Wednesday, July 27, 2005

Clash of the Titans

Article 8 listed a "press release" on their website. Although it's a bit odd since the press release is dated July 16th but it was released today. In it, this "Pro-family" group (Article 8) attacks the amendment that the other "Pro-family" group (Mass "Family" Institute) is putting forth to the commonwealth.
My question is who's more "Pro-family"?

On one side we have the "Pro-family" Article 8 who is outraged that the new amendment would confirm that the Goodrich decision is valid (remember they still put marriage in quotes "" because they don't believe that it is actually going on) They want to remove the four judges and have them replaced with activist judges that follow Article 8's rules. Furthermore, they have a list of local AND national groups on their side. Take a look:

Article 8 Alliance

Parents' Rights Coalition
CPF / The Fatherhood Coalition
Families for Truth (Bedford/Carlisle/Chelmsford/Groton/Westford)
Mothers Against Pedophilia

John R. Diggs, Jr., M.D.
R. T. Neary, B.S., M.Ed., M.A.

Abiding Truth Ministries

American Family Association of Mississippi
American Family Association of Missouri
American Family Association of Pennsylvania
Americans for Truth
Campaign for California Families
Christian Education Awareness Network (CEANet)
Eagle Forum Texas
Illinois Family Institute
Mission America
Traditional Values Coalition

Can you believe the wackos on the list? They forgot the KKK. And look at the groups! Brian Camenker is the head of the first two under Massachusetts. I am so glad that Illinois Family Institute is taking a stand on an issue in MY state. I always think we should have people from OTHER states determine what things go on here.

Now, on the other side you have the Mass "Family" Institute who is advocating a new amendment that will define marriage as being one man and one woman after a certain time, so my marriage to my husband will be valid, however, if a gay couple wants to marry after this amendment goes through they can't. Make sense? Me neither.

I must admit that Massfamily does say that they care about other relationships that could benefit from “reciprocal beneficiary” legislation. (i.e., a son with a dependent mother, two elderly sisters), however, they don't care enough to work on it first. Banning same sex couples from marrying is more important than Aunt Sally and Aunt Evelyn get benefits to care for themselves. They will advocate for their benefits after they've removed them from the gays.

In the end, both of these groups are proclaiming that they are "Pro-family" yet they are acting in conflicting ways. My opinion: neither are "Pro-family", they are pro-prejudice.

No comments: