N.J. Man Behind the Curtain

Seems like a lot of anti-marriage-equality folk in Jersey are in concert -- and a lather -- following the beginning of civil unions there. Seems is the operative word, because it may be so much crap.

There are no original interviews here, but the thin facade of the Garden State anti folk is heartening. It turns out that the logorrheically self-titled New Jersey Coalition to Preserve & Protect Marriage is highly inflated balloon of an organization. Pop it and there are a couple of much smaller toys inside.

You couldn't click among Web pages or flip an article on N.J. unions without reading a quote from John Tomicki (the seemingly autopsy-ready fellow in the cropped AP pic right). The problem is that his personal and professional presence is as pale as his face. Where does he come from, who pays him, and what the devil is that coalition?

Greed Notice: The New York Times citations are all behind their for-pay wall. You can cough up per piece or if you are a subscriber, you can enroll in Times Select and get 100 articles a month from the archive. Either way, at the top of the NYT site, search for Tomicki to get the links and similar ones.

You can look real hard to find a mailing address for the coalition. It does not have a Website and Tomicki's résumé is not floating in the ether either.

As it turns out, those listed in the coalition must prefer it that way. At least some of the group apparently pay Tomicki to lobby for anti-gay and anti-SSM causes. Otherwise, this is so much dryer lint. Despite repeated claims of representing tens of thousands of Jerseyites, the facade coalition is nothing for legislators to fear or even take seriously.

From the looks of it, a couple of those listed as members of this coalition are small, but real and are almost certainly Tomicki's patrons. The others are just that much air in the balloon.

It can be hard to sort them. They use Mad Libs-style, mix-and-match names chosen from a small list. The seven are:

• New Jersey Family Policy Council
• American Family Association
• New Jersey Coalition for Traditional Marriage (apparently a shell)
• League of American Families (apparently a shell)
• Council on the American Family (seems to have an informal branch [perhaps in a private home for office] with an umbrella organization link]
• Constitution Party (does not appear to exist formally in New Jersey, but there is a struggling umbrella organization)
• Kingdom Life Ministries (not to be confused with the dozen or so other churches and organizations using this name; this one has a nearly empty site with no documents or sermons; the related active one-pastor, largely prison-based, part-time ministry preaches such delights as speaking in tongues and a pending lake of fire for sinners)

However, several of the endorsing organizations may have more power, at least to chip in if necessary to keep Tomicki talking. These are:

• New Jersey Faith Alliance
• Focus on the Family
• Alliance Defense Fund
• Family Research Council

So, Tomicki appears to bump elbows with the big kids, but stalks the N.J. legislature halls alone. At the least and for the present, wingers with bucks probably take his calls and throw him some crumbs.

Tomicki has a long record of losing sooner or later. Not only did the legislature pass civil unions under his watch and over his efforts, he backed losing conservative gubernatorial candidates repeatedly and even failed to keep the state from mandating sex education in public schools.

You have to wonder whether the likes of Focus on the Family's James Dobson will continue to take Tomicki's calls...particularly if they figure he is asking for money.

Descriptions of and comments from Tomicki in various NYT articles help put some mortar on the coalition's facade. The lead on his support for the to-fail campaign of Republican gubernatorial candidate Bret Schundler is, "John Tomicki, a lobbyist for conservative social causes, usually shuffles through the corridors of the State House with a stooped gait and a resigned smirk on his face, the product of too many legislative and political disappointments over the years." (June 24,2001, In Schundler, A Rallying Cry for the Right.) It adds to his description with "(he is) essentially a freelance operator here, but has the ear of right-leaning state lawmakers..."

That appears to be the key epithet. He seems to have built a recent career of rousing the right-wing voters and their related small organizations with focused lobbying efforts. He'll figuratively stitch an emblem from one of those organizations he creates on his latest hat. He names himself executive director of the group. Then, poof, he represents everyone associated in any way with the cause or even vaguely related groups.

Nice trick, if it works.

Consider over 20 years ago, his effort to stop the state Family Life sex-ed mandate. "One of the leaders of the opposition, John Tomicki of Ringwood, associate director of the New Jersey Coalition of Concerned Parents, said that the Family Life mandate 'tramples on parental rights' and that sex education belonged in the home.," (NYT, December 11, 1983, Family Life Belies Its Beginnings).

He lost that one.

He apparently also is no big fan of the personal responsibility side of the Thoreau or Gandhi protest stuff. He was one who thought that free-speech trumped risk of punishment for civil disobedience. If God's with you, you should have free get-out-of-jail passes.

After sit-ins at abortion clinics, he said, "There has been an increased police and judicial heavy-handedness." he said. "We see it in the free speech area, and we see it in the sit-in, demonstration area." There is no doubt, he continued, that the access law "had a chilling effect on civil disobedience" in front of clinics, he said. "If he same rules had applied to civil rights sit-ins at lunch counters, on buses, people would probably still be in jail today." (NYT, June 3, 2001, Arrest Me, Please (But Jail? No Thanks); Rediscovering the Price of Protest.)

That particularly offensive set of comments seems to show both ignorance of history and disrespect for the thousands who risked health and life as well as jail -- willingly -- to secure rights for themselves and all of us. Facts? Wingers have little need for facts.

For another example, consider his currently circulating petition promoting a one-man/one-woman amendment to the state constitution. It leads and follows through with, if you pardon the expression, liberal use of distortions, lies and clichés.

It reads:

Whereas, social science research irrefutably supports the fact that God-ordained marriage, between only one man and one woman, is the time-tested foundation of a strong society, providing the best environment, on average, for the raising of children, thus benefiting society as a whole; and,

Whereas, for more than a decade same-sex “marriage” proponents have actively worked to radically change and redefine marriage by demanding that all barriers to the number, age, and gender of partners participating in marriage be removed; and,

Whereas, marriage is threatened by judiciaries in other states, such as in Massachusetts where the Supreme Judicial Court ruled in early 2004 that same sex couples have a constitutional right to marry; and,

Whereas, we already have evidence that marriage is threatened here in New Jersey with the lawsuit of seven same sex couples suing the state for the right to redefine the definition of marriage, and in so doing, seeking to reverse the lower NJ Superior Court ruling which had earlier stated that there is no statutory constitutional right for same sex couples to marry;

I, therefore, as a member of the Clergy in the State of New Jersey, support the goal of preserving and protecting the institution of marriage, as being between only one man and one woman, and request our legislators to do the same.

So there you have it. This tripe may be Tomicki's best argument. From his opening words, his deceit rolled in the dung. He held up threats to opposite-sex marriage, defamed the Bay State, and threw in pedophilia and polygamy. I wonder how he missed bestiality.

Is this stooped and sallow old fellow fighting his last failing campaign? It looks that way...and the Garden State will smell better for it.

---

Tags: massmarrier, New Jersey, same sex marriage, civil unions, Tomicki

A Kiss...Get Over It!

The New York Times is rarely more than a year or two behind trends. Today's Sunday Styles lead on public displays of affection by homosexual couples proves that and something else -- when they get around to discussing a trend, they do a good job.

Greed Notice: In a week, the NYT link will require subscriber access or a fee. Boo.

A major point is that we Americans still have emotional problems seeing gay men or lesbians touching each other, even non-sexually. When it comes to a public kiss, oldsters, even Baby Boomers, are likely to go, "Eeew."

At its extreme, it can be much worse, even in Manhattan. "But people are still verbally harassed and physically attacked daily for engaging in simple displays of affection in public," said Clarence Patton of the New York City Gay and Lesbian Anti-Violence Project. "Everything changes the minute we kiss.”

It is no secret that we as a nation are known widely, particularly in Europe, as prudes about a wide range of sexual and sensual practices. We do have the pale excuse of living where most citizens do not routinely hold hands or kiss cheeks as greetings.

Yet, that doesn't cover the hooha over what fundamentally should be of no concern to anyone. A few repressive nations outlaw public display of affection (PDA), including some that may imprison the habitually lip locked. Nearly all disapprove both by law and by custom of couples of any sexual orientation groping each other or engaging in foreplay openly.

Yet, the I-like-you or I-love-you kiss may have to wait for wider legalization of same-sex marriage and homosexual civil unions for us to get beyond or national priggishness.

Back to the thrilling days of my youth, I recall when I was dating in the 1960s, that the WWII types felt free to literally yell at any of us -- straight couples -- who dared kiss or neck in public. The associated words were indecent, disgusting, and immoral.

