Why Are Media Conservatives Buying the Homossexual Propaganda?

By adopting words and slangs from liberal activists and media, conservatives are becoming mentally enslaved to their enemies.

Over the last few years we have witnessed a headlong rush by many conservatives in the media in support of various aspects of the homosexual agenda. Some were socially liberal all along and some appear to be pushed into such a position due to pressure upon them by their colleagues or the media corporations they work for. Regardless, it is disturbing to witness their willingness to go along with this trend without even questioning the cultural impact such issues will have. Frankly, it is embarrassing how ignorant many of “our” conservative media stars are when it comes to the homosexual agenda.

Indeed, even Fox News has ignored huge stories that reflect negatively on the homosexual movement and the few times they do cover such stories, it is oftentimes inaccurate or incomplete. I wince as I watch Bill O’Reilly, Tucker Carlson, Dana Perino, Bernie Goldberg, Mary Catherine Hamm, Megyn Kelly, Shepard Smith, Margaret Hoover and others use the same arguments used by the homosexual community even to the point of using the exact same phrases and buzz words. They should know better.

For example, many media conservatives happily use the term “gay” or “gay rights” and the phrase that he or she “has come out of the closet.” However, such wording assumes people are born homosexual, a myth that not even the pro-homosexual American Psychiatrist Association will support anymore. After years of research, dozens of pro-homosexual scientists have failed to find the homosexual gene and the few that did claim to find it were later discredited for engaging in fraudulent or sloppy methodology. Moreover, Dr. Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome Project, enlisted over 150 of the world’s top geneticists to decode the human genome and they could not find a “gay” gene. It simply does not exist.

Let’s be clear here so that the Fox News crew understands. No one is “gay” or born “gay.” Instead, people engage in homosexual behavior period. No one “comes out of the closet.” Rather they are simply choosing to publicize their homosexual behavior. Further evidence that homosexuality is NOT genetic is the fluidness of homosexual behavior. As many as a third of homosexuals revert back to heterosexuality as Kinsey, Masters & Johnson and numerous other liberal sex researchers have all reported.

Moreover, the very existence of thousands of ex-homosexuals in America demonstrate how tentative homosexuality really is. And yes, due to the addictive nature of homosexual behavior, some ex-homosexuals do relapse just as some drug addicts, alcoholics and others enslaved to addictive behaviors do. No big surprise here.

However, if homosexuality is not genetic and not permanent, it is therefore caused by environmental and behavioral issues that are clearly not comparable to inborn traits like race or gender. So why are we creating a plethora of new laws based upon a sexual behavior? Let’s be clear about homosexual “rights” laws. Most of them are illegal in the sense that they have created legal scenarios that are increasingly violating the real constitutional rights of Americans.

Whenever one creates artificial rights based upon a particular behavior one is not born with, such “rights” generally come at the expense of real constitutional rights. One wouldn’t know it from watching or reading the news, but the “gay rights” movement has launched the greatest assault on our constitutional rights in our country’s history. Let me quickly summarize the various battlefronts:

Freedom of Speech/Press

  • Americans all over the country are receiving death threats for speaking out against homosexual marriage.
  • Students have been suspended from schools for voicing traditional views on marriage or wearing shirts with slogans such as “Straight Pride” Meanwhile homosexual students are allowed to wear “gay pride” t-shirts.
  • College professors have been fired for teaching traditional sexuality viewpoints.
  • A Dire Straits song was banned in Canada that contains an alleged slur about homosexuals. Similar laws are on the way in the USA.
  • Teachers and others have lost jobs for opposing the homosexual agenda on Face book on their private time.
  • The internet dating website eHarmony has been sued for not including same-sex couples.
  • YouTube has pulled videos critical of the homosexual agenda.
  • A person was detained at the Canadian border for possessing an article by this author that simply repeated the pro-pedophile statements and actions by some homosexual leaders.
  • The Obama DOJ has issued a ruling that orders federal employees to promote “Gay Pride Month.” Incredibly, it states that “silence will be interpreted as disapproval.”
  • Efforts are underway to ban actors and reality show stars like Phil Robertson for holding traditional views on sexuality.

Voting Rights/Political Participation

  • Donors to pro-traditional marriage initiatives are being harassed, threatened with death, and losing jobs and business. Just recently, the CEO of Mozilla was fired due to contributing to a pro-traditional marriage initiative in California six years earlier.
  • In at least a dozen states, pro-traditional marriage activists have been physically attacked and injured for passing out material in support of traditional marriage propositions.

Applying Justice Unequally

  • Hate crime laws are being passed by states all over the country that set up a two-tier approach to enforcing our laws. If a person assaults a crippled woman in a wheel chair and then assaults a homosexual, he will receive a heavier sentence for the latter crime. Creating different penalties for the same crime based upon the sexual behavior of the victim is clearly unconstitutional. It is also is predicated on knowing what’s in the heart of the person committing the crime, something prosecutors can never really know. Again, this is a thought-police type law and clearly a dangerous precedent.

Freedom of Religion

  • All over America Christian property owners are being harassed for refusing to rent to homosexuals and transsexuals, despite their moral objection to this lifestyle.
  • State governments and courts are forcing businesses – such as wedding cake makers – to do business with homosexual couples. But no one is forcing black businesses to work with racists.
  • State governments have fined Christian photographers because they refused to photograph homosexual weddings. But would a state fine a Jewish printer for refusing to print a Nazi brochure? Of course not.
  • Christian-based adoption agencies are being ordered by state governments to place children with homosexual families despite strong evidence that such families do NOT give the child the proper nurturing normal families provide.
  • Throughout the country, pastors who preach traditional morality are receiving death threats and their churches are being victimized with property damage.
  • Pastors in Canada and Europe are being fined and/or arrested for simply preaching what the Bible clearly teaches us about homosexual behavior. It is just a matter of time before this occurs in America.
  • An American pastor is being sued by a foreign homosexual group for a sermon that simply repeated the Biblical prohibitions against homosexuality.
  • People who hold views in opposition to the homosexual agenda are being denied employment by government agencies.
    Christians have lost private sector jobs for expressing views against the homosexual agenda in private forums that have nothing to do with their jobs.
  • Private Christian schools are being sued for refusing to hire homosexuals.
  • The Federal ENDA law will result in a tidal wave of litigation against Christian businesspersons and women for simply living out their religious beliefs.

Public Safety

  • Schools are initiating dozens of new pro-homosexual programs designed to promote the homosexual lifestyle to children as young as kindergartner age. This despite overwhelming evidence that the homosexual lifestyle is extremely dangerous and shortens one’s lifespan.
  • State laws are being passed around the country allowing males who claim to have feminine feelings to enter female bathrooms, thereby setting up situations that will lead to sexual assaults.
  • Macy’s has fired an employee for preventing a cross-dressing man from using the women’s dressing room.
  • The Obama Administration has issued a federal regulation that bans employers from prohibiting cross-dressing men from using female bathrooms.
  • State governments continue to assign troubled teens to group homes and other such programs that have long histories of homosexual molestation. These groups NEVER lose their state license.

Rights of Association

  • Despite over 3,000 molestations by homosexual scout leaders and other youth leaders, “sexual orientation” laws are being passed by states that force youth groups like the Scouts and the YMCA to accept homosexual employees.
  • California has proposed a law to ban Boy Scouts from ever serving as judges, due to the Scout’s prohibition on homosexual leaders.
  • Christian student groups are being refused school recognition if they exclude homosexual students despite clear Biblical prohibition against such behavior.
  • Students at colleges have been forced to accept a homosexual roommate and one student who refused to live with a homosexual was fined and sent to sensitivity training.
  • Hotels have been sued for refusing to rent to homosexual weddings.

Parental Rights

  • Hillary Clinton made a speech to the UN in 2011 to the effect that our homes should be monitored by the government for any discouragement of homosexuality, the parents be damned.
  • Already, in Europe and in Canada, homeschoolers have been banned from teaching against homosexuality in their own homes. I can assure you, this is coming to America.
  • States are now passing laws that remove parental permission for school programs that promote homosexuality to school children.
  • Parents have been arrested for pulling their children out of pro-homosexual school programs.
  • Christian parents have been banned from accepting foster children because they hold traditional sexuality views.

Physicians/Counselor Rights

  • Laws are being introduced to allow state governments to pull the license of fertility doctors for refusing to artificially inseminate lesbians.
  • Psychologists have been fired for refusing to give pro-homosexual counseling to homosexuals.
  • Doctors have faced career backlash for questioning sex change operations.
  • Despite thousands of homosexuals successfully undergoing therapy to change their behavior, laws have been passed that bans the right of psychologists to engage in such therapy.
  • Despite the documented harmful effects of the homosexual lifestyle, states are passing laws to prevent health care professionals and counselors to say anything to a sexually confused child that does not affirm homosexual behavior.
  • Organizations that counsel homosexuals to leave the lifestyle have been subject to death threats, harassment and property damage.
  • Students at public universities studying to be counselors have been dismissed from their programs if they hold traditional views on homosexuality.
  • Let’s be clear: homosexuals enjoy the same constitutional rights all other Americans do (and no, marriage is NOT a constitutional right) so why do we need special laws for them? It’s because such special laws are not about securing rights they already have, but rather are used to promote their agenda. That’s their strategy and they openly admit this in their strategy manuals.

When it comes to phony “bullying” laws, for example, understand that assaults against anyone are already illegal. Homosexuals are not exempt from existing laws that protect everyone else. What these so-called “bullying” laws really do is create a slew of new public school programs to propagandize students about the virtues of homosexual behavior.

It is simply bizarre that our schools spend millions on anti-drug programs but are now willing to promote programs that encourage the homosexual lifestyle. This despite reams of evidence such behavior leads to a shorter lifespan and those who engage in it disproportionately suffer from a whole array of negative life-style choices. This has been confirmed by massive long-term studies of homosexuals by both the Canadian health agency and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), but the results of these studies were ignored by Fox News and other media conservatives.

If one claims to be a constitutionalist – like many media conservatives do – but are ignoring this massive assault on our constitutional rights, then they are simply not constitutionalists. The Fox News team seems to have adopted libertarian arguments on many of these issues, but even most libertarians are opposed to the tyrannical effect these laws are having on our culture.

Take same-sex marriage. The passage of same sex marriage laws has unleashed the power of government in many ways that are shocking. People are receiving death threats, being harassed and even losing their jobs for speaking out against it. The legalization of homosexual marriage also means the state now recognizes homosexual behavior as normal. As a result, private adoption agencies are being forced to place children with homosexual families. Ditto for foster children and group home agencies. Schools now have to teach that homosexual behavior is normal, leading thousands of school children down the path of a dangerous and unhealthy lifestyle. And, of course, if homosexuality is normal behavior, then that justifies all the “Hate Crime”, “bullying” and so called “anti-discrimination” laws now being passed all over America which have led to widespread attacks on our constitutional freedoms.

