SwiftVets.com

[Mary Ann Parker]

Another bold one?? Or nuance?? What is the difference?
Now you say it now you don't
Now you see it soon you won't

Please pay particular attention to quotes by
DICK CHENEY and the dates....
It should be an eye opener for those who watched
the debates.

If we find this stuff, why does the MSM act so dumb???
Make it a busy day.
Mary Ann Parker**********************************************
http://www.aim.org/publications/weekly_column/2004/02/06.html

**************************
Kerry Lies About Homosexual "Marriage"
By Cliff Kincaid
February 6, 2004
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Desperate to shed the label of Massachusetts liberal, Senator and presidential candidate John Kerry claims that his position on homosexual marriage is the same as that of Vice President Dick Cheney. Kerry says, "Vice President Cheney has the same position I do." The media have failed to note that this is a blatant lie. In an exclusive interview published by the Denver Post on January 11, Cheney said "he would support a presidential push to ban same-sex marriage" and that "recent action by courts in Massachusetts and other states that recognize gays' rights to the civil benefits of marriage has caused the administration to revisit the need for a constitutional amendment." By contrast, Kerry opposes any federal action to stop homosexual marriage.

In the past, Cheney did say that it was a matter that should probably be left with the states. But that opinion was uttered before the Massachusetts Supreme Court ordered the legislature to give marriage benefits to homosexuals, and before the implications of this decision were considered on a national basis

Last November Kerry urged the state legislature to comply with what the Massachusetts Supreme Court had said and impose civil unions. Kerry said he favored civil unions but opposed homosexual marriage. But he also said on NBC's Meet the Press in 2002 (after being cornered by Tim Russert) that the people had a right to vote on the state amendment that was proposed then banning homosexual marriages. But when the Democratic Party violated the law and refused to vote on the amendment and put it on the ballot, he kept quiet and failed to mention it again. If he and his fellow Democrats had acted, Massachusetts would be having a statewide referendum for an amendment in November this year to ban both gay marriage and civil unions.

Kerry now says that, "I personally believe the court is not right." But he did nothing to give the people of his state the right to vote against it. He wants to have it both ways-in the same way that he's been bashing special interests while taking money from lobbyists.

In a recent column, E.J. Dionne of the Washington Post took exception to the use of the term "Massachusetts liberal" against Kerry. He said that his blue-collar hometown of Fall River, Massachusetts was "pro-family" and "as conservative in its values as you could imagine-family, church, neighborhood, hard work and patriotism were the drill." The problem is that their politicians and media do not share those values.

Consider the response of the Boston Globe to the decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Court on February 4 that the state must grant marriage licenses-not just civil unions-to homosexuals. It welcomed the ruling in an editorial that urged the legislature to ignore the people and not to pass a constitutional amendment banning homosexual marriage.

Attorney Ed Pawlick's new book, Libel by the New York Times, makes the case that the Boston Globe and the New York Times have played key roles in forcing the acceptance of homosexual marriage on the state through biased, distorted and even libelous reporting. The Globe is part of the New York Times Company. His book tells the story of Margaret Marshall, a supporter of homosexual marriage who is married to Times columnist Anthony Lewis and was installed as the Chief Justice on the Massachusetts Supreme Court. It was Marshall and her entire court that allowed the legislature in 2002 to refuse to vote on a constitutional amendment protecting traditional marriage, even though supporters got 130,000 signatures and spent $1.7 million in the process to get the measure on the ballot.

To repeat: if the legislature had voted and approved that amendment-and only 25 percent approval was required-it would be on the ballot this year, 2004, and would ban homosexual marriage and civil unions.

In a statement on his Massachusetts News website, Pawlick predicts that the Globe will simply ignore his book or dismiss it as a "conspiracy theory." But he says, "the evidence is too strong for that lie to work. They've left too big a trail that is easy for anyone to follow."

Pawlick names Times chairman and publisher Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, Jr., as the ultimate force behind the campaign for homosexual marriage. His book claims Sulzberger "schemed" to have Marshall appointed to the court "so that he could begin to impose gay marriage across the nation."

Cliff Kincaid is Editor of the AIM Report.