While most Americans have gone beyond that, many of the early Boomers who witnessed or suffered that kind of bluenose behavior are among those still appalled by homosexual PDA. The same sweet kiss, thigh touch, or hand holding that brings the "Aw" for a hetero couple can produce that "Eew" for the gay one.

Already polls of the Gen-Y folk show a so-what attitude and the Gen-X is mixed. As with SSM, we may have to wait until my cohort group is out of the way to get beyond this silliness.

Meanwhile, the creeping openness of homosexual couples is coupling with entertainment showing a hug or kiss as normal behavior will help. (Why do we always have to ride in the social conventions caboose?).

As we wait, consider:

• Brazil atwitter and coming to a halt for two guys kissing on TV.
• Two guys kissing on camera at at D.C. hockey game (mostly applause and cheers), but it was news.
• Security at a Mexican luxury hotel roughing up two men and tossing them in the street without their luggage for a peck, without lip contact.
• Flooded ABC message boards protesting a kiss on Desperate Housewives.
• In Indonesia, a comedy film showing a gay couple kissing is a huge hit, although some in the audience come to jeer.
• Of course, the Snickers accidental lip touch.
  

It goes on an on, even beyond our borders. Yet, we likely will be another decade before gay PDA is as acceptable as hetero. It is understandable where you fear getting slapped around that you would hesitate to hug.

Yet, this is one of those incremental improvements. As more homosexual couples mirror the PDA behavior of their heterosexual counterparts, the eeew factor fades toward aw. It's about time.

---

Tags: massmarrier, kiss, public display

Garden State, Gonad Short

They try in Jersey, but on same-sex marriage they continue to fail in courage. Most recently, State Attorney General Stuart Rabner formally declared yesterday that he'll have no civilly united homosexual couples calling themselves married.

The New York Times story didn't say whether he made a face when he said that.

The AP version in the Trentonian reports some more gutless blathering from the AG. First, he claims that the state will recognize marriages from Massachusetts, Canada and other places that permit SSM. They'll have the same legal rights and benefits according to the state as married couples. However, in his opinion to the N.J. state Department of Health and Senior Services (which as of Monday, will register civil unions), the couples definitely may not use the title married.

WTF?

So, this isn't Wyoming, that may declare a couple married in Massachusetts unmarried there, but it leans that way. According to the piece in the Trentonian, there is likely to be a suit in the matter, said Steven Goldstein, the executive director of Garden State Equality.

For praise of the AG's clarification, Lambda Legal's Director of Marriage Law Project David S. Buckel offered, "In the nick of time before next week, the attorney general has given peace of mind to a lot of families.'' On the other hand, the state ACLU's legal director, Ed Barocas, said, ''New Jersey should not be in the business of stripping individuals and couples of rights they already lawfully obtained."

Meanwhile, the anti-gay/anti--SSM forces have not given up. You might file that away for the next time you hear one of them saying that if the legislator votes, if the people "speak" on a ballot initiative or the like that they'll accept it. Quadruple B.S.!

The New Jersey Family Policy Council and the amorphous New Jersey Coalition to Preserve and Protect Marriage (is a a one-man group for John Tomicki?) have announced a drive to get an amendment on November's ballot to define marriage as limited to one man/one woman.

Amusingly, New Jersey is in that half of states blissfully free of the onus of ballot initiatives, which have become some badly abused in recent decades. So, the anti-gay folk intend to kind of make up a ballot initiative for this purpose. They are informally gathering signatures with the hope that the timorous legislators will be cowed into introducing this themselves.

Hey, given the lawmakers' milquetoast actions in the past year, it is tempting to figure you can make them dance to any nasty tune.

Back on planet Earth, the regional paper, the Courier-News reports that the Garden State has Massachusetts-style poll figures if not SSM. "A Rutgers-Eagleton poll released last October, at the height of the debate over civil unions and gay marriage, found that by a margin of 53 percent to 39 percent, New Jerseyans opposed amending the state Constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman."

Goldstein's reaction to this clumsy attempt at discrimination said, "If anything, the momentum of the state is going entirely in the other direction towards marriage equality. There's not going to be a ban."

---

Tags: massmarrier, New Jersey, same sex marriage, civil unions

My Very Own Free, Plastic CharlieCard

Mild Warning: Second off-topic post in a row. It must be the cold.

As much as it distresses me, I have to admit that I am unable to rant against the T for the short term. I went to Forest Hills a few days ago looking for a specific kind of trouble, knowing full well that I would find it, but the T folk foiled me.

I avoided heeling like a trained animal when they announced that new plastic CharlieCards would be available in limited places on limited days in early December. Arf. Please, Daddy, let me have this treat!

Because I still had value on a couple of CharlieTickets, I had no immediate need.

The T has pretty much screwed with me enough. There's the irregular non-schedules, outages, less service for more money, ignoring the results of public hearings, and its choice of what appears to be the very worst fare-card system in the world. So, I bike or walk, and depending on whether I can get cheap or free parking by time of day and on how many people are going, justify a short car tip downtown.

I am too wimpy to bike in wind chills below zero. Also, if I can't see the truck or bus drivesr, I figure they can't see me either. So, I don't bike ina slicker in pouring rain or sleet. Then, lo and woe, I was down to a single CharlieTicket with $5 on it, which rode in my credit-card case through the washer and then twice through the drier. I knew that those fragile decrementing papers are hydrophobic.

When I headed to Forest Hills, I ended up unable to justify self-righteousness, on this one matter at least. Foiled. I got the damned card without significant word or angst.

Of course, in keeping with its long and deep tradition of inefficiency, the T installed millions of dollars of new fare equipment, with no provision for dispensing the essential cards. Amusingly enough, in T-speak, their page on the cards cheerfully brags about their beneficence -- On December 4, 2006, we began giving away free, plastic CharlieCards.

Okay, let's consider for a moment that this is the one thing you need personally to make their lives easier, to spend money on their fares, and to operate their new hardware and software efficiently. So, we should be grateful that they "give" us the cards? Harrumph.

My trepidation came from the line about where the cards would be available:

• At T sales offices: Back Bay, Downtown Crossing, Harvard, North Station and South Station.

Knowing the T since the 1960s, I figured you had to pay the $2 rate to get to one of these sales offices, at an inconvenient time, for a free, plastic CharlieCard.

Well, instead, they got me, in a good way. All I had to do was ask at the large information booth they just built in the lobby of the station. There, T ambassadors were eagerly awaiting to serve me.

Not really. In typical T fashion, the booth is user hostile, surrounded with Plexiglas and with sliding clear doors and a tiny sound opening, to minimize the ability to communicate in either direction. Then, when I asked, there was a long pause during which the three idle ambassadors (T-speak for old employees not ready to retire, apparently) stared at me open mouthed. I couldn't tell if they head or understood me, but my hopes soared when I was a small stack of what appeared to be CharlieCards on the counter inside the information fort.

After close to a minute with no sound or movement or even chatter amongst them, the oldest, most bent over ambassador, resplendent in T uniform, hobbled out. I didn't see a card and he said nothing, but he headed toward the fare machines 40 feet or say away. He made it, and I figured my best shot was to follow him.

He was crooked enough that his head was right at the screen level of the fare machine. Perhaps years of speaking into those booth holes and twisting down to push tokens through the slot is like osteoporosis.

Regardless of my demented thoughts, when we were together, he pulled a CharlieCard from his jacket pocket and handed it to me. I must say I've had better instructors, but we got the job done.

He had clearly been through the training, by script. He asked how much I wanted to put on the card and even though I said $20 and had one of those bills in hand, he ran through the options on the screen. Then when I pushed the on-screen space for $20, the display read to put the money in, which I did.

Aware that these cards are proximity devices and work best when brought near but not touching the sensors, I was curious about his next instructions. Sure enough, my ambassador continued by script telling me to "tap the card."

Instead, while he repeated that phrase several times, I brought the card to about 2 inches from the black lighted circle. The machine beeped and I was set.

Mildly goofing on my ambassador, I asked whether the right way to use the card was to bring it near the black circles on the fare machines and the readers into the trains. He'd have none of it. He agreed and disagreed -- "Yes. Tap it."

So in T-speak, "tap" has a non-dictionary definition.

Unlike the D.C. Metro and the NYC subways, we have added a true Boston layer on this process. We have the nation's oldest subway (sure looks and acts like it too), and we have made using it as convoluted as possible.

---

Tags: massmarrier, Massachusetts, Boston, MBTA, CharlieCard

Post-Storm Visitors

Flocking, fluttering wrens, the bully jays, cuneiform-tailed magpies and a few plump tits showed no fear of me this morning.

