Battle heats up over lesbian activist judge Barbara Lenk nominated for Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Multiple reasons she's unsuitable to be guarding our civil liberties
Take action NOW (see below) - Vote is on Wednesday, May 4!
POSTED: May 2, 2011
Last week's public hearing before the Governor's Council capped a week of battles in the media and radio talk shows over Barbara Lenk, a lesbian activist Appellate Court judge who has been nominated by Gov. Deval Patrick to the Supreme Judicial Court.
 |
Barbara Lenk sits in audience watching the testimony during her confirmation hearing. |
Unfortunately, most Massachusetts pro-family groups have stayed away from this fight, leaving it mostly to MassResistance, Joe Ureneck's fatherhood groups, and the Catholic Action League.
Top 8 reasons Barbara Lenk is NOT suitable:
Just a few reasons among many . . .
- Incest law ruling. She ruled in 2010 that the purpose of the state's incest law is "to prevent biological and genetic abnormalities," as described in Howie Carr's column (see below).
- Support for "Falsettos." She's on the Board of Directors of Kerem Shalom, a far-left temple. Kerem Shalom publically voiced its support for a local high school production of a vulgar homosexual-themed play with anti-Semitic overtones ("Falsettos" - see our report and video HERE).
- Featured in gay magazine. She appeared in a homosexual magazine (Boston Spirit, Nov. 2008), featured as an "out lesbian judge" who is helping to "create a shift in the culture."
- "The law evolves." She has publicly stated her judicial philosophy as, "The law evolves and develops. It is not carved in granite." (Quoted in Boston Spirit article.) This rejection of original intent is the basis for all judicial activism.
- Condescending reply regarding judicial activism. When questioned by the Governor's Council about judicial activism, she flippantly claimed that she had no idea what that meant.
- Acceptance of same-sex "marriage." Her own same-sex "marriage" reinforces a "right" invented by activist judges repudiating thousands of years of Western culture, and never legalized by the Massachusetts legislature. (She should have been quizzed on the constitutional separation of powers.)
- Boston 1998 domestic partnership ruling. In 1998, her stay of the injunction (because it would cause "irreparable harm" to couples) when Boston Mayor Menino illegally established municipal domestic partnerships was overturned 7-0 by the Supreme Judicial Court.
- Refusal to discuss 2nd Amendment. She was asked by the Governor's Council: "Does the 2nd Amendment apply to the residents of Massachusetts through the due process clause of the 14th Amendment?" She refused to give an answer.
There's no question that Lenk's elevation to SJC Justice could help change the legal landscape in Massachusetts in some radical ways. (See previous MassResistance report.)
But it's not only Lenk's votes that affect things. Arline Isaacson of the Massachusetts Gay & Lesbian Political Caucus told the homosexual newspaper Bay Windows: "In Massachusetts, we've been blessed to have on the SJC several justices who believe deeply in equality for the LGBT community. But . . . Having an out lesbian on the SJC will serve the same important purpose that having out LGBT [people] in every profession does: it helps change for the better the attitudes, insights, and sensitivities of those who work with or interact with them."
Barbara Lenk is being touted by the Governor as a "first" - a clear affirmative action choice and an apparent gift to the homosexual lobby which supported him over his two opponents. The homosexual lobby is fighting hard for Lenk's confirmation, which they would consider a great victory.
The homosexual lobby and the Massachusetts liberal establishment has been working feverishly to make sure that the 8-member elected Governor's Council (headed by the Lt. Governor, who breaks a tie vote) confirms Lenk. The vote is scheduled for this Wednesday, May 4.
Lenk's battle in media: Boston Globe lead editorial attacks MassResistance activist's testimony
The Societ Union / Pravda analogy continues . . .
On Friday, the Boston Globe's lead editorial reiterated the liberal rant that when discussing a lesbian activist judge it was out of bounds to bring up homosexuality. Junxtaposed with that, the Globe even uses the phrase "her wife" -- which will never, ever sound right. And they dredge up the tired old canard that homosexuality is the same as race or ethnicity.
To make their point, the Globe editorialists bashed MassResistance activist Sally Naumann for her non-politically correct remarks, as well as Governor's Councilor Charles Cipollini, who is unabashedly and pro-life and pro-family. Only approved opinions ought to be allowed, according to the Globe's rules. |
|
Here's the editorial:
Decision on Lenk should focus on her record, not her sexuality
Boston Globe Editorial
April 29, 2011
THE NOMINATION of Judge Barbara A. Lenk to the Supreme Judicial Court should not be a referendum on gay marriage. It should be an orderly vetting of a jurist with an 18-year track record. But Wednesday's confirmation hearing before the eight-member Governor's Council dwelt uncomfortably on the nominee's sexual orientation, even when the topic was ostensibly a court case or conflict of interest.
This is partly because Lenk is the first openly gay nominee to the state's highest court, and because Governor Patrick, in response to a reporter's question, praised her as a pioneer. Lenk is the third consecutive Patrick nominee to be a first: Roderick Ireland was the first black chief justice, and Fernande Duffly the first Asian-American on the court.
