Answers to Questions

MN Staff
November 2002 Print Edition

Are Lesbians More Gentle?

There are serious problems with domestic violence from women, says the "Network for Battered Lesbians," a Boston group which was formed in 1989 to protect Massachusetts women from such abuse.

"The Network" is a mainstream part of the women's movement in Boston and is recommended by the state government on the Dept. of Revenue's website under "Domestic Violence."

The women say they're particularly interested in making "outreach to youth" because, they say, it's true that "many women are battered in their first lesbian relationship."

They do not tell at what age the "first lesbian relationship" happens or when their "outreach" would occur. However, based upon what occurred at Fistgate and elsewhere, it appears that both would take place when the girls are in high school or earlier. This also indicates that many girls are in danger of being molested by older women, much as boys were molested by priests in the Catholic church scandal.

This interest in teenagers causes many to wonder whether "The Network" itself is a method for female batterers to become acquainted with a cadre of young girls with whom they can play sex games.

Full details can be found on their website at www.thenetworklared.org or a four-part story can be found in MassNews May 2002.

There are studies too numerous to mention which show that the most common domestic violence is found among lesbians.

What Have Fathers and Mothers Discovered About Lesbians?

One of the main problems that divorced fathers face in Mass. is the culture of the family courts and the government-funded legal services, which are dominated by feminists who dislike men intensely, some to the point of avoiding them completely by living only with other women. MassNews has reported many cases of discrimination against males and their children, but the cases are so common it would be impossible to report them all. The children are the ones who suffer from this. Ken Newell has been held in jail 27 times over the past two years because of false reports by his ex-wife. Even though he has always been proven innocent, the feminist system keeps persecuting him and his children.

Another other terrible injustice is to the children who are torn from their mothers by DSS social workers because the women return to their husbands after falling into the clutches of DSS. These mothers then see their children taken from them by angry lesbians and other feminist workers as a result. There are many examples of this in the MassNews archives, particularly the stories of Heidi Howard and Nev Moore (who got so upset she started Justice for Families, which can be found at www.justiceforfamilies.com).

Why Not Allow 'Domestic Partnerships?' Why Not Compromise and Give 'Benefits' to 'Partners'?

If anyone asks why not compromise and allow "domestic partnerships," Sally McVay Pawlick responds that Vermont does not permit gay marriage, but what good has it done that state? Vermont has "gay marriage" - but with a different name.

She also points out that the voters of California enthusiastically passed Proposition 22, an amendment in March 2000 that limited marriage to a man and a woman. But California is now in a serious fight in the legislature which seeks to create "domestic partners," which would be exactly the same as marriage except in name. The man who has led the fight there, Randy Thomasson, now says, "California's experience with Proposition 22 shows that protecting the word 'marriage' is not enough."

A recent proposal has been made to amend the U.S. Constitution in order to limit marriage to a man and a woman. That is being opposed by many family groups unless it also addresses the issue of "domestic partners" and "gay unions" as the proposed ballot question will do in Massachusetts.

"The citizens should decide this issue once and for all," says Pawlick. "It makes no sense to keep dragging this out. Let's have a big debate and let the voters decide what they want."

In addition, if the opponents are successful in giving benefits to "partners," it would be the first step toward the end of traditional marriage. That is not disputed by anyone.

For example, when it editorialized in favor of the partner bill that was passed in Vermont, the New York Times said that partnerships are a "crucial step forward" to "marriage." The Washington Post went even further, saying that "marriage" must and will be eventually approved because approving only partnerships, although a good first step, makes homosexuals into second-class citizens.

During a debate at Suffolk Law School this summer, the lesbian lawyer, Mary Bonauto, stated that a "civil union [such as is found in Vermont] is not equality." She, and everyone else, understands it is only a beginning to gay marriage.

The activists are telling the legislators that the cost to the taxpayers to provide benefits would be only a few hundred thousand dollars. "But that is not true," says Pawlick. "We have documentation to prove that domestic partner benefits will cost approximately $15 million the first year." And this does not cover the administrative costs, including whether a "partner" of a state employee really qualifies to receive benefits from the taxpayers. It appears that every state employee would be under financial pressure to name a "partner" and receive benefits.

Is this a Religious Issue?

Many opponents of the Amendment say that this is merely an attempt to impose "religious views" on someone else.

But others point out that the same could be said for punishing murderers or helping the poor.

There are many secular reasons for the support of the initiative. Probably the most important is that marriage is the cheapest and best way we have discovered to raise the children in our society. That is why many libertarians approve the measure although the Libertarian Party of Massachusetts does not.