The crusty, frigid and just nasty residue of yesterday's storm -- glory be that NStar didn't fail us again -- filled the rhododendrons below, the beech above and the forsythia beyond with eager patrons of the feeder. Proof of their hunger to get energy to heat themselves came when I pounded on the window.

Many stayed put while I loosened the storm window to get to the feeder. The sleet had coated the outside and made a gelid epoxy. I ended up with a huge screwdriver as a wedge and a rubber mallet to operate the slides on the window.

As you might suppose, the roundest patrons were first to the feeder and were hovering within reach as I closed the window.

Other regular visitors did not risk life, limb or lemon to gather deposit bottles. These modern gleaners are extras on the urban stage. The old man who arrives after dark, driving what my grandfather would have called a flivver, is part of the night shift. He is considerate and quiet at his task. If I am putting recycling at the curb when he comes, I greet him and he responds, but nothing more.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but that is a small kindness we can do, one that costs us very little. As with Ruth and Naomi, such gleaning can be significant to those who must do it.

Woe to those who tell me they resent the bottle gatherers. We place our deposit bottles in separate bags for the ease of our evening visitor. If he passes with $1 from us, a quarter elsewhere and another $1 down the block, it is the preponderance of the small -- negligible to us and together meaningful to him.

On this nasty morning, it doesn't hurt anything to hold back the deposit-bottle bags for a week.

The best side-effect of this is that when we take the little care required for our visitors, we often think of other small favors to do.

---

Tags: massmarrier, Boston, storm, bird feeder, gleaners

Buying Mooninites with B.S. Bucks

Like a drunk snorting himself awake every once and awhile, the great Boston-Pee-in-Our-Pants Party won't stop. It seems longer than two weeks ago that a couple dozen advertising boards laid our beautiful burg low -- and with it our fantasies of sophistication.

Now Slate's Explainer by Kathryn Lewis piles it on. She further humiliates us by answering, "Did Boston's Bomb Scare Really Cost a Million Bucks?" The short answer is that this is a B.S. figure, inflated to overstate the importance and short-term, to massage our egos. In the real world, it keeps us down there with other hick towns with pretensions of worldliness.

More specifically, the bribes that stopped our mayor from stomping his loafers were rounded up -- way up several times -- by nearly everyone. That seemed at least temporarily to add a touch of gravitas to our stumble or at least tone down the world's snickering at our expense.

It seems the commonwealth's attorney general asked the eight affected agencies or departments for their best estimates of likely extra costs. Results included:

• The state police were absurd, providing an impossibly round $200,000. That's a SWAG for sure.
• The highway department seemed to have been reasonable and honest, at $13,157.
• The total of Boston, Somerville, Cambridge and the agencies was $578,766.

So, how did we get from that suspect total to $1 million costs plus a $1 million blackmail tribute? As the Explainer puts it, "...the attorney general's agreement with Turner included another $421,234 in 'additional restitution funds,' divided proportionally among the claimants. That conveniently put the total value of the prank at $1 million even. (Turner's payment included another $1 million in 'goodwill' money for the Department of Homeland Security.)"

Even our otherwise savvy new governor and his attorney general got sucked into this vortex of pretense. Gov. Deval Patrick stuffily declared this was "not funny." AG Martha Coakley failed this first real test even worse. She doesn't seem to realize she's in the big time now.

She doing what she used to with street criminals, holding a hard line and exaggerating the charges against these two guys, expecting to dicker down to something more reasonable. Yet, by maintaining her position that she would charge them with "placing a hoax device" when everyone agrees that she can never, ever prove intent, she looks like quite an alarmist and pretty unprofessional. She should look around and notice that she is in the State House not a courthouse.

We avoid talking about this topic over the dinner table and at bars. We hope not to hear any more. Shame on Slate for harshing our mellow.

Here, all of our huffing and puffing and all of our self-righteous attempts to justify our being crippled by our overreaction to these devices don't cut it. The other cities that handled this with sangfroid and in ways that gave their citizens faith in their ability to deal with threats are still chuckling. So is much of the world press.

Starting with our mayor, we put our fingers in our ears. We don't hear you!

---

Tags: massmarrier, Boston, hoax, homeland security, overreaction

Foolish is Right, Hutcherson

Bigoted Bible-thumping Ken Hutcherson (pic from The Stranger) is way behind on the cycle. He is afraid a new ballot initiative in his Washington State might make his anti-gay/anti-same-sex marriage folk "look foolish."

He is several years late on that and, wowzers, he doesn't need any outside help.

The Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance has turned Hutcherson's rhetoric on him. Its I-957 wants gay-baiters and gay-haters to face their hypocrisy. Those who have screamed for years that the purpose of marriage is procreation have used a homosexual couple's inability to reproduce without some help as proof that they should not marry.

Of course, a large minority of opposite-sex couples cannot or choose not to procreate. Many do as same-sex couple do, like adopt or artificially inseminate.

The initiative would nullify any marriage in the state if the couple does not reproduce within three years. Consider it a call to reason or a parody, but it puts the lie to the absurd anti-SSM argument.

Even Rev. Hutcherson is not so dull that he doesn't realize the potential power of this. Focus on the Family reports on his reaction. "They want to put it on the front burner about how 'narrow-minded' Christians are. If they can get this and get some Christians to back this up, then they can really make us look foolish."

No duh, Kenny-poo.

Inherent in that is another of his oversights. He conflates his anti-gay group with all self-identified Christians. Quite a few are on the other side of Jesus, the loving and accepting side.

Ken's side doesn't expect the thinly staffed initiative to get enough signatures -- 224,880 signatures by the beginning of July -- for the ballot. However, just the idea gave him a chance to switch from Bible thumping to chest thumping.

"I'm going to see how it rides down in (the state capital) Olympia," he said. "If it gets any legs to it, then I'm going to chop the legs off."

---

Tags: massmarrier, ballot initiatives, Washington State, same-sex marriage, WA-DOMA, Ken Hutcherson

Cirignano False Witnesses?

Fourth-hand tip coming up.

• IndyMedia received shots of at least two people taping, which they have online.
• The third level comes from Pie and Coffee coverage and link.

So at least two of those civic stalwarts at December's Worcester demonstration likely filmed the incident that led to the charges of Larry Cirignano attacking a protester. It makes one wonder, in their six-week investigation, did the Worcester police locate the camera operators and their video? More to the point, with absurd accusations that the victim somehow planned getting shoved from behind and pushed to the ground, will these people's God let them bear false witness on this?

...even worse, what if one or both of them realized what they had and destroyed evidence? They might justify it to themselves, but there must be a special place in their Hell for such actions.

I can't wait for the hearing and either plea bargain or trial.

---

Tags: massmarrier, Massachusetts, same-sex marriage, Catholic Citizenship, Cirignano, Pie and Coffee, IndyMedia

Mad Dad: Quirk of Court

Dick Cheney's leering portrait is not the only idiosyncrasy in the Moakley Courthouse on South Boston's waterfront. Chimeral expectations of impartial justice aside, the personalities of key players in court assuredly weigh heavily to one side or another.

A first visit to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts revealed a stark and sterile building. This accentuated the powerful role of the personalities of the judge and lawyers.

This was the first federal hearing for the Mad Dad case. Thus, the plaintiffs and defendants did not speak. Rather, they spoke only through previous filings and the interpretations of attorneys.

Background link: All of the filings are available at the anti-gay/anti-same-sex marriage Massresistance site, under the Federal Civil Rights Lawsuit column.

On center stage then were:

• The bright, affable and egotistic judge.
• The button-down, stammering, Beacon Hill defense lawyer.
• The hyperactive complainants' attorney, whose firm calls him "no-hold barred trial lawyer."

This is not some they-said-but-they-said accident suit. Instead, the plaintiffs allege straightforward violations of federal protections in the first and fourth amendments to the U.S. Constitution. For jimmies on this judicial cone, they also allege violation of commonwealth law Chapter 71: Section 32A, requiring prior parental notification of sex-education in public schools.

So, from your high-school civic lessons, you'd suppose this would be clear. Plaintiffs accuse defendants, set out the facts, cite how these acts were illegal, and specify their damages and expected relief. Defendants would similarly cop to the mistakes, or set out their own facts and try to convince the judge that they are either blameless or caused no damage.

Well, then those messy and naughty humans get in the way.

Funky Locale

Like Legos gone wild, the courthouse at Fan Pier makes a strong architectural statement -- at least if you are one of the few who can see it from a boat or plane. From the business side, catercorner from the Barking Crab, it could be another nondescript suburban office park or a modern version of the old New England woolen factory.

