How You Can Help Contact Us

 
Home>Homosexuality>Analysis and Critiques of Vt. Supreme Court Decision That Led to Gay Marriage
> Baker  v. Vermont Decision
> Baker Critiques:
 
  • Vermont Court Destroys A Constitutional Principle While Creating New "Rights."

  •  
  • Vermont Supreme Court Oversteps It's Authority

  •  
  • The Civil Truth About Civil Unions

  •  
  • No Winners In Baker v. Vermont Decision

  •  
  • Vermont's Judicial Distillery

  •  
  • More From The Five Supreme Legislators

  •  

     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     

    > Other Related Essays

  •  How The Court Became Supreme

  • > Recommended Books

    Introduction


    In December 1999 the Supreme Court of the state of Vermont issued an opinion in a case named Baker v. Vermont. The political result was that the Vermont legislature responded immediately to the courts "mandate" in the case, creating a law that permits same sex couples to marry. The state-sanctioned arrangement is called a civil union—it was created in mere months.

    The lightning speed with which the Vermont legislature acted, virtually guaranteed that Vermont citizens that opposed the legislation could not understand nor effectively criticize the court "mandate." For the most part the civil union opposition was in its "pre-articulate" stage even at the point when the governor signed the bill into law.

    The "blitzkrieg" (lightning war) is only one of several tactics used by the homosexual movement. It requires a friendly legislature and governor. Other tactics are the "end run" and "forum shopping," these both require a friendly Supreme Court. The end run is named after a play in football where the ball carrier goes around the defending line instead of through it. The ball is the gay agenda, the defending line is the reluctant members of the legislature who are unconvinced by the demands of the gay movement. The end run involves taking the ball to a court that will grease it with some species of "equal protection," in this manner the greased ball slips more readily around the defending legislature. In "forum shopping," attorneys from national gay groups "shop" the various courts until they find a specific "forum" (group of judges) which they believe will rule in their favor. In the football analogy, this is a court willing to manufacture and apply a copious supply of "equal protection" grease.

    The analogies above are not intended to be facetious, but to assist in creating a framework within which an interested reader with no legal training can read both the courts opinion and the critiques of the opinion. The goal is that each citizen forms his own opinion! Perhaps the biggest advantage that the homosexual movement has is that too few people understand their own constitution or even the simple fact that it is indeed theirs and not the property of the Vermont Supreme Court.

    This section contains essays critical of the Baker opinion. There is a direct link to the Vermont State website that contains the entire text of the majority opinion in Baker. Two of the justices also wrote a separate opinion, these are in the same Vermont State document. The separate opinion by justice Dooley is particularly insightful. Although he concurs with the majority opinion he is critical of the courts reasoning—so are we.

    Finally, we suggest the reader start with the essay entitled-Vermont Court Destroys A Constitutional Principle While Creating New "Rights." This critique covers many of the aspects of the process the Baker court used to arrive at its "mandate" to the Vermont legislature.
     



     
    Copyright © 2000 ForTheChildrenInc.
    Disclaimer