Lexington Shouters Promise Redemption

Reality can be such a harsh companion and teacher. Perhaps it's best if Mad Dad and his buddies, shall we say the Fussy Foursome, avoid it as much as possible. Following their humiliating thumping in U.S. District Court a couple of weeks ago, their spokesdad, David Parker, had an aspirational hand-clasping on Article 8/MassResistance's weekly radio show.

Actually those were figurative hands. He was on phone. You can listen to the show here. Choose to stream or download the March 3/4 one.

Undeputized Listener

Normally we would expect Bud at MassResistance Watch to endure the pain for the moments of amusement. He must be off touching up his tan someplace warm. When he returns to posting, he'll have to advance a quarter of the way in or so to where Parker calls. Those comments and those of the week's host, Amy Mann, shine a light in the dark corners of their minds and offer a little insight to similar strident shouting.

The quixotic calls to victory, Parker's hyperbolic depictions of his court loss, and the judicial interpretations by both Parker and Mann will strike many as strange, as they did me. Those brought to mind the early 80's Harry Nilsson album The Point! Specifically, the hero and his dog meet up with the Rock Man, who explains subjective reality:

And Oblio told the Rock Man that they had been banished and asked him if this was the Pointless Forest. And the Rock Man said, "Say there's nothing pointless about this gig ... the thing is . . . you see what you want to see and you hear what you want to hear - dig. Did you ever see Paris?" - Oblio said, "No". "Did you ever see New Dehli?" - Oblio said "Well, no". "Well that's it - you see what you want to see and you hear what you want to hear", said the Rock Man and with that the Rock Man fell soundly asleep leaving Oblio and Arrow once again all alone.

The subjective reality in this schools case is simultaneously amusing and perplexing. Apparently U.S. District Court Chief Judge Mark L. Wolf is not a Rock Man authority figure for the Fussy Foursome or MassResistance. They soldier on and in so doing offer a lesson about those who freely misunderstand the role of personal religion in larger society.

Appeal Fantasies

Allegedly, there shall be an appeal -- the notice is on file with the courts. Parker was all fluff and bluster about that on the talk show.

I don't see much of a shot to get any court at the U.S. District level or higher to hear an appeal. Judge Wolf's 38-page ruling dismissing the suit cites its allegations and assertions' failings at the federal level, in points of law, related laws and cases, and in general cutting off avenues of appeal. You can take my record on this for what it's worth; I nailed the decision, but I was unsure whether it would be outright dismissal or after trial.

Oddly enough, in her own Nilsson moment, Mann went on about how she was at the hearing and expected a very different outcome. She said the judge's questions made her think the foursome had a good shot. In contrast, I found that Wolf telegraphed his ruling very clearly, even indicating that parents could not dictate curriculum, that they had both opportunity and obligation to install their morals in their children, and that the two families should seek their customized education outside the public schools. Apparently even after reading the ruling, Mann sees what she wants to see.

Oral Drama

Parker was at his most florid in denouncing the ruling, which he called "seditious." He said that it was a "modern day lynching of parental rights." Telling the Fussy Foursome to seek an educational niche to satisfy them was "highbrow arrogance" to Parker.

These points are where this all remains relevant to larger society. The often-repeated claims of conservatives in general and the foursome in particular are that a conflict between an allegedly religious based belief and a publicly funded agency most accommodate the former. They seem to have missed a few centuries of clarification of the impacts of the first amendment.

In the case of the Fussy Foursome, this took the form of claims that the schools violated two rights in the amendments to the U.S. Constitution -- first (religion) and fourth (privacy) -- by even mentioning that society has two-dad or two-mom families in a state where that is legal or that some people prefer same-sex partners. This, by Parker's vision, attacks the "sacred right of parents" to be the "primary source" of moral upbringing for their children.

That is precisely where they and others who try those arguments run afoul of Judge Wolf, law, case law and the reality of most of us. Whether they consider that moral upbringing their "sacred right" is not relevant in public policy. Moreover, the passing and occasional diversity lesson in school is not the primary moral education the children have, unless the parents are total slackers and irresponsible. By example as well as formal and informal religious or other moral education does indeed fall to parents, plus godparents, religious educators and others the parents designate.

Parker was at his best though when he went solo on depicting his gay neighbors and fellow parents of kids in the school system. He said, for example, "where you have homosexual parents beating their chests in the schools, saying, 'We have gay families, we have lesbian families,' and then what they're saying is, 'Now we need we need to talk about our families."'

Ah, chest-beating lesbians...what an image.

Irrational Historical Allusion

Parker even pulls one of the moldiest chestnuts from his tattered bag -- taxation without representation. In his case, he claims to have moved to the pricey, high-property-tax Lexington for the single purpose of great schools. Now he finds that if he can't get the schools to teach what he wants or rather not teach what he doesn't want, he's being robbed. "This is taxation without representation in its purest form!" he exclaimed during the show. "And people fought and died over that!"

To those of us on planet Earth, the Fussy Foursome got its representation. They just didn't get the result they demanded. Parker in particular got a series of meetings, he spoke to folk up and down, from other parents to teachers and to the principal, the school superintendent and even police chief. He was well represented and firmly denied.

They certainly didn't ignore him. They just gave him a big L for his forhead.

On taxation, let's not talk about the disproportionate share of state funds that go to infrastructure in low-density areas like Lexington or federal taxes that pay for unnecessary wars, let's stay local. So, these characters claim they are due obeisance to their demands for their share of school taxes. Get a grip!

The hyperventilating screams and claims of oppression can befuddle marriage-equality and civil-rights advocates alike. When the wingers act out, it is useful to keep Nilsson's Rock Man in mind. They will surely see what they want to see and hear what they want to hear. The rest of us don't have to buy into any of it.

---

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

Gay Union Buffet in N.H.

From the outside, a wealth of choices seems to overwhelm New Hampshire legislators, possibly leading to passage of one or two gay-positive bills. The three that are up for discussion starting today, would be huge advances in a state traditionally hostile to both gay rights and marriage equality.

Numerous versions of bills for same-sex marriage, civil (spousal) unions, and recognizing out-of-state legal unions and marriages are in the hopper. This is beginning to look like the family sitting down in front of cable TV with remote in hand. They don't ask is there anything worth watching, rather what's the best thing on now?

This is encouraging. Perhaps other states, at least in the Northeast and West Coast, can replicate this process and its choices.

The first one up is recognizing SSM and civil unions from elsewhere -- other states and countries. With over two centuries of comity, honoring other Colonies' and then other states' laws, New Hampshire should and may well edge ahead of Rhode Island on this one.

In a pleasant surprise, many lawmakers think that spousal unions have a good shot this session. Surely that must relate to having full SSM marriage in the wings with another bill. While the chief sponsor of full SSM, Rep. Maureen Baxley, disdains any union version as inferior, her bill could be the impetus for quick passage of spousal unions, as a more palatable alternative for squeamish lawmakers.

According to today's Concord Monitor, there are likely not enough votes for SSM but could well be for unions.

Certainly, civil unions have a better chance than anything having to do with marriage," said Rep. Fran Potter, a Concord Democrat and member of the House Judiciary Committee.

As for civil unions, "I think most Democrats believe this is a matter of civil rights, and there's every reason why gay and lesbian couples should have the same rights in committed relationships as straight folks," Potter said. "That's certainly my view."

The state seems to have emerged from the anti-gay cave favored by some of the older Republican legislators. The debates may well have moved to disputes of methods. The incrementalists are eager to jump to the unions mode and aim at full marriage equality down the road. The equality people want simple civil rights with no qualifiers.

The anti folk may have to sit in their caves by themselves. On the other hand, they may be reduced to attempting mean-spirited legislative prophylaxis as they have in New Jersey -- putting one-man/one-woman marriage limits in low to block full marriage equality later.

---

Tags: massmarrier, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, same-sex marriage, civil unions

Could N.H. Let Couples Live Free?

Following several years of rancor about same-sex marriage, New Hampshire seems to have a decent shot at passing civil unions this legislative session. The Concord Monitor today quotes House Judiciary member Rep. Stephen Shurtleff as saying, "I think as far as civil unions, that's got a fairly good chance of passage. I think any individual in a relationship has a right to legally protect their assets."

