No One Seems to Care that Many Homosexuals Not Married
    Although many homosexual couples were not given valid marriage licenses on May 17, and others who went before judges on that day to waive the three-day waiting period, were not validly married, no one seems to care, says J. Edward Pawlick, Founder/CEO of Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly from 1972 until he sold it in 1997.
    "Those persons should be told that they are not validly married," Pawlick says. "These are many of the people that Mary Bonauto was supposedly seeking to help. "It demonstrates that she is not concerned with individuals, but only in pushing the political agenda of this large movement."
    Pawlick notes that the problem is that Chief Justice Margaret Marshall remanded the case to the Superior Court (the trial court) in her opinion of November 18, 2003 and 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."
    But her Order was not followed, according to Pawlick.
"Instead of waiting for a judge in the Superior Court to enter a judgment as required, Bonauto started a 'carnival atmosphere,' which ignored the Order. She encouraged people to start obtaining marriage licenses and even marry one-minute after midnight before there was any authority to do so.
    Pawlick says he has talked to people in the court system and elsewhere but they are unconcerned because Chief Justice Margaret Marshall of the SJC and Suzanne DelVecchio are both in favor of homosexual marriage and will not do anything to "rock the boat" even though many individuals are not validly "married." Private lawyers agree with his assessment but do not want to go public, he says.
    Why Did Atty. Bonauto Do This?
    Atty. Bonauto is usually a careful lawyer, says Pawlick, who wonders why she was so reckless in this case.
    "It is clear," he says, "that Bonauto took a calculated risk and did not follow the rules because she did not want this case going back to Judge Thomas Connolly. It was he who had ruled against her in Superior Court, and it was then that she appealed to her friend, Margaret Marshall. Bonauto was not certain what Judge Connolly might do with the case. He had many options if he were courageous enough to follow them.
    "After all, three of the other six Justices on the SJC had agreed passionately with Judge Connolly and held that Marshall had no power to do what she did."
Another problem, according to Pawlick, is that the Chief Justice of the Superior Court, Suzanne DelVecchio, did not recuse herself from the case even though she publicly favored homosexual "marriage" and is on record telling homosexuals a few years back that they should push harder to achieve it.
Although it is a common custom in Massachusetts, but not in other states, that judges sit in Motion Sessions and decide important questions in cases about which they have no knowledge, it is also common that this does not occur in important cases. Therefore, Judge DelVecchio should have seen that this be sent back to Judge Connolly.
    Pawlick concludes that someone in the court system should inform these people who jumped the gun that their marriages are not valid. He also says that Justice DelVecchio must resign because of the impropriety of her making decisions in this momentous, watershed case.
    "Even if everything she did was totally proper, which it was not, the apparent impropriety of her action is enormous and a tremendous stain on the state court system. When this is combined with the violation of ethics by her friend, Margaret Marshall, our courts will take a serious beating. This is happening only because of the complicity of the Boston Globe."
    Pawlick is the attorney for Massachusetts Citizens for Marriage. He appeared before the SJC four times last year, twice before the full court and twice before Single Justices, the last time being in May 2003 when he cautioned Margaret Marshall and the other members of the Court there would be an uprising by the citizens if they illegally imposed homosexual "marriage."