Homogenizing homosexuality: using techniques that allow a tiny minority to gain power over a complacent majority, homosexual activists are leading Massachusetts (and America) down into a moral abyss.

The homosexual lobby once argued that state anti-sodomy laws across the nation should be repealed, on the basis that the state should not interfere "in the privacy of the bedroom." But since their 2003 Lawrence v. Texas victory striking down state anti-sodomy laws, that argument has fallen by the wayside, with the perversion lobby now besieging city halls, court justices, and politicians to endorse and subsidize what they do in the so-called "privacy of the bedroom."

The homosexual lobby wants political recognition and protection because it fears that its agenda could be put up for a vote on state ballots, where it would be rejected by a majority of the electorate, even in liberal Massachusetts. Case in point, on November 8, Texans overwhelmingly approved an amendment banning same-sex "marriage."

But if the majority of residents, even in Massachusetts, do not support the homosexual agenda, how did the homosexual lobby become so powerful? It is applying some time-worn organizing techniques that enable a tiny minority to gain power over a complacent majority, techniques that were pioneered by the Communist Parties of the Eastern European bloc in the 1950s but which can be used by any group for political organizing.

The theory behind the Communist organizing techniques was that a false appearance of popular support for the party platform could be manufactured with a pincer strategy involving both top-down decisions by those in power ("pressure from above") and street demonstrations in support of the Communist agenda ("pressure from below"). Expounded by Czech Communist Party theoretician Jan Kozak in the late 1950s and published in the United States as the book And Not a Shot Is Fired, Kozak noted that traditionalists could be isolated politically and given a psychological feeling of helplessness by dramatic street demonstrations and heavy-handed decisions by well-placed political elites.

The homosexual lobby is using these organizing techniques across the United States to promote its perverse agenda on the unwilling masses. One notable example of the use of those organizing techniques is the legalizing of same-sex "marriage" in Massachusetts, which was made possible through a pincers strategy. In the case of homosexual "marriage," this strategy was used to derail a citizen initiative that was begun to head off an expected court decision on same-sex unions in that state.

Legalization of Same-sex "Marriage"

Massachusetts almost never had a same-sex "marriage" decision by its Supreme Judicial Court. A wealthy Massachusetts lawyer, Ed Pawlick, anticipated the direction the state courts were headed in 2001 and with his wife, Sally, opened an initiative petition campaign to amend the state constitution to explicitly prohibit state recognition of such unions.

The Pawlicks' constitutional amendment effort quickly met with strong organized resistance from the Campaign for Equality (later renamed MassEquality), which provided the "pressure from below." MassEquality was a "coalition" of local homosexual groups organized with the ACLU, NOW, the Anti-Defamation League, and several other far-left organizations. As the Pawlicks dispatched volunteer signature gatherers to acquire the 57,100 signatures necessary to put the marriage amendment directly on the state ballot, MassEquality's Norma Shapiro--an ACLU attorney--organized and trained so-called "truth squads" to harass signature volunteers. But the "truth squads" more closely resembled goon squads, in which three to seven homosexual activists surrounded and screamed at petitioners at malls and shopping centers so that no one would come near the Pawlicks' volunteers to sign the petition.

Ed Pawlick relates what one volunteer told his newspaper, Massachusetts News, about his experiences gathering signatures:

   They try to head the public off at
   the pass. They will get between the
   public and us before we can talk to
   them. They are not only intimidating
   the public, but now we are being
   intimidated.... Generally there
   are three to seven people in a
   'truth squad,' male and female.
   They come in shifts. They
   never identify themselves and
   always work in teams. If we
   are there eight hours, they are
   there with us the whole eight
   hours.

      One of my friends two days
   ago was in Greenfield gathering
   signatures. A member of
   a truth squad went up to him
   and spit in his face and screamed so
   loud that the manager came out to see
   what was happening.

      I personally have been grabbed by
   one of the blockers and moved out
   of the way so that they could talk to
   someone.