This cover-your-assets angle may seem peculiar, but the Goodridge decision here also pivoted on the dual points of equal-rights and of civil contracts. Even where people get all sniffy about homosexual marriage, couples' entering into contracts has a Colonial Era history in New England.

The judiciary committee will consider three bills:

• Massachusetts-style marriage, same-sex or different-sex
  
• Civil (spousal) unions like neighboring Vermont
• Recognition of same-sex marriages and civil unions legally conducted in other states and nations

Coverage of the session in 365gay, notes that Gov. John Lynch favors civil unions. He opposes SSM .

The SSM bill (HB 0791) is from Rep. Maureen Baxley. It would amend the marriage law to accommodate SS couples and would repeal the ban on SSM. She is executive director of New Hampshire Freedom to Marry. Muttering in the state house suggests this bill has the slimmest chance of the three.

The spousal union bill (HB 0437) is from Rep. Jim Splaine. The gay legislator sees this as an achievable increment on the way to marriage equality. He said he doubts that SSM would pass there now.

The recognition bill (HB 0235) does not introduce anything new. Instead Rep. Marlene DeChane's legislation would remove the protect-us-from-Massachusetts-SSM laws (457:3) passed after Goodridge. Note that in a real legislative atavism, a man marrying a man or a woman marrying a woman would be incest by existing laws (457:1 and 457:2).

New Hampshire fought the hardest in New England, but may be ready to leapfrog Maine and Rhode Island. It kind of makes one wonder what civil-union pioneer Vermont would do -- would it have to have full marriage equality?

---

Tags: massmarrier, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, same-sex marriage, civil unions

Sorting the Nuts

The lead editorial in BayWindows this week shows that the boss lady is out of patience with excusing bigotry on the basis of sincerity. Susan Ryan-Vollmar tees off on the two Mad Dad couples, but she also has special words for U.S. District Court Chief Judge Mark L. Wolf.

She ridicules Wolf's consideration of the lawsuit foursome's claim of "sincere religious belief" as justification for their statements, actions and attempt to dictate a homosexual-topic exclusionary curriculum in public schools. When she's right, she is indeed, as when she writes:

But it must be said plainly that the Parkers and the Wirthlins are bigots. That they have “sincerely held religious beliefs” doesn’t mitigate their prejudice.

She doesn't spare the quisling liberals either. Whether it was racial issues or now sexual-orientation ones, she holds that accommodating the bigots or failing to call them on their shameless hiding behind this or that Bible verse as justification is worse than wrong. As she concludes:

The glorious thing about making such a choice for yourself is that this is America and you can believe whatever you want to believe — no matter how outrageous or irrational. Trying to impose your beliefs upon others, regardless of how “sincerely held” they may be, now that’s when the trouble starts.

The only thing missing in her clear view is how even such victories for the good guys as Wolf's dismissal of the lawsuit show America's social retardation. We, the beacon of liberty, far too often bring up the rear in equality and fairness.

Metaphorically writing, Wolf is a safe driver, but he still looks only just in front of his hood ornament. He does see the necessary state of the law and the related case citations. He seems to weigh those accurately. However, he is a far cry from the infamous slur on justices who do their job -- activist judges as wingers like to defame them. Instead, he is content to lead just a little, to let the law and that likewise infamous process that the libertarians worship take their course.

That attitude may well get us where we need to arrive. How unfortunate though that so many suffer on the way to the right place. How much more moral and reasonable it would be to head right for the destination without the layovers to accommodate our hesitancy.

Yet Wolf almost certainly reflects the moderately positive side of American jurisprudence and the larger public. We are slowly, ever so slowly getting over our worst tendencies. Polls and laws are also slowly, ever so slowly changing.

We are one of only a couple of industrialized nations still willing to murder convicted criminals, while the rest of the world outlawed capital punishment as barbaric decades or more than a century ago. On marriage equality and GLBT rights, we are slowly, ever so slowly going to the right places.

On the latter, those directly affected by discrimination, and those egalitarians and others like them are impatient. Why does America have to ride the caboose of liberty? We have the words and concepts in our constitution and popular culture. Why do we give the sincere bigots their say?

As Judge Wolf's, the American way of driving change seems to be just in front of the hood ornament. We don't go too fast or too far without a rest. It seems to be the liberal liberty loving sorts who let the lowest common denominator folk slowly, ever so slowly catch up.

I think it would not be bad to leave them in the dust. They can come to the right place eventually. I suspect that seeing the nation go on without them would be the right message on the way.

That requires some justices -- and help us all, some lawmakers -- with more courage and vision that our current set. Those criteria need to top the list in future elections. We must ask our hopeful legislators and executive branch candidates if they know how to drive our nation efficiently as well as just where to head.

---

Tags: massmarrier, Massachusetts, same sex marriage, BayWindows, Mark Wolf

Coincidences with Mad Dad Video

As Jon Stewart is wont to say, "Thank you, Jesus!" -- when stuff just to obvious parades its comedy. In this case, it would be, "Thank you, MassResistance."

There we were, minding our own pinko business, when we took at peek at the site of the organization of two who pledge to "End judicial tyranny, same-sex "marriage", and homosexual activist recruitment of our children in the public schools!" There, a simple, one-sentence post points to a YouTube vid of Mad Dad David Parker.

Think lifting the rock and seeing the bugs flying and crawling everywhere -- ooh, ooh and snakes too! In this case, the video and its key players led to more of those self-described Judeo-Christians, Charismatic Catholics, diploma mills, mail-order ministers and more.

No Bombs or Spoilers

That video has no, if you pardon the expression, revelations. It is Parker on camera last September speaking in general terms about why he demands that the Lexington Schools buckle under his demands. It is a 29-minute and 18-second clip, with the bulk of it him in the middle.

However, on both ends, a couple of iffy activist kind-of-ministers grab the screen. The host, in particular, identified herself several times as Dr.Shirley Canniff. She did not seem to understand the concepts Parker presented and as a result, asked odd questions and didn't analyze anything. Her language skills were remarkably poor. She was good at nodding and grunting though.

Parker says he has a doctorate in something unspecified. He seems bright and articulate enough. His companions though are neither and got my fingers researching.

While the YouTube teaser reads that is vid is of both Parkers, Tonia says absolutely nothing. She doesn't even move or face the camera. After appearing briefly on screen next to hubby in lawn chairs, she is gone. She may be David's faithful companion, but she seems to have far fewer lines than say, Tonto in Lone Ranger shows.

If it were just David speaking, this might be unremarkable. However, the host is fishy from the beginning. While many academicians are poor oral communicators, Canniff is inarticulate, uses very poor English and even abuses the principals' names -- Tania instead of Tonia Parker and the Worthingtons instead of Wirthlins.

Such incongruities led me to wonder about her education and experience.

Also, her co-host for this was Rev. Merrie Turner, whom Canniff identified as having been on other of her show segments. After Turner made some extremely incongruous statements, one of which David quickly disassociated himself from on camera.

The oddest was certainly her opening statement as David wound down his presentation. He spoke only of his campaign for parental control and notification. Yet, near the end of the vid, Turner takes the mike to start with how the interview reminded her of the relationship to pedophilia, specifically of Roman Catholic officials with altar boys and others. (WTF moment, here.)

She said, "Any way you cut it, it's the same spirit, it's the same anti-Christ entity that's trying to get into the hearts and the mind of the youth." She couldn't stop herself and also linked the schools issue to Nazi Germany and how those officials were sodomizing young boys. If David and others did not (Barney Fife moment, here) "nip it in the bud," we would "opening the door for the enemy to pray on our children in America."

To his credit, David quickly spoke up to say that the foursome suing made no such allegations in the schools matters.

Afterward, I was similarly curious about her background.

Circles within Spirals

While neither a cabal nor even a good conspiracy, the overlap among the key players here is strong and telling. The short version includes:

• The "TV" that taped David Parker is not TV at all in the way we think of it; the kindest way to put it is that this is exclusively new media
• Canniff's doctorate and ministry credentials are risible
• If Turner is a minister, hers are likely as light and questionable
• Unlike the Parkers and Wirthlins, the Canniffs and Turner have a trail that connects them to dubious institutions and groups

Disclaimer: Having appeared on public-access TV, I am not above self-promotion and low-audience broadcasts.