The problem, of course, is that homosexuality is not normal. Decades of research show the opposite. And the aforementioned CDC and Canadian long-term studies of thousands of homosexuals show clear cut disparities between homosexuals and heterosexuals in every lifestyle category: suicides, drug abuse, criminal activity, driving under the influence, prostitution, mental breakdowns, etc. Clearly, these are signs of an abnormal and unhealthy lifestyle.

Oh, yes, I know that the American Psychiatric Association (APA) has proclaimed homosexuality to be normal but that conclusion is not the result of any careful long-term study of homosexual lifestyles. It is the result of a secretive group of homosexual psychiatrists in 1973 taking over the committee that decides what behavior is “normal” and what is not. Homosexual behavior was removed as an abnormal behavior by a straight up and down vote with the homosexual psychiatrists prevailing. There’s wasn’t a scholarly debate or anything like that. Don’t be silly. It was pure politics. But do bear in mind that, at the time, the vast majority of APA members believed homosexuality to be abnormal.

And yet, our conservative media heroes still act as if there’s some kind of scientific consensus that homosexuality is a genetic-based normal behavior so they apparently believe all these “gay rights” battles involve normal people who are simply trying to protect their God-given rights.

To this day, I’ve never witnessed any major conservative media outlet or personality actually delve into the APA fraud, the massive CDC/Canadian homosexual lifestyle studies or even do a story on the large networks of ex-homosexuals in America today which, proves, of course, that homosexuality is a changeable behavior. Partly as a result of the refusal of the mainstream media — and later on the conservative media — to cover such stories over the last four decades, we now find ourselves on the losing end of “gay rights” battles on every front.

Even more surprising is the Pew Research study on how the media covers same sex marriage. It found that Fox News ran four times more stories supporting same sex marriage than opposing it. Nor do most people know that Fox News is a major financial sponsor of the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association (NLGJA), which itself monitors how Fox News covers gay issues and is constantly communicating with Fox News personalities to teach them the “correct” way to report on homosexual issues. And no, Fox News, whose slogan is “Fair and Balanced,” does not give any money to pro-traditional values groups.

Megyn Kelly is a Fox News superstar but more than most Fox News personalities, she really drinks the homosexual propaganda kool-aid. She supports homosexual marriage and often equates, on-air, the rights of blacks to the rights of homosexuals, despite the complete lack of evidence that homosexuality is an in-born trait like race is. She also uses the same phrases homosexual activists use in describing their battle for marriage rights: “marriage equality” and has referred to religious-based opponents of the homosexual agenda as “haters”, phrases right out of NLGJA’s playbook.

Unknown to most people, Kelly is deeply involved in the homosexual movement. She has appeared at a number of NLGJA events and I believe is influenced by a number of homosexual friends. This explains why she almost always takes the side of the homosexuals and rarely delves deeply into the homosexual movement’s attack on our constitutional rights.

Another Fox News superstar — Bill O’Reilly — is equally uninformed on these issues. Incredibly, O’Reilly has come out in support of the so-called “anti-discrimination” laws that have led to many of these attacks described earlier in this article. He supports homosexual adoption and has referred to Christians who opposed the homosexual agenda as “holy rollers” and “fanatics.”

Nor does O’Reilly have a problem with homosexual marriage or with Obama when he unilaterally and without congressional legislation, issued an order to allow open homosexuals in the military. For a man who describes himself as a “traditionalist” and a “culture warrior,” it’s hard to take him seriously when he’s already hoisted the white flag on some of the biggest cultural issues of the day.

Then there’s Shepard Smith, who has been “outed” by the homosexual community as one of their own. That’s no surprise. Smith has uttered favorable things about homosexual marriage and referred to those who flocked to Chick-fil- A to support their traditional marriage stance as being part of the “National Day of Intolerance.”

Fox News contributor Bernie Goldberg is also pro-homosexual and calls conservatives who oppose their agenda as “bigoted.” On his blog, Goldberg even claims Jesus Christ would be in support of homosexual marriage, a strange claim given the numerous statements by Jesus and his disciples regarding the sacred position God has assigned to the traditional male-female family. Goldberg also makes bizarre statements on his website claiming Jesus said some people are born gay, which, of course, is false. Indeed, both the Old and New Testaments are very clear in their condemnations of homosexual behavior.

Even Fox News “All-Stars” Charles Krauthammer, Stephen Hayes and George Will are in support of allowing open homosexuals in the military, seemingly ignorant of the body of research documenting how disruptive it will be for openly homosexual men and women to serve next to others in tight units where moral and unit cohesion can mean the difference between life and death. Polling of service members themselves confirm this, but Fox News has consistently downplayed or ignored the opinions of those who would be most effective by this radical policy.

Indeed, while representing San Diego in the State Legislature, I was given access to studies by the military demonstrating widespread misconduct by homosexual service members (and this was before homosexuals were allowed to serve!). They were engaged in far more crime, rape, and disruptive behavior than were heterosexual service members. Such internal studies were apparently swept under the table when it came to debating this issue in congress.

The military is NOT an equal opportunity employer or a jobs program. It is a fighting force that should reject any policy that undermines the unity of those who serve. Already, it has come to my attention that homosexual servicemen – now feeling fully protected by the White House – are engaging in open homosexual behavior in full view of their colleagues. As a result, unit cohesion is coming apart at the seams, morale is in shambles and our military is becoming weaker. Unfortunately, our media and even our conservative media, have chosen not to investigate this issue. After all, they all were in favor of this policy and now are reluctant to show how it has been a failure. Thanks for wrecking our military.

And I could go on and on with Fox News. Chris Wallace thinks those who opposed gay scout leaders should be compared to racists….Dana Perino, Kimberly Guilfoyle, Greg Gutfield and Eric Bolling all support same-sex marriage, gays in the military, and much of the gay agenda….former Fox News reporter Margaret Hoover supports much of the gay rights agenda and sits on the board of two homosexual groups… John Stossel refuses to accept that homosexuality is a changeable behavior and opposes efforts to counsel homosexuals, a strange view for a freedom-loving libertarian….Elizabeth Hasselbeck called the Pope’s opposition to homosexual marriage as “inhumane.” (For God’s sake Elizabeth, read the Bible)….Sally Kohn is a lesbian activist who shills for “gay rights” in her Fox News website columns….and on and on.

Indeed, it is hard to find any “cultural warrior” at Fox News who is really a cultural warrior and who understands the threats posed to our freedoms by the homosexual agenda. Clearly, these people are surrounded by social liberals and simply spout the liberal line on these issues. Fox News may be a champion on economic and foreign policy issues but it’s time to admit they are completely clueless – and even damaging – when it comes to the key social issues of our time.

And Fox News most conservative personality –Sean Hannity – has apparently decided to avoid these issues, seldom mentioning them or making them the subject of any of his television or radio shows. For a self-described conservative Catholic, that is rather discouraging. Meanwhile Catholic schools, adoption agencies and charities are being brutalized by the “gay rights” movement. And not a peep from Sean.

One has to wonder if the Fox News team really doesn’t understand how “gay rights’’ not only undermine America’s Christian culture but also constitute a direct attack on the more important rights given to us by our founding fathers — such as freedom of speech, religion, press, and association.

However, it’s not much different with other media conservatives outside of Fox News. Glenn Beck said on the O’Reilly show that homosexual marriage is not “a threat to the country,” a bizarre statement from an alleged social conservative. Beck also quoted Jefferson to back up his neutral stance on same sex marriage: “If it neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket, what difference is it to me.”

But Jefferson would not have supported gay marriage or the police state tactics that homosexual marriage has brought to our culture. Despite calling himself a constitutionalist, Beck seems to know little about how our founder fathers regarded the traditional family unit as key to America’s freedom and prosperity. They believe it to be the backbone of the United States and the key to its culture. The destruction of the traditional family unit means the destruction of our culture and ultimately our country. Does Beck really not understand that? Is he really not aware of the wave of attacks on our freedoms I have described above?

It has now become quite clear that the homosexual agenda is undermining our freedoms, our families and our faith. It is disrupting our Christian culture and assaulting our constitutional rights on every conceivable front. And if you don’t think this is exactly what the homosexuals have planned all along, then you haven’t been reading their books and manifestos. Today, there are literally hundreds of lawsuits ongoing in courthouses all over America, most of them taken on by struggling small non-profit legal organizations trying desperately to preserve our constitutional freedoms.

As these legal groups attempt to preserve our rights from this onslaught, it would be nice if our conservative media personalities would start to cover these stories in a serious manner, instead of using quickie libertarian sound bites to quickly dismiss them. And they also need to please stop the frivolous “me too” reporting about so and so Hollywood star “coming out” and start investigating the real issues here. It is time for media conservatives to wake up, ignore the talking points given them by the NLGJA and start reporting how the homosexual rights agenda is compromising our constitutional rights.

Note: I would like to thank Cliff Kincaid and Peter LaBarbera for digging up much of the research regarding the conservative media’s involvement with the gay agenda. Much of this info was taken from their report published by America’s Survival (www.usasurvival.org) titled Unfair, Unbalanced and Afraid: Fox News’ Growing Pro-Homosexual Bias and the National Gay & Lesbian Journalists Association.

Steve Baldwin is a veteran leader at every level from local grassroots political organization to national networking among the most prominent political leaders, as well as an author, pundit and political consultant.

He is a Senior Fellow in Practical Political Leadership at the Inter-American Institute for Philosophy, Government, and Social Thought.

This article was originally published at barbwire.com on May 28, 2014. The opinions published here are those of the writer and are not necessarily endorsed by the Institute.

Politically Incorrect ‘Sexual Politics’ Professor Rouses Fierce Defenders

Press Release

RELATED: Read the lecture by Prof. Stephen Baskerville here.

RELATED: Read the international petition in support of Prof. Stephen Baskerville here.

Contact: Greg Sabine   (5O8) 48O-O7O5
The Inter-American Institute for Philosophy, Government and Social Thought

Just as an Obama White House report on “sexual assault” is provoking anger at injustice perpetrated against falsely accused men, a letter from eminent historians, political philosophers, constitutional scholars and nearly nine hundred others signers strongly rejects attacks on a professor who boldly drew attention to a related larger crisis which threatens Western society.

Professor Stephen Baskerville’s September lecture, “Politicizing Potiphar’s Wife: The New Ideology” was furiously attacked by homosexual activists and feminists for bringing attention to unconstitutional procedures which empower female accusers who falsely allege rape or “harassment.”

Baskerville’s work is part of rising international outrage that includes prominent women warning that decades of feminist propaganda against men has resulted in men being routinely denied basic legal rights and due process, and often their lives are ruined by unconstitutional imprisonment, impoverishment and loss of their children.