This is a good place to send old security guards. Even with a full docket, the traffic is pretty low. The stereotypical night-court thugs are not part of there. White collar criminals and high-ranking Mafiosi may do awful things, but not in that building.

There's a two-tier electronics-club membership here. Check all electronics at the front, unless you carry a Massachusetts Bar card, in which case you can keep your cell phone, turned to vibrate or off. Then jolly older men barely glance at your license and a credit card for ID. The metal detector is set so low that it didn't pick up on two metal fountain pens in a jacket pocket.

That's when you can see Leering Dick. Trot around the corner from the entry toward the coffee shop and there he is. Two pay-phone stalls are under his sneering gaze, gold-framed Dick Cheney looking, just looking. It would have to be a very important call for me to make it under his portrait's view. Creepy.

After reviewing the defendants' latest rebuttal and enjoying a Poland Springs seltzer -- three flavors to choose from in the coffee shop! -- I swung back to the entry to look at the clipboard with the docket. That was a wonderful Boston moment. If you have to ask, you don't really belong. I knew the judge was Mark Wolf and the case name. However, the schedule listed it as CA06-10751. We don't list no courtrooms or floors.

Speak of the Devil

Most hearings and trials appeared to happen on the fifth floor. I headed that way and went into an open elevator, which I shared with Brian Camenker (opens Ed Holmes video). I admit that I am not the publicity hound he is and that I got voyeuristic delight in realizing he did not know who tainted the shared air. We knew each other about 25 years ago as active Boston Computer Society members (I was member 274 and even then he would work anti-gay comments into geek meetings). We have since been at various political protests and meetings -- opposite sides, of course. It's apparently impossible to be observant when you are self-absorbed; what could be as interesting as yourself?

His appearance was not important. He definitely supports the plaintiffs, but he was not testifying. Yet, it was amusing to see his dishevelment. He was fairly a ragged teddy bear, with odd tufts of stuffing off his scalp. His black suit jacket perhaps used to cover his growing butt, but no longer does. His defining garment surely had to be the green-mucus colored V-necked sweater. All in all, it was a wonderfully comic impression.

Regardless, I was about to start a debate, but the elevators are amazingly quick and our only conversation ran along the lines of:

BC: Where are you going?
MM: Probably the same place you are...the Lexington case.
BC: Yeah.
BC: This is the craziest building.

He sprinted from the opening elevator and headed to the two clumps of folk, one in front of each of two neighboring courtrooms. The guard grunted affirmatively when I asked whether this was Chief Judge Wolf's courtroom.

Welcome to the 21st Century

The updated room has none of the grotto, netherworld heaviness and darkness of other Boston courts. The high ceilings, off-white walls and light-stained wooden benches are more like a new Unitarian church than a room where you would not be surprised to see stalactites hanging down.

Of the 40 or 50 already there, it was hard to see where the political boundaries were. The cartoon-like David and big-haired Tonia Parker were front right, joined by Camenker. I headed front left. That was dumb; I might have overheard some funny rants. Pity.

However, the gallery approximately doubled in the final 10 minutes before 2 p.m. Then the personalities of the three legal actors came into play. Discard that ideal of impartial justice and know that it is the all-too-human cast that injects knowledge, deceit, hyperbole and emotion into the decision making.

That's surprising, but not necessarily bad, particularly when the judge is as sharp as Wolf seems. There is no validation that he is any near as brilliant as he seems to consider himself. However, he is more than up to this case.

It is worth considering the obvious baggage the three players displayed Wednesday. That affects how quickly a decision will come, by what means, and the result.

Admittedly, I am pretty pink and come with my own political trappings. However, having reviewed and re-reviewed all the documents, the relevant cases and laws, and public statements by all concerned, I think this is pretty easy to settle. To wit:

• This has no business in a federal court.
• The primary claim that the timorous diversity lessons, including early-reader books that mentioned same-sex couples as one type, do not rise to anywhere near first-amendment violation of the parents' and kids' right to practice their religion.
• The attempt to say that exposing the kids to ideas such as classmates possibly having two moms or two dads is a violation of their privacy under the fourth amendment is even more absurd.
• The terrible burden the parents claim is in effect what all parents must or at least should deal with -- telling their kids when they disagree with something the tots hear in school.
• Finally, the laughable list of demands the parents would make on the school system to ensure that they kids never hear of anything they would not teach them is incompatible with public education.

So, were I Wolf, I would have no problem tossing this and scolding the devil out of the plaintiffs and their lawyers. The real resolution is for them to accept that they cannot control the curriculum of the public school, short of working for a more simpatico school board. They should do as all of us parents do and instill our values by words and actions, not some quixotic effort to prevent exposure to reality. If they are that bent by the reality in their community, they can school their kids privately or at home.

Then again, I am not in Wolf's seat and I have not doubt President Ronald Reagan would not have appointed me even if I were also a credentialed U.S. prosecutor.

Strutting and Fretting

So, what did the boys in the big room show on Wednesday?

First, Wolf is inordinately proud of various of his decisions that he thinks influenced U.S. constitutional rulings. He brought up three or four of his, at least one of which neither attorney seemed to be aware of, as they evinced by grabbing their pens and writing furiously. That also suggested that he intimidates them.

Wolf waved hard copies of a couple of cases and had others on his laptop screen at his bench. He quoted freely from them and savored some of his favorite phrases. Amusingly enough tough, while these mentioned the amendments or general rights in question, the cases seemed only secondary or tertiary in relation to the matters at hand. Both sides had already cited and discussed the rulings (none of them Wolf''s) that applied.

Defense attorney John J. Davis is clearly very serious and extremely knowledgeable. That does not automatically trump his opponent, Robert Sinsheimer, who is a veritable jack-in-the-box, fairly leaping to his feet inappropriately like the kid who finally knows the right answer and can't wait for the teacher to call on him.

At one point, Wolf even stopped to remark that he had dealt with Sinsheimer for two decades and that he had been unable to tame him -- "He can sit down. He just can't sit still." Wolf seemed amused and not annoyed.

Davis has a bit of a stammer when he gets ahead of himself. In interweaving citations and argument, he seems to not have the time to cram it all into his mouth. His speech pattern is not quite a stutter and is not severe enough to detract from his points.

Sinsheimer, on the other hand, is a showman. His filing in this case includes a series of unsupported and unsupportable assertions. In attempting to prove both rights violations and damages to his clients, he draws some unbelievable inferences and conclusions from the cases he cites. Exaggeration seems to give way to fantasy.

It was not until he declared that the plaintiffs were true victims that I realized that I was in the midst of the other side. Three women around me began rocking back and forth, stereotypical of those in mental institutions where I had volunteered as a teen. When he made particularly strong statements about parents having absolute rights to control what their children heard, the woman in front of me and the one to my right nodded with great vigor and muttered assent. That issue of being in charge strikes to the heart of this controversy. The authoritative personality leads with the emotional need for that certainly, tough in a world filled with ambiguity.

Back to the theme of the post, there is no law saying such filings must be accurate or honest. Sinsheimer's are certainly not. He is an advocate using every trick he can devise to go for a victory.

I would not have Wolf''s long and wide view of this. Even with his patience, Wolfe informed Sinsheimer early in his remarks that the rhetoric of the filings was not acceptable in the oral hearing. As he said it, "We do not allow baseless assertions."

Yet, Sinsheimer is not one to be held down. Where Davis was very well mannered and respectful, Sinsheimer would occasionally use loaded, condescending phrases. For example, when he did not agree with a strong statement from Wolf, he would say, "I am hoping that I assist the court," another way of saying, "Listen up, dummy."

While it seemed Wolf had plenty of information, argument and interpretation for a dismissal here. He kept flashing is inclination to do so. He spoke of "if" he dismissed the federal complaint what might happen with the state side of the case. He noted that same-sex marriage is the law of the land and not something the plaintiffs could reasonably shield their kids from having awareness. He also took Sinsheimer's phrase of "indoctrination" in reference to the diversity curricula and turned it. He said that all moral education could be called indoctrination, and that "preparing people for citizenship is one of the primary purposes of public education."

Coy Judge

I would have predicted sure dismissal without trial until Wolf's final, unsolicited remarks. He seemed intrigued by the argument that children as young as five were in question here. Despite the fact that the books in question were at their grade level, he mused aloud about their ages.

Fortunately, Davis provided copies of the three books discussed, which Wolf seemed eager to have and entered as exhibits. The judge also commented that he regretted not hearing from the plaintiffs and defendants in such a hearing setting. That brings up the possibility that he might let it go to trial to do so.

