Massachusetts Judge Allegedly Colluded With Homosexuals

CNSNEWS.com ^ | 6/02/04 | Robert B. Bluey

[kattracks]

(CNSNews.com) - A Massachusetts lawmaker issued what he called a five-count "indictment" against the state's highest judge, Margaret Marshall, on Tuesday, accusing her of conspiring with homosexual activists before ruling in favor of same-sex marriage last November.

Democrat state Rep. Emile J. Goguen wants Marshall ousted as chief justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. The information he released Tuesday cites alleged violations of the state's Code of Judicial Conduct and the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. However, Goguen's accusations do not represent formal charges against Marshall.

Goguen accused Marshall of "aiding and abetting" Mary L. Bonauto, the attorney who argued the same-sex marriage case for the Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders. Marshall also did nothing when a lower court judge spoke favorably about same-sex marriage, Goguen charged.

The criticism comes a little more than a month after CNSNews.com reported about a speech Marshall gave to the Massachusetts Lesbian and Gay Bar Association in 1999. She was an associate justice at the time.

During that speech, Marshall praised her native South Africa's embrace of sexual orientation protections and the "growing body of gay-friendly international jurisprudence," according to a recap of the event from the Massachusetts Lesbian and Gay Bar Association.

Goguen said Marshall should have disqualified herself from the same-sex marriage case as a result of her 1999 appearance before the bar association. Oral arguments in the case, Goodridge v. Department of Public Health , were held March 4, 2003. It was decided Nov. 18, 2003.

At the time of Marshall's speech, the Massachusetts Code of Judicial Conduct stated, "A judge should disqualify himself in a proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned." The code was slightly modified last year to change "should" to "shall."

"After Justice Marshall gave the keynote address at the Massachusetts Lesbian and Gay Bar Association on May 7, 1999, not only 'might' her impartiality be questioned in the Goodridge case, it would have to be questioned by any impartial person," Goguen wrote. "It was not a secret that Judge Marshall desired that such a case be filed in the Massachusetts courts."

The Supreme Judicial Court's public information officer, Joan Kenney, declined to comment on Marshall's behalf.

"The justices have spoken through their written opinions in the Goodridge case," Kenney wrote in an e-mail to CNSNews.com . "As in every case before the court, the justices do not comment beyond their written opinions, but they respect the right of individuals to express their own views in such matters."

Even before Tuesday's announcement, Goguen caused a stir by crafting a "bill of address" that asks Republican Gov. Mitt Romney to remove Marshall and three other Supreme Judicial Court judges from office. It awaits action from the House Rules Committee.

A similar measure targeting only Marshall was introduced last week by Democrat state Rep. Philip Travis. Both bills are considered mostly symbolic moves, but their sponsors hope to spur some action on the part of the Legislature.

To help bolster his case against Marshall, Goguen has turned to Edward and Sally Pawlick of Massachusetts Citizens for Marriage, a group that has fought to limit marriage to one man and one woman. The Article 8 Alliance, run by Brian Camenker, has also shed light on Marshall's association with homosexual activists.

In addition to Marshall's 1999 speech before the Massachusetts Lesbian and Gay Bar Association, Goguen said it was improper for Marshall to attend the annual gala of the Women's Bar Association, at which Bonauto was honored in 2000.

"Judges should not attend political events, particularly when the honoree was a partisan such as Mary Bonauto, who appeared regularly in Massachusetts courts," Goguen wrote.

Goguen also scolded Marshall for not censuring or disciplining Suzanne V. DelVecchio, chief justice of the Massachusetts Superior Court. The Goodridge case originated in DelVecchio's court, and according to Goguen, she traveled in the same circles as homosexual activists like Bonauto.

Other alleged violations cited by Goguen range from Marshall's alleged public comments about the case to her behavior during oral arguments.

At least one of Goguen's charges appears unsubstantiated. He cites a Christian Science Monitor story from Nov. 21, 2003, as evidence Marshall spoke to the press, a practice shunned upon by the state Code of Judicial Conduct.

But the author of the story, Sara B. Miller, a Monitor staff writer, said she never spoke to Marshall. Instead, Miller interviewed people familiar with the chief justice.

Marshall has defended her silence about the Goodridge case. Following a commencement speech at Oberlin College last weekend, she told The Morning Journal of Lorain, Ohio, "Judges don't talk about their decisions. Not directly or indirectly."

See Earlier Story:
Author of Homosexual Marriage Ruling is Under Fire, Won't Budge (April 28, 2004)

E-mail a news tip to Robert B. Bluey.

