Human Rights Campaign, Washington, D.C.
• $25,000 - National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, Washington, D.C.
• $7,000 - Diane Sammer, Harpswell
• $5,000 - Maine Education Association, Augusta

OPPONENTS OF THE LAW

• $20,000 - Christian Action League (affiliated with the Christian Civic League of Maine in Augusta)
• $10,000 - Linda Bean Folkers, Falmouth
• $10,000 - Christian Civic League of Maine (two $5,000 contributions)
• $5,479 - TABOR (taxpayer bill of rights). Largest of several gifts from the Garland-based group seeking referendum to cap government spending.

Even before each side filed its figures yesterday afternoon, the whining started. Paul Madore of the Maine Grassroots Coalition (spin-off of the Christian Civics League) squeaked out with a claim that his money was from Mainers, not out-of-staters.

Ornery Henry

Lest we let our pride of parish blind us, we need to be aware that other First World countries have their own hateful clerics. Our local bishops aside, ours tend to fundamental Protestants.

Canada has its share of yippers and yappers who won't stop chewing on the bone of homosexuals and same-sex marriage. The purest example of the intolerant and irrational may be Calgary's Roman Catholic Bishop Fred Henry.

He is adamantly and incessantly anti-gay, anti-gay rights and most certainly anti-same-sex marriage, law or not. He is a publicity hound, who publishes widely and will not pass a dais without leaping behind it to orate.

Among his many public pronouncements are:

• Same-sex marriage will "usher in an era of intolerance and discrimination the likes of which we have rarely seen before." His main point is that bigoted speech may be prosecuted.
• "It's about the children, stupid!" Same-sex marriage makes "children's rights secondary to adults." He contends that "stable and exclusive homosexual coupling is the exception rather than the norm." (This link is a PDF.)
• The hidden agenda — "Contrary to what is normally alleged, the primary goals in seeking legalization of same-sex 'marriage' are not financial or health benefits associated with marriage; nor are the goals the search for stability and exclusivity in a homosexual relationship. The principal objective in seeking same-sex 'marriage' is not really even about rights."
• Democracy should be a moral weapon. "The denial of the social and legal status of marriage to same-sex couples is not discrimination. It is not something opposed to justice; on the contrary, justice requires such an opposition. The goal is to acquire a powerful psychological weapon to change society's rejection of homosexual activity and lifestyle into gradual, even if reluctant, acceptance."
  

He also is more than happy to use sacraments as weapons, such as denying any politician who votes incorrectly communion. For example, as to Prime Minister Paul Martin, Henry said:

Yes, I would refuse him Communion. I felt in conscience that I had to write a pastoral letter to my people in which I explained that his position was morally inconsistent and incoherent and that there was no way in which he could claim to be a good practicing Catholic and at the same time espouse this pushing of the same-sex union legislation and his position on abortion.

So, it's his way or the road to hell. Hmmm, think, think, think.

By the bye, Martin's home-parish priest, Rev. John Walsh, in Quebec disagrees and offers the PM communion. "We can't use the eucharist as a time...to judge a person's conscience by refusing them communion," he said on CJAD radio.

Progressive Op-Eds

Glory be. Stupidity may be forever, but ignorance is very easy to fix.

We were totally unaware until this morning of a great resource that runs progressive op-ed pieces on very current topics. OpEd News is a link here now.

They have 40-plus regular contributions and make great pinko reading.

The Hairy Palms of Deceit

Good politics, good insight and good prose too seldom coincide. They do in Gay Marriage - The New Willy Horton. It is simultaneously a well-reasoned argument, replete with great talking points and precise definition of issues, and a superbly written tale.

The poster is Texas-based John M. Kelley, "a teacher, philosopher, writer, artist, political activist, singer of ballads, rebellious Irishman and agent for change who worries daily about the world he is leaving for his grandchildren. His blog is at www.mytown.ca/johnkelley."

He sets out the differences between marriage as civil contract and as religious ritual. Then, he notes that "the unique history of getting a license from the state and then going through a ceremony with a minister blurs the two acts into one in the minds of most people and makes it an issue for exploitation."

He predicts that on same-sex marriage, the Republican exploitation will rain long and hard, much like the Willie Horton lies used against presidential candidate Mike Dukakis. Or as the very literary Mr. Kelley put it:

A friend of mine recently related a story he had heard about shell game operators in the 1800’s. They would glue hair in the palm of their hands. Then as they moved the shells and slid the pea from one to the other they would frequently show the palms of their hands. The mark would be so caught up in the sight of the distracting hair in the operator’s hand it would insure they would lose track of the pea and of course forfeit their money.

The decision of the Massachusetts Court, the Supreme Court ruling striking down sodomy laws and the public’s lack of understanding of the issue has given the Republicans the hairy hand issue they can exploit in each upcoming election. They think they can galvanize and get out the vote of the religious right and split Democrats to insure the reelection of Republicans and gain offices at every level.

One of his conclusions is that, as in 1988 with Willy Horton, Republicans are not driven by their bigotry, race then and homophobia now. Instead, "it is just an issue that they can exploit to divide the country over fears born of ignorance." As back then, they can distract the nation from their party's failings and the discomfort, despair, fear and poverty that their policies have introduced and exacerbated.

Mr. Kelley is harsh, honest and insightful.

MRW Watching for Us

There is another good post at MassResistanceWatch. He does a great job of commenting, particularly considering he is largely stuck reacting to the Dark Side's posts.

Check out What's My Line? The fracture between the far right and the far, far right on gay-rights and same-sex marriage leads to links to sample lame sermons in current use on the subjects.

These folk must live in fetid terraria of their own muddled and soiled making. Read `em and laugh...or weep.

Romney on Fundies

Yes, Mitt Romney warned against fundamentalists. No, he did not mention George Bush the Lesser.

The North Carolina press pretty much ignored his visit. That's a warning sign, Captain Brylcreem, when the news- hungry local rags in early primary areas tire of you before the race really starts. You had better eat some grits and shoot a small animal or two on the next visit.

However, one of our own news-hungry local rags, the Globe, found a snippet to hang his Raleigh speech on — warnings of theocracy. Granted, it was a throwaway line, but it makes good copy out of the same tedious campaign bragging.

