May 20, 2004

Honorable Suzanne DelVecchio
Chief Justice, Superior Court
McCormack Post Office & Courthouse
90 Devonshire Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02109

Dear Judge DelVecchio:

It would have been difficult to believe when you came to our Lawyers Weekly parties, before I sold the company in 1997, that we would soon be embroiled in a passionate struggle over homosexual "marriage." I believe you were there on the evening when Judge Breyer quietly appeared even though he had just been appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

We both understand that trial lawyers can fiercely battle each other and still be friends after it is all over. Lay people find that difficult to understand. I hope that we will still be friends when this is finished.

I write to you because I believe that because of confusion in your Court, some people have unfortunately been told they are married when they are not.

However, my main concern is that you not remain in your office because your partisanship in favor of homosexual marriage gives, at the very least, an appearance of impropriety. That is damaging to our courts, the people and you.

Are Some Not Legally Married

When Margaret Marshall remanded the case to your Court on November 18, 2003, she ordered that there be "an entry of judgment consistent with this opinion." She also ordered: "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."

The first question that someone in your Court answered is whether a judgment would be entered immediately last November upon receipt of Judge Marshall's Order. The answer would appear to be obvious, the judgment would not be entered until a judge in your court had determined that he should do so. Therefore, nothing occurred until 180 days had passed, apparently on May 17. However, on that day, the judge who had dismissed the case before it went to the SJC, Thomas E. Connolly, was not the judge who was assigned by you to consider the case on May 17. Another judge, Paul E. Troy, was given that assignment.

Although Massachusetts has always had an unusual system of rotating its trial judges to different courts around the state because it is thought that justice is better served that way, it has always seemed a trifle strange to many. At any rate, Judge Connolly was in Boston on May 17, and you could have seen that he handled the matter.

No person would disagree that that is what should have been done. Instead, a judge who knew nothing about the matter closed this historic case perfunctorily.

This matter had been remanded to a judge, not just a clerk who could count to one-hundred-and-eighty. The judge should have been one with intimate knowledge of the case. You could have done that. You should have done that. Why did you not?

An apparently serious problem is that both the attorney for the plaintiffs, Mary Bonauto (who is a close friend of both you and Margaret Marshall) together with the Boston Globe (which is an ardent advocate for the plaintiffs) encouraged homosexuals to get married at one minute after midnight on May 17 even though they both knew there was no authority for homosexuals to get "married" before a judgment was entered by a judge in your court.

Anyone would have to wonder what the rush was about. Why did Mary Bonauto and the Globe promote this carnival atmosphere? Were they worried that Judge Connolly might cause them trouble? You could get Judge Connolly to hold a press conference today and say that the law was scrupulously followed. But we who oppose the suit, and that is about two-thirds of the citizens, will always be left wondering, won't we? At the very least, you have created an appearance of impropriety.

As for the people who got "marriage licenses" before the judgment was entered, are those licenses valid? At what time was the judgment entered? It would have been much more appropriate to enter a judgment that homosexual marriages begin at some specified time on May 18.

Another problem concerns the people who have gone before District Court judges across the state in order to waive the three-day waiting period. Are they legally married?

You Must Resign to Restore Your Integrity

While these problems are bad, they could be surmountable if you and Margaret Marshall had recused yourselves from this case.

You appear to understand the truth of this. You told the Women's Bar Association this month that women judges are illogical and go in circles. It appears that you understand at some level that what you have done is wrong and you cannot stay on in this position.

Your exact words were: "Why should we follow the straight-line path set by men? Our path is going to be circular and crooked - and more interesting." You predicted a "backlash" because of women's inroads into the legal profession, but you also answered, "So what?"

Although you know a "backlash" is coming against both you and Margaret Marshall, you should not put the state and the legal profession through that degrading process.

After all, you did tell the Massachusetts Lesbian & Gay Bar Association a few years back that you favor homosexual marriage. "The only way," you stated, "gays and lesbians in this state are going to achieve what has been achieved in Vermont is to say who you are, apply for the [important] jobs and demand to be seated at the table ... Nothing is easy. Do you think getting my hair this color is easy?"

You've had a tough job for the last twenty years as the first woman to head the state's trial Court. You should leave with your head held high and not with threatening clouds.

Sincerely,

/s/ J. Edward Pawlick