Mary Mostert
Did Chief Justice Marshall collude with lesbian buddies on same-sex marriage decision?
By Mary Mostert
In a 4-3 decision, the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled two days ago that what you thought marriage was all about, isn't. It ruled that "barring an individual from the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage solely because that person would marry a person of the same sex violates the Massachusetts Constitution."
I have several dictionaries of varying publication dates and ALL of them indicate that the word "marry" means a "union to join a man and a woman for life." In case that wasn't clear, the word "marriage" is defined in my various dictionaries, as "the act of legally uniting a man and woman in wedlock." How did four Massachusetts Supreme Court judges find that limiting marriage to people of the opposite sex is somehow in violation of the Massachusetts Constitution and Law?
Well, it appears that this was a decision that really had nothing to do with the Massachusetts Constitution or Law. In fact, it appears the decision was made even before the case was filed.
The decision written by Chief Justice Margaret Marshall states, "The exclusive commitment of two individuals to each other nurtures love and mutual support; it brings stability to our society. For those who choose to marry, and for their children, marriage provides an abundance of legal, financial, and social benefits. In return it imposes weighty legal, financial, and social obligations. The question before us is whether, consistent with the Massachusetts Constitution, the Commonwealth may deny the protections, benefits, and obligations conferred by civil marriage to two individuals of the same sex who wish to marry. We conclude that it may not."
Two "individuals?" Not "a man and a woman?" When I read that wording, it struck me as being quite odd. In fact, it struck me as being very similar to wording used on homosexual and lesbian websites, where you almost never find the words girl, boy or woman, man. It's "individuals." It appears that sexual identity is quite an iffy thing in that culture.
So, I did a little research on the subject of Margaret Marshall and discovered that back in March of this year an ethics complaint was filed against Justice Marshall to remove her from two cases involving homosexual marriage, one of them being the Goodridge vs the Department of Health which was just decided by the Massachusetts Supreme Court. The basis of the complaint was Judge Marshall's "close friendship and association with Atty. Mary Bonauto, the lesbian lawyer for the plaintiffs in the Goodridge case."
In May 1999, the Massachusetts News reported, "Marshall was the honored guest and keynote speaker at the Massachusetts Lesbian and Gay Bar Association. That organization reported in its newsletter that Marshall, who was born in South Africa and moved here to attend college, noted 'with pride' that her native land was the first country to write sexual orientation protections into the national Constitution. In 1998, South Africa's courts struck down laws banning sodomy between consenting adults. According to Massachusetts Lesbian and Gay Bar Association, 'Marshall read excerpts from the stirring decision. The Justice encouraged those lawyers in attendance to pay attention to the growing body of gay-friendly international jurisprudence.'"
According to a Massachusetts News article published on July 2001, before the Goodridge case was even filed, Chief Justice Margaret Marshall said "she favored gay marriage. The Chief Justice of the Superior Court, Suzanne DelVecchio, where the suit was filed, already had told the Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD), who are based in Boston, that she favored same-sex marriage. The GLAD group noted:
"The only lawyers who will be arguing against the lawsuit come from the office of Atty. Gen. Thomas Reilly, who has indicated many times that he also favors gay marriage."
Obviously, this decision, which is being reported and discussed worldwide, was a foregone conclusion, based on opinion and not the law or the Constitution of Massachusetts.
What is NOT being reported anywhere that I checked were the 3 dissenting opinions. Justices Robert J Cordy, Francis X. Spina and Martha B. Sosman, agreed the marriage statute, "as historically interpreted to mean the union of one man and one woman," did not violate Massachusetts Constitution, because "the Legislature could rationally conclude that it furthers the legitimate State purpose of ensuring, promoting, and supporting an optimal social structure for the bearing and raising of children."
In fact, Justice Cordy accused the 4 judges that approved same-sex marriage of "substituting its notion of correct policy for that of a popularly elected legislature's responsible for making it."
Further, Justice Cordy stated that "While 'the Massachusetts Constitution protects matters of personal liberty against government intrusion at least as zealously and often more so than does the Federal Constitution,' this case is not about government intrusions into matters of personal liberty," but "about whether the State must endorse and support the choices of same-sex couples by changing the institution of civil marriage to make its benefits, obligations, and responsibilities applicable to them."
Justice Spina, in a separately filed dissent, stated that "What is at stake in this case is not the unequal treatment of individuals or whether individuals rights have been impermissibly burdened, but the power of the Legislature to effectuate social change without interference from the courts, pursuant to Article 30 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights." He also emphasized that the "power to regulate marriage lies with the Legislature, not with the judiciary."
Justice Sosman's separate dissent stated that "the issue is not whether the Legislature's rationale behind the statutory scheme being challenged is persuasive to the court," but whether it is "rational" for the Legislature to "reserve judgment" on whether changing the definition of marriage "can be made at this time without damaging the institution of marriage or adversely affecting the critical role it has played in our society."
According to the Massachusetts Constitution, judges hold office during "good behavior" and the Massachusetts House of Representatives has the authority to conduct a "grand inquest" and perhaps impeach judges. If I lived in Massachusetts, I'd be asking my state representatives to look into doing an inquest on a judge who financially supported and suggested a lawsuit for her court to decide. This trumped up decision totally changes the meaning of marriage not only in the law, but in every dictionary on the planet as well.
