Q&A About 'Protection of Marriage' Amendment

The Official "Framers Intent" from Massachusetts Citizens for Marriage

October 28, 2002

When the Courts of our state interpret the 'Protection of Marriage' Amendment in the future, they will carefully examine the intent of its sponsors - those who wrote it and who will be known to the courts as the Amendment's "framers."

Therefore, Sarah McVay Pawlick, President of MCM since our founding in May 2000, had this document prepared under her personal supervision for all voters and judges to know the "intent of the framers" who wrote the Amendment.

She will continue to answer additional questions from the press, citizens and other interested parties that could be helpful to our judges in the future.

Because this issue has been "framed" until now by one of the Amendment's principal enemies, the Boston Globe, a large part of what you read here will be new to most people. Some of it is repetitious but we have found that is necessary to get understanding because we have all heard such propaganda.

Why are you so interested in this subject?
Marriage has been the foundation of our society for thousands of years. It was instituted to give women and their children the ability to live and grow with as much security and protection as possible. Because all humans are imperfect, the institution of marriage is also imperfect. There are many abuses under it, both to women and to men, which we have all seen in our daily lives. But marriage in our country has always been unique to the rest of the world. It has been very important in creating the society which, for most of us, caused our parents and grandparents to come to this country with enthusiasm and excitement. There are many other places they could have chosen, but they wanted to come here.

We must decide whether we now want to be part of a social experiment that will tinker with this foundation of our society in unknown ways.

But marriage has been unhappy for many people.
We acknowledge that marriage is far from perfect because it involves humans with all their weaknesses as well as their strengths.

It is similar to our form of government. You can find problems with both but can you find anything better? Winston Churchill once said, "Democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." What he says is true: Putting the people in charge is a terrible way to run a country but it is the best system that man has ever devised. This is also true of our smallest unit of government, the family.

In light of Churchill's famous statement, it's fascinating today to see that many of those who are most opposed to marriage in the Commonwealth are also opposed to our democracy. Does that sound harsh and untrue? If it does, you must consider that even though we at Mass. Citizens for Marriage have followed all the rules under the Mass. Constitution to allow the people to decide this Amendment, most of our politicians, such as Senate President Tom Birmingham, are refusing to obey the Constitution. And Shannon O'Brien now tells us she approves his illegal actions.

They have refused so far to put the Amendment to a vote of the citizens - even though the state Constitution REQUIRES that it be done and both Atty. General Tom Reilly and a unanimous Supreme Judicial Court (7-0) have ruled that it is a proper measure for the voters to decide.

Those who disagree with the leadership of Sen. Birmingham include Sen. John Kerry, Robert Reich, Michael Dukakis and a majority of the voters in the gubernatorial primary who put Sen. Birmingham at a distant third in the voting.

But the politicians in power on Beacon Hill continue to deny us our basic rights. Does that statement sound extreme? If so, please don't forget that the Legislature, under the supervision of Tom Birmingham, voted 137-53 on July 17 to deny all of us our Constitutional right to vote. (They did that in a Constitutional Convention, which is a combined session of the House and Senate).

Where do you see hate exhibited against you?
It's fascinating that, according to Shannon O'Brien, the citizens who favor the Amendment (more than 60% of them do) are "mean-spirited" and "hateful" and wish to "discriminate" with this Amendment.

As a result of that thinking, when O'Brien was asked on Oct. 17 by Bay Windows, Boston's homosexual newspaper, "Do you believe the Protection of Marriage Amendment initiative should be put before the voters?" she answered, "No."

When O'Brien was asked, "Do you believe the legislature should have voted on the Protection of Marriage Amendment rather than voting to adjourn, even if that meant that H4840 [the Amendment] would have passed? she answered, "No."

It is far from pleasant to be called those nasty names and to be told that our democracy will be put aside while O'Brien lectures us.

But isn't this Amendment unkind to gays?
Before we can have an intelligent discussion of that question, we must understand some basic information. The opponents of the Amendment are not primarily gays. There are other, more important issues at work here.

