The Boston Globe's aggressive PR campaign for confirmation of first "openly gay" SJC judge

When can a judge just be a judge?
Letter - April 11, 2011

THE APRIL 5 front-page headline “Another unprecedented SJC pick’’ is a sign of societal primitiveness. Barbara Lenk is an accomplished judge. There will be a time when people will be measured and heralded by their character and contribution rather than their race, religion, or sexual orientation. Apparently, we have not reached that point yet.

Linda S. W. Claeys, Ipswich

Family key to Lenk's rise
by Kevin Cullen, Globe columnist, April 26, 2011

"The confirmation hearing on Barbara Lenk’s nomination to the Supreme Judicial Court starts tomorrow, and it’s going to be a doozy.

"Some members of the Governor’s Council are not happy that Governor Patrick keeps naming “firsts’’ to the bench. Lenk is the first openly gay nominee to the SJC. This comes after Roderick Ireland was appointed the first African-American chief justice, and Fernande Duffly confirmed as the first Asian-American justice" . . .

SJC nominee's record is hotly disputed at hearing
By John R. Ellement - Boston Globe Staff - April 28, 2011

In the space of seven hours yesterday, Barbara A. Lenk was both savaged as an immoral participant in a plan to convert children into homosexuals and lauded as a learned and compassionate lawyer and mother whose wisdom is sorely needed by Massachusetts.

Lenk, an appellate judge who is Governor Deval Patrick's choice to fill an open seat on the Supreme Judicial Court, would be the first openly gay member of the state's highest court. She wed her partner following the SJC's landmark decision legalizing same-sex marriage.

During her confirmation hearing before the Governor's Council, some critics testified that her marriage is part of a broader plan to give legitimacy to homosexuality in the public arena. 

"This will be a clarion call to all that want to indoctrinate our children into homosexuality,'' testified Sally Naumann, who, like Lenk, lives in Carlisle. "How will we ever be able to say no to our children?'' . . .

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. 

Carlisle neighbors get to know each other
Letter - April 30, 2011

. . . I have lived in Carlisle for 50 years, and known Naumann for most of that time. Our sons went to school together. Never have any of my gay friends, co-workers, and neighbors tried to indoctrinate me or my sons into homosexuality. They have been too busy living active, fruitful lives contributing to our town, state, and country.

Cynthia S. D. Schweppe, Carlisle

Hearing took odd turn into questions of sexuality
Letter - April 30, 2011

. . . While some legitimate questions and issues were raised, the hearing was tainted by testimony from witnesses obsessed with sexuality, sexual behavior, and the alleged goal to “indoctrinate our children into homosexuality.’’ It is shameful that some people chose to engage in a race to the very bottom of public discourse, rather than to focus on the judge’s qualifications. What an embarrassment to all rational citizens of the Commonwealth.

Sue Hyde, Cambridge
The writer chairs the MassEquality Education Fund Board of Directors.

Governor’s Council out of line in its grilling of nominee
Letter - April 30, 2011

I WRITE to address your report of the prejudice on display at Judge Barbara Lenk’s confirmation hearing before the Governor’s Council. Lenk was asked about handling cases involving gays and lesbians. We are not aware of a single heterosexual judge who was asked by the Governor’s Council about how he or she ruled in matters specifically concerning other heterosexuals. Such questioning serves to promote a ridiculous notion that only judges in a so-called minority group come to the bench with a perspective shaped by their life experiences, when everyone is shaped by his or her life experiences . . .

Nancy M. Cremins, President
Women’s Bar Association of Massachusetts, Boston

She speaks for many who are concerned over gay influence
Letter - May 3, 2011

THE GLOBE'S elitist and condescending editorial condemning my testimony at the Barbara Lenk hearing was certainly predictable ("Decision on Lenk should focus on her record, not her sexuality,'' April 29). But I speak for countless parents across the Commonwealth. And, yes, the Governor's Council needed to hear it.

Parents are sick and tired of the homosexual indoctrination process in the public schools, which now reaches into kindergarten with homosexual-themed story books and into middle schools with the setting up of gay-straight alliance clubs.

Lenk's elevation to the Supreme Judicial Court would only serve to accelerate the homosexual indoctrination. Lenk prominently appeared in the homosexual-themed magazine Boston Spirit as an "openly gay'' judge who was described as helping to "create a shift in the culture.'' Her same-sex marriage reinforces a right invented by activist judges repudiating thousands of years of Western culture. She will be used as a new role model for schoolchildren, and we can expect more anti-family judicial activism down the road.

I testified before the council that the notion that one is born gay is a myth. But the Globe's editorial assertion that homosexual behavior is like being black or Asian has become the party line.

