John Greaney's Court Mandated Gay Marriage in 1990's
            It was John Greaney's Court throughout the 1990s that mandated homosexual "marriage" in 2003.
            It is he, not Margaret Marshall, who is in charge at the SJC. You have only to read the Oral Argument of the Goodridge case to see that Marshall felt inadequate and totally out-of-her-league.
            Greaney was born in the state, not in South Africa. When Marshall first arrived in this country as a 24-year-old student in 1968 for a Masters in Education from Harvard, John Greaney had already been a lawyer for five years.
            Greaney was already a judge in 1975 when Margaret was in her second year of law school. He was a respected judge in four courts before going to the SJC in 1989. Margaret found him securely ensconced there when she arrived in 1996.
           John undoubtedly feels he was cheated out of becoming the "Chief" only because Margaret is a woman.

            How Did Greaney & Marshall Accomplish Homosexual "Marriage?"
            Margaret Marshall indicated in her Goodridge opinion on Nov. 18 2003 that the people of this state had embraced homosexual marriage in the 1990s. We couldn’t change our minds now, she said.
            Guess how Marshall determined that the people had accepted homosexual “marriage.”
            She was talking about opinions that were written in the 1990s by Greaney & Marshall.
            Adoption of a Gay Partner's Child by John Greaney
            A lesbian was allowed to adopt her partner’s child even though nothing in the law of adoption allowed this.
            John Greaney wrote the opinion in 1993, noting that both women were medical doctors on the faculty of Harvard Medical School and that the child would inherit a large sum of money from the non-parent if the adoption were allowed. Even though the child was less than two-years-old, Greaney was impressed that “over a dozen witnesses, including mental health professionals, teachers, colleagues, neighbors, blood relatives and a priest and a nun” testified that the infant was well adjusted.  A Harvard psychiatrist testified that the research on the subject was that “children raised by lesbian parents developed normally.”
            As for the statute (which did not allow for such an adoption), John Greaney opined, “While the Legislature may not have envisioned adoption by same-sex partners,” we’re going to allow it anyhow. But three other judges said, “Not so fast.” Although they also believed that this adoption could be beneficial to the child, they objected to doing by “judicial fiat” something that “our elected representatives and the general public have as yet, failed to endorse.” In other words, John Greaney was already breaking the laws for his own personal views.
            The case did not gather much attention in 1993. But nevertheless, Marshall held in 2003 in “Goodridge” that the people of the state are bound by this SJC decision of 1993. They should have noticed what the Court was doing.
            There were only two “friend of the court” briefs filed, both of them in favor of Greaney’s decision, one coming from the young lawyer, Mary L. Bonauto for the Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD). The case was known as “Adoption of Tammy.”

            Lesbian Demands Visitation

            In a 1999 case, two lesbians were fighting over a child. Three of the four judges who would eventually vote for homosexual "marriage" were already on the Court. They were Greaney, Marshall and Ireland. The fourth, Judith Cowin, was still on the Superior Court and about to jump over her husband who was still in practice and would be appointed to the state Appeals Court in 2001.

            In addition, Margaret Marshall had just given her famous speech to the Lesbian and Gay Bar Association and a new Publisher of the Globe, Richard H. Gilman, was about to be dispatched from New York by Pinch Sulzberger to ensure the elevation of Margaret Marshall to be Chief Justice and to impose gay marriage. None of the three dissenters in “Goodridge” (all to be appointed by Cellucci) were yet appointed to the SJC.

            The lesbians were fighting about whether the non-mother should be allowed to demand visitation rights to the child of her former partner (who had the child by artificial insemination).

            There was a very strong and able conservative on the Court, Justice Charles Fried, who shortly thereafter returned to Harvard Law School and was being mentioned as a candidate for the U.S. Supreme Court.

            Judge Fried wrote the following about the Greaney clique. He was joined by Judge Lynch.

             "The probate judge’s order in this case was wholly without warrant in statute, precedent, or any known legal principle, and yet the majority of the court has upheld it. As such, the opinion the court delivers today is a remarkable example of judicial lawmaking. …

            "And how else can the court find enough to outweigh what the court admits is a long-standing constitutional right --- the ‘fundamental liberty interest’ of parents in raising their children without interference by the State?"
            The name of the case was E.N.O. v. L.M.M. It was decided on June 29, 1999. That is how the citizens of Massachusetts embraced homosexual "marriage."