There was the Cap'n, claiming that he did such a good job with the Massachusetts economy (not to mention cleaning up the Olympics) that he was the only sensible candidate for POTUS. The money card played well to his audience at the Foundation for NC Future, basically rich, white Republicans. As unbelievable and callous as it might seem, the old boys billed the Romney speech as a call. As they put it, "We must reduce our burdensome corporate and individual tax rates to stimulate our economy." In other words, give them even more money that they will keep, because, well, just because.

Our brave Cap'n told this noble group that Islamic terrorists want to "bring down our government" and "put in place a huge theocracy." The Globe reporters wrote:

"We're under attack, as you know, militarily," Romney told about 150 people gathered at an exclusive Raleigh country club. "They're not just intent on blowing up a little bomb here and there at a shopping mall, awful as that would be. They want to bring down our government, bring down our entire economy. They want to put in place a huge theocracy."

"Thank heavens we have a president of the United States who recognizes this for what it is and has declared war on it, and thank heavens we have a military that consists of the strongest and bravest and most able men and women in the world," Romney said.

So, what the Cap'n did not add was that our POTUS wants to legislate narrow religious tenets into our constitution and laws. At first glance, that would seem to steam toward theocracy of a kind this liberty-loving nation has never seen nor wanted. Surely, he can explain this mess to me.

Discord in Concord

As a follow-up to New Hampshire's marriage commission spitting on the electorate, Concord Monitor columnist Katy Burns makes us look subtle.

In her thoughts on Senator Jack Barnes' preventing any discussion of the issues, she includes:

Why bother with actually thinking about this stuff, opined Barnes, when you can just recommend a constitutional amendment against gay marriage as a cure-all? And willy-nilly, that's just what a commission majority -"idiots," was Rep. Stretch Kennedy's delicate term for them - did this week.

Barnes, the prime mover behind the sudden call for an amendment, was cynically candid in a Union Leader interview about his motivation. "It is important . . . to get the issue moving," he said, so that the people of New Hampshire "will know how their senators and representatives have voted . . . before elections next fall." In other words, let's turn a non-issue into something that can be used to bash legislators who might be reluctant to use the state constitution as a vehicle for petty discrimination.

And there is more. Top to bottom, it is a good read. We suspect this theme will reappear and haunt the high-handed senator. Happy Halloween, Jack.

New Hampshire Big Foot Trouble

The heavy boot of intolerance tromped in New Hampshire last week. The governor is irritated and the people throughout the state whose testimony went down the toilet have only begun to be heard from on this.

After 35 hours of public hearings around the state, the commission studying all aspects of marriage and civil unions met to discuss and conclude. Instead, Republican commissioner Senator James Barnes queered the process. He immediately foreclosed any discussion with a motion. He called for a single recommendation, a one-man/one-woman constitutional amendment.

That follows parliamentary rules. It also short-circuits the half-year democratic process in a state where people care very much about being listened to politically.

The Republican-dominated commission begrudgingly passed the motion. Much unhappiness will continue to follow. You can catch the initial responses in a New Hampshire Public Radio report.

Governor John Lynch is not happy either. He opposes same-sex marriage, but he is apparently much more politically savvy than Barnes. As he phrased it:

There is no need to amend our constitution to do what is already set in law. Our time is better spent focusing on the real challenges facing New Hampshire and working to unite people, not divide them.

The vast majority of the legislature had eagerly awaited the chance to speechify and posture about their particular positions on civil unions and same-sex marriage.

From Nutmeg to Not Me State

Connecticut town clerks waited for the civil-union rush for licenses. They are still waiting.

On the October 1st legalization of same-sex unions, numerous offices opened on the Saturday to accommodate the pent demand. The peak was three, at each Danbury and Newton. Some offices had none.

The Danbury News-Time reported that couples who did show were excited and happy.

It remains to be seen how many of the same-sex couples are holding out for actual marriage.

Church Muscle?

In the Northern Hemisphere, at least, the Roman Catholic hierarchy plays at dramatic irony with enthusiasm. For those of us not raised to shield our knuckles from the nuns' rulers and not knowing when to kneel, such disparity is disconcerting.

Very Catholic states here, and countries to the north and in Europe seem filled with communicants who do not take any of the theater too seriously. Spain beat Canada to same-sex marriage. Italians use their birth control and have their mistresses. Even in Boston, being excluded from communion and threats of hell do not force politicians to act obediently.

Diversion: One self-described secular Catholic we know offers the historical and sociological view of the conflict, inside the church and related to Protestants. For example:

The secular Catholic is heir to the healthy tradition of anti-clercialism, which deftly draws a line between the spiritual aspirations of the laity, and the political aspirations of the clergy in general and the hierarchy in particular. The anti-clerical finds the former as admirable as the latter is despicable.

In terms of current politics, outsiders might imagine that half of the two million Massachusetts Catholics would have rushed to obey their Pope and Archbishop. They would have crammed the churches to sign the odious petition to rescind same-sex marriage in 2008. Yet, in their big weekend push, they managed to get 10K, maybe 20K from the churches to bolster what the paid folk were bringing in.

So, we are left wondering what is the role and influence of the Roman Catholic Church in this? We know that Benedict XVI has a horse in this race, but the laity seems rather indifferent. Apparently the WWII generation Catholics are cheering and obeying, but little else is obvious.

Most Baby Boomers grew up inculcated with ideas of freedom and liberty and fairness that our parents provided. Even discovering that they often did not live these principles themselves has not deterred us. By and large, we are an idealistic generation, who do not buy into ministerial malice.

Polls say that we find any church trying to legislate its morality for all of us unAmerican and offensive. They also report that those now in their teens and twenties do not share their grandparents' homophobia and are much more laissez faire about personal behavior. As long as you are not hurting someone else, you are cool.

Interestingly enough the Gen-X and Gen-Y crews self-report that they are much more attune to the Christian and Jewish teachings than their grandparents. One thinks of the Talmud —— If a thing is hateful to you, do not do it to another. That is all the law. The rest is commentary.

So, where does a heavily creedal religion fit in such a world? As the WWII generation disappears, what political power can a Catholic church wield in the First World?

