|
|---|
 |
Gay Lawyer Responds to Pawlick's Letter to "Lawyers Weekly" As Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly continued to embrace gay marriage in recent issues, I watched quietly. But I could not continue doing so as the legal newspaper, which I founded and ran until I sold it in 1997, became more involved. As a result, I sent a reasonable letter to the editor, suggesting they should refrain from political issues. This was responded to last week in a personal attack from an intelligent lawyer, Donald E. Vaughan, at the prestigious firm at Burns and Levinson. He was Phi Beta Kappa at Haverford College in 1979. I talked with Attorney Vaughan on the telephone last week and feel that he really does believe we are haters, although I believe that our cordial discussion did surprise and mellow him a bit. There are three places in his letter that are "over-the-top," particularly for a man of his intelligence. He stated during our telephone conversation that he still believes in the "gay gene," which was totally discredited five years ago, with even the Boston Globe agreeing in its issue of Feb. 7, 1999. You should realize that I am concerned that this lawyer sits on the Board of the Greater Boston Legal Services Corporation which decides which private organizations of lawyers receive public money to help the "poor" in Massachusetts. If you are a straight father who wonders why your children and families are being destroyed by the courts of Massachusetts or if you are a straight mother who has seen the same thing happen when you refused to leave your husband as they demanded, you may understand that this powerful man has little understanding of your world or that of your children and that is why your family will never receive any of that public money. is response is printed first and then my original letter. * * * * * 'Second-Class Citizens' No Longer J. Edward Pawlick's letter condemning the major bar associations for supporting equal marriage rights for same-sex couples represents more of the anti-gay ranting he is known for ("'Goodridge' Coverage Is A 'Disappointment'," Jan. 26). If marriage is so sacred to him, Archbishop O'Malley, President Bush, et al., where was the outrage when pop star Britney Spears got married for about 48 hours on a whim? As conservative columnist Andrew Sullivan noted, if the radical right's anger over the Goodridge decision was based on a genuine concern for an institution and not a blind hatred of a group, Britney's actions would have been roundly condemned. But not a peep was heard. Pawlick and his cohorts are not really concerned with marriage. They are concerned with equality or, to be more precise, denying equality to citizens like me. As I read the Goodridge decision on the day it was issued, I felt a calm peace. Later, I realized that that was due to knowing that my partner and I, at least within the commonwealth, were no longer second-class citizens. Equality is a funny thing. Throughout my life and career I have done well at what I have attempted, but often fundamentally felt that much of that striving was a means to overachieve to make up for being gay. It is a wonderful twist of fate that May 17, 2004, the day same-sex couples can be issued marriage licenses in Massachusetts, is the 50th anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education . Little need to wonder where Pawlick and company would have come out on that bit of "judicial activism," too. As lawyers, we must do all we can to see that our constitutional law continues to evolve to break down barriers to all citizens being treated equally. Goodridge is a milestone we all should be proud of, and defend. Please help prevent me from becoming a second-class citizen again — call your state legislators and urge them not to support a constitutional amendment preventing me from marrying my partner of 20 years. * * * * * 'Goodridge' Coverage Is a 'Disappointment' The major bar associations in Massachusetts continue their enthusiastic embrace of gay marriage, which is definitely a partisan, political matter. And Lawyers Weekly has, unfortunately, become something of an accomplice. This is a disappointment to many lawyers. Everyone can remember back to 2002, when the president of the Boston Bar Association, Joan Lukey, weighed in on gay marriage. She decided in 2002 to allow the BBA to oppose the Protection of Marriage Act. She did this based upon the decision of the 19-member BBA Council, despite the opposition of many members. She wrote to the members that such a decision is "difficult when the association is confronted with issues on which our membership cannot reach consensus." Lukey revealed that her organization was sharply divided. She said a lot more, but you don't have space to print it. She even said that the proposed legislation, which would have stopped the Supreme Judicial Court from doing what it has done in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health , was superfluous. "The law of Massachusetts already prohibits same-sex marriage," Lukey said, "and therefore it seems to the Boston Bar Association that enacting a statute which again prohibits same-sex marriage has a stigmatizing and unnecessarily discriminatory effect on gays and lesbians." Believe it or not, that was said by the BBA after Goodridge had already been filed. Your "news" story on page 2 of the Jan. 19 issue is following right along with the current BBA position of not allowing dissent. Your story, "Briefs Submitted On Gay Marriage," is nothing but a shill for those in some law schools with radical/liberal beliefs. When that story is dissected, one discovers nothing but the deans of two law schools, Stanford and Yale, agreeing with the radical Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe and the 88 professors he rounded up, which probably add up to three or four professors from each of a couple dozen schools. Does that really overwhelm you? Your saccharine "Lawyers Of The Year" story about Goodridge attorney Mary Bonauto a few weeks ago was also kind of sickening. The whole Goodridge case was merely a drama, scripted by Arthur O. ("Pinch") Sulzberger Jr. of The New York Times and Margaret Marshall in 1999, when Pinch took complete control of our local newspaper, The Boston Globe. Bonauto was given the part of the star litigator. She and Margaret Marshall merely followed the lines that were given to them by Sulzberger. The evidence, although circumstantial, is overwhelming. Despite the vigorous proselytizing by SJC Chief Justice Marshall, she was able to convince only three of the six judges to vote with her. And she still had to cast the deciding vote herself. The three dissenting judges were all fired up in their outrage, and that is not too strong a word to use. None of the stories in the popular press wrote about the dissents. This has always been a very collegial court, and this was far from a unanimous decision. Justice Robert Cordy was so upset that he wrote a brilliant expository opinion about the reasons for continuing traditional marriage that was even longer than Margaret Marshall's opinion. s the founder and CEO of Lawyers Weekly until its sale in 1997, my political views and those of the writers and editors were never allowed on the pages of this paper. That was a stringent rule that members of the editorial board came to understand, if not to love. It's too bad that the apolitical nature of Lawyers Weekly is now being compromised, not on the editorial page, but on the news and feature pages with stories that are contributing to the appearance that lawyers everywhere are in favor of gay marriage, even though we all know that is not true. Lawyers Weekly should return to its original tradition of remaining impartial on all political issues. That would serve the legal community as it deserves. Then we might once more have real diversity and tolerance in Massachusetts. |
|
|
Archives | Letters | Bookshop |
