Sandy Rios of CWA Removed by James Dobson

Why Is This Important to Massachusetts?
By Attorney J. Edward Pawlick
March 17, 2004

     Many family leaders are saying that the popular President of Concerned Women for America, Sandy Rios, who stepped down last week, was removed by James Dobson of Focus on the Family, because of her opposition to the federal marriage amendment he is promoting which allows civil unions. Dobson is putting this language in the federal amendment to the consternation of all the other family groups in the country.

     Another family leader, the President of the Family Research Council, Atty. Ken Connor, was deposed last summer from that Focus affiliate for the same reason  he opposed the federal Amendment. But last week’s action was the first time that Dobson has forced himself into the internal workings of an independent organization.

     The action has a profound effect upon Massachusetts because Dobson is promoting a similar measure here which would also allow civil unions. Dobson said on Hannity and Colmes this month that Massachusetts will get homosexual marriage this year. This caused many to wonder why Dobson is here if he believes that we don’t stand a chance. It caused others to point to the multiple millions of letters Dobson is sending across the country to raise money to help him “battle” in Massachusetts. He is using this as a means to raise a lot of money for Focus on the Family, they point out.

     The “battle” he is fighting in our name in Massachusetts is also a losing one for our state for another reason, many were saying last week, because it allows the politicians at the State House to “run out the clock.”

     These observers say, “We can’t beat Beacon Hill at its own game. We must get on to removing Margaret Marshall from the bench, and we don’t have any time to waste. We must get over the idea that we can accomplish anything by an Amendment which allows civil unions and won’t take effect until 2006, even if it does pass.

     “We must remove Marshall, not by a complicated impeachment process, but by a simple Bill of Address. Make the politicians vote yes-or-no before May 17 on removing Marshall and her three cohorts.”

     They point out that nothing is going to automatically happen in May. The case was sent back by Justice Marshall to the Superior Court saying, “We remand this case to the Superior Court for entry of judgment consistent with this opinion. Entry of judgment shall be stayed for 180 days to permit the Legislature to take such action as it may deem appropriate in light of this opinion.”

     Therefore, the case is now under control of the Superior Court. A judge from the Superior Court must make a ruling in May as to what will happen next. Of course, Justice Marshall could change her ruling if three judges in the SJC will agree with her to do so.

     If Margaret Marshall and her three cronies are removed, that will mean the three dissenters will be in charge at the SJC until Gov. Romney appoints four new ones. It is they who will decide what happens in May.