Certainly if the European nations are indicative, there will be much head nodding and "Yes. Yes." followed by ignoring the orders and pleas of the hierarchy.

That makes for great theater. The script is clear and complete. The few actors speak their lines clearly and with both authority and emotion. The audience is distracted, chatting and snacking.

We can assume a diminishing authority and influence in the Northern half of the world. Among the Third World, among those of color, among the poor, perhaps the politics of infallibility and fiat have a chance to prosper.

Those are areas where the Catholic Church would certainly have the opportunity and need to feed the hungry, heal the sick, and house the homeless. That is all goodness.

Elsewhere, for such a massive church to separate itself from the realities and needs of its parishioners is madness.

More Petition Bait and Switch

The South Shore newspapers carry more on the professional signature gatherers' tactics. In Brockton, supermarket petition mendicants have been getting some of their commissions through trickery.

With the abetting by the Roman Catholic hierarchy here, one would suppose lying to voters to flesh out the petitions should not be necessary. Of course, all but the most naive know that like so many ballot initiatives, this is not a people's drive in any manner. A special-interest group is paying $1 per signature.

Let us meditate briefly on the ethics of commission-only salesmen. Time's up.

In Brockton, for one example, Melissa Medairos signed a petition to permit beer and wine sales in supermarkets. Then the guy with the clipboard asked her to sign another underneath in case they lost the first one.

Now, she is kicking herself for not dislodging the sheet and seeing what it said. It turns out that she signed the petition to put the 2008 initiative on the ballot to rescind same-sex marriages.

In a hurry, pushing a laden cart, inspired by appeals to democracy (and saving an extra trip if she wanted a bottle of wine), she signed it.

The Elections Commission will strike her name from the list when it appears. That, of course, does not ensure that the many who were tricked and do not know it will find out in time to remedy the situation.

Medairos said, "I don't think anyone who is a registered voter or a taxpayer should be lied to." Perhaps she skips the politican ads and debates.

Regardless, she is not a gay activist, but she seems to reflect the attitude of most voters here that same-sex marriage is a right now. "I have a gay uncle and if he wants to marry a man, it doesn't affect my life," she said. "What people want to do is their own life."

Solemnization Poaching

Sodden, yes. Moldy, no.

Dinner last night on Mass Ave near Porter Square was wet to and from. My massive bald spot needed the protection of the hat I had not brought. The cold needling of rain was antipodean to walking barefoot on small stones. Hairy headed people cannot know those prickly shocks.

Yet, one of New England's advantages was hidden even here on the second day of unrelenting drizzle. We seldom mold. That fungal periphery in Beaufort, in Savannah, in Tampa means walls, towels, appliances alike waft decomposition, plus those damned and sudden spots of mold. Hot and wet is quite different from cold and wet.

And Massachusetts marriage? Yes, indeed, it was a brief visitor at dinner.

We met our long-term chums. They were visiting from Mexico. So we could certainly slosh to Cambridge for dinner. We have known them for nearly 20 years, when he was the interim minister at a church whose board I chaired. They are sterling examples of being aged but not feeble of mind or body. They go. They do.

How and why is it that so many Gen-X and Gen-Y guys seem so old and so inert? Let's put that down to attitude and habit.

As we chatted over dinner, marriage did come up in a few ways. He long ago stopped counting the marriages he sanctified in seven decades of ministry. In contrast, because of the peculiar laws of Massachusetts, I have solemnized two marriages. Armed with my one-day designation of solemnization certificates, I signed those marriage licenses and those weddings remain as legal as though Governor Mitt Romney or Archbishop Sean O'Malley (both legally empowered to do so here, also) had done the deeds.

Hearing that I had done one, then a second marriage, my own minister has taken to referring to me as Reverend.

So there is that underlying, understandable spark from the friction, even if expressed comically. From the establishment of the colony here, our laws define marriage in Massachusetts as a civil ceremony. For many years, a minister's presence at or blessing of a wedding had no effect other than an emotional one. The town registration of the marriage certificate, signed by a permitted solemnizer makes the marriage legal.

Despite clerical folklore and popular culture, the minister or other religious official is not necessary. In fact, a substantial majority of marriages here are strictly civil, not in any form of church.

So, there we were at an Indian restaurant, each of the four of us with a different lamb dish. We are all talkers and got to marriage a few time. Eat, talk, drink, talk, eat again.

The real minister did mention that my blessing marriages without so much as a mail-order minister's certificate didn't seem legal. I ran down the wonderful singularity of Massachusetts' one-day marrier process.

He muttered something about that taking away business from ministers. Perhaps that might be a threat if the law permitted more than one per calendar year per solemnizer.

I confess both of mine were not so secular as playing town clerk or even justice of the peace. I believe it was minister for the day. I recommend it.

Dusty Discrimination Debate

"Nothing in [that ruling] says that our officials can discriminate simply because officials in other states discriminate," GLAD attorney Michele Granda told the Supreme Judicial Court here yesterday. She came down on the side of fairness and civil rights in arguing against forbidding out-of-state same-sex couples to marry here.

Eight such couples have sued for the right to marry. Shortly after such marriages started here, Attorney General Tom Reilly dragged out a 1913 anti-miscegenation-based law forbidding couples to wed if those marriages would not be legal in their home states. The AP has the basics here.

Our governor, Mitt Romney, wins the speciousness award with his previous comment on the matter —— that he did not want Massachusetts to become "the Las Vegas of same-sex marriage." His wig's on too tight.

The unfortunate deputy attorney Generalarguingg for the state, Peter Sacks, had the sorry job of pretending that enforcing the law was not discriminatory. He even denied its racial background, and in response to a question from the court's black judge.

You can check out the flimsy garment of argument from Sacks' side in the lead Boston Herald editorial today. It includes a Sacks quote about the commonwealth having a "legitimate interest in ensuring that the couple's marital status will be recognized and those marital rights and duties will be definitely andpromptery enforceable." Of course, the nation's legal tradition of states extending full faith and credit to each others' laws is supposed to do that. We can no more ensure the honor and respect of another state than we can write their laws.

Meanwhile, the decision should come down within four months.

The Curious Emile Goguen: Yet Again

If you can believe the incredible MassNews site, the ever risible Rep. Emile Goguen is at it again and still. It makes us regret that we have neither a Don Quixote section nor comics pages in this blog.

