Part l of a two part series:
Should MCM Have Tried a 'Softer' Amendment Without 'Domestic Partnerships' Being Mentioned?

By Edward J. Pawlick
January 14, 2003

"Should Mass. Citizens for Marriage be pushing a 'soft' Amendment which would not mention domestic partnerships?" asks Sarah McVay Pawlick, President of MCM.

"Some people have urged that course upon us from the beginning of our effort, but we believe the answer is definitely no," she replies.

According to Pawlick, the reasons for not doing so are numerous.

When the Marriage Amendment was written in the summer of 2001, everyone could see what had just happened to California, she says. The citizens of that state had passed Proposition 22, a "soft" Amendment (in March 2000) to great fanfare. But within months, its Legislature was promoting a civil unions bill exactly like that in Vermont. If passed, it would make the state into a clone of Vermont, even though it had just finished working very hard to pass an Amendment which defined marriage as only between one-man-and-one-woman.

"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?" asks Pawlick. "That would be misleading our citizens and we were not about to do that."

She says that civil unions came within a whisker of winning in California and was stopped last year only after great effort and expense by James Dobson and Focus on the Family. It is already back again this year.

"We couldn't mislead our people like that," says Pawlick. "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."

Even More Important

An even more important fact to consider, says Pawlick, is that the Mass. Amendment does not totally stop all benefits to partners. For example, the benefits that Mitt Romney said he wanted (he expressed concerns, however, whether the state could afford them) would be possible under the Amendment. But Romney either did not take the time to study the Amendment or didn't want to know what was in it because he considered it a "hot potato."

The Legislature would be allowed to approve many benefits under the Amendment if the citizens allowed it to do so, says Pawlick, but it could not approve a drastic civil unions measure as happened in Vermont.

She says there were so many lies told in the Legislature last year that practically no one understands what the Amendment would do.

Another question is also important, says Pawlick. "Who really believes that the feminists and other activists, who are the enemies of marriage, would just sit back and smile while we pass a 'soft' amendment which defines marriage as one-man-and-one-woman? The truth is that it wouldn't be any easier to pass such an Amendment than the one we have now."

Federal Amendment Causes Mischief

One person who feels that a "soft" Amendment is the way to go is Matt Daniels, who was formerly President of Mass. Family Institute. Unable to make any headway in this state, he moved to Washington to try to change the country.

In the summer of 2000, he was promoting his Federal Marriage Amendment, which is a "soft" Amendment.

But the man who led the fight in California, Randy Thomasson, warned that the soft Amendment would not have helped there. He expressed concerns that "California's experience with Proposition 22 shows that protecting the word 'marriage' is not enough."

He was joined by the three largest family groups in the country in their opposition to the federal Amendment. They continue to say that any Amendment must address the issue of "domestic partners" and "gay unions" as our ballot question will do in Massachusetts. The groups who agree with MCM and oppose the "soft" federal amendment are Family Research Council, Concerned Women for America and the American Family Association.

Those three groups also point out that if the other side is successful in giving benefits to "partners," no one disagrees that this 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, which is the foremost enemy of the Marriage Amendment in Massachusetts (along with its subsidiary, the Boston Globe) editorialized about civil unions in Vermont: "[T]hough imperfect, [it] is a crucial step forward. It sensibly promotes the security and stability of gay families. In time, Vermont's example will show the rest of the country that same-sex unions are not a threat to traditional marriage and deserve the name of marriage as well as the law's full protection."

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 last 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 homosexual activists told the Mass. legislators last year that the cost to 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.