Homosexual Marriage and the Further Erosion of Constitutional Guarantees

FIRED: Peter Vadala stands outside his former place of employment, Brookstone store in Logan Airport, holding letter of termination.

As most readers understand, the primary purpose of this blog is to make available my editorial cartoons and commentary; providing material from other publishers takes a backseat. But sometimes I run across news that cries out for greater attention; when that happens, I try to help out.

For more than a year I've subscribed to the news updates of MassResistance, a pro-family organization that seeks to reverse cultural collapse in Massachusetts. To their very timely story, which appears below, I'll add only this: What you're about to read (and see, via the link) puts an end to the argument that codifying homosexual partnerships affects only homosexuals.

Just like abortion, homosexual marriage is promoted as something that expands freedom. But what it really does is strip away rights guaranteed under the US Constitution-- again, just like abortion. I'm no lawyer, but it's clear even to me that the real victim in this story, Peter Vadala, has been denied the guarantees of the First and Fourteenth Amendments, those of free expression and equal protection. Considering the provocations of the homosexual involved, it seems Mr. Vadala can make a case for sexual harassment, as well:

We all knew it was only a matter of time before this started happening.

A Massachusetts man was fired from a national retail corporation because of his Christian belief regarding same-sex marriage. Peter Vadala was formally terminated from his job as assistant manager of the Brookstone retail store at Boston's Logan Airport after a series of incidents with his supervisor during a workday last summer. See VIDEO and full report here .

As Peter described the incident, he came to work on August 10, 2009 and began his day normally. A female manager from another store was present and began talking to Peter about her upcoming marriage. When Peter asked “where is he taking you for the honeymoon,” she corrected him and said she was not getting married to a "he" but to another woman.

Peter did not immediately react, but when the manager sensed Peter's discomfort with the subject of same-sex “marriage”, the woman apparently continued bringing it up to Peter throughout the day, reiterating that she was getting married to another woman. Finally, after the fourth or fifth time she brought it up, Peter remarked that his Christian beliefs did not accept same-sex marriage. At that point the woman became very angry and bluntly told Peter that he needed to “get over it” and said that she would be immediately contacting the Human Resources department.

A few hours later Peter was notified by a Human Resources representative that he was suspended from work without pay, effective immediately. Two days later, on August 12, after further interaction with the Human Resources department, he was formally notified that he was terminated from the company.

Brookstone's termination letter to Peter states that “in the State of Massachusetts, same-sex marriage is legal.” It goes on to describe Peter's actions as constituting “harassment” and that his comments were “inappropriate and unprofessional.” It further accuses him of “imposing” his beliefs upon others.

In addition, the letter curiously quotes another employee who did not witness the incident, but who says Peter told her that the homosexual lifestyle is “deviant”. Peter strongly denies ever having said that to that to the other employee. READ: Letter of termination to Peter from Brookstone .

TERMINATED: Letter from Brookstone

It would certainly appear that if there ever was a case of harassment (and retaliation) it is what happened to Peter, not anything Peter did!

Peter has also described one of Brookstone's required diversity training films (see link to video above) that gave the clear message that even any informal discussion uncomplimentary of homosexual behavior would be considered “offensive” by the company.

Luckily, Peter has since found another job in the retail field. But could this happen to you?This is a chilling example of the ultimate consequences of imposing the concept of same-sex "marriage" through force of law. We've certainly seen it coming. What happened to Peter is actually what was intended by the homosexual movement. It's about making people accept what they normally would not accept and punishing those who resist. And when these laws are in place, they pursue it with as much force as they feel necessary.

Homosexual Anti-Catholic Bigotry: "But Is It Art?"

This is a sample of what Harvard administrators consider art. While it's bad enough that one of the world's most prestigious schools considers pornography worthy of public display, their mindless message of bigotry is worse. Next to the image of New York's Cardinal O'Connor is a condom; the text below the condom reads "This one prevents AIDS."

