PART II: Why Are Extremists Afraid To Debate Experiment in Casual Sex and Big Government They Are Promoting?

MN Staff
November 2002 Print Edition

No one denies that changing the institution of marriage would be an untested experiment. Some 36 states have already passed an Amendment like the Protection of Marriage Amendment to avoid being part of this experiment.
The citizens of our state have indicated with passion that because of the complicated ramifications that will certainly occur if any change is imposed in our state, they want to make the decision. They have a strong desire to be fair to all the citizens, but they have no desire to be a test case for the entire country in this area of sociology.

The Vermont Supreme Court freely admitted they had no idea what the long-term ramifications of their decision would be when they ruled in 1999. Their Attorney General had told the court that a sudden change in this traditional unit of society would cause a destabilization of their culture.
The judges responded that the Attorney General could be right. It wrote that they might be causing "disruptive and unforeseen consequences" to their culture.
The full text of their statement was, "Further, while the State's prediction of 'destabilization' cannot be a ground for denying relief [for the homosexual plaintiffs who had brought the suit], it is not altogether irrelevant. A sudden change in the marriage laws or the statutory benefits traditionally incidental to marriage may have disruptive and unforeseen consequences."
The people of Massachusetts wish a full and complete discussion of any change.
They understand this is not a legal issue; although many lawyers, as with many other issues, feel uniquely qualified to make the decision. To the contrary, the citizens understand this is a sociological and moral issue. The question is how do we best raise our children?

The U.S. Supreme Court said in 1986 that the citizens of any state must decide the moral issue as to whether the unusual sexual habits of homosexuals should be 1) criminalized, 2) tolerated or 3) made a civil rights issue.
The Court said our laws are "constantly based on notions of morality, and if all laws representing essentially moral choices are to be invalidated under the [Constitution], the courts will be very busy indeed."
Therefore, the decision is that of the citizens, not of the courts. If the citizens of Massachusetts decide to make homosexuality into a civil right, then the legal logic that follows, according to the Vermont Supreme Court, is that "gay marriage" is guaranteed by their constitution.
"Gay marriage" or "domestic partnerships" might "destabilize" the institution of marriage, the Vermont Supreme Court acknowledged in its opinion about gay marriage. They said they don't know what will happen.
The only way that Massachusetts can guarantee that "gay marriage" is not instituted by the courts is through an amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution.
This is reminiscent of Winston Churchill's famous statement that democracy may be the worst form of government, but it is the best that we have. Marriage is under attack today from many directions, but most citizens still believe it remains as the best way we have ever devised to raise children.
The voters want to remove the decision from politics. They realize the power is theirs under the state Constitution to demand a full and complete discussion over the next two years, with the matter being put before them at the ballot box in 2004. That is why over 130,000 signed the petitions last fall.
They are sickened now to watch the attempt by some in the Legislature to nullify all that and to thwart the state's Constitution. They are not happy to see the Legislature attempting to deal with this important issue as a sideshow to the annual budget process.

We are hearing much frantic babble about "benefits," "domestic partnerships," "civil unions," etc.
But the simple answer is that no one knows what all of the change in Vermont means - no one. They are heading into uncharted waters where the answers are all unknown.
What happened to Vermont is that they now have "gay marriage" with a different name. But their "marriage" hopefully applies only to that state. Their Supreme Court's decision was based solely upon Vermont law. Their Court studiously avoided any mention of the U.S. Constitution or federal laws because it knew that it ran a probable risk of being overturned by a federal judge if it mentioned the U.S. Constitution or federal law.
Therefore, the Vermont decision does not affect any federal law whatsoever. In addition, it probably cannot be used to force any other state to recognize any legal rights if a Vermont homosexual couple moves to Massachusetts, although there is no lawyer who will say that he knows the answer to that question.
No one doubts that everyone in Vermont in five or ten years will understand that their civil unions in Vermont are "marriage" in every respect except for the name. There will be tremendous pressure at that time to eliminate the distinction and use the name of "marriage" for both institutions. And they will be correct because there is no distinction.
There are still serious questions whether the Vermont arrangement violates the U.S. Constitution. This is because there are many people who wish to share in the benefits of marriage, but Vermont has now extended those benefits to just one group, homosexuals. This is arguably discriminatory against many other groups, such as bigamists, those who practice group sex and communal living, straight couples who also wish to share in those benefits without the responsibility of marriage. But no one has the interest or the money to challenge the decision.
When the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee in Vermont, Atty. Thomas A. Little, was asked at a panel at Suffolk Law School last year why other people who wished to get married hadn't been included, he appeared puzzled at first and then responded that no other group had asked. But everyone knows they will be asking.

Although there's much talk from opponents about the Amendment being "draconian" and an extreme measure, it is actually a compromise.
Under it, the Legislature is allowed to make many accommodations to help non-traditional citizens of all kinds, but it does not allow a sudden, violent change.
It is crystal clear that any private business or other institution may provide any benefits to anyone it wishes. There is no question about that. The following quote from the Majority Report of the Public Service Committee (15-0 with two abstaining) shows how hysterical the discussion of this matter has become.
"The effects of this amendment would be far reaching. It would be bad for business and bad for labor. Massachusetts would not only allow discrimination, but require it, forbidding employers from granting key benefits to their employees, hampering employers' efforts to recruit and retain workers by offering fair, competitive benefits, and making it unconstitutional to bargain collectively for important employee rights and benefits."
A simple reading of the Amendment shows that the truth is it has no effect - none, zero, zilch - on private companies.
As for government employees, the Legislature would be forbidden from enacting an across-the-board benefit package which is "marriage" by another name as has happened in Vermont. The Legislators are the ones who will decide in the first instance which benefits are "exclusive" to marriage. They will remain free to skillfully craft benefits for those non-traditional citizens that they wish to help. But they cannot enact "marriage" by another name.
Which brings us to the obvious point that if the voters want to provide health benefits to all, we should just enact universal health care and not do it by arbitrary groups, which would just create more problems.
As for children, they will all continue to recover every benefit that the state provides, regardless whether the Amendment is adopted or not.