The Hub of Politics

The Supreme Judicial Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts today decided - correctly - that a 1913 state law forbidding nonresidents from marrying in Massachusetts if their marriage would not be recognized in their home state is indeed Constitutional.

"The laws of this commonwealth have not endowed non-residents with an unfettered right to marry," the court wrote in its 38-page opinion. "Only non-resident couples who come to Massachusetts to marry and intend to reside in this commonwealth thereafter can be issued a marriage license without consideration of any impediments to marriage that existed in their former home states."

Completely correct.

I'm not a lawyer and I make no effort to pretend to be one here, but this decision seems to be perfectly logical. Regardless of the particular transaction - marriage, in this case, Massachusetts laws are not binding on other states, nor are other state laws binding on Massachusetts. Massachusetts has no more right to force our laws of "marriage" on the rest of the country than does, say, Delaware have the right to force their laws of incorporation on us.

And no - it does not appear that "Full Faith and Credit" applies because these people have gone to another state specifically to circumvent the laws in their own state. If they intend to stay in Massachusetts then there is no problem, but they have no legal standing to demand their states recognize a contract that is specifically unlawful under their laws.

That certainly seems to be the case the Commonwealth made to the SJC:

Attorneys for the state argued that Massachusetts risked a backlash if it ignored the laws of other states by letting same-sex couples marry here when their own states prohibited such unions.

Obviously, the plaintiffs don't see it that way.

"It's a statement that's not really based around any sense of humanity, but really on a sense of politics, which is really not a fair way to treat people. It's a hurtful thing," said (plaintiff Mark) Pearsall, of Lebanon, Conn., who traded vows with Paul Trubey in Worcester in 2004.

Uh, Mr. Persall - not to put too fine a point on it, but the law has nothing, precisely, to do with your "sense of humanity". You might also want to recall that the Life's Not Fair™ principle applies.

The Governor - for the rest of the year anyway - is pleased with the ruling:

"We don't want Massachusetts to become the Las Vegas of same-sex marriage," Romney said. "It's important that other states have the right to make their own determination of marriage and not follow the wrong course that our Supreme Judicial Court put us on."

Well said - again, Governor.

I commend the SJC for finally deciding that it is indeed the executive and legislative branches of government - and not the judicial - that are charged with the regulation of marriage.

I am left only to wish they demonstrated such wisdom back in 2003.

Having already beaten up on overworked and underappreciated Andy Card - the longest serving Presidential Chief of Staff in modern history - I have to admit that the news of his resignation, and in particular the follow-up announcement that his replacement would be current OMB director Josh Bolten, was more than a bit anti-climactic.

It tempts me to send a note to the White House saying, simply, "So, how's those deck chairs looking, Captain Smith?"

Certainly, those of us expecting a major housecleaning have to be feeling more than a little let down by this.

But then again, this is George Bush we're talking about.

In any case, welcome back to Holbrook Mr. Card - and, in all seriousness, many thanks for your hard work. You've earned a long and peaceful rest and time with family and friends and I hope you are afforded to opportunity to take it.

Best wishes.

Actually not. I would be in mourning had my beloved Huskies played poorly and lost to a mid-level team.

What happened is that they played well and got beat - straight up - by a team that has convinced themselves, and with darn good reason, they can beat anyone.

So, who had LSU, Florida, UCLA and George Mason in their Final Four?

Nobody?

Stunning.

Not.

The NCAA Men's College Basketball Tournament is, bar none, the single greatest sporting event in the world.

And after this past weekend, that cannot even be debatable anymore.

Well, I'm certain someone thinks this is progress...

Lawmakers try to accommodate consensual teen sex

Oh, goodie.

MONTPELIER, Vt. --A Senate committee has taken up a House-passed bill that seeks to decriminalize sex between consenting teenagers, so long as they're both at least 15 and within three years in age.

Yee-haw! This is just what we need to be doing for our kids. Let's take away the whole "15 will get you 20" stigma. Because, Heaven knows there just aren't enough kids having enough sex these days. Yep! That's the ticket!

"We didn't want to subject those kids to being a sex offender that would be put on the registry for life," Rep. Thomas DePoy, R-Rutland, said in a reference to the state's sex-offender registry. "It doesn't mean we're trying to condone it."

Oh, but Rep. DePoy - you may not be trying to condone it - but you sure as hell are condoning it.

Genius.

Sen. Richard Sears, D-Bennington, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, agreed the aim was not to condone teen sex. But he said he knows of cases where young lives have been ruined as a high school romance results in a permanent criminal record and dashed college hopes.

No no no, kids - even though we're saying that it's A-OK to be having sex when you're all sophomores in High School, we're sure as heck not condoning it. No sirree! Not us!

"This issue isn't about whether kids should have sex, but the question is should it be a criminal offense," Sears said.