            Justice Greaney Likes Mary Bonauto Very Much
            When all the SJC judges discussed "gay marriage" for a half-hour in March 2003 (during the session known by lawyers as Oral Argument), the most experienced person in the court by far was Justice Greaney. He had been a judge since 1975 on four different courts, finally being appointed to the SJC in 1989.
            He understands that permitting only two people, both lawyers, to talk to the judges to discuss the most significant case in the history of the SJC.-- for a total of 37 minutes and 11 seconds -- was a travesty. This meant that the attorney for the plaintiffs, Mary Bonauto, and the attorney for the state, Judith Yogman, had only 15 minutes apiece, No one else was ever allowed to discuss this particular case with any Justice. This was unusual and was apparently decided only by Margaret Marshall.
            (The only exception to this self-imposed rule was Ed Pawlick, attorney for Mass. Citizens for Marriage, who had to be allowed to appear four times in 2002-2003, twice before all seven of the Justices and twice before a Single Justice.)

            Greaney Very Supportive of Mary Bonauto; Assures Her She Would Win
            When Bonauto spoke, Justice Greaney was very supportive. He assured her she was going to win and he discussed the possibility of another “anti-homosexual” Amendment being offered, to take effect in 2006.
            He told Bonauto: “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.” She replied: “That is correct, Your Honor, it has not.” Greaney responded: “So presumably, if you win, and I'm certain you would, this would not either.”
            After assuring Bonauto that she would win, Greaney then helped Chief Justice Marshall in her blatant attempt to prevent Atty. Yogman, an Assistant Attorney General, from presenting her case. Yogman had been speaking for only eight seconds when Marshall first interrupted. She proceeded to take 56% of Yogman's time. John Greaney took another 26% of her time, leaving only 18% for the other five judges, not to mention Atty. Yogman.
            At the end of the farce, Greaney sat and watched as Marshall shut Yogman down when she politely requested an additional 30 seconds, which she had already been granted, to finish her point.
            No person should ever treat any other person in such a discourteous and nasty manner. This type of conduct by anyone at any time is reprehensible and indicates that that person does not have the necessary qualities to be a judge. It can all be read on our transcript of the Oral Argument.
            It should be noted that only a few days previous, Justice Greaney had sat as a Single Justice and dismissed the lawsuit of Mass, Citizens for Marriage by Atty. Ed Pawlick, which would have sent the Protection of Marriage Amendment back to the legislators who violated the Constitution by refusing to vote on it in 2002, thus violating the state Constitution. If Greaney had done as Pawlick suggested, it would have stopped him and Marshall from imposing homosexual marriage as they had been planning for years.
            Greaney discussed this with Bonauto, saying: "the one [Amendment] that was making its way through the legislature last year [the MCM Amendment] is now more or less defunct?”

            He knew the Amendment was defunct. He was the one who had just made it so.  The name of the "marriage" case was “Goodridge v. Dept. of Health."

Judge Greaney Says Citizens Believe Judges Are "Politicians in Black Robes"
            Justice John Greaney told the judges who sit in the historic Superior Court on Nov. 1, 2002, that citizens now see judges as nothing more than "politicians in black robes."
            As if to prove his point, Greaney helped impose gay marriage on the state a year later on Nov. 18, 2003. It was a tie 3-3 vote among the six Associate Justices, thus making everyone a "swing-vote." Greaney could have avoided becoming a politician as the people feared. The three Justices who disagreed with Marshall (and Greaney) made it clear that she was legislating, not acting as a judge.
            Justice Robert Cordy: "The Legislature is the appropriate branch ... It is not enough that we as Justices might be personally of the view that we have learned enough to decide what is best. So long as the question is at all debatable, it must be the Legislature that decides."
            Justice Martha Sosman and Justice Francis Spina: "As a matter of constitutional jurisprudence, however, the case stands as an aberration. To reach the result it does, the court has tortured the rational basis test beyond recognition.
            "The issue is not whether the Legislature's rationale behind that scheme is persuasive to us, but only whether it satisfies a minimal threshold of rationality. Today, rather than apply that test, the court announces that, because it is persuaded that there are no differences between same-sex and opposite-sex couples, the Legislature has no rational basis for treating them differently with respect to the granting of marriage licenses. ...
            "It is not, however, our assessment that matters."
            In other words, these liberal judges are saying that Greaney & Marshall are a rogue court that is legislating from the bench.

Atty. J. Edward Pawlick Argues Before Justice Greaney
While Sally Pawlick, President of Mass. Citizens for Marriage,
Looks on.

Judge Greaney Is Very Unprofessional
            When Atty. Ed Pawlick was arguing before Justice Greaney who was sitting as a Single Justice on Feb. 5, 2003, Pawlick was startled to hear Greaney asking him why Gov. Jane Swift had waited so long to ask the SJC what she had to do to obey the law. Pawlick is still wondering why the judge asked him.
            The following colloquy took place with Pawlick's unspoken thoughts appearing in boldface:

JUSTICE GREANEY: Why did the Governor wait so long to send those questions over here?

    How the heck do I know Judge? But if you really want to know what I think (although this has nothing to do with why you and I are here right now), Jane Swift didn't really want this to happen. She didn't want you to make it crystal-clear that she was violating the Constitution and had to call back the Legislature. But I'm very glad that she asked you.

