I don’t know that Pritchard has any commitment to family, really. I don’t know of anything positive the MN “Family” Council has done to help families. Its main purpose seems to be to stir up hatred for people – especially LGBT people. Pritchard has used gay people as a meal ticket for decades. I would love anti-gay sentiment to wane to the point that Pritchard has to get a real job. But I’m sure he has been socking away the money he has scared little old ladies into donating to his organization. He probably won’t need to work by the time his organization is obsolete.

So I visit their website. Here is the “about us” statement from “them”, poor grammer et al:

Minnesota Family Council and Minnesota Family Institute

Minnesota Family Council (MFC) together with its subsidiary, Minnesota Family Institute (MFI), is the largest nonprofit, non-partisan, pro-family organization in the state. As a research, education, communication and public policy organization, MFC and MFI are uniquely positioned to multiply their efforts by networking with various leaders in the state who can help change hearts and minds about the importance of family. We are is strategically working in the following five areas to improve family life in Minnesota:

MEDIA

MFC stands as one of the most effective defenders of principles and policies supporting the traditional American family in what is often a hostile media environment.

PRO-FAMILY NEWS

MFC’s Pro-Family News (PFN) is an established, high-quality, conservative newspaper with original research regularly appearing in mainstream media.

LEGISLATION

MFC representatives monitor and analyze legislative activity, advise lawmakers and citizens on public policy issues, recommend legislative action, educate and organize citizens for grassroots action and speak out in the media on public policy issues.

GRASSROOTS

MFI is working to ensure concerned citizens are informed, organized and armed with the skills to influence and fight for pro-family policies.

NORTHSTAR LEGAL CENTER

The Northstar Legal Center (NLC), which was organized in 1995, actively litigates lawsuits which further the pro-family, pro-life causes and has become an important vehicle for identifying, empowering and energizing like-minded members of the legal community. Through education and research our constituents are prepared to take a stand.

So my statement about “them” is this:

Who elected you?
Who wants your input on legislation?
You claim non-partisanship, yet are partisan in a great many ways. Throw these bums (ESPECIALLY THAT TOM PRITCHARD) away from people who legislate!

And a big thank you out to Sen. Marty, for having the chutzpah to stand up to this onerous group of villians.

*cough* SELLOUT *cough cough*

Amendments like this reflect poorly on states like West Virginia and Minnesota. They conflict with the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which states, “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” This is a law that applies to all of us — Straight, Gay, Black, White (and everything in between); able-bodied or disabled; Christian, Muslim, Jew, or Zoroastrian. That’s why I like living in America.

Supporters of such an amendment insist that marriage is “sacred” according to their religious beliefs. But it is not the purpose of government nor the Constitution to make things “sacred.” If the government considers marriage to be a religious designation rather than a legal one, it has no business making any laws concerning that institution. If, as confirmed by its actions, the government believes “marriage” to be a legal contract, it has no business denying that contract to any two people, no matter what their gender might be.

But this amendment as currently envisioned makes no provision for law-abiding, taxpaying Gay couples. As someone who prides himself as being nothing if not diplomatic, I would take simple legal equality under the law, even if the operative term is “civil unions.” If social conservatives simply wish to reserve the term “marriage” for heterosexual couples, they can have it, as long as Gay couples are treated fairly. If it becomes clear that a “Marriage Amendment” is to be put before the voters, it must be revised to include “civil unions” for Lesbian & Gay couples.

Contrary to what supporters of such an amendment claim, nothing has happened to “traditional marriage” in states where Gay couples have been allowed to marry or form civil unions. Straight couples continue to date, get engaged, marry, and build lives and families together as they always have, even where Gay couples are allowed to do the same.

In fact, allowing legal unions for all couples, Gay and Straight, is beneficial to society in general. Married couples typically contribute more and take less from society; they support and care for each other financially, physically and emotionally and often contribute more to the economy and savings. Individuals who are married are less likely to receive government entitlements. Individuals who are married statistically consume less health care services, and often give more to churches and charities. And married couples are better able to provide care and security for children; this includes Gay couples who have children through adoption or some other means.

The reason Gay and Straight couples choose to marry is to make a solemn declaration before friends and family members that they wish to make a commitment to one another’s happiness, health, and well-being, to the exclusion of all others. Those friends and family members subsequently act as a force of encouragement for that couple to hold fast to their vows. That’s what makes marriage a good thing.

In a recent column for our local newspaper, a member of The Family Policy Council of West Virginia expressed support for such a divisive and unneeded “Marriage Amendment.” I wish he would ask himself why law-abiding, taxpaying Lesbian & Gay West Virginians should be forced to subsidize all the legal benefits, protections, and responsibilities of marriage, when we are unable to take part in those same incentives? And since when do voters get to decide that the rights that apply to them should not apply to minority groups?