Margaret Marshall Is Having Troubles with Gay Marriage;
Vermont's Decision Violated U.S. Constitution

By Atty. J. Edward Pawlick
July 27, 2003

Margaret Marshall is having trouble working out a consensus with her fellow judges on the Supreme Judicial Court on implementing gay marriage, in the opinion of many Massachusetts lawyers.

It's possible that Marshall is having trouble even getting a bare majority to vote with her. She'll be courting serious problems if she implements her plan with a 4-3 decision in her favor, particularly if the dissenters are contentious.

Even with a unanimous vote she may have problems, because many legal scholars in Massachusetts believe that the Vermont court's decree in 2000, which mandated civil unions or homosexual marriage, violated the U.S. Constitution. That's why proposals in our state Senate for domestic partnerships have included many different groups of people, not just homosexuals.

The homosexual activists are arguing in this state, as in Vermont, that it's not "fair" to give all the advantages of marriage to just heterosexual couples. They demand the same treatment. The problem is how can they be added as a group when so many other people are also demanding to be included, such as heterosexuals who want the benefits without the "burden" of marriage, groups of three or more lesbians who want to be married, bigamists who want many wives, polyamorists who desire group sex (they have over 200 websites promoting the idea) plus many others? It violates the U.S. Constitution to single out homosexual couples for special treatment.

The rationale for marriage has never been to help "partners." Most people, even many libertarians, agree that, despite its faults, traditional marriage has been helped over the centuries because it is the cheapest and best way ever devised to raise children.

The Vermont decision was not challenged in the federal courts in 2000 because Howard Dean was governor and he supported the measure. There was no private infrastructure in Vermont to combat the money and power that poured to the state from the other side.

Even the private organizations for the family on a national level were stunned and shocked by the decision in 2000. It takes a lot of money and skillful lawyers to even think about fighting such a decision all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. But our national organizations still do not understand the magnitude of what we are fighting, even today. They do the pro-family cause great harm by saying that they can do this "part-time."

The homosexual lawyers of GLAD (Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders), right here in Boston, have five fulltime lawyers, plus paralegals, secretaries, fundraisers and other staff who are responsible for the gay marriage suits in Vermont and Massachusetts. It is estimated that their budget is $1 million a year. It is GLAD which is still pillorying Brian Camenker and Scott Whiteman in the courts for having been the whistleblowers at Fistgate (where the schools taught teenagers how to perform explicit homosexual sex acts).

There is not even one attorney anywhere in the state working fulltime on this for our side. Even the lawyers who dabble in it now and then can be counted on one hand.

The other problem is that the pro-feminist New York Times, which also owns the Boston Globe, is a big advocate of homosexual marriage. Five members of the Ochs family, which purchased the paper in 1896, have total control of the paper because they own all the voting stock. They control the entire policy of the company's vast resources. They are close to the feminists at NOW and believe that the institution of marriage is detrimental to women. They would like to see it weakened or eliminated.

Margaret Marshall has a direct link to the New York Times in that her husband, Anthony Lewis, was its premiere columnist for many years. Its resources were used to promote her appointment to the Supreme Judicial Court through the pages of the Boston Globe. Many say that their goal is to have Marshall appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court by someone like Hillary Clinton, if she becomes President in 2008. Therefore, Marshall must be careful that this decision about marriage helps, not hurts, her goal.

Marshall is well aware of Massachusetts Citizens for Marriage which has dogged her ever since it was formed in 2000. She understands that it will scrutinize everything she does.

J. Edward Pawlick is attorney for Massachusetts Citizens for Marriage.

July 21, 2003

Why Is the SJC Taking So Long to Decide about Marriage?

Most People Believe Sarah McVay Pawlick Is Wasting Her Time Appealing to the Courts

SJC Still Has Not Ruled on 'Protection of Marriage' Amendment

Lawsuit for Libel Against New York Times Company by Sponsors of Marriage
Amendment Is Moving Forward