The latest is that our Fitchburger will pay for "airplane banners, radio ads and similar strategies" to convince the public to recall the four Supreme Judicial Court judges who ruled same-sex marriage legal here. He also expects to convince the judges to resign now, in a panic that they will lose their big pensions if they don't yield to his will.

Yeah, that'll work.

If you are not aware, MassNews regularly runs paranoid pieces on the evils of the owners and editors of the New York Times and Boston Globe. In fact, its recent piece on Goguen quotes him as, "The Boston Globe will no longer be able to censor us. We will get our message out to the citizens."

Also, if you have time and the stomach, browse the site. There are numerous articles claiming to know the thoughts and feelings of Judge Margaret Marshall, the Times' owners and others. The blending of buckets of fantasy and emotion with snippets of fact is astonishing.

The Goguen piece is part of the larger, long-running claim that the judges will be ousted next week. For a flavor, consider the site banner, reading:

---

8 Days Until Vote on Firing SJC Judges
The promise from Speaker DiMasi to permit a vote on firing the four SJC judges who illegally imposed homosexual "“marriage"” on this state will take place before Oct. 14, 2005, according to the Speaker, who has promised to hold a fair vote with adequate notice to all. Citizens are urged to start calling their state Representative and Senator immediately.

---

Let's check back in nine days and see how they spin it.

End Run in New Hampshire

In Nam-Sure, a sudden, clever move by a Republican panel member put a one-man/one-woman conclusion on a commission study of marriage. The AP has coverage here or here.

The New Hampshire commission was established by law a year and a half ago. It was charged to "study all aspects of same sex civil marriage and the legal equivalents thereof, whether referred to as civil unions, domestic partnerships, or otherwise." It has held public hearings around the state since this past April.

While the commissioners were hemming and hawing yesterday in their meeting, Republican Senator James Barnes popped up a motion recommending a constitutional amendment defining marriage in the state as between a man and a woman only. The commission had to vote on it and it passed seven to four with two abstaining and two absent. It was almost a straight party vote, Republicans in favor.

That's the way the parliamentary cookie crumbles. Rules are rules.

Barnes said, "Everybody's dancing around it. I thought I'd bring it to a head."

The move leaves ill feelings, as many commissioners were not ready to conclude discussions and wanted to cover more ground, including same-sex marriage. One spongy comment was from Democrat Raymond Buckley. He said, "To jump right to the support of a constitutional amendment...one certainly thinks that perhaps politics played a large part in this vote."

Ya think so, Ray?

That kind of squishy attitude could certainly account for getting run over.

The aftermath:

• If the recommendation becomes a bill, it needs three approvals.
• The House and Senate must pass it by three-fifth majority in each chamber.
• Voters would have to approve it by two-thirds majority.

Barnes does not expect this to happen by the 2006 election.

Another Long Solemnization Wait

Getting my first one-day designation of solemnization to perform a wedding in Massachusetts took the better part of a month. Finding out how many other solemnizers are out there may take longer.

Our Secretary of State, William Francis Galvin, has streamlined the process. His office added Web-based applications, for example. However, I have been unable to find either:

1. The number of requests annually in the past five years, from the governor's office, which accepts those
2. The number of certificates issued annually in the past five years, from Galvin's office, which processes those

Email to both go no response.

In Galvin's office, I was routed to eight people. The prepenultimate said that only the governor's office would provide that. The penultimate sent me to the head of public records. I left a voice mail for her on September 23rd, to which she has not replied.

Calling Mitt Romney's office, I went through four people and was sent back to Galvin. I did not bite this time and called Romney's office again. Then, I ended up with an eager newbie who tried unsuccessfully.

She called up the databae and said it was not built in a way that would query for the number of solemnization certificates requested per year. She was sure that those were in there, but did not know how to get them out.

The story at Galvin's office was similar. Yes, they were in charge of the commonwealth's public records and yes those would be public records, but no, no one had those data.

At the end of the morning of the 23rd, I drafted a request letter to Galvin's office. I wait.

Spain: Get Over It!

Much like other countries that have legalized same-sex marriage, those in Spain continue to poll that they are getting on with their lives. They would like the anti-gay and other reactionary forces to do the same.

In the latest poll, a little under 30% would like the right-wing party to try to overturn this civil right. Over twice as many would not.

The conservative Popular Party lost its long-term grip on the government in April last year. It had hoped to use this as a wedge issue. Unfortunately for the PP, numbers continue to go the wrong way.

The recent poll by Instituto Opina (site in Spanish, of course) was of 1,000 Spaniards on October first. The margin for error was 3.1%.

The question and results were:

The Popular Party (PP) has presented a legal recourse that seeks to ban same-sex marriage. Do you think this is a positive or a negative development?

Positive	29.9%
Negative	60.0%
Not sure	7.9%
No reply	2.2%

PP leader Mariano Rajoy had very similar tactics to some U.S. conservatives. He had civil unions in his platform, but played the religious card. "This is not about removing anyone’s rights, but it is a different thing when these unions are defined as marriages," he said.

Petition Fraud (Again) Gets a Peek

Do not expect much to come of it, but the Joint Committee on Election Laws will hold a hearing on the many cases of fraud by the paid petition gatherers for the 2008 anti-same-sex-marriage initiative. The hearing date is October 18th.

Enough complaints have bubbled up to committee chairs Senator Edward Augustus Jr. and Representative Anthony Petruccelli to prompt the hearing. They both support same-sex marriage.

Note: If you want to keep tabs on the fraud effort and check to see whether someone put your name on such a petition without telling you, click over to Know Thy Neighbor.

We expect that there will be enough signatures, even after the hearing and disqualifications. The number (under 66,000) is pretty low. Nonetheless, folks should be aware of the tactics used by the paid-per-signature gatherers and the fact that the Vote On Marriage people need to use professionals for what they call a people's petition.

Articles on the hearing appear in both the Globe and the Herald. The former has much beefier content.

The Attorney General's office has gotten over a dozen complaints. None would justify prosecution to date. You would have to behave pretty egregiously to face charges.

