|
For immediate Release February
6, 2003
Press
Release
Massachusetts
Citizens for Marriage, P.O. Box 812448, Wellesley,
MA
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
"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 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.
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 Brief
|
