Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Probing the Massachusetts justices' minds
townhall.com ^ | 2/10/04 | Dennis prager

Posted on 02/09/2004 9:40:19 PM PST by kattracks

The following is an imagined interview with the Massachusetts Supreme Court justices who ruled that Massachusetts must redefine marriage to include persons of the same sex.

Q: Every higher civilization has defined marriage as an institution joining members of the opposite sex. Did you take this into account before rendering your judgment to redefine marriage?

A: Frankly, we couldn't care less how so-called "higher civilizations" have defined marriage. They were all wrong.

Q: How do you so easily dismiss the accumulated wisdom of all higher civilization?

A: Because liberals value feelings, not wisdom. And our feelings led us to the decision to force Massachusetts to redefine marriage.

Q: And what did you feel?

A: That what the world needs is more love.

Q: But no one has challenged anyone's right to love anyone. You didn't rule on love, you ruled on the definition of marriage.

A: Marriage is an expression of love.

Q: If love is the issue, will you also rule in favor of people marrying more than one person they love? That will surely increase love in the world.

A: We chose not to address that issue in our verdict.

Q: What about an adult brother and sister who love each other and want to get married?

A: We chose not to address that issue in our verdict.

Q: But if love is the criterion, where is your logical or moral consistency in denying marriage to a person who loves two people or to two people who love each other but just happen to be in the same family?

A: As we noted earlier, we operated on feelings, and our primary feeling is compassion for gays. Feelings and compassion, not logic and reason or concern for preserving higher civilization, are what make us liberals.

Q: Where is your compassion for children?

A: What do children have to do with our decision?

Q: It will now be far easier for children to be adopted by same-sex couples. This means that in the case of two married men, children will be deprived of a mother from birth and forever; and in the marriage of two women, children will be deprived of a father from birth and forever.

A: We do not believe that a child is better off with a mother and a father. All a child is needs love.

Q: So the liberal understanding is that mothers are entirely unnecessary?

A: As we said, all a child needs is love. And we have compassion for gays.

Q: Why not leave such a civilization-changing decision to the American people or at least to their elected representatives?

A: We don't trust the American people. Half of them vote Republican, vast numbers believe in the Bible, even many Democrats are not as enlightened as we are, and most Americans do not have our compassion for gays.

Q: Doesn't it smack of hubris for four people to coerce millions of people into redefining the single most important human institution?

A: When you are more enlightened and more compassionate than others, you recognize the limitations of democracy, and you make the world better in any way you can.

Q: You consider yourselves more enlightened and more compassionate than all the wise men and women in history, than all the religions of the world, than the Bible?

A: No question about it. We went to law school, and we have compassion for gays.

Q: If your decision remains the law of your state, as little girls begin seeing women married to women in the media and in life, when they think about marriage, they will consider marrying a woman, not only a man. Does that trouble you?

A: Even if it did, we would still have compassion for gays.

Q: Are you saying, then, that you would be just as happy if young children see two women or two men kissing as you would if they saw a man and a woman kissing? That you don't care if your own children marry someone of the same sex? That you would be just as happy at your child's wedding, if your son married a man or if your daughter married a woman?

A: No, we would not say those things. But we have compassion for gays.

Q: So, because of compassion for gays, you are prepared to subvert democracy, destroy the family unit as civilization has always defined it, cause children to begin to imagine marrying a person of their own sex, and declare that mothers have nothing distinctive to give to a child that two men cannot give and vice versa?

A: Now you know how important compassion is to us liberals.

©2003 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

Contact Dennis Prager | Read Prager's biography



TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; News/Current Events; US: Massachusetts
KEYWORDS: civilunion; dennisprager; marriage

1 posted on 02/09/2004 9:40:20 PM PST by kattracks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: kattracks
A basic point missing from this article is that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Judicial Court SHOULD HAVE RECUSED HERSELF FROM HEARING THE CASE, on grounds of judicial ethics. She gave a speach before the Lesbian and Gay Bar Association before she heard this case. In effect, in her speech, she told that group -- which would later be strongly involved in the case -- to pursue the issue of gay "marriage."

