Fours lawyers debate the lawsuit that was filed in April to allow Mass. judges to force gay marriage on the state even though the majority of citizens oppose it. From left: William Duncan and Francis Pullaro (who oppose the suit), the moderator Marc Perlin, and Mary Bonauto and Thomas Little (two lawyer who favor the suit).

Gay Marriage Could Strike Quickly

Lawyers Want to Take Charge

By Atty. J. Edward Pawlick
July 2001

Related stories

"Gay marriage will happen quickly in Massachusetts unless the citizens soon understand that the lawyers are appropriating this issue for themselves," says Bryan Rudnick, Executive Director of Massachusetts Citizens Alliance.

He is concerned about the lawsuit that was filed in April by the Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD), who are based in Boston. They are the same lawyers who were eminently successful in Vermont.

Many lawyers have expressed concern that this is not a legal issue. In addition, the only attorneys who will be in the courtrooms when this matter is litigated are all in favor of the lawsuit, even the judges.

The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Massachusetts, Margaret Marshall, indicated even before the suit was filed that she favors gay marriage.

The Chief Justice of the Superior Court, Suzanne DelVecchio, where the suit was filed, has already told the activists publicly that she favors it.

The only lawyers who will be arguing against the lawsuit come from the office of Atty. Gen. Thomas Reilly, who has indicated many times that he also favors gay marriage.

Reilly has appointed Judy Yogman in his office to defend Dr. Howard Koh, who is the defendant in the suit because he is head of the Dept. of Public Health which enforces the laws concerning marriage licenses. He is also a friend of homosexual activists and his department has been very involved in encouraging homosexuality among the school children, including having one of the three teachers at the Fistgate scandal last year.

While Atty. Yogman is seen as a competent lawyer, it's just another case for her, a career state employee. There's nothing unusual or compelling that makes it stand out among the pile of cases she has. She is very "green" compared to the gay lawyers who are highly experienced in this area and are passionate about winning. She is keenly aware that her boss, Thomas Reilly, wants the suit to succeed, and her client, Dr. Koh, is apparently a career bureaucrat who will go along with what he is told.

"The skids are greased for the lawsuit to move very quickly," says Rudnick. There will be no lawyer in the courtroom who will be personally, much less passionately involved in fighting the suit." They will all celebrate together if the plaintiffs win.

Lawyers Debate the Issue

The merits of the lawsuit were debated by a group of lawyers last month at a meeting sponsored by the Federalist Society, a conservative lawyer organization.

It was clear to observers at the debate that this is not a legal issue. It should not be decided by lawyers.

Atty. Chester Darling, one of the very few lawyers who bothered to go, commented, "The institution of marriage is a fundamental cornerstone of our society that has been in place for over 4,000 years. Who would possibly have the chutzpah to believe they should be the one to make this huge, momentous and historic decision, and do so regardless of what the people believe?"

His point was inadvertently made clear by Atty. William Duncan of the Marriage Law Project, who is against the lawsuit and has worked on the issue in Hawaii, Alaska and Vermont. He is considered by everyone to be an expert on the subject, but at one point, even he apologized because he does not consider himself an expert on the constitutional theory of "natural law."

This caused a lawyer who does not wish to be identified to question, "Why would anyone have to be an expert on 'natural law' in order to decide whether we should change the definition of marriage that has been out there for thousands of years? Lawyers have no more knowledge about this subject than anyone else."

"It's crazy," said another. "Lawyers are at the bottom of the totem pole in the respect that people give them, and yet they'll allow the lawyers to change their entire society? It just doesn't make sense."

Vermont Rep Not Honest

The Chairman of the Judiciary Committee in Vermont who brokered the matter through its legislature last year, Atty. Thomas A. Little, was not completely honest when he spoke at the debate.

He said that what the Vermont Supreme Court did was to look at the homosexuals who were asking for gay marriage and say to itself, "There is a family here. Why are they treated differently?"

But obviously, say observers, if anyone looks at the issue in that manner, there are many "families" in Vermont who are also treated "differently."

For instance, what about the straight "family" which has never bothered to get married? It's treated "differently." Or the man who has two or more wives? How about the two sisters who still live in the old family home? (In Vermont those sisters must have homosexual relations with each other in order to get benefits.) Don't forget the man who wants to get married to his sister.

Many observers point out that one could go on and on listing the people who are treated "differently" than married couples. Who decided that only gay couples will get this special treatment?

When asked after the program had ended if he knew any other people in Vermont who wished to get married, Atty. Little appeared puzzled. But when pressed, his answer was they haven't asked him yet. Which just goes to prove why this issue should not be resolved by a group of judges, say other lawyers, because they must act on any issue piecemeal, depending upon who has brought a suit. They can never have an in-depth look at a problem as the legislature does.

Atty. Little did not mention that his Supreme Court warned that its decision could "destabilize" marriage and affect it in "unpredictable" ways.

The attorneys in the debate were Mary Bonauto, Boston, the lawyer from GLAD who brought the suit here and in Vermont; Atty. Little; William Duncan, from the Marriage Law Project in Washington; and Francis Pullaro, from the office of Rep. Francis Marini. The moderator was Associate Dean Marc Perlin of Suffolk Law School.

GLAD Is Worried

GLAD and their friends in the courts want the suit to move very quickly because polls show that the citizens do not favor changing the definition of marriage.

The homosexual activists know they're losing the battle of public opinion.

They know that the majority of citizens favor the Protection of Marriage Act which has been filed on Beacon Hill to continue the definition of marriage as one man and one woman. It is supported by the Speaker of the House, Tom Finneran (D), the Minority Leader, Fran Marini (R), and a majority of the citizens.

The primary opponents of the bill are the feminists who dominate the courts. They also dominate the Boston Globe and other media and many other influential positions. However, the feminists also understand that they are no longer popular with most people. Therefore, they're using the gays as their vehicle to eliminate the institution of marriage because the feminists, unlike most other women, believe that marriage is harmful to all women.

Rich Activists Target Mass.
'Protection of Marriage' Favored by Mass. Voters
Highlights of Poll
An Act Defining Marriage
Common Questions Asked
MYTHS v. FACTS
'Protection of Marriage' Favored by Mass. Voters
Feminist Boston Bar President Gives False Information About Marriage Act
Do All Boston Lawyers Oppose 'Protection of Marriage Act?'
Gays Strategize at Faneuil Hall
Chief Justices Have Already Decided Case
Globe Continues to Promote Gay Marriage
Release the Marriage Bill