Full Text of Oral Argument

	LIBEL by New York Times by J. Edward Pawlick Order Yours Now!

John Greaney Told Mary Bonauto that She Will Win
John Greaney told Mary Bonauto, before he even heard from Judith Yogman, that she will win this case which is now before the Supreme Judicial Court. He told her, "…if you win, and I'm certain you would…"

There is some question why he said "would" instead of "will" and whether it is this case which she will "win," but there is no question that he was greatly encouraging her and he was undoubtedly telling her she will win this lawsuit.

You decide for yourself by reading the small segment that follows. You will also see that Greaney agreed that the voters would approve the Protection of Marriage Amendment if he, Greaney, is not successful in killing it first.

JUSTICE GREANEY: Politically, if we were looking at a constitutional amendment [i.e., the Protection of Marriage Amendment], we are looking at what, at the earliest 2006 [that it could be approved]?

JUSTICE GREANEY: Because the one that was making its way through the legislature last year is now more or less defunct? [He's not certain if it is defunct, but as Single Justice he dismissed it without comment on Feb. 28, 2003. That has been appealed and the full Court will decide, probably this May.]

		ATTY. BONAUTO: Correct. And I suspect, Your Honor, that if this court were to grant the relief of plaintiffs' request here, which is the issuance of marriage licenses, even in a worst-case scenario [which is that the Protection of Marriage Amendment were passed], picking up on your line of thinking, Your Honor. Even in a worst-case scenario, what we would have is three full years of married couples in this Commonwealth. [Before the Amendment would define marriage as one man and one woman] * * * So even in a worst-case scenario, Your Honor, we're talking about three years in this Commonwealth of married couples [if you approve this lawsuit and stop the citizens from voting for at least three years], and I think by the end of those three years what people would see very easily is

that nothing has been taken away from them, nothing has been taken away from their mar-riages. But these other families who are now allowed to marry have been strengthened and that's good for the community as a whole.

Take Vermont, for example, the opponents in Vermont argued strenuously that the civil union system was the exact same thing as marriage, it was masquerading as marriage. Certainly, at just two years, the situation there has completely calmed down and civil unions are not an issue anymore. [Very few people would agree with that statement, but Greaney did.]

JUSTICE GREANEY: And, contrary to the argument of the Attorney Generals from the other states, the Vermont situation didn't set off a firestorm throughout the rest of the country.

JUSTICE GREANEY: So presumably, if you win, and I'm certain you would, this would not either.