Had this Judge done what judicial ethics clearly require, and gotten off the case, the result would have been a 3-3 tie on the SJC. And as examples from the Supreme Court show, when the high court reaches a tie on any case, the decision of the lower court is then AFFIRMED but no majority decision is issued, of course.

Not only is this decision bad law, for violating the separation of powers by taking legislive powers into judicial hands, it also is grossly unethical. I cannot understand why the defenders of the Massachusetts law did not demand that this biased judge remove herself from the case.

Congressman Billybob

Click here, then click the blue CFR button, to join the anti-CFR effort (or visit the "Hugh & Series, Critical & Pulled by JimRob" thread). Don't delay. Do it now.

2 posted on 02/09/2004 9:48:11 PM PST by Congressman Billybob (www.ArmorforCongress.com Visit. Join. Help. Please.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
Since the Full Faith and Credit clause of the U.S. Constitution gives the U.S. Congress power over states' requirements to honor other states' judicial actions, would there be any problem with federal legislation explicitly saying that under such power, the U.S. Congress deems that the effect of a gay 'marriage' shall be nil in any state that does not wish to honor such? From a Constitutional perspective, I don't see that the Congress has the authority to stop Massachusetts from issuing marriage licenses to gay couples, but it does have the authority to free other states from having to accept them.
3 posted on 02/09/2004 11:08:16 PM PST by supercat (Why is it that the more "gun safety" laws are passed, the less safe my guns seem?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
"probing the MA justices' minds"...

how exactly DOES one probe a void?
4 posted on 02/09/2004 11:16:04 PM PST by KangarooJacqui (Deliver us from evil... vote Conservative.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
The rules are burried out in internet land.

Here is the recusal rule for Mass Judges:

=start snip=
3E. Disqualification.

(1) A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which
the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but
not limited to instances where:
(a) the judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party
or a party’s lawyer;
(b) the judge served as a lawyer in the matter in controversy;
(c) a lawyer with whom the judge previously practiced law served
during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter in
controversy;
(d) the judge has been, or is to the judge’s knowledge* likely to
be, a material witness concerning the matter in controversy;
(e) the judge has personal knowledge* of disputed evidentiary
facts concerning the matter in controversy;
(f) the judge is a party to the proceeding or an officer, director,
or trustee of a party or the judge knows*, or reasonably should know*,
that he or she, individually or as a fiduciary*, has (i) an economic
interest* in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the
proceeding, which interest could be substantially affected by the
outcome of the proceeding, (ii) a relationship interest* to a party to the
proceeding where the party could be substantially affected by the
outcome of the proceeding or (iii) any other more than de minimis*
interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the
proceeding;
(g) the judge knows*, or reasonably should know*, that the
judge’s spouse or child wherever residing, or any other member of the
judge’s family residing in the judge’s household,* has (i) an economic
interest* in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the
proceeding, which interest could be substantially affected by the
outcome of the proceeding, (ii) a relationship interest* to a party to the
proceeding where the party could be substantially affected by the
outcome of the proceeding or (iii) any other more than de minimis*
interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the
proceeding; or
(h) the judge’s spouse or domestic partner, as well as a person
within the third degree of relationship* to the judge, the judge’s spouse,
or the judge’s domestic partner, or a spouse or domestic partner of
such other person, (i) is a party to the proceeding or an officer,
director, or trustee of a party, (ii) is acting as a lawyer in the proceeding,
(iii) is known* by the judge to have any more than de minimis* interest
that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding, or
(iv) is to the judge’s knowledge* likely to be a material witness in the
proceeding.
(2) [reserved]


IF a judge believes they can stay on the case, then the have to do the following:

3F. Remittal of Disqualification.
(1) A judge disqualified by the terms of Section 3E may, instead of
withdrawing from the proceeding, disclose on the record the basis of the judge’s
disqualification and ask the parties and their lawyers to consider, out of the
presence of the judge, whether to waive disqualification. If, following disclosure
of any basis for disqualification other than for cases in which remittal is not
available, the parties and lawyers, without participation of the judge, all agree
that the judge should not be disqualified, the judge may participate in the
proceeding. The judge shall permit an opportunity for the attorneys to consult
with their clients regarding this issue. The agreement shall be incorporated in
the record of the proceeding.
(2) Remittal is not available in cases in which the judge is disqualified
under Sections 3E(1)(a), (b), or (d).