Well what the heck, Sen. Sears - why don't we just eliminate teen anti-drinking laws. I mean, they're going to drink anyway and no one ever got pregnant from drinking. Right? After all, since 15-year olds are not old enough to drive yet, the worse thing that will happen is that they puke all over themselves - which, come to think of it, is likely to make them less sexually attractive.

It's a win-win! Let's do it!!

Surely, the anti-domestic-violence lobby thinks this is a bad idea. Right?

After all, we don't want to make it more likely that kids will be engaging in risky behaviors at a younger and younger age. Right? Right?

Sarah Kenney, public policy coordinator with the Vermont Network Against Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault, urged against lowering the age of consent further or widening the age gap beyond three years. Lowering the age another year and allowing a four-year age difference could allow sex between a 14-year-old and an 18-year-old.

Oh, swell. At least someone in this story makes some sense...

Pity it's not any of the elected officials.

"You can have a 14-year-old and you're all over the map in terms of maturity level," Kenney said.

Well said, Ms. Kenney. But heck - what's the biggie? Let's just break down one of the last real barriers parents of High School Freshmen and Sophomores have against their kids early sexual exploits - the possibility that "15 will get you 20".

And we slide just a little further down.

I give it a week before some Profile in Courage in the Massachusetts legislature forwards this "progressive" proposal.

Because, it's all about the kids. Right?

In case you're wondering, I don't mean that Adam Vinatieri has been traded by the Patriots to the Indianapolis Colts - though that also seems on the surface to be a disaster of epic proportions.

No Governor. I'm talking about the fact that the panel hand-picked by you to investigate the role played by Department of Social Services in the tragic story of little Haleigh Poutre has, for all intents and purposes, punted.

Twelve-year-old Haleigh Poutre was nearly killed by chronic child abuse and then almost died from a premature decision to remove life support, because flawed or insufficient information was given to the state agencies, medical centers, and court systems that were supposed to protect her, a governor's investigative panel said yesterday.

Well, that would seem to be DSS's story. And apparently your panel, Governor, is sticking with that.

"Child protection service does not exist in a vacuum," said Christine Ferguson, the state's former public health commissioner, who led the three-member panel. "Haleigh's case represents a frightening confluence of a healthcare system ignorant of abuse and a child-protection system ignorant of medicine."

I'm terribly sorry, Ms. Ferguson - but to suggest that this case is somehow borne of ignorance simply does not pass the smell test.

No, Ms. Ferguson. This sad case represents nothing more than a complete and total failure at every, single, solitary level of state government - and you, in the end, suggest that no one be held to account for that.

You are, in a word, a wimp.

Governor Mitt Romney, who appointed the panel, and DSS Commissioner Harry Spence said they would work together on the recommendations.

Let's make this simple, Governor: you cannot allow this to stand. Mr Spence may be a swell guy - but if his head doesn't roll then justice will never be served here.

Yes. It is that simple.

...Romney and Ferguson blamed ''systemic failure" and said complicated cases such as Haleigh's -- in which there were more than a dozen reports of suspected child abuse and multiple therapists and doctors reviewing her case -- should be automatically flagged for high-level comprehensive review.

You think? Gee, I would have thought "more than a dozen reports of suspected child abuse" would have already raised red-flags in someone's field of fire. But if "more than a dozen reports of suspected child abuse" are not enough, could someone tell me what would have been enough? 20? 30? 50? Death? Oh, forgot - we almost reached that threshold with little Haleigh.

Spence issued a statement yesterday, saying he was grateful for the panel's work and agreeing that closer collaboration among agencies is needed. He has consistently defended his staff's work on this difficult case. He also said the agency is continuing its care of Haleigh, who has emerged from her vegetative state but is still severely disabled. She has been in a Brighton rehabilitation hospital since late January.

You, sir, have no shame. That you continue to insist you can run this nightmare that is the state Department of Social Services would be a joke but for the fact that actual lives are at stake.

A man of honor would resign in shame.

But apparently you know neither honor nor shame.

For the sake of those of us not familiar with the story, let's recap the low-lights:

Haleigh's nearly lifeless body was brought to a Westfield hospital in September by her adoptive mother and stepfather, setting in motion a series of horrifying realizations by the state.

Within hours, DSS realized that its social workers had mistakenly accepted the adoptive mother's explanation that Haleigh had given herself the many bruises and burns over the years because she had a mental disorder. Some therapists had backed her adoptive mother's view.

Sure, because child abusers never lie, right?

In a bizarre twist, the adoptive mother, Holli Strickland, died in what police believe was a murder-suicide with her grandmother, two days after being charged with child abuse.

So, the story has some "ups" after all...

Six days after taking custody of Haleigh, DSS started down the path toward what it now acknowledges was another profound error, seeking to remove her life support at the initial suggestion of the child's lawyer, according to the panel.

For this alone, heads should roll.

But they won't.

On Oct. 5, Juvenile Court Judge James G. Collins in Holyoke issued an order allowing all life support to be removed. But that order was stayed when the girl's stepfather, who would face murder charges if the girl died, appealed the decision.

