Law Professors Misquote Court - On Purpose?

Tell Obvious Lie to Attack Marriage Amendment

MassNews Staff
June 27, 2002

A Memorandum by 23 law professors in an attack upon the Protection of Marriage Amendment totally misquoted a June 3rd decision by the Supreme Judicial Court, says James Lafferty, a spokesman for Mass. Citizens for Marriage.

The professors numbered three or less from each of the following law schools, Southern New England, Boston College, Boston University, Harvard and New England. The law school at Northeastern had 6 sign the memo and Suffolk had 7, including the chair, Jane L. Scarborough, who is a member of the Massachusetts Lesbian Gay Bar Association.

The law professors wrote in the Memorandum, that was widely distributed on Beacon Hill, that in a decision "just issued" on June 3, "The Court acknowledged that, if adopted, the Amendment may affect 'one's ability to inherit, to file taxes, to make medical decisions about a spouse, and to file wrongful death claims.'"

In fact, the Court made no such statement, says Lafferty. It merely said that the plaintiffs argued that point.

The Court's words in the decision were: "The plaintiffs argue that the petition contains subjects that are neither related nor mutually dependent because it affects same-sex couples in many different contexts. In support of this position, the plaintiffs list various statutes that relate to the rights and responsibilities of marriage, including those laws that affect one's ability to inherit, to file taxes, to make medical decisions about a spouse, and to file wrongful death claims." [emphasis added]

Lafferty said, "I know they said the signers are law professors, but I think their legal training consisted of several long dinners at Legal Seafood.

"Any first-year law student would recognize the attempted deception in this memo. If they truly respect the Court's decisions they will stop twisting Tom Birmingham's arm and let the people vote on this amendment as the Court said they should.

"Attempting to mislead the public by disguising their weak arguments as judicial opinion is another desperate effort to stop Massachusetts voters from getting a vote on this issue.

"The Protection of Marriage Amendment defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman. It does not cancel anyone's health insurance, affect collective bargaining by labor unions or keep someone from visiting a consenting adult in a hospital.

"Lie as they may, anti-marriage extremists are pulling out all the stops to prevent a vote by the 130,000 people who signed the marriage petitions."

Massachusetts Citizens for Marriage is a coalition of Massachusetts citizens who support the Protection of Marriage Amendment and traditional one-man/one-woman marriages.