=snip=

COMENTARY

17
Section 3E: Under this rule, a judge shall disqualify himself or herself whenever the
judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, regardless of whether any specific rules
18
in Sections 3E(1) (a) through (h) apply. For example, even though a judge may not be
required to disqualify himself or herself because of an economic or relationship interest, the
judge may be required to do so on other grounds. A more than de minimis interest, under
Sections 3E(1)(f)(iii), (g)(iii), and (h)(iii) may include non-financial interests; as an
example, support by the judge of an organization advocating a particular position, where the
interests of the organization could be substantially affected by the outcome of the
proceeding.
If the judge believes there is no real basis for disqualification, a judge may, but is not
required to, disclose on the record information that the judge believes the parties or their
lawyers might consider relevant to the question of disqualification. See Commentary to
Section 3F.
A judge is not necessarily disqualified if a lawyer in a proceeding is affiliated with
a legal organization with which the spouse or a relative of the judge is affiliated.
Disqualification may be required in appropriate circumstances, including the closeness of
the relationship of the relative with the judge, where the judge’s impartiality might
reasonably be questioned. Disqualification may also be required where the judge knows that
the judge’s spouse or relative has an interest in a legal organization and that the organization
could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding. See Sections 3(E)(1)(g)(iii)
and (h)(iii).
In determining whether an interest could raise a reasonable question as to a judge’s
impartiality, the judge should consider, among other factors, the dollar value of the interest
and whether the interest comprises a substantial portion of the judge’s total economic
holdings.
In particular circumstances, a judge may need to consider carefully relationships
other than those specifically mentioned in Section 3E(1) - for example, a fiancé (or fianceé)
or a very close friend - to determine whether disqualification is required.
A lawyer in a government agency does not ordinarily have an association with other
lawyers employed by that agency within the meaning of Section 3E(1)(c). A judge formerly
employed by a government agency, however, should disqualify himself or herself in a
proceeding if the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned because of such
association.
By decisional law, the rule of necessity may override the rule of disqualification. For
example, a judge might be required to participate in judicial review of a judicial salary
statute, or might be the only judge available in a matter requiring immediate judicial action,
such as a hearing on probable cause or a temporary restraining order. In the latter case, the
judge must disclose on the record the basis for possible disqualification and, unless remittal
under Section 3F is available, appropriate, and accomplished, use reasonable efforts to
transfer the matter to another judge as soon as possible.
If a judge were in the process of negotiating for employment with a law firm or other
entity, the judge would be disqualified from any matters in which the law firm or other entity
appeared, unless remittal under Section 3F is available, appropriate, and accomplished.
Section 3F: A remittal procedure provides the parties an opportunity to proceed
without delay if they wish to waive the disqualification. To assure that consideration of the
question of remittal is made independently of the judge, a judge must not hear comment on
possible remittal unless the lawyers jointly propose remittal after consultation as provided
in the Section. A party may act through counsel if counsel represents on the record that the
party has been consulted and consents. As a practical matter, a judge may wish to have all
parties and their lawyers sign the remittal agreement. There are circumstances when other
provisions, such as Section 2A, may override the remittal procedure of Section 3F. An
example would be where a judge’s close relative has supervisory responsibility over
attorneys prosecuting criminal cases in the county where the judge is sitting.


http://www.state.ma.us/courts/courtsandjudges/courts/supremejudicialcourt/cje/rule309eff100103.pdf
=end snip=

It is surprising that no attempt was made to remove the chief justice.

Particulary with Cannon 4 requiring outside contacts not create a conflict in the administration of the courts.

So now who wants to file a complaint on the Mass SJC Chief Justice?
5 posted on 02/09/2004 11:33:19 PM PST by longtermmemmory (Vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
even many Democrats are not as enlightened as we are,

Is this for real?