Please note - we left the decision of the life or death of an 11-year old girl to a Juvenile Court Judge in Holyoke. Ponder that one for a moment.

Collins's ruling was affirmed by the state's highest court Jan. 17.

Ah, Margaret Marshal and her merry band of SJC Einsteins strike again! I wouldn't trust these morons with the disposition of a parking ticket, much less a little girl's life - but then again, I'm a knuckle-dragging right-winger, so what do I know.

The next day, however, DSS disclosed that Haleigh was breathing on her own and showing significant improvement. The next week, Haleigh was transferred to Franciscan Hospital for Children in Brighton.

In other words, she wanted to live. The state wanted her dead, but she wanted to live, and she won.

And that's where we are today.

Romney said yesterday that he believes most of the recommendations can be implemented without additional funds, though he was open to adding money if needed.

Gosh Mitt, that's awful swell of you.

One shortcoming of the report, said one child advocate, was its failure to specify what errors were made in Haleigh's case and how the panel's recommendations would have made a difference. "You need to have a more specific chronology of what happened," said Marylou Sudders, president of the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children.

Well, they can't do that, Ms. Sudders - because if they did then they may actually have to fire someone - and that is clearly not where this panel was willing to go.

Ferguson and the governor reiterated the need for looking ahead, not analyzing the details of the past.

"It's about systems changing," she said "It's about moving to the next level."

Pap. Nothing more.

There are volumes of questions that could be asked at a time like this, but I'll offer only this one: how many more Haleigh Poutres will it take before someone is held to account?

I would have thought one would be enough.

Evidently, I'm wrong.

And only you, Governor Romeny, are in a position to fix that.

March Madness.

Go UCONN!

That is all.

The man who would be the next Governor of the Empire State has won a court decision that means, I suppose, we'll all have to live with dirtier air here in the Northeast...

A federal appeals court on Friday sided with Massachusetts and 13 other states and stopped the Environmental Protection Agency from going forward with new regulations opponents say would lead to more air pollution from the nation's power plants and factories.

A victory for Clean Air™! No doubt.

"This is an enormous victory for clean air and for the enforcement of the law and an overwhelming rejection of the Bush administration's efforts to gut the law," said New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, who led the suit for the states. "It is a rejection of a flawed policy."

Well, doubt.

"The decision is a step backward in the protection of air quality in the United States," said Scott Segal, director of the Electric Reliability Coordinating Council, a Washington-based group representing several power-generating companies. "What is it the environmental community thinks they've won? They've won the ability to place roadblocks in front of energy efficiency projects. This is terrible news."

Ah, but "energy efficiency" always takes a back seat to Clean Air™. Besides, who needs energy efficiency when rising energy prices is yet another Pointy Stick™ that can be jabbed into GWB's ribcage?

In her decision, Judge Judith Rogers noted the EPA's proposed changes stood in contrast to its past practices following the federal law.

And it will be no surprise to anyone that Judge Rogers is ... wait for it ... wait for it ...

That's right, a Clinton appointee.

The rule would have broadened EPA's interpretation of "routine maintenance" for older plants. Under the Clean Air Act, operators who do anything more than routine maintenance are required to add more pollution-cutting devices.

The net result of the requirement was that - well, you can figure this out - older, pollution-producing plants weren't being upgraded. And the air continued to be filled with pollution. And it continues, unabated.

But it's all about Clean Air™, right?

Massachusetts Governor (for the time being) Mitt Romney (R) has as promised filed a bill that, essentially, allows Catholics to practice their religion without interference from the Commonwealth.

The bill filed Wednesday would exempt Catholic Charities -- the social services arm of the Boston Archdiocese -- from a state antidiscrimination law that says it must provide adoption services to gay and lesbian couples.

In other words, it would stop the Commonwealth from compelling Catholic Charities from doing something the Church considers to be "gravely immoral" - that would be placing children in the homes of homosexual couples.

Naturally, the homosexual "rights" folks are none too happy with this development...

Arline Isaacson, the co-chair of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus, called Romney's proposal reprehensible.

"These kids need loving and nurturing homes and if the best match for them is a gay family, they should be allowed to have that," she said.

Sure. And It's All About The Children™, right Arline?

It would seem that, in the minds of the Catholic Church, the "gravely immoral" act of placing kids in a homosexual household is, by default, not in the best interests of the children, no? But The Church is apparently not permitted to believe that, are they Ms. Isaacson.

And for the last time - no one is stopping the Commonwealth from allowing homosexuals to adopt. All the Church has asked is to be left out of it. But you cannot allow that, can you Ms. Isaacson.

Of course, we all know this has precisely no chance of passing...

The Act Protecting Religious Freedom bill also faces a tough road in the Legislature. House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi and Senate President Robert Travaglini, both Democrats, have said they would oppose the Republican governor's efforts.