Several organizations circulated a petition affirming the findings of Baskerville, former Fulbright Scholar, Senior Fellow at the Inter-American Institute and Professor of Government at Patrick Henry College. Translated into several languages, it has gathered support on three continents.

Amid growing concern about catastrophic social and economic consequences of fatherless children, Baskerville and other experts, including many women, warn that tens of millions of children and fathers in the United States and other Western “democracies” are cut off from each other by fanatical outlaw judges who operate outside all constitutional and human rights boundaries.

Numerous nationally respected attorneys and constitutional scholars warn of corrupt and tyrannical family court systems nationwide operating for decades in brazen violation of the law, bleeding, in total, billions of dollars annually from their victims, mainly fathers convicted of no crime yet cut off from their children.

“Anyone with experience litigating in the field knows that America’s family-court industry must be swept out from top to bottom with the iron broom of real due process of law,” said renowned constitutional lawyer Dr. Edwin Vieira, who has successfully argued landmark cases before the United States Supreme Court.

“The harm that these systems perpetrate on families, children and parents and on society is incalculable and utterly unacceptable in any country supposedly ruled by constitutional law,” he added in support of Baskerville’s work.

Political crusades purporting to find an epidemic of “campus rape” and sexual “assault” and male battery of women are being strongly challenged by scholars such as Stephen Henrick, Caroline Kitchens,and Christina Hoff Sommers, and by a rising chorus of prominent women in the U.S. and other countries, including author and former emergency room nurse Mary T. Cleary and renowned expert on domestic battery, Erin Pizzey.

Mrs. Pizzey describes feminism as a “hate movement” that “destroys the minds of women and men,” and has conditioned society to see all as men as potential rapists and batterers, and to invert responsibility even when the female partner is clearly the abuser and the husband/father or male partner is suffering extreme abuse.

Character assassination of loving fathers is so devastatingly effective, Baskerville and others have shown, that children are easily taught to fear and hate the very fathers whom they loved and trusted. The process is called “parental alienation.”

“It is a horrific form of child abuse,” said Licensed Clinical Social Worker Michelle Jones of the National Parents Organization.”(There’s) a large body of research validating its existence…adults who attest to having suffered through it as children, and…parents who are currently traumatized, watching helplessly as their relationships with their children are being destroyed…” Jones added. “It is a pathological…pattern which unjustifiably requires children to align with one parent against a formerly loved parent, putting the children in a destructive loyalty bind…usually within the context of a high conflict divorce…” she said.

Clinical psychologist Joan B. Kelly concurs: “Because it’s anti-instinctual to hate and reject a parent, the child must develop an elaborate delusional system consisting of spurious, frivolous, and absurd rationalizations to justify the hatred and rejection. Eventually, the child comes to believe all the absurdity. The double-bind situation of being unable to have, love, and to be loved by both parents can lead to psychosis, Dr. Kelly said.” “(U)sing a child to serve the emotional needs of the alienating parent and doing that parent’s appalling bidding is abuse in itself.” “(H)aving a parent severed from her/his life is a loss…of the most severe kind,” she said.

It is specifically their father whom the overwhelming majority of these children have been denied by mothers using rogue courts, social workers, and complicit family members. Baskerville and other experts have shown the statistically catastrophic damage to the millions of children denied their fathers, supposedly in their own best interests.

Professor Howard S. Schwartz of Oakland University says “The distortions of the truth by the radical feminists of our time will someday be seen as…the greatest intellectual crime of the second half of the 20th Century. Meanwhile, we still live under the aegis of that crime and to call attention to it is an act of great moral courage.”

Baskerville’s work has gained attention in Latin America and Europe,North America by providing a framework to understand the politically and ideologically motivated destruction of fatherhood, children and family. His website is www.StephenBaskerville.net.

(NOTE: Some persons quoted above were not contacted and/or may not have been involved in the letter.)

Read the lecture by Prof. Stephen Baskerville here.

Read the international petition in support of Prof. Stephen Baskerville here.


Politicizing Potiphar’s Wife: Today’s New Ideology

Read below Stephen Baskerville’s lecture that motivated a furious attack led by feminist and homosexual activists, an international petition in defense of Stephen Basrkerville, and a press release that tells the whole story.


Stephen Baskerville

Stephen Baskerville

Stephen Baskerville is IAI’s Senior Fellow in Political Science and Human Rights. He is Associate Professor of Government at Patrick Henry College and Research Fellow at the Howard Center for Family, Religion, and Society and at the Independent Institute.

This lecture was originally delivered at Patrick Henry College on September 13, 2013.

The opinions published here are those of the writer and are not necessarily endorsed by the Institute.

International Petition in Support of the URGENT Work of Professor Stephen Baskerville

This Petition circulated by CitizenGo.org, was voluntarily translated into other languages by supporters and gained support on three continents.  In addition to the notable Signers listed below who responded directly, over nine hundred other persons signed on-line.

(For background see International Press Release here).
Released May 12, 2014

To: The Trustees, Chancellor, President, Provost, Faculty and Students of Patrick Henry College
1.  We write in support of the College’s recent presentation of Professor Stephen Baskerville’s address, “Politicizing Potiphar’s Wife: The New Ideology,” at the annual Faith and Reason Lecture.  His analysis of the threats to civilization, religious freedom, the rule of law, parents’ rights and the Natural Human Family is indispensable and is affirmed by many of the most profound observers of the modern age, as well as their predecessors all the way back to ancient times.  We regard the resulting outrage and indignation on the part of activists for militant feminism, homosexualism and/or other social agendas that threaten our society and the Natural Human Familyas an indication of the power of this message — a desirable and necessary achievement for which the College and Professor Baskerville are to be congratulated.
We resolutely add that any institution of intellectual, academic and moral integrity ought to be extremely proud to have Professor Baskerville as a senior and especially respected and influential member of its staff.  Attacks against his academic and intellectual integrity and the gravitas of his work must be rejected for what they are: disinformation and character assassination arising from desperation, and an all-too-familiar mixture of ignorance and dishonesty.
Clearly, had this address been of anything other than the highest quality it would have garnered nothing more than a snicker here and there.
Professor Baskerville’s work is of the greatest strategic importance and immediate urgency and has earned him the great intellectual and personal respect of countless serious and learned persons.  He is one of the rare guiding lights of today’s “conservatism” and in the vast wasteland of higher education.  In fact, his work has been given only a small fraction of the attention that it must receive.
We hope it is not lost on you — in particular those responsible for charting the future of the College — that the advancement of Professor Baskerville’s work is absolutely necessary to the survival of Patrick Henry College itself in any recognizable and desirable form and to the restoration and defense fundamental parental rights, religious freedom, and freedom to home school.  As Professor Baskerville’s work has established, the political and “legal” foundation for the de facto eradication of parental rights has been laid in most “advanced” countries in the Western World, primarily by four decades of sweeping and unopposed violations of the legal rights of fathers, always under color of law.
Now he adds to his previous groundbreaking work, his vital analysis of the strategic connections between the interests that have achieved the now very advanced destruction of fatherhood in the “advanced world” and seemingly distinct interest groups who agitate for absolute preeminence of “homosexual rights,” abortion and government control of the moral and intellectual formation of all children.
2.  We therefore urge those entrusted with charting the future of Patrick Henry College to make an even greater commitment and investment in the kind of work by which Professor Baskerville has distinguished himself in the eyes of a growing international audience.
Specifically, we urge Patrick Henry College to consider hosting an annual international conference dealing ambitiously and fearlessly with the issues to which Professor Baskerville has devoted much of his professional life, and which have not been taken up with anything like adequate commitment by like-minded leaders and institutions.  In fact, there is a near total silence about monumental matters to which Professor Baskerville and a small number of other influential persons have committed themselves with impressive perseverance.
Patrick Henry College has an historic opportunity to fill this gaping void, and no doubt Professor Baskerville’s reputation and unique understanding of the interconnectedness of numerous major issues can be the basis for attracting the most exceptional participants in such an endeavor as we propose.
Phyllis Schlafly, President, Eagle Forum, attorney, author
Dr. Ted Baehr, Founder, Publisher, MovieGuide® ( www.movieguide.org), author, Chairman, Christian Film & Television Commission
Dr. Judith Reisman, Ph.D., author, Visiting Professor of Law, Liberty University School of Law
Dr. Alan L. Keyes, Former U.S. Ambassador to UN Economic and Social Council, Fmr. Asst. Sec. of State for International Organization Affairs
Steve Baldwin, former Executive Director, Council for National Policy, former Minority Whip of the California Assembly, author
Prof. Paul Gottfried, historian, author, political philosopher, Adjunct Scholar, Ludwig von Mises Institute, former Guggenheim Fellow
Dr. Jacob Roginsky, Founder, A Matter of Justice, a national legal reform coalition (and a Department of Defense scientist)
Dr. Charles E. Corry, President, Equal Justice Foundation, scientist (listed among the 200 most famous earth scientists in history)
Dr. Edwin Vieira, Esq., constitutional scholar, author, Distinguished Senior Fellow, Jurisprudence and Constitutional Law, The Inter-American Institute
Mike McManus, President, Marriage Savers
Dr. Herb Titus, constitutional scholar, author, former Provost, former Dean of Law and Public Policy, Regent University
Prof. Olavo de Carvalho (Brazil and U.S.), President, Inter-American Institute for Philosophy, Government and Social Thought
Kerry Morgan, Esq., constitutional attorney, former Attorney Adviser, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights
Linda Harvey, President, Mission America
Stephen M. Crampton, Esq., Vice President for Legal Affairs and General Counsel, Liberty Counsel
David Usher, President, Center for Marriage Policy
Steven D. Curtis, former Chairman, Republican Party of Colorado, former V.P. American Right To Life, Founder, Life Commercials.com
Dr. Ahmed ElTassa, (Brazil) Philosopher, Distinguished Senior Fellow, the Inter-American Institute
Dr. Randy Brinson, President, Redeem the Vote
Peter LaBarbera. President, Americans for Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH.org)
Prof. Mina Seinfeld de Carakushansky, (Brazil) President of Brazilian Humanitarians in Action
Suzanne Venker, author: The War on Men, The Flipside of Feminism,7 Myths of Working Mothers, TV guest commentator, www.SuzanneVenker.com   www.WomenForMen.org
Jeffrey R. Nyquist, columnist FinancialSense.com, Fellow, Inter-American Institute for Philosophy, Government and Social Thought
Michael Heath, veteran pro-family leader,Former President, Maine Civic League, Currently Director, Helping Hands Ministry
Prof. Túlio Alcântara Valente, (Brazil) psychologist, professor, military officer (Captain, Brazilian Army)
Prof. Reginaldo Fanchin, (Brazil) former professor of constitutional law, attorney,
Prof. Bryce Christensen, Ph.D. Southern Utah University
Col. Alfonso Plazas Vega (Ret.) (Colombia) Professor of History, Senior Fellow in Political and Human Rights Leadership, Inter-American Institute
Jim Clymer, Esq., former Chairman, Constitution Party National Committee, Attorney
E. Ray Moore, Chaplain, (Lt. Col.) USAR Ret. President, Frontline Ministries & Exodus Mandate, Ex. Producer, IndoctriNation film
Diane Gramley, President, American Family Association of Pennsylvania
Dr. Gregory Thompson, Founder. America Asleep kNOw More, Fellowship and Association of Christian Teachers, State Director, Exodus Mandate. Author: “Forbidden Secrets”, “Giving Aid and Comfort to the Enemy” and “Where Are Our Shepherds?”
Cristiano Lúcio de Souza, (Portugal and Canada) writer, Academy of Letters and Arts of Portugal
Roger Aun. (Brazil) attorney
Dr. Luiz Campassi Jr., Federal Council of Medicine of Brazil and Catholic University of São, Paulo Faculty of Medicine
Deisson Cassiano Diedrich, (Brazil) President, Mechanical Engineering Academic Center, West Parana State University
Amy Contrada, author, Associate Fellow in the Study of Propaganda and Cultural Revolution, Inter-American Institute
John Benko, radio host, Deeper Truth program,
Brian Carney, Esq.national litigation consultant, attorney
Ray Neary, M Ed, M.A. Director, Pro-Life Massachusetts
Tom Blumer, columnist, MediaMatters.com, PajamasMedia.com, proprietor BizzyBlog.com
John Haskins, Fellow for the Public Understanding of Law, Propaganda and Cultural Revolution, Inter-American Institute
Donald Hartly, co-host Deeper Truth Radio
Julio Severo, (Latin America) Pro-family, parent’s rights, pro-life leader/activist/writer in Latin America (JulioSevero.com)
Greg Sabine, pro-family activist (representative, National Parents Organization)
John Wahl, political campaign consultant, former Media Director, Judge Roy Moore for Governor campaign
Rev. Bruce D. Curtis, MA, M.Div. (former radio host, Truth and Freedom)
Rev. Michael Carl, pastor and journalist
Rev. Dr. David M. Berman, pastor, author and public speaker