Needless to say, the politically correct would condemn display of such trash as a "hate crime" were any of their ilk the target. I'm not suggesting the notion of hate as a crime (or as an aggravating element of crime) has any merit, mind you; establishment of such a category of crime is merely an effort to further politicize the American judicial system. But if the left is all about acceptance, diversity and fairness, where's the outrage at such blatant Catholic bashing?

Of course, persecution of the Church is standard operating procedure for many who have problems with the truth. (Those early-morning televangelists who see Revelation fulfilled in the latest Arab-Israeli conflict, deride the Rosary as goddess worship and the Eucharist as a papist recipe for hot cross buns spring immediately to mind.) This is why anti-Catholicism often is referred to as the last acceptable prejudice. And why it will be with us until the end of time.

This poster, by the way, is a classic example of radical homosexual irrationality, typical of anti-life propaganda in general. The homosexual activists have it exactly backward. Had these people heeded Catholic moral teaching (again, the truth) they never would have contracted and spread AIDS. Instead, they thumbed their noses at the natural law, engaged in the most bizarre forms of physical abuse and, well, the rest is history.

It might seem ironic that the condom has become a veritable icon of homosexual culture; it is, after all, a contraceptive. On the other hand, condoms-- indeed, all contraceptives-- serve only one purpose: to reduce the human person to an object of self-gratification. In light of this, it appears sadly appropriate. (See my Jan. 28, 2009 post, "Bailing Out the Latex Industry" and my Apr. 19, 2009 post, "Obama vs. AIDS: Throwing Gasoline on the Fire.")

But I digress.

MassResistance, a pro-family, grassroots movement devoted to reversing Massachusetts' cultural collapse, notified many of us about this travesty yesterday. Their website (http://www.massresistance.org/) includes the following timely observation:

If you want to know what Americans can expect in public schools, look no further. Kevin Jennings is Barack Obama's "safe schools" czar in the US Department of Education. He's also the founder of the national homosexual group GLSEN, which sets up "gay straight alliance" clubs in high schools and middle schools across America. GLSEN is officially supported by the Massachusetts Legislature.

Jennings is also a former member of the radical homosexual group "Act Up", and he contributed to this depraved and offensive museum exhibit on "Act Up" now at Harvard University (see press release) .

This exhibit is a window into what the homosexual movement thinks of you, your children, religion, and America. It involves sexual perversion, child pornography, and anti-Catholic bigotry. And it's what your "safe schools" czar Kevin Jennings supports.

It's at Harvard University's prestigious Carpenter Center for the Visual Arts from Oct. 15 through Dec. 23, 2009.

Bill Donohue of the Catholic League (http://www.catholicleague.org/) added this earlier today:

On September 23, I wrote a news release on the curious moral credentials of Kevin Jennings to be President Obama’s Safe Schools Czar: a former drug user and irresponsible teen counselor, he is also a Christian basher. What was not known at the time is that he is also a proud member of ACT UP, the homosexual urban terrorist group that broke into St. Patrick’s Cathedral in 1989 and disrupted Mass; the Eucharist was desecrated and obscene depictions of Cardinal O’Connor were posted.

Now a group called MassResistance, and the website WorldNetDaily, have exposed Jennings as a member of ACT UP. And he is no mere member: Jennings is listed as a donor to a sick display, “ACT UP New York: Activism, Art, and the AIDS Crisis, 1987-1993,” currently featured at the Harvard Art Museum. Harvard, of course, would never feature a display of Klan paraphernalia and say it was being done for the purpose of “dialogue.”

The real story here is not the corruption of Harvard—that’s old hat—the real story is the president of the United States choosing a morally challenged anti-Catholic homosexual to join his team. That Jennings belongs to, and sponsors, an urban terrorist organization, should alone disqualify him from public service at a municipal level. And remember, Obama did not choose him to monitor global cooling—he was chosen to instruct youth on moral matters.

Catholics deserve to know why Obama likes Jennings.

Hypocrisy That Would Make Even Obama Blush

By now, who hasn't seen US Rep. Alan Grayson's (D-FL) reality-twisting rant on the House floor, during which he claims a Republican version of health care would have Americans "die quickly"? When asked to apologize, he apologized instead to the "44,789 Americans [who] die every year because they have no health insurance," adding that this "holocaust" is "more than ten times the number of Americans who've died in the war in Iraq; it's more than ten times the number of Americans who died on 9-11." Later, one of Grayson's aides, replying to an outraged constituent via email, explained that Democrats "feel failure to act is similar to murdering the uninsured."

