Justice Martha Sosman Exposed Marshall Back in 2004
       Justice Martha Sosman exposed Chief Justice Marshall in the second opinion of Feb. 2004 after the state Senate wrote that they were confused by Marshall’s first opinion.
       The Senate said they needed guidance as to whether their proposed “civil unions” (they would be identical to marriage) would satisfy the Constitutional requirements as stated in Judge Marshall’s first opinion.
       The reasons for the removal of Chief Justice Margaret Marshall were clearly stated at that time by Justice Sosman in the opinion of February 3.
       However, Sosman’s words have never been publicized by any newspaper, including the New York Times/Boston Globe conglomerate, which is the prime force behind gay marriage across the nation.
       Justice Sosman did not specifically say that Marshall should be removed from office because that is a decision for the Legislature, but Sosman clearly demonstrated how the Chief Justice had violated her oath of office.
       Sosman also opined that the opponents of gay marriage had been squandering their time in a fruitless effort to defend the word “marriage.” She noted 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.

Sosman Had to Use Marshall’s “Buzz Words”
       When Justice Sosman discussed the frailties of Justice Marshall’s decision, she had to include the “buzz” words which Judge Marshall had used to intimidate everyone else, including most lawyers who know nothing about this arcane language, such as “suspect classification” and “strict scrutiny.”
       The following is a tiny sample of the language that Justice Sosman was forced to use. She was saying that even Justice Marshall didn’t understand these buzz words. It is clear that our readers will not understand them 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 Disagree with Justice Sosman
       The term “fig leaf” was used by Sosman to describe what Marshall was doing to confuse the pubic. She said that Marshall had come to the point where she just “assumes” that discrimination based on sexual orientation is prohibited by our Constitution. She no longer bothered 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 the following (and highly 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 though Margaret Marshall were back in law school and unable to answer the questions of her more erudite classmate. In effect, she just replied: “BECAUSE, that’s why.”