Homosexual Power In The Press
The decision by the New York Times to add to its reports of weddings, coverage of "celebrations" of homosexual partnerships shows the enormous influence the homosexuals now have at the Times. Two years ago, Richard Berke, a member of the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association, said at one of their gatherings that when he was hired by the Times he wondered if there were any gay reporters there. He said that now "there are times when you look at the front-page meeting and...literally three-quarters of the people deciding what's on the front page are not-so-closeted homosexuals."
Now they control not only the news pages but even the page where marriages are reported, which they will now sully with "celebrations" of men "marrying" men and women "marrying" women. They miss no opportunity to use their influence to win public acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle. They maintain that they are good journalists who are not promoting any agenda, but their Association sent the Times a message congratulating those who run the paper on this latest acceptance of their demands.
The homosexual journalists not only battle to get laws changed to advance their agenda, but they are also willing to violate the law to attain their objectives. This was demonstrated in Massachusetts at the end of July. The Senate was obliged by the Massachusetts constitution to vote on placing on the ballot an amendment to the constitution that would block efforts to legalize same-sex unions in the state. Over 130,000 registered voters had signed petitions supporting this proposition. If one-fourth of the Senate voted in favor of putting it on the ballot, two years in a row, it would have to be done.
The Boston Globe, which is owned by the New York Times, advised the Senate to ignore the constitution and to vote to adjourn without voting on the amendment. Last May 2, the Globe wrote, "As Senate president, Birmingham could choose to not schedule a proposed amendment for a vote, which would scuttle the measure." The State House News Service said: "Another power play was pulled on Wednesday. The Legislature voted 137-53 to adjourn its Constitutional Convention for the year rather than debate and vote on a controversial measure put before them by a campaign that had garnered more than 130,000 signatures."
The president of the Senate said it was better to kill a measure defining marriage as between a man and a woman by adjourning than risk taking it up and having it pass, which would have moved the measure one step closer to a ballot vote two years from now. The vote to adjourn showed that the measure had the support of more than 25 percent of the Senate.
Supporters of the amendment have asked the Supreme Judicial Court to instruct the Senate president and the governor that it is their duty under the constitution to require the Senate to vote on the amendment. Even some of the foes of the amendment are upset by the failure of these officials to obey the law. The governor can call the Senate back to vote, and sit-ins are being planned to put pressure on her to do so.
Reed Irvine can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org