From this left-wing perspective, I think that the plaintiffs would do well to avoid letting such irrational sorts as the parents testify. It was more than likely enough to hear Sinsheimer claim straight-faced that the kids' having been exposed to even the concept that there is legal same-sex marriage in Massachusetts was "a form of propaganda specifically intended to wipe out their way of life."

To the humanity of the players, we wonder whether Wolf's curiosity demands a trial for satisfaction, regardless of how clear the case seems. Sinsheimer's enthusiastic sophism should not be able to convince even a judge with a moderately conservative tilt. Trying to co-opt these two key amendments for such trivial purposes should lose quickly. Of course, it should have earned a dismissal this week.

If this drags on, the main impetus is Wolf's desire to hunt big game -- constitutional issues that will add to his legacy. Even with his soft-spoken expertise, Davis seems much better suited to Wolf's style. Sinsheimer amuses, while Davis sways.

P.S. I think Wolf would be a good drinking buddy.

---

Tags: massmarrier, Massachusetts, same sex marriage, Lexington, public schools, parental notification

Mad Dad Hyperbole Fest

You had to be there, at the Mad Dad hearing in U.S. District Court Wednesday. Samuel Beckett or Eugène Ionesco could have scripted the worst of it.

For example, consider two statements spoken loudly and without laughing:

1. It’s a form of propaganda specifically intended to wipe out their way of life.
2. (This strikes at) the very, very, very core of their existence.

These call to mind the victims in shackles being beaten until they renounce their holy books and swear allegiance to a demonic being. Yet that actually describes a benign, even trivial, burden in legal terms placed on the plaintiffs.

Different Rules

The theater and irrationality of court can astonish. Civil proceedings are often stunning in the willing suspension of incredulity. Judges are particularly skilled at preventing themselves from guffawing and pounding the bench at attorneys' sometimes absurd postulates.

The hyperbolist and the afternoon's hands-down drama queen was plaintiff's lead attorney, Robert Sinsheimer. What he was describing in legalese was two Lexington families claiming an unbearable onus loaded on them and their children by the school system. Teachers had used three kiddy books in classes. Each in its own way showed that a family might have two dads or two moms. None advocated homosexuality or depicted body parts or sexuality in any way. The closest any got was with a picture book King & King, which ended in an implied, pending cartoon kiss (even this, hidden behind a Valentine's-style heart).

The judge as well as the rest of us may well ask what it is about the plaintiffs that they find state-regulated sex education here.

Rather that ridicule those absurd assertions, Chief Judge Mark L. Wolf did mention that same-sex marriage was the law of the land here as well as that the children in question would be in classes and perhaps socialize with peers with two moms or two dads.

The call to Wolf from the defendants in the school system was to dismiss both federal and state complaints. In ordinary argument, the plaintiffs would be laughed out of the room. Yet, Wolf will think about their written and oral arguments. He dearly loves being da man on constitutional issues.

Control Freaks

Back on planet Earth, the control-driven demands of the parents are risible to the point of tears. They want:

• Any mention of same-sex marriage or homosexuality to fall under the state's opt-0ut law for sex education.
• Their children removed from any class where even those words or ideas arise in any form, even spontaneously from other children (as in "my mommies").
• The right to come into any of their kids' classes any time to sit and monitor it.
• Notice in advance of any possibility that same-sex marriage might be mentioned.

The defendants' attorney, John J. Davis, noted, without squealing or making ludicrous exaggerations, that this effort to control the entire school system was unworkable. Specifically, assuming a child wanted to mention her same-sex parents, the teacher would have to stop all activity, get supervision for the class, remove the children whose parents fear reality, have another classroom with supervision to which to remove them, return and try to pick up the discussion. Then the process would reverse afterward. In addition, assuming other parents objected to this or that idea, this could multiply.

The parents do not want to be inconvenienced, find and pay for a private school or home school their kids, but are more than willing to inconvenience the rest of the school system and students.

The absurdity of the plaintiffs' case also extends into their citations for support. For example, they claim that their case is indistinguishable from Wisconsin v. Yoder. In that case, Amish parents were convicted for not sending their children to public school, even though it violated their religion and established practices. The state intended to force their kids into public schools.

Of course, the opposite -- and the clearest resolution -- holds here. If the plaintiffs object so strongly to their children being exposed to the reality of their state's marriage laws, they should probably home school them. I rather doubt that they can find any private school that will shield their kids from all ideas not in a narrow doctrine.

As an aside, as a parent of three, I am sad for these children. Apparently their parents intend to prevent critical thinking, the epitome of the human mind's capability. Lackaday.

Personal Responsibility

Perhaps the real solution is even closer at hand. Judge Wolf, in fact, alluded to such a few times. The parents, he implied, are not at all prohibited from educating their children about their own beliefs and morality. In fact, that is the norm. If the school lesson notes that same-sex marriage exists, they can and should tell their kids why they do not accept that and what they believe.

They can be damned sure that the classroom is not going to be the only place their kids are going to hear things their very odd parents do not like. It is amusing to think of them rushing around in public parks or restaurants to shush other kids who may mention the obvious to their sheltered ignorami.

To round out the day's drama, Sinsheimer figuratively drew, colored and cut out for display his clients as minority victims. (Still, Wolf kept a straight face.)

The judge suggested that a resolution here might be for the offended parents to organize and use democracy. Rally the other parents and elect a school board more to their liking.

Woe Are They!

Sinsheimer was ready and more. He defined this as a "civil-rights" issue and said, "My clients are very much minorities in their community." By that he didn't seem to mean they were reality deprived control freaks. Rather, he defined them as Judeo-Christians, whatever that might mean.

I suspect a substantial portion of Lexington's voters consider themselves both Christian and moral. Many likely have never engaged in homosexual activity nor will ever do so. A small minority are married same-sex couples.

Instead, Sinsheimer alternately called the state approved diversity curriculum "secular propaganda," "indoctrination," and "brain-washing." Of course, this implies that the parents' teachings are so lame and feeble that they could not counteract such ideas as being accepting of others, even homosexuals.

He was wise enough never to get into his clients' religious options. I think of my own friends growing up. In addition to public school, many went to Catholic training, Hebrew school, Bible school and such. We all got the discussions and teaching by example at home.

Even Judge Wolf told one of his famous homey stories. He said when he was in school, after social studies classes, his father would sometimes say that he was clearly getting a liberal brainwashing in the Newton schools. His clear implication is that this is part of growing up -- for both kids and parents. The children come home after exposure to facts and ideas that the parents may not know or like. There may be discussion or even argument. Eventually, everyone sorts it out. Life goes on.

No More Drama

In our world, where virtually any bimbo can become a celebrity and anyone can sue another for nearly anything, the Mad Dad case in federal court should not surprise us. Ordinary humans in a non-courtroom environment might find this simple:

• Parents cannot dictate curriculum in public schools.
• If these parents have strong feelings about some ideas, they can teach their kids what they believe or remove the kids from schools that mention reality in the community.
• Being exposed to ideas is part of life and should be part of education.
• The plaintiffs need to stop whining, show some wit, and not compare themselves to people actually persecuted for religion. Shame on them.

However, that is not what we have here. All manner of exaggeration is permissible in court arguments. The exception is one that Judge Wolf drew clearly when he interrupted Sinsheimer, who was reading one of his florid written arguments. Wolf stopped him cold with, "We do not allow baseless assertions."

Waiting for Wolf

I am no better at calling court decisions than sporting events. However, it seems plain that Wolf will rule for the defendants on the federal complaint. He seems to love to roll around in and pick up the smell of constitutional issues. So, it is as likely that he will let this go to trial rather than dismiss it outright.

The state issues, particularly whether the three books in question or any mention that same-sex marriage exists and is legal fall under the parental-notification law for sexuality education seem to bore Wolf. It is difficult tot believe that if Wolf tells them to duke it out in state court and not bother him, that Sinsheimer could find any judge or even jury that would agree that there was any violation at all here.

For the federal complaint portion, the plaintiffs claim that their First Amendment rights to the practice of religion were violated as well as their and their children's privacy rights. Nothing in the complaint alleges that the schools in any way prevented the parents from teaching their kids anything. The parents can wave dead chickens overhead to produce rain or tell their kids that homosexual partners are on a fast track to hell. If either is in their religious doctrine, that's their business and rights. No actionable foul occurred.

Judge Wolf is likely to produce a clever, insightful and highly readable decision, whether it comes in the next couple of weeks in a dismissal or months later after a trial.