(For background see International Press Release here).

Read Prof. Baskerville’s lecture Politicizing Potiphar’s Wife: The New Ideology

Is Mitt Romney The Father of Gay Marriage?: Twenty-four Reasons Why He Is

As Mitt Romney prepares for his second presidential campaign and gay marriage threatens to undermine America’s Judeo-Christian culture, there’s a raging debate about the role he played in instituting gay marriage in Massachusetts during his gubernatorial term. This is important because Governor Romney has positioned himself as a champion of traditional values and claims to have been an opponent of homosexual marriage his entire career.

When the Massachusetts Supreme Court issued a decision in favor of homosexual marriage, — the Goodridge case — Romney unilaterally ordered his agencies to implement homosexual marriage in Massachusetts. The court did not order him to do this nor had the legislature codified this ruling. Combined with a promise by President Obama to repeal the federal Defense of Marriage Act, this action by Romney will lead to the spread of homosexual marriage nationwide.

Romney’s action was utterly illegal. In four different parts of the Massachusetts Constitution, it is clearly stated that only the legislature can change laws and one section specifically states that the marriage statutes are determined by the legislature, not the courts. Even the Supreme court itself stated that it could not order the legislature to act. All Romney had to do was to declare the court had no authority to enforce its unconstitutional opinion and ignore its decision.

But instead of doing that, Romney abruptly claimed the court opinion was now the law of the land and ordered his Town Clerks and Justices of the Peace to marry homosexuals — even though the legislature never acted to codify the ruling. Indeed, according to a Fox News/AP story, even the attorney for the homosexual plaintiffs in Goodridge, held the view that the legislature would have to codify the Goodridge ruling:

Attorney Mary Bonauto, who represented the plaintiffs, said the only task assigned to the Legislature is to come up with changes in the law that will allow gay couples to marry. (1)

Thus, Romney violated his oath to uphold the state constitution. To this day, the Massachusetts legislature has never changed the marriage statute. Indeed, there have been numerous attempts by the legislature to codify homosexual marriage SINCE the Goodridge decision. (2). The flatly illegal charade of “gay” marriage exists solely in Massachusetts due to Governor Romney’s illegal actions. By ordering Town Clerks to participate in the solemnization of illegal marriages, Romney violated the state constitution. (3)

A letter signed by 44 Massachusetts and national pro-family leaders including the late Paul Weyrich, Sandy Rios, Gary Kreep, Robert Knight, Linda Harvey, Rev. Ted Pike, Peter LaBarbera, Gary Glenn, Brian Camenker, John Haskins, etc., was sent to Romney in December, 2006, urging him to use his power as Governor to reverse himself on homosexual marriage:

We note that you swore no oath to execute court opinions, but rather laws and the constitution…like much of America, many of us accepted as sincere your explanation of your role in this social and constituition crisis that is fundamentally altering the moral fabric of our culture…we are now forced to look at your role, as constitutional sentry and a gatekeeper of our form of government, in a different light. Wewould be greatly disappointed if your principal contribution to history will be imposing homosexual marriage – knowingly or unknowingly, willfully or negligently – in violation of the state constitution you swore to uphold. (4)

There was no response to the letter and Romney continued full speed ahead implementing illegal homosexual marriages, thus creating a precedent that has already led to many other victories for the homosexual movement nationwide.

Even Focus on the Family knew Romney’s actions were illegal. FOTF’s leader for many years, Dr. James Dobson — perhaps America’s most influential evangelical leader — was urged by key advisors to intervene, with one advisor stating that “if Gov. Romney would reverse himself on Goodridge, it would be a very good thing. It might help his presidential ambitions.” (5)

Romney defenders claim Governor Romney was forced to make a unilateral decision to implement gay marriage. But there’s no evidence that anyone forced him to do this. This interpretation assumes the judicial branch of government is absolutely supreme over the legislative and executive branches, an arrangement our founding fathers never designed nor intended.

During his gubernatorial term, Romney has had to tread a fine line. It is obvious that his numerous consultants advised him to move to the right on social issues, especially homosexual marriage, if he had any hope of winning the GOP nomination in 2008. The record shows that Romney campaigned as a liberal to win the governorship of Massachusetts but governed both like a liberal and a conservative. He was clearly using his governorship to launch a campaign for the presidency so he had to create some kind of a conservative “track record,” — no matter how phony or tenuous that record might be — in order to position himself as a conservative presidential candidate.

In order to carry out these conflicting goals, Romney constantly used deception to please both conservatives and liberals. This led to a record on homosexual rights that appears confusing and inconsistent, but such obfuscation served a purpose by allowing Romney to claim little victories for conservatism, albeit phony victories, that would later be used in his future presidency campaigns to claim the conservative mantle.

Due to highly skilled campaign propaganda and an army of image consultants, it takes detective type work to ascertain Romney’s true beliefs. However, actions speak louder than words so here is a summary of twenty-three actual actions by Romney that demonstrate Romney, in his heart, supported homosexual marriage early on in his career and still does today:

1) Romney promised the homosexual community he would NOT fight gay marriage. In 2002, as reported by the New York Times, Romney met with the Lincoln Club, a homosexual Republican group, and in the course of discussing homosexual marriage, promised them he would:

…obey the courts’ ultimate ruling and not champion a fight on either side of the issue. ‘I’ll keep my head low,’ he said, making a bobbing motion with his head like a boxer….And, in the aftermath of the Massachusetts court decision, Mr. Romney, though aligning himself with the supporters of a constitutional amendment, did order town clerks to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Some members of Log Cabin Republicans say that in doing so, he ultimately fulfilled his promise to them despite his own moral objections. (6)

The article also reported that another Log Cabin member said Romney did not “[carry] the flag with missionary zeal,” for either side of the issue. Remember, this is just two years before Romney and his consultants started to lay the groundwork for a presidential campaign based in part on him being a traditional values champion

2) He repeatedly informed the homosexual community he would fight for ALL their issues. In October, 1994, Romney wrote one homosexual group a letter stating this:

I am more convinced than ever that as we seek to establish full equality for America’s gay andlesbian citizens, I will provide more effective leadership than my opponent [Kennedy]…For some voters, it might be enough to simply match my opponent’s record in this area … .But I believe we can and must do better. If we are to achieve the goals we share, we must make equality for gays and lesbians a mainstream concern. My opponent cannot do this. I can and will. (7)

Notice the phrase “full equality,” a phrase often used by gays to describe gay marriage. Indeed, Kennedy had already championed every gay issue possible during his career and was winning almost all his battles — except for one – the gay marriage battle. When Romney says he could do better than Kennedy – it was code that he, as a Republican, had a better chance of fighting for passage of gay marriage than did Kennedy.

When Romney’s campaign produced posters during Gay Pride Day, the posters said:

Mitt and Kerry Wish You a Great Pride Weekend! All citizens deserve equal rights, regardless of their sexual preference. (8)

Again, since gays in Massachusetts already have more “rights,” than in any other state, the only other rights Romney would be referring to is the right to marry. The gay newspaper Bay Windows, reported this:

During that race [Romney’s 1994 Senate race] Romney also won Republican Gov. William Weld’s endorsement, and he said he was in step with the famously pro-gay governor on many issues, including same-sex marriage. …when Romney was asked whether he supported same-sex marriage, he answered, ‘I am sure [Weld] will study it and evaluate it and I will endorse his position on that.’ (9)

Weld later came out in support of homosexual marriage but what is shocking is that Romney, who claims to have been a traditional marriage champion his entire political career, nonchalantly announces that his view on marriage is whatever Weld’s view is. He allows his view on the most important cultural issue of the day to be dependent on someone else’s pronouncement. Strange and certainly not “champion of marriage” quality.

In another Bay Windows article from 2002, Romney is thought of as even better than Weld, the most pro-gay Governor in Massachusetts history:

Is Mitt good for gays? Good enough, said several gay Republicans who spoke with Bay Windows, including Abner Mason, Swift’s deputy chief of staff. ‘I am absolutely confident that as governor he would continue the commitment to gay equality that was started with Weld and continue with Cellucci and Swift,’ said Mason. ‘He will equal, if not better, the record of Weld, Cellucci and Swift.’ (10)

Again, for Romney to “better” Weld’s record, he would had to have told the gays that he supports gay marriage.

