The Vermont experience has momentous implications for Massachusetts mothers and families. The "family," as it has been known for centuries, is no longer the cornerstone of Vermont society. It is only one of many methods of raising children. The Vermont Supreme Court says this might "destabilize" the institution of marriage and affect it in "unpredictable ways." Do we want to take the risk of "destabilizing" marriage in our state?

The seven lawyers who sit on the Supreme Court of Massachusetts (SJC) are poised to approve the suit which was filed in Boston in April for "gay marriage." This would Amend the Constitution without going through the Amendment process. In this way, the feminists would bypass the citizens who can express their opinions only through their legislators or by a referendum. Some lawyers are concerned that the judges on the SJC will even approve a Temporary Injunction if one is imposed by the trial court. (This would mean that the court believes the plaintiffs are so likely to prevail that it will order the relief immediately, even before the trial has started.)

The feminist Chief Justices of the SJC and the Superior Court, Margaret Marshall and Suzanne DelVecchio, have already indicated their approval of the suit.

Because Massachusetts has officially recognized and protected its homosexuals - both the legislature and the judiciary have done so - we will therefore be in the same position as Vermont was. The legal logic used by the Vermont court would require that the SJC create homosexual marriage in Massachusetts. (The SJC held in 1993 that a lesbian could adopt her partner's child even though there was nothing in the law that allowed her to do so. In 1999, it allowed a lesbian to demand visitation to a child born to her former partner even though no law permitted this and the mother called it an intrusion upon her parental rights.)

Massachusetts courts have demonstrated a strong desire to protect the rights of homosexuals and will undoubtedly find a constitutional right to homosexual marriage. Therefore, there is a necessity of urgency for the Defense of Marriage Act.

Otherwise, seven lawyers (with black robes) will be making that momentous decision 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 Court chooses to impose it. The only method that would accomplish this would be an Amendment to the state Constitution.

However, the Court is also a political institution and would probably not directly thwart the expressed desire of a large majority of the people.

If the Court does change the definition of marriage, the legal logic would also require the following. A columnist in Boston's homosexual newspaper, Bay Windows, raised the point last year that if two homosexuals can raise a child successfully, why couldn't a group of three do it even better? Her article was titled, "Is Monogamy Normal?" It is impossible to argue against that as a strictly legal principle if we change the definition of marriage. 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 when it made the moral judgment that sodomy is a crime. The Supreme Court says that we, the citizens, are constantly making decisions about morality every day. It is part of our duty as citizens in a democracy.

What should we do about the intelligent, professional adults who say that they help children by having sexual relations with them? Many professionals agree 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 also changed 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." Can we deny these people the right to marry and defend that position in court if we change the definition of marriage?

If lawyers make the fundamental decisions about families, that legal logic will be followed by the courts. Therefore, if three women are raising two children and Jane receives health benefits from Mary's employer, how about Barbara? 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?

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 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.

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 people's lives. 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.

The proposed law 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.