A typical complaint is that the gatherer use bait and switch. They have clipboards with several petitions. They ask people to sign an initiative to allow supermarket sales of beer and wine. They cover up the top of the anti-same-sex marriage one and trick people into signing it instead or also.

Some of the gatherers seem to have the ethics of itinerant magazine salesman. They are paid commissions and will do virtually anything to get their cut.

The Massachusetts Food Association is sponsoring the beer-and-wine petition. President Christopher P. Flynn said his group had also received complaints.

The Massachusetts Family Institute hired Arno Political Consultants to gather signatures. While similar complaints occur wherever such techniques are in use, MFI President Kris Mineau claims problems are rare.

Because individual signatures would be subject to challenge and because out-of-state funds are helping finance this effort, it is extremely unlikely that either the hearing or the challenges will have much effect.

The campaign director for MassEquality, Marty Rouse, laments the assaults on democracy anyway. "Our opponents promised a citizen-driven, grass-roots campaign," he told the Globe. "Instead we find the biggest far-right group in the nation raising money to pay signature gatherers who have come from out of state."

That's not a crime, just hypocrisy.

Out-of-Staters Get Hearing Thursday

Tomorrow, Attorney General Tom Reilly gets to play the weasel again. His office has to try to defend his denial of marriage licenses to out-of-state same-sex couples. He invoked a 1913 anti-interracial law still on the books to claim this authority.

GLAD's attorney arguing the case, Michele Granda said, "The state is doing exactly what Goodridge said it can not do...denying marriage to these same-sex couples simply because they are same-sex couples."

In a report in 365Gay, Superior Court Judge Carol Ball upheld the 1913 law. However:

In her ruling, Ball said she was "troubled" by the state's decision to suddenly begin enforcing the law after gay marriage became legal in Massachusetts. But she said the law was being equally applied and was not discriminatory because the state has a reason to ensure that marriages approved in Massachusetts are valid in other states.

GLAD has a four-pronged attack for the appeal:

• Goodridge is the law: The Goodridge opinion recognized that the equality and liberty protections of the state constitution prevent the state from barring same-sex couples from marriage simply because they are same-sex couples. Goodridge thus trumps 1913, which is being used by the state to do exactly what Goodridge said the state could not do.
• Discriminatory intent: Before May 17, 2004, the Commonwealth never took any action to bar non-residents from marrying who could not marry in their home states. Governor Mitt Romney revived the 1913 law expressly because of his opposition to the marriages of same-sex couples.
• Privileges and immunities clause of the U.S. Constitution: This clause ensures that a citizen of another state who travels to Massachusetts wonÂ’t be treated unfairly simply because they live somewhere else. The application of 1913 violates this clause.
• 1913 does not apply to all states and territories: The Commonwealth ignores the technical terms of the 1913 law in order to prevent all same-sex couples from throughout the country from marrying here. The 1913 law itself only applies to a subset of states that declare the marriages of same-sex couples to be void

Clerics for the Greater Good

Well, not all local priests have lost the memory of Old and New Testament teachings. Examples are in today's Eileen McNamara column. She finds and quotes priests who are using their persuasion to care for the poor and needy instead of playing sexual-orientation politics.

As well as Jewish and Protestant clerics, she cites Brother Jack Rathschmidt of Our Lady of Lourdes and Monsignor George Carlson of West Roxbury's Holy Name as supporting that other ballot initiative. While the four local bishops were coercing their priests and parishioners to sign the petition to rescind same-sex marriage, several priests were about the business of God. They encouraged the universal health care law, to help rather than harm.

Note: In case, you can't find your Bible at the moment, numerous Net sites have references to the admonitions to help the needy and poor. You can start here. You would be hard pressed to find anything even remotely similar with even a single mention about gay unions. Not helping the poor and needy is an abomination to God, and a primary requirement for priests.

As Brother Jack put it:

For us, this is a no-brainer; 30 or 40 percent of the people we serve are without health insurance. They might go to an emergency room in a crisis, but they go without preventive care. For reasons that I don't fully understand, the church has not jumped in as aggressively on this issue as on some others.

Likewise, Monsignor Carlson said supporting such help for the needy is "one of the non-negotiables of our faith: to reach out to the needy. I don't see this as a political issue but as a moral question. "

So there you have it. Would Archbishop Sean O'Malley fail to urge support for this initiative so as not to dilute the power of pushing to legislate his beliefs on marriage? He cannot pretend now that ballot initiatives are not his church's business.

This is the church's business, all churches that we know of, in fact. Where is the leadership on helping the needy and poor?

Get Your Sophistry, Right Here in the Globe!

Wherever you stand on gay rights and same-sex marriage, get a mug of strong caffeinated beverage and pick up today's Boston Globe. Attorney and conservative columnist Jeff Jacoby collects and displays the now stereotypical specious arguments for anti-civil-rights ballot initiatives.

Of course, he pours these into a template about same-sex marriage, but go beyond that. His column clearly illustrates the mob-rule aspects of the current scatter-shot legislative weapon of choice.

You have heard it from Arnold Schwarzenegger in defending his veto of the same-sex marriage law his legislature passed, both houses, both parties. Californians had voted five years ago in a ballot initiative to restrict gay marriage. The people had spoken.

To Arnie, if the courts override such a vote, that's one thing. It's quite another if the elected representatives of those same voters after a full consideration (and not just an emotional rush to vote) legalize such unions.

Hence, writes Jacoby, the problem here. The legislators let one such effort to head off same-sex marriage die rather than vote on it. The courts legalized (yes, they have that power) it. Now that the mean-spirited anti-gay forces are trying after one failure to sneak in a different form of ban, Jacoby and others of his ilk would have people believe that the liberal majority of legislators are denying the will of the people.

Well, as in California, the will of the people is represented by constitution in the General Court. The elected legislators are responsible for passing sound, reasoned laws, not emotional whims.

The safety valve of ballot initiatives is there for righting wrongs of corrupt legislatures in extreme cases. Instead, they have become more commonly the tool of special interest groups.

Most odiously, they allow majority or dominant interests to prevent minorities from sharing in their rights or in this recent case in trying to strip existing rights from a class of citizen. Today, Jacoby calls this democracy. A far more accurate term would be mob rule.