But the criticism that followed Lenk's nomination, accusing Patrick of playing identity politics, didn't follow the others. Perhaps it was accumulating frustration. Perhaps it was a sense that gays, unlike blacks or Asian-Americans, are an acceptable target of derision. Either way, the criticism was misplaced. Patrick did not draw attention to Lenk's sexual orientation; rather, it was Lenk's chief critic, Governor's Council member Charles Cipollini of Fall River, who sought to make issues of her sexuality and whether Patrick chose her for political reasons.
Cipollini has brought an element of surprise to the council's once predictable hearings, and nominees should now expect tough questioning. No doubt Lenk's family - her wife and two teenage daughters - were prepared for the worst, and got it when a fellow Carlisle resident, Sally Naumann, testified that Lenk's nomination would be "a clarion call to all that want to indoctrinate our children into homosexuality.''
The Governor's Council didn't need to hear that: No one seized the chance to inveigh against blacks or Asians at Ireland's and Duffly's confirmation hearings. Thankfully, many council members declared they would not give credence to statements like Naumann's. And they should not.
See article on Globe web site.
Howie Carr describes Lenk's bizarre ruling in incest case
In Wednesday's public hearing there was a smattering of discussion about Lenk's opinion of the state incest laws. But it wasn't entirely clear what they were referring to. In Friday's Boston Herald, columnist Howie Carr described it in layman's terms, so to speak. In other words, another horror story in the making if Lenk is confirmed.
Lenk misses link to common sense
By Howie Carr, Boston Herald
Friday, April 29, 2011
It's certainly a relief that Judge Barbara Lenk has had an opportunity to "clarify" her statements in 2010 about homosexual incest. Pay no attention to that pesky present tense that she uses in her written opinion - the lesbian appellate judge says she was merely referring to an old law.
"By necessary implication," she wrote last year, before Gov. Deval Patrick nominated her to serve on the Supreme Judicial Court, "homosexual conduct . . . does not constitute incest and is not prohibited by the statute."
Despite the misgivings that at least half of the (elected) governor's councilors seem to have about this nominee, the media's position is: Nothing to see here, move along. Neither newspaper printed the above opinion that she was allowed to "clarify."
Pay no attention to Lenk's own words. That's "playing dirty," as one headline put it yesterday.
Lenk wrote her opinion in a decision last year about two brothers who were convicted of raping their sister in 2001. On appeal, the brothers complained that they were being discriminated against because in the incest statutes only traditional sexual intercourse is outlawed, or was, until the Legislature changed the law.
Try to imagine, if you can, a male judicial nominee, a heterosexual, maybe even (gasp!) a Roman Catholic, who wrote the same words that Lenk did about the state's old anti-incest law:
"The statute's purpose is to prevent biological and genetic abnormalities, a compelling governmental interest, and its prohibition of a certain procreative sexual acts by consanguineous relations is a narrowly tailored means to further that interest."
A huge percentage of incest involves young girls who can't give birth. So would this mythical male nominee be accused of saying that wasn't covered under the incest law? If the uncle/father has had a vasectomy, would he too be off the hook? Would anyone not named Barbara Lenk be allowed to "clarify" their comments before the media lynch mob assembled?
This is doubly perplexing, because during the debate over so-called "gay marriage," we were endlessly told that marriage had nothing to do with procreation. But then, that argument suited the gay agenda. Now Barbara Lenk seems to be putting procreation front and center. Or I should say she did, pre-"clarification."
Here's a 2001 quote from another judge on the proposition that, among other perversions, "homosexual conduct does not constitute incest."
"This overly narrow definition of 'sexual intercourse' does not accord with a commonsense understanding of the term and leaves the children of the Commonwealth inadequately protected from sexual exploitation by relatives."
That was Roderick Ireland, the chief justice of the court Barbara Lenk so desperately wants to join. Now he's supporting her. Times change. Political correctness trumps all.
Article on Herald web site.
Boston Herald editorial page supports Lenk nomination
Don't believe it when they tell you that the Boston Herald is "conservative." They often try to put on that facade when it helps to sell papers. But in fact that went out the window eons ago. On the morning of the Lenk hearing, they published an editorial describing her as a "distinguished jurist". Read the editorial HERE.
Lenk nomination vote this Wednesday: Gay lobby pushing hard to sway Governor's Council. YOU can take action!
The Governor's Council is taking their vote on Lenk this Wednesday, May 4. If they all show up to vote we need 5 of the 8 councilors to vote "no". If it's a 4-4 tie, then the Lt. Governor will break it and vote to confirm.
Lenk's record is so egregious that the vote looks close. Here's how we handicap it right now:
| |
Dist 1. Charles Cipollini
Dist 2. Kelly Timilty
Dist 3. Marilyn Devaney
Dist 4. Christopher Iannella
Dist 5. Mary Ellen Manning
Dist 6. Terrence Kennedy
Dist 7. Jennie Caissie
Dist 8. Thomas Merrigan |
NO
Probably YES (tho doesn't always show up)
Probably NO
YES (rubber stamp)
NO
YES
Probably NO
YES (rubber stamp) |
Not surprisingly, the homosexual lobby is staging a campaign to put pressure on Cipollini, Devaney, and Manning. Read more about that HERE.