Are you saying this is a conspiracy?
That's a loaded, legal term. Let's just say that there are powerful forces at work beneath the surface.

Can you prove that?
Although we have known that for some time, Bay Windows (which is Boston's homosexual newspaper) has confirmed it for us. After they thought they had won on July 17, they were exuberant when they wrote an Editorial on Aug. 19 about how wonderful it was to have won. Since then, they have realized that there will be another vote this fall. As a result, they have removed that editorial from their website, but it remains in their print copies.

What did Bay Windows say?
It confirmed in the Aug. 19 editorial that powerful, national forces from the AFL-CIO, ACLU, Anti-Defamation League, NOW and other extreme liberals were behind the illegal adjournment on July 17. It also indicated that most homosexuals are not interested in the subject. "It was like pulling teeth" to get them to contribute to the effort, one activist reported.

This confirms what we have been saying for over a year. But the Boston Globe won't report it because they are one of the strongest enemies of the Amendment. The opposition from these groups is not primarily about homosexuality. It's about their powerful, extreme liberal agenda to change our morality and our government. They seek a socialist form of government similar to Sweden or Cuba, and a sexually promiscuous society in which children are the responsibility of the state, not their parents.

That's why the national, liberal organizations are so interested in what is happening in Massachusetts. They are hiding behind homosexuals and others to achieve their political objectives.

They wish to diminish the institution of marriage which has been the bedrock of our country since its founding. In those early days, everyone knew what "marriage" meant, so it was never written down. It wasn't necessary. But it's obvious to everyone that we must do so now.
Bay Windows emphasized the importance of liberal allies when it wrote the following: "Gays and lesbians cannot win these fights on their own. They must have strong and committed straight allies, such as labor unions and the ACLU." It also listed other organizations and said, "Our hats are off to them."

Although Bay Windows did not say so, it is also obvious that the powerful Boston Globe and its owner, the New York Times, are important players in this attempt to increase the power of the state in our lives. Both papers reported about the Amendment only in a negative manner which was an attempt to wreck it.

The owner of the NYTimes is Arthur O. Sulzberger, Jr., whose ancestors bought the Times back in the 1800s. He sits in a plush New York office and worries about China, the Mideast and such things. He was never elected to anything. He does not like having the residents of a province up north of Westchester County challenging the appointed ministers at his local newspaper.

Are you saying that the Amendment does not affect the gays?
Of course it affects the gays. But the driving force behind the interest of the Boston Globe/NYTimes complex is a political one that would change our society. As Bay Windows said it was like "pulling teeth" to get most gays interested in what was happening.

But how about all the nasty, illegal tricks you pulled?
There were no nasty, illegal tricks by us. Not one. But there was fraud at the Boston Globe, which is always followed like lemmings by most of the media in the state.

But what about the signatures you got with the bait-and-switch scam by telling people they were signing a petition to stop the slaughter of horses?
That was a giant hoax spread by the Boston Globe/NYTimes. When we first heard it in November 2001, we immediately investigated in the field and found no evidence of foul play. We asked the horse people for any information as to how we could help avoid any problems, because there might be unscrupulous people working for our joint contractor. But we received no reply, only silence. There was nothing to the charges. But the Globe was quick to jump on it as though it had been planned for them to do so. Apparently it was. The horse people began to level charges of fraud against the Marriage Amendment that month of Nov. 2001.

We had had no experience in gathering signatures. (Have you? Where would you have started?) We were very concerned for the safety of our volunteers after the opposition began to send nasty "blockers" to stop people from signing our petitions. We were forced to hire professionals, but we didn't know who was in that business. We had seen that both Carla Howell and the horse people used a firm from Arizona, so we quickly hired them. Even Bay Windows reported at the time that the firm had a good reputation.

The "horse" story first surfaced when the Globe had to break its silence on the Amendment after it became obvious that the measure would get the required signatures. It wrote its first story ever about the Amendment on Nov. 21, 2001, under the headline, "Battle over gay marriage petition gets ugly."

