|
|---|
 |
First in a Series - News Analysis The reasons which require the removal of Chief Justice Margaret Marshall were clearly stated by SJC Justice Martha Sosman in her opinion of February 3. It was her answer to a request by the Senate for clarification of Marshall’s earlier ruling of November 18, 2003. However, Sosman’s words have never been publicized by any newspaper, including the Boston Globe, which is the prime force behind gay marriage as documented by my new book, “Libel by New York Times,” which is drawing warm praise from Alan Keyes and others. Justice Sosman did not specifically state that Marshall should be removed, because that is a decision for the Legislature with the approval of the Governor and his Council, but she clearly showed how the Chief Justice has violated her oath of office. Sosman also demonstrated that opponents of gay marriage have been squandering time, letting the clock run out in a fruitless effort to defend the word “marriage.” Justice Sosman notes that “civil unions” are “marriage,” regardless of what anyone calls them. She cited Romeo and Juliet to remind everyone that “a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.” She told the citizens that the proposed law the Court was asked to consider would give same-sex couples everything that married couples get. The only difference would be that the Senate would call the new relationship a "civil union" instead of a civil "marriage." Otherwise, they would be identical. State Will Be Thrown into Chaos by Illegal Power Justice Sosman used very harsh words to describe the illegal power that Justice Marshall is using to impose her personal will upon the state. She said that Marshall’s decision is not “rational” and is “nonsensical.” She said it destroys the “fig leaf” of Marshall’s first opinion of November 18, 2003. “Marshall had no reason to do what she did,” says Justice Sosman. Sosman worried about who else will apply for marriage. Although she did not name them, I have worried publicly, including two times before all the Justices of the SJC last year, about singling out just homosexuals to receive the benefits of marriage when others also seek those benefits. Some of the others who also want to included are: ●those who love more than one woman and consequently desire more than one wife, ●straight people who do not wish to follow any rules in regard to their union, including the responsibility for children, and ●those who desire group sex. When I asked that question in 2002 of the Vermont legislative leader who had promoted civil unions, he replied that the others hadn’t been included in Vermont simply because they hadn’t asked to be. When Justice Sosman discussed who else could be applying for marriage after May if the decision is allowed to stand, she had to include the “buzz” words that Marshall and other judges and lawyers use to intimidate everyone else even including most lawyers who know nothing about this arcane language. This is a tiny sample of the language that Justice Sosman is forced to use. She is saying that even Justice Marshall doesn’t understand it. It is clear that you will not understand it either. Just think about reading an entire opinion of this gobbledygook. The following is just one paragraph from the Sosman opinion. “[O]ther types of persons, [who also want to marry] making claims of a denial of equal protection will need to know whether they, too, can qualify as a ‘suspect’ classification under that new test and thereby obtain strict scrutiny analysis of any statute, regulation, or program that uses that classification. No analysis of why sexual orientation should be treated as a suspect classification was provided in Goodridge [the November 18 opinion], and none is provided today. Yet that is, apparently, the interpretation that is now being given to Goodridge. The footnote disclaimer [by Marshall] of any resort to ‘suspect classification’ and corresponding ‘strict scrutiny’ analysis, ante at n.3, rings hollow in light of the sweeping text of today's answer.” Marshall Unable to Argue The term “fig leaf” was used by Sosman to describe what Marshall is doing to confuse the pubic. She says that Marshall has come to the point where she just “assumes” that discrimination based on sexual orientation is prohibited by our Constitution. She no longer bothers to try to prove it, because she can’t. Justice Sosman challenged Justice Marshall. She asked her to “identify the new test” that she has “apparently adopted for determining” who else will qualify to be “married.” Sosman said nothing has been given as to what the new test will be when bigamists and others apply. Justice Marshall was incapable of answering Justice Sosman. She felt it necessary to insert an unusual footnote to say she was unable to understand or to answer Sosman’s erudite critique. “In any event, we fail to understand why the separate opinion [of Justice Sosman] chastises us for adopting the constitutional test (rational basis) …” In other words, this entire debate about the foundation of our society is dependent upon which buzz word a judge picks, “rational basis,” “strict scrutiny,” “fundamental rights,” “suspect classifications,” or a myriad of others. According to Justice Sosman, Margaret Marshall “ assumes that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is prohibited by our Constitution” because she is unable to give a rational reason for what she is attempting. Sosman says that Marshall’s explanations “ring hollow.” It’s as if Margaret Marshall is back in law school and unable to answer the questions of her more erudite classmate. She just says, “BECAUSE. that’s why.” Justice Sosman has the agreement of two of her fellow judges, Justices Robert Cordy and Francis Spina. |
|
|
Archives | Letters | Bookshop |