Sooner would be better. As Mary J. Blige sings in Family Affair, "...we're celebrating ";no more drama" in our lives...I told you "leave your situations at the door"...

---

Tags: massmarrier, Massachusetts, same sex marriage, Lexington, public schools, parental notification

Mad Dad Case Meets the Feds

With an ego the size of, say, Montana, U.S. Chief District Chief Judge Mark Lawrence Wolf has his favorite judicial meal spread before him. Every case that gets to his level is important, but he clearly relishes cases with U.S. constitutional issues worthy of him.

The issue at hand is the suit filed by four Lexington parents claiming that their children's and their own First Amendment religious rights and their right to privacy were violated. As you may recall from previous coverage of David Parker, a.k.a. the Mad Dad, the Lexington public schools showed picture books that mentioned that some families have two same-gender parents and one had a kid's story king picking another king instead of a princess.

Background: Click around from this post to catch up with the case. A Mad-Dad-offending exhibit is below. A spread from the family book in question shows two partnered dads, one preparing dinner and one setting the table while their daughter does homework. Scandal!

Wolf will rule on the defense motion to dismiss in a few weeks or perhaps months. It is probably a good sign for the plaintiffs that he did not dismiss the federal portion of the suit immediately. However, his delay may not be due to favoring their arguments. Rather, their lead attorney, Robert Sinsheimer, claims to need time to respond to the amici briefs in support of the defendants' attorney, John J. Davis. Wolf granted him a week to respond.

I was at the 90-some minute hearing and shall post a few times on it. BayWindows was there too and has the facts, Ma'am.

A future post will break down some of the legal issues and particularly Wolf's questions to the attorneys. The judge clearly knows that his ruling here is likely to be cited in other cases. He seems to love that stuff.

For him, Wolf is not as famous as he thinks, but he is associated with several high-profile cases in his 22 years in this court. For example:

• He ruled that the South Boston veterans could exclude homosexuals from marching as a group in the St. Patrick's Day parade they sponsored.
• He decided that an inmate sentenced to life deserved medical treatment related to wanting to change gender, but that this did not extend to or require Massachusetts to pay for reassignment surgery.
• He sentenced multiple murder Gary Sampson to death, the first execution in three decades.
• Perhaps most famously, he scolded and disciplined federal agents and U.S. attorneys for dishonest and otherwise overzealous prosecution.

During yesterday's hearing, Wolf was in fine form. He repeated dragged out and referred to three or more cases he had decided, one two decades ago. He intimidates lawyers appearing before him, and they scrambled to copy the citations, likely so that they could kiss up by referring to them in future arguments. Amusingly, the cases were only tangentially applicable to the matter at hand, but that did not stop Montana from looming over the courtroom.

After lengthy arguments from both attorneys and some insightful questions -- interspersed with overly folksy ramblings by Wolf, the judge took the case under advisement...to be continued in U.S. District Court and this blog.

---

Tags: massmarrier, Massachusetts, same sex marriage, Lexington, public schools, parental notification

KKK Markets Anti-Marriage Equality

The soaring crow or eagle and the carrion beetle that burrows in decaying flesh share much. They have many differences, but each is happy to make a meal from a rotting animal.

Thus, the infamous Ku Klux Klan is increasingly happy to market itself to Americans as being anti-same-sex marriage. While that does not mean that VoteOnMarriage people here are Klan members, isn't it fascinating that they speak of the same concepts in the same words on this? Do you suppose that the brightest of them might take pause from knowing that the KKK agrees with them, down to the wording?

A new report by the Anti-Defamation League, Extremism in American: The Ku Klux Klan Today, highlights how the anti-SSM rhetoric is part of the resurgence of the group. Also, you can visit some KKK sites, like the Confederate Knights, to read the same logic, wording and Bible verses on the subject.

Marriage equality does not seem to bring in as many hateful types as immigration. Yet as the ADL report starts:

The Ku Klux Klan, which just a few years ago seemed static or even moribund compared to other white supremacist movements such as neo-Nazis, has experienced a surprising and troubling resurgence due to the successful exploitation of hot-button issues including immigration, gay marriage and urban crime.

Of course, to most Americans, even those who would openly praise anti-SSM amendments, the KKK remains too fringe. Yet, the group has been bold enough in a few places to protest SSM publicly.

For example, a little over a year ago, it did this is Texas, and not a rural farm but in urbane Austin, at the capitol. As News8 there reported it, about a dozen members -- none in robes and hoods -- demonstrated for the amendment to put a state constitutional ban of SSM in place. While 3,000 demonstrated against them and the amendment that passed.

At the rally, the leader of the state KKK sounded like our own anti-SSM folk. "We're asking Texans to support Proposition 2 because God supports it, not because the KKK supports it,'' Steven Edwards. In Texas stereotype, he has a 10-gallon title -- Grand Dragon of the American White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan in Texas. In the style of many who oppose marriage equality, he does not find it blasphemous or presumptive to speak for God.

In its Recent Development section, the ADL report notes KKK activity outside the traditional deep South and Midwest roots. For example:

Themes such as immigration and "black crime" have been common at Mid-Atlantic area Klan events. When Empire Knights of the Ku Klux Klan Pennsylvania leader Mike Busch announced in 2006 that his Pennsylvania members wanted to hold a rally, at Keystone State Park, he told a reporter that "our messages are about immigration, same-sex marriages, and many major other topics that are killing our society today."

That would be easy to attribute those words to the anti-SSM folk in Massachusetts or Maine. So far, we have not seen such KKK activity in New England. We can also be pretty sure that the local anti-SSM folk would disavow any knowledge of or affiliation with the KKK.

No, back to our carrion birds and beetles, it is what they do, and in the case of the humans, what they say, that links them in spirit and practice. What is that New Testament line, Matthew 7:16, By their fruits ye shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

It is by deeds -- their fruits -- that we know the nature of the bird, beetle, and those who hide behind their religious trappings to hurt others.

Here we think of the Talmud, which has the clearest expression of the Golden Rule that so many religions share. That which is hateful to you, do not do to another. That is all the law. The rest is commentary.

---

Tags: massmarrier, Ku Klux Klan, VoteOnMarriage, Anti-Defamation League, same-sex marriage

Cirignano Not Wriggling Away Yet

Awwwright. Head over to BayWindows to get the scoop on anti-gay/anti-equality bully Larry Cirignano heading for both assault/battery and civil rights charges.

Ethan Jacobs' follow-up on last week's piece reports that after a month and a half of investigation, Worcester police figure recently resigned Catholic Citizenship exec Cirignano can't lie his way out of his deeds before a crowd on December 16th.

BW reports that police spokesperson Kerry Hazelhurst said, "Through the D.A.’s office they’re going to go forward with civil rights violations and assault and battery charges … [Police] investigated everything and talked to all involved and determined that the elements for civil rights violations were met, and they decided to go with it. It was an extensive and lengthy investigation."

Here, I confess to being skeptical of real prosecution, particularly after his group created a new position in D.C. to move him from his disgrace. As the geeks are wont to say, this is goodness. I was wrong.

The Worcester Telegram reports that the police filed the charge of interfering with civil rights on Friday. A magistrate reviews it next. Cirignano's court appearance is February 20th.

Police Capt. Edward J. McGinn Jr. said the investigation was sequential and continued to the civil-rights issue after the assault and battery. The misdemeanor civil-rights charge relates to the victim's rights to demonstrate and exercise her freedom of speech, McGinn said.

Amusingly enough, the Telegram reports, " Many came to Mr. Cirignano’s defense, including the Catholic Citizenship group, and the issue was fodder for Internet chat groups and bloggers. Many accused Ms. Loy of fabricating the issue. "

Hazelhurst would not detail the basis for the civil-rights charges before they are formal. BW reports "Penalties for a civil rights charge range from up to $1000 or up to one year of jail time, or some combination of both."

A right-wing thug having to face his deeds...priceless.

---

Tags: massmarrier, Massachusetts, same-sex marriage, Catholic Citizenship, Cirignano

Beget or Begone!

Hypocrisy hammered by humor in Olympia -- a marriage-equality used the anti-gay/anti-same-sex-marriage tool on the bad guys. The Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance started a ballot initiative that requires a heterosexual couple to reproduce within three years or become unmarried by the state.

Can't you just hear the sputtering? Not only do right-wingers and libertarians love to abuse ballot initiatives. A favorite argument against SSM has been that a homosexual couple can't naturally churn out their own babies.

Not only does that have nothing to do with civil marriage and related civil rights and benefits issues, it stomps and spits on the millions of heterosexual couples who can't or choose not to reproduce. It is just as insulting to couples who adopt.

