Skip to comments.

Posted on 10/04/2001 6:13:29 AM PDT by Buffalo Bob

The radical feminists at the Boston Herald joined with their friends at the Globe yesterday to promote gay marriage.

The editor of the Editorial Page at the Herald, Rachelle Cohen, wrote a silly column about the Protection of Marriage Amendment (she said the Amendment is "silly"). It will be going on the ballot for the people to decide all the issues about marriage, not just gay marriage.

The radical feminists want to diminish marriage in any way they can because they don’t like it and believe it traps women. They want all women to work instead of taking care of their children. They will do anything they can to promote that notion.

Cohen ended her article this way, "Silly little causes look even sillier in the post-Sept. 11 light of day -- except to those incapable of seeing anything but." [That is not a typo, it is exactly what she wrote at the end of her article.]

But someone must tell Rachelle that most women (and men) believe that keeping the definition of marriage as we have always known it in Massachusetts is not "silly." It's not a laughable issue that is being pushed by "zealots," as Cohen says.

Need to Protect Children

Cohen started her column talking about the terrorist attack. She was concerned about "the devastation of thousands of families, 10,000 or more children who are orphaned or will grow up in single-parent families."

Single-parent families ! ! ?

Is that what concerns Cohen?

She must be in the closet about Protection of Marriage. Doesn’t she know that single-parent families are very "in" now with her radical friends? They're all the rage. What is wrong with having a child grow up in single-parent families? Is Cohen being forced by her friends to write this silly stuff and she’s sending us a message she really doesn’t mean what she wrote?

Doesn’t she know that the protection of children from living in single-parent families is exactly the purpose of the Amendment -- to help ensure that as many children as possible have a mother and a father. We all know that both our intuition and the research tells us that living with their father and mother is where children do best. Cohen must know that or why else would she be concerned about "single-parent families?"

Who So Nasty?

We will never reach the goal of having a mother and a father for every child, but isn't it worth trying without being called nasty names?

Can we have an intelligent discussion about anything in Massachusetts without the radical liberals being nasty?

She attempts to make it look as though the whole marriage effort is merely an attempt to attack homosexual marriage. But she never mentions the couples which have three (or more) “partners” who want to marry. This includes the bigamist in Utah who just made the news with his many wives and more than 25 children. He wants to be able to marry also.

The group-sex people (you can search for their over 250 websites under “polyamory”) are demanding their right to marry. If we give benefits to two lesbians, how can we deny those benefits to three or four lesbians who love each other?

Does she know that such benefits will also go to heterosexual couples who don't want the commitment required by marriage?

Does she know that the domestic partnerships that are being pushed in Massachusetts will cost the taxpayers over $15 million in just the first year alone?

How about bothers and sisters who want to get married? How about three widowed sisters who are living together? Must they have sex with each other in order to get benefits? How about fathers and daughters, etc., etc. Once we start to break all the rules about marriage, where will we be allowed to stop? As the Vermont Supreme Court warned when it made its ruling, this might “destabilize” the institution of marriage and affect it in “unpredictable” ways. The judges acknowledged they had no idea what will happen because they tampered with the basic foundation of our society.

Hang your head, Rachelle. If you're going to push your radical agenda, please do it in a more intelligent way so that we don’t feel embarrassed for you.

Please stop thinking that all (or even a majority) of the women of Massachusetts dislike men and are going to agree with you. You may not like taking care of children and interfacing with men. They do!

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.