Whether it was men not wanting to share power with women, whites with blacks, native born Americans with naturalized citizens, or any other empowered group, which of them wants to cede its superiority? Put in the emotional, us-versus-them terms, why would the haves give to the have-nots?

As we see on both coasts, it is time to refine ballot initiatives to limit the mob-rule aspect.

Jacoby's conclusion today includes:

And it is no answer to say that gay and lesbian marriage is a matter of civil rights, and no one's civil rights should be put to a vote. Whether same-sex marriage should be thought of as a civil right is precisely the question to be decided. The way to decide it fairly is to decide it democratically.

Eyewash! The way it is decided democratically is through representative government. Can I get an amen?

Maura Can Sting Again

In case you thought the Sox game was more important than WBGH's debate between Mayor Tom Menino and his challenger in next month's election, Councilor Maura Hennigan, you can score it yourself.

WGBH's PR department sent out the following rebroadcast sked:

• Sunday, October 9 at 2 p.m. and 7 p.m. on WGBH World (Comcast 209)
• Monday, October 10 at 7 p.m. on WGBH 2
• Monday, October 10 at 11 p.m. on WGBH World
• Tuesday, October 11 at midnight on WGBH 2 (late Monday night, early Tuesday morning)
• Tuesday, October 11 at 5 a.m. and 11 a.m. on WGBH World
• Tuesday, November 1 at 7 p.m. on WGBH 2

It is also available as a Webcast or Podcast at: www.wgbh.org/greaterboston. Also, you can listen to it on WGBH Forum Network as a Webcast.

I must say, they are all over this. Tommy won't debate a second time, but the Great Blue Hills folks are making the best of what they have.

Our take was that Maura did a fair job, but had no knockout punch. We also thought that while she harped on his 12 years in the office, even after her 24 year term in office, she does not have a great vision backed by specific enough proposals to make voters switch.

Sig Watch Blessed

After an initial flurry of huffy criticism from anti-gay groups and assorted rightist extremists, Know They Neighbor got a form of government acceptance yesterday. According to KTN, an assistant attorney general wants to leverage any findings of fraud in signature gathering it uncovers.

Note: The KTN link describes how you can check to see whether your name has gone on a petition without your knowledge.

Apparently in reaction to previous instances of professional signature gatherers padding their per-sig commission and other fraud, the AG's office has a procedure this time.

All fraud allegations go to to a newly appointed civil investigator, Nicholas Paras. His office will examine all such claims from any source.

His procedures are:

1. Immediately contact your Local Town/City Clerk or Registrar. You will have to appear in person with the proper identification. This must be the clerk for the town in which you are a registered voter.
2. Request that your name be removed from the petition. Document your request and ask if the actual petition that you signed has yet been presented to the Town Clerk. The timing of this request MUST be as near the time of signing as possible as the Town/City Clerk needs to stop the signed copy before it is verified and entered on the log. Attorney Sacks explained that the Town/City Clerks should understand this responsibility.
3. Document everything, including the reason why you believe that your name should be removed, whether or not your City/Town Clerk was able to delete your name, and if your City/Town Clerk was helpful or not responsive. Copy this information for yourself and send documentation to:

              Nicholas Paras, Civil Investigator
              McCormack Building
              One Ashburton Place
              Boston, MA 02108
              (617) 727-2200 x2883

Churches and Lobbying

As mean-spirited and anti-liberty as church officials' efforts to pass anti-same-sex-marriage law are, they will not necessarily get a church into tax or other legal trouble. While parishioners may find lobbying offensive and unAmerican, the IRS cuts clerics much more slack.

A recap of the rules appears in HTML here. The gist of it is that churches and their officials absolutely may not campaign for a candidate, but they have to do a ton of legislative promotion and lobbying to pay taxes or lose their 501(c)(3) exemption.

The rules hold true for any charitable organization exempted from taxes under 501(c)(3). The odd twist in Massachusetts for the current lobbying by bishops and priests to strip same-sex couples of the right to marry is that the local Roman Catholic Church already has a lobbying arm, the Massachusetts Catholic Conference, which does not have the same exemption and can shill and shout as much as it wants.

However, Archibishop Sean O'Malley's decision to pressure the bishops and priests to pressure the parishioners to sign petitions at mass also is lobbying too. So, how is it those allegedly concerned with religion may play pulpit politics?

The IRS has that covered with its code. A church (and its bureaucrats) must run afoul of the definition that it "attempts to influence legislation constitute a substantial part of its overall acivities." This is a typical IRS rule, in that it is pretty spongy and if the feds came after a church, it would be in the position of trying to prove a negative, or as the code puts it "determined on the basis of all the pertinent facts and circumstances in each case." In other words, it would be an audit of activities and expenses.

Churches don't get to choose the other yardstick, the expenditure test. They and private foundations have to go with the substantial-part one. For other charitable organizations, they can simply show how much of their budget went to lobbying and compare it with the published guidelines. For example, a large organization with a yearly budget over $1.5 million could devote $225,000 plus 5% of the excess over $1.5 million.

Again, churches have to be able to prove that they are primarily in the business of souls, not influencing legislation...if they gain IRS scrutiny, or (hardy, har) turn themselves in for breaking the rules.

In practice, a church judged to have done excessive lobbying in a year can lose that year's tax exemption and have to pay 5% of its lobbying expenditures in taxes. Also, the top managers, clerics or otherwise, who approved the lobbying may have to pay an additional 5%.

Even that wouldn't be onerous. It might not play well with those whose money went into the collection baskets and plates though.

Ballot initiatives and constitutional amendments fit in the lobbying category. The specific rules include:

An organization will be regarded as attempting to influence legislation if it contacts, or urges the public to contact, members or employees of a legislative body for the purpose of proposing, supporting, or opposing legislation, or if the organization advocates the adoption or rejection of legislation.

Organizations may, however, involve themselves in issues of public policy without the activity being considered as lobbying. For example, organizations may conduct educational meetings, prepare and distribute educational materials, or otherwise consider public policy issues in an educational manner without jeopardizing their tax-exempt status.

So, the short of it, as much as some people may not like the current lobbying, is that the RC Church is not likely to exceed its latitude. Yet losing the good will (and contributions) of communicants because of such activities is another matter.