It should go without saying that efforts to arrive at such a figure are highly subjective, resulting in little more than political fodder, as Grayson demonstrates. But even if true, 44,789 is just 1/30th-- yes, one in thirty-- the number of persons aborted every year in our country.

What's remarkable about all this is that Grayson, as an anti-life lawmaker, is a collaborator in history's greatest genocide. His political party not only defends and promotes the abortion of well over a million healthy Americans every year, it funds hundreds of thousands of these murders with our tax dollars, through such proxies as Planned Parenthood. And they intend to expand this slaughter as "reform" of our health care system.

This brings to mind the above cartoon, published last year to highlight Barack Obama's efforts in Illinois to institutionalize euthanasia, which Compassion & Choices (the euthanasia lobby formerly known as The Hemlock Society) gleefully admits is an integral part of the Democrats' health care proposals. By the way, did you catch Grayson's jab at pro-life advocates at the close of his diatribe? "Let's remember that we should care about people even after they're born." Evidently, for Grayson and like-minded lawmakers, nothing says "care" more than killing, whether in a womb or in a hospice.

Once again, unabashed anti-life Democrats have taken hypocrisy to a whole new level, underscoring the truth of Rep. Joe Wilson's (R-SC) outburst before Obama and Congress: "You lie!"

Advice for Obama's Point Man at Notre Dame

Dr. Charles Rice: Devout Catholic, Ardent Defender of the Defenseless, Renowned Legal Scholar & Authority on the Natural Law, Notre Dame Professor Emeritus & Alumnus

Fr. John Jenkins: Wolf in Sheep's Clothing

Yesterday, one of my Catholic, pro-life heroes, Dr. Charles Rice, issued an open letter to Fr. John Jenkins, president of the University of Notre Dame. Dr. Rice has put into words what many pro-life advocates would like to tell Jenkins ourselves. Some of those words follow, beginning with reference to the appalling charges still pending against eighty-eight pro-lifers:

This is not an ordinary case of trespass to land such as would occur if a commuter walks across your lawn and flower bed as a short-cut to the train station. Notre Dame is ordinarily an open campus. Those 88 persons, 82 of whom are represented by Tom Dixon, ND ’84, ND Law School ’93, were arrested not because they were there, but because of who they were, why they were there and what they were saying. Other persons with pro-Obama signs were there but were not arrested and not disturbed. Serious legal and constitutional questions are involved, arising especially from the symbiotic relationship between the Notre Dame Security Police, who made the arrests, and the County Police. This letter is not a legal brief. Rather I merely note that it is disingenuous for Notre Dame to pretend that this is merely a routine trespass case.

Elsewhere in his letter, Dr. Rice alludes to Jenkins' pride, hypocrisy and contempt for the faithful:

Please permit me to speak bluntly about your announced purpose to participate in the March for Life and to “invite other members of the Notre Dame Family to join me.” Notre Dame should have had an official presence at every March for Life since 1973. But until now it never has. Notre Dame students, with the encouragement of Campus Ministry, participate in the March but the University, as such, has not done so. To put it candidly, it would be a mockery for you to present yourself now at the March, even at the invitation of Notre Dame students, as a pro-life advocate while, in practical effect, you continue to be the jailer, as common criminals, of those persons who were authentic pro-life witnesses at Notre Dame. When the pictures of Fr. Weslin’s humiliation and arrest by your campus police was flashed around the world it did an incalculable damage to Notre Dame that can be partially undone only by your public and insistent request, as President of Notre Dame, that the charges be dropped. In my opinion your attachment to the March for Life, including your offering of a Mass for Life, could give scandal in the absence, at least, of such an insistent request to dismiss those charges. Your decision to present an official Notre Dame presence at the March could be beneficial, but not in the context of an unrelenting criminalization by Notre Dame of sincere and peaceful friends of Notre Dame whose offense was their desire to pray, on the campus, for the University and all concerned including yourself. If you appear at the March as the continuing criminalizer of those pro-life witnesses, you predictably will earn not approbation but scorn—a scorn which will surely be directed toward Notre Dame as well. As long as you pursue the criminalization of those pro-life witnesses, your newest pro-life statements will be regarded reasonably as a cosmetic covering of the institutional anatomy in the wake of the continuing backlash arising from your conferral of Notre Dame’s highest honor on the most relentlessly pro-abortion public official in the world.