Send a Letter to the Editor about this article.

 

[MHGinTN]

There are several agenda items that are not addressed during the first term, but they by gosh better get addressed in the second term of President Bush or this nation will not survive the return of democrats to power!

[F16Fighter]

"There are several agenda items that are not addressed during the first term, but they by gosh better get addressed in the second term of President Bush or this nation will not survive the return of democrats to power!"

Amen to that, brother!

[hattend]

BTTT

[Charlespg]

Democrat state Rep. Emile J. Goguen wants Marshall ousted as chief justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. The information he released Tuesday cites alleged violations of the state's Code of Judicial Conduct and the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. However, Goguen's accusations do not represent formal charges against Marshall.

I would LOVE to see them start pressing formal charges against These liberal activist judges,its the only way to stop this BS

[Devil_Anse]

If Chief Justice Roy Moore was ousted from his court, why can't this woman be ousted, since she has clearly violated judicial ethics?

Note interesting coincidence: name of this article's author is Robert Bluey. Robert Bluey has written earlier articles on this issue. Remember the apologist for homosexuals encountered on an earlier thread? "Alfred_Bluey".

[little jeremiah]

Because judicial ethics only count when the judge is conservative. If the judge is liberal, then he/she/it is a living saint whatever pronouncement he/she/it makes or activities engaged in, if they promote liberalism/lefist causes, are in the service of Good [meaning Evil] and therefore no rules apply.

Simple.

All the rules are for conservatives, and the liberals/leftists get to decide everything, own the media, lie with impunity, and so on.

[steplock]

I would much rather send this "judge" a reminder as to the true reasons for the Second Amendment - protection against tyranical govt officials.

[lentulusgracchus]

I hope that this brews another Tea Party in Boston with some judges thrown overboard.

I think there's a good case to be made for tossing a judge who was palling around with one of the litigants after hours -- Mary Bonauto, the Gay Bay BLT lawyer -- but an even better one for tossing all of them for laying hands on the People's sovereignty and making new law on matters not previously subject to legislation, and doing so in a manner calculated to cut off the People's remedies -- and to further the GBLT agenda, which is to use the Massachusetts licenses to sue the other 49 states under Article IV's Full Faith and Credit Clause, to force every state in the Union to give the homosexuals what they do not deserve and haven't fairly won in the court of public opinion.

[Salvation]

Get this lady out of the court system!

[lentulusgracchus]

While I agree with much of your post, I have to take exception to this statement,

Americans were shocked when Congressional investigations in 1995 unfolded the truth about the fatal tragedies at Ruby Ridge, Idaho and Waco, Texas. In the former, an innocent woman and child were killed in cold blood by an FBI sharpshooter, and in the latter, 80 American men, women and children were incinerated by the Federal Government in a full-scale military attack.

In the Ruby Ridge case, while I think that a grave miscarriage of justice took place, I think the woman was arguably not exactly innocent, as she was harboring a fugitive. That said, I don't think she deserved to be shot dead for holding a door open for her husband, whom the FBI men were trying very hard to kill.

In the Mount Carmel case, not all the people who died were American citizens, and it is arguable that the fire was started at the direction of David Koresh, not by the government as your statement implies. Thus the blame for the deaths would lie proximately with whoever started the fires.

[isom35]

"Colluded With Homosexuals" was she wearing protection?

[lentulusgracchus]

Ping to the latest doomed attempt to stop the cultural mayhem.

Hope springs eternal, but most conservatives don't realize yet that the upper reaches of the GOP, including both Bush and Cheney, not-so-secretly support the gay lobby, because the latter has a ton of political swing and money.

Documentation here:

San Francisco Chronicle article, pre-Lawrence, reviewing Bush Administration stands on gay issues.

More documentation:

2001 Newsweek article on GOP/gays.

This is what things looked like three years ago to Family Policy Network, who were very unhappy with what they were seeing:

Mary Matalin sneers at opponents of the Gay Agenda as "gay bashers" and "the Leviticus crowd".

Still more documentation, from another conservative, Christian-oriented source:

Good Source Page with Links

Still more bad news, this time from the horse's mouth:

Gay Fifth Column within the High Command of the GOP Itself -- and I'm Not Talking about the Loggies.

The next item is from the archives of National Journal -- in 2001. Didn't know about this? Well, then, you must feel as stupid as I do. We've been sold out, is what this means:

The gay mole who used personal friendship to get over on President Bush and make it all happen.

