 |
News Analysis Pinch Sulzberger Begins His Reaction to MassNews and Atty. Pawlick's New Book Margaret Marshall's Ruling on Homosexual Marriage Was a "Conservative Decision," according to Saturday's Globe. They're Still Hiding that It Was a 3-3 Tie. Pinch Sulzberger is attempting to "nail down" Margaret Marshall's ruling on gay marriage and hide the fact that it was a 3-3 tie, which gave Marshall the opportunity to force her personal feelings upon the state and make the decision, 4-3. In Saturday's Globe, Pinch published some brilliant propaganda with this headline over an Op-Ed written by an alleged conservative: "A conservative ruling on gay marriage." Marshall's opinion was a "conservative" ruling?!? Well, that's what this "conservative" person says, beginning with the headline and the lead paragraph with phrases like: "fundamentally conservative," "family-values based arguments," "traditional values" and "conservative principles." Brilliant Writing by Some Unknown Professional This was a brilliant attempt at obfuscation. It clearly was written by someone at the New York Times or at some public relations agency. It was much better executed than anything we've ever seen come from the Globe. Pinch must have heard that we're back after working on numerous lawsuits and our book, "Libel by New York Times." He is becoming concerned as he gets the message that his relationship with Margaret Marshall is aggressively being outed. The "conservative" person that was trotted out by Pinch as the alleged author of the Op-Ed was the former mayor of Melrose and Jane Swift's running mate in 2002, Patrick Guerriero, a self-proclaimed homosexual who ran into scandals in his hometown just when Swift was naming him as her choice for Lt. Governor. The professionally written Op-Ed overwhelms any conservative from the very beginning. The headline puts the conservative in an "accepting" position and it takes off from there, with everyone having to refute for himself the omissions and the lies. According to the writer, anyone who opposes Marshall's ruling is "arguing against stable relationships, against increased protection for all children, against limited government, against individual liberty, and against religious freedom." This causes many to wonder whether those "bad" people also include the three Justices who argued passionately against Marshall. Do the editors at the Globe even know about those three Justices? If they rely upon their own paper for their news, they have no clue that those three even exist, much less what they said. We don't want to bore you with details because you can answer the Globe yourself, if you want to take the time and effort. The main point to carry away from this is that
Pinch will not be going away easily. He is determined to bury forever
any indication that this was a 3-3 tie and Marshall had to jump-in
and cast the deciding vote.
Pinch continued the attack in today's Globe with the opinions of lawyers, but everyone already knows what the lawyers want.
Ron Crews, President of the Dobson-affiliated, Massachusetts Family Institute was quoted by the Globe:
'"We know where they stand on this issue. That is no news,' Crews said. 'We knew where they stood before this letter, but at least they are acknowledging that the debate is now before the Legislature, and I believe that is the proper venue.'"
Many would say that the proper venue is before the voters at the ballot box, as would be happening in 2004 if Pinch had not promoted the idea in his Globe of the legislature violating the state Constitution on July 17, 2002 and Gov. Swift then violating it thereafter by not calling them back for a vote as the SJC told her was required. |