3) Only after Romney knew he was running for national office did he support a state constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, while simultaneously implementing homosexual marriage.When one constituent wrote a letter to Governor Romney asking him to defy the Goodridge court ruling, his response was bizarre. Instead of addressing the issue of defying Goodridge or even being concerned about the abolition of a 2000 year old western tradition that is the foundation of American culture, Romney wrote,

On a matter of such significance and with such tender sentiment involved, we must show respect and consideration for those with different opinions. There are real people, including traditional couples, gay couples and children, who are deeply affected by this issue. (11)

Carefully avoiding any substantive argument about the importance of marriage, and avoiding any mention of his beliefs on this issue, Romney laid the whole issue upon the altar of choice:

We must not forget that at the core of American democracy is the principle that the most fundamental decision in society should ultimately be decided by the people themselves. (12)

But marriage is part of America’s Judeo-Christian culture; the idea that people have to vote to maintain traditional marriage in order to counter an illegal court decision is ridiculous, but Romney, nevertheless, goes through the motion of appearing as if he were going to fight for this constitutional amendment.

At no time did Romney inform his constituent that the voters would not be able to vote on the pro-marriage amendment until November, 2006, over two years after the date the court gave as the deadline for the legislature to codify the ruling. Nor did Romney tell his constituent that he had already ordered all town clerks to be trained with the new procedures governing the marrying of homosexuals. He also threatened to fire them if they did not carry out this order. (13)

It is clear that Romney was already planning for the legalization of homosexual marriage and was preparing his constituents to accept them by using phrases in his letters such as “show respect and consideration for … gay couples.”

4) Romney gained national attention for supporting the marriage amendment initiative but did little to help the initiative succeed. Despite pleas from pro-family forces, Romney did little to assist them as if he knew the amendment effort was destined to fail. He didn’t even contribute a cent to the effort. Indeed, according to one of the state’s leading pro-family organizers, Brian Camenker, Romney seemed to not even care about organizing the grassroots for the upcoming initiative battle:

In the aftermath of the Goodridge decision, pro-family forces started to organize a coalition and large rallies were held in support of a series of constitutional amendments, but Romney did nothing to help rally the grassroots. During this same time he was running for president and was raising millions for his campaign but he did not donate one cent to the pro-marriage forces. Romney did show up for two large rallies at which there was television cameras but that’s about it. (14)

Even at a 2005 press conference Romney held in support of a second constitutional amendment he avoided all mention of the morality of tradition marriage. Instead, he focused on the concept of “choices”:

I think it’s important that in any discussion related to marriage that we should reiterate time and gain our view that individuals in our society should be able to make the choices they want in their lives….(15)

Romney’s rhetoric sounds like something that would be stated at a press conference held by opponents of the initiative — not exactly a good rallying speech. Moreover, after the TV cameras were gone, Romney would disappear from the marriage battle altogether. Here’s how the Boston Herald reported Romney’s inaction on a third marriage initiative:

Despite his fervent opposition to gay marriage as governor, Mitt Romney the presidential candidate all but abandoned the cause in the Bay State this week, sitting on the sidelines as a ballot initiative to ban guy nuptials crashed in the Legislature. In the critical days leading up to yesterday’s vote, Romney did not make a single phone call in support of the gay marriage ban, Republican Lawmakers said….the vote solidified the legal status of gay marriage in Massachusetts after 3 years of contentious debate…Romney’s absence from the gay marriage fight in Massachusetts was part of a broader collapse in support that left the ballot initiative with no galvanizing leader at its most critical moment. (16)

Even the homosexual press was wondering where Romney was:

If I were a member of the VoteOnMarriage.org coalition or a signer of the anti-gay marriage petition…..I’d be furious with Gov. Mitt Romney today. I’d be wondering where he’s been the last two years on the marriage issue. Imagine if Romney had held a rally on the State House steps before the Nov. 9 constitutional convention (ConCon) and thousands of people had shown up to loudly demand that lawmakers take a vote on the marriage amendment. Romney might have change the outcome of the ConCon… The only thing motivating this governor is personal ambition. The likely reason for his failure to hold a raucous rally prior to the Nov. 9 ConCon was his calculation that he had absolutely nothing to gain from it. What if he held the rally and the measure died anyway? Too risky. So Romney waited and held his made-for-TV-ad spectacular long after it could have any impact whatsoever on the actual debate….(17)

At the “made-for-TV- ad spectacular” speech referred to above, Romney gained national attention but it was too late to really change the course of things. In a speech given three weeks earlier inside a church, Romney implied that those who oppose the choices made by homosexuals are engaged in “discrimination and bigotry” which was the same type of bogus argument used by the Supreme Court justices who issued the Goodridge ruling. No wonder this initiative failed. Romney was insulting those who supported the initiative. It is difficult to not conclude that Romney used the later marriage initiatives as an opportunity to garner national headlines portraying himself as a “pro-family” presidential candidate. (18)

5) Romney refused to support an earlier pro-marriage Constitutional amendment. In 2002, Romney refused to support an earlier marriage protection Constitutional Amendment that would have preempted the Goodridge court ruling. He called it “too extreme,” but his official reason for opposing the amendment was that it didn’t allow domestic partner benefits. In other words, he refused to support a ban on homosexual marriage because it didn’t grant benefits to homosexual lovers! Incredibly, Romney bypassed an early opportunity to save traditional marriage in Massachusetts because of promises he made to the homosexual community that he would grant them domestic partner benefits. Indeed, Romney even informed the gay press he wouldn’t support this amendment.

Bay Windows: Do you support the Protection of Marriage Amendment?

Romney: No, because it would outlaw domestic partner benefits for same-sex couples.

Bay Windows: Do you believe the Protection of Marriage Amendment initiative should be put before voters?

Romney: The people have a constitutional right to put questions before the voters. But, if it had been on the ballot, I would have voted no. (19)

6) Romney supported Civil Union legislation. He repeatedly promised homosexuals throughout his political career that he would support civil union legislation, which essentially grants all the rights of marriage but without the name. Romney even told the homosexuals that the semantic game was a ruse. While being interviewed at a 2002 Log Cabin Club meeting, Romney discussed the gay marriage/civil union issue with the gay group and said:

Call it whatever you want. Just don’t use the M-word.(20)

Moreover, by all accounts, Romney spent an inordinate amount of time lobbying legislative leaders to ensure that the 2004 marriage protection initiative contained language that enshrined “civil unions” in the State Constitution. During this time period, Romney was already making changes throughout Massachusetts government to accommodate homosexual marriage so this amendment appeared to be Romney’s plan B to appease his homosexual supporters in case the initiative passed.

It would allow him to boast to the pro-family forces that traditional marriage was preserved while at the same time demonstrating to the homosexual community that he was still committed to their agenda. After all, many legal scholars have concluded that once a government recognizes homosexuality for the purpose of granting civil union benefits, homosexual marriage will follow shortly thereafter. It’s the backdoor way to full marriage rights. (21)

7) Romney refused to support legislation to remove the Justices for the illegal Goodridge decision. After the Goodridge decision, Romney refused to support legislation that would remove the four activist Supreme Court judges for issuing the illegal Goodridge opinion by using a procedure – called the Bill of Address – that was created by the state’s founders just for this type of situation. Moreover, at least one Justice had violated the Code of Judicial Conduct by appearing at fundraising events for pro-gay marriage groups.

Even though the Bill of Address had been used in the past, Romney publicly opposed the Bill of Address legislation, stating that, “I’m not looking to recall the judges,” while at the same time loudly criticizing them for violating the state constitution:

And I believe that there should be a separation of powers and responsibilities, and I believe that in this case that the Supreme Judicial Court engaged in legislating. I believe it was an improper decision on their part…. (22)

If Romney really believed that the state Supreme Court acted improperly, why did he follow their illegal order? Why did he not join with the 25 state legislators who sponsored or supported the Bill of Address to remove these judges? Incredibly, he never even communicated with them.

8) Romney advised anti-gay marriage candidates to not campaign on the marriage issue but helped support pro-gay marriage candidates. One anti-gay marriage legislative candidate, Michael Carl, stated that in 2003, “Romney personally told me not to campaign on the issue of homosexual marriage,” adding that I should “stick to the money issues.” (23)

However, Romney, as reported by the press, “offered political and financial support to two openly gay Republican candidates for state representative in 2004.” One was Richard Babson, a leading same sex marriage advocate who openly ran as a “pro-marriage equality” Republican. The other was Michael Motzkin, who stated “there would be no compromise on my side [regarding gay marriage]” Nevertheless, as reported, “the Romney administration is whole-heartedly supporting Motzkin’s candidacy.” Indeed, both candidates were part of a slate Romney promoted called the “Romney Reform team.” And marriage was apparently one of the issues that would be reformed. (24)

Romney also supported out-of-state gay marriage candidates. In 2003, he endorsed and produced a television campaign spot for Rocky Anderson who ran for Mayor of Salt Lake City. Anderson was a strong supporter of homosexual marriage and campaigned hard to defeat a state-wide initiative banning same sex marriage. As Mayor, he issued an executive order granting same sex partners all the same benefits enjoyed by married couples making Salt Lake City, of all places, a city where “gay weddings flourish.” (25)

In return, Anderson supported Romney’s 2002 senatorial candidacy perhaps because he knew more about Romney’s true feelings on this issue than the voters Romney has deceived.

9) Romney’s administration honored homosexual parents. In 2006, Romney’s Department of Social Services honored a homosexual couple as “Parents of the Year.” (26) The DSS was managed by Romney’s appointees and it is doubtful they would create such a controversial news story without the consent of the Governor. If Romney is opposed to gay marriage, why does he allow his appointees to honor gay parents?

10) Romney granted special “Same-Day” marriage licenses to homosexuals. Following the Goodridge decision, Romney, apparently excited by the new homosexual marriage “law” he created out of thin air, issued special Governor’s one-day marriage licenses to 189 same-sex couples in 2005:

The applications Romney approved from same-sex couples included at least four from state legislators, including Jarrett t. Barrios, a state senator from Cambridge, members of the clergy from out-of-state, family members and friends. (27)

Romney defenders claim he could not legally grant special marriage licenses to only heterosexual couples but not homosexual couples. That may be true, assuming Romney was obeying the illegal Goodridge decision, but he could simply have stopped this practice altogether. Moreover, as Romney knew well, only the legislature could legalize homosexual marriage; therefore Romney had to know that every time he issued a special license to a homosexual couple, he was violating the state constitution. This incident alone demonstrated where Romney’s heart was on this issue.