Meanwhile, MassEquality bragged in a fundraising letter that "our effort has been phenomenally successful," resulting in reduced signature collections by as much as 80 percent. "If we can ramp this effort up statewide, we have an excellent chance at slowing down the signature drive enough to stop the ballot campaign before it starts."

The so-called truth squads regularly followed signature gatherers out to their cars, and some appeared to be taking down license plate numbers. After their signature volunteers began to endure vandalism against their vehicles, the Pawlicks decided the signature drive would best be handled by a professional signature collection company.

Local signature collection firms wanted nothing to do with the drive, citing concerns for the safety of their employees. The Pawlicks eventually opened up their personal checkbook and hired a Phoenix, Arizona-based company that was already gathering signatures in Massachusetts for the Libertarian Party gubernatorial candidate and a ballot initiative to "Save Our Horses." The firm quickly brought the total number of signatures gathered for the marriage initiative up to nearly 80,000. More than 120,000 eventually signed the petition.

Despite numerous complaints about MassEquality's goon squad behavior, the Boston Globe maintained its silence about the signature drive--even after Ed Pawlick's own newspaper, Massachusetts News, published photos documenting the offensive behavior. When the Boston Globe did deem to mention the campaign on November 21,2001, the liberal newspaper blamed the signature gatherers for getting "ugly."

The "Fraud" Fraud

Once it became evident Massachusetts Citizens for Marriage had more than enough signatures needed to gain access to the ballot, the leadership of the homosexual lobby launched a ballot challenge based upon "fraud." Here, the "pressure from above" began to derail the citizen initiative through a process that started with the tainting of the efforts by Pawlick's organization and ended with unconstitutionally discarding the amendment.

When the "Save Our Horses" signature drive (to ban the slaughter of horses) came up several thousand signatures short of the needed 57,100 signatures to qualify for a spot on the ballot, homosexual activists and their allies at the Boston Globe had the perfect excuse for a challenge based upon "fraud." The horse organization claimed that it had received several complaints that people intending to sign the horse petition had instead ended up as signers of the marriage petition.

The head of the horse campaign even presented an affidavit stating that the group had sent out 29,000 questionnaires to marriage initiative signers and received "1000 written responses" claiming they had been told they were instead signing the horse petition. But when asked for copies of the 1,000 written responses, nothing materialized. The state attorney general investigated the matter and cleared Massachusetts Citizens for Marriage of any fraud charges. A similar charge was also dismissed by a superior court judge.

But it didn't matter. The Boston Globe and its corporate parent, the New York Times, published sensationalist stories with juicy headlines about the charges, such as "Horse lovers say they were duped" (Boston Globe, March 26, 2002) and "Drive to Ban Gay Marriage Is Accused of Duping Signers" (New York Times, April 7, 2002). Naturally, neither paper bothered to print a story when the attorney general and the superior court concluded there was no basis to the allegations.

The stories resulted in a libel case by the Pawlicks against the New York Times Company, which owns the Boston Globe. The suit was dismissed on a rather incredible technicality: Times attorneys argued in court that the Boston Globe--purchased by the New York Times company in 1993 for $1.1 billion--was a separate corporation from the New York Times!

All in the Family

Same-sex "marriage" was officially pronounced "legal" by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court when it ruled in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health that, though the Massachusetts legislature "did not intend that same-sex couples be licensed to marry," and though the court "recognized the long-standing statutory understanding ... that 'marriage' means the lawful union of a man and a woman," the court found the prohibition of same-sex "marriage" violated the Massachusetts Constitution. The court effectively usurped the power of the legislative branch. But the Goodridge case only mattered if the Pawlicks' drive for a constitutional ban on gay "marriage" was scuttled. Here again, the Boston Globe took an active role in aiding the homosexual lobby, providing pressure from above.

A citizen initiative petition under the Massachusetts Constitution requires placement on the ballot unless three-fourths of the legislature affirmatively vote to change or scuttle it in a joint legislative session in a roll call vote. The 48th amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution explicitly requires that an initiative petition "shall be voted upon in the form in which it is introduced, unless such amendment is amended by vote of three fourths of the members voting thereon in joint session."

