New York Times Uses 'Horse Story' to Join Boston Globe in Libeling Supporters of Amendment

MN Staff
November 2002 Print Edition

		A lie against the supporters of the Amendment was heavily publicized by both the Boston Globe and its owner, the New York Times. They wrote that many signers were deceived by signature gatherers who tricked them into thinking they were signing a petition to stop the slaughter of horses for human food.
The Emerson Umbrella Center for the Arts no longer recognizes mothers and fathers and teaches children to refer to parents as "adult partners".

The Times ran this story in its national edition which went across the entire country. But the story was a complete hoax. Both the Globe and the Times reported it in an effort to destroy the Amendment - even after it was clear the story was not true.

The "horses" first surfaced when the Globe had to break its silence on the Amendment after it became obvious to everyone last fall that the measure would get the required signatures. Therefore, the Globe wrote its first story ever about the Amendment on November 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, prompting the proponents to temporarily suspend their work with Ballot Access Co. of Phoenix."

The "warning" from Attorney General Tom Reilly, a political ally of the opponents, on Nov. 16 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 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," which is sound advice for anyone. But he never said or intimated that anything wrong had been done, only that he had received "several," unverified complaints.

MCM responded that they agreed wholeheartedly with the warning that everyone must be careful what they sign when approached by any petition gatherer.

It 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 was tricked.

They reported again on March 26 that the horse people had filed a suit seeking to get on the ballot even though they did not get 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, the "fraud" was referred to frequently by members of the Committee as a reason not to favor the Amendment.

The New York Times joined in the attack in a large story on a Sunday, national edition, which went out across the entire country on April 7 - only three days before the hearing on Beacon Hill.

The president of Mass. Citizens for Marriage said, "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. If they believe their prestige would put the Amendment on the defensive, they are wrong because everyone is able to see the truth in this matter."

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

"These people in the Times story are 3 of the 5 voters who were plaintiffs in the lawsuit which was filed against the Secretary of State about ten days ago. Despite all the hoopla, we've still only been told about five people who are said to have complained."

The Times got its facts wrong at the beginning. It started its story this way, "Outside a Stop & Shop in this suburb south of Boston a few months ago ... ." But everyone in Massachusetts knew that the signing of petitions ended last fall, not "a few months ago."

"The Times is embarrassed," said Pawlick, "because it is rehashing a worn-out, discredited story and wants to hide the fact that its timing is very suspicious.

"When the reporter, Pam Belluck, called our office last Thursday," Pawlick continued, "she indicated that the story would be ready on Friday. But they held it for a few days, which shows it was not a timely news story. Their only intent was to run it sometime before Wednesday, in order to send 'smoke' across the hearing room."

Even at this late date, the Times quoted horse people that "hundreds" of people were tricked, but only five were identified. They claimed that the organizer "believes" they would find the 2,574 additional signatures they needed.

Even if everything they said was true, how would this indict the Protection of Marriage Amendment? asked Pawlick. Nothing in the story indicated that the horse people were accusing them of anything. Only the signature-gatherers were criticized. They said they're not angry at the marriage people. The same signature gatherers worked for both groups, plus they also worked for Carla Howell's income tax campaign.

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 is solely to attack the Amendment.

"Don't forget that we had to use these paid signature-gatherers only because of the illegal blocking by the opposition," said Pawlick.

The headline also continued the falsehood that the Amendment will primarily impact gays, which is not close to being true, said Pawlick.

A California lawyer who brought the suit against the Secretary of State was cited as saying that the signature gatherers said they were coached to use the horse petition to snag "marriage" signatures. But only one signature gatherer was cited after that claim and the Times said only that he said, "he and others were given clipboards with horse cover sheets, but more marriage petitions than horse petitions underneath."

The suit 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.