MR. PAWLICK: Well, if you want my opinion. She obviously didn't want this to happen and she felt goaded into it by our lawsuit and for some reason, she made a mistake. She shouldn't have asked you for an opinion and everything might have rolled right over. Why she did it, I don't know, but I'm very glad she did.

JUSTICE GREANEY: Well, she could have done it much earlier, couldn't she?

       I don't know how much you want to know about Gov. Swift, but the only reason she asked your advice is because I finally located her home address and sent her a FedEx letter just before Thanksgiving. She is being sued personally by another unhappy citizen and I told her we would be doing the same if she didn't start to follow the law. That's why she asked you. But her attorneys have always known the law and so did she.

     To be honest, it appears obvious she thought you wouldn't be able to answer her quickly and she was hoping you would refuse her request. You would have been well within your rights if you had done so.

     I will always wonder which Justice(s) it was in your court who voted to answer her questions and even write an Opinion which was unanimous, with even Judge Marshall joining. It gave me hope and made me realize that the SJC was not united behind Margaret Marshall, even though the Globe made everyone believe the opposite.
     It still amazes me that even highly intelligent lawyers don't bother to read your opinions. That used to bother me when I was advising the lawyers with my Lawyers Weekly newspapers and I heard about lawyers running into a court while waving Lawyers Weekly instead of your opinion.

MR. PAWLICK: She could have, yes. She should have done it right away. She didn't even need to do it. I don't know how much I should say, but you know we've been in constant touch with her lawyers throughout this whole thing and there is no question in my mind that they knew what the law was and they said to her what the law was. She just didn't want to follow it. If you notice, she never had a lawyer speak. No lawyer ever got up and said what her rights were and what her duties were. It was always somebody else, a press person or somebody like that because their lawyers knew.
         We were talking with their lawyers, they knew what the law was. They didn't need to ask you. They knew what the law was. The law was clear and was the same as you found it. She had to call them [the legislature] back. It said "shall." And we go back to the same word that was used in the Clean Elections case where you made short schrift of what "shall" means. I mean it's very clear what "shall" means and they knew. The lawyers knew and she knew, she just didn't want to do it. And even after it was clear to everybody on December 20th, [when you told the Governor and the Legislature that they had both broken the law and had to have a vote before Dec. 31] she still didn't do it. She just didn't want to do it.

Judge Greaney Wasn't Troubled that MCM Worked Three Years, Spent $1.7 Million and the Legislature Threw their Amendment in the Trash
            Even though thousands of citizens worked for three years for MCM, spending over $1.7 million, Judge Greaney wasn't troubled when the Legislature threw their Amendment in the trash --- despite the fact that Greaney & Marshall said the Legislature had violated the Constitution.
            The catch was that Justices Marshall, Greaney, Ireland and Cowin said that even though it was illegal, the citizens at MCM had no right to complain about it.
            Here's how Judge Greaney personally answered Atty. Pawlick about this issue on Feb. 5, 2003 when Greaney was the Single Justice on MCM's case:   

MR. PAWLICK: It's very important to my client that they spent three years of their lives, $1.7 million on this thing and to say, "Well, you can come back next year and spend another two or three years and another million, two million dollars and hope that the Legislature will hear it next time?" That's all you have is a hope? What's going to change them? They're not going to change.
            I mean if they can get away with this, they'll get away with it next time. We've just thrown out half of article 48 [the law which specifies the procedure for referendums of constitutional amendments]. It's almost worthless because you never know who the Senate leader [the person in charge of voting on Amendments who could decide to throw an Amendment out as Sen. Birmingham did], is going to be, what he's going to do. So you can't come back again.
            I mean you'd be—really—you're really kind of stupid to come back this time, I guess, but you'd really be stupid to do it again. So I don't know what the answer is, but you know we've suggested one answer is to just send it [back] to them [the Legislature]. It's not a very drastic remedy at all. They can kill it again if they want to if that's their choice, but they should follow the law this time and at least take a vote on it.

JUSTICE GREANEY: Okay. I think I got it. Do you want to add anything else?

MR. PAWLICK: No, I think that's it.

JUSTICE GREANEY: Okay. Well, I'll take the time to study your papers and get back to both of you.

John Greaney Is 66-Years-Old and Can Retire with a Generous Pension
            John Greaney is at the retirement age of most persons. He reached his 66th birthday on April 8, 2005. In any event, he will be forced to resign soon when he reaches age 70. If he resigns now, he can receive a generous retirement. If he persists in battling the Removal process for whatever reason, he will lose his retirement benefits.
            The honorable thing for him at this point is to take his retirement and leave. If he makes a big case out of this, it will only further damage the Court and him. It is his choice. 

Full text of the Oral Argument in the “Goodridge” case can be found only at MassNews: http://www.macitizensformarriage.com/articles/060204_oral_argument.htm