Will the "Soft" Marriage Amendment Do the Job?
It's Supposedly Up for a Vote on February 11, 2004;
Or Do We Need Last Year's Stronger Amendment?
By Attorney J. Edward Pawlick
December 11, 2003

The Amendment which was introduced into the Legislature this year and will be up for a vote on February 11, 2004, is much different from that which everyone was busily working on last year - that is, everyone was working on it until the Legislature refused to vote on July 17, thus violating the state Constitution.

The new Amendment will be up for a vote in February, if it's not postponed again without notice. We know all about that game, don't we?

Last year's Amendment barred domestic partnerships as well as gay marriage. The new one that has been introduced by Mass. Family Institute would bar only homosexual marriage, leaving in place the right to impose domestic partnerships, and even civil unions such as they have in Vermont.

We have written about this in the past, but the issue is now before us again.

The best example of what not to do is what has occurred in California in the last three years. I just finished talking with the Executive Director of "Campaign for California Families," Randy Thomasson, for the first time in my life and heard this tale:

"[T]he voters passed Proposition 22, which purported to protect marriage for 'only a man and a woman.' As a statewide pro-family leader who delivered the language of Prop. 22 to the Attorney General in 2000, I ignorantly thought this would solve the problem. But I, the pro-family politicians, and even the expert attorneys, were wrong. In 2001, the California legislature gave away 13 rights of marriage to 'domestic partners,' and in 2003, they gave away the rest of the state's marriage rights. Obviously, protecting the word 'marriage' is not enough."

Randy says there's nothing left to give away in his state. The homosexual activists now have everything they want. It's true that they can't use the word, "marriage," but they will soon be able to do even that, because domestic partnerships are merely a stepping-stone to marriage, as everyone knows.

Should Massachusetts Have Tried a "Softer" Amendment

Back in January 2003, my wife, Sally Pawlick, President of MCM wrote: "Should Mass. Citizens for Marriage be pushing a 'soft' Amendment which would not mention domestic partnerships? Some people have urged that course upon us from the beginning of our effort, but we believe the answer is definitely no"

She then cited what had happened in California.

"How could we urge the people of Massachusetts to work hard to pass an Amendment which would merely set the stage for civil unions like Vermont?" she asked.

"That would be misleading our citizens and we were not about to do that. It would be a terrible disservice. The people of Massachusetts must decide once and for all what they wish to do about marriage. If they wish to change the basic foundation of our society, then that is their decision. But we should have a final vote and then get on with our lives. We should not be talking about this every year."

Homosexual Advocates Went On Offense in Legislature

A headline in a December 2002 issue of Bay Windows said: "Gay Advocates Go on Offensive in Legislature."

It reported that they spent "much of this year beating back the anti-gay 'Protection of Marriage' ballot initiative," but now that that's over, they were "going on the offensive."

"These people obviously believed at the beginning of December that they had won and were now free to push their own agenda," said Sally.

"But that was before the SJC advised the Governor on Dec. 20, which shocked them to their boots. We have to wonder what they think now." It was on Dec. 20 that the SJC released its ruling that the Legislature had violated the Constitution when it failed to vote on July 18.

The gay activists were greatly encouraged also because MFI had given up and introduced their own bills in the Legislature for a "soft" Marriage Amendment which did not even mention domestic partnerships.

"This legislation for a 'soft' Amendment is an open invitation to gay advocates," Sally said. "Its message is that Massachusetts will permit civil unions such as they have in Vermont. So, of course they are excited. But the vast majority of Massachusetts citizens do not agree with that. We still have not heard the final word from the SJC on our lawsuit which was filed on Jan. 2 and we will continue to fight for marriage no matter what the SJC does. We are not going away. The gay activists know that by this time. We have earned their respect." We have still not heard on Dec. 11, 2003, which is highly unusual. We have no idea what, if anything, is happening up there.

Gays File in Legislature

The homosexual activists filed two civil union bills and a gay marriage bill in December 2002, according to Bay Windows, which quoted Josh Friedes, volunteer political coordinator for the Massachusetts Freedom to Marry Coalition, as saying:

"We've been playing defense for an awful long time [since the Protection of Marriage Amendment was introduced]. Now for the first time we're going out and talking about moving forward."

But Sally pointed out that the only way the homosexual activists were able to "win," was to break the law and violate the rules of the state Constitution. "We don't even know if they did 'win' because we haven't heard the final word from the SJC yet. But this is not the time for our side to give up and try to compromise us into a clone of Vermont. That is not what the people of the state tell us they want."

The Legislators who were working with the gay activists were the following.
Sen. Robert Havern (D-Cambridge) was the lead sponsor of a civil union bill.
Rep. Alice Wolf (D-Cambridge) was the lead sponsor in the House.
Rep. Byron Rushing (D-Boston) was the lead sponsor of the gay marriage bill, along with Rep. Wolfe and openly gay Rep. Liz Malia (D-Jamaica Plain).
Sen. Cheryl Jacques (D-Needham) and Sen. Jarrett Barrios (D-Cambridge) sponsored a civil union bill because they did not know that Havern had also done so. Both Jacques and Barrios were openly homosexual.
Rep. Paul Demakis (D-Boston) was joining Rep. Malia in sponsoring a domestic partner bill.

This was a total of seven Legislators, all of whom were Democrats from Boston and Cambridge, plus Cheryl Jacques. Three of the seven are open homosexuals. Rep. Wolf talked about "a good solid number" of Legislators who supported her civil union bill but she told Bay Windows she could not provide an exact number.

This is not the time to rush in circles. This is the time to carefully plan our strategy and then act. My book, "Libel by New York Times" will be hitting the streets at the end of the year. Let's see what effect it has upon this whole affair.

WHAT IS CLEAR IS THAT THE PEOPLE ON BEACON HILL ARE ALREADY COUNTING TELEPHONE CALLS, EMAILS AND LETTERS. BE SURE THAT YOUR LETTER IS IN THERE. THAT IS VERY IMPORTANT. THEY ARE WATCHING AND LISTENING. LET THEM HEAR FROM YOU!!