Chief Justices Margaret Marshall and Suzanne DelVecchio Must Resign

‘Gay Marriage’ Lawsuit Leaves Them
No Choice; They’re Not Impartial Jurists

Other May editorials:
Not the Only Transgression of Margaret Marshall
What Should Gov. Swift Do About Fistgate?

Both Chief Justice Margaret Marshall of the Supreme Judicial Court and Chief Justice Suzanne DelVecchio of the Superior Court must resign from their positions immediately.

They have no other honorable choice in light of the homosexual marriage suit that was filed in the Superior Court in Boston last month.

This is true because they have already articulated their desire to change the Massachusetts Constitution to accommodate the homosexual activists. They are not impartial jurists.

That’s why the activists have switched their campaign from the 160 people  in the House of Representatives on Beacon Hill and the 40 in the Senate (plus Governor Swift) to the seven people on the Supreme Judicial Court.

Even the Boston Globe reported, “Those seeking the change said they hope the case will end up in the Supreme Judicial Court ...”

Of course it will end up in the SJC. Where else could it go? The Globe also reported that the suit “reflects some impatience with the Legislature among members of the gay community.” It said, “Legal specialists say that the SJC could well look kindly on the suit...”

All of our judges are bound by the Code of Judicial Conduct never to get involved in political issues. And yet these two, who should know better, have done so. Now it is too late to do any honorable thing other than to resign.

They have an unsolvable conflict of interest. It is impossible for them to cure the conflict. If they attempt to do so, they will put an indelible stain on the courts that will cause great damage.

- Judge DelVecchio - The Chief Justice of the Superior Court, Suzanne DelVecchio, is publicly on record in favor of homosexual marriage. She attended a meeting of Massachusetts Lesbian & Gay Bar Association last year. She told the group that she favors homosexual marriage. She said:

“Vermont recognizes same-sex couples. And here we are in Massachusetts. Would you please? It’s embarrassing. Could we get with the program a little bit? ... The only way gays and lesbians in this state are going to achieve what has been achieved in Vermont is to say who you are, apply for the [important] jobs and demand to be seated at the table ... Nothing is easy. Do you think getting my hair this color is easy?”

Now that a case on this issue is coming before her court, how can Judge DelVecchio possibly say she is impartial?

- Justice Margaret Marshall - The Chief Justice of the SJC, Margaret Marshall gives money from the state and federal governments each year to different organizations who help “the poor.” It is a very subjective decision. When she gives money, she is putting her imprimatur on every organization which receives such money from her. She is telling the world and the judges beneath her that that organization represents the poor and the downtrodden.

Every judge in the state is aware of the organizations which receive this benefit from their Chief. The Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders receive money from her, and every judge in the state knows it. Every judge knows that his or her boss has a bias in favor of GLAD.

- Both Justices Marshall and DelVecchio - Both Justices Marshall and DelVecchio were distinguished guests at the Annual Gala of the Women’s Bar Association last fall which honored the lesbian lawyer, Mary Bonauto, who filed the lawsuit for GLAD last month.

Bonauto is also the lawyer who obtained the unconstitutional gag order against the whistleblowing parents who revealed what occurred at Fistgate last year. She has received unwavering support from Judge Allen van Gestel of the Superior Court in that suit, including his infamous gag order about which the entire country laughed uproariously until he lifted it against everyone except the two poor parents. All the pieces seem to be fitting together as we see what happens when this friend of the mighty, Mary Bonauto, takes a case to the Massachusetts courts.

The Women’s Bar Association which honored Bonauto last year at its Annual Gala is a highly partisan organization which lobbies extensively both in the courts, which Marshall controls, and in the legislature. It was a political event last fall, which is forbidden to judges. The featured speaker was a political star, Dee Dee Myers, former press secretary for Bill Clinton. She received a rousing burst of applause when she predicted that Gore would win by a large margin. But Myers’ loudest applause came when she announced that Hillary would win New York. She noted that she and Marshall are both married to the New York Times because they both have husbands who are employed there.

Judges Marshall and DelVecchio should not have been at this political, partisan event which honored Attorney Bonauto. It showed very poor judgment. Who will ever believe that they can be impartial in this lawsuit in which they will be the ultimate decision-makers?

In order to save the dignity of the courts, they must resign. If not, they will become a visible image of corruption in our courts.

Not the Only Transgression of Margaret Marshall

May 2001 

The above violations of judicial conduct are not the only transgressions of Chief Justice Margaret Marshall.

An avowed feminist, she believes there must be controversy between the sexes. When addressing a group of women at the “Women 2000” conference in Worcester last fall, she said their goal must be to elect “women and those who are interested in the interests of women” if they are going to get the society they want.

She also noted that the Democrats, and not the Republicans, are their friends. She told the women in Worcester that four of the seven justices then serving on the SJC were women and she quickly added, “Three of the women were appointed by Republican governors. I think it means that women have faced enormous obstacles, but they have also been supported in different degrees from all kinds of places, expected and unexpected.” She obviously did not believe that Republicans could be nice to women.

This Chief Justice was outspoken in her belief in abortion and gun control. She noted that until the sixties, there hadn’t been a lot of notice of the courts by the citizens. Then, she stated, “Partly through certain decisions, like Brown v. Board of Education, like Roe v. Wade, like the school gun cases,” the citizens came to appreciate the importance of the Court. She emphasized that the President can only nominate, subject to approval by the Senate. We have to elect people to the Senate who will act as we want, she said. “This is the hard work of democracy. You can’t look at it and say, ‘This president is going to put that judge on’” and give us what we want. Therefore, she advised all the women present to consider their votes for senator most carefully.

She did not admonish everyone that the reason for voting was to help their country. She advised the women attendees that “the gender revolution” will continue only if women “exercise your right to vote at every opportunity that you have.”

This person is obviously not an impartial judge who considers a case carefully before she makes a decision. She is a political animal who already has her agendas. 

What Should Gov. Swift Do About Fistgate?

May 2001 

What should Gov. Swift do about Fistgates I and II?

Is there anything the Governor can do to satisfy those pesty, concerned parents who threatened Paul Cellucci’s appointment to Canada?

It’s very simple. All she has to do is to stop the “indoctrination” of children and begin “teaching” them. We all know what the difference is.

If the Governor believes that homosexuality is a subject that must be taught in every school in the state, she should be sure that all the different sides are being presented to the children. She could show her good faith by doing the following.

- Hire medical doctors (probably on a part-time basis) to teach the risks of homosexuality to the students at every school.

- Hire former homosexuals who are now heterosexual and who believe that homosexuals can and do change. The Governor may not agree with them, but how can she deny their existence?

- Get the famous psychiatrist, Dr. Robert Spitzer, who spearheaded the fight in 1973 to remove homosexuality from the list of mental disorders of the American Psychiatric Association. Have him come from New York and talk to Massachusetts teachers about his new findings that homosexuals can change.

- Require gay/straight alliances to teach all sides of the subject.

Since most conservatives are also libertarians, one must wonder whether the Weld/Cellucci approach of making this a subject of state control is appropriate. The best answer is to give control back to the parents where it belongs. However, inasmuch as the State has taken control, the Governor is required to show good faith by making it a real learning experience.

The lessons of Fistgates I and II appear to be that the homosexual activists who are in charge have betrayed our trust by not teaching about “safety” and “suicide” and have, instead, turned this into a graphic sexual introduction for vulnerable teenagers.

They may not be hurting your child directly as far as you can see, but it is certainly damaging our society. If only our new Governor realizes that.

Copyright ©2001 Massachusetts News, Inc. Photocopying and data processing storage of all or any part of this issue may not be made without prior written consent.