But the Boston Globe counseled the exact opposite of the state constitution, that the citizen initiative could be dropped if the legislature did not vote. "As Senate President, [Senator Thomas] Birmingham could choose not to schedule a proposed amendment for a vote, which would scuttle the measure," the Globe advised in an editorial directing legislators to violate the state constitution. Yet that is precisely how Pawlick's amendment was defeated: Birmingham used a procedural maneuver to avoid a vote and issued a ruling pronouncing the amendment dead.

The appeal to the courts by Massachusetts Citizens for Marriage was--not surprisingly--turned down by the state Supreme Judicial Court. Chief Justice Margaret Marshall already had plans to issue her judicial flat "legalizing" same-sex "marriage." Marshall, wife of longtime Times columnist Anthony Lewis, had previously spoken in favor of same-sex "marriage" at a 1999 fundraiser for the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Bar Association.

The Boston Globe had thus paved the way for "family" member Margaret Marshall to issue the Goodridge decision without any of that constitutional amendment mess.

Since homosexual "marriage" was granted by the Massachusetts court in 2003, campaigning to legitimize homosexuality has continued at full steam. The goal is to convince citizens that homosexuality is normal and that if you are against celebrating homosexuality, you are in the powerless minority. The homosexual lobby is using these techniques to push the homosexual agenda further into the law, schools, and even private companies and families. To create the appearance of popular support, street activists continue to harass Massachusetts citizens who try to reverse the homosexual agenda.

Meanwhile state leaders continue to create pressure from above with dramatic displays in support of the homosexual agenda from the top:

* The state Democratic Party formally adopted a stance in favor of homosexual "marriage" in Massachusetts at its 2005 state convention.

* "Conservative" Republican Governor Mitt Romney has promoted homosexuality even for youth. Romney proclaimed May 15, 2004 "Massachusetts Gay/Straight Youth Pride Day," urging "all citizens of the Commonwealth to take cognizance of this event and participate fittingly in its observance?'

* Romney has also nominated radical homosexual activists as judges, such as Stephen Albany (a former member of the Board of Directors of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Bar Association) and longtime Dignity/USA member Marianne C. Hinkle.

* The Boston Herald reported on July 20, 2005 that the cities of Boston and Cambridge had targeted $100,000 in taxpayer funds toward an advertising campaign to lure more homosexual tourists to their cities from Great Britain.

* An explicit pro-homosexual billboard on a main thoroughfare in Cambridge was taken down by Clear Channel Communications after complaints from those viewing the billboard. However, according to the local weekly newspaper, the Cambridge Chronicle, the Cambridge City Council expressed outrage because the billboard was taken down and replaced by an advertisement for a "homophobic" organization (the U.S. Navy): "The Cambridge City Council voted unanimously on Monday to have the city manager ask Clear Channel why they took down the billboard earlier than scheduled."

Ironic Advantage

Massachusetts-based activist Brian Camenker, president of the state's traditionalist Parents Rights Coalition, noted that "our legislature and governor continue to support gay clubs in our public schools which draw our young people into this dangerous and destructive lifestyle. It's truly frightening where this is headed." But the good news is that homosexual activists' ongoing efforts to quash citizen initiatives to put same-sex "marriage" and other elements of its agenda on the ballot confirm that they remain a tiny minority whose agenda could be replaced if the complacent majority wakes up.

The Catholic Church is leading a new petition drive (it also supported Pawlick's 2001-2002 drive) in this overwhelmingly Catholic state that would put a constitutional amendment proposal on the ballot to ban all subsequent same-sex "marriages," but would leave those already joined by the state officially recognized. (Grandfathering homo-"marriages" already performed was deemed necessary in order to prevent the amendment being invalidated by the courts because of a provision in the constitution banning amendments overturning court decisions.) If the new initiative is passed by voters in two successive ballots (2006 and 2008), the constitutional amendment would thereafter end new same-sex "marriages" in Massachusetts.

The current campaign seems likely to gather sufficient signatures for ballot status. But the real issue is whether the militantly leftist legislature of Massachusetts would allow this new initiative on the ballot after quashing the previous initiative.