Half-Way to Infamy

The Vote on Marriage folk claim that the combined total of church and paid gatherer signatures are almost half-way to the minimum needed. That is better than the quarter to third of the original estimates from Catholics alone after the one-day pew plea.

No one expects a problem in getting 66,000 valid signatures. However, it appeared that Archbishop Sean O'Malley has taken this personally and wants to show Catholic muscle.

To many in and out of his church, it seem odd and coercive to use the petitions from the pulpit. The effort is to put personal belief and faith into law, simultaneously affecting all citizens and taking existing rights away from a class of fellow citizens.

This may be very instructive to voters and citizens of the half of the states that permit ballot initiatives. Permitting the rights of any minority to be decided by plebiscite rather than legislation or courts is dangerous antithetical to American liberties.

As a nation, we have had a couple of chances to learn this civics lesson. The ballot-initiatives here, in Maine and elsewhere underscore this problem of people wanting to punish those of whom they do not approve or like.

One of the more cynical comments comes from former civil libertarian and ex-Boston mayor Ray Flynn. He said that church officials have an obligation to "speak out on important issues in the civic arena." Then he added, "The marriage petition is not against gays but for children. We believe that a loving family with a mother and a father is the best environment for children to be brought up in."

Right, Raybo. We can leave the children in orphanages...keep kids in homes with abusive parents...disdain the thousands of gay-led families with happy, healthy kids. Let's pretend that everything will be swell if there one mom and one dad in the building.

Civil Contracts v. Church

Will it come down to reality v. meme? The same-sex-marriage debate here seems often to center on marriage law versus perceived tradition.

It is the scio versus cognito knowledge, the real and verifiable versus the felt sense. Apparently in this case, more of the latter comes from clerics than from Granny and Aunt Ida.

We ran across that over a year ago when speaking with the head priest at a large Boston church. He held forth about the role and influence of the church in marriage here from colonial times. He was very sure and very wrong. Yet, I don't think there was any malice or attempt to deceive. He simply said what he had been taught at home, parochial school and church. It was ignorance as folklore.

Likewise, so many ordinary folk who oppose same-sex marriage here, in particular, believe:

• That Jesus instituted marriage as we know it
• That for thousands of years, marriage has been codified as one man and one woman
• That the marriage laws of Massachusetts are based in religion instead of civil contracts

Those are all quite wrong, but they remain deeply held beliefs by many.

Detailing how plastic and evolving marriage has been both long-term and in the past century does little to convince those who were taught differently. Discussions of how the traditional marriage was a polygamous one, a man (including our Biblical patriarchs) had as many wives and mistresses as he could afford, will bring howls of denial. Details of how in colonial life and more than a century of nationhood, men owned their wives and were not the idealized partners many claim God created fall to the ground when presented to those who would believe otherwise.

There may be no compromise here. If the deep emotional basis, the faith, for these recent beliefs does not yield to facts or reason, does not even listen to them, the division will surely remain.

Poison Pens to Petitions

The rushes from Saturday and Sunday masses seem acceptable, but not breathtaking. The four Massachusetts Roman Catholic bishops told their priests to have anti-same-sex-marriage petitions circulated at those masses.

Other than the Boston papers, there was not much press this morning. However, as one might expect, some churches had protestors outside. Some parishioners stayed away. Others eagerly signed.

Analytically, we can consider the possible and probable. In theory, with over 2 million communicants, the Church should have whipped out that necessary 66,000 signatures (about 3% of their members) is a flash. They did not. The anti-folk say the combined total from sidewalk and church together is about one third of what they need.

With such a low bar for signatures and for legislators (one-fourth of the General Court), no one expects the initiative drive to fall short. They are doing respectably so far.

However, the anti side having to hire professional signature gatherers and take their plea directly to area Catholics is both damning and amusing. This people's petition, as they are wont to call it, must be bought and coerced. Yet, that is legally permissible.

As to the Catholics, we must adjust for their realities. First, nothing like 2 million attend mass on a given weekend. Like Protestants and Jews, many attend services a few times a year. Also, some will have stayed away because they disagree with the aim or the method of this effort.

While Archbishop Sean O'Malley may have wanted to show some political muscle this weekend, if he gathered 10,000 or so, that's not a bad showing. Unfortunately for the cause, it was not a slam dunk. There was no ground swell rushing to the pews to bring down gay marriage. He, Mass Family Institute and Catholic Citizenship will have to spin that.

Both the Globe and Herald reports quote older parishioners. Some signed to get it on the ballot, others as one said to the Herald said to "Put it on the ballot and let the people outlaw it."

That is unscientific polling, but it fits well with what professional pollsters and political analysts are reporting. When the WWII/Korean War generation dies out, the Gen-X and Gen-Y folk will manifest their support for same-sex marriage, among other social liberalisms. It is the Baby Boomers who are fretting about what to do. They tend to mirror their local cultures.

On the religious side, a telling exchange appears in the Globe:

Most times, it seemed, the demonstrators found the parishioners less than receptive to their message. When Baarsvik told one woman entering the cathedral, "Marriage is a civil law," she spun around and replied, "No, it's not. It's instituted by Christ."

That sort of confusion seems widespread. Without a theocracy, we deal with laws made by humans for humans. Neither Jesus nor Benedict XVI nor Sean O'Malley drew up the colonial or commonwealth laws and regulations governing marriage here. As the expression goes, thank God.

Shameful Sean Sunday

Twisting the loving teachings of Jesus for personal, economic or political gain is nothing new. Local Archbishop Sean O'Malley is raw in today's version, which he and anti-gay groups call Protect Marriage Sunday.

The lead editorial in today's Boston Globe calls him on it, for all the good that will do. Parishioners who see it for what it is will not only not sign, but they have yet another reason to question to wisdom, sincerity and Christianity of their increasingly politicized bishops.

As far as we are concerned in this blog, a key point that threads throughout the editorial is that marriage in this commonwealth is a civil contract. Most marriages here have zero religious component. The current effort to introduce a Christian aspect in law spits on our history of religious freedom and has no basis in current law.

The anti-SSM and anti-gay forces who scream, "Let the people decide!," hate the comparison to our anti-interracial laws. They like to pretend that this is not a civil-rights issue.

