Judicial Committee Hearing - April 11, 2006
My name is Kris Mineau and I am the President of Massachusetts Family Institute, a public policy organization dedicated to strengthening the family and the traditional Judeo-Christian values upon which the family is based. I am also the spokesman for VoteOnMarriage.org, the ballot question committee responsible for the amendment before you today. Thank you for giving me this opportunity to testify.
Last year, VoteOnMarriage.org set out with a goal to collect 120,000 signatures in support of this amendment. Even to those of us who have always believed that Massachusetts citizens want to vote on the issue of marriage, that goal seemed daunting. We were wrong. As soon as the petitions were issued, citizens across the Commonwealth lined up to show their support and their intense desire to make their voices heard. In 60 days, we collected over 170,000 signatures, making this petition drive the most successful in Massachusetts history. Our totals surpassed even petitions by previous groups seeking to lower taxes!
As I talk to people across the Commonwealth, I hear one thing above all others: the issue of marriage is vitally important to them. They know, as you and I do, that marriage is the fundamental institution of our society, the cornerstone on which every civilization is established. Marriage is intrinsic to our culture and to every other culture on the planet. The definition of marriage cannot and should not be decided by the courts.
We stand today on the threshold of a historic and defining moment in the history of Massachusetts. Forty-five other states have amendments or laws defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The citizens of 19 states have voted on marriage amendments and in every single case, they have voted overwhelmingly to preserve natural marriage. All we ask is the same opportunity to vote and make our voices heard. Twice before Massachusetts citizens have told their elected officials that they want to vote on the definition of marriage and both times legislators denied them that opportunity. A legislative vote for this amendment is not a vote for or against same-sex marriage, it is a vote to let the people vote. Regardless of how you personally feel about the definition of marriage, the people have earned the right to vote.
As a Massachusetts native, I am proud of our common history of democracy and constitutional process. Our state constitution is the oldest written constitution in the world to still be in place today. It is impossible to forget that this hearing and everything else that goes on at this State House is the product of more than two hundred years of unbroken dedication to the constitutional process. The Senate President has gone on record to show his personal respect and support for this heritage and his determination to see the process continue. Today I ask that you also respect and uphold that same constitutional process--as well as the rights of your constituents--and give this amendment a favorable report. The people have not only spoken of their desire to decide the issue of marriage, they have shouted, "Let the people vote!"
Again, thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today.
Presentation to the State of Massachusetts Judiciary
April 11, 2006
For the first time in over 150 years, the fight for human rights, which has led to the abolition of slavery, the emancipation of women and civil rights for African-Americans, is now in the process of turning backwards. With same sex marriage we are now taking away the fundamental rights of our most vulnerable citizens, children. We are also entering an era where freedom of speech is being challenged.
Many of my comments are directly inspired from the debates in France and in Canada surrounding same-sex marriage. Both countries reached fundamentally different conclusions. While Canada legalized same-sex marriage, France did not. France went even further. It reiterated its prohibitions against adoption and access to medically assisted reproduction for all same sex couples. How could two mature countries reach such different conclusions? Quite simply, France's laws still favor the best interests of children over adults while Canada does not. France does not recognize minority rights, but Canada's recent Charter of Rights and Freedoms does. Progressively in Canada, adult homosexual rights have increased in weight to the point where they now trump children's rights and best interests.
Finally, France has been at the forefront of the worldwide movement to recognize children's rights. It has signed the 1989 U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child and has been diligent in implementing its articles. In contrast, while Canada is also a signatory, it has chosen, particularly during the debates on same-sex marriage, to ignore its essential features, leading to same-sex legislation that most probably violates at least two articles of the Convention:
Article 3: "In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration."
Article 7: Each child "shall have, as far as possible, the right to know and be cared for by his or her parents". France refers to these as filiative rights.
The French government affirms that children now have rights and "to systematically give preference to adult aspirations over respect for these rights is not possible any more."
Same-sex marriage is part of a larger set of issues directly affecting children, namely adoption and medically assisted reproduction. One cannot separate these issues, as French parliamentarians discovered from their travels to various countries, "Countries that have opened up marriage to same sex couples have all authorized adoption by these couples and developed systems to assist procreation, including surrogate motherhood, in order to allow these couples to have children."
