Editorial

Judge Marshall Seeks Personal Gain and Fame; Is Not Helping Homosexuals
May 3, 2004

     After a reporter for the Christian Science Monitor, Sara B. Miller, interviewed Judge Marshall about her ruling on homosexual “marriage,” the reporter wrote that Marshall’s decision was a “pen stroke heard around the world.”

     This amazing public relations coup by Marshall was printed in the Monitor, the only national newspaper located in Boston, on Friday, Nov. 21, 2003 only three days after the Tuesday ruling that made her famous, The article was written on Thursday. It is unheard of for judges to talk to the press about their opinions, much less run after them for publicity.

     “This relatively unknown Massachusetts jurist,” Miller wrote, “has thrust herself into the middle of the nation’s culture war. ... While she is not expected to become a national lightning rod, her recent decision is likely to catapult her onto the national stage, putting her both in the spotlight and the limelight.”

     That needn’t have happened. Judge Marshall could have had another judge write the decision. She could even have helped in the writing if she wished. But if she had done that, she wouldn’t have become famous.

     “Civil Rights” Champion

     Marshall tells reporters she is merely a civil rights advocate, as though she is unique in that quest. But she just doesn’t get it! She doesn’t even appear to realize that her “civil right” will almost always cause a grievous interference with the civil rights of someone else.

     She bragged to the Christian Science Monitor about her “courageous” stands for civil rights. The first paragraph in the paper says: “Margaret Marshall likes to say she’s lived through two revolutions — the overthrow of apartheid in her native South Africa and the advancement of women in the U.S. Now the chief justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court is on the forefront of a third: the redefinition of the family. ... Marshall was raised in South Africa and came of age fighting against systematic segregation, which many say has formed her notions of freedom and fairness as a judge.”

     Another paper, the Berkshire Eagle in Pittsfield, used the same theme in its headline and the following lead paragraph:

     “Echoes of apartheid fight. In 1966, while South Africa was under the grip of apartheid laws that denied black people the right to own land or vote, Margaret H. Marshall led a group of 20,000 student activists protesting the regime’s racial discrimination. … Legal professionals focused on those sentences, especially the use of the words ‘second-class citizens,’ to illustrate the South African born Marshall’s strong belief that the rule of law in this country should prevail over prejudice.”

     If we were to search more stories in more newspapers, we would discover that the Chief gave that same spin to many reporters.

     A serious problem with Marshall’s spin is that most black people in Massachusetts deeply resent any assertion that this is a civil rights issue. This feeling is particularly strong in their churches (although it does not include black politicians). Most are disgusted with any comparison between them and masturbators, such as Hillary and Julie Goodridge, the pinup, poster girl plaintiffs in Marshall’s suit.

     Other problems are that the homosexual newspaper in Boston, Bay Windows, stated in 2002, just after the Protection of Marriage Amendment was defeated by violating the state Constitution, that activists said it was like pulling teeth to get homosexuals interested in the marriage debate. They just didn’t care. They don’t want anyone trying to tell them to join the staid people who have only one spouse for a lifetime. That is not what the great majority of homosexuals desire. The strongest push for homosexual marriage, the newspaper said, came from the radical feminists like Marshall and others at NOW who believe that marriage is bad for women, from the AFL/CIO and from other liberal groups.

     The average homosexual will be much happier going back to the anonymity enjoyed before Marshall teamed up in 1999 with the Chairman of the New York Times and Boston Globe, Pinch Sulzberger, to bring homosexual “marriage” to the nation, beginning in Massachusetts.