Is The Editor of BayWindows Suggesting That LGBT Should Attend Catholic Charities' Christmas House Tour?

Deck The Halls and The Catholic Charities Trolley Service with Gay Apparel(ed) Tour-Goers December 2nd and 3rd

Susan Ryan-Vollmar, Chief Editor of Boston's BayWindows (an LGBT newspaper) rocked the boat two weeks ago when she published an advertisement for Catholic Charities of Boston's Laboure Center's 16th Annual Christmas House Tour.  On the surface, accepting an ad from an organization which has taken such aggressive stands against the LGBT Community might seem inappropriate.  And in the case of Catholic Charities especially, with its ending of one hundred years of adoptive services because it, could not reconcile its "religious" beliefs with its very "public/legal responsibilities" when it came to adoptions by gays and lesbians, it seemed to most that Susan Ryan-Vollmar, should have shown Catholic Charities "the proverbial door."

One BW reader even wrote a letter to the editor in BayWindows (link to follow) the following week criticizing Vollmar's decision to place this ad which elicited her response, "Unlike Catholic Charities, BayWindows doesn't discriminate."  But here is where this story gets really sweet and juicy.  The Archdiocese laid into Vollmar's decision to place their ad in BayWindows also which recently gained national media attention.  Evidently, by Archdiocese decry, Vollmar should have said, "No," to Catholic Charities' request to be treated equally as an advertiser.   

I certainly understand this letter writer's reaction.  I had the same one when I first heard of the ad in BayWindows.  But think about this ad...  We as concerned LGBT and activists need to weigh out the positives and negatives here as to what attendance of this Christmas House Tour means from a political point of view.  Firstly, all proceeds of the Christmas House Tour "benefits the programs and services of The Catholic Charities Laboure Center" in South Boston.  (for a list of these programs and services see this link)  But secondly, and for some very importantly, we need to remember that this is A CHRISTMAS HOUSE TOUR in a newly refurbished and remodeled historic building (The Gate of Heaven Church in South Boston) and SIX, hear me, SIX other historic homes in South Boston.  One can't get anymore LGBT than that. 

So just imagine, instead of a boycott, wouldn't it be better to actually attend this house tour?  And what a better way to celebrate this festive season than to bring your LGBT friends, family and children dressed in their best and MOST colorful Holiday apparel!  Let the Archdiocese know that it is 100 % correct in its assessment of LGBT and our compulsive affinity toward temptation.  And what could be more tempting than a refurbished and seasonally decorated room?

I believe it was Susan Ryan-Vollmar's boss, Sue O'Connell who once said to me, "In the news world, somethings that are good ideas on Monday may not be on Friday, but also, some bad ideas on Monday become great ideas on Friday."  But in Susan Ryan-Vollmar's case, knowing what I do about her dedication to LGBT issues, I am pretty sure that she knew EXACTLY what she was doing when she placed this ad.

The Laboure Center's 16th Annual Christmas Tour begins on Saturday, Dec. 2nd at 4 PM and concludes with a cocktail reception a the Winter Garden located at the World Trade Center East.  Trolley Transportation will be available to tour-goers from house to house.  Saturday's tickets are $ 75.  On Sunday, December 3rd, the tour runs from Noon-4PM and begins at the Laboure Center at 275 West Broadway and Castle Island.  Tickets for Sunday's tour are $25 in advance, $30 at the door.  For more information or to purchase tickets call the Laboure Center at 617-268-9670 or visit www.ccab.org/laboure

Tom Lang, Director

 

Comments

[John Hosty]

I LOVE it! Ray and I are in for SURE!

[Richard W. Lewis, Sr.]

This brings back a thought I had when I was standing across from the State House with a large chorus of gay people drowning out Mitt Romney's battle cry against our families.

I looked at the opposition and I looked at our side and I was surprised by the similarities. If you took away the yellow stickers and the rainbow flags it would be hard to pick out the good guys from the bad guys. (In most cases. Naturally one has extremists on each side).