Word from the initiators came in statements from organizer Gregory Gadow:

For many years, social conservatives have claimed that marriage exists solely for the purpose of procreation. The Washington Supreme Court echoed that claim in their lead ruling on Andersen v. King County. The time has come for these conservatives to be dosed with their own medicine. If same-sex couples should be barred from marriage because they can not have children together, it follows that all couples who can not or will not have children together should equally be barred from marriage. And this is what the Defense of Marriage Initiative will do.

Our agenda is to shine a very bright light on the injustice and prejudice that underlie the Andersen decision by giving that decision the full force of law.

As absurd as it is, it clearly parallels the intent of the anti-SSM folk who would prevent it there and those who would stop it here.

According to the organization, if passed by Washington voters, I-957 would:

• add the phrase, “who are capable of having children with one another” to the legal definition of marriage;
• require that couples married in Washington file proof of procreation within three years of the date of marriage or have their marriage automatically annulled;
• require that couples married out of state file proof of procreation within three years of the date of marriage or have their marriage classed as “unrecognized;”
• establish a process for filing proof of procreation; and
• make it a criminal act for people in an unrecognized marriage to receive marriage benefits.

The background on the court case is in the AP article on the initiative.

Gadow added that while the initiative seems absurd, "We want people to think about the purpose of marriage. If it exists for the purpose of procreation, they must understand then that these are the consequences."

No one really expects the initiative to go far, much less get the 224,880 signatures by the beginning of July to get on the November ballot. Here, we think it's a bigger pity that the anti-SSM initiatives are taken seriously when they are as absurd.

Some gay-rights folk are gun-shy as well. On the serious side activist Bill Dubay said he would not sign the petition. "I don't think anybody in the gay community wants to take someone else's rights away. We just want to gain the rights that everybody else has." Likewise, the statement from Equal Rights Washington was that "State laws, it said, should help — not hurt — families."

That probably does not break WA-DOMA's collective heart. They will have made their point. Gadow added, like a Ginsu commercial, that wait, there's more. Look for two more proposals in a year or two, one prohibiting divorce by married with kids and one making producing a child legally equivalent to marriage.

Let's hear the sputtering class talk through those. They claim they want to bolster the institution of marriage. Those proposals strike at the roots of the problems that have increased since WWII and even before. It is to laugh a bolstering laugh.

---

Tags: massmarrier, ballot initiatives, Washington State, same-sex marriage, WA-DOMA

Anti-Equality Demons on the Prowl

Put your lefty butt in the chair and grab a pen! The anti-gay/anti-same-sex-marriage folk are already campaigning for May to rush a vote on the amendment to stop SSM here.

VoteOnMarriage knows how tenuous a thread holds its 25% of the combined legislature needed to advance this odious effort. There is a new automated email-your-hate-into-your-lawmaker page announced today. So if you were thinking, damn it's cold, I'm hiding, and I have months to act before the next possible ConCon, forget it. This is the time and your chair is the locale.

A tip of the toque to Ian for the alert.

The short of it is that even with the incredibly low bar of a quarter of the legislature to advance a ballot initiative, the forces of theocracy could lose this one this spring or summer. A half dozen waffling legislators voting for civil rights and marriage equality -- or just to keep from putting discrimination into our state constitution -- and the last couple of year of division, scare tactics, lies and cheating are gone.

For three big reasons, the VOM folk have to be pretty sure that this is their last chance. To wit:

1. About 9,000 SS couples have wed here and no straight marriages are in trouble because of it, there has been no negative financial impact, our divorce rate is the nation's lowest, and all the other havoc VOM and its buddies promised were proven to be lies.
2. The polled voting public has gone from well under half support SSM at the time of the Goodridge decision to well over 60% supporting SSM now. The big stick of legislators fearing loss of their seats is gone.
3. The state has a new governor and much to be done to return us to financial and physical security. People are sick of the distractions.

Amusingly enough, the VOM folk want their drooling minions to send this electronic form email. These don't count for much. We can do better.

It is very important that both Senators and Reps hear from their own constituents. Others are just so many donkeys braying in the field.

You can go to the Secretary of the Commonwealth's elections information section here to find out someone's legislators. Plug in your and your Aunt Nancy's street and town to see if she is in the district of a fence sitter or a legislator who voted to advance the amendment.

If one of these is your legislator, try to visit and urge defeat of the amendment initiative. If you can't, call and write. Do both. When you write, do it in longhand for the greatest effect.

Note that a few newly elected legislators need education. These are:

• Sen. Gail Candaras (D-East Longmeadow)
• Rep. Graldo Alicea (D-Southbridge)
• Rep. Linda Dean Campbell (D-Methuen)
• Rep. Jay Barrows (R-Foxborough)
• Rep. Angelo Puppulo (D-Wilberham)

The VOM folk are running scared. We'd love to turn 15 who voted for the amendment. If Senate President and ConCon boss Bobby Travaglini knows the counts are for marriage equality, he won't do the same trick this time around and rush it through. If we turn six or seven, we may have enough. Let's go for 15 or even 20.

---

Tags: massmarrier, Massachusetts, amendment, same sex marriage, ConCon

In Boston, Rendering the Safe Safe

When the big guys in uniforms come in with their axes -- and wide grins, beware!

A decade ago, Engine 53 and Ladder 16 could barely restrain themselves from busting our walls. They came for a chimney fire, but this looked like their favorite sport. They seemed so bitterly disappointed when the creosote that had ignited, bellowed and erupted a fist of flame above the roof extinguished itself.

Four almost rabid guys alternately caressed their ax handles and felt the interior walls. Just a few degrees hotter and they could have laid waste to two floors and the attic of chimney-touching walls. Damn, violentus interruptus. They hung their heads as they left.

I had no intention of commenting further on the Homeland Silliness of the past few days in Boston, but the apologists won't, can't stop. The background and detail, replete with video, are at Universal Hub and Ryan's Take.

I was all set to let 'nuff said suffice...until I ran across the Boston Police Department goof-by-goof justification. It runs at the bottom here in its entirety, just in case it gets hard to find on their site.

This seems to have been written just begging John Stewart to riff on it at the Daily Show. Those who recall the brilliant Rob Corddry take on VP Dick Cheney shooting "a 78-year-old man in what can only be described as his face" will relish Commissioner Edward F. Davis III's repeated abuse of "rendered...safe."

Despite numerous other cities' ability to take these toy-like devices in stride and just trash them, our sincere and emotional mayor can't see any problem with local and state cops shutting down huge swathes of the Hub. Unlike those other cities, our take was to follow the Homeland Security checklists line by line. This is the check-your-brains-at-the-door style bureaucracy that infuriates so many of us as we perform like circus dogs at the RMV and elsewhere. Don't think -- you have your procedures to follow.

Mayor Tom Menino even did the Daddy-patted-my-head routine. According to the Boston Globe, he apparently puffed up like a Cub Scout winning his heat at the Pack's Pinewood Derby:

Though some residents complained that law enforcement agencies overreacted, Menino said that Michael Chertoff, US secretary of homeland security, called him yesterday morning and congratulated the city for acting responsibly.

"I'm very proud of how the public safety officials worked," Menino said in an interview, calling the massive response "seamless."

Richard A. Clarke, a former head of counterterrorism at the National Security Council, agreed.

"It looks like an overreaction in retrospect, but having been in that kind of position before, it's usually better to react than not," Clarke said during a chat with readers on Boston.com. "If you don't react and you are wrong, the results are much worse than if you react and are wrong."

Davis was better in his message though. He seems to have a great record in his business. However, his message to officers was pure cop-speak. For example, describing his guys' blowing up and otherwise dealing with a series of Lite-Brite-style objects, he concluded each of these with a phrase like "Using approved procedures the item is photographed, X-rayed and eventually rendered safe."

He had to be using render in its fourth definition of To cause to be or become. One supposes that attaching explosives to or using a water cannon on a harmless device and destroying it is somehow rendering a safe object into what can only be described as safe.

After the first one, you might supposed they learned something. No, they spent many hours and about $1 million in diverted police time and equipment rendering safe objects what can only be described as safe.

Davis, Menino and local media even threw in mentions of two fake pipe bombs they found unrelated to these and some questionable package found in D.C. to justify all this. Better safe than sorry, they say.

Instead, how about considering?