Both DiMasi and Travaglini are also, I'm pretty sure, Catholics. You're all shocked, I know.

The governor, a potential candidate for president in 2008, said he was concerned that the legal requirement that gays be given equal consideration as prospective adoptive parents violated Catholic Charities' religious beliefs.

"It is a matter beyond dispute, and a prerequisite to the preservation of liberty, that government not dictate to religious institutions the moral principles by which they are to carry out their charitable and divine mission," Romney said in a letter to House and Senate leaders.

Thanks, Governor. Couldn't have said it better.

Romney has argued that exempting religious organizations from nondiscrimination rules would not inhibit gay couples from adopting because other agencies can meet their needs.

Most adoptive children in Massachusetts are placed by the Department of Social Services.

Gee, where have I read that before? Oh, right. About half a page up, and in my last two pieces on this subject.

Lt. Gov. Kerry Healey, a fellow Republican hoping to succeed Romney as governor, recently said she disagreed with the governor's position.

And someone still needs to explain to me why I should waste my time and efforts trying to get her elected. Anyone? Anyone?

Here it is...

Sen. John Kerry said Tuesday he will prevent the former head of Boston's $14.6 billion Big Dig from becoming head of the Federal Highway Administration.

"I'm afraid Richard Capka could be the Brownie of highways," the Massachusetts Democrat said, referring to former Federal Emergency Management Agency chief Michael Brown, who became the scapegoat for the inept federal response to Hurricane Katrina.

The Gigolo's political pandering, desire to create theatre wherever he happens to be (like Davos, of course) and aspirations aside for the moment, is there anyone - anyone - who thinks hiring a former head of The Single Most Expensive Mile Of Highway In The History Of Mankind to work that same magic on the federal level is a good idea?

Well, apparently George Bush does.

Capka, nominated earlier this month by President Bush for the top highway job, was chief executive officer of the Boston highway project from January 2001 to June 2002 until his position was terminated.

Fired - that is.

Though costs rose slightly during his 1 1/2-year tenure, Capka was mostly criticized for his failure to handle the political controversies surrounding the massive construction project. For example, he approved lucrative severance packages for several Big Dig lawyers.

Good googa-mooga.

Amazingly, the Transportation Department - headed by this guy, remember - still thinks this is a good idea

Transportation Department spokesman Robert Johnson said Capka's 30 years of service as a decorated veteran and accomplished civil servant have earned him the praise of Bush and President Clinton.

...

Capka, a retired brigadier general with the Army Corps of Engineers, became acting administrator of FHWA in August.

Look, I'm sure Gen. Capka is a swell guy and he is most certainly a patriot. But isn't this just sorta much? I mean, this is the former head of The Big Dig™ we're talking about here.

For a parting shot, let's go back to the Trans Flak...

"The issues being raised have been reviewed by the Department of Transportation's inspector general prior to his hiring as deputy administrator at the Federal Highway Administration," (Transportation Department spokesman Robert) Johnson said. "We are certain once Sen. Kerry gets the facts he will support Rick Capka's nomination."

Well, let's not get nutty, Mr. Johnson. This is John Forbes Kerry we're talking about here. Aren't you asking Kerry to be against this nomination... before he was for it? I'm not at all sure JFK Lite works in that mode.

Bottom line, Mr. President: Your Chief of Staff is supposed to be - well, the Chief of your Staff. Meaning that he is supposed to screen-out these potential nightmare PR battles - like hiring the former head of the Big Dig to be the chief of all Federal Highways - for you. And he's failed you - again.

It's long past time for you to send Andy Card back home to Massachusetts.

Do it.

Now.

The Boston Herlad, already distinguishing itself as the Catholic-bashing paper in the region, followed-up their disgraceful Saturday coverage of the Boston Archdiocese's decision to flee the adoption business with a couple of pieces on Sunday that are not worth leaving for your dog to pee upon.

It's hard to know precisely where to start with these pieces - they are both a treasure-trove of Faith-o-phobia and political correctness. But as we have to start somewhere, let's lead-off with the least obnoxious of the two - the "news" story written by Laura Crimaldi and Kimberly Atkins (you remember Ms. Atkins, right?) - complete with a finger-wagging picture of the Prince of Chappaquiddick, The Swimmer himself, the ultimate Cafeteria Catholic, Sen. Edward Kennedy.

Once again, you don't get past the first paragraph without certainty as to the final destination:

Catholic Charities of Boston's historic decision to pull out of the adoption business rather than help gay households start families sparked worries from coast to coast yesterday that other Catholic agencies might follow suit at the expense of children looking for good homes.

Oh. My. Gosh.

Let me see, we have CatholicsHateGayPeople™, TheChurchHurtsKids™, and ItIsAllAboutTheChildren™ - all in one sentence! This must be some sort of record.

It continues...

Here in Massachusetts, the four gubernatorial candidates said they do not support legislation promised by Gov. Mitt Romney to exempt religious groups from the state's anti-discrimination laws so the Catholic Church can continue its adoption work while openly excluding gays.