Some of the noteworthy terms that appear on the Canniff and Turner résumés and sites are Benny Hinn, the Spirit of Truth Institute, self-identification as Judeo-Christian, and Charismatic Catholicism. The Parkers and their lawsuit chums, the Wirthlins, may or may not belong to the same Charismatic Catholic movement or any of these other groups.

I have no knowledge either way. That's not particularly relevant. If we in fact are known by our deeds, words, and company we keep, they run with a strange pack.

We can certainly respect the foursome not going about their religion -- mainstream, sect, cult or otherwise -- in fact, that is a welcome change from so many who thrust their personal and private beliefs at anyone within earshot. It is remarkable only in that seemingly everyone connected with the video, plus the foursome, self-identifies as Judeo-Christian. This fits in the list of things that make you go hmm.

The Doctors Canniff

In the stuffy, New England tradition, we are accustomed to clerics who graduated from divinity schools at places like Harvard, BU and BC or formal seminaries.

Is a $15 ministry less worthy than a Harvard Divinity School D.D with installation in a mainstream denomination -- particularly if you are called by God to preach? That one is marginally harder to call than the value of a doctorate that cost a few hundred dollars for a correspondence course from an institute that is accredited by an entity unrecognized by virtually anyone except others in such bible schools.

You can head over to Jeffrey and Shirley Canniff's site to check their vitals. There we find:

1. Theophostic Ministry certificates. This is not ministry as in ordination and preaching. It is a dubious counseling and healing system that has a tinge of Scientology method about it. The underlying theory is that we carry around the bad things that we have done and what happened to us. The man behind the system, Dr. Ed Smith has a divinity degree from an accredited seminary. His counseling involves prayer, what he calls prophets as counselors and expensive sessions (such as $300). Some praise the healing. However, many strongly criticize it. A Net search for it finds a preponderance of detractors.
   
2. World Evangelical Bible Institute, Lowell, diplomas. If this ever existed, I can't find it in library or Net search. There is no site or phone associated with various forms of the name, even though the Canniffs say their got their unspecified diplomas two years ago.
   
3. Spirit of Truth Institute, Bachelors, Masters and Doctorates of Divinity. This is a textbook diploma mill. However, the couple who runs it, Paul and Faye Richardson (they also identify themselves as doctors), claims accreditation. He ended up himself with suspect degrees from Bible Schools. Amusingly enough, they also let you buy honorary doctorates for yourself or your minister. The accreditation for the divinity degrees is through the American Accrediting Association of Theological Institutions, Rocky Mount, North Carolina. Searches on that iterate the Wikipedia entry that indicates such vetting is meaningful only to the gullible.

The SOTI degree site is sparse, but great reading. At one great address in Richmond, Virginia, you can get an apparently instant and very low-cost ordination or sign up for bargain divinity degrees. The first two offerings are:

1. MINISTERIAL CREDENTIALS --- Licensed and ordination available for the qualified: Must be saved, filled with the Holy Spirit, living a clean life, called to the ministry, active, and financially responsible. $15.00 for individual or $25.00 for a married couple. Write for more information and free application to: Full Gospel of Christ Fellowship, Inc., 2800 Blendwell Road; Richmond, Virginia 23224.
2. THE SPIRIT OF TRUTH INSTITUTE --- A full accredited Bible school. Correspondance courses only, leading to Diploma, Associate, Bachelor, Masters and Doctoral degrees in Theology, Ministry, Divinity, Counseling, etc. Very low prices. For a bulletin, write Spirit of Truth Institute, 2800 Blendwell Road, Richmond, Virginia 23224

Apparently for a few hundred dollars, you can take the correspondence courses for your divinity degrees. With those in hand, you are in line for the Richardsons' mission of propagating this ministry like something between an Amway dealership and just apostolic witnessing (with degrees and titles). SOTI will act as the accrediting agency for your own ministry school as well, for annual fees. You can find out how that works by sending $3 for their tape "How to Start a Bible School."

The Canniffs state that their own school of ministry (Seek International Leadership School of Christian Multi-Media Ministry) has SOTI accreditation. This is classic teach a man to fish stuff. It looks like this could be recursive, hence the Amway allusion.

As for Turner, it is harder from her sketchy biographical data to tell where she might claim her authority to use the title Reverend. Her page lists a couple of possibles:

• Caribbean Bible Acad. & Min. Inst. - 2 yr degree. Nothing like that appears in libraries or on the internet.
• Bible Fellowship - 5 yrs. As undefined as above, but I assume these are the self-study to understand the Bible better. There is nothing to indicate any of these can confer divinity degrees.
• Benny Hinn School of Ministry. This is also a Bible-study curriculum, apparently with no authority for creating ministers.

She could be called to God's service and ordained herself. She may have had an extra $15 for the Spirit of Truth or similar ordination. It is unclear and she does not claim on her site to be preaching at or paid by any church.

What I did find about her is that she lives outside of D.C. and has a conservative activist history. Her 15 minutes of fame came not from the quasi-TV of the Canniffs, but trying to get Laura Bush to take tea with the ousted Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore -- the Ten Commandments on the lawn guy.

No More Mister Nice Blog covered this with the background articles. Turner arranged for the tea at the Renaissance Mayflower, replete with the offer to let attendants buy "Ten Commandments centerpieces made of red granite, Italian marble and rock from Mount Sinai."

Right below that mention are citations of Turner's Operation Rescue picketing of a Wichita women's clinic and related work in 1991. She apparently "spent five years fighting criminal charges before being sentenced to probation and community service for obstructing a federal court order."

The Hinn Connection

A recurring nexus in this group is charismatic preacher Benny Hinn. Turner writes that she studied at his ministry school and lists Benny Hinn Crusade Choir among her Church & Ministry Affiliations. The Canniffs sites have links to Hinn's sites, including many of his ministry school lessons. Likewise, their associated bookstore has the main Hinn site as the top link.

Hinn is even more controversial and criticized than Smith. A library or Net search for him produces charlatan, false prophet, and cult. He is quick to make specific, God-revealed predictions. For example, Castro would die in the 1990s and by 1994, God would destroy the American homosexual community in a flood of fire. It does not seem to dissuade his followers that he is wrong almost every time.

There's lots of straight analysis on him and a Wikipedia entry with links to positive and negative comments. While the Canniffs seem to like him enough to feature his sites, they don't claim any direct affiliation as Turner does.

The Judeo-Christian Thing

It's a pity that the lawsuit foursome has not shown their religious-affiliation hand. As close as they get is David and his lawyer saying they are Judeo-Christians. That phrase pops up quite a bit in relation to the Canniffs, which makes me wonder if they attend the same worship services and share theology.

It could be that this is just a right-wing meme. However, at least for the Canniffs, it seems much more formal.

They link to and claim ownership of the Judeo-Christian Multi-Media Networking Group. That comes with a Yahoo Group as well as Tripod freebie site. As they there describe this:

The main purpose of the JC Multi-Media of Boston is to assist leaders of various Christian and Messianic Ministries from the East and the West Coast by uniting and sharing of common multi-media ministry talents.

Yahoo Groups welcomes: The Judeo-Christian Multi-Media Networking Group of Boston directed by co-founders, Dr. Shirley M. Canniff, M.Ed/Div and Dr. Jeffrey Canniff, Div, Comflm - a freelance media registry founded by Janet Aldrich and The Judeo-Christian Documentary/Non-Fiction Networking Group of Los Angeles,founded by Karen Meissner.

Further on the site:

The JC Multi-Media Networking Group's primary purpose is to produce Christian documentaries, movies and teachings for both Internet radio and cable television, and to pray for the new endeavors of Christians in the media and film industry in the Greater Boston area.

The latter group in California seems to offer everything from tech troubleshooting to prayer.

To Be TV or Not To Be?

Of course, there is irony in a blogger questioning new media. Yet, the Canniffs are heavy-handed in naming their YouTube and similar postings a TV. If we were conservatives here, we'd have to put TV in quotes whenever it appears.

The self-titled WSTK-ICTV stands for Seek the Kingdom Internet Christian Television. The FCC might not like the Canniffs using those call letters. WSTK is an erstwhile licensed call signal in Aurora, North Carolina. It used to be in Colonial Heights, Virginia and for an AM radio station in Jacksonville, Florida. Those seem to be out of use.

If those call letters are not in use at the moment, I don't know the implications of using them in the videos to identify them as products of WSTK-ICTV. The ICTV is Internet Christian Television. The other kind-of-official-looking acronym is WSCIRO (Seek Christian Internet Radio Outreach). It is unclear whether combinations incorporating call signs violate any regulation, even if the FCC considers what the Canniffs do broadcasting.

Both of these are internet-only presences. The production quality and contents of both fall far short of public-access TV and are more like grade-school productions. They also seem unclear on even the technological basics and terms. For example, the WSCIRO-promised 24/7 LIVE WEBSTREAM is obviously recorded and seemingly unchanging during a given day.

Don't go looking on VHF, UHF, cable, AM or FM for these broadcasts.

What Can We Learn from This?

While it could be happenstance that these various coincidences occur with these sundry players. That doesn't seem likely.

The overlaps are circumstantial but numerous. The Judeo-Christians seem to be working together. It is unlikely that Shirley Canniff and Merrie Turner just had an interest in Lexington's education and asked David Parker for an interview as his profile heightened.

He may have had second and third thoughts listening to Canniff and then hearing Turner's outrageous comments.

I'd love to know whether they attend the same churches or just have lock-step politics. Meanwhile, it seems plain that the Canniffs are way off mainstream thought and religion. That's no a crime, but does place them in a clearer context.

---

Tags: massmarrier, Massachusetts, Judeo-Christian, theocracy, WSTK-ICTV

Loving Rhody Bishop Spits

Massachusetts marriages seem to be as insidious as homosexual lobbying, according to Rhode Island Bishop Thomas Tobin. For him, it would appear no wall is high enough or sealed tightly enough to keep the sin on the other side.

Following last week's evaluation by R.I. Attorney General Patrick Lynch, Tobin was fairly flapping his frock. After a review of R.I. law and consideration of comity, Lynch concluded that his state would begin recognizing Massachusetts marriages.

Well, don't ever let anyone say that the bishop does not live up to his self-defined motto on his coat of arms -- STRONG LOVING WISE. He brought it right to Lynch and his minions.

The strong, loving and wise bishop's brief statement ended:

It is clear that the Attorney General’s thinking on this issue has been influenced by the relentless gay agenda so prevalent in our State. It is ironic, however, that his decision was announced on Ash Wednesday, when so many citizens of our State were beginning a special time of repentance and prayer. His decision has given us another reason to repent of our sins and pray for forgiveness.

There you have it. Accusation of agenda-following is as good as refutation!

While the silly AG was off thinking legal thoughts, Tobin was not alone in his criticism. Not only do folk know that Gov. Donald L. Carcieri opposes marriage equality, the surely impartial president of the Rhode Island Republican Assembly was beside himself. That very same Robert T. McKay said, "This is a great miscarriage of justice and law by the individual who is charged with the responsibility of enforcing Rhode Island law and protecting our state constitution."

He suggested that Lynch "should have deferred to lawmakers or federal law, specifically, the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which says states do not have to recognize same-sex unions from other states." He did not add, although he should have, that these separation of powers and U.S. Constitutional things are overrated.

---

Tags: massmarrier, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, same sex marriage, comity, Thomas Tobin

Romney Pegged Big Time

Those of us around here muttering about Williard Mitt Romney's amorality is one thing. It's quite another for Slate to nail him in their lead piece by Daniel Gross.

Now that Cap'n Brylcreem is pandering to the early-primary states, national media and bloggers have been collecting his various inconsistencies in their flip-flop files. There's a solid yellow-journalism purpose to that, of course, but finding those from the Cap'n are about as hard as locating cigarette butts on Revere Beach.

Instead, Gross actually thinks about it all. He quite accurately defines how this reflects the Cap'n's career. The piece notes that he doesn't cover his butt very well when folk catch him in doublespeak. Gross writes, "It's easy to conclude that Romney lacks core principles and will say or do anything to get elected. But I think there's something deeper at work. Romney's behavior—and the fact that he doesn't think his obvious flip-flopping should arouse suspicions—suggests that he may be the first real CEO/MBA candidate."

Gross does not add that typical politicians have many years of tuning themselves to issues that play well with their constituents. That alone produces at least the appearance of consistency.

Instead, Romney doesn't believe and may not really think about the things he says. "But such hypocrisy, which turns off voters, is something like a job requirement for CEOs. In the executive suite, abandoning deeply held attitudes and reversing positions are job requirements."

True to his experience, whether in power in Boston or seeking it in Iowa, Romney does strategic planning. He adapts to the changing market conditions. We may think this is gutless and rudderless, but this is way business often works.

As Gross concludes, "It's not surprising that Romney has fled from his public record and is running to the right. What's surprising is that the man who has usually been so competent is proving to be rather poor at execution, and timing. He's moving hard right at a time when the national mood seems to be swinging in the opposite direction."

So, there the nation has it, boys and girls. The Cap'n's amorality is there for all to see and plainly described. Those who dwelt on the little contradictions did not see what was happening. Now a big player has put it on the table.

The Cap'n just can't help himself. It's all he knows.

---

Tags: massmarrier, POTUS, Daniel Gross, flip-flop, Slate, Mitt Romney

Unicorns and Judeo-Christians

His clients are "devout Judeo-Christians" averred the attorney -- orally and in filings here (first page, Introduction) and here (page 1, Statement). No one laughed out loud, but during the hearing I put a an index finger and thumb to my chin and saw puzzled glances elsewhere in the courtroom.

This not only appeared repeatedly in the Mad Dad case in federal court. This specious and oxymoronic epithet turns out to have been brought back from a well-deserved death several times. Today, like a golem, it is serving its extremist masters politically.

You don't need to look very far on the Net or in a library to get your fill of Judeo-Christian values, Judeo-Christians, and Judeo-Christian worldview. Its coinage and usage have been as first a propaganda device and more recently as a political/public-relations gimmick. Today, it really is camouflaged code for increased theocracy disguised as merely wanting to maintain positive moral teaching.

Most citations are on right-wing Websites and many of these include calls for theocratic political aims. A few are way out there. There are Judeo-Christian tattoo sites (the one above taken from one), dating connections, jewelry selections, and a health center. The most bizarre take on the term surely has to be from a Ku Klux Klan site. While many racists seem to like the phrase, this group goes beyond disdaining Judeo-Christian. They deny that the Ahrahamic patriarchs -- and even Jesus -- were Jewish (that would be lowercase on their site).

Curiouser and curiouser...

In this clutter, there are a few understandable uses. That clinic in Tampa, for example, is the project of a Presbyterian minister who just wants to help the poor. He subsequently found support from other clerics, including rabbis. Hence, he expanded the name to be inclusive.

Likewise, some UU and UCC ministers, mostly older ones, use the term synonymously with Abrahamic to describe inclusive religion evolving from the Torah. the Christian Bibles and Koran. It is not unusual for Jews to attend and belong to UU churches and for liberal rabbis to swap pulpits on occasion with their UU counterparts. This has even led to some of them using the term Jewnitarian to refer jocularly to the affinity. Here in Boston, the Arlington Street Church had a rabbi-in-residence, Howard Berman, who had retired from the biggest synagogue in Chicago.

Certainly there is no church or denomination or seminary of Judeo-Christianity. It is instructive to see how the term became woven in the weft of American life and how the right came to appropriate it.

A wonderfully succinct recap is available on NPR as a sound clip. Beliefnet Editor-in-Chief Steven Waldman tracked down its origins and subsequent submersion and resurfacing.

Reframing the Framers

Our fabulous, famous Founding Fathers and framers of our U.S. Constitution did not know from Judeo-Christians. To a one, even if they did not strongly identify as Christians, they described this as a Christian nation. By that, of course, they mean Protestant. As Waldman said, Judeo-Christian "was not a term the Founding Fathers or their grandchildren would have understood."

Yet well over 200 years later, we recently find articles, sermons, sites and speeches holding forth to proclaim that those who wrote our Constitution used Judeo-Christian values and standards, which, of course, must be restored through these organizations' political actions.

