Why Lenk is unsuitable for the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
A disturbing history of bias and activism
POSTED: July 16, 2011
At the time of the nomination and hearing we presented a number of reasons for grave concern:
1. Apparent support for homosexual-themed anti-Semitic school play
Lenk's apparent support for a disgusting homosexual-themed anti-Semitic play presented in Concord has caused big concern. The play, "Falsettos," is a truly sickening piece of work. It is a homosexual love story and obscenely mocks Jewish ethnicity and denigrates traditional Judaism, presented in a crude and vulgar manner. The play also encourages promiscuous homosexual sex. (Read more HERE.) It is currently the object of a town resolution condemning the play to be voted on next week.
Barbara Lenk is on the Board of Directors of Kerem Shalom, a far-left, non-affiliated, pro-gay "welcoming" Jewish temple in Concord. On March 29 a letter was published in the local newspaper by the president of Kerem Shalom, on behalf of the temple. In the letter, Temple Kerem Shalom enthusiastically endorsed "Falsettos" and described the Orthodox Jewish group that opposed the play as out of the mainstream. As a Board member (and as a public figure) one must assume Lenk agrees with that. She has not said anything to the contrary.
Unfortunately, the Governor's Council refused to ask Lenk about this at the hearing, although it was brought up by witnesses testifying.
2. Lenk's extremist decision in 1998 Boston domestic partnership case was overruled by Margaret Marshall
In 1998 homosexual activists tried to push domestic partnership legislation through the Massachusetts Legislature. But Gov. Paul Cellucci and Speaker Tom Finneran blocked it. So they tried a different approach.
On Aug. 4, 1998, Boston Mayor Menino issued an executive order to create legal domestic partnerships for municipal employees in Boston. On November 10 challenged in court by the Catholic Action League, headed by C.J. Doyle, and the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ).
In December 11, 1998, the Superior Court agreed with the plaintiffs that the executive order was illegal and issued an injunction to stop it. The homosexual lobby appealed it, apparently having gone "judge shopping" for the right venue.
On December 21, 1998, a single justice on the Appeals Court -- Barbara Lenk -- lifted the injunction, ruling that by not allowing domestic partnerships it would cause "irreparable harm" to the couples' ability to get health insurance.
The case then went to the Supreme Judicial Court. On July 8, 1999, the court unanimously overruled Lenk's ruling, and ruled that the executive order was illegal. The decision, written by Margaret Marshall, stated that cities and towns could not re-define the family for group insurance purposes -- only the Legislature could do that. (Obviously, Marshall modified her views on that afterwards!)
Is this the kind of "justice" we want on the Supreme Judicial Court?
3. Profiled in homosexual magazine as "openly lesbian judge"
Lenk has not been shy about her "identity" as a lesbian. In November, 2008 the homosexual magazine Spirit published a profile of homosexual judges in Massachusetts, highlighting in particular Lenk and two others.
 |
"Out" Massachusetts judges (left to right) Linda Giles, David Mills and Barbara Lenk pose for homosexual magazine.
[Spirit magazine photo.] |
The article observed the "openly gay and lesbian judges" have helped make the court system "a much friendlier place for LGBT people." It also quoted the legal director of GLAAD, a homosexual (and publicly funded) legal group: "We need out LGBT judge role models as emblems for our kids."
"Out gay and lesbian judges, just by their presence on the bench, create a shift in the culture," says Katherine Triantafillou, a founder and former co-chairwoman of the Massachusetts Lesbian & Gay Bar Association (MLGBA), in the article
If confirmed, Lenk's status as a "married" lesbian with children will likely be used in the public schools to reinforce the normalcy and legality of "gay marriage."
4. Lenk's legal philosophy: Interpretation of the law "evolves"
Lenk told Spirit magazine that in her opinion . . .
"The law evolves and develops. It is not carved in granite. Judges do not enact laws, but it is our job to interpret and apply them in specific circumstances. Those circumstances change over time, and that has to affect how the law is understood and applied. . . . Members of minority groups [i.e. homosexuals] may see certain things differently based on their own experiences."
So much for the concept of original intent. It's now whatever the judge feels like.
This approach is disturbing in general, but from an activist lesbian about to ascend to the state's highest court, all the more so. Moveover, it the basis for all judicial activism.
5. 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.
6. Bizarre ruling in 2010 incest case
Lenk 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).
In a column before Lenk's confirmation, Boston Herald Howie Carr described the case 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.
7. Disturbing answers when questioned by Council at hearing
To put it mildly, Lenk was very evasive and at times flippant during her questioning by Governor's Council members during her hearing. A few that stood out:
- 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.
- 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.
Questions we wish had been asked to Barbara Lenk by the Governor's Council:
- As a Board Member of Temple Karem Shalom, does Lenk agree that the play "Falsettos" is suitable for kids?
- Does Lenk believe that interpretation of the law is "evolving". If the meaning of the law is to evolve, isn't that the job of the Legislature to decide?
- What is Lenk's opinion of the Goodridge decision?
- Do public schools have the obligation to portray homosexuality as normal and equal to heterosexuality? Should the opposite opinion be allowed? What is her opinion of applicability of the Mass. Parents' Rights statute?
The bottom line: We believe this could be the final nail in the coffin for real justice in Massachusetts.