What About the Lawsuit for Gay Marriage?

A lawsuit was filed in Boston on April 11, 2001 by the same gay activists who filed a suit in Vermont last year. They live in our state. They seek to have the lawyers decide this issue instead of the people.

So What if a Gay Couple Moves Next Door?

What harm will it do to me if a gay couple moves next door? It won't do you any harm obviously. But the important question is whether we continue to allow this unusual practice (less than 3% of the population), or whether we celebrate and enshrine it.

Wouldn't This Stop Companies From Giving Benefits to Gay Couples?

This is clearly not true. The statute says that no other relationship shall "receive the benefits exclusive to marriage." This does not stop any private company from giving any benefits to anyone that it wants to. It only stops the government from doing so.

How About Visiting at Hospitals?

Anyone can now, at this moment, sign a Health Care Proxy which gives the power to any person he names to make health decisions for that person if he or she is incapacitated. To say that he needs a special law for gays to allow him to make those decisions is not true.

What do Libertarians Think?

The libertarians are split. The Libertarian Party of Massachusetts favors gay marriage. As a matter of fact, the homosexual activists had to warn them to temper their enthusiasm last year because they were hurting the effort, according to an article in Bay Windows. However, many other libertarians believe that keeping the parents in charge under the Protection of Marriage Act is the cheapest and best way we have discovered to raise children.

MYTHS v. FACTS

Myth: The Amendment does nothing to protect families or marriage.
Fact: It demonstrates the Commonwealth's continued support for marriage, as the time-tested model for the nurture and protection of children and the union between one man and one woman which has always been the definition understood by the people of our Commonwealth.

Myth: The Amendment is an unnecessary piece of legislation.
Fact: It is needed because Massachusetts is one of 14 states that does not legally define marriage. Without a legal definition of marriage, Massachusetts is threatened by potential litigation similar to the suit filed for gay marriage.

Myth: The Amendment would cause confusion and undermine families and children.
Fact: There is nothing confusing about marriage being the union between one man and one woman. Confusion comes when the Commonwealth says that some other relationship must be recognized as the equivalent to marriage or that mothers and fathers are not essential to the healthy development of children. Numerous studies from institutions such as The National Marriage Project and the National Center for Children in Poverty have indicated that children should be raised by a mother and a father whenever possible. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts should not tinker with science, nor change people's long-standing understanding of marriage.

Myth: The Commonwealth should not go out of its way to prevent adult residents from committing to each other and forming stable households.
Fact: Nothing in the Protection of Marriage legislation prevents adult residents of the Commonwealth from committing to each other privately, or forming any household structure they wish that remains consistent with our laws.

Myth: The Amendment is an anti-family bill.
Fact: The Amendment promotes a well understood concept in our society, that children need to be raised, whenever possible, by a mother and a father as husband and wife, in order to ensure that they do not end up in crime or poverty, as demonstrated by thousands of years of history and scientific studies. Any other legislation, such as Domestic Partnership benefits, will be the beginning of undermining the meaning of marriage or family, will be detrimental to society and most especially to our children.

Myth: It is a civil right for any two loving, committed adults to marry.
Fact: The Supreme Court of The United States, courts in almost every jurisdiction in our country as well as in Massachusetts, the United States Congress, President Clinton and 36 states in the nation have all defined marriage as the union between one man and one woman.

Myth: If the Amendment passes, unmarried partners will be unable to make medical decisions for their "significant others," or visit them in the hospital if one of them is incapacitated or hospitalized.
Fact: In the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Health Care Proxies already exist and The Protection of Marriage Bill will not affect them.

Myth: If the Amendment is passed, unmarried couples will be denied inheritance rights when their significant other dies.
Fact: It does not prohibit anyone's use of a Last Will and Testament, which can be written by any attorney.

Myth: The Protection of Marriage Bill is disrespectful and discriminatory.
Fact: The Protection of Marriage Bill affects all unmarried couples in the same manner, regardless of sexual preferences. This bill is in no way targeted towards any specific group. By definition, there is nothing discriminatory about the Protection of Marriage Bill.

Myth: Private companies will be confused by passage of the Amendment.
Fact: The Amendment has nothing to do with private businesses or the way they choose to provide health benefits to their employees. However, the Domestic Partnership bill could force those companies who choose not to fund benefits for unmarried partners of their employees, to pay for something that they find to be an affront to their social and religious beliefs. Compulsory benefits will definitely have an economic and harmful impact upon small business owners.