No to uninformed Opinions Sunday, November 21, the Burlington Free Press, a publication many consider to be the newspaper of record in Vermont, urged the Supreme Court to decide the case of Baker vs Vermont. “It’s time for a decision, time to say no,” ended the piece. Perhaps if the paper’s editor- ial board had agreed to meet with the Vermont Freedom to Marry Task Force even once to discuss this issue, the resulting commentary would have at In an editorial published on the state’s favor.” There are so many holes in these two points alone that it’s difficult to know where to start. Contrary to the Free Press assertion, the legislature has never defined marriage as a status available only to hetero- sexuals. In fact, our legislators have had the opportunity on several occasions to pass just such a bill, and have never done so. Should we even bother to go into the use of ‘heterosexuals’ only one point: a link between marriage and procreation. The last point the Free Press made in its editorial was equal- ly unsound. “The Vermont law is firm and clear. And only the Legislature can change it.” Rejecting the basic rules of our government, the editorial board suggests that the legisla- ture should have the final word on this — and apparently every — issue. Are we to believe that the legislature is infallible? Following the Free Press logic, we can do away with the Is the Free Press suggesting that not only do candidates for marriage have to pass a gender test, but also one for sexual orientation? least presented a solid, educat- ed argument against same—sex marriage. Instead, based on faulty rea- soning, the board treated us to an opinion that could be dis- missed by anyone who has read the briefs or viewed the oral arguments before the Court. First, the Free Press stated that marriage is not a funda- mental right. Not even the State of Verrnont— the side that the Free Press is supposedly supporting — agrees with this. ,In oral arguments before the \‘/ermont~Supreme Court, state attorneys never contested that point — perhaps because the US Supreme Court has already held that marriage is indeed a fundamental right? In fact, the state acknowledged that as it argued that this particular fun- damental right was reserved for couples made up of one man and one woman. The Free Press editorial also referred to the arguments the state offered to a lower court for conferring the right of mar- riage upon one group and not another, calling them “six rea- sons why the Legislature has repeatedly defined marriage as a status only heterosexuals may attain.” It went on to say that “the lower court ruled in here? Is the Free Press sug- gesting that not only do candi- dates for marriage have to pass a gender test — difficult enough to prove conclusively — but also one for sexual orientation? Should county clerks be refus- ing marriage licenses to bisex- uals‘? Additionally, the state did not offer six reasons to the lower court: there were actual- ly seven. The number six is important, though. That’s how many of those arguments the judge tossed out. The state claimed an interest in uniting men and women to “bridge their differences;” in promoting a setting that pro- vides both male and female role models; in preserving the “time honored” institution of marriage; in ensuring that Vermont marriages are recog- nized in other states; in pre- serving the legislature’s authority to channel behavior and make normative state- ments; and in minimizing the use of modern fertility treat- ments to avoid increased child custody and visitation dis- putes. When Superior Court Judge Linda Levitt put those six “answers” to a constitutional review, they all failed. She found in favor of the state on ”