SJC Reverses Its Gay Marriage Opinion
            The SJC, in effect, yesterday reversed its gay marriage opinion of Nov. 2003, thus puzzling all commentators.
            The puzzlement is understandable because anyone outside of Massachusetts is unable to understand the pummeling that Margaret Marshall is taking in this state, and no one inside the state has a voice as strong as the Boston Globe. That newspaper is a subsidiary of The New York Times Company, which is the strongest advocate of gay marriage across the entire nation and will continue in that that role so as long as Pinch Sulzberger remains its Chairman.
            “What has basically happened,” we are told by Atty. J. Edward Pawlick, “is that the three diehards, Judges Marshall, Greaney and Ireland continue to snarl at the citizens even though they know they will all be removed from office this year by the Resolution of Rep. Emile Goguen (D-Fitchburg) and an outraged citizenry. Although Goguen will be retiring at the end of 2006, he still has plenty of time left for a vote in the Legislature to Remove those three judges.”
            Meanwhile, the three judges who passionately voted against Marshall and gay marriage in 2003 remain in office: Spina, Sosman and Cordy.
            This leaves Judith Cowin as the judge who is reevaluating her vote. We’ve reported how upset she became when Pinch Sulzberger panicked after the Presidential election of 2004. He began to flail around at many people, including Judge Cowin.
            Sulzberger panicked after the national Democratic pundits began to blame Judge Marshall’s gay marriage opinion for the loss by John Kerry of the Presidency. Of course, Sulzberger had been proud to be the main architect of the opinion. But, after the 2004 election, he immediately attempted to back away from his former friend, Margaret Marshall despite the fact that she is married to Anthony Lewis, the famous columnist at Sulzberger's Times for close to fifty years.
            Yesterday’s opinion was unusual in that there was a very short paragraph of about fifty-words at the beginning, with no one’s name attached to it. That was followed by four concurring opinions with one from each of the three diehards and the lead concurring opinion from Judge Spina, who was vehemently against Marshall’s gay marriage opinion.
            Judge Cowin was not mentioned anywhere and she is obviously the vote that allowed Judge Spina to be the lead writer.

Times Story Written by Pam Belluck Who Libeled Sally Pawlick in 2002
            The story in today’s New York Times was written by the same reporter from the paper’s Boston bureau who libeled Sally Pawlick in April 2002 (as chronicled in the book “Libel by New York Times”) in a prominent story in its Sunday edition which went to over 1.5 million subscribers across the nation. (See Story HERE)
            Today’s story by Belluck was another one-sided view which contained many anecdotes portraying yesterday’s opinion as an attack against unfortunate persons.
            Belluck dug up one Connecticut gay couple who even brought in one of their mothers who had given her blessing as she was dying of cancer. It would be informative to learn what advocacy group told Belluck about that poignant story.
            Belluck even regurgitated the canard that the 1913 law which was found valid in yesterday’s opinion was enacted to prevent interracial marriage. She even quoted the Conn. gay couple as saying they feel “like the back of the bus.”
            The Times reporter attempted to increase the importance of Margaret Marshall by reporting what Marshall wrote in the “other” concurring opinion. Belluck made that statement even though all four opinions were concurring opinions. Marshall’s was no more important than the others, except in the eyes of Belluck.
            Belluck gave great hope to those in New York by making them believe they would fare okay because the trial judge in Massachusetts, who had also held against the gay couples and whose decision had been appealed to the SJC, and was instructed in yesterday’s ruling to determine whether New York still prohibits same sex marriage. Most commentators believe the trial judge will need only a few hours to decide that detail.

Related Stories:
- NYT Story from Last Friday: "Massachusetts Court Limits Gay Unions"

- MassNews Story from Nov. 2, 2002: "New York Times Uses 'Horse Story' to Join Boston Globe in Libeling Supporters of Amendment"

- MassNews Story from April 8, 2002: "NYT Joins Attack on Marriage Amendment"

Coming on Monday
            Yesterday’s decision will obviously be discussed by many lawyers for days and months to come as it continues to unfold. We will report on this important story on Monday and amplify whether it does mean the curtailment or end of gay marriage in Massachusetts.