The Vermont Supreme Court says its decision might "destabilize" the institution of marriage and affect it in "unpredictable" ways. It acknowledges it has no idea what will happen when it tampers with the basic foundation of our society.

As a result, the "family" as it has been known for centuries in Vermont is no longer the cornerstone of its society. It is only one of the many methods of raising children.

The Vermont decision has momentous implications for Massachusetts mothers and families.

Massachusetts News

By J. Edward Pawlick, Attorney at Law

• Massachusetts has officially recognized and protected its homosexuals – both the legislature and the judiciary have done so – and is therefore in exactly the same position as Vermont was. The legal logic that was used in Vermont would require that the SJC create homosexual marriage in Massachusetts.

• Massachusetts courts have shown a strong desire to protect the rights of homosexuals and will undoubtedly find a constitutional right to homosexual marriage – when asked.

• A few lawyers with black robes (it was five in Vermont) will be making these momentous decisions for millions of people in Massachusetts.

• There is no law that the citizens of Massachusetts can pass, whether by the legislature or by referendum of the people, that will insulate the state from homosexual marriage if our Supreme Judicial Court chooses to impose it. The only method that would accomplish this would be an Amendment to the state Constitution. 

• If two homosexuals can raise a child successfully, why couldn’t a group of three do it even better? A columnist in Boston’s homosexual newspaper, Bay Windows, raised that point last month in an article, "Is Monogamy Normal?" She says that "polyamorists" have 250 web and in-person support groups. She noted a case in Time magazine about a woman who lived with her daughter and two men. A grandmother petitioned for custody. The columnist believes, "We all practice some degree of polyamory in our lives, and it’s essential to our well being. Some of us should practice even more than we do." Can anyone argue with that logic when we’ve all seen children raised by an extended family of grandmothers, aunts and uncles?

• Can we logically deny that many people have successfully been raised by three or four relatives? Is there any logical reason to deny health and other benefits to those people? How about a commune? Where will you stop? 

• A basic decision about morality was made by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1986. It said our laws are "constantly based on notions of morality, and if all laws representing essentially moral choices are to be invalidated under the Due Process Clause, the courts will be very busy indeed." It refused to decide whether a state was wrong in making the moral judgment that sodomy is a crime. It believes that we, the citizens, are constantly making decisions about morality every day. 

• What should we do about the intelligent, professional adults who say that they help children by having sexual relations with them? Can we prove with logic that these people are not correct? They will argue that they are discriminated against and should be allowed to marry and adopt children. The American Psychological Association caused a brouhaha last year when it published a study which indicated that these people can have a positive influence on a child. It said that we should eliminate the use of "judgmental terms" such as "child abuse," "molestation," and "victims." We should use neutral, value-free terms like "adult-child sex." We should not talk about "the severity of abuse," but instead refer to "the level of sexual intimacy." After great pressure, including a resolution from Congress, the APA apologized for printing the study. The American Psychiatric Association has also entered the fray by quietly changing its diagnostic manual a few years back so that a person no longer has a "disorder" simply because he "molests" children. To be diagnosed as "disordered," the psychiatrists look to the psyche of the adult. If the adult does not feel anxious about the relationship with the child or if he is not impaired in his work or social relationships, then he has no "disorder." Look at one of the websites of these people at <www.nambla.org>. 

• Now that lawyers have started making the fundamental decisions about families, that legal logic must be continued by the courts. Therefore, if Mary, Jane and Jean are raising two children and Jane receives health benefits from Mary’s employer, how about Jean? How could we logically discriminate against her and arbitrarily limit marriage to only two people when she gets sick or deny her Social Security benefits when Mary dies?

• How about a man with two wives, Betty and Joan? Can we give life insurance benefits to Betty and not to Joan?

• We’ve tried tolerance and acceptance for the 2% to 3% who have unusual sexual practices, but that is not enough. Now, the judges are telling us we must change the entire structure of society in order to accommodate the few with these unusual practices.

• There is great division among homosexuals whether monogamy is a rejection of the homosexual lifestyle. Many are saying that group sex and anonymous sex are essential parts of a homosexual lifestyle.

• The "destabilization" of the family will be a fundamental assault on the mothers who wish to nurture their babies and raise their children with the help and support of the father. There are many women who do have no support from the men who sired their children. A large number of them are understandably angry and bitter and wish to change the system. 

• If our values are going to be determined solely by legal logic, the ultimate test of fairness will be that everyone – both men and women – must work and the children must be raised by the state. That is the only way we can be "fair" to everyone. This is what NOW and the ultrafeminists have always demanded. As one of their leaders told the New York Times in 1968: "Any real change in the status of women would be a fundamental assault on marriage and the family. People would be tied together by love, not legal contraptions. Children would be raised communally; it’s just not honest to talk about freedom for women unless you get the child rearing off their back. We may not be ready for any of this yet, but if we’re going to be honest, we’ve got to talk about it." NOW still feels this way and it presented a brief to the Vermont court which urged it to find for homosexual marriage.

• Another study that was published by the American Psychological Association last year said that fathers are not "essential" for children. It said they can even be a detriment because of the male tendency to consume "resources in terms of gambling, purchasing alcohol, cigarettes, or other nonessential commodities," which "increase women’s workload and stress." The authors admit they have a strong political agenda, "We acknowledge that our reading of the scientific literature supports our political agenda," they said. The "agenda" is to create a socialist state such as exists in Sweden. Their present concern is with what they see as a "backlash" against "the gay rights and feminist movements." They believe that any attempt to reintroduce the father into the American culture through the use of marriage is "an attempt to reassert the cultural hegemony of traditional values, such as heterocentrism, Judeo-Christian marriage, and male power and privilege." The article was the lead story in the June 1999 issue of the American Psychologist, which is the only publication sent to every member of the organization and which is used routinely to espouse the viewpoint of the APA leadership.

• There are many questions to ask before we plunge down the road of uprooting the basic foundation of most peoples’ lives. The amazing fact is that all of this turmoil is being caused by 2% to 3% of the population. We are seeing profound changes taking place. Do we understand them? The most important point is what will this do to the stability of the woman who wishes to stay at home with her children? The Vermont court agrees that no one knows. 

• A law, from either the legislature or by referendum, would insulate the state from having to recognize a "gay marriage" or "domestic partnership" that was performed in another state. This could also be accomplished by an amendment to the state Constitution.