It wrote: "Voters sympathetic to gay rights complained that hired signature-gatherers were using campaign literature for a referendum that would ban horse slaughter to dupe voters into signing the marriage ban. The Attorney General issued a warning last Friday."

The "warning" came from Attorney General Tom Reilly on Nov. 16. Although he is a political ally of the opponents, he had announced only that he had received "several" complaints that people had been asked to sign a petition to ban the slaughter of horses for human consumption but had been given the marriage petition instead. (The word "several," according to Webster's means, "more than two but not many; of an indefinite but small number.") Nevertheless, that "warning" is still being repeated by the opponents everywhere.

The Attorney General issued a News Release warning all signers to, "Carefully read the actual piece of paper you are being asked to sign." That's sound advice for anyone. But he never said or intimated that anything wrong had been done, only that he had received "several," unverified complaints.

It's important to remember that Reilly was under terrible fire from the gay activists after he followed the law and approved the Amendment for the ballot. The editor of Bay Windows was furious and wrote that he would never forgive Reilly. So when Reilly only issued a token "warning" when requested by the activists, it was a tribute to his fairness.

We responded that we agreed wholeheartedly with the warning that everyone must be careful what they sign when approached by any petition gatherer. We wrote: "The people who are gathering signatures for us are the same ones who have been doing this for both Carla Howell and the people opposing the slaughter of horses. If any or all of these signature gatherers have been deceptive, they will be condemned by everyone, including us. By the same token, the people who are making false accusations should also be condemned. The Attorney General gives excellent advice when he admonishes everyone, 'Carefully read the actual piece of paper you are signing.'"

The Globe repeated the discredited story again on January 9 with nothing new and placed it on the front page of the "City & Region" section. They still had not named even one person who said he had been tricked.

The Globe reported again on March 26 that the horse people had filed a suit seeking to get on the ballot even though they had not gotten enough signatures. The lawsuit was obviously timed to influence the vote of the Committee at the State House which held a hearing on the Amendment on April 10. At that hearing, our "fraud" was referred to frequently by members of the Committee as a reason not to favor the Amendment.

Did the NY Times take part itself, other than through the Globe?
The New York Times joined in the attack in a large story in a Sunday, national edition, which went out across the entire country on April 7 -- only three days before the hearing on Beacon Hill.

We said at the time, "We've known for years that the Times, which also owns the Boston Globe, is against marriage amendments. That is obviously their right. But it is not their right to play 'dirty.' Everyone knows zealots, who wait until the last week before an election to make untrue charges. They hope that the other side will not be able to respond in time. Although we've all heard the horse charges since last November, it's strange that the Times would be writing a major story about it only three days before the hearing."

We pointed out that there was absolutely nothing new in their story. The Times reported only three people who had complained about being tricked.

Even at that late date, the Times quoted the horse people as saying that "hundreds" of people were tricked. But only five were identified. They claimed that the organizer "believes" they would find 2,574 additional signatures that were necessary to get on the ballot.

Even if everything they said were true, how would this indict the Protection of Marriage Amendment? Nothing in the story indicated that the horse people were accusing us of anything. Only the signature-gatherers were criticized. They said they were not angry at the marriage people.

Yet the Times headline was, "Drive to Ban Gay Marriage Is Accused of Duping Signers." The headline certainly indicates that the mindset of the Times was solely to attack the Amendment. The headline also continued the falsehood that the Amendment will primarily impact gays, which is not close to being true.

The lawsuit by the horse people was thrown out a few weeks later by Superior Court Judge Thomas E. Connolly in Boston's Superior Court. But neither the Globe nor the Times ever reported that.

Why do you blame Palmer & Dodge lawyers for the scam?
It was pointed out to us last April that two lawyers from Palmer & Dodge were responsible for the "horse" smear against us. They are Neil P. Arkuss and George Ticknor who were both original signers of the horse petition and are active in the Emerson Umbrella Center for the Arts in Concord. All of the other signers of the horse petition are also from Concord and active at the Emerson Center.

We said at the time, "Why are you doing this to us? Have you no sense of decency or honesty?"