• These ad-toys were literally hanging around in plain view for up to three weeks. Neither citizens nor public servants noticed them or at least did not report them. How safe does that make you feel?
• Cops in other cities were reasonable in their treatment of the discovered devices and did not panic. How much confidence does that give you in the training of our own security forces?
• Publicly at least, our officials, including our otherwise level-headed governor, are not asking for a reevaluation of our procedures. Anyone, or even on oak tree, can "manage" entirely predictable situations. It takes bright and well trained folk to handle the unusual.

I'd certainly like to feel that if someone threatens Bostonians, our police and other security people are up to the task. Show me.

When something good, bad or otherwise remarkable happens, I often ask my sons, "What can we learn from this?"

---

MESSAGE FROM THE POLICE COMMISSIONER

**MEDIA PLEASE NOTE THIS IS AN INTERNAL MESSAGE SENT BY COMMISSIONER DAVIS TO THE MEN AND WOMEN OF THE BOSTON POLICE DEPARTMENT.

A Message from Police Commissioner Ed Davis

I would like to commend everyone involved in the response to yesterday’s events. The Citizens of Boston had their lives disrupted by what turned out to be a misguided publicity stunt. The men and women of the Boston Police Department and our various law enforcement partners responded to the situations presented to them efficiently and effectively, the way they have been trained to respond. Officers raced across the city in response to calls reporting bombs and other suspicious devices. As trained, our officers placed themselves in harms way to protect the public. Tough decisions were made to ensure safe situations. I cannot say enough about the rapid, efficient and skillful response by everyone involved in the day’s events. This response resulted in officers being held over to address the threats, which were being reported throughout the Boston Area.

Some have criticized the response to these incidents without having all the facts and circumstances known to them.

As the day unfolded the law enforcement community was informed in the early morning hours of the arrest by British authorities of several terror suspects.

At 6:53 a.m. DHS reported that a Washington D.C. Metro station was closed down due to a suspicious package.

At 8:18 a.m. an MBTA worker reported a suspicious device attached to a stanchion supporting Interstate 93 and near the train line. Appropriate units responded and determined that this device was suspicious and had components consistent with improvised explosive devices.

At 8:52 a.m. DHS notified Law Enforcement officials that at least 4 people were being treated at a post office after being overcome by fumes emanating from a package at a post office in New York City.

At 9:00 a.m. The Boston Police Bomb squad is requested by the MBTA to Sullivan Square and examines the item. As a precaution I-93 is closed and the device is rendered safe and determined to be some sort of hoax device at 10:21 AM.

At 12:54 p.m. the Boston Police Bomb squad receives a call for a suspicious device at the intersection of Stuart and Charles Street. That device appears similar to the first device containing batteries, wires, magnets and other components similar to the device in Sullivan Square. Using approved procedures the item is photographed, X-rayed and eventually rendered safe.

Six minutes later at 1:02 p.m. Boston Police received a call from New England Medical Center Security that they had uncovered a pipe bomb in their building in a desk drawer. Shortly thereafter Hospital Security reported that a suspect had been seen leaving the area of the pipe bomb in an agitated state stating “God is warning you that today is going to be a sad Day”. The suspect was reported to have fled the hospital. Boston Police continue to investigate this incident. No further details at this time.

At 1:08 p.m. the Boston Police Bomb Squad arrived and confirmed the existence of an item which appeared to be a pipe bomb inside the hospital.

At 1:11 p.m. information was received and a request was made by the Massachusetts State Police to have the bomb squad assist with locating devices under the Longfellow and BU bridges.

At this point we had multiple reports of possible improvised explosive devices of various types. As those devices were being investigated and rendered safe, detectives from the Boston Police Department and Massachusetts State Police were running down information on a cartoon character possibly associated with these devices, that later led to websites associated with that character and individuals placing these devices around the area.

Boston Police begin to receive numerous calls for similar devices throughout Boston and surrounding areas.

At approximately 4:30 p.m. detectives from the Boston Police Department were contacted and were verifying information from representatives from the corporation responsible for this advertising campaign.

At 4:51 p.m. Turner Broadcasting representatives were verified as taking responsibility for placing devices with the cartoon character. This was at the same time a press conference was underway at Boston Police Headquarters.

Officers identified a device (possible pipe bomb) at the New England Medical Center which turned out to be unrelated. Another type of device was located under the Longfellow Bridge, which is being investigated by the Massachusetts State Police.

During this time, ATF, FBI, Federal Protective Services, United States Secret Service, Massachusetts State Police, Federal Park Police, Transit Police, and our UASI Partners pulled together and redeployed resources in the event a larger response was needed.

Later in the evening the emergency event was declared resolved.

I recognize that this event caused you to work extra hours, to inconvenience your families and cause them concern. I want to convey my deep appreciation of your dedicated service and my pride in the manner in which the members of this Department responded to this incident.

---

Tags: massmarrier, Boston, hoax, homeland security, overreaction

Anti-SSM Agitator in Full Stage Makeup

All right, Bay Windows! Ethan Jacobs got the scoop on Larry Cirignano's re-invention. We posted a bit on both his publicly observed assault, and we mean that only in the misdemeanor way, and his sneaking out of town.

Is there a Roman Catholic equivalent of chutzpah? If so, Cirignano has it by the bucket. As expected, he polished a blinding gloss on his resignation from Catholic Citizenship here and the instant creation of a new, improved position with the anti-SSM crowd in D.C.

As we have come to expect, Jacobs was on the spot and dug under it. His report on the resurrected Cirignano is here. (Temporary BW note: Their servers were barfing on the wire this morning. You may have to reload this link a few times.)

Cirignano says this newly minted organization will be Catholic, pro-life, pro-family oriented. He claimed that he can't talk about it for a month or so until a formal announcement. Uh huh.

He had his jolly face on, as Jacobs writes:

Cirignano described his job change as a promotion, not a demotion. Asked the reason behind the move to D.C. Cirignano answered, “More money, warmer weather,” and laughed. He then added, “And certainly to go broader in scope than Massachusetts.”

While the new job is based in D.C., Cirignano said he will be traveling across the country to organize around pro-life and “pro-family” causes.

As the public face and apparently what passes for brains in the local Catholic Citizenship, he said, in effect, they are now on there own. As he put it, "It’s really going to be determined by the bishops as to what they want it to be." Uh huh; sounds like dead to me.

However, the watch-this-space spin came from Lisa Barstow, spokesperson for VoteOnMarriage.org. She told BW, "Even though Larry’s gone, the grassroots are still well in place, and we don’t really see any impact in that respect."

Anyway, as of this afternoon, the Catholic Citizenship site still features Larry, Curly and Mo. No, that's Larry, Ray and Sean.

---

Tags: massmarrier, Massachusetts, same-sex marriage, Catholic Citizenship, Cirignano

SSM Trends Out There

So long as Massachusetts remains the sole same-sex marriage outpost of this country, we can play provincial. But grumblings and advances elsewhere just keep coming. Bless 'em.

In a comment on the latest in Wyoming, Harold drew attention to great news in Colorado. Long the home of right wingers and libertarians, they have fostered one of the nation's nastiest anti-gay/anti-SSM politicians, U.S. Rep. Marilyn Musgrave. She not only runs her campaigns on keeping homosexuals down, she has been the leading advocate of a U.S. constitutional amendment forbidding SSM.

She seems, at least this year, to have run out of bile. She and her local buddy U.S. Sen. Wayne Allard announced that they won't reintroduce this amendment this term.

According to the report in the Pueblo Chieftain, it's not so much that they got some humanity and compassion. Rather it's "another sign that Democrats are now in the majority."

This perennial stink bomb has passed the House a few times, but gotten no further. With typical politician's pragmatism, Allard explained their tail tucking. "If we thought there was a decent chance to bring it to the floor for debate, I would, but with the new Congress, I'm not sure we will ever have that opportunity."

Coincidentally, the short-term future for marriage equality seems to be playing out in Hawaii. They have been around and around this bush. Now it appears they are about to enact civil unions.

In 1993, they led the nation with a surprise state Supreme Court requirement that the government explain under what principles and authority it forbade SSM. The voters then approved an amendment defining marriage as one-man/one-woman. However, in 1997, Hawaii a domestic-partner style reciprocal benefits structure for SS couples. Now legislation is in the works for civil unions.

A lead editorial in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin gently upends the tired anti-SSM arguments about this being marriage by another name with the words of New Jersey high-court Justice Barry Albin:

However, it is a distinction with an important difference. As Albin acknowledged in the New Jersey case, marriage has meant the union of a man and a woman through tradition and religious beliefs, and that need not change, at least now.

---

Tags: massmarrier, Colorado, Hawaii, civil unions, Musgrave