Editorial Chief at Boston Herald Fights 'Nasty' Against Amendment

MN Staff
November 2002 Print Edition

The feminist chief of the Editorial Page at the Boston Herald, Rachelle Cohen, was extremely nasty last fall in efforts to fight the Amendment.

And her columnist, Margery Eagan, joined in enthusiastically as she compared all signers of the Amendment to the Taliban. Cohen wrote a childish column in which she said the Amendment is "silly."

They both 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 as they do, instead of taking care of their children. They will do anything they can to promote that notion.

Cohen ended one 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 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.

Cohen started her column talking about 9/11. 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 ?

That's what she said. 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's wrong, her friends all ask, with having a child grow up in a single-parent family?

In response Sarah McVay Pawlick said: "If Cohen is really concerned about single-parent families, as she wrote in an unguarded moment, doesn't she know that the purpose of the Amendment is exactly that: to stop children from having to live in "single-parent families?" It's to help ensure that as many children as possible have a mother and a father. We all know, because our intuition and research tell us, that living with their father and mother is where children do best. Even Cohen must understand that at some level or why else would she be intuitively concerned about "single-parent families?

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

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

"Hang your head, Rachelle. If you're going to push your radical agenda, please do so in an 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!"