Now, how does defining marriage between one man and one woman protect children's rights and best interests? In summary,
1- Heterosexual marriage provides that a child will know and be raised by his own parents.
2- Research demonstrates conclusively that heterosexual marriage serves children's best interests.
3- Heterosexual marriage provides the child with a natural network of care and support from his immediate and extended biological family
4- Heterosexual marriage sets the foundation for the child to have the same biological, legal and care giving parents.
5- Heterosexual marriage greatly reduces the risk that children or their constituent parts will become commodities.
6- Heterosexual marriage provides children with a multi-generational sense of identity.
7- Children born from heterosexual parents have access to their own genetic heritage for medical purposes.
8- Constitutionally defining marriage between one man and one woman strengthens the judicial protection accorded to children
9-Allowing court ordered same-sex marriage to prevail creates precedent for further erosion of children's rights.
10- Heterosexual marriage protects the filiative rights of all children.
11- Defining heterosexual marriage is an absolutely essential first step in protecting children's rights and best interests.
12- Defining heterosexual marriage is insufficient to ensure adequate protection for children's rights and best interests.
13- Heterosexual marriage provides a simple and understandable set of norms.
14- Heterosexual marriage naturally protects children from potential discrimination because of the sex of their parents.
Now, for the details:
1- Heterosexual marriage provides that a child will know and be raised by his own parents. Is there a more natural right for a child than to know and be raised by his own mother and father? When asked by a Canadian legislator about same sex marriage: "surely with this piece of legislation we're not throwing away anything. Aren't we extending rights?" Margaret Sommerville, Professor of Law at the McGill Center for Medicine, Ethics and Law answered: "No, you're absolutely throwing away a child's right to a mother and a father." This is already happening in Québec, my home province, where some children now have two mothers listed on their birth certificate and no trace of a father.
2- Research demonstrates conclusively that heterosexual marriage serves children's best interests. There is no such evidence for same-sex marriage. The French National Assembly Commission was presented with "research on children raised by same sex couples concluding the absence of any ill effects on the children. Their scientific nature and the representation of the samples of the populations studied were broadly criticized and contested during the hearings... the lack of objectivity in this area was flagrant." One presumes that the very best research would have been presented. These conclusions are consistent with other studies here in the U.S..
It is incumbent upon legislators to ensure that children are protected. We buy the safest car seats for our children. We require that drug companies prove the safety of new drugs; we recall baby strollers when even just a small number of children get hurt. In its Report on the Family and the Rights of Children, The French National Assembly Commission endorses the statement of an expert witness: "inasmuch as there is absolutely no reason to doubt the educative and emotional qualities of homosexual parents, we do not yet know all the effects on the construction of the adopted child's psychological identity. As long as there is uncertainty, however small, is it not in the best interest of the child to apply the precautionary principle, as is done in other domains?"
Margaret Sommerville further explains from an ethical perspective: "There are obligations on society not to create genetic orphans, which is what we would be doing. I think we have to recognize a right to natural genetic origins and genetic identity. We have to recognize the full scope of the harms we do and the ethical problems, and first we have to be activated by a principle that's called non-maleficence--first do no harm. "
3- Heterosexual marriage provides the child with a natural network of care and support from his immediate and extended biological family, including parents, brothers and sisters, aunts and uncles, grandparents, etc.. In a world where increasing numbers of parents divorce their own children, France favors the permanent nature of biological filiation over fleeting emotions and unstable relationships. Same-sex marriage is not grounded on the biological ties, as William Eskridge explains, same-sex marriage: "involves the reconfiguration of family-de-emphasizing blood, gender, and kinship ties and emphasizing the value of interpersonal commitment. In our legal culture the linchpin of family law has been the marriage between a man and a woman who have children through procreative sex. Gay experience with "families we choose" delinks family from gender, blood, and kinship. Gay families of choice are relatively ungendered, raise children that are biologically unrelated to one or both parents, and often form no more than a shadowy connection between the larger kinship groups."
