Sal DiMasi Has Agreed to Allow a Vote on the Removal of Four Judges from SJC
Gay Marriage Will Soon Be History in Massachusetts
By Sally Pawlick, President Massachusetts Citizens for Marriage
       Speaker Sal DiMasi (D-Boston) has privately assured legislators he will follow the law and allow a vote to be taken in the House of Representatives to “remove” the four judges who voted last year to force “gay marriage” upon the state.
       Many are now asking how this will work. What will take place?
       What is important is that after the four judges are removed from the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) by the House and then by the Senate (which could happen in one day but will undoubtedly take more time as those on the opposite side desperately try to stop the removal process), the remaining judges will then be able to reverse the illegal ruling that Chief Justice Margaret Marshall and three of the Associate Judges imposed in November 2003.
       This means that “gay marriage” will immediately be gone from Massachusetts forever and homosexuals (the vast majority of whom have no desire to get “married”) will be able to return to a normal life, and the extreme feminists at NOW will have to accept the truth that only a tiny number of women believe that traditional marriage is deleterious to all women or wish it destroyed. Only a tiny few believe they are “parasites” as the extremists tell them.

DiMasi Understands What Happened to Birmingham and Finneran
       Speaker DiMasi realizes what happened to Tom Birmingham and Tom Finneran and has no desire to watch the Democratic Party continue to self-destruct while under his leadership. He saw the ambitions of Senate President Tom Birmingham to be Governor destroyed when the Senator broke the law and violated the state Constitution on July 17, 2002. Birmingham is now a private lawyer and has publicly said that his dream was lost because he broke the law.
       DiMasi also understands that former Speaker Tom Finneran is also a private lawyer now because he, too, violated the state Constitution in 2002. (He personally did not vote to violate the Constitution that year and pretended to be against the violation, while letting Birmingham take the heat).
       Finneran repeated his unlawful activities again this year when he refused to allow a vote to take place on the Resolution by Emile Goguen (D-Fitchburg) to remove the four judges from the SJC. As a result, Finneran was besieged with banner airplanes flying over his house on the Cape last summer beginning on July 4 (as well as in the sky over many locations across the state, including the State House). These included the following banner:  

        The Speaker heard ads on major radio stations, including WBZ:
Let Speaker Finneran know you’re watching. He must allow our Reps to vote on removing Marshall.   It’s required.  Tell Finneran you’re looking for a vote on Removing Judge Marshall and her three cohorts.  Call Finneran … 617-722-2500.

       While these ads may seem innocuous to many, they are not innocuous when you know in your heart you are “guilty as charged” and have enough decency to understand that.

The Defeat of John Kerry Changed Everything
       The defeat of John Kerry changed everything when Democratic pundits immediately began blaming Margaret Marshall and her opinion about “gay marriage” for the loss of the Presidential election.
        The Chairman of the New York Times/Boston Globe conglomerate, Arthur O. Sulzberger, Jr. (Pinch) immediately began to back away from his longtime friend, Judge Marshall, (whose husband, Anthony Lewis, has been the premiere columnist at the Times for decades) even though Pinch was the one who had strongly encouraged the opinion and put the full weight of the Globe behind Marshall’s appointment as Chief Justice in 1999 so she could make the ruling.
       The relationship between Sulzberger and Marshall has fallen apart with each of them blaming the other and many bizarre things taking place.
Search our archives for other articles from Massachusetts News.

Not Unfair to Judges
       The opposition will attempt to say that the “removal” process is “unfair” to the four judges even though all the rules of fairness will be followed. The removal of sitting judges was included by John Adams in the Constitution he wrote for our state in 1780. He knew that all human beings have faults and that with the tremendous power that judges possess, it is inevitable that some will become oppressors. Therefore, Adams included the removal process which merely requires a simple majority in the House and in the Senate.  
      Regardless of which way a Senator or Rep votes, he must face the citizens at the next election and explain his vote. This process understandably frightens most legislators because they want to hide. They prefer the Amendment process which occurred last spring when no one could agree whether any vote was for or against traditional marriage.
       Such confusion is what many legislators desire. But that will not happen after the removal process has taken place. It will be absolutely clear to everyone where every legislator stands on the issue.
       The judges cannot complain because each one of them will be debated about and voted on separately under Rep. Goguen’s Resolution.