cpf_banner_small.gif (2059 bytes)


Massachusetts Chief Justice Marshall's Basis for 'Gay Marriage' a Lie

by Zed McLarnon, Mens News Daily, March 12, 2004

Massachusetts Chief Justice Margaret Marshall’s basis for ordering a "gay marriage" law is bogus, a lie. In her ruling on "gay marriage", Marshall claimed she didn’t want to create "second-class citizens" out of gays and lesbians by not allowing them to marry. Yet, Marshall has a history of unconstitutionally legislating laws from the bench that created second-class citizens out of fathers and all citizens.

The whole country is buzzing about the fact that it is unconstitutional for Chief Justice Marshall, or the Supreme Judicial Court, to "legislate laws from the bench." Marshall, and every other judge, took an oath "to preserve and protect the Constitution" – not usurp it! But, almost no one has challenged Marshall’s "second-class citizen" basis for her ruling. The legal basis for denying licenses for "gay marriage" is the same rational for denying polygamists the right to marry many women. Marriage has always been defined as "the union between one man and one woman." If gays are allowed to "marry" it will set a legal precedent for polygamists to marry more than one woman.

Absolute Immunity

Here is the point, when a father is summonsed to Family Court, he is the only one in the courtroom without immunity!  Judges have Absolute Immunity, lawyers have Qualified Immunity, and, mothers and social workers have the "new" Anti-SLAPP Law to immunize their fraud and perjury. Fathers have long complained that family courts are kangaroo courts. These judge-made "laws" prove it.

Marshall has a clear history of creating second-class citizens. The judiciary "legislated from the bench" Absolute Immunity for themselves. They hide this "law" under the title of "public policy." Absolute Immunity allows no civil redress for unlawful actions by judges, which creates second-class citizens out of the rest of us. How does this policy help the public? In America, where all men are supposed to be equal before the law, Absolute Immunity allows judges to operate as an elite class not subject to civil redress by victims of judicial fraud, oppression and tyranny. Absolute Immunity is unconstitutional and un-American in concept because it creates an aristocracy that operates above the law. When judges such as Marshall "legislate" their own immunity, isn’t it the height of "conflict of interest" and doesn’t it create second-class citizens out of the rest of us?

Qualified Immunity

The judiciary has also "legislated from the bench" Qualified Immunity for lawyers. Qualified Immunity allows lawyers to bring false allegations against citizens in civil court without accountability. As long as one cannot prove the lawyer "knowingly" brought false allegations, the lawyer is allowed to allege anything. Again creating an elite class and second-class citizens of the rest of us. All members of the bar – judges and lawyers – have immunity from civil redress, the rest of us don’t.

The Anti-SLAPP Law

Similarly, Margaret Marshall and the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) used my case, "McLarnon vs. Jokisch," to unlawfully re-write the Anti-SLAPP Law. The Anti-SLAPP Law was passed by the legislature to protect individuals or small environmental groups from harassment counter-suits by large corporations with lawyers on retainer. The SJC re-wrote the original Anti-SLAPP Law to deny civil redress by a father who can prove his ex-wife and her social workers used fraud and false allegations to gain custody of the children. Attorney Gregory Hession of the Family Legal Services stated "In reference to the ‘new" Anti-SLAPP Law, the SJC has in essence passed a "protection of perjury act"

I brought a suit against my ex-wife, Virginia Jokisch, and her social worker husband, David Douglas, for using fraud and deceit to kidnap my son under color of law. They used false allegations of abuse in affidavits to gain a series of unlawful restraining orders separating my son and I. MassNews disclosed their fraud in their Dec. 2000 issue. Despite the fact that my attorney presented my ex-wife’s sworn testimony that her then boyfriend had in fact broken her arm, cracked her ribs and beat her up on a third occasion. And, despite her and my testimony that we were separated and not seeing each other when my ex-wife went to the hospital for treatment for these injuries, Margaret Marshall ignored the sworn testimony of both parties and dismissed my case. The SJC re-wrote the Anti-SLAPP law to immunize my ex-wife’s perjury and fraud and the fraud of her current social worker husband. Marshall did this despite the fact that two of her own justices stopped my ex-wife’s attorney during her presentation to point out my ex-wife’s current allegations were disputed by her own sworn testimony and doctor’s reports.

The "new" Anti-SLAPP Law is currently being used to deny Massachusetts fathers civil redress. Michael Franco, of Chicopee, had his civil suit against his ex-wife dismissed using the Anti-SLAPP Law and my case as a precedent. In Franco’s case the lower court judge stated on the record that Franco’s ex-wife had indeed lied to gain custody of the children. Even with proof of fraud and the judge’s statement on the record, the Anti-SLAPP Law and my case as a precedent were used to dismiss Franco’s case and protect his ex-wife’s fraud and false allegations. The "new" Anti-SLAPP Law is being used to deny myself, Franco and other fathers our First Amendment rights to petition the government for redress. Ask yourself if Marshall’s Anti-SLAPP Law makes second-class citizens out of fathers.

A Legal Milestone

Here is the point, when a father is summonsed to Family Court, he is the only one in the courtroom without immunity! Judges have Absolute Immunity, lawyers have Qualified Immunity, and, mothers and social workers have the "new" Anti-SLAPP Law to immunize their fraud and perjury. Fathers have long complained that family courts are kangaroo courts. These judge-made "laws" prove it.

Boston Media Outlets

The Massachusetts media outlets such as the Boston Globe, Boston Herald, the Lawyers Weekly and Associated Press have been supplied with these facts, but refuse to report these and other legal milestones to the public.

All of this immunity has been unconstitutionally "legislated from the bench" by Marshall’s judiciary as a boon for the Divorce & Abuse Industries so they can carry out the unlawful agenda of removing children from the custody of fathers. Why would they do this? Diligent researchers have uncovered the astounding fact that it is being done for massive federal funding based on child support payments! If the state’s judges ruled for joint parental custody, then the state and its judiciary would not receive massive federal funding based on the father paying child support. These funds based on child-support payments are the reason why in "Kramer vs. Kramer" the judge awarded custody of the children to the mother who had a history of deserting the children.

"Gay Marriage" vs. Fatherhood and the Traditional Family

Marshall’s "gay marriage" ruling is not happening in a vacuum, she and her judiciary have a clear history of making second-class citizens out of fathers and placing a price on children’s heads. Marshall’s basis of not wanting to create second-class citizens out of gays and lesbians is null and void based upon her own history of creating second-class citizens out of the rest of us. Marshall’s true agenda is voiced by feminists and lesbians at the feminist conventions Marshall attends and that is "If women and gays are to be equal, we must destroy marriage and the traditional family." Marshall’s "gay marriage" ruling is based in the destruction of marriage. Test this theory by asking yourself why civil unions with all the rights of marriage "is not good enough" for Marshall and the gay community. They "must destroy marriage."

Marshall just announced she would review the Massachusetts discrimination law. Marshall is a domestic enemy of the Constitution and is attempting a coup to take over the legislative process. Thomas Jefferson warned of judges like Marshall when he wrote ...

"The germ of destruction of our nation is in the power of the judiciary, an irresponsible body - working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall render powerless the checks of one branch over the other and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated." - Thomas Jefferson, 1821.

Marshall’s reasoning for not wanting to create second-class citizens is nothing more than a red herring employed to hide the real agenda of her judiciary and their allies in the feminist/lesbian/gay/transsexual community – to "destroy marriage and the and the traditional family."

# # #

Zed McLarnon

Zed McLarnon is the Founder/President of the Coalition Against State-sanctioned Kidnapping. www.masskidnap.com