It goes without saying that Jenkins has effectively abandoned his vocation, forfeiting any moral authority he might once have possessed. The proof is in the pudding: When a lone pro-lifer called out to Barack Obama, "Stop killing our children," Jenkins' graduates shouted him down with "Yes, we can. Yes, we can. Yes, we can..."

The full text of Dr. Rice's letter is a must-read for anyone concerned with anti-Catholic, anti-life dissent within the Church. It's available at http://insightscoop.typepad.com/2004/2009/09/open-letter-from-dr-charles-e-rice-to-fr-john-i-jenkins.html

For my previous post on Jenkins' affront to Our Lady, go to http://veritatisthecartoon.blogspot.com/2009/03/its-as-though-our-lady-looking-down-at.html

What About the Victims of 9-12, 9-13, 9-14...?

On a typical day in the United States, almost 4,000 children are slaughtered in their mothers' wombs. And that figure accounts only for victims of surgical abortion, not those of contraceptives, abortifacients and intrauterine devices. Nor does it account for the victims of in vitro fertilization, embryonic experimentation and the pharmaceutical industry.

Still, this is a thousand more lives than Islamic terrorists took on September 11, 2001.

Appalling as is the loss of forty passengers and crew aboard United Airlines' Flight 93, try to imagine not one, but one hundred such Boeings falling from the sky. That's the daily death toll of abortion in America. But because airliners don't scream, skyscrapers don't collapse and fireballs don't erupt, few Americans take notice.

The ugly reality is that every day is 9-11 in America.

Ted Kennedy's Legacy of Death & Deception

For decades, Senator Edward Kennedy not only cooperated formally in the world's greatest slaughter, but was a principal, driving force behind it. Those victims number many tens of millions in the US and many hundreds of millions elsewhere, thanks to America's history of anti-life foreign policy, upon which he had a decisive influence.

When it came to legislation that conflicted with foundational teachings of the Church, Kennedy was no less than her enemy. As any Catholic who paid the slightest attention knows, he tried to play it both ways. But when it came to a vote-- to siding, quite literally, with Heaven or Hell-- he was unapologetic, vociferous and consistent. Indeed, the National Abortion Rights Action League rated him 100% reliable when it came to legislating their cause.

I could go on, citing Kennedy's promotion of embryonic experimentation, cloning, contraception, euthanasia and homosexuality and his pernicious influence in government, the Church and society at large. But where would I stop?

While it's not for us to judge Kennedy's soul, his actions are quite another matter; not only should we condemn them, we must. By doing so, we help advance a new era of truth, justice, charity and life.

You Could See It Coming a Mile Away...

From my post of February 8, before Obama and his anti-life legislators began shoving their "health care" travesty down America's throat...

In one of his first acts as US president, Barack Obama authorized spending hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to stifle foreign populations. US House majority leader Nancy Pelosi, convinced children are bad for the economy, wants to spend even more to stamp out childbirth at home. This, even while scraping the barrel to fund astronomical bailouts.

Who do they think will fund their programs as barren taxpayers age and retire?

The answer is clear: no one. Rather than increase revenues, they'll decrease expenditures. For Pelosi, Obama and their fellow utilitarians, killing is once again the answer. Just like they sold abortion to a generation indoctrinated in women's rights, they'll sell euthanasia to a shrinking electorate saddled with trillions in debt and a graying generation of unproductive consumers.

The complete post, It's Not as if We Weren't Warned, is available at http://veritatisthecartoon.blogspot.com/2009/02/its-not-like-we-werent-warned.html