© Mary Mostert
In a 4-3 decision, the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled two days ago that what you thought marriage was all about, isn't. It ruled that "barring an individual from the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage solely because that person would marry a person of the same sex violates the Massachusetts Constitution."
I have several dictionaries of varying publication dates and ALL of them indicate that the word "marry" means a "union to join a man and a woman for life." In case that wasn't clear, the word "marriage" is defined in my various dictionaries, as "the act of legally uniting a man and woman in wedlock." How did four Massachusetts Supreme Court judges find that limiting marriage to people of the opposite sex is somehow in violation of the Massachusetts Constitution and Law?
Well, it appears that this was a decision that really had nothing to do with the Massachusetts Constitution or Law. In fact, it appears the decision was made even before the case was filed.
The decision written by Chief Justice Margaret Marshall states, "The exclusive commitment of two individuals to each other nurtures love and mutual support; it brings stability to our society. For those who choose to marry, and for their children, marriage provides an abundance of legal, financial, and social benefits. In return it imposes weighty legal, financial, and social obligations. The question before us is whether, consistent with the Massachusetts Constitution, the Commonwealth may deny the protections, benefits, and obligations conferred by civil marriage to two individuals of the same sex who wish to marry. We conclude that it may not."
Two "individuals?" Not "a man and a woman?" When I read that wording, it struck me as being quite odd. In fact, it struck me as being very similar to wording used on homosexual and lesbian websites, where you almost never find the words girl, boy or woman, man. It's "individuals." It appears that sexual identity is quite an iffy thing in that culture.
So, I did a little research on the subject of Margaret Marshall and discovered that back in March of this year an ethics complaint was filed against Justice Marshall to remove her from two cases involving homosexual marriage, one of them being the Goodridge vs the Department of Health which was just decided by the Massachusetts Supreme Court. The basis of the complaint was Judge Marshall's "close friendship and association with Atty. Mary Bonauto, the lesbian lawyer for the plaintiffs in the Goodridge case."
In May 1999, the Massachusetts News reported, "Marshall was the honored guest and keynote speaker at the Massachusetts Lesbian and Gay Bar Association. That organization reported in its newsletter that Marshall, who was born in South Africa and moved here to attend college, noted 'with pride' that her native land was the first country to write sexual orientation protections into the national Constitution. In 1998, South Africa's courts struck down laws banning sodomy between consenting adults. According to Massachusetts Lesbian and Gay Bar Association, 'Marshall read excerpts from the stirring decision. The Justice encouraged those lawyers in attendance to pay attention to the growing body of gay-friendly international jurisprudence.'"
According to a Massachusetts News article published on July 2001, before the Goodridge case was even filed, Chief Justice Margaret Marshall said "she favored gay marriage. The Chief Justice of the Superior Court, Suzanne DelVecchio, where the suit was filed, already had told the Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD), who are based in Boston, that she favored same-sex marriage. The GLAD group noted:
"The only lawyers who will be arguing against the lawsuit come from the office of Atty. Gen. Thomas Reilly, who has indicated many times that he also favors gay marriage."
Obviously, this decision, which is being reported and discussed worldwide, was a foregone conclusion, based on opinion and not the law or the Constitution of Massachusetts.
What is NOT being reported anywhere that I checked were the 3 dissenting opinions. Justices Robert J Cordy, Francis X. Spina and Martha B. Sosman, agreed the marriage statute, "as historically interpreted to mean the union of one man and one woman," did not violate Massachusetts Constitution, because "the Legislature could rationally conclude that it furthers the legitimate State purpose of ensuring, promoting, and supporting an optimal social structure for the bearing and raising of children."
In fact, Justice Cordy accused the 4 judges that approved same-sex marriage of "substituting its notion of correct policy for that of a popularly elected legislature's responsible for making it."
Further, Justice Cordy stated that "While 'the Massachusetts Constitution protects matters of personal liberty against government intrusion at least as zealously and often more so than does the Federal Constitution,' this case is not about government intrusions into matters of personal liberty," but "about whether the State must endorse and support the choices of same-sex couples by changing the institution of civil marriage to make its benefits, obligations, and responsibilities applicable to them."
Justice Spina, in a separately filed dissent, stated that "What is at stake in this case is not the unequal treatment of individuals or whether individuals rights have been impermissibly burdened, but the power of the Legislature to effectuate social change without interference from the courts, pursuant to Article 30 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights." He also emphasized that the "power to regulate marriage lies with the Legislature, not with the judiciary."
Justice Sosman's separate dissent stated that "the issue is not whether the Legislature's rationale behind the statutory scheme being challenged is persuasive to the court," but whether it is "rational" for the Legislature to "reserve judgment" on whether changing the definition of marriage "can be made at this time without damaging the institution of marriage or adversely affecting the critical role it has played in our society."
According to the Massachusetts Constitution, judges hold office during "good behavior" and the Massachusetts House of Representatives has the authority to conduct a "grand inquest" and perhaps impeach judges. If I lived in Massachusetts, I'd be asking my state representatives to look into doing an inquest on a judge who financially supported and suggested a lawsuit for her court to decide. This trumped up decision totally changes the meaning of marriage not only in the law, but in every dictionary on the planet as well.
© Mary Mostert
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