4- Heterosexual marriage sets the foundation for the child to have the same biological, legal and care giving parents. Same-sex marriage does not. Furthermore, same-sex marriage cannot be isolated from adoption and medically assisted reproduction. Medically assisted reproduction opens the door to the breakdown between the three dimensions of parenting: the biological (progenitor), the judicial (parental authority) and the social (day to day care). For example, because gay men cannot reproduce naturally, they must rely on a surrogate mother. France has prohibited all surrogacy for many years. When asked to reconsider it, the recent National Assembly report maintains this prohibition because "revisiting those values would amount to denying the bond that grows between mother and child during pregnancy and opening the door to a wide range of abuses. In California, for instance, the birth of a child might involve as many as five people: a sperm donor, an egg donor, a gestator and the couple who are the legal parents." Thus, taking a child away from the mother that nurtured him for nine months creates an emotional discontinuity for the child and weakens his sense of security.
5- Heterosexual marriage greatly reduces the risk that children or their constituent parts will become commodities. Same-sex marriage increases those risks as it creates a new market for assisted reproduction, adding to the demand for sperm, eggs, surrogate mothers and adopted children. This leads to the commoditization of human life where some of the participants have little regard for the rights of children. This is similar to the bygone era when slaves were traded as property. For example, France rejects surrogate motherhood for these reasons: "Preserving the prohibition on surrogate motherhood is justified ... for two crucial reasons based on the protection of human dignity: first, the fact that the human body cannot be made available for trade; and second, the fact that filiation also cannot be made available for trade." In Canada, giving eggs is legal but selling them is strictly forbidden by law and subject to substantial penalties. Early in 2006, a Montréal investigative reporter revealed that he had located six women offering eggs and who, over the course of discussions, were demanding payments of up to $10,000.
6- Heterosexual marriage provides children with a multi-generational
sense of identity. In testimony to Canadian parliamentarians, Margaret
Sommerville explained: "In conclusion, children and their descendants
who don't know their genetic origin cannot sense themselves as embedded
in a web of people past, present, and in the future through whom they
can trace the thread of life's passage down the generations to them. As
far as we know, humans are the only animals where experiencing a genetic
relationship is integral to their sense of themselves. We do know the
effect of eliminating this experience--which we do know through reproductive
technologies and adoption--is harmful to children, to biological parents,
to families, and to society.
7- Children born from heterosexual parents have access to their own genetic heritage for medical purposes. Most children born from same-sex unions do not. Genetic research is constantly expanding the usefulness of this information.
8- Constitutionally defining marriage between one man and one woman strengthens the judicial protection accorded to children, without it, children are inadequately protected. A brief history of how same sex marriage was adopted in Canada illustrates. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (a constitutional document) was adopted in 1982 to protect individual rights and minorities. Woefully, children, the most vulnerable group in society, were ignored. This was not an omission by design or malevolence, but simply because it was considered a given that children would always benefit from the protection of the law. Later, sexual orientation was added by the courts to the list of groups needing protection. Today, sexual orientation, which the framers of the Charter specifically refused to include, now trumps children's rights. When judges ruled that gays and lesbians were discriminated against because they were prevented from marrying, they focused on adults' Charter implied rights. The Supreme Court did not even mention children in its judgment. In so doing, the courts, and now Parliament, have failed to protect children. Unless children's right to a father and a mother is affirmed by legislators, same-sex marriage will erase it.
9-Allowing court ordered same-sex marriage to prevail creates precedent for further erosion of children's rights. Passage of same-sex marriage legislation simply reaffirms court decisions by judges who do not seem to have the tools required to adequately defend the rights of children when confronted with the equality rights of adults. This only reinforces the notion that children have no right to both a father and a mother, no say in the matter, and that their best interests carry little weight. Aren't these denials of human rights similar to those that inspired abolitionists, suffragettes and civil rights leaders in the past? (In Canada, bowing to political pressure, the federal government even refused to appeal court decisions mandating same sex marriage to the Supreme Court of Canada.)
