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.
|