My thought was, WHAT IF?
What if we called a one year truce and chose some major project that both sides could work together on. Something that both sides could be committed to and proud of. Something that would provide the opportunity for us to get to know each other individually in a non-threatening and uplifting activity.
How about feeding the hungry children of Massachusetts?

The massive resources, people, funding, networks, etc. would all come together to address this common problem. They would get to know us and we them and maybe, just maybe, when we come out at the other end of this year long, truce project, maybe then we could all get along as fellow Americans.

Anybody else up for approaching them with such an idea!
Richard, Sr.

[The Concerned TRUE Pariot]

great dreams. the problem is, as much as we would want to, it takes two sides to make a truce. They probaly will not. As unpatriotic as that is, I do not think they really care about the quality of life for people in their country. They just care about their own agendas and power bases. Not unity and freedom.

[The Patriot]

I post these writings not to hold them up as infallable, but to show people that even the left has some common sense and understand the dangers in messing with the democratic process.

THE OBSERVER

Giving process its due

End can not justify means on gay marriage

By Sam Allis, Globe Columnist | November 26, 2006

Call me a process liberal.

This is the dismissive term used by Arline Isaacson, the fiery co chairwoman of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus, to describe those whose support of a lefty cause is tempered by their commitment to play by the rules.

It is, in this case, aimed at people like me who support gay marriage but oppose the legislative dodge, all but killing a constitutional ballot initiative barring gay marriage, exercised earlier this month by the House and Senate, sitting together as a Constitutional Convention.

"It's not a dodge at all," Isaacson maintains about the Nov. 9 vote to recess rather than vote on the amendment. "What we stand to lose is so significant, and it's so unfair for our supporters to expect that we should just lie down and say, 'It's OK, the process is more important than our rights.' "

Process liberals get tagged in torrid single-issue causes whose advocates like Isaacson conclude that the end justifies the means. That the goal is so important, they can ignore due process, in this case the state constitution.

"It's not a matter of following the constitution," says John Reinstein, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts. "It's following the constitution down the drain."

Great line, but, of course, once you start choosing which parts of the constitution to obey, you're practicing cafeteria constitutionalism, which invites cynicism.

Say for the sake of argument that the ballot initiative would embed in the constitution the right of gays to marry and that the Legislature dodged a vote on it. Isaacson and Reinstein would, in righteous dudgeon, demand that legislators honor their oath of office to obey the state constitution.

They would demand that a Constitutional Convention follow Article 48 of the document, whose clear intent calls for a vote on an initiative before it. (If there are 50 votes in favor, the proposal goes on the ballot in the next statewide election.) The irony is that Article 48 was added to the constitution in 1918 to provide citizens a means to thwart an obstructionist legislature.

There was nothing pretty about the 109-to-87 vote to skate on the gay marriage initiative, which drew a record 170,000 signatures. No profiles in courage either. The leaders of both houses took a powder instead of defending the craven recess vote.

Nothing around this issue is clean. It is, for starters, deeply unsettling to line up with Governor Mitt Romney , who with 10 plaintiffs petitioned the Supreme Judicial Court last Friday to order Secretary of State William F. Galvin to put the initiative on the 2008 ballot. Romney, whose White House ambition dictates his every move, has a case here, however cynically motivated.

It's not just Romney and gay marriage. Another constitutional amendment that got sidetracked calls for affordable, comprehensive health care for everyone in the state. (It was banished to a study group that has never met.) Earlier this month, former U S attorney Donald K. Stern filed a complaint to the SJC similar to the Romney suit on behalf of a group behind this initiative.

Supporters argue that while a universal health care law already exists, it can be repealed, as occurred to such coverage under Michael S. Dukakis before that statute even went into effect. They want the initiative on the 2008 ballot if the Legislature fails to act before it adjourns Jan. 2 -- the day you can bet your 401(k) the gay marriage amendment will die.

Forget Springsteen, these two SJC hearings will be the marquee events in these parts.