Yet, as the editorial notes:

Opponents of marriage equality often complain that gay marriage in Massachusetts was driven by a slim 4-3 decision of the Supreme Judicial Court. In 1948, a California high court ruled that laws banning interracial marriage were unconstitutional -- also by a 4-3 margin. Opponents say ''the people" should decide whether to approve gay marriage, and national polls show that somewhere between 55 and 60 percent are now in opposition. In 1948, nearly 70 percent opposed interracial marriage, and it took another 19 years before the US Supreme Court affirmed the California case. Yet few today would argue that prohibiting adults of different races from marrying would be anything other than discriminatory.

It also points out what other trends were going to destroy marriage, according to fundies and other regressive types. That includes contraception, interracial marriage, and women being allowed to inherit and to have their own credit. Each was sure to redefine marriage in a bad way and each would in fact be the end of marriage as we know it. Hooey then and hooey now.

And there you have it. O'Malley has secularized every parish in Massachusetts today for politics, disrimination and hate. He doesn't have to wait to die to go to limbo.

Pig Pile on Plame Penman

The bile that numerous pundits and bloggers spew at New York Times reporter Judith Miller remains a meme. It is reminiscent of the disdain and vitriol heaped on Hillary Clinton.

A few things we know about Miller:

• She was a willing tool of the White House in spreading weapons-of-mass-destruction in Iraq lies
• In researching for the Times, she heard from a White House source who told her about CIA agent Valerie Wilson (a.k.a. Valerie Plame)
• She never published the story
• She was one of several reporters ordered to testify about such matters before a grand jury
• A couple of others, including a Time Magazine one, complained a little about the First Amendment and protecting sources, but sang
• She claimed that she had a deal with the source and would not testify
• The grand jury's judge jailed her for contempt
• After 85 days, she got a direct call from the source, iterating that he freely gave her permission to testify
• She did testify, after getting assurance from the prosecutor that he would limit his questions to the areas about that source and what he told her

Now the same newspaper, magazine, right-wing radio talkers and even some bloggers are on her butt. Previously they said she was just protecting herself and was never concerned about journalistic and First-Amendment issues. Now they agree with the lawyer for the source (VP Dick Chaney's chief aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby) that the blanket waiver he signed a year ago was all she would have needed to have testified and avoided jail.

Well, she was scum about WMD and making kissy-face with the White House. Yet, these have absolutely nothing to do with the matter at hand.

It seems all too clear from her willingness to let herself be tossed into jail and from her consistent clarity about what it would take for her to testify that at least she felt:

1. That the waiver from Scooter was too vague and did not free her of her obligation
2. That the long-time protect-the-source rule that journalists abide by overruled personal considerations
3. That the prosecutor needed to prove that he would not go on a fishing expedition that compromised other Miller sources

The Times coverage of what each side's lawyers says happened appeared today here. If you are determined to slander her, you can certainly pick the White House and Scooter's lawyers' side. Given that Scooter knew, as we all did, what Miller's position was on not having permission to testify, his waiting nearly three months to verify it with her makes his and his lawyers' comments on the matter highly suspect. Besides, I would as soon trust a roadkill burger than take the self-serving word of Dick Chaney's minion.

As a former reporter, I still despise her for her WMD tricks, but I certainly understand that the rules of the game of reporting come before expediency. Those who feel that everything should be thrown at Chaney, Rove, Bush, and now Scooter screamed for Miller to give it all up in that effort.

That would certainly be a very short-term gain for a long-term loss.

Like the proverbial slut with the heart of gold, this one seems to have some integrity under all that privileged veneer. As unprotected as bloggers are and as much as we claim that we expose ideas and news that would otherwise be invisible, we should be the last to call for a compromise in newsgathering.

Each of us could use some Lois Lane in our attitude.

Washington Post Postscript: Today's Media Notes column in the WaPo carries a roundup (mostly negative) of journalists' and a politican or two's reactions to the whole mess. Professional jealousy is evident, but folks are also divided on whether this will encourage feds harrying writers or encourage a real shield law.

O'Malley Blinks

We now have an answer to whether there is a limit to the arrogance of Archbishop Sean O'Malley. It's pretty specific — when he gets called for treating kids like political shills, he'll back off.

The Pope may take instruction from God, O'Malley from the Pope, local bishops from O'Malley, and (most) parish priests from the bishops. On the other hand, the imps of public opinion can nudge even someone with a miter and scepter.

In case you missed it, look at an earlier post. O'Malley and his cohort group told Roman Catholic schools to give all students petitions for the anti-same-sex-marriage ballot initiative. This was on top of instructing all parish priests to support the petition drive by holding them in the churches, appoint parishioners as signature gatherers, and read a strong request that everybody sign up.

As for making the kids take home petitions, only the eager toadies in Fall River immediately implemented this ploy. The school officials there called it part of a civics project. (I wonder whether they would have tried to justify child prostitution as an economics exercise. Nah, not even if O'Malley ordered that.)

Ever on the lookout for sensationalism and scandal, the Boston Herald ran the initial discovery and today got to crow about the publicity making the diocese and its lobbying arm scramble "to distance themselves from a controversial effort to empoy children in an anti-gay-marriage petiton drive." As O'Malley's spokesman Terrence Donilon put it, students "will not and should not be asked to bring home the marriage petition. We made a decision here that we needed to take the message directly to parishioners, parents and people of voting age, and not include schools."

The tabloid also found a psychotherapist, who is a Catholic and the project coordinator for Roman Catholics for the Freedom to Marry. As you might suppose, his latter group is neither anti-gay in Benedict XVI's mold nor as obeisant as the bishops. That Charles Martel said, "It's one thing for adults to make a decision about this issue, but to involve children as a conduit for this type of information is completely inappropriate and a terrible use of education."

We need to watch for what Catholic Citizenship pulls next. Their executive director, Larry Cirignano, apparently got O'Malley to endorse this disgrace, a blessing that appeared in the archiocese newspaper, The Pilot. Saying that Cirignano practices situation ethics is probably the kindest reference we could make.

O'Malley seems to want vert badkt to deliver the faithful, or least their names on paper. You have to wonder what else he is going to pull and what has already slipped by the the Herald has not uncovered.