11) Romney’s constitutional advisor has called for the abolition of government-recognized marriage. Romney’s leading advisor on constitutional and legal issues, Doug Kmiec, has called for the abolition of government recognition of male-female marriage, a proposal that would open the floodgates to homosexual marriage. By doing so, the institution of marriage will become diluted and the foundational role it has played in America’s culture will evaporate. If Romney ever became president, Kmiec would likely serve in the White House advising Romney on such issues. Not surprisingly, after the GOP primary was over in 2008, Kmiec endorsed Obama for president. (28)

12) Romney appointed pro-gay marriage judges. Here’s how the Boston Globe describes it:

Governor Mitt Romney …has passed over GOP lawyers for three-quarters of the 36 judicial vacancies he has faced, instead tapping registered Democrats or independents — including two gay lawyers who have supported expanded same-sex rights…(29)

However, on June 22, 2004 Romney made a speech to the United States Senate in which he made this statement:

The real threat to the States is not the constitutional amendment process, in which the states participate, but activist judges who disregard the law and redefine marriage . . .” (30)

But this was hypocrisy of the highest order. In reality Romney had no qualms advancing the legal careers of liberal activists and leading anti-marriage attorneys. One such nominee was Stephen Abany, a key player in the Massachusetts Lesbian and Gay Bar Association. Its website indentifies one of its goals as “ensuring that the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision on marriage equality is upheld…” (31)

13) Romney relied on a pro-gay marriage attorney to advise him on the Goodridge decision. Daniel Winslow was Romney’s chief counsel during the Goodridge decision and has known Romney since at least 1994 when he served as Romney’s counsel for his 1994 US Senate race. Thanks to interviews Winslow gave to the gay media and a questionnaire he answered while campaigning for the state legislature in 2010, it is now clear Winslow was extremely biased toward the homosexual agenda.

So much so, that the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus, who describes themselves at the “architect for the strategy Securing Marriage Equality,” endorsed Republican Winslow over a liberal Democrat on the basis of his support for gay marriage. One of the reasons, the MGLPC claimed, was this:

Winslow’s history as the Romney attorney that changed our state’s marriage license wording from ‘Bride and Groom’ to ‘Party A and Party B.’ (32)

Surely, Romney had to know the bias of his own counsel, yet, he didn’t seem to care nor did he ever deviate from following Winslow’s illegal advice regarding Goodridge.

But, it’s worse than that. Romney valued Winslow’s counsel over the advice given him by some of America’s leading conservative legal experts. For example, an Alliance Defense Fund attorney has acknowledged that they advised Romney to ignore the Goodridge decision since it was legally void. (33) Moreover, a group letter sent to Romney signed by numerous experts gave the same advice. But Romney had already made his decision to make history for the homosexuals, a decision probably made in his heart years earlier. (34)

14) ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­Romney supports the right of homosexuals to adopt children. The fact that he has spent his entire career advocating homosexual adoption rights – and still does today – one can only conclude that he would also support marriage rights. One logically leads to the other position. Here’s is what Romney said about gay adoption rights:

There will be children born to same-sex couples, and adopted by same-sax couples, and I believe that there should be rights and privileges associated with those unions and with the children that are part of those unions. (35)

Two years later, in 2007, Romney said this:

There are other ways to raise kids that’s fine—single moms, grandparents raising kids, gay couples raising kids. That’s the American way, to have people have their freedom of choice. (36)

But Romney even went further than this. In 2006, when Catholic Charities announced they would exclude homosexual couples from being able to adopt children, Romney’s Department of Social Services informed them this was in violation of existing law. However, there wasn’t any “anti-discrimination” law on the books which allows the state to trump religious freedom, and if there were, it would be violate both the U.S. Constitution and the state constitution. The only obstacle were administrative regulations enforced by Romney’s Office of Child Care Services and Department of Social Services bureaucrats, which could have been easily waived by Romney. Even former liberal Governor Michael Dukakis told the media that the law didn’t apply to Catholic Charities, stating, “there’s nothing in there to the best of my knowledge that mandates anything….”

Nonetheless, Romney, with great media fanfare (he knew he was running for president at this point), said he would introduce an unnecessary bill to give Catholic Charities an exemption from this mythical law (Yes, like the gay marriage law, another mythical law) while continuing all along to assert, falsely, that gays have a right to adopt children. However, legislative leaders had informed Romney that it had no chance of passage, a little fact he left out of his news conferences.

In the meantime Catholic leaders prevailed upon him to waive his own regulations but he refused to. Ultimately, rather than compromise their religious principles, Catholic Charities had to drop their adoption services or lose their license altogether. Romney’s refusal to fight for religious freedom set a horrible precedent in Massachusetts and his nonchalant attitude toward this assault on religious freedom is typified by this statement:

There are many, many other agencies that can meet the needs of those gay couples and I recognize that they [homosexuals] have a legitimate interested in being able to receive adoptive services.(37)

15) Romney allowed a Judge to order him – Again – to ignore existing Massachusetts law. In 2006, a superior court judge issued a ruling that allows gay couples from Rhode Island to get married in Massachusetts and then take the marriage back to Rhode Island. Romney made a very public effort to stop this practice but then gave up, announcing “I have to follow the law.” What law?

The marriage statutes in Massachusetts were never changed. There isn’t any law on the books allowing homosexual marriage. He based this illegal decision on his prior illegal action when he unilaterally instituted gay marriage. Interestingly, one gay couple who married in Massachusetts tried to get a divorce in Rhode Island but the Rhode Island court and that state’s governor both refused to allow it since they didn’t recognize the validity of their “marriage.” It’s heartening to see that some officials understand the proper role of the courts. (38)

16) Romney’s administration issued “same-sex spousal” guidelines for dealing with benefits for the partners of homosexual state workers. Romney was obsessed with “diversity” quotas based on race, gender, “sexual orientation,” etc., and his administration issued a variety of reports that boasted of how his administration was meeting these “outcomes.” Romney even had a “Diversity and Equal Opportunity Advisory Council” to oversee his diversity empire. One document published by his Human Resources Department gave instructions to bureaucrats for how to handle benefits for the partners of gay state workers. These policies were put into place even before the Goodridge decision became “law.” (39)

17) Romney’s Education Department allowed children to be indoctrinated with books that feature homosexual marriage in violation of parental rights laws. Even prior to the Goodridge case, Massachusetts was famous for subjecting public school students to pro-homosexual propaganda. Common propaganda tracts were King and King and Who’s in a Family? In one nationally publicized case, a father named David Parker attempted to remove his son from a Lexington school due to homosexual indoctrination. He was arrested and charged with trespassing even though he was attending a scheduled meeting with the school principal to discuss this issue.

However, Romney, while always mentioning the Parker case in campaign speeches to conservatives, never lifted a finger to help him even though it was the school in violation of the law, not Parker. The state parental rights law allows parents to opt a child out of any curriculum dealing with sex education and human sexuality issues but Parker was never notified when his son was subjected to the sexuality issues.

Romney could have easily ordered his Department of Education appointee to enforce the parental consent law against the school district in question. Instead, Romney allowed Parker to slowly twist in the wind while the education bureaucracy brutalized him. There were numerous violations of the parental consent law by public schools during the Romney era but he never intervened with his own education department. (40)

18) Romney appointed key gay marriage advocates throughout his administration. Aside from his chief counsel, Romney appointed numerous homosexuals to key positions. One in particular, Patrick Guerriero, was appointed to Romney’s gubernatorial transition team. Previous to this appointment, Guerriero, as a leader of the Log Cabin Club, recounts a meeting with Romney:

Patrick Guerriero, a prominent Log Cabin member, told the Bay Windows newspaper immediately after the meeting that Romney showed he was in agreement with the community on every major issue. ‘If you go down the list, it’s pretty much a check-off of the real hot button concerns for gays and lesbians,’ Guerriero said. ‘I do believe that, and as you know I’m a supporter of gay marriage.’

Based on this conversation, it is clear that Romney discussed gay marriage with Guerriero and told him he supported it. When during a campaign debate Romney said he was against gay marriage, Guerriero, who consulted with Romney on gay issues, said this:

‘It was a very poor answer,’ Guerriero observes. ‘It did not reflect the positions that I know Mitt Romney has taken. …’

A few months later Romney appointed him to his transition team, a team which in turn advises who Romney should hire for hundreds of key policy making positions. Incredibly, Romney purposely appointed a gay marriage advocate to a position where he had great influence on the people hired to advise Romney on policy.

By 2004, Guerriero had become a national leader in the battle for gay marriage. That year he earned national recognition for creating the first national television ad attacking the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment. Currently, Guerriero works for the Gill foundation where he is the mastermind behind the funding and electing of dozens of pro-gay marriage candidates to state legislatures nationwide. (41) In other words, Romney is personally close to one of the nation’s leading gay marriage strategists and gave his career a boost by appointing him to his transition team. Moreover, Romney had shared with Guerriero that he was a gay marriage supporter.

19) Romney supported the Federal Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which lays the legal groundwork for homosexual marriage.

In 1994, Romney informed the Log Cabin Club that he favors ENDA, an intrusive federal law promoted by Congressman Barney Frank which forces acceptance of homosexuality within the corporate world:

I am aware of the legislation that Barney Frank proposed [the Employment Non-Discrimination Act] and do support that and would vote in favor of that. (42)

In 2007, thirteen years later, Romney told Tim Russet on Meet the Press that it makes sense” for states to pass ENDA. (43)

ENDA, for example, would force a Christian landlord to rent to a homosexual or an evangelical book store owner to hire a homosexual and would not only destroy freedom of choice in ones business decisions but create a landslide of litigation purposely targeted at Christians. ENDA institutionalizes in Federal law, “gay rights” above religious freedom.

The Heritage Foundation, perhaps America’s leading conservative think tank, says this about how ENDA leads to gay marriage:

A significant body of evidence suggests that sexual orientation nondiscrimination laws like the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) can function as important incremental steps toward same-sex marriage. .. a large body of evidence suggests that such legislation would also be viewed as, and in many cases expressly intended to be, a significant step toward redefining marriage to include homosexual unions.(44)

Once again, Romney supported policies that created the legal framework for the acceptance of homosexual marriage.

20) Romney prepares the groundwork for homosexual marriage by eliminating the STD test.

In October, 2004, Romney signed a bill eliminating the STD test required of all couples before being granted a marriage license. This is from the Romney administration letter announcing the change:

On October 29, 2004, the Governor signed into law Chapter 388 of the Acts of 2004, formerly known as House Bill 75. This law repeals section 28A of c.207 M.G.L, eliminating the premarital medical certificate requirement for marriage in Massachusetts. (45)

Just a year and a half prior to this bill, Romney’s Department of Public Health had reported “a spike in syphilis infections among gay and bisexual men in the state.”(46) One can only assume that the alarming rise in STD would force Romney’s DPH to reject many save-sex marriages, a prospect they didn’t want to face. This is more evidence that Romney puts the “rights” of homosexuals first, even at the expense of public health.

21) The Romney Administration made sure that infertility treatments for homosexual “parents” were covered in his health care plan. As Romney has made clear, his universal health insurance plan is one of his crowning achievements – until recently. Now with raising premiums, increased costs and the public knowledge that his plan was the model for Obama Care, Romney has since downplayed the plan as his masterpiece. But what many people don’t know is that the plan covered infertility treatments with no restrictions on whether the person is single or married. Nor are homosexual couples prohibited from using these services.

