• Text smaller
  • Text bigger

Democratic Massachusetts state Rep. Emile Goguen is staging an 11th hour attempt to oust the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court judges who ordered the Legislature to enact same-sex marriage.


border=0 width=175 height=232.4>
Massachusetts Chief Justice Margaret Marshall speaking at homosexual-rights group’s event in 1999.

As WorldNetDaily reported, Goguen’s “Bill of Address” legislation, which allows lawmakers to remove judges who fail to fulfill their duties, could be called to the legislative floor at any time.

On Nov. 18, justices Margaret H. Marshall, John M. Greaney, Roderick L. Ireland and Judith A. Cowin were part of a 4-3 majority that ruled the state constitution allows same-sex marriage.

Goguen submitted the bill at the prodding of a group called Article 8 Alliance, which launched its campaign in January.

The last time a bill of address removed a Supreme Judicial Court justice was 1803. A failed attempt was made in 1922.

Brian Camenker, the Article 8′s director, admits lawmakers have not come out in favor of it, but say they tell his group behind closed doors that “we’re right, this was a completely illegal ruling, it has no basis in law at all, and that this is really what needs to happen.”

The legislators, Camenker believes, are afraid of mainstream media and gay activists and their lawyers, and they don’t want to be seen as trying to oust a judge.

The Massachusetts Legislature held a constitutional convention earlier this year to craft an amendment to the state constitution that defines marriage as only between a man and a woman but allows Vermont-style civil unions, conferring virtually all the same rights and benefits of marriage.

The high court said in its November ruling the state constitution contains a “fundamental” right to homosexual “marriage.”

Camenker’s group replies: “No one can possibly read the Massachusetts constitution and find a ‘fundamental right’ to same-sex marriage.”

“It comes from the tortured logic of an activist court,” the group says.

Marshall partial?

Article 8 points particularly to Marshall, the chief justice, as the prime mover behind the same-sex marriage ruling, asserting she appears to have violated the Massachusetts Code of Judicial Conduct by serving as the keynote speaker at a fund-raiser for a major homosexual legal advocacy group in 1999.

Organizers of the event, the Massachusetts Lesbian & Gay Bar Association, quoted Marshall as saying during her speech that “open advocacy for equal rights on behalf of people who have been discriminated against on the basis of sexual orientation has become a powerful piece of the general move for civil liberties of all people.”

The association also recounted on its website, “The Justice encouraged those lawyers in attendance to pay attention to the growing body of gay-friendly international jurisprudence.”

Article 8 notes the state Code of Judicial Conduct states judges may not participate in fund-raising events, even for non-profit organizations.

Furthermore, the group says, “judges are required to disqualify themselves whenever they have an acknowledged bias on an issue.”

Additionally, Marshall was in violation of the later version of the Code in effect at the time of the November ruling, Article 8 argues, which she herself approved.

“Since she clearly had a publicly acknowledged bias in the case, she should have disqualified herself from hearing the case,” the group says.

The code states: “A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”

However, a spokeswoman for the Supreme Judicial Court and the co-chairman of the Massachusetts Lesbian and Gay Bar Association contended to CNSNews.com the $60-per-plate dinner was not a fund-raiser.

Joan Kenney, the Supreme Judicial Court’s public information officer, insisted it was a “bar association meeting and she was the keynote speaker, but it was not a fund-raiser.”

In its statement, Article 8 asks: “Why is this not being examined by the legislature or the Boston media? Why not even a single word? The public deserves some answers.”

Editor’s note: The current edition of WND’s monthly Whistleblower magazine, titled “SEXUAL ANARCHY,” provides a comprehensive and insightful journalistic look at one of the most crucial but little understood issues of our generation – same-sex marriage.

Related stories:

Bill seeks ouster of Massachusetts justices

Federal Marriage Amendment dead?

How homosexual activists took America by surprise

California high court blocks S.F. ‘marriages’

Bush announces support for marriage amendment

Activists respond to Bush amendment stance

Marriage defenders slow same-sex tide

Mayor facing charges for same-sex weddings

Another city backs same-sex marriage

Same-sex marriage
comes to N.Y. town

Action filed to remove S.F. mayor, AG

Bush announces support for marriage amendment

Arnold: Terminate same-sex marriage

‘Anarchy is breaking loose across America’

Same-sex wedding officiant ‘arrested’

Faulty forms to void same-sex marriages?

Judges allow same-sex marriages to continue

Judge delays same-sex marriage ruling

Schwarzenegger urged to arrest S.F. mayor

Same-sex weddings proceed unhindered

Lawsuit challenges homosexual ‘marriages’

San Francisco officials marry same-sex couple

San Francisco mayor defies ‘gay’-marriage ban

60% of polled Americans:
No homosexual marriage

It’s ‘gay’ marriage in Massachusetts

Poll: Massachusetts opposes ‘gay’ marriage

‘Gay’ marriage ruling’s consequences ‘dire’

‘Gay’ marriage ban struck down in Massachusetts

Bush to block ‘gay’ marriage

Poll suggests backlash on ‘gay’ issues

Court strikes down Texas sodomy law

Supreme Court hears ‘right to sodomy’ case

High court to give ‘gays’ their own ‘Roe’?

  • Text smaller
  • Text bigger
Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.