Explain to me again why I should spend my time trying to get Lt. Governor Healey elected? Or Christy "It's all about Me" Mihos? If this is the sort of leadership I can expect from either of these Profiles in Courage then I suppose I may as well just stay home.

But I've digressed...

The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of San Francisco already has pledged to reconsider its practice of allowing gays to adopt through its social service agency at the urging of its former archbishop, Cardinal-designate William J. Levada, who is now prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith at the Vatican.

What does it tell you that even San Francisco is reconsidering this policy?

Before I get so angry (again) that I start to spit, please allow me to skip to the end...

At a campaign rally in Dorchester yesterday, U.S. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) said it was a 'sad day' for adoption.

"Catholic Charities has done an exceptional job of helping children and that is what I am most concerned about. And that is a sad day for the children that need help," he said.

Let me put this as delicately as I am able: Bite me, Senator.

But as if that were not enough, we are then compelled to come to terms with the predictable unctuousness of The Herald's resident "expert" on all things Catholic: the pro-choice, pro-Homosexual-Marriage, divorcee - Ms. Margery Eagan:

Most days, I tell myself this band of blind men will not drive me from the church of my birth, the faith of my family and a source of strength, comfort, joy and, some days, even transformation.

Why let the terrorists win?

Oh swell - so now the Archbishop of Boston is a terrorist. Nice. Really nice.

Believe it or not, you have to subscribe to get the rest of these marvelous insights so let me spare you the expense and provide some of the "choice cuts" before I cancel my subscription:

Most days, I manage to dismiss the latest enraging fulmination out of Rome or Lake Street with that well-worn line from The Big Man himself, "Forgive them, for they know not what they do."

Yep - and you are, of course, an expert on The Doctrine, The Tradition and The Teachings. Hubris doesn't begin to describe it.

But some days - and this is one of them - it's particularly hard explaining to my children why mother keeps dragging them to a church which, fresh from turning a blind eye to child abuse, now decides gay adoption is "gravely immoral" and does "violence to children." It's 2006, not 1906.

Ah, so we're back to TheChurchHurtsKids™.

Celibate men isolated from the world may not know, up close and personal, any healthy, happy, gay households. But lots of today's children do, and they, and the rest of us, see this latest pronouncement for what it is: bigotry born of ignorance.

Slander, followed by canard, followed by more slander. Par for the course for Ms. Eagan.

But Ms. Expert-on-all-Catholicism was hardly even warmed-up by then:

This archdiocesan emperor has no clothes, by the way. Everybody knows who allowed the "gravely immoral violence" to the children, year after year, again and again.

Broken-records, anyone?

Ms. Eagan then decides to dazzle us with her unquestioned mastery of Cannon Law:

As for the argument that bishops have to follow the Vatican's rule, it's ridiculous. Bishops, like everybody else, have free choice.

Uh, no Margery. They don't. It's called following the Teachnigs - and it is not negotiable. But for someone like you - fixated on "choice" as you are - I'm sure something as minor as the Principles of The Church are merely guidelines, after all.

Yet here I am, a faith-filled Catholic throughout this mess, constantly asked to defend myself.

Faith-filled? Perhaps. But Margery, there are many names used to describe "faith-filled" people such as yourself, and Catholic just is not one of them.

And to people like me, people who dare to question why she continues the charade of her "faith" to The Church, she offers only the following:

I stay because the Catholic hierarchy and Catholic purists want people like me - we not-buying-the-total-program so-called cafeteria Catholics -- to go. They'd prefer it, I'm convinced, no matter how much money we've got. Join the near-beer Episcopalians with their gay bishop just out of rehab, they say. Become a Jew for Jesus, they say. An anything-goes Unitarian. Whatever. Just leave. Take off. Get out.

Make me, I reply.

But Margery dear, you've already left. Voluntarily. Years ago. That you continue with the charade in spite of all evidence to the contrary (such as your own writings) is your problem, not The Church's.

However, this is a free country and you can go-around continuing to call yourself a Catholic all the live-long day. Fine - no one will stop you. But that I can go-around calling myself the Crown Prince of Freedonia does not make it so. Think on that for a minute once all your buds at The Herald and WTKK pause from patting your back and singing your praises.

For the sake of our remaining nerves, and so I avoid running afoul of copyright laws, I will spare you all the rest. There is only so-much holier-than-thou condescension one can take - and Ms. Eagan was in rare form in that regard yesterday.

Suffices to say that I'm sure we will have to continue to endure the rantings of "experts" like Ms. Eagan going-forward. It's just the Herald will do so without me paying their salaries as my subscription will be canceled shortly.

... and according to the Boston HERALD, it's all The Church's fault!

Paging Barry Lynn! Rev. Lynn? Catholic Charities on Line One!