We need less of this nonsense, not more of it.

Sally J. Naumann, Carlisle

Lenk’s experience and ethics should assure her confirmation
May 4, 2011

IN 18 years on the bench, Appeals Court justice Barbara Lenk has gained a reputation as a fair, hard-working jurist whose opinions are models of clarity and persuasiveness. The broad range of appeals she has decided, from felonies to family law and securities cases, especially qualifies her for elevation to the state Supreme Judicial Court. She will need no bullpen warmup. The Governor’s Council could vote as soon as today on Governor Patrick’s nomination of Lenk to the Commonwealth’s highest court. She should be confirmed.

Sadly, Lenk’s confirmation hearing before the council last week got sidetracked at times on an issue that has no bearing on her fitness for the SJC — the fact that she is the first openly gay nominee to the court. Instead of focusing on Lenk’s extensive record of more than 150 published opinions in civil and criminal cases, one witness at the hearing raised the specter that Lenk belongs to a “militant political agenda, which has been hard at work usurping the functions of government.’’ To their credit, several council members have said they would not let opinions like that guide their decision on Lenk, who was first named to the Superior Court by Republican Governor William Weld . . .

Council approves Lenk for seat on state’s top court
By Michael Levenson - Globe Staff - May 5, 2011

Barbara A. Lenk, a veteran Massachusetts Appeals Court judge, won confirmation yesterday to a seat on the Supreme Judicial Court, becoming the first openly gay judge to serve on the state’s highest judicial body . . .

"Pro vs. con: by the numbers"
Letter - May 7, 2011

RE “SHE speaks for many who are concerned over gay influence’’: In Sally J. Naumann’s May 3 letter about her anti-gay testimony at Barbara Lenk’s hearing before the Governor’s Council, she writes, “I speak for countless parents across the Commonwealth.’’ I don’t know what parents have to do with it, or why Naumann continues to rant about school curricula. After all, Lenk was being considered for a seat on the Supreme Judicial Court — for which she was approved — and not secretary of education.

However, contrary to Naumann’s assertion, the number of people who might share her views is not countless. It has been counted many times, in many polls, and the numbers continue to drop. For example, recent national polls indicate that fewer than half of adults are against gay marriage. I’m sure this number is substantially lower in our Commonwealth.

So Naumann should feel reassured that it will get easier and easier for her to count the number of people she speaks for.

John Burger, Roslindale

Given all the negative messages, who would choose to be gay?
Letter - May 7, 2011

THE EDITORIAL to which Sally J. Naumann objected in her May 3 letter “She speaks for many who are concerned over gay influence’’ was hardly extreme. It simply said that Justice Barbara Lenk was qualified and ideally suited to the position for which she was nominated, and that her sexuality should not be considered as relevant to any decision on the matter. (Lenk was confirmed Wednesday to a seat on the Supreme Judicial Court.)

Despite what Naumann contends, it has become pretty well established that sexual predilection is innate. Most of us — and there are millions of us — were born to straight parents in an aggressively straight society. Homosexual acts were illegal, we were deemed by the scientific community as mentally ill, and the trappings of society and religion were devoted to the promotion of the married, heterosexual couple. Literature, films, TV, music, and advertising were, and still are, promulgating a cultural ideal of the straight couple. How can Naumann speak of “homosexual indoctrination’’ when, in spite of all the counterprogramming, so many of us are gay?

Unfortunately, it is the influence of people such as Naumann that drives gay kids to feel less a part of the world, and that leads to a sense of alienation, depression, and suicide. These young people need to know that they are not alone, and that they are loved for who they are.

People such as Lenk are simply doing what they do, becoming what they can become, and providing for all of us a sense that we belong.

Kathy Phillips, North Andover

Heterosexual by choice?
Letter - May 7, 2011

IF, AS Sally J. Naumann argues, one's sexual orientation is a conscious, deliberate decision, at what age did Naumann decide to be heterosexual?

Mary Ann Ladd, Malden

An arbiter, perhaps, in the debate over sexual orientation
Letter - May 16, 2011

SALLY J. Naumann (“She speaks for many who are concerned over gay influence,’’ Letters, May 3) says that “the notion that one is born gay is a myth.’’ In response, Kathy Phillips (“Given all the negative messages, who would choose to be gay?’’ Letters, May 7) says that “it has become pretty well established that sexual predilection is innate.’’ So who is right?

The American Psychological Association represents the research scientists and academic experts in the field of psychology. Here is what the APA says on its website:

“There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.’’

Why is it that the media have failed to report this crucial finding by the APA?

John Fountain, Needham