3rd in Series
Special Report for Those Who Want to Lower Taxes, Increase Manufacturing Jobs and Squash Big Government

How Has Marriage Amendment Affected Those Issues? By Atty. J. Edward Pawlick May 21, 2003 Did the Marriage Amendment do anything to squash the stench on Beacon Hill? Look at it this way. Mitt Romney is Governor today only because of the Marriage Amendment. (He probably does not understand that.)

Atty. Pawlick arguing in cout; in the foreground, his wife, Sarah McVay Pawlick.

That was a huge story on Election Day 2002. But it was never reported. It wasn't reported because the Boston Globe does not like that story.

Not only does the scandal show that the Legislature and the Governor broke the law on purpose, but our Supreme Judicial Court has joined forces with them.

And some people say that our reporting the social issues has no effect on the "real world"!?! It certainly did affect our politics but are the Republicans and the Libertarians smart enough to understand it - and capitalize on it? Businesses Avoid States with Poor Courts A panel appointed by Chief Justice Marshall told her in March that businesses avoid states with poor courts - and her courts are "dysfunctional," according to them.. How will that affect our ability to attract new manufacturing jobs? But Marshall "spun" the story and the Globe will not report the truth. Only MassNews went back to the panel and questioned them in order to discover what they really believe. The scandal about the Marriage Amendment is as important to business in this state as anything could ever be. When this Court totally ignores the serious charges leveled at it by its own panel in order to spend its time imposing its will on the state by changing the structure of marriage, which is the foundation of our entire society, what effect will that have on businesses? They will all avoid this state like the plague. What will a rogue court like that be doing next?

We Won the "Protection of Marriage Amendment," Who Took It Away? This story is the 3rd in a series, which examines the enormous effort by Mass. Citizens for Marriage and MassNews on the 'Protection of Marriage Amendment.' Has it done any good? An historic confrontation occurred on May 9, 2003, when the Justices heard arguments in the lawsuit that was filed by Atty. J. Edward Pawlick on January 2, 2003 — after Senate President Thomas Birmingham and Gov. Swift broke the law in order to defeat the successful Protection of Marriage Amendment, which would have codified the definition of marriage as it has always been: one-man-and-one-woman, in order to protect mothers and their children. Story #1 - SJC Judges Warned Not to Follow Disastrous Route of Sen. Birmingham and Shannon O'Brien in Imposing Gay Marriage Story #2 - What's It Like to Tell Six Judges of the Supreme Court that They Are Breaking the Law? Is It Lonely? Where Are the Leaders of the Family Movement?

This revelation will send a clarion call to all businesses inside and outside the state.

Will We Have an Effect on Definition of Marriage?

My wife, Sarah McVay Pawlick, used to believe that the judges on the SJC would do the right thing in the end. If they don't, and they allow her Amendment to be destroyed by illegal means, that would mean we have lost our republican form of government as guaranteed to us by the U.S. Constitution. What judge would like to have that on his resume? Does Margaret Marshall really believe she can attain her goal of sitting on the U.S. Supreme Court if she allows that to happen?

I have chosen the New York Times Company (owner of the New York Times newspaper and the Boston Globe newspaper) as the first person to sue in this scandal. [Read more.] It will be difficult to get to the issues in the case because they have engaged the high-powered, expensive firm of Bingham McCutchen to represent them.

It would be a disaster for the Times to lose this case. They will fight with every trick they know, instead of just letting a judge or jury hear the evidence and make a decision. They will use their platoons of lawyers to file motions, etc. just to flood me with paperwork.

It will not be hard to determine whether libel was committed, but they do not want that decision to be made by a judge or jury.

We must also remember that this is Massachusetts and the federal courts here are just as liberal and biased as the state courts. We must not forget that Atty. Chester Darling was turned down by every court and administrative agency in the state, including the U.S. Court of Appeals. Only one judge held in his favor out of about 18 before he won 9-0 in the U.S. Supreme Court. But win or lose, we will certainly be sending a message to Beacon Hill that the days of watching them destroy our government are over.

Did Sen. Birmingham Really Say That?

Did Sen. Birmingham really say that he lost the Governorship because of the Marriage Amendment?

He said, "I'm a big boy. I took a stand fully knowing what the reaction of the other side would be and would have to be completely removed from the process not to know. I got all the e-mails and everything else beforehand, so this reaction doesn't surprise me. It doesn't faze me either."

His negative ratings rose sharply after his failure to allow a vote on the Marriage Amendment. After he postponed the vote on June 19 and then adjourned the Constitutional Convention on July 17, he began to slip in the polls and his negative ratings rose. He never recovered.

The homosexual newspaper, Bay Windows, reported it this way: "Birmingham, who has consistently polled third behind O'Brien and Reich [after the Constitutional Convention], acknowledged that he has 'taken some hits' because of his stance against the ballot initiative — negative e-mails, hate mail, jeers along the campaign trail — but he's long since given up on pleasing everyone. 'This is one of those issues that if people choose to reject my candidacy over it, I'll sleep at night knowing I did what I thought was right in my heart. . I want to win this election — but this is what I thought was right, if people want to reject me because of that, I can live with that.'"

There's no doubt that Birmingham believes he — and the Democratic Party — were rejected and lost because of the Marriage Amendment. And the facts show that he is correct.

The second choice of the Party, Shannon O'Brien, suffered just as much after she embraced gay marriage. The only reason she did so was because Mass. Citizens for Marriage made it an important issue and she succumbed to the urging of the Boston Globe to support gay marriage.

Read Pawlick's Brief: '3-Minute Summary' Presented to Court at Beginning of Brief Full Text of Brief Given to Court See Also: 1st Story in Series: SJC Judges Warned Not to Follow Disastrous Route of Sen. Birmingham and Shannon O'Brien in Imposing Gay Marriage 2nd Story in Series: What's It Like to Tell Six Judges of the Supreme Court that They Are Breaking the Law? Is It Lonely? Where Are the Leaders of the Family Movement? Ethics complaint could remove Marshall from gay marriage cases Transcript of May 9 Oral Argument: Massachusetts Citizens for Marriage v. Secretary of the Commonwealth Transcript of Oral Argument Before Single Justice Greaney on Feb. 25, 2003 Full transcript of historic, March 3 hearing in Goodridge case about gay marriage Stories From April Issue: Panel Rejects Marshall's 'Spin' on Report About Her Lack of Leadership Mass. Courts Need 'Sweeping Changes,' Says Prestigious Panel Only Two People Allowed to Address Judges about Gay Marriage; Total Time of 37 Minutes and 11 Seconds Allotted; Further Discussion and Voting Will Be in Secret When Will Professional Feminists Join 'Rest of the World'? Colloquy between MassNews and Plaintiffs GLAD Lawyers Have Plenty of Money Atty. Bonauto Changed Her Story During First Few Minutes Are Mass. Citizens Bigots as Our Court Believes? Mary Bonauto Is 'Special' to Justices Mass. Constitution Says that Legislature Is In Charge of Marriage It's Religion! Kill Marriage!!! Margaret Marshall Lectures Australia's Courts; They Must Tolerate More Criticism of Themselves Why Parents Have Trouble with Courts Many other interesting stories on this subject can be found in our archives. Coming - Is Mass. Family Institute Helping or Hurting with Its New Amendment about Marriage?