If these constitutional collisions seem like no-brainers, they're not. It's easy to get hoisted by one's own petard here. Consider, for example, a ballot initiative with 50 votes at a Constitutional Convention calling for the right of every citizen in the state to own rocket-propelled grenade launchers.

Then there is the whole thorny issue of direct democracy -- the euphemism for law by popular ballot. Should we really make statutes by getting signatures from people dashing into True Value for duct tape on issues of basic rights or complicated measures like universal health care? Yet to deny the procedure because such measures are deemed too important to leave to the masses smacks of bald elitism.

A process liberal knows when the process is broken, and it is now. The bar in the amendment procedure is set dangerously low.

It should take a lot more than 50 votes-- a mere 25 percent of a constitutional convention-- to propel an initiative onto the ballot.

Two-thirds of each house of Congress, in contrast, must ratify a constitutional amendment before it goes to the states. We should head in that direction pronto.

In the meantime, there is the minor detail of the state constitution.

I can't predict the outcomes of the two SJC petitions-- intellectual mud wrestling among smart lawyers will shape them-- but I do know that the current situation smells bad.

That's why I'm a process liberal.

[Lula]

Paul, couldn't wait to get that letter off in Friday's mail, could you?

I'm sure your employer would be interested to know you send hate mail using their postage machine.

[John Hosty]

We know that straight families make no compromises in their lives in order to accommodate marriage equality, and anyone who wants to say otherwise should step forward and PROVE this statement untrue. I say this because people have said that gay marriage is eroding the sanctity of traditional marriage, and it is harming society. Saying this does not make it true no matter how many times it is said.

One group believes so strongly that another group's beliefs are wrong, so they want the government to stop them from living by their own rules, and that's all this is. It is no more complex than that.

[The Patriot]

I could be smug and say ditto to the above statement

"One group believes so strongly that another group's beliefs are wrong, so they want the government to stop them from living by their own rules, and that's all this is. It is no more complex than that."

But here is the answer from one court, which seems to be the prevailing wisdom of the day in the US

Whether you like it or not.

We conclude, however, that there are at least two grounds that rationally support the
limitation on marriage that the Legislature has enacted.
Others
have been advanced, but we will discuss only these two, both of
which are derived from the undisputed assumption that marriage is
important to the welfare of children.

First, the Legislature could rationally decide that,
for the welfare of children, it is more important to promote
stability, and to avoid instability, in opposite-sex than in
same-sex relationships. Heterosexual intercourse has a natural
tendency to lead to the birth of children; homosexual intercourse
does not. Despite the advances of science, it remains true that
the vast majority of children are born as a result of a sexual
relationship between a man and a woman, and the Legislature could
find that this will continue to be true. The Legislature could
also find that such relationships are all too often casual or temporary.

It could find that an important function of marriage
is to create more stability and permanence in the relationships
that cause children to be born. It thus could choose to offer an
inducement -- in the form of marriage and its attendant benefits
-- to opposite-sex couples who make a solemn, long-term
commitment to each other.

The Legislature could find that this rationale for
marriage does not apply with comparable force to same-sex
couples. These couples can become parents by adoption, or by
artificial insemination or other technological marvels, but they
do not become parents as a result of accident or impulse. The
Legislature could find that unstable relationships between people
of the opposite sex present a greater danger that children will
be born into or grow up in unstable homes than is the case with
same-sex couples, and thus that promoting stability in opposite sex
relationships will help children more. This is one reason
why the Legislature could rationally offer the benefits of
marriage to opposite-sex couples only.

There is a second reason: The Legislature could
rationally believe that it is better, other things being equal,
for children to grow up with both a mother and a father.

Intuition and experience suggest that a child benefits from
having before his or her eyes, every day, living models of what
both a man and a woman are like. It is obvious that there are
exceptions to this general rule -- some children who never know
their fathers, or their mothers, do far better than some who grow up
with parents of both sexes -- but the Legislature could find
that the general rule will usually hold.