Consider Rev. Jerry Fallwell on Ronald Reagan: My Christian Hero. "He was pro-life. He affirmed the Judeo-Christian values of our Founders." Further, the Stop Activisit Judges group became Vision America and reflects the use of the term clearly in its self-description:

Our mission is to inform, encourage and mobilize pastors and their congregations to be proactive in restoring Judeo-Christian values to the moral and civic framework in their communities, states, and our nation.

No other organization exists exclusively to involve, represent, and serve pastors and their congregations in the realm of reforming culture and government from a traditional Judeo-Christian perspective.

Christian involvement in civil government is not optional. It is an essential part of our calling from God to be salt and light in a dying culture. God’s people in Christ must address the great moral issues now before the nation. The church has been entrusted by Almighty God with the tools necessary to reverse America’s moral decline and effect lasting change if only she will engage in this momentous struggle before it is too late!

This is typical of what a search for the term shows. The Christian Coalition of America has a similar call in its belief statement, including, "...we continuously work to identify, educate and mobilize Christians for effective political action! Such action will preserve, protect and defend the Judeo-Christian values that made this the greatest country in history. " It prepared a pastors' handbook for this purpose, which takes the media to task for failure to acknowledge:

1. public policies offend or oppose Christian values;
2. Christians have a right to be involved;
3. the media is failing in their constitutional responsibility to inform the electorate by promoting their agenda;
4. erosion of Judeo Christian values, which is the basis of our morals and civility is not good for society;
5. our cause is right and will preserve the future of this country for our children.

Jews? Muslims?

It should be no surprise that we don't see Judeo-Islamic-Christian or Abrahamic in this catchphrase. It goes beyond destruction of the World Trade Towers. In fact, it is easy to find right-wing denunciations of Muslim associations, such as they had nothing to do with the Constitution (David Limbaugh; Church State Separation as a Weapon) and are our enemies (Franklin Graham; "Islam has attacked us.")

The real irony is that having said or written Judeo-Christian, these groups suddenly forget the Jews. Those sites citing the term invariably mention it in passing and then go on at length only about Protestant values and aims.

A literature or Net scan shows a preponderance of works describing the irrationality, oxymoronic nature and historical fallacy of Judeo-Christian. Theologians in general and Jewish scholars in particular point out in detail how meaningless and even offensive the term is. For example, consider a lits of belief and practice differences and one of many articles describing The Myth of a Judeo-Christian Tradition.

There were certainly Jewish Christians in the first 50 years of Christianity (although they had a hard sell in conversion as they demanded male circumcision, including adults). Today, we have such small groups as Jews For Jesus too. It would be fun to ask a winger if these were the groups they mean by the term.

Nazis and Commies, Oh My

How we got to today's gimmicky use Judeo-Christian is easy to trace. In 1984, Trinity College Professor Mark Silk researched the term and found that it served both WWII and Cold War propaganda purposes.

In WWII, the Nazis began referring to "our Christian civilization" as part of their justification for pogroms, death camps and imperialism. Religious News Service writer Mark O'Keefe revisited this with Silk. "'Judeo-Christian,' which in 1952 looked like an incredibly inclusive term, doesn't look very inclusive now," said Silk. "So we probably need a new term."

The U.S. Government was also quick to repurpose the term for the next generation. During the Cold War, it came to mean our tolerant society in contrast to godless communism.

"More recently, conservative Americans have adopted it as a way of promoting a pro-religion agenda without seeming exclusivist or scary," said Waldman.

So, what we see from self-described Judeo-Christians is an effort to implant their particular politics into government at all level. Beware of Judeo-Christians bearing petitions!

---

Tags: massmarrier, Massachusetts, Judeo-Christian, theocracy, propaganda

In Service to the Lurid

A lot of years ago, I kept company with a woman prone to superlatives. Everything was the most something -- best, sweetest, tallest, smartest, biggest...

She was one devil of a lot better looking (and much, much brighter) than Article 8/MassResistance's Brian Camenker. Yet, I think of her when he holds forth. He too seems to have a real adjective jones. Not only does he often lie or misstate; he tends to describe everything related to politics and particularly gay people in the extremes.

[Numerous pix of him floating around the Net always seem to have him tilting right. Hmm. Tic, geometry, or coincidence?]

We here had been hoping for a superlative tirade this morning on his conservative talk show. It turns out that their description of "News you won't hear anywhere else" is also news you won't hear even here. It quickly became apparent that the pre-taped show did not receive tweaks to accommodate yesterday morning's dismissal of the federal suit to try to force the Lexington school system to agree to anti-marriage-equality parents.

Schadenfreude aside, I anticipated a hyperbole/superlative fest this morning. There should have been high dudgeon, no, highest dudgeon, at the U.S. District Court decision. Following that should have been rallying cries, banner unfurling, and the inevitable call for donations.

Not Internet Time

Lackaday, the show started just after 10 this morning on 1150 AM with non-news. Brian said he awaited a ruling on the case. He also incorrectly claimed a couple of times that the judge had asked the head lawyer for the defendants to provide a rebuttal document in response to amici briefs from the ACLU and others. In fact, that lawyer, Robert S. Sinsheimer, claimed that he had not gotten a chance to rebut the brief and requested that the judge give him time to do so. Chief Judge Mark L. Wolf granted him a week.

The result seemed pretty weak to me and apparently did not change Wolf's mind. By the bye, in that same week and change, Wolf had the three books that the plaintiffs allege are sex-education materials, books he admitted as exhibits. I would not be at all surprised if he went through the early readers and slapped his thigh in amusement at the allegations about them.

Apparently, Bud over at MassResistanceWatch has a much higher tolerance for the MassResistance radio show. Searching for radio on his site produces numerous hits about the show.

So, instead of the railing and fulmination,this morning we got:

• That a failure of Wolf to dismiss would be "a huge possible threat to the homosexual agenda in the schools."
• Those picture books showing the reality that some homes may have two moms or two dads were "teaching elementary school kids homosexuality."
• That the defendants were promoting "the bizarre idea that a majority should trump a minority." (Don't tax his brain with comments about the current anti-same-sex-marriage amendment effort.)
• That telling kids things like SSM is legal is "brainwashing."

Facts and reason have never been plants in his garden. Also how mentioning something becomes proselytizing for it seems to be a mystery to all those outside that peculiar patch.

Waiting for Purple Prose

While Brian and likely his sidekick Amy Mann load up their rhetorical weapons with sufficient adjectives, we must wait to see how florid and torrid the display will be. Meanwhile, his immediate reaction to the Boston Globe following the dismissal was disappointing. He reused some of his chestnuts.

The Globe has been overly generous in letting him promote his anti-Willard Romney screeds. Their reporter must have been sad that there were no new slogans or insults. Instead he pulled out two of his standard slurs, calling the ruling "unbelievably odious and horrific."

Note to myself: I tend to use odious to describe efforts to take away other people's rights. I must find new terms.

He did expand this to tie his recurrent anti-gay theme again. He said of the ruling, "It reinforces the rights of schools to normalize homosexuality without parents' knowledge and consent."

Website Teasers

The plaintiff parents feign that they are not anti-homosexual. Brian make no such pretense. He was at his best when his self-defined analysis of Wolf's decision stated, "This bizarre ruling is every parent's nightmare. But more than that, it's a complete abandonment of right and wrong, civil rights, or even common sense."

Other gems from that page include:

• Judge Wolf makes the absurd claim that normalizing homosexuality to young children is "reasonably related to the goals of preparing students to become engaged and productive citizens in our democracy." This means teaching "diversity" which includes "differences in sexual orientation." This is lunacy...
• Wolf claims that the flawed and badly argued Brown decision is now the "law" of the United States. Did Congress pass this? No, it didn't. It's merely a ruling in a case. This ruling is full of use of "case law" from obscure decisions, as if it were real law.

That wheezing argument that courts cannot interpret law goes beyond an intentional misunderstanding of their role in our branches of government. In fact, interpreting law is their mandate. They make sure disparate laws work together and they interpret laws when folks like these plaintiffs ask them to do so.

Much as Goodridge is the law of the land following a Supreme Judicial Court interpretation of the commonwealth constitution and equal-rights laws, the referenced Brown case in yesterday's decision is law because federal courts say it is. The confused little groups who insist that only legislatures can determine our effective laws need to get with the program or at least read a civics text or even the U.S. Constitution.

