Margaret Marshall Is Having
Troubles with Gay Marriage;
Vermont's Decision Violated
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
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
Is the SJC Taking So Long to Decide about Marriage?
People Believe Sarah McVay Pawlick Is Wasting Her
Time Appealing to the Courts
Still Has Not Ruled on 'Protection of Marriage' Amendment
for Libel Against New York Times Company by Sponsors
Amendment Is Moving Forward