Plaintiffs, and amici supporting them, argue that the
proposition asserted is simply untrue: that a home with two
parents of different sexes has no advantage, from the point of
view of raising children, over a home with two parents of the
same sex. Perhaps they are right, but the Legislature could
rationally think otherwise.

To support their argument, plaintiffs and amici
supporting them refer to social science literature reporting
studies of same-sex parents and their children. Some opponents
of same-sex marriage criticize these studies, but we need not
consider the criticism, for the studies on their face do not
establish beyond doubt that children fare equally well in same sex
and opposite-sex households. What they show, at most, is
that rather limited observation has detected no marked
differences. More definitive results could hardly be expected,
for until recently few children have been raised in same-sex
households, and there has not been enough time to study the long term
results of such child-rearing.

Plaintiffs seem to assume that they have demonstrated
the irrationality of the view that opposite-sex marriages offer
advantages to children by showing there is no scientific evidence
to support it. Even assuming no such evidence exists, this
reasoning is flawed. In the absence of conclusive scientific
evidence, the Legislature could rationally proceed on the common
sense premise that children will do best with a mother and father
in the home. (See Goodridge, 798 NE2d at 979-980 [Sosman, J.,
dissenting].) And a legislature proceeding on that premise could
rationally decide to offer a special inducement, the legal
recognition of marriage, to encourage the formation of opposite sex
households.

In sum, there are rational grounds on which the
Legislature could choose to restrict marriage to couples of
opposite sex. Plaintiffs have not persuaded us that this long accepted
restriction is a wholly irrational one, based solely on
ignorance and prejudice against homosexuals. This is the
question on which these cases turn. If we were convinced that
the restriction plaintiffs attack were founded on nothing but
prejudice -- if we agreed with the plaintiffs that it is
comparable to the restriction in Loving v Virginia (388 US 1
[1967]), a prohibition on interracial marriage that was plainly
"designed to maintain White Supremacy" (id. at 11) -- we would
hold it invalid, no matter how long its history. As the dissent
points out, a long and shameful history of racism lay behind the
kind of statute invalidated in Loving.

But the historical background of Loving is different
from the history underlying this case. Racism has been
recognized for centuries -- at first by a few people, and later
by many more -- as a revolting moral evil. This country fought a
civil war to eliminate racism's worst manifestation, slavery, and
passed three constitutional amendments to eliminate that curse
and its vestiges. Loving was part of the civil rights revolution
of the 1950's and 1960's, the triumph of a cause for which many
heroes and many ordinary people had struggled since our nation
began.

It is true that there has been serious injustice in the
treatment of homosexuals also, a wrong that has been widely
recognized only in the relatively recent past, and one our
Legislature tried to address when it enacted the Sexual
Orientation Non-Discrimination Act four years ago (L 2002, ch 2).

But the traditional definition of marriage is not merely a byproduct
of historical injustice. Its history is of a different
kind.

The idea that same-sex marriage is even possible is a
relatively new one. Until a few decades ago, it was an accepted
truth for almost everyone who ever lived, in any society in which
marriage existed, that there could be marriages only between
participants of different sex. A court should not lightly
conclude that everyone who held this belief was irrational,
ignorant or bigoted. We do not so conclude.

[ryan charisma]

I have two words:

Britney & K-Fed

end of discussion.

[Lula]

Paul, couldn't wait to get that letter off in Friday's mail, could you?

I'm sure your employer would be interested to know you send hate mail using their postage machine.

[Cherie Johnson]

Peckermint Patty...who the hell even reads the shit you post anymore?

Your words have no validity.

Your words have no meaning.

Your words have no power.

In other words...fuck off dick face.

Good Afternoon All!

Hope everyone had an enjoyable holiday.

[Lula]

Cherie, you're so right.

Hey, PJ, btw...my friend, a handwriting analyst, gave me his professional assessment: "unstable."

[The Patriot]

You may be right Cherry Bomb, but the words of the majority of SJC's in this country certainly do have, validity, meaning and power.

