Letters to the Editor for March 2004

Why pander to such a small percentage of people, when the vast majority of the population are not in favor of gay marriage?
March 30, 2004

To The Editor:
Back on February 5, 2004, boston.com made this revealing statement: "The 2000 Census estimated there were about 19,000 gay couples in Mass., and about

Baby Safe Haven Blocked by 3 reps
March 30, 2004

Editor
What are they thinking?  It's simply amazing that the three women legislators that sought to block the passage of the sex offender registry were the exact same trio that initiated the anti-Baby Safe Haven disinformation campaign that has held up that bill for well over two years.

New Hampshire is Passing a DOMA Bill

Dear Mr.  Pawlick:
      Thank you for your great work and support of traditional marriage in Massachusetts.  In New Hampshire, the Legislature is attempting to pass a Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) against the recognition of homosexual marriages and homosexual civil unions from Massachusetts and other jurisdictions.   Specifically,  NH Senate Bill 427 passed the Senate on 3/11/04 and is moving to the NH House.  Organized gay groups, the media, and liberal democrats and RINO's (Republicans in Name Only) will be attempting to kill the bill despite the governor's pledge to sign it. 
      What advice, resources, contacts, and strategies can you provide to ordinary citizens to get the NH legislature to pass a DOMA Bill?  We expect there to be media bias to demonize the bill and legislative tricks to either add amendments or worse, to kill the Bill.  We would appreciate any feedback you can offer.  Thanks.

Jack T. Fredyma
Dover, NH

Reply from Atty. Pawlick.
     Just stay alert and don’t let the politicians trick you, like many are doing down here. Living in a democracy is never a “spectator sport.” You must be watchful all the time or we will surely lose our freedoms.


Dear Mr. Pawlick;

     We have been subscribers to Massachusetts News almost since its inception. We have read every word and have agreed with almost all of your positions.
      The reason for this letter is two fold:

•  To encourage you to continue the fight. It is very important and certainly if the New York Times has its way we will all go down the memory hole.

•  To bring to your attention an unfortunate error in your presentation of your book, “Libel”.

     Specifically, your referenced Art. IV, Sec. 4 of the U. S. Constitution as guaranteeing each and every state a “democratic” form of government. This is totally in Error. The very work “democratic” is not found in the U. S. Constitution in any Article or any Section there under.
       The founding fathers had an abiding fear of a democratic form of government. They sought by very careful construction to avoid such a destructive form. While the New England Town Meeting operated a small, democratic basis, the founding fathers stayed as far away from that as possible for the federal government and what they felt should be guaranteed to the states.
       Misquoting of the Constitution does your thesis harm. Your case would be even stronger by reinforcing the “republican” form of government. The component parts serve as checks and balances thereby preventing the descent into tyranny that would result from a democracy. History is replete with examples of nations that have passed into oblivion through such “mob” (from the Greek work, “demos”) rule.
       Please correct this in future publications and strengthen your stand with the proper reference.
Hillard Welch

Dear Mr. Pawlick,

     For support of your position against the SJC decision on homosexual marriage, you might want to read Maynard v. Hill, 124 U.S. 190 (1888).
      Writing for the Supreme Court in Maynard, Mr. Justice Field traced the history of marriage regulation from medieval England onward. He pointed out that the regulation of marriage has always been uniquely a legislative function in which the courts may not interfere. The courts cannot inquire into the motives of the legislature: "its will was a sufficient reason for its actions." Field marshalls (pardon the pun) a long list of precedents showing that marriage in the several American states is and has always been uniquely a legislative function, except in so far as the legislature may expressly delegate enforcement to the courts.
      Moreover, as Chief Justice Marshall ruled in the Dartmouth College Case, marriage is not a contract within the meaning of the full faith and credit
clause: "The provision of the Constitution never has been understood to embrace other contracts than thos which respect property of some object of value.... It has never been understood to restrict the general right of the legislature to legislate on the subject of divorces." Neither is Massachusetts obligated to give full faith and credit to marriage regulations of other states, nor need those states give full faith and credit to Massachusetts legislative stipulations (still less to its judicial usurpations).
      In short, opponents of the Goodrich decision might well argue that the SJC decision is void ab initio. Some of the amicus curiae briefs have stressed that all Massachusetts precedents place regulation of marriage in the purview of the legislature. But none, so far as I know, indicate that there is also a Federal precedent by which state courts should and must be bound.
       In Loving v. Virginia (1967), the Supreme Court ruled that state CRIMINAL statutes against inter-racial marriage contravened the Fourteenth Amendment, but there is no reason to think that the bulk of Maynard v. Hill does not remain good law.
Sincerely yours,

Stephen A. Schuker
Corcoran Professor of History
Department of History
University of Virginia