Furthermore, as the Canadian Parliament was debating the issue of same-sex marriage, the government was forcefully denying that this could lead to the legalization of polygamy since polygamy was a criminal offense (yet rarely if ever enforced). At the same time, it was secretly evaluating if passage of same sex legislation could lead to its eventual legalization. The published report later confirmed that it would be very difficult to prevent successful challenges to laws prohibiting polygamy and that polygamy would probably be legalized.
10- Heterosexual marriage protects the filiative rights of all children. Same-sex marriage legislation jeopardizes them for all children. After the courts imposed same-sex marriage in Canada, Parliament adopted formal legislation making it applicable across Canada. In order to do so, it had to change the definition of parent from (biological) parent to legal parent for all children. According to the Institute for Marriage, Law and Culture, this erasure of the biological link to the child's parent affects all children, not just those in same-sex relationships.
11- Defining heterosexual marriage is an absolutely essential first step in protecting children's rights and best interests. Furthermore, a preamble to a constitutional amendment could reinforce children's rights if it states that heterosexual marriage is the only institution that can guarantee the right of the child to know and be raised by his/her natural parents. Interestingly, because courts in France have resisted same-sex marriage, the French National Assembly did not see the necessity of enshrining a formal definition of marriage. In Canada, that is clearly not the case.
12- Defining heterosexual marriage is insufficient to ensure adequate protection for children's rights and best interests. For instance, France refuses to legalize same-sex adoption because it is a back door to circumventing laws meant to protect the filiative rights of children. For example, same-sex couples could circumvent French prohibitions against medically assisted reproduction by traveling to another country, coming back with a child, and then having the non-biological parent adopt the child. Therefore, unless the state adopts a coherent set of laws protecting children, children will not be adequately protected. It would be like building a fortress with half the walls missing. From up front, the fortress might appear unassailable, but a cursory tour would reveal easy alternatives. The absence of restrictions on same sex adoptions and medically assisted reproduction for same-sex couples can also lead to forcing the issue on same-sex marriage: if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it must be a duck. This is pretty well what happened in Québec when judges imposed same-sex marriage after highlighting that Québec's civil unions resembled marriage in almost every feature.
13- Heterosexual marriage provides a simple and understandable set of norms. France explains: "Family law, notably concerning filiation (the fact of being the child of certain parents), has been subject to profound reforms that have turned family configurations upside down. In this regards, (the province of) Québec has developed a distinctive inventiveness in setting up a system of filiation without equal in its complexity." Rather, France believes that laws should not simply validate changing mores but should set norms in order to "allow individuals to build their lives around stable, sure and understandable criteria." With regards to adoption, the French report expresses concern about the "uncontrollable multiplication of filial links created as adults change partners over time, thus confusing children." How does a child explain who his parents are if even legislators have difficulty in understanding the system? Same-sex marriage imposes additional confusion for the child, and many parents!
14- Heterosexual marriage naturally protects children from potential discrimination because of the sex of their parents. When same-sex couples decide to have a child, either through medically assisted reproduction or adoption, they create a new minority, their own children, who are prevented from having both a mother and a father. They then turn around and ask that their children to be protected from potential discrimination because of their unique family situation. This would require all of society to be transformed, an uncertain proposition at best. The January 25, 2006 Report on the Family and the Rights of Children to the French National Assembly approaches the issue from another perspective. It stresses that children represent the future of society and that they "must not suffer from conditions imposed upon them by adults". In effect, it is these children's own parents who have created this situation in the first place. The report adds: "The best interests of the child must prevail over adult freedoms... even including the lifestyle choices of parents".
At the start of my presentation, I made a reference to challenges to freedom of speech. Let me cite four events - three from Canada and one from Europe - to illustrate my point.
1- In Canada, Dr. Chris Kempling, a school counselor was suspended by
his employer after he wrote a letter in a local newspaper explaining his
professionnally based opposition to same-sex marriage. The issue went
to court and he lost. His appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada was rejected.
on the Family and the Rights of Children
Why the Charter is Failing Children (in Canada)
Marriage: Adult Rights or Children's Rights
Trumps Free Speech And Religion in Canada
Marriage? A Case for Caution
I am supporting this marriage amendment.