It immediately became clear that Arkuss had no justification for a lawsuit and he was using it only as a smear against MCM. Even though five months had passed before he filed the suit, he had located only 13 people, out of 76,607 officially certified signatures, who said they were duped into signing.

When it became known that a legislative hearing would be held on the Marriage Amendment on April 10, Attys. Arkuss and Ticknor let loose a barrage of 19,613 letters to signers of the petition claiming fraud. This meant the letters arrived in the mailboxes just a week before the Marriage hearing. Of course, it was they who passed the story to the New York Times with exquisite timing, just three days before the hearing.

The libelous, loose talk about our fraud continues to this day.

Did you also complain about "blockers" from the ACLU?
The ACLU trained hundreds of blockers to harass the voters as they attempted to sign the petition in the fall of 2001, according to the Bay Windows editorial.

This was an illegal violation of voting rights under the U.S. Constitution. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, no campaigning can be done anywhere near where people are exercising their voting rights. But the ACLU put blockers in the faces of voters as they were in the act of signing. It was this illegal confrontation that caused everyone to worry about the safety of our petition gatherers and forced us to go to the expense of hiring paid gatherers. The Bay Windows editorial bragged, "As a result, the petitioners received thousands fewer signatures than they otherwise would have."

The right to solicit signatures in public places is clear and is protected by both the U.S. and Massachusetts Constitutions, according to a Memorandum from the Secretary of State dated August 30, 2001.

The blockers operated at shopping centers and malls. Their work was done in conjunction with a local group called the Campaign for Equality, of which the ACLU is a member. One ACLU lawyer, Norma Shapiro, says she trained many of the blockers, in addition to participating on squads herself. She told Bay Windows that she trained volunteers not to interrupt people while they're speaking, to talk politely and to remind potential signers to read what they're signing. "I have real confidence in the people that we've trained. I don't believe there's been anything confrontational to the point where anybody's been upset about it," she said.

The pictures that we had taken with a hidden camera tell an entirely different story, but the Globe was never interested in them. The ACLU used the euphemism, "truth squads," to describe their illegal activities. The purpose, they said, was to "convince" voters not to sign the petition. Reports from petitioners in the field, said the "truth squads" were quite aggressive, obnoxious and dangerous.

A petitioner, who asked that his name be withheld, reported that the "truth squads" descended on signing tables at various malls and stores and harassed petitioners and blocked the public as they approached the tables. "They try to head the public off at the pass. They will get between the public and us before we can talk to them. They are not only intimidating the public, but now we are being intimidated. Any time people enter your personal space, put their face close to your face, or spit at you or try to hit you with a petition board, we feel a certain amount of concern for the safety of those out there gathering signatures."

A fund-raising email from the Campaign for Equality said, "If we can ramp this effort up statewide, we have an excellent chance at slowing down the signature drive enough to stop the ballot campaign before it starts." The e-mail boasted that efforts to block signatures were "phenomenally successful." It said that whenever a "truth squad" was near a petitioner, signature totals drop by as much as 80%.

The e-mail mentioned that "truth squads" were organized to work four-hour shifts. "All you need to do is hand out leaflets and talk to passers-by. Everyone who has worked in a Truth Squad says it's an empowering and 'downright fun' experience." Training sessions for the blockers were held at the Hotel and Restaurant Workers Union Hall, 58 Berkeley St. in the South End of Boston.

Six blockers interfered with one lone woman's efforts to collect signatures at Assumption College. The six people approached her table and loudly interrupted her dialogue with potential signers. She said. "I couldn't get a word in edgewise. I lost the entire day. That was a big injustice for our cause. They are trying to suffocate this issue before the public can vote on it."

The Bay Windows editorial bragged, "As a result, the petitioners received thousands fewer signatures than they otherwise would have."

Click here for Part II: The Well-Being of Gays and Children

Tuesday January 13, 2004 News Links World Net Daily **Agape Press * TownHall.com * FreeCongress.org FoxNews.com *Media Research * CNSnews.com * Human Events **