During his 2008 presidential campaign Romney repeatedly used the phrase that “every child deserves a mother and a father,” but in the course of designing his health insurance reform bill, he made no effort to restrict infertility treatments to only male/female married couples. Of course, by illegally recognizing gay marriage as the law of the land a short time earlier, Romney created a legal environment which would have prohibited him from pursuing any such restrictions.

However, Romney could easily have left out infertility coverage all together. Indeed, in an effort to cut the cost of “RomneyCare”, Romney vetoed dental benefits due to its $75 million price tag. But he never even tried to prohibit the far more expensive infertility treatments even though he knew by that time such treatments could be used by homosexual couples. In short, Romney’s insurance reform legislation forces every Massachusetts taxpayer to pay for a radical social policy which says that children can be born to anyone, regardless if there’s no mother or no marriage. (47)

22) Despite Romney’s claim to have been always a traditional marriage champion, he was always looking for “studies” that would let him off the hook. In 1994, Romney was asked by the gay media as to whether he wanted to study the gay marriage issue and here’s what he said:

That will occur at the state level. I’ll let the governor in Massachusetts, and the governors of other states, as well, study it, evaluate it, discuss the alternatives with psychologists and social workers and health care specialists and so forth to gather information and consider it in a very reasoned way. (48)

In other words, before Romney had decided to run for the president, he will willing to allow his views on homosexual marriage be guided by social workers and psychologists, who, as a profession, are overwhelming pro-homosexual. There’s a worldview for you.

23) In almost a decade of dealing with homosexual marriage, Romney has never made a moral argument against it. Romney has never argued why homosexual behavior is wrong or immoral. One could argue it wouldn’t be wise for Romney to make such an argument in liberal Massachusetts, but even in out of state speeches to conservative and Christian groups he avoided any argument remotely resembling morality. Nor would he even get near the argument that the institution of marriage is ordained by God and is the basis of America’s Judeo-Christian culture. Such an oversight is not purposeful; Romney simply does not consider homosexuality to be immoral because he doesn’t consider homosexual behavior to be a sin.

In 2007 when Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Peter Pace publicly stated that he believed homosexual behavior to be immoral, Romney attacked him and told CNN’s Larry King that the condemnation of homosexuality by Pace was “inappropriate for the public discourse.” Romney went on to say “in a governmental setting, the right way to go is to show more of an outpouring of tolerance.” There’s no record of any comments by Romney on the appropriateness of the arguments often made in public by gay leaders about the alleged morality of their lifestyle. (49)

In connection with this controversy, Romney stated at a campaign stop that government had no authority to tell pastors what to preach about homosexuality, although he personally would not preach that homosexuality is sinful.(50)

Nor does Romney believe in the institution of marriage as a God ordained institution; rather he always describes it in utilitarian terms — as a child production unit:

I don’t believe that the institution of marriage, meaning in the sense of people being able to combine as adults, is the primary factor at stake. I believe instead it’s the development of future generations…(51)

At a speech on marriage in October, 2006, Romney again focused on the production of children:

Marriage is about the nurturing and the development of children…our fight for marriage, then, should focus on the needs of the children, not the rights of adults.(52)

Romney also seems to think the proper view of marriage is dependent on what the majority think and what’s popular. Here’s how the Boston Globe reported a conversation between Romney and David Rogers, president of the Log Cabin Club:

Romney’s meeting with Log Cabin club members in October of that year [2002] less than a month before the gubernatorial election, led members to believe he was not morally opposed to gay marriage. ….‘He said, “right now, it’s not popular, and it would cost money,” ‘He didn’t say, when we met with him, ‘I’m sorry, folks; I’m against gay marriage because it’s morally wrong.’ He didn’t say that.’(53)

One reason why Romney does not view homosexuality as sinful is his view that it’s something a person is born with, like race, despite the fact there’s not a shred of evidence to support the genetic theory. Indeed, he has repeatedly compared sexual orientation to race:

It’s incumbent on all of us to respect one another, regardless of our difference and beliefs, our differences in sexual orientation, in race and that America has always been a place, and should be a place, to welcome and tolerate people’s differences.(54)

Not even the notoriously pro-homosexual American Psychological Association will assert that homosexuality is genetic. Indeed, the evidence remains overwhelming that homosexuality is a behavior, not a trait. If Romney accepts the propaganda that homosexuality is genetic, then it makes sense for him to believe that homosexuality is not sinful. This is why to this day he still supports “gay rights.” It is also why he will never say homosexuality is sinful and is why, in his heart, he really has no problem with gay marriage.

24) Throughout Romney’s administration there was a massive push to promote homosexual marriage. This was common knowledge in Massachusetts. Romney funded programs such as the “Safe Schools” program and The “Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth” for the purpose of indoctrinating youth with pro-homosexual propaganda. Much of this propaganda had to do with promoting, as the gays call it, “marriage equality.” This propaganda was in the form of literature, speakers, parades, “Gay Pride Days,” dances, etc, and was carried out by Romney’s Departments of Education, Public Health, and Social Services. It is doubtful that anywhere in America has a governor used his administration so extensively to promote the gay lifestyle and gay marriage. (55)


  1. Fox News/AP, 11/18/03, http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,103399,00.html
  2. Here is the actual Legislative info on a 2007 attempt to codify homosexual marriage: http://www.mass.gov/legis/bills/house/185/ht01/ht01710.htm
  3. For a summary of the great damage Romney did by instituting homosexual marriage, see here: http://www.massresistance.org/docs/marriage/effects_of_ssm.html. For more details on the Goodridge decision and how Romney illegally imposed homosexual marriage on Massachusetts, see here: http://massresistance.org/docs/marriage/romney/. For a detailed timeline of how Romney betrayed the pro family movement regarding homosexual marriage, see here: http://www.massresistance.org/docs/marriage/romney/timeline.html This timeline was authored by MassResistance staff member Amy Contrada.
  4. To see the full text of the letter sent by 44 pro-family leaders to Romney, see here: http://www.massresistance.org/docs/marriage/romney/dec_letter/letter.pdf
  5. This is from a 11/23/06 email circulated among a small number of Dobson advisors, including Former Secretary of Energy Don Hodel, Family Research Council President Tony Perkins, Current FOTF leader Jim Daly, and FOTC administrator Tom Minnery. Email is in possession of the author.
  6. New York Times, 9/8/2007, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/08/us/politics/08romney.html
  7. New York Times, 12/9/06, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/09/us/politics/09romney.htmlOne can find the actual letter here: http://www.massresistance.org/docs/marriage/romney/record/RomneyLogCabinLetter.pdf
  8. The poster can be viewed here: http://www.massresistance.org/docs/marriage/romney/record/
  9. Bay Windows, 3/3/05, http://www.baywindows.com/index.php?ch=columnists&sc=the_romney_files&sc3=&id=53674
  10. Bay Windows, 3/28/02, http://www.baywindows.com/index.php?ch=columnists&sc=the_romney_files&sc2=&sc3=&id=53685
  11. The letter can be found at http://massresistance.blogspot.com/2007/12/romneys-2004-letter-part-ii_19.html
  12. Ibid.
  13. Associated Press, 4/25/04, http://www.gaypasg.org/gaypasg/PressClippings/2004/April%202004/justices_of_the_peace_warned_not.htm
  14. This is a statement given to the author by MassResistance leader Brian Camenker.
  15. State House press conference, 6/15/2005,www.massresistance.org/docs/marriage/romney/press_conf_061605.html
  16. Boston Herald, 6/16/07
  17. Bay Windows, 11/21/2006, http://www.baywindows.com/index.php?ch=columnists&sc=the_romney_files&sc2=&sc3=&id=53673
  18. October 15, 2006 speech on marriage, http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/mittromneyliberty.htm
  19. Boston Phoenix, 5/14-20/04 www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/other_stories/multipage/documents/03827930.asp Bay Windows, 1/1/02, http://www.baywindows.com/index.php?ch=columnists&sc=the_romney_files&sc2=&sc3=&id=53686
  20. Los Angeles Times, 3/25/07, http://articles.latimes.com/2007/mar/25/nation/na-romney25
  21. Boston Globe, 3/30/04, http://www.boston.com/news/specials/gay_marriage/articles/2004/03/30/in_crucial_shift_governor_sways_15_in_gop_to_support_measure/; The homosexual legal group, GLAD, has filed suit against states with Civil Unions claiming that the two-tier system of civil unions and traditional marriages violated the equal protection clause of the US Constitution. See here for more info: http://www.baywindows.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=glbt&sc2=news&sc3=&id=112674
  22. State House press conference, 6/15/05; See also: WorldNetDaily, 04/12/05, http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=29792
  23. Letter by Michael Carl, dated 11/15/2007, in possession of the author.
  24. Bay Windows, 2/26/08, http://www.baywindows.com/index.php?ch=columnists&sc=the_romney_files&sc3=&id=53674; Boston Globe, 9/22/04, www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-785731.html; Bay Windows, 10/7/04, http://www.baywindows.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=glbt&sc2=news&sc3=&id=56662
  25. Wikepedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocky_Anderson; The Sunday Times, 4/21/08 http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/relationships/article3764024.ece To see the commercial Romney made for Anderson, go here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TuFe9_BCvXY Anderson also appeared in the film The MormonProposition, an attack on those fighting to preserve traditional marriage: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGVU53gEss0
  26. Daily News Tribune, 8/9/06. You can read the story here; http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen/07c/romney_dss.html
  27. Boston Globe, 1/2/06, The article can be found here: http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/boston/access/953500101.html?FMT=ABS&date=Jan+2%2C+2006
  28. Conservative News Service, 5/27/09
  29. Boston Globe, 7/25/2005, go here for story: http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-7920317.html
  30. U.S. Senate testimony by Gov. Mitt Romney, 6/22/2004
  31. Go to their web site: http://www.masslgbtqbar.org/pages/Whatdo.php
  32. MassResistance blog, 9/28/10, http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen/10c/winslow/index.html
  33. The Alliance Defense Fund attorney admitted this in the course of a three hour conference call with a group of pro-family leaders. A memo summarizing this call is in possession of the author.
  34. The group letter can be found here:
  35. Boston Globe, 3/2/06; State House press conference, 6/15/05
  36. Associated Press, 6/6/07, you can view the story here:
  37. www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/03/14/romney_shifts_tone_on_gay_adoption Associated Press, 3/16/2006, www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/03/16/romney_files_religious_freedom_bill_on_church_and_gay_adoption/ Boston Globe, 2/17/06, www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/02/17/bishops_dealt_setback_in_pursuit_of_gay_adoption_exemption/ Boston Globe, 3/2/06, www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/03/02/seven_quit_charity_over_policy_of_bishops Boston Herald, 3/11/06. CJ Doyle of the Catholic Action League talks about this controversy. Go to the 3/25/06 audio file which can be found here: http://massresistance.org/media/MR_show/index.html Deal Hudson blog, January, 2008, http://dealwhudson.typepad.com/deal_w_hudson/2008/01/some-questions.html Bay Windows, 3/23/06
  38. MassResistance blog, 12/08/07, http://massresistance.blogspot.com/2007/12/rhode-island-gets-it-laws-are- passed-by.html?zx=667473c5666a2721. This blog is written by MassResistance staff member Amy Contrada. Boston Globe, 9/1/06, http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/10/01/romney_says_he_must_obey_law_on_marriage_for_out_of_state_gay_couples/
  39. http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=afsubtopic&L=4&L0=Home&L1=Employment%2c+Equal+Access%2c+Disability&L2=State+Employee+Benefits+%26+Compensation&L3=Same+Sex+Marriage+Benefits&sid=Eoaf
  40. You can read all about the Parker case here: http://www.massresistance.org/docs/parker/; Here’s a small sampling of other stories about parents whose rights have been violated: http://www.massresistance.org/docs/parker/montalvo.html
  41. Los Angeles Times, 3/25/07, http://articles.latimes.com/2007/mar/25/nation/na-romney25; See this Log Cabin web site: http://www.lcrga.com/news/200211251803.shtml; Metro Weekly, 3/18/04, http://www.metroweekly.com/news/?ak=914; Go here for info on Patrick Guerriero and the Gill Foundation: http://massresistance.blogspot.com/2006/08/who-is-patrick-guerriero.html?zx=a79174c8ac274f6a Bay Windows, 10/24/02, http://www.baywindows.com/index.php?ch=columnists&sc=the_romney_files&sc2=&sc3=&id=53677
  42. Bay Windows, 3/3/05, http://www.baywindows.com/index.php?ch=columnists&sc=the_romney_files&sc2=&sc3=&id=53674 Bay Windows, 8/25/94, http://www.baywindows.com/index.php?ch=columnists&sc=the_romney_files&sc3=&id=53688
  43. Meet the Press, 12/16/07, read it here: http://www.christianpost.com/news/pro-gay-romney-upsets-family-values-leader-30684/
  44. ENDA and the Path to Same-Sex Marriage, 9/18/09, Backgrounder #2317, www.heritage.org/Research/religion/bg2317.cfm
  45. www.mass.gov/Eeohhs2/docs/dph/vital_records/medcerts.pdf
  46. Bay Windows reported this in May of 2003 but the story is no longer accessible. Go here to read the story: http://www.childrensaidsfund.org/resources/upd0425.htm Also, see this 2008 clinical Advisory put out by DPH five years later; little has changed: http://www.mass.gov/Eeohhs2/docs/dph/cdc/std/clinical_advisory_std_rise.pdf
  47. This is the website for Commonwealth Care: https://www.mahealthconnector.org/portal/site/connector/
  48. Bay Windows, 12/6/06, http://www.baywindows.com/index.php?ch=columnists&sc=the_romney_files&sc2=&sc3=&id=53670
  49. OneNewsNow.com (Focus on the Family) via NewsBull.com, 3/20/07 http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/email-a-friend/romney-supports-tolerance-for-gays-but-not-public-servants-who-speak-agains/
  50. Ibid
  51. State House press conference, 6/15/05,
  52. This was from a Oct 15, 2006 speech, titled “Defending our First Freedom.” Boston, MA
  53. Boston Globe, 3/11/04, http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/boston-sub/access/575300191.html?FMT=ABS&date=Mar+11%2C+2004
  54. Bay Windows, 8/25/94, http://www.baywindows.com/index.php?ch=columnists&sc=the_romney_files&sc3=&id=53688
  55. The best place to read all the documentation regarding Governor Romney’s massive push for homosexual marriage among school children is to go to Amy Contrada’s report mentioned below. Contrada cites dozens of sources and show that this propaganda campaign was a major feature of the Romney administration.

