When will pro-family groups learn that they can't placate the monster? The Globe reported this morning that "Opponents tout plans to extend rights to gays."
Same-sex marriage opponents said yesterday that they will file legislation providing hospital visitation and other rights to gay couples that would be offered even if the state enacts a proposed ban on same-sex marriage.
That means that the pro-family groups pushing the new marriage amendment have offered a sop to the queer activists. Did they really think this would satisfy them, or get them to back off even an inch? It's already clear that the dark side smells weakness. Arline Isaacson, chief running-shoe-attired lobbyist for the homosexual agenda, called the proposed benefits legislation a "sham"...
... an attempt by opponents of same-sex marriage ''to make themselves look less mean-spirited, but they know, like we know, that the only way to access the 1,400 legal protections under legal marriage is with a marriage license. There is no other way."
Supporters of same-sex marriage, she said, are focused on preserving those legal protections. ''And we won't be distracted by their silly proposal for these other few rights instead of that," she said.
It is not true, as the Globe says, that VoteOnMarriage's opposition to the Travaglini-Lees compromise amendment (voted down today) was in part "because it would allow civil unions." That amendment would have created and institutionalized civil unions.
We're not exactly sure what VoteOnMarriage's position is on civil unions anyhow, since their newly proposed marriage amendment does not include a provision banning civil unions (as many state marriage amendments do) -- and they surely know the Mass. Legislature will not hesitate to push such legislation. If VoteOnMarriage was against civil unions at the Constitutional Convention today, why doesn't their new amendment language include a ban on them?
