|
SJC Told
that Most People Believe Sarah McVay Pawlick
Is Wasting Her Time Appealing to the Courts
She Does
Not Agree; Believes Courts Will Do 'The Right
Thing' In Scandal about Marriage Amendment
The woman who is leading the
fight for traditional marriage in Massachusetts,
Sarah McVay Pawlick, has been told by most
people that she is wasting her time appealing
to the courts or anyone else in this state,
her attorney told the Supreme Judicial Court
today in a brief filed with the Court.
"She keeps assuring them
that the courts are still fair, although some
judges are not, as is true with people everywhere,"
her attorney and husband, J. Edward Pawlick
wrote on behalf of his wife.
The attorney said that many
citizens, together with others on the national
scene, point to the upcoming gay marriage
case which seeks to impose gay marriage on
the state and is being heard by the Court
in March. These people have already decided
that the Court will hold in favor of gay marriage.
They know that the Protection of Marriage
amendment would not permit gay marriage and
that is why they believe she will never win
in this court.
Pawlick filed suit in the SJC
on January 2, asking the court to send the
amendment directly to the new legislature
because last year's legislature under Senate
President Tom Birmingham violated the Constitution
by voting to adjourn without a vote on the
measure. The court held on Dec. 20, after
a suit brought last year by Pawlick, that
the law had been violated. But neither Birmingham
or Swift took any action to comply with the
judges' instructions.
Attorney Pawlick said that his
wife points out to everyone that she has not
seen unfairness in the legal cases she has
observed in the last few years.
"There's no question, however,
that she has her head on the chopping block,
ready to be ridiculed and laughed at if she
is proven wrong," he wrote.
"Her greatest concern is that she will
be turned away without any answer as to who
can sue. In particular, she is unable to understand
why everyone appears to be able to sue the
Secretary of the Commonwealth except her.
Regardless of whether she is right or wrong
about the merits of her suit, why would she
be estopped from raising the issues? If she
is not allowed to sue, who can?"
The lawyer wrote in his 33-page
brief: "The attorney for the Commonwealth
argues that the plaintiffs should just try
again. He opines that they are allowed to
spend another three years of their lives and
$1.7 million -- only to be laughed at once
more in 2005! Can anyone deny that if what
the attorney for the Commonwealth argues is
true, we have lost our republican form of
government in Massachusetts?"
Read
More: Excerpts From Pawlick's Briefs
|