Oh, never mind. Many of us have long suspected that the "Wall of Separation" between Church and State actually has many doors. Evidently, they only open one way.

As announced on Friday, Catholic Charities, in response to a Massachusetts law allowing for adoption by homosexual couples, said it would stop providing adoption services - so as not to run afoul of another state law, that one being the state's law against "discrimination".

The social services arm of the Roman Catholic archdiocese, which has provided adoption services for the state for about two decades, said the law runs counter to church teachings on homosexuality.

"The world was very different when Charities began this ministry at the threshold of the 20th century" the Rev. J. Bryan Hehir, president of Catholic Charities, said in a joint statement with trustees chairman Jeffrey Kaneb. "The world changed often and we adapted the ministry to meet changing times and needs. At all times we sought to place the welfare of children at the heart of our work.

"But now, we have encountered a dilemma we cannot resolve," they said.

Indeed.

So how did the ostensibly non-leftist paper in the Boston Metro area spin this news news? Why by blaming the Catholic Church, of course. You silly Papist! What did you expect? Cannot have The Church get in the path of secular progressivism, can we. Nope, can't have that.

Let's start with the front-page story - complete of course with a picture of a loving - heck, doting! - lesbian couple and their adorable 4-year old adopted daughter (nope, no attempts to spin the news there - move along, folks):

Children awaiting permanent homes across the state are in danger of lingering in foster care as Catholic Charities of Boston pulls the plug on its adoption business rather than allow gay couples to start families.

Church's fault! Biggotry! Church hates gays! You get the picture already and it's only the first line in the piece.

But wait, it gets better. Let's go to the first (and one of only two) quotes in the piece:

"I think it's absolutely immoral for the bishops to have sacrificed these childrenÂ’s lives and stability for dogma," said Marianne Duddy-Burke, an adoptive mother and spokeswoman for the lesbian and gay Catholic group Dignity Boston. "Caring for vulnerable people is so much the core of what Catholic Charities does. ... I can only imagine what pressure the bishops brought to bear on the board."

Oh, and Ms. Duddy-Burke 1) is obviously an expert in Catholic Doctrine, Teachings and morality, 2) clearly is nothing more than a dispassionate observer, and 3) is someone who, I suppose, possesses "absolute moral authority" on the subject.

Sez them.

State law allowing gays to adopt runs counter to church teachings that such adoptions are "gravely immoral." But over the past 20 years, 13 of the 720 children Catholic Charities has adopted out have gone to gay couples.

Ah ha! Don't you see it?!?! Hypocrisy! Thy name is The Church! Because Catholic Charities went against the teachings of the Church in the past they should continue to do so in perpetuity!! But they won't! Because they hate gays!

Moving-on to the 'hard-hitting editorial' - "No need to cave to bishops' tactics":

The halting of all adoptions by Catholic Charities announced yesterday by the Boston Archdiocese is incomparably sad - but it is also a move state officials should make no effort to remedy.

Yet it's all about the children, right?

Simply because the state's four Catholic bishops have chosen this fight - even in the face of opposition from members of their own community of faithful -

of course, none of them are mentioned anywhere in today's paper, so once can only assume the Editors are referring to this bunch of grandstanders, moving along...

is no reason for secular leaders to attempt to amend state policy to allow a form of discrimination that would not be permitted by other agencies.

Like I said above - Heaven forbid! the Church stand in the way of the march of secular progressivism.

Heaven forbid! indeed.

The Big Finish™ for the editorial...

The Department of Social Services said some 682 foster children are currently awaiting adoption and the bulk of those will be handled directly by DSS. And so life will go on - without the participation of Catholic Charities. That's unfortunate - but more unfortunate for the agency and its mission than for the community as a whole.

And I'm sure the DSS will do the same great work we've come to expect from them. But no matter, that will be The Church's Fault® as well of course.

But the Herald wasn't done yet. Oh no. Not by a long shot. Just to get a flavor, let me give you the title, and the title only, from an outrageously condescending, unctuous, piece of Krap written by a pair of professional do-gooders (social workers) that appears on the same page as the "hard-hitting editorial"...

Bad-faith pitch for bigotry

It gets better from there.

Now that's balance for you.

For the record, the Boston Globe's coverage of this this story was today and has been recently, if anything, more balanced than was/has-been the Herald's. But for a couple of columnists in the Herald and a vastly superior sports page (sorry Dan, your colleagues drag you down) I would be canceling my subscription effective today.

Let us be clear about this: if Doctrine states that homosexual acts are "acts of grave depravity", that they "are contrary to the natural law", that "(u)nder no circumstances can they be approved" and that they who are inclined to practice such acts "are called to chastity", then it is no stretch at all to conclude that to place a child in the hands of a couple that practices such acts would be gravely immoral. (Note: for those of you waiting to jump on me for the passage in the CATECHISM I skipped: it's very simple - you do not get to determine what represents "unjust discrimination". The Church does, and they have spoken on the subject. If you don't like it, you have two options.)