[lentulusgracchus]

Hot off the presses, a letter from the president of the HRC to Ken Mehlman of the Bush-Cheney campaign, from a Gay Cabal site:

June 2, 2004 Mr. Ken Mehlman
Campaign Manager
Bush-Cheney ’04
P.O. Box 10648
Arlington, VA 22210

Dear Mr. Mehlman:

I hope you will reject the advice offered yesterday by a leading conservative, Paul Weyrich, advocating for the Bush-Cheney ’04 campaign to intensify its focus on passage of the Federal Marriage Amendment in order to distract from the war in Iraq.

According to an Associated Press story of June 1, 2004, Mr. Weyrich made the following comments:

“If [the President] wishes to be re-elected, then he better be upfront on this issue, because if the election is solely on Iraq, we'll be talking about President Kerry. … If he wants to change the subject — which if I were president I would certainly want to do — then I think he would be well-advised, in fact, to take the leadership on this particular point.”

This kind of cynical advice betrays the American people’s desire for a campaign that brings people together and encourages a debate about the domestic and foreign policy challenges facing our nation. Even worse, it further illustrates that the movement behind the FMA is not about “protecting marriage” but about partisan electoral politics.

I hope you will agree that the president should work to unite the nation around the issues Americans care about most, not divide us about the issues lowest on the voters’ priority list.

Indeed, the American people have made it clear that issues like the war in Iraq, the economy and fighting terrorism, not changing the Constitution to discriminate, are their primary concern in this election.

According to a CBS News poll from late May, 70 percent of registered voters think that marriage between same-sex couples should not be a part of the election campaign. The same poll showed that only 2 percent of registered voters think marriage between same-sex couples should be the top issue for candidates to discuss, ranking well below the war in Iraq and the economy.

In addition, recent polling shows a clear majority oppose changing the Constitution to deny the benefits, rights and responsibilities of marriage for millions of American families.

I urge you to reject the agenda of extremists and, instead, embrace the agenda of the American people who oppose tampering with the Constitution and support a debate about issues that matter to them most.

Please feel free to contact me about this or any other issue of concern.

Sincerely,

Cheryl Jacques
President

[jess35]

Margaret Marshall is in her late fifties and is married to Anthony Lewis, former columnist for the New York Times, who is twenty-years her senior. She apparently has no children and some say that as a result, she has no appreciation for the feelings of women who do. They say she has never had any experience with a family and has focused only on her career.

Since when do you directly have to experience something in order to have your rulings seem more legitimate? Does that mean all judges must have been or should have family members who've been murdered, raped, burglarized, etc...?

This is just a cheap shot and has nothing to do with her being a leftist. If Marshall had children she'd still be singing the same song while dropping her kids off to be warehoused during the day.

[ELS]

BTTT

[Honorary Serb]

Just in her mid-50's? Life must have been rough on her, because her picture makes her look 20 years older than that.

I believe that she is actually 60 by now (or will be 60 later this year). But I have seen pictures of her that not only make her look like a particulary decrepit 80-year-old, but also like a RAVING LUNATIC!!!! It is because of those pictures, plus her total lack of civility to other judges on her court with opposing views, that I refer to her as "Mad Margie Marshall".

Mad Margie's close connections with Bonuato and the other gaysbian-activist protagonists of the "gay marriage" case, at last as early as 1999, are actually "old news", including on FR. What is new are the efforts by the legislators (who seem to be conservative Catholic Democrats as well as Republicans) to bring action against her. We'll see how this plays out--it probably won't get very far (without the Lord's help).

[Honorary Serb]

Hot off the presses, a letter from the president of the HRC ["Human Rightser" Campaign] to Ken Mehlman of the Bush-Cheney campaign, from a Gay Cabal site....

I got a solicitation for money, membership, and petition-signing from the American "Civil Liberties" Union (another "human rightser" imperialist front) that was along the same lines. (It's what I get for being a registered-independent voter, who is also a socially conservative and pro-Serbian Christian!!) It went along the same lines--the protection of marriage amendment is the "greatest threat to freedom", blah, blah. Needless to say, their mailing quickly found its way into the recycling bag!

In reality, the gays and feminazis are the GREATEST THREAT to free speech and religious freedom, by a wide margin!!!! Their proposed extension of "hate speech" laws would criminalize public reading of the "wrong" scriptures and preaching of the truth about homosexuality and about God's establishment of marriage.

If we pass these laws and/or elect Kerry, there will be overt persecution of Christians in the US as "hate criminals" in just a few years!!!!

[EdReform]

Links bump

[expatguy]

wow this is big

[happygrl]

You've said a mouthful, but it is WELL SAID.