My mother was very seriously ill. From infancy I grew up with a homosexual father. I loved my Dad, but my father exposed me to diverse sexual subcultures. The gay, lesbian, bisexual and transsexual subcultures did not have boundaries and principles of morality and monogamy. Rather it was experimentation, pansexuality, many sexual partners, and self-indulgent lifestyles. Gender and sexual orientation were blurred. Unisex dressing, transsexualism, and transient and anonymous multiple partners were common. My father and his associates were not limited by gender nor age. They frequented public areas. By age ten, for example, I was exposed to a gay nude beach, a sex shop, and a gay cruising park. My father had partners in the home from my infancy. All our vacations were to key GLBT areas where cruising was available.
I was traumatized by six years old in my household. I was stuttering, blacking out and having nightmares caused by molestation, physical and verbal abuse, and abandonment. My father would leave us alone for days to be with his partners. At eight, two of my father's partners committed suicide. My father intimidated me into silence, making me fearful for my life, and unable to talk about my father's lifestyle. Alcohol, drugs, gay bars and parties were part of the scene. Youthfulness, beauty, art, fashion, and travel were prized. However, the painful losses my father's friends experienced were devastating. My father and his partners were involved in domestic violence and he dropped them like commodities. Males who were minors were at risk in my home of being preyed upon sexually.
Dad had encouraged me to be more open sexually, while teaching me by example that sex was gratuitous. I could not look to my father as a moral agent in my life. This left me confused about my sexual identity, and my feelings and roles as a girl and woman. My father could not show affection or affirmation to females, making me believe it was better to be a boy. He doted on his male partners - time, communication, affection and sex - travelling and buying them gifts, leaving me feeling worthless. If particular judges had their way, I would have had at least three "psychological" parents - men I would not have wanted to be named my parents.
I felt worthless and began seeking other boys' affections by age twelve. Long-term, I became depressed, anxious, and suicidal. I was in and out of counselling between the ages of sixteen and thirty. All my family members were severely impacted.
My father left his associations within the subcultures in the late eighties, succumbing to death by AIDS in 1991 at the age of fifty-one. Many of his partners have died of AIDS, some in their early forties.
Children have no voice when they grow up in a homosexual household. Children are unwillingly forced to tolerate their parent's sexual choices and living arrangements. If I spoke about what happened around my father, I would risk being sent to the streets or a group home. I was silenced for over forty years, afraid to share the reality of what I had lived through. I waited until both my parents had died before speaking publicly. Most other adult children feel that they cannot speak about their experiences until their parents have passed away. By the way, I know of 14 children who grew up with a homosexual parent, including myself. All of us have been negatively impacted long term. This includes adult children who have not been able to cope with their difficulties growing up - Some have tried to numb the pain with drug and alcohol addictions and sexual promiscuity.
My first thirty years around my father and his partners showed me how not to live my life. Marriage exclusively between a man and a woman is the best environment for children. Children need to see gender as male or female. Children need firm moral boundaries around sexuality. As a child, I could not comprehend the emphasis on being gender-neutral, unisex dressing, and pansexual practices. Group sex, bathhouse sex, cruising, and other expressions of diverse sexuality broke down the barriers between private and public sex.
The Right Honourable Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada, has stated, "Undermining the traditional definition of marriage is an assault on the beliefs of virtually all cultural and religious communities who have come to this country," according to Lifesite News.
Freedom of speech and democracy are eroded by hate crime and same-sex marriage legislation, and by judicial activism. Human Rights Tribunals in Canada police speech, and penalize upstanding citizens for their expressed opposition to homosexuality. It takes only one complaint against a person to be brought before the tribunal, costing the person tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees. On the other hand, the person making the complaint has his legal fees completely paid for by the government. Even if the defendant is found innocent, he cannot recover his legal costs. If he is found guilty, he must pay fines to the person(s) who brought forth the complaint. All television, radio and print media are monitored. May what is happening in Canada serve as a warning to Massachusetts. Where can the children find safety if legislation is in place legitimizing homosexual marriage?
Item numbers 10, 24, and 28 are included with this testimony. My article, "Same-Sex Marriage: Have the Best Interests of Children Been Considered?" is also included below.
2 Suzanne Cook, My Parent is Gay, (Seattle, WA: Exodus International-North America, 2000). Also, see testimonial "Looking For My Father's Love," Exodus International, North America. See http://exodus.to/testimonials_Family_12.shtml extracted 26/03/2005.
3 "A Son's Journey," 1997 Nathan Bell, Distributed by Love In Action. See http://www.loveinaction.org/media/documents/NathanBellTestimony.pdf extracted 24/03/2005.
4 Charles Mitchell, "I was raised by Homosexuals-Parts 1 & 2," Straight Talk Radio, see http://www.straighttalkradio.org/archives.html 14/03/2006.
5 Paul Cameron and Kirk Cameron, "Children Of Homosexual Parents
Report Childhood Difficulties," Psychological Reports 2002, 90, 71-82.
Also see http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_homokids.html?story=831
8 Timothy Dailey, Ph. D., "Homosexual Parenting: Placing Children at Risk," Family Research Council, Issue No.:238. See http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?I=IS01J3 extracted 24/03/2005.
9 Jon Dougherty, "Report: Pedophilia more common among 'gays' Report
purports to reveal 'dark side' of homosexual culture." WorldNetDaily,
Monday April 29, 2002. See http://w115.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27431
10 Byrd, Dean A., Ph.D."Gender Complementarity and Child-rearing:
Where Tradition and Science Agree," NARTH. See http://www.narth.com/docs/gendercomplementarity.html
extracted 09/04/06. Also see S. J. QUINNEY COLLEGE OF LAW, Journal Of
Law & Family Studies, University Of Utah, VOLUME 6 NUMBER 2 for this
article. See http://www.narth.com/docs/GenderComplementarityByrd.pdf extracted
11 "Standards 4 Life: Homosexuality," "Homosexual Adoption. Good for Children's Health?", Christian Medical & Dental Associations. See http://www.cmdahome.org/index.cgi?BISKIT=1695154697&CONTEXT=art&art=2649 extracted 24/03/2005.
12 "Homosexuality and Hope," Statement of the Catholic Medical Association. See http://www.cathmed.org/publications/homosexualityarticle.html extracted 24/03/2005
13 Dale O'Leary, "Is This Diversity, Or Tragedy: Children as Victims of their Parents' Choices,"' NARTH. See http://www.narth.com/docs/diversity.html extracted 24/03/2005.
14 ''Gay marriage' and homosexuality some medical comments," LifeSite, by authors of this report: John Shea,MD, FRCP (C), Radiologist; John K. Wilson MD, FRCP (C), Cardiologist; Paul Ranalli MD, FRCP (C), Neurologist; Christina Paulaitis MD, CCFP, Family Physician; Luigi Castagna MD, FRCP (C), Paediatric Neurologist; Hans-Christian Raabe MD, MRCP MRCGP Internist; W. André Lafrance MD, FRCP (C), Dermatologist. See http://www.lifesite.net/features/marriage_defence/SSM_MD_evidence.pdf extracted 09/04/2006.
15 S. Sarantakos, "Children in three contexts: family, education and social development," Children Australia, 21, (1996), 23-31
16 "Children Need Both A Mother And A Father," NARTH. See http://www.narth.com/docs/needboth.html extracted 09/04/2006.
17 Daniel Cere & Douglas Farrow, eds., Divorcing Marriage, (Montreal & Kingston, Ontario: Published for the Institute for the Study of Marriage, Law and Culture by McGill-Queen's University Press, 2004), p.78.
18 Dr, George Rekers and Dr. Mark Kilgus, "Studies of Homosexual Parenting: A Critical Review,:" See http://www.regent.edu/acad/schlaw/academics/lawreview/articles/14_2Rekers.PDF , extracted 14/03/2006.
19 Dr. Rekers, "Review of Research On Homosexual Parenting, Adoption, And Foster Parenting," See http://www.narth.com/docs/rekers.html extracted 09/04/2006.
20 Linda Harvey, "The World According to PFLAG: Why PFLAG and Children Don't Mix," NARTH. See http://www.narth.com/docs/pflag2.html extracted 24/03/2005.
21 Dr. Judith Reisman, "Crafting Gay Children," August 14, 2005. See White Paper at http://www.cathfam.org/CreatingGayChildren.pdf extracted 14/03/2006.
22 Peter Sprigg, "The 'Recruiting' of Children Into Accepting Homosexuality: How Homosexuality in Schools Furthers an Agenda," Family Research Council. See http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=WA03I34#WA03I34 extracted 28/03/2005.
23 In the Supreme Court of Canada, In the Matter of Section 53 of the Supreme Court Act, R.S.C., 1985 C. S-26 In the Matter of a Reference By the Governor in Council Concerning the Proposal For an Act Respecting Certain Aspects of Legal Capacity for Marriage for Civil Purposes, pp. 27-31. See http://www.cccb.ca/Files/SupremeCourtMarriage.pdf extracted 24/03/2005.
24 Maggie Gallagher and Joshua K. Baker, "Do Mothers and Fathers
Matter?", iMapp Policy Brief, Institute for Marriage and Public Policy.
See http://www.marriagedebate.com/pdf/MothersFathersMatter.pdf extracted
25 "Flawed Studies Used For Promoting Same-Sex Marriage, Says Policy
Institute," NARTH. See http://www.narth.com/docs/flawed.html extracted
26 "French Report Says No to Homosexual "Marriage," LifeSite
News. See http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/feb/06021601.html extracted
14/03/2006. Parliamentary Report on the Family and the Rights of Children
can be found at: http://www.marriageinstitute.ca/images/PARLIAMENTARY%20REPORT%20ON%20THE%20
27 Satinover, Jeffrey B., M.S., M.D., "The Trojan Couch: How the Mental Health Guilds Allow Medical Diagnostics, Scientific Research and Jurisprudence to be Subverted in Lockstep with the Political Aims of their Gay Sub-Components," Conference Reports 2005, NARTH. See http://www.narth.com/docs/TheTrojanCouchSatinover.pdf extracted 10/04/2006.
28 "Adopting Chaos," National Catholic Register, April 6, 2006.
See http://www.catholic.org extracted 10/04/2006.
My name is Dwight Duncan, Professor at Southern New England School of
Law. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you this afternoon
to testify concerning the proposed constitutional amendment regarding
marriage that has been initiated by the citizenry of the Commonwealth.
As you know, this is the latest effort to amend the Constitution of the
Commonwealth in the wake of the decision of the Supreme Judicial Court
in 2003 in Goodridge v. Dep't of Public Health, which radically changed
the definition of marriage. The amendment is quite limited, as it only
relates to "marriage" as such and says nothing one way or the
other about benefits, civil unions, domestic partnerships-which are left
to legislative rather than constitutional determination. It also only
operates prospectively, and will not undo existing same-sex marriages
that have been entered into under the authority of the Goodridge decision.
In so defining marriage, the initiative amendment will merely bring Massachusetts
into line with the rest of the country as to the definition of marriage.
(See Appendix A.) Furthermore, there are only a handful of foreign countries
that recognize same-sex marriages at this juncture (See
The point I wish to make is that restoring the understanding of marriage
as between a man and a woman preserves the intrinsic link between marriage
and procreation, as well as between marriage and mother-father parenting.
Only the union of male and female can beget offspring, and only wives
and husbands can provide children with a married mother and a father,
which is the ideal arrangement for raising children. Obviously other parenting
arrangements are possible, and they are allowed by law; but these should
not be allowed to undermine the sense that children being raised by a
married mother and father is optimal. Preserving the traditional definition
of marriage is the least that can be done to make that point.
I urge the General Court to let the people vote on this fundamental question.
It has already passed legal muster.
TOTAL = 49 STATES*
STATE THAT BELIEVES THAT IT IS IRRATIONAL
TOTAL = 1 STATE**
COUNTRIES THAT BELIEVE THAT IT IS RATIONAL
TOTAL = 183 COUNTRIES
TOTAL = 5 COUNTRIES
|©2005-2006 VoteOnMarriage.org. All Rights Reserved. Paid for by
VoteOnMarriage.org. Robert H. Bradley, Treasurer.