[Lula]

Sending it anonymously did nothing but prove what a coward you are, Paul.

[Cherie Johnson]

You may be right Cherry Bomb, but the words of the majority of SJC's in this country certainly do have, validity, meaning and power.

Posted by: The Patriot | November 27, 2006 at 01:05 PM

Pee brain....segregation and racism were passed and implemented into law "oh so long ago"...and look what happened!

I see consuming your traditional holiday meal has done nothing for your ever declining brain cells.

Perhaps you should go have that checked.

[Lula]

Do your children know you send hate mail, Paul?

[John Hosty]

Patriot, you have not cited your source once again.

In Massachusetts we have the leadership role in freedom and democracy that the world seems to follow. That freedom does not allow a vote on the rights of the other citizens from one group that feels more priviladged than the other group. It may have taken us this long to figure it out, but now that we are here there is no turning back.

Try all you want to justify bigotry, but in the end that's all this is.

[John Hosty]

We have gone from white supremacy to religious supremacy.

[The Patriot]

Sorry John, just google "NY State court ruling on marriage" and its the first link.

How can you say "No turning back" when state after state keep ruling against gay marriage?

[Lula]

John H., don't engage.

The scum is not worth it.

[John]

A gay criminal gets away with $9 million in stolen money.

"With rights comes responsibility:

“It’s ironic that some of the same people who are opposed to legal recognition of marriage between same-sex couples are upset that this couple gets to keep about $9 million in stolen funds,” “This highlights the point that people don’t always think about the obligations as well as the rights that go with marriage.”

Because:

The fact that U.S. and Texas laws do not recognize same-sex relationships most likely prompted authorities against going after Dodson’s financial gains in the Enron affair, financial observers have said. Federal prosecutors forced the married spouses of several Enron figures to forfeit money they obtained in schemes operated jointly with Enron executives."

http://www.washingtonblade.com/2006/11-24/news/national/twist.cfm

[John Hosty]

Patriot, thanks for clarifying your source. I have learned to read for myself what is put in front of me. Often other people cut out the parts they don't like, and the message ends up being distorted that way.

When blacks lost their right to marry it all started in Maryland in the 1600's. The cycle of discrimination was broken by Massachusetts, and we were not popular back then for it. Only 39 years ago did all states get the official nod from the Supreme Court that there would be no more discrimination of this nature permitted. The road was long and slow, but it was worth travelling. We are now on such a road yet again. Massachusetts has no peers when it comes to democracy, we are leaders. Someone has to be the first to say "no more", and this state is famous for many such stands.

I wish you would come and actually have a conversation with us sometime instead of this cloak and dagger, hit and run type of stuff. We could learn from you what it is you are so afraid of, and you would learn from us we truly wish you no harm. Aside from standing up for my rights, I am your friend that you have not been introduced to yet. We don't need to agree on everything to be good neighbors. We only have to agree not to get in each other's way.

There will be a day that all of us can live in peace together. Whether that is next year, or a generation from now only time will tell. I hope to see that day, but I am satisfied being someone who fought for that opportunity. The fight itself yields it's own reward.

[John]

"The cycle of discrimination was broken by Massachusetts, and we were not popular back then for it."

Are you referring to marriage law or slavery?

[John Hosty]

Funny you should ask that John, the answer is the same for both. We also led in women's right to vote. What would you expect from the state that started our country with the revolution. We are still revolutionary to this day, and I am proud of my Yankee roots.

[Lula]

Paul, you should know that your hate "letter" accomplished absolutely nothing.

The only thing it did was confirm that you are in desperate need of psychiatric help.

The piece of mail did not scare me, and YOU do not scare me.

You are a spineless coward.

Your hate mail did NOTHING.

To everyone else on board, I hope you had a wonderful holiday with your friends and your family.

[Steven Keirstead]

"The Patriot" is quite "the Plagiarist." Does he have any original thoughts? I don't think so.