Text of Proposed Amendment to Constitution

August 2001

It being the public policy of this Commonwealth to protect the unique relationship of marriage in order to promote, among other goals, the stability and welfare of society and the best interests of children, only the union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Massachusetts. Any other relationship shall not be recognized as a marriage or its legal equivalent, nor shall it receive the benefits or incidents exclusive to marriage from the Commonwealth, its agencies, departments, authorities, commissions, offices, officials and political subdivisions. Nothing herein shall be construed to effect an impairment of a contract in existence as of the effective date of this amendment.

 

Is This A Religious Issue?

August 2001

Many opponents of the Amendment say that this is merely an attempt to impose “religious views” on someone else.

But others point out that the same could be said for punishing murderers or helping the poor.

There are many secular reasons for the support of the initiative. Probably the most important is that marriage is the cheapest and best way we have discovered to raise the children in our society. That is why many libertarians approve the measure although the Libertarian Party of Massachusetts does not.

 

Is Amendment a ‘Gay’ Issue?

August 2001

The radical feminists at the Boston Globe and NOW are against the Amendment because they wish to weaken the institution of marriage. However, they will continue to paint this as a gay issue.

Those radical feminists realize that they are not very popular nowadays. But they can create warm and touching stories about homosexual couples who have been together for years.

They believe that women will not be “free” so long as we have the institution of marriage. They wish to totally destroy it and have the government raise the children as is done in Cuba and Sweden.

Although the Globe is portraying this as a gay issue, it is really a story about children and their mothers and fathers. The question that the mothers need to answer is whether they wish to continue the institution which has always been here in the state or whether they wish to see it changed.

The radicals are mindful that the Supreme Court of Vermont warned last year when it made its momentous ruling that its decision could “destabilize” the institution of marriage and affect it in “unpredictable” ways. Those judges acknowledged they have no idea what will happen now that they have tampered with the basic institution of their society. As a result, the “family” as it has always been known in Vermont is no longer the cornerstone of its society. It is only one of many methods of raising children.

What will happen in Vermont as a result? If a bigamist sues there because he wants to be married, he will have a solid legal argument. He will argue he is being treated unfairly because many children have been raised successfully by three, four or more people. Why can’t he marry as many women as he wants?

Or if a group of three women want to marry, there is no logical, legal way that Vermont can refuse to recognize their marriage.

Or what if a man and a woman are living together and wish to receive the benefits of marriage without going through the ceremony and accepting the responsibilities of marriage? Vermont can not logically turn them down.

This is much more than a gay issue and the radicals at the Globe know it.

In Vermont, the state limited its new “civil union” only to homosexuals. But most lawyers believe that this violates the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, the legislation which is now in the Massachusetts legislature would provide benefits to all “partners” and does not limit the benefits to homosexuals. Anyone could apply for those benefits if they “reside in a common household and share financial responsibilities and expenses.”

There are many other things that will change if the definition of marriage is changed. As the Vermont Supreme Court said, no one knows what will occur if the change is made.

 

Why Does Amendment Forbid ‘Domestic Partnerships’ or ‘Civil Unions’?

Why not compromise and give ‘benefits’ to ‘partners’? 

August 2001

If anyone asks why not compromise and allow “domestic partnerships” or “civil unions,” Bryan Rudnick retorts that Vermont does not permit gay marriage, but what good has that done that state? Vermont has “gay marriage” with a different name.

He also points out that the voters of California enthusiastically passed a referendum, Proposition 22, in March 2000 that limited marriage to a man and a woman. But California is now in a serious fight over legislation which seeks to create “domestic partners.” The man who has led the fight there, Randy Thomasson, now says, “California’s experience with Proposition 22 shows that protecting the word ‘marriage’ is not enough.”

A recent proposal has been made to amend the U.S. Constitution in order to limit marriage to a man and a woman. That is being opposed by many family groups until it also addresses the issue of “domestic partners” and “gay unions” as the proposed ballot question will do in Massachusetts.

“The citizens should decide this issue once and for all,” says Rudnick. “It makes no sense to keep dragging this out. Let’s see what the voters want.”

Only First Step

In addition, the opponents in Massachusetts know that if they are successful in giving benefits to “partners,” it 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 said that partnerships are a “crucial step forward” to “marriage.” 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 this 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.

It Would be Costly

The homosexual activists are telling the legislators that the cost to the taxpayers to provide benefits would be only a few hundred thousand dollars. “But that is a lie,” says Rudnick. “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.

 

What About the Lawsuit?

August 2001

A lawsuit was filed in Boston on April 11, 2001 by the same gay activists who filed a suit in Vermont last year. They’ve filed this suit in our state because they live here and they are close friends with the judges. They seek to have the courts impose gay marriage upon the state. The Chief Justice of our Supreme Court (SJC), Margaret Marshall, has already indicated to them publicly that she will rule in favor of gay marriage.

They can’t lose unless the judges see that the citizens will be upset by any such ruling. If the Amendment passes, it would be almost impossible for the judges to require gay marriages or civil unions. Therefore, the judges don’t want it on the ballot.

It’s clear that the gay activists will lose if the matter is decided by the citizens. That’s why the activists are seeking to go around them and have lawyers and judges make this historic decision.

Most lawyers expect a “Motion for Summary Judgment” to be filed by the gay activists before the end of the summer which would allow the judges to decide the case without any trial being held.

 

Governor Says She’s Seeking Advice on ‘Protection of Marriage’

Trying to Please Everyone? 

Gov. Jane Swift is telling people that she’s looking for advice on the “Protection of Marriage Act.” She seems unaware that everyone acknowledges that if we grant “benefits to same sex partners” this is only a precursor to gay marriage. The full text of a letter she is sending is:

July 2, 2001

Thank you for taking the time to contact me regarding House Bill 3375, an Act Relative to Marriage. This bill demands careful thought and analysis, therefore I appreciate hearing from all constituents.

As you are probably aware, House Bill 3375 currently awaits consideration by the Joint Committee on the Judiciary. If this bill is passed by the Legislature and reaches my desk for signature, your thoughts and comments will be carefully considered as I determine what action to take on this specific piece of legislation.

In general, I acknowledge and respect the beliefs of those held on both sides of this important issue. Though I do not support legislation establishing same sex marriages, I do support granting benefits to same sex partners, and will continue to work towards this goal.

Again, thank you for taking the time to contact me. 

            Sincerely,
            Jane Swift

Copyright ©2001 Massachusetts News, Inc. Photocopying and data processing storage of all or any part of this issue may not be made without prior written consent.