6 posted on 02/09/2004 11:50:45 PM PST by razorback-bert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
even many Democrats are not as enlightened as we are,

Is this for real?


7 posted on 02/09/2004 11:51:35 PM PST by razorback-bert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: razorback-bert
Well it does bear repeating!


8 posted on 02/09/2004 11:52:16 PM PST by razorback-bert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: razorback-bert
this is a law journal article about the lawyers who have those very real attitudes.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1074970/posts?page=1

The Legal profession is compromised.
9 posted on 02/10/2004 12:22:15 AM PST by longtermmemmory (Vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Socialists are the Enemy of America.
10 posted on 02/10/2004 12:23:41 AM PST by Stallone (I am pleased to see that ALL the enemies of freedom aren't running for the Rat nominee for president)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
I agree with you that a complaint should be made against the chief Justice of the SJC. The complaint would have to be made by either an attorney admitted there, or a citizen there (if the latter is permitted.)

However, this will amount to a classic case of locking the barn door after the horse is stolen, as no discipline against the Chief Justice would straighten out the two bad decisions that are already a matter of record from that court.

Congressman Billybob

Click here, then click the blue CFR button, to join the anti-CFR effort (or visit the "Hugh & Series, Critical & Pulled by JimRob" thread). Don't delay. Do it now.

11 posted on 02/10/2004 1:03:31 AM PST by Congressman Billybob (www.ArmorforCongress.com Visit. Join. Help. Please.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: supercat
"Full Faith and Credit" is a requirement in the Constitution. The Defense of Marriage Act is only a statutue. If there is a conflict, the Constitution wins. And many federal judges and oerhaps a majority of the Justices of the Supreme Court might rule that way.

Therefore, the Defense of Marriage Act is a political fig leaf. It will make Congress look like they are doing something, and "kick the can down the road" by making the problem go poof before the impending election. In short, the "solution" is a fraud.

Congressman Billybob

Click here, then click the blue CFR button, to join the anti-CFR effort (or visit the "Hugh & Series, Critical & Pulled by JimRob" thread). Don't delay. Do it now.

12 posted on 02/10/2004 1:07:53 AM PST by Congressman Billybob (www.ArmorforCongress.com Visit. Join. Help. Please.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Sanity check-

I think all but one of the members of the Mass Supreme Judicial Court were appointed by republican governors (Weld and Cellucci).

The Chief Justice is a white female South African immigrant outta Harvard who just hates injustice. She's made a very good living off of it, too. When she left Harvard for the SJC, I remember that her speech contained an undercurrent of resentment towards the United States. Thank you, Governor Weld. /sarcasm/

Bottom line: Don't worry about this decision by the Mass. SJC. Federal Courts routinely reverse their decisions. So much so that the liberal Boston Globe wrote about the frequency of the reversals two or three years ago. They're a joke.
13 posted on 02/10/2004 1:17:15 AM PST by My Dog Likes Me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
sadly you are correct in your barn door analogy. However, (there is always a however) IF a recusal based complaint is filed and succeeds, the agrieved party would be entitled to ask for a rehearing due to the influence of the bias. Given this judges hoarding of the writing of the complaint, the influence of her personal bias is evident.

Of course the citizens who bring the complaint have a 90 degree straight up hill battle to 1. get the complaint heard 2. win the complaint and 3 get the rehearing.

It would be easier, and probably faster, to amend the Mass constitution.

My question it what can the legislature do independent of the courts to prevent homosexual marriages in May? My only guess is stop issuing marriage licenses.
14 posted on 02/10/2004 1:53:35 AM PST by longtermmemmory (Vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: My Dog Likes Me
And on what grounds would a federal court have to over rule a carefully crafted ruling about a mass law, based on the Mass constitution, and does not concern an issue of the federal government? What would the federal jurisdiction be? (I don't believe there is. )
15 posted on 02/10/2004 1:57:40 AM PST by longtermmemmory (Vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
The nightmare is only going to get worse and as it gets worse it will speed up.