Regardless, surely before next Saturday at 10 AM, the blog and Website will get some new, improved hyperbole. There is so much promise there now, such as:

• September 2006: Parker's lawyers file GREAT rebuttal to motion to dismiss.
• August 2006: Defendants file blistering 57-page motion to dismiss Parkers federal lawsuit.

Surely, Brian can't just leave such loaded lingo lingering.

Diversification

Fortunately for Brian and Amy, they are already marketing a new product line -- that anti-Romney stuff. In fact, because of the hooha nationwide about the 2008 election, they got much longer than their 15 minutes of fame and have fared much better than they have with the Mad Dad case.

In fact, when they accept that this is a lost cause, this will be a wee pony they stop riding at all. Then, we'll look to see a flurry of bluster about this case, dribbling off to silence.

It suddenly comes to mind to wonder how the Mass Family Institute/VoteOnMarriage and Catholic Citizenship folk will take it when their amendment and related anti-marriage-equality efforts eventually fail. I haven't seen a second product line like MassResistance's. Yet surely they must have other mean-spirited tricks in their dark bags.

---

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

Wyoming Redeems Itself

Okay, Wyoming got it right, by one legislative committee vote in a tie-breaker. That's representative democracy at its best, right?

I confess to ragging Wyoming about its almost certainly un-U.S.-constitutional effort to void Massachusetts same-sex marriages for anyone that moved into that state, a.k.a. The Equality State. Note here that push came to shove and they didn't do it.

The House Rules Committee found the bill (SF0013) on its agenda. According to the Wyoming Capital Outlook, it promised to be nasty. Anti-marriage-equality legislators "said they were defending 'traditional family values,' and straightening out some contradictions in Wyoming’s law, which describes marriage as between a man and a woman, but also recognizes marriages from other states, which in the case of Massachusetts might include same-sex unions."

There was also emotion from other sides. For example:

Several citizens and legislators defended the rights of gay couples. Rep. Pat Childers (R-Cody) spoke proudly of his gay daughter, "who was born that way," and Rep. Dan Zwonitzer (R-Cheyenne) said that his study of American history revealed an ongoing extension of liberties and freedoms, "and if it costs me my seat…I can say I stood up for basic rights, and history can be my judge."

In the end, it was the speaker of the house -- a Republican -- Roy Cohee who broke the tie to kill the mean-spirited bill. According to the AP report, "Cohee said afterward that he mulled over the impassioned comments from residents and legislators on both sides of the issue before deciding to oppose the bill. "Is it a responsible thing of government to say that, OK, as a government, we'll provide certain benefits, and entitlements and rights to the people of this country and of this state, unless you are this or that?" Cohee said. "Is that our responsibility to do that? I don't think it is."

Speaking well for the legislature though, no lawmaker stood to speak in favor of the bill. However a Republican representative from Cheyenne, Dan Zwonitzer, seemed to rivet the body with his comments, including, "This is the civil rights struggle of my generation."

His whole comments appear in the blog the Petrelis Files here.

Good on ya, Wyoming.

---

Tags: massmarrier, Massachusetts, Wyoming, comity, same-sex marriage

Mad Dad Loses a Huge One

Winger control freaks took a big hit today. The judge in the federal Mad Dad case told the four plaintiff parents to take a hike.

This one was so easy to predict that we can't even be smug. If you scan the past couple of weeks of this blog, you'll see that we were torn over whether U.S. District Court Chief Judge Mark L. Wolf would let this go to trial or dismiss it. We never seriously entertained the idea that the two couples could prevail on such a theocratic suit.

The gist of the suit is that the four claimed that their First and Fourth Amendment rights in the U.S. Constitution were violated by the Lexington schools' diversity program. They alleged that mentioning the reality of same-sex marriage and the possibility of homosexual couples would deprive them of their freedom to practice their religion in teaching their kids.

Wolf howled, "No!" His whole ruling is here. At the same site, there are views very opposed to mine. You can also find the ruling at the Mass ACLU site, along with the we-told-you-so press release.

This ruling may be no huge surprise, perhaps even not to David Parker and his uxorial unit. Theirs, indeed, was a quixotic charge. They gambled that stringing together key amendments with such concepts as parental duty and traditional values would outweigh tomes of law and case law. Honk. Thanks for playing.

The suit also included the whipped cream and cherry of a state law requiring parental notification of sex education. Wolf dismissed the federal claims and also the state claims, without prejudice. That means that the foursome can continue to take action at a state level to try to argue that showing pictures of the reality that a family might have two moms -- legal here -- is somehow sex education.

Any bookie would love to take that bet.

In the ruling, Wolf expanded on the questions he asked during oral arguments earlier this month. He telegraphed his decision by suggesting that 1) same-sex marriage is the law of the land here and that the foursome's kids would go to class with children with two dads or two moms, 2) the foursome was free and expected to provide their moral and religious instruction in the other 18 hours and weekends when the kids were not in school, and 3) parents who had real problems with normal reality had the obligation and perhaps duty to home school their kids or send them to places that exhibited their peculiar religious tics.

Here I agree with the Parkers that these are fundamental issues. However, it bewilders me that they would think that they would expect to be able to move their theology into the school system to dictate curricula, to determine when and under what conditions their children could be exposed to concepts and laws that affect all children in the school. That would be theocracy and that would be unacceptable under that First Amendment.

Perhaps the best outcome of this suit was that the plaintiffs' claims were so outre that they forced Wolf to respond in wording that other federal and state judges will use to quash such frivolous actions. For example, Wolf stated:

In summary, the court must dismiss plaintiffs' federal claims because this case is not distinguishable in any material respect from Brown v. Hot, Sexy and Safer Productions, 68 F.3d 525 (1st Cir. 1995). In Brown, the First Circuit held that the constitutional right of parents to raise their children does not include the right to restrict what a public school may teach their children and that teachings which contradict a parent's religious beliefs do not violate their First Amendment right to exercise their religion. [page 3]

A key allegation in this suit was that even mentioning something that conflicted with the parents' beliefs somehow interfered with their religious practice. Again, as with his questions in the oral phase, Wolf noted that the parents could preach whatever they wanted, but not mandate what public school could present.

Wolf expanded on that with:

In essence, under the Constitution public schools are entitled to teach anything that is reasonably related to the goals of preparing students to become engaged and productive citizens in our democracy. Diversity is a hallmark of our nation. It is increasingly evident that our diversity includes differences in sexual orientation. Our nation's history includes a fundamental commitment to promoting mutual respect among citizens in our diverse nation that is manifest in the First Amendment's prohibitions on establishing an official religion and restricting the free exercise of religious beliefs on which plaintiffs base some of their federal claims. [page 4]

The right for parents to raise their kids does not extend to controlling the curriculum of public schools. On the other hand, Wolf presented the foursome with what they say is an hard choice. In addition to other schooling, Wolf suggested that they could campaign among their peers and neighbors to elect a school board with similar view to their own.

Rather than depicting them as a set of oddballs mumbling amongst themselves in a corner, their lead attorney, Robert Sinsheimer said in the oral phase that they considered themselves "a minority" in the community. He did not elaborate about whether their extreme religious and political views created this status. However, he implied that they held little hope of prevailing in such elections.

In the ruling, Wolf seemed to affirm one argument after another from lead defense attorney John J. Davis. He interpreted the constitutional and case law as Davis did. Sinsheimer's efforts to twist the citations to prove the opposite of what others think they do had some literary merit, but apparently little legal worth to Wolf.

We are reminded of the Alice in Wonderland snippet:

Humpty Dumpty: When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less.
Alice: The question is, whether you can make words mean so many different things.
Humpty Dumpty: The question is: which is to be master - that's all.

Even to the repeated claim that the foursome's kids were special because they were kindergarten or primary student didn't cut it with Wolf. He ruled, "Neither the Supreme Court nor the First Circuit have suggested that parents have constitutional rights concerning public elementary school students that are different or greater than their rights concerning older students." [page 23]

That may be harsh reality to the fantasy prone.

Key to the defendants' arguments was that the commonwealth mandated that the schools teach diversity. Wolf came down heavily in favor of this fundamental point. In several sections, he noted that the schools had both right and duty to follow such direction. He also cited case law as having already decided this with such comments as:

In view of the foregoing, Brown's holding that parents do not have a fundamental liberty interest that permits them to prescribe the curriculum for their children means that the defendants' use of the books at issue and related teaching is constitutionally permissible if there is a rational basis for the instruction. [page 27]

Furthermore, Wolf was strong in his assertion about education that went beyond defense arguments that a major purpose of eduction was to prepare kids for citizenship. He cited Thomas Jefferson there and added "One of the most fundamental of those values is mutual respect. Indeed, our nation's devotion to such respect is manifest in the First Amendment itself, which prohibits the majority from establishing an official religion or prohibiting the exercise of any sincere religious belief, no matter how abhorrent it may be to many or most people." [page 29]

This will surely appear in related cases going forward. Those who would deny respect to homosexuals or any minority group they disfavor may disdain Wolf's decision in such matters.

More narrowly, Wolf dismantled and tromped on the plaintiff claims of hybrid rights violation and of conspiracy. Here again, he concurred with assertions of defense attorney Davis.

From here, it appears as though the plaintiffs from the beginning alleged a persecution that never occurred, violation of religious rights that did not happen, interference with their private practices that they could not begin to prove, and most of all, a parental privilege to control the progress of the external world that does not align with reality or reason.

Follow-Up Items: Saturday's Boston Globe quotes the foursome's attorney as saying they would appeal and soldier on at the state level. Unless the only aim would be increasing winger cred, that should be a waste. Wolf's decision doesn't leave wiggle room. Instead, it tears apart the plaintiffs' arguments and allegations, down to the central issue about whether parents can specify curricula and classroom procedures to suit their wishes and beliefs.

Over at MassResistanceWatch, Bud helps us keep our focus by reminding us of what's important here. "My sympathies go out to the children who were caught up in all this mess and the Lexington same sex parents who had to witness this nasty and bigoted attack on their families in their own town."

---

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

Avaricious Poetry

Warning: Off-topic babbling and musing follows.

The unpraised -- and perhaps kudos unworthy -- spammers may reflect this era's stream of consciousness poetic artisanship. A scan of the titles in my spam buckets is often amusing and even thought-provoking.

Any given weekend, the spammers off from their jobs or studies try pathetically to entice us to open their offerings. I have seen estimates that they can profit even if they get one out of one hundred of us to look at their spam and one of a thousand of those to give them money.

Perhaps, but let's consider the literary and theatrical aspects.

On a few accounts and a mail reader with several others, my spam filters catch almost everything. I have these set to hold messages for a week. A couple of times a month, something I want -- generally with a link or two embedded -- ends up in one of these bit buckets.

I am paranoid about email. I never open anything that is clearly spam. Also, even for my sister and other angel-loving types, I don't open inspirational videos, PowerPoint presentations or even JPEG images -- nothing that can hide an executable.

For my slightly twisted amusement, before deleting these, I can scan down the amusing fictive senders and subjects.

Try as they might, spammers can't seem to rise to the level of refrigerator magnetic poetry or even to Dave Berry's standard of that's a good name for a rock band.

A couple of years ago, the subjects seemed to make a (dis)honest effort to trick you. The sender had a common WASPy name (Susan or Charley) and the subject was something like they were expecting you for dinner or such.

Recently though, there are a lot of single-word subjects, apparently generated from an English-language dictionary, or a random, nonsensical phrase or text captured off the Net. Consider:

• irrefutable
• petal
• harpoon agitate
• stealth packer (actually a candidate for Dave Berry)
• THE WHITE RIVER STAGE WAS 28.
• truth acute angle
• brandenburg unary
• engineering inconsistent

Gertrude Stein might have been inspired by some of this.

Petal. Petal. sleepwalk we talk and walk Irrefutable latch. Heigh ho, Oakland. talk and walk

In the main though, rhymers would have to collect many weeks of such gems to assemble even a short poem. The blank verse folk would have an easier time, but verbs are hard to come by.

Instead, the free-association sorts can revel in the subjects just for the stimulation. Consider:

• Be sanhedrin of salty
• bed logo
• by proscribe the marjorie

I consider these small gifts, offerings left by the demented, scattered freely about in the off-chance they will find a home.

It was like a moment last weekend when the family left the Chestnut Hill multiplex (I recommend Pan's Labyrinth) and I noticed a folded sheet of stationery on the pavement with visible writing showing through. I felt the compulsion of my youth to pick it up and voyeuristically enjoy that offering. I can control myself now, most times, but did note it to a son to see his response. He was indifferent to that personal artifact and strode on.

He also can ignore the subjects of spams.

---

Tags: massmarrier, musing, junk email

Rhody Waves a Dead Chicken

The magic in the near south was slow, but Rhode Island apparently got it done. Its attorney general said the state should recognize Massachusetts same-sex marriages.

Genuflection to eeka at 1 Smoot Short for the alert.

This is certainly better than the marble-mouth New Jersey AG's statement. They did the Nelly version -- Oo, oo, just don't call it marriage.

According to the Providence Journal, AG Patrick Lynch responded to the Board of Governors for Higher Education. They had three employees married in Massachusetts requesting personnel-file updates to show their status.

Small inconvenience: The ProJo link requires free registration.

Lynch's magic wand has a very limited range though. He was plain in adding that this in no way permitted SSMs to start happening in his state. The governor is very anti-marriage equality and the legislature regularly refuses to handle bills that would legalize SSM.

Otherwise, Rhode Island has fairly liberal marriage laws. It is in a sweet spot legally for never having limited marriages to a man and a woman. I had expected them to be the second state offering full SSM.

Given the opposition from the governor and a few key legislative leaders, Lynch was real cautious. He justified his opinion based on a 1904 ruling from the state's high court. That said marriages are valid unless "odious by the common consent of nations, or if its influence is thought dangerous to the fabric of society, so that it is strongly against the public policy of the jurisdiction."

With that very narrow set of limits, Lynch concluded, "The only marriages declared contrary to public policy [and void] in Rhode Island are bigamous marriages, incestuous marriages and marriages between two mentally incompetent persons."

Makes-You-Go-Hmm Follow-Up: The editorial in today's Kent County Daily Times suggests that the AG's comments are leading:

So legislators have straddled the fence for a while now - and while they said early this year gay marriage might hypothetically make it onto the 2007 legislative agenda, it's not particularly likely.

It's beginning to sound more and more like they won't have a choice.

...(Lynch's) written opinion has no technical legal weight; it's strictly advisory - but don't mistake the impact of a statement from the state's top lawyer on an issue of such great social importance.

---

Tags: massmarrier, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, same sex marriage, comity

Marriage Gust in Augusta

It is to laugh a common-sense laugh. At the behest of a minister, a Maine legislator has filed a bill to remove ministers and other clergy from those who can sign wedding certificates in that state. The theocrats who love pretending that marriages are just religious ceremonies will be a dither. They conveniently forget that these are civil contracts and clerics are add-on solemnizers.

It's bad enough when the anti-gay/anti-marriage-equality ranters fantasize aloud about the way marriage always has been. They have even fallen into a chant implying it is actually the ministers or other clerics who make marriage in Massachusetts or Maine or elsewhere legal. Apparently many ministers, driving while looking no farther than their hood ornaments, buy into that too.

That only goes beyond coffee hour conversation when those folks want theocratic legislation -- that is, if they would like to legislate their religious practices and beliefs for all adults.

Let's say it firmly and slowly enough in short enough words for all to understand.

• The government permits and legalizes the marriage.
• The state license permits various appointed or elected officials and most clergy to sign the license as agent of the state for that marriage.
• In Massachusetts alone, plain folk can solemnize one marriage per year.
• The majority of us who marry get our marriage solemnized by someone other than a cleric.
• The religious ceremony can be the highlight of your life if you feel that way, but it is in no way required to make a marriage legal.
• Likewise, if you divorce, you do so through the state, not your cleric.
• Constitutions in the states make it plain that marriage is a civil contract.

The bible thumpers seem to overlook much in their holy book. Our patriarchs apparently to a one (if they could afford it, and nearly all could) were polygamous. Many with one wife had numerous mistresses. For most of history, people just lived together and formal marriage was relatively rare. It was only in the last century that weddings were truly the norm throughout our society.

With the political issues to fight, we can understand, if not condone, the lying hyperbole. However, when it comes to legislation that affects all adults, let's keep it clean.

Up in Maine, the legislative geste and jest is the bill 779. It would return marriage to its original form around there, supposedly leaving folk to continue to arrange their parades down the nave on their own. By inference, it would make the religiously inclined take a separate trip to a notary or justice of the peace for the legal side.

An Act To Remove Clergy as Signatories on Marriage Licenses strikes or an ordained or licensed minister of the gospel from the list of official solemnizers -- those who can legally sign a marriage license to make the union legal. Given our U.S. Constitution's First Amendment, this makes legal sense, but the emotions surrounding such plainspoken separation of government and religion should make for some interesting debate.

I'm betting the committee studying it finds a way to kill it.

By the bye, my own marriage is coming up soon on 31 years. It is legal under the authority of a notary.

Rep. Boyd Marley introduced the bill at the request of North Deering Congregational Church (Portland) Rev. Mark Rustin. He figures clerics need a clear distance from the legal stuff, and they should concentrate on parishioners and souls and such.

As the article puts it:

Rustin said the role of clergy as marital contract agents puts them in a difficult position when the very people they married need help getting through a divorce. “We tied the knot that they’re desperately trying to untie,” he said, and that, too, often stops people from coming to get help from the clergy who married them. He also said there are times when older couples want the clergy’s blessing to live together, but don’t want to lose Social Security or other benefits that come with the marriage contract.

“My main emphasis is to separate us, the church, the clergy, from the legal entanglements that people get themselves wrapped up with in marriage,” Rustin said.

He dismissed that this might have anything to do with marriage equality or future related legislative debates and actions concerning that.

Rustin and Marley are neighbors. The latter said the minster "doesn’t want to be 'an agent of the government,' but rather a clergyman in charge of a 'religious ceremony in the eyes of God.'"

For his own historical perspective, Rustin noted that it was a quirk of the Colonial times that even led ministers to get the right to solemnize marriages in Maine. Town governments needed to find people who could read and write to make the civil contracts legal. "Clergy were the only ones literate in large measure and the extra income came in handy." However, he added, "Being agents of the state isn’t an appropriate place for us to be. I can’t serve two masters at once."

The bill is in the judiciary committee. If it emerges, there will be a public hearing.

---

Tags: massmarrier, Maine, solemnization, civil contracts, Boyd Marley, Mark Rustin

Cirignano Riding the Wheel of Justice

In a closed proceeding in Worcester today, Larry Cirignano apparently heard that he remains on the hook for attacking protester Sarah Loy two months ago at an anti-marriage-equality rally in that beautiful burg.

The initial report came from BayWindow's Ethan Jacobs. The clerk magistrate found probable cause for both assault and battery, and civil rights charges against the former executive director of Catholic Citizenship.

While Cirignano resigned his position and headed off to D.C. for a to-be-created role doing the same dirty work at a national level, he is scheduled to return to Worcester District Court on April 11th for arraignment.

I would love to be a D.A. in Worcester hearing Cirginano's lawyers trying to strike a plea bargain on this set of charges. Originally he had stonewalled, claiming total innocence. Some of his supporters even claim the slight woman protester flung herself to the ground, even though witnesses say Cirignano shoved her from behind to the pavement.

Keep checking with BayWindows and Pie and Coffee for news on this.

Next Day Follow-Ups: The Boston Globe got a super-light quote from the victim and the Worcester Telegram has a little more detail. Both published these today, Wednesday.

The Globe couldn't get anything from the defendant or his side. From Loy by phone, they heard, "I'm very glad that the city of Worcester and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts are taking civil rights seriously. It's good news, because my civil rights were violated."

The Telegram included snippets from the investigators' report:

Several people held counter-demonstrations at the afternoon rally. Sarah Loy, 27, of Worcester, who was holding a sign defending same-sex marriage, told police Mr. Cirignano pushed her in the shoulder area with both hands while repeatedly saying, “You have to get out of here. … Now,” according to a police report. Ms. Loy initially told police she was not injured, but investigators later photographed a small bruise on her elbow.

Three witnesses said they saw Mr. Cirignano push Ms. Loy “with force,” according to the report. Police said Mr. Cirignano told them he “lightly” pushed Ms. Loy with one hand to prevent her from moving into the area of the podium.

KnowThyNeighbor wonders whether the anti-marriage-equality running dogs -- Ray Flynn, Kris Mineau and Evelyn Reilly -- will feign distance from the accused's actions or maybe actively disavow them.

---

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

Mad Dad Mouthpiece Mumbles

Maybe the lawyer for Mad Dad and his aggrieved chums has been out shoveling snow and chipping ice. Robert Sinsheimer didn't appear to have put that effort into the response to the ACLU amicus brief he wheedled a week's delay for from the U.S. District Court.

Ever eager to serve, the Article 8/MassResistance folk have the nine pager up for your perusal. They also offer the related documents, including the amicus filing.

Sinsheimer is clearly an excitable and emotional guy. He can hardly stay in his chair while others speak. Unfortunately his counter-counter-arguments here fall into did-not/did-too class.

He argues:

• Separate, new limits for these very young children. Despite the reading materials in questions that mention or allude to marriage equality here where it is legal being at age-appropriate in level, schools should not expose kindergarten and primary kids to mentions of it.
• Conflicts between parental belief and curricula must lean to the parents, even it that means separating their kids in school as needed. If parents say a concept "offended their faith," the school must accommodate them. (I think that is called theocracy, but so what?)
  
• Regardless of the ACLU saying that parents have some rights in school, they really mean that parents have no rights that go over the school threshold. (Don't claim school systems have rights and duties too. Parents rule. Nay nay nay.)
  
• It is not enough to say that the parents can exercise their religious upbringing out of school. He briefly states that this is a constitutional privacy right in school.

There wasn't any new in the document. Unfortunately for his arguments, Sinsheimer admitted that his original complaint failed repeatedly in drawing the connections between case law and this matter. For example, he admitted that this does not hinge on First Amendment establishment-of-religion. Instead, he suddenly claims that "That these cases are primarily 'establishment clause' constructions does not detract from their value here. The 'establishment clause' and the 'free exercise clause' are doctrinal cousins."

That just screams pay-no-attention-to-the-man-behind-the-curtain. Yet, this is a federal suit, not traffic court.

He also tried some hand waving, apparently to try to erase some of the original case's more absurd demands for remedy. Take the requirement that even spontaneous classroom conversations initiated by classmates should trigger removing the Mad Dad kids. In this document, Sinsheimer writes, "Noting in the complaint is directed at children. The defendants and the ACLU have sought to alter the discussion by suggesting that the plaintiffs wish to chill the rights of other children to talk about their families. Nothing could be further from the truth."

Yet the heart of the complaint and subsequent filings for the plaintiffs is their assertion that the early-reader books in question and any related diversity curricula have evil intent. As Sinsheimer wrote here, "The adult plaintiffs fear that their families' deep, sincere and abiding faith will be eradicated..." Later in the filing, he added, "The defendants' sole motivation is their own political determination that the Plaintiffs' faith should be eradicated, and the place to start this process is with their children."

That kind of crazy speak and mind reading probably deserves a dope slap more than serious consideration. However, Chief Justice Mark L. Wolf loves constitutional issues. Sinsheimer is making increasingly hard to take the arguments seriously.

During the orals last week, Wolf ask whether the complaining parents couldn't and shouldn't show and tell their own morals, and more than counter the school and commonwealth's position that same-sex marriage is the reality in Massachusetts. He said that he'd like to hear from the plaintiffs on these issues, but Sinsheimer has given him no more that a 50% incentive to allow a trial. Even Judge Wolf would need some sense that the plaintiffs' had a shot.

I have no doubt there are topics in addition to same-sex marriage that those parents don't want to discuss with their kids. As a parent of three, I can tell them surely that they and their kids will be much better off discussing moral and other issues rather than ignoring them or pretending all that kids learn will be in Sunday School.

As a judgmental person, I might add that they have an asthenic and sad little faith if it cannot stand up to such weak challenges as hearing that some families have two mommies. If that eradicates their faith, they'd be better off with a stronger one.

---

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