UVM “troubled” by traditional marriage (Printed in Rutland Herald/Times Argus and Burlington Free Press).

On August 30th, 2007, at the peak of freshman orientation week and preceded by a flurry of posters adorning dormitory walls, the University of Vermont hosted a forum entitled, “I Love Female Orgasm, ” the topic being self-explanatory. Five months later, in the same room, UVM would reluctantly host another forum entitled, “Does Traditional Marriage Matter?” sponsored by the Vermont Marriage Advisory Council (VMAC).
 
What do these events have in common? More than you might think.

The sexually-charged lecture on female orgasm was welcomed with enthusiastic participation and support from UVM students. The lecture on the well demonstrated societal and child-centered benefits of traditional man/woman marriage however, was preceded by protest, anger, and calls for censorship from the same people. The response from students and faculty became so strident that UVM President Daniel Fogel sent an email message to 20,000 individuals to “calm” the situation. 

President Fogel’s message was revealing. Despite the fact that he had not yet heard the presentations of the keynote speakers – world renowned experts Dr. Pat Fagan and Professor Monte Stewart – he held harsh prejudice toward their positions as well as VMAC’s. Emphasizing that he had “deep empathy for those who are affronted by the ideas and positions opposing gay marriage that are espoused by VMAC (positions which I personally find objectionable),” he added that he was “of course troubled that the sense of the campus as a safe and supportive place may be shaken by the presence of certain speakers and groups,” but he reluctantly counseled against censorship, noting that “imperative for the free exchange of ideas so important to the academy militates against our doing so, no matter how disagreeable the ideas may be.” President Fogel closed his missive with a quote from U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brandeis: “Sunlight is the best disinfectant.” Does UVM President Fogel have the integrity to quote, in context, the materials presented by VMAC which prompted such harsh words?

One might rightly ask, just what sort of message could the president of a notable college find so “objectionable” and “troubling,” while “shaking” UVM, and requiring “disinfectant?”
Two words: “Mom” and “Dad.”

If one must sum up the statements of Dr. Fagan, a sociologist, and Professor Stewart, a legal scholar, it would be approximately thus: The overwhelming evidence demonstrates that children do best, on average, when raised by their married biological parents (with exceptions made only in the best interest of the child). Both have urged that the burden of proof is on same-sex (i.e. genderless) marriage proponents to provide evidence that replacing such traditional man/woman marriage with genderless marriage will not prove harmful to society or children. Both emphasize that, as yet, their challenges remain unanswered.

UVM’s hostility toward this factual message is an indicator of our times. Last October, Professor Stewart delivered his child-focused message and legal opinion at the Vermont Law School before the legislatively appointed Vermont Commission on Family Recognition and Protection. Their treatment of Prof. Stewart ranged from icy to openly hostile, culminating in Senator John Campbell angrily denouncing Prof. Stewart as “very myopic” – despite VCFRP’s stated mission of “listening” to all voices (a video of the exchange is available at VMAC’s website: www.vermontmarriage.org). Is Vermont so disturbed by the facts indicating the merits of traditional marriage that they must be censored, marginalized, and “disinfected?”

VMAC invites all of Vermont - especially those with legislative power - to listen to the voices of distinguished experts like Dr. Fagan and Professor Stewart. Go to VMAC’s website. Get the facts, judge for yourself: Should Vermont adopt genderless marriage without any proof that it will do no harm?

.