Further, if the above is indeed is to be held as Truth, then the idea that the State can compel The Church to participate in an action that is found to be "gravely immoral" is, put simply, reprehensible and deplorable.

That the Boston Herald would participate willingly - no, enthusiasitcally - in this slander is a testement to just how far "journalism" has fallen in the United States.

H/T to Aaron at HubPolitics.

Local See-BS affiliate (CBS-4, Boston) political reporter Jon Keller - widely regarded as a good, pretty-smart sort of chap - is practically breathless in his reporting of a new poll showing that the Massachusetts race for Governor between Lt. Governor Kerry Healey, independent Christy Mihos, and the survivor of the Democrat Primary between Tom Reilly and Deval Patrick to be far tighter than once thought and that Mihos' support may be far greater (at first) than anyone (certainly I) thought possible.

Of course everyone in the campaign has their own spin on the numbers so I will ignore that part of the story, except to point out that some of the numbers are pretty good news for Ms. Healey. That said, I have to admit there is something in the numbers that simply doesn't look right to me. The SurveyUSA (again, generally thought to be a pretty-good polling outfit) weekend poll of 800 Massachusetts adults included 700 registered voters and it is the results among registered voters upon which I will focus (follow along with the link provided above if you like).

Some things in the poll make more-or-less perfect sense, so let us dispense with them. The first thing I usually look for in a See-BS poll is the partisan breakdown - as the national folks seems to have a real knack for oversampling Democrats. Here however, the 20-39-39 (GOP-DEM-IND) breakdown seems, if not reasonable, then probably a slight over-sample of Republicans and Democrats - with the roughly 2-1 DEM/GOP advantage probably being more than a hint too kind to the GOP. But, remember these are registered voters who were polled - and that almost always brings the percentages back into the GOP's favor. In that regard, the poll may have also slightly oversampled conservatives (21%) and moderates (45%) at the expense of liberals (24%), but then again perhaps not. It's probably a marginal impact on the results.

But then things start to get a little dicey. For one thing, it would appear that the poll rather substantially oversamples young (18-34) voters (27%) while undersampling those 65+ (19%). If true, that would be bad news for Healey as that group represents one of her stronger voting bases - particularly against Patrick - but this result is also somewhat surprising.

Another oddity is that Healey polls far better with Blacks (29%), Hispanics (43%) and other minorities (37%) against Patrick - the only minority candidate in the race at the moment - than she does against the snow-white Attorney General (19%, 29% and 17%, respectively). Additionally, against Patrick the Lt. Governor polls a whopping 42% among younger voters only to crater to 29% with the 35-49 cohort - precisely the voting block a Republican should do well in even someplace like Massachusetts. The numbers in these age cohorts for Healey against Reilly are 32% and 25%, respectively.

Curiouser and curiouser.

The final curiosity is that Mihos is polling at approximately 20% in both polls - which frankly I see as his ceiling and not his floor.

As for why Patrick seems to have lost ground to Healey in this poll (previous polls had Patrick ahead slightly)? Well, Aaron seems to think this has to do with the revelations about Patrick's financial problems:

Even with Reilly's running-mate blues and cover-up scandals, he is still hanging in there, while Deval Patrick's financial squabbles, including tax delinquency and a shady mortgage, seem to have turned the tables in the race between him and Healey.

Frankly, I think that is more than a bit of a stretch. I mean, Patrick's foibles were nothing compared to Reilly's running-mate kerfuffle and the Worst Attorney General in the Nation appears to be none the worse for that.

Again, curiouser and curiouser.

Still, one cannot conclude a story on a poll of this nature without clearly stating the obvious caveat - it's March, for Heaven's sake. You probably cannot find more than 1-in-4 Massachusetts voters who even know there is an election for Governor this year, much less who is running. As such, and as always, it's safe to take this poll for so many grains of salt.

But just in case the Lt. Governor's campaign is listening - y'all had best get busy with that 35-49 cohort or you have precisely NO CHANCE come November.

That was precisely my reaction after pouring though the initial release of the Christy Mihos for Governor web site. Perhaps it will improve with time, but frankly, there just isn't a whole lot of there there.

OK, we start with the About Christy page, which is a fine autobiography. The longest paragraph therein is devoted to his experience with the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority:

In 1998, Christy was appointed to the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority, where he served as Vice Chairman and Director. At the Turnpike, Christy fought for the citizens of the Commonwealth and against unnecessary toll increases, special interests and Big Dig fraud, waste, and corruption. Despite opposition from special interests and the Acting Governor, Christy refused to back down. Christy's actions protecting the citizenry were vindicated by a landmark decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.

Here's a thought, Mr. Mihos - we all know the story and no one likes a sore winner. You were right, Swift was wrong, move on.

We then proceed on to Mihos Making News, which seems to focus heavily (not less than 4 stories at the moment) on the single event of his bolting the GOP to run as an independent for Governor. Yawn, again.

