Second in a Series - News Analysis
Justice Marshall Allowed No Discussion, Says Justice Martha Sosman
“Marriage” Would Be Available to Every Same-Sex Couple, Whether Homosexual or Not
Total Destruction of Marriage
By Attorney J. Edward Pawlick
April 8, 2004

     Justice Margaret Marshall did not allow any discussion as to the effects of homosexual marriage when she wrote her “historic” opinions, says Justice Martha Sosman and her fellows, Justice Francis Spina and Justice Robert Cordy.

     There will be many surprises if her ruling is allowed to stand, including that every same-sex couple must be allowed to insist upon the right to “marry,” regardless of whether they are homosexual or not.

     Justice Sosman’s succinct warning was: “ [The] 180-day deadline imposed by Goodridge [which expires on May 17] does not realistically allow for a review of every one of the ‘hundreds of statutes’ in Massachusetts alone that are ‘related to marriage and to marital benefits.’”

     In other words, Marshall rushed this through so that the full implications of her ruling would not be understood until it was too late. If she is not removed from her perch of power before May 17, the state will be thrust into chaos from which it will be impossible to recover.

     No Public Discussion Ever Allowed

     There was no discussion ever allowed of either of her two rulings  none.

     In the initial ruling last November, she mandated that all homosexual couples must receive all the benefits of marriage. In her second ruling in February, she decided that they must also be allowed to use the name “marriage.” There was no discussion ever permitted about this momentous and historic change to our society.

     Justice Marshall decided this during private musings in the sanctity of her own office. The Rules of Ethics do not allow her to discuss it with anyone except the other Justices. This is why judges are not allowed to “legislate.” They serve an entirely different function than a Legislature.

     Can anyone believe that Marshall never discussed any of this with her radical, liberal husband, the premiere columnist for the New York Times, Anthony Lewis? Was there no discussion of it ever? This is particularly troubling when one considers that her husband’s boss, the Chairman of the New York Times, Pinch Sulzberger, was the main protagonist behind the entire scheme.

     Are we also to believe that the swing voter, Justice Judith Cowin, never discussed this case with her husband, William Cowin, who is also a state judge, on the Appeals Court? (That’s a cozy arrangement, isn’t it?) No one will believe that she didn’t do so. That would not be too egregious if the matter had been thoroughly aired before the public. But there was no discussion ever allowed by Marshall before she sprung her personal “historic” opinion on the world.

     It’s true that Margaret Marshall allowed some lawyers to file briefs with the court, but no one knows whether she ever bothered to read them, much less allowed anyone to argue with her about the effect of the decision. This is unprecedented.

     The only public argument was on March 4, 2003 when a very nervous and nasty Marshall allowed another lawyer, an Assistant Attorney General, Margaret Yogman, to talk for a few minutes. But she was constantly interrupted and treated rudely. Both Yogman and the attorney for the plaintiffs, Mary Bonauto were given a combined time of 37 minutes and 11 seconds to address the judges. No one else was ever allowed to do so.

     Justice Marshall first interrupted Yogman when she was only eight seconds into her allotted time of fifteen minutes. She consumed 56% of Yogman’s time, never allowed her to present her case, and even more important, prevented the other judges from asking questions. Marshall and her cohort, Justice John Greaney, together took 82% of Yogman’s time. (The only place that an entire transcript of this hearing can be found anywhere is in the archives of MassNews. It is a fascinating and revealing document for anyone interested in forming their own opinion about this scandal.)

 

     Although no one realized it at the time, the reason that Marshall was so nervous was because she was presiding over a deeply divided court. She didn’t want any of the dissenters to reveal the deep discontent. She just wanted to get this over in a hurry. At the end, after she granted Yogman “a few minutes” to sum-up, Marshall suddenly closed down the charade after the attorney had spoken for only 28 seconds. When Yogman politely asked for 30 seconds more in order to finish a portion of what she had been trying to say, Marshall snapped, “I’m afraid your time is up,” and everyone in the courtroom was ordered to stand while she quickly fled the room.

     That was the only discussion that Margaret Marshall ever allowed.

     If this matter were considered by the legislature, there would have to be many hearings and discussions that would go on for months. But not in Margaret Marshall’s courtroom.

     As Justice Sosman points out, the second decision was even worse. Marshall made that decision in the privacy of her own room without even a pretense of discussion with anyone. Again, some attorneys, only attorneys, were allowed to file briefs, but no one knows if any were ever read.

     Marriage for Everyone

      Although Justice Sosman pointed out many problems that will arise from Margaret Marshall’s secret and hasty rulings  after it will be too late to do anything about it  she did not talk about the most important surprise of all, that any same sex couple will be able to demand a marriage license.

     This will become perfectly obvious to everyone if they stop to think about it. For example, if two women in their fifties apply for a marriage license, no one would know whether or not they are homosexual or whether they even live together. They could just be two people looking for financial benefits from the taxpayers. It would not take long for this to become public knowledge and an accepted practice. Or two college boys could do so, only as a lark.

     Or Margaret Marshall could appoint unemployed lawyers to investigate and determine whether the two women really do masturbate each other. And Margaret could set up rules for how many orgasms would have to occur each year in order to qualify.