Note: The real story on Mitt Romney’s obsessive effort to promote the gay agenda in Massachusetts has never been told. Much of the media ignored it during the 2008 presidential campaign. But the story is contrary to everything we have been told about Mr. Romney. However, the public needs to know this because his efforts to promote the gay agenda throughout society and even to grade school children reveal a worldview that is totally at odds with how his political consultants and the media have portrayed him. Anyone considering voting for Romney in 2012 should withhold their vote until they read MITT ROMNEY’S DECEPTION: His Stealth Promotion of “Gay Rights” and “Gay Marriage” in Massachusetts by Amy Contrada. A hard copy is not yet available, but a kindle version can be purchased here:



Steve Baldwin is a veteran leader at every level from local grassroots political organization to national networking among the most prominent political leaders, as well as an author, pundit and political consultant.

He is a Senior Fellow in Practical Political Leadership at the Inter-American Institute for Philosophy, Government, and Social Thought.

The opinions published here are those of the writer and are not necessarily endorsed by the Institute.

Romney and Global Warming

Recently, various media outlets have reported on Romney’s statement in which he expressed support for global warming:  “I believe the world is getting warmer, and I believe that humans have contributed to that.” This despite the last two winters being among the coldest in recent history and the recent evidence revealing pro-global warming scientists to have made fraudulent claims and suppressed contrary views.  Romney also called for America to “reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases,” which, will, of course entail massive new government programs despite air quality in the United States being among the cleanest in the world.

I have always argued that Romney’s long history of promoting liberal causes make him unfit to be the GOP nominee and that should he win, his lack of a consistent worldview would set the party back decades.  But the “Romney is a conservative” myth has become so entrenched that when people hear about his global warming views, they’re surprised.  But Romney has always held liberal views on the environment – he’s just downplayed them for the last five years and hoped no one would notice.

Most voters seem to be unaware of that Romney ran for Governor on a global warming platform.  In 2004, Governor Romney initiated the “Massachusetts Climate Protection Plan” which was attacked by just about every New England free market group due to the harmful effects the plan would have upon the state’s economy.  This plan morphed into a much larger regional plan called the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), that Romney and ten other liberal Northeastern governors signed.  The goal of the pact was to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by ten percent by 2019.  This pact, of course, assumed the global warming theory was scientific fact and to carry it out its wide-ranging dictates, Romney hired Douglas Foy, a radical environmental activist.

Foy’s claim to fame was his notoriety for suing businesses for not complying with various draconian environmental regulations.  Not surprisingly, RGGI was a disaster from day one and created such economic uncertainty that businesses began to flee the state. Indeed, the job creation record of Gov. Romney became the second worst in the country, another shocking fact most voters are unaware of.  Nevertheless, against all evidence, Romney insisted that RGGI was “good for business,” a statement which sounds similar to Obama’s statements about how his policies promoting alternative fuels are “good for business.”

As a result of the negative economic impact and a pressure campaign mounted by the business community, Romney did eventually pull out of RGGI.  However, shortly after pulling out, Romney initiated new regulations that essentially did the same thing RGGI was planning to do: a series of damaging emission regulations targeted at power plants.  Incredibly, in preparations for these regulations, Romney proceeded to demonize the plants, even claiming “the Salem Harbor Plant is responsible for 53 premature deaths, 570 emergency room visits and 14,400 asthma attacks each year.” It turned out that these stats were false and were borrowed right from extremist environmental propaganda.  Moreover, the stats were based upon a theoretical model created by the American Cancer Society and had nothing to do with the Salem Harbor plant.   Even though there were zero deaths associated with the Salem Harbor power plant, Romney held a press conference in front of the plant with all his extremist environmentalist friends present and recited these phony statistics while hysterically proclaiming “that plant kills people.” Bear in mind Salem Harbor was a legal power plant in full compliance with the law in every respect.  Due to the impact Romney’s regulations had upon energy rates, the Salem Harbor power plant filed for bankruptcy two years later but was then purchased by Dominion Power.   Foy later became a “super-secretary” in the Romney administration, responsible for overseeing the transportation, housing, environmental and energy agencies.

One of the most irresponsible treaties even proposed by the United Nations is the Kyoto Accord, which was an attempt to place draconian caps on energy emissions worldwide in the name of global warming.  This goal remains one of the top goals of the international left.  When Romney became a presidential candidate in 2007, he stated on his campaign website that a “Kyoto-style sweeping mandate, imposed unilaterally in the United States, would kill jobs, depress growth and shift manufacturing to the direct developing nations.”

But this statement was hypocritical since RGGI was essentially a mini version of the Kyoto accord. Moreover, Romney even contradicted this statement a short time later when he stated in a speech, now on You Tube, that he would support the Kyoto Accord as long as “the other developing nations are part of any effort to reduce Green house gases.” Elsewhere, Romney again stressed that “if you do it unilaterally, [referring to Kyoto treaty], without involving all the world, you’d impose on the American people a huge new effective tax….” So, in Romney’s worldview, a “huge new effective tax” on the American people is fine as long as we involve “the rest of the world.”

But that’s not all.  One of the key elements of the Kyoto Accord is its funding mechanism — a worldwide carbon tax. When asked at a May 2007 speech in Rochester about whether he would support a carbon tax, Romney responded, “Carbon tax?  That’s something we’re looking into.” You got to be kidding.  He’s not even sure of his position on a carbon tax?  But now Romney campaigns as an anti-tax warrior.

Incredibly, during the 2008 campaign Romney attacked John McCain for his position in favor of a Cap and Trade program, even stating on Fox News that  the “McCain-Lieberman [climate change bill] would depress the economy” and stating in the New York Times that McCain’s “views [on climate change] are outside the mainstream of Republican conservative thought.” But Romney’s s role in creating a regional cap and trade program and his statements in support of the Kyoto Accord – as long as the rest of the world is involved – not to mention his recent statements in support of global warming contradict his criticism of McCain.  It is clear that Romney was attempting to portray himself as something he wasn’t.  Once again, Romney has flipped flopped numerous times on a critical issue, confirmation that  he doesn’t possess any core beliefs.



Edwin Vieira Interviewed on President Obama’s National Defense Executive Order

Devvy Kidd Interviews Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Distinguished Senior Fellow of the Inter-American Institute, Constitutional scholar and attorney, regarding the Presidential Executive Order- National Defense Resources Preparedness, and Americans proper response to it. The interview was originally aired on May 25, 2012. Listen to the Interview below.


Dr. Reisman on C-SPAN: 20th Century Sex Science & the Law

Judith Reisman discusses the cultural and legal impact of the work of Alfred Kinsey, the mid-20th century scientist best-known for his books, “Sexual Behavior in the Human Male” and “Sexual Behavior in the Human Female.” Ms. Reisman is a Visiting Law Professor at Liberty University, and a guest lecturer in this course called “Sexual Behavior and the Law.” Liberty University is in Lynchburg, Virginia.

C-SPAN, American History TV
Lynchburg, Virginia, January 26, 2013

Click here to watch the video.