We then proceed down the page a bit to where Mr. Mihos explains why he's running for governor - what are his issues - and why he had to bolt the GOP. And for this, the sum total amounts to precisely 2-issues:

1. Proposition 1 (not a bad idea, dead on arrival, see my entry below titled "Uh-oh!")
2. Why Pay Pike Tolls? (again with the tolls!)

For this, Mr. Mihos felt compelled to bolt the GOP and run a sure-fire losing campaign for governor of the Commonwealth.

I hate to say this, but this very much looks like a vanity campaign.

Disappointing. Very disappointing.

As an aside, perhaps the only campaign web site that is lamer than Mr. Mihos' belongs to the Lieutenant Governor of the Commonwealth. Double-yawn.

A week after the disappointing news that Peter Blute will not challenge Fat Boy for his United States Senate seat, all but ensuring that The Swimmer will run unopposed (or virtually so) for this first time in his 43-year career this year, comes the news that millionaire Christy Mihos will today announce that he will run for governor as an independent.

"Christy is economically conservative and socially liberal. He is a true independent," said Peter Pendergast, the Mihos campaign manager.

And with that, virtually any hope the GOP had in keeping the corner office of this very blue state colored (at least nominally) red are essentially kaput.

But for the moment, let's parse this seemingly innocent statement by Mihos' campaign manager. "Economically conservative and socially liberal" eh? Super - well so is the lieutenant governor and now de-facto republican nominee for the corner office, Kerry Murphy Healey. In a state where (if the legislature would ever let it come to a vote) homosexual marriage would be de-certified, likely by a wide margin, just what we need is a choice between three socially liberal candidates for governor (either of the two candidates running on the democrat side are demonstrably to the left of both Healey and Mihos on every single issue - and social issues are no exception). Just. Super.

Running as an independent, which could draw votes from Lt. Gov. Kerry Healey, a Republican who essentially controls the state GOP apparatus, won't be the only way Mihos shakes up an otherwise staid race.

Well, we all know the last thing the Globe wants is a "staid" race - so I'm sure we'll be hearing them call for independent challenges from the left with equal vigor, right? Oh, I forgot. This is the Globe - Pravda on the Bay - we're talking about here.

Of course, many on the left already have the long knives out for Mihos - who does have a tendency to at times engage his mouth long before his brain is working at capacity. But let's face it, this is a gift to the Democrat Party of Massachusetts - a party that has salivated over the possibility at getting the Beacon Hill corner office back since at least 1998 (they had no chance in 1994 and they knew it), and thereby ushering back the Massachusetts Miracle brought to us by none other than The Duke.

And while his web site doesn't appear to be fully operational yet, and therefore it's a little difficult to determine precisely what Mr. Mihos' platform will be, I can expand a little on one idea he floated during an interview this morning on the WRKO "Boston this Morning" show. "Proposition One" as Mihos calls it, would allow for the re-assessment of a piece of residential property only after it has been sold - meaning that towns could not go-back every 3-4 years (as is common practice in the commonwealth today) and re-assess property, in many cases (mine being no exception) resulting in large tax increases. In other words, Mihos' proposal is an idea to close a loophole cities and towns have been using to get around Proposition 2 1/2 - the Massachusetts Tax Limitation law.

A nice idea to be sure, Christy. But here's the problem: such a proposal would immediately draw the ire of, among others, the Massachusetts Teachers Association, Massachusetts Municipal Association, not to mention the poorly-named Massachusetts Taxpayers Association, and is therefore dead-on-arrival unless the Governor - that would be, in theory, you - had some sort of base of support in the Legislature from which to build a coalition for passage. And in case you've not been paying attention Mr. Mihos, Democrats (and liberals ones at that) control 7-of-8 seats in the legislature and, as a long-time republican choosing to run as an independent, you can probably count on precisely none of the remaining republicans in the legislature for support. Therefore, unless you can bring large numbers of supporters into the Massachusetts General Court, your proposals are likely to go precisely nowhere.

So Mr. Mihos, what are your plans for moving the legislature more to your favor?

< crickets chirp >
< /crickets chirp >

There are two other facets of this race I want to touch upon before signing-off for the day. First, while this is indeed a silver-platter type gift to the Democrats this development will, if anything, likely make the coming primary battle between Reilly (the worst Attorney General in the Nation) and Patrick (a far-far-left Clinton rump-swabber) even more vicious - which is of course a delicious prospect for those of us on the other side of the battle. Time will tell.

Finally however, something has to be said about Mitt Romney - the man no one wants to talk about in this state anymore. While Mr. Romney has been jetting about the country, introducing the President at the most recent GOP Governors' Association fundraiser and appearing with Chris on FNS, what little remaining of the Massachusetts Republican Party is slowly disintegrating - and that cannot be a good place from which to launch a Presidential bid.

Covered also at Hub Politics and cross-posted at RedState.