The next big issue I see coming very soon will be people who consider themselves "polyamorous". Will the same yardstick be used to evaluate their relationships? Surely they also cannot be discriminated against for their sexual preference now can they?

16 posted on 02/10/2004 1:59:38 AM PST by expatguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: expatguy
the work around of the judges is not about sexual preference but feelings. You can't deny a person marriage because you don't like their feelings. Thus a homosexual love feelings entitle them to marriage, and next the polygamous will be entitled to marriage based on their feelings.

The strategy of the court knocks out the prior tests to qualify for marriage 1. age of consent 2. not married to another 3. one male one female (one mother father breeding raising pair) 4 not closer related than first cousin. Now the test is just feeling, who makes you feel good, what makes you feel good. There is no denying a feeling the way you can quantify age, blood, anatomy, or marital status.

It als goes with this. This did not just come about
extremist lawyers have been working on this for years.
It is not just the judges but the whole legal profession AND how lawyers are trained.
If you believe American universities are basions of PC,
then the US legal education establishment is lighting PC bonfires.

The law schools are achieving leftist goals because
students are only given a lopsided socialist dogma education.


This is a excerpt from an article on the unhealty
dominance of homosexual advocates from within
the legal profession.

One of the most insightful—and disturbing—windows on the view
of the legal profession (at least some very influential members of it)
on marriage, comes through in an examination of the recently approved
Principles of the Law of Family Dissolution (“Principles”) put together
by the American Law Institute (“ALI”).332 The historic contributions of
the ALI towards legal changes have not necessarily been salutary.333
But aspects of the recent Principles are particularly troubling.
One disturbing part of the Principles is chapter 6, which recommends
the creation of certain rights to be made available to unmarried
couples on the dissolution of their relationship. This chapter defines
“domestic partners” as “two persons of the same or opposite sex, not
married to one another, who for a significant period of time share a primary
residence and a life together as a couple.”334 Later, the Principles
use the following description: “In general, domestic partners are two persons
of the same or opposite sex, not married to one another, who for a
significant period of time share a primary residence and a life together as
a couple.”335


Perhaps most startling in this proposal is the fact that a couple
can establish a domestic partnership with a partner even if they are
married to someone else!336 The Principles would provide to domestic
partners many of the rights associated with marriage, including concepts
analogous to marital property, property division, and alimony.337

Further, the Principles create new statuses of “de facto” parents and
“parents by estoppel” who are adults close to the child that will be given
status equal to the biological parent of the child.338 Obviously, unmarried
partners of a child’s biological parent, such as same-sex partners, are the
most likely beneficiaries of such a policy.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1074970/posts?page=1

17 posted on 02/10/2004 2:16:16 AM PST by longtermmemmory (Vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
I don't know. I'm not a lawyer.

But maybe something about crossing state lines? That places the issue into the federal realm.
18 posted on 02/10/2004 2:36:21 AM PST by My Dog Likes Me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: kattracks

When oh when will some elected executive officer in some state or federal capacity, in fulfilling his constitutional duty to honestly interpet the constitution (federal or state) just disregard the unconstitutional rulings of any court and dare the legislature to impeach him for it? When will some legislature impeach just ONE judge for an unconstitutional ruling?

To say that the courts have the final word on the constitutionality of a law NO MATTER WHAT THEY RULE is to say that the system of checks and balances envisioned by the founders does not exist any more.

Massachuttsetts does not have the right to redefine marriage for 49 other states.

This amendment should not be necessary. The Massachuttsetts officials should do their duty and ignore this ruling. They should impeach the justices who enacted it and ordered the extra-constitutional legislation. That would render this brohaha about a constitutional amendment unnecessary.

19 posted on 02/10/2004 6:19:32 PM PST by DMZFrank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: My Dog Likes Me
Don't worry about this decision by the Mass. SJC. Federal Courts routinely reverse their decisions.

What federal grounds could there possibly be to reverse this decision on a state constitutional issue? And if you think the federal judiciary is not going to do its darnedest to impose same sex marriage on the rest of the nation in due course, then I have a bridge to sell you.

20 posted on 02/10/2004 9:29:28 PM PST by Unam Sanctam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson