Where are the dollars coming from to drive the Democratic Party to political suicide?
          Speaker DiMasi (D-Boston) has broken a solemn promise to a fellow Democratic legislator and has also violated the state Constitution in order to help gay marriage.
            Where are the dollars coming from to drive the Democratic Party to political suicide? Are they coming from the mob in an effort to debase the nation and expand its operations now in Nevada to worldwide prostitution, both heterosexual and homosexual?
            These questions are causing sleepless hours for many good politicians as they see so much money flowing through the State House.
You'll notice a lot of blue-color thoughout this article. It highlights just a few of hundreds of free MassNews articles you can access in our archives about these and other subjects.

 Another Democratic Politician, Sal DiMasi, Breaks Solemn Promise In Order to Help Gay Marriage --- But He Will Undoubtedly Change His Mind Again

            Sal DiMasi is now saying it's too late to call a vote on gay marriage this year because there are more pressing matters to consider.

            He claims to regret the breaking of his solemn promise to have a vote on the Resolution of Rep. Emile Goguen (D-Fitchburg), which would Remove Chief Justice Margaret Marshall and the three Associate Justices who voted with her on gay marriage.

            DiMasi knows that the three Justices who disagreed with Marshall, wrote passionately that only the Legislature, not the Court, has the power to do what she wanted. Those three judges say that Marshall is operating a rogue court.
 

Speaker Knows Reps Are Not Behind Him

            Speaker DiMasi knows he doesn't have the Reps behind him. The far left-wing groups, led by homosexual lobbyist Arlene Isaacson, attempted to preempt the matter early in 2005 by pressuring the Reps to give their public support for gay marriage. Despite a tremendous effort, only 20% agreed to do so. That means that 80% of them are ready to vote either way, depending upon what they hear from the voters. 

            It's expected that the Speaker will probably change his mind and allow a vote now that he had seen three airplanes from "Mass. Citizens for Marriage" in formation, circling the skies over Boston and beyond with the following banner: 

                      SPEAKER DIMASI BREAKS PROMISE --- AIDS GAY MARRIAGE          

            It's not too late for the Speaker to call a vote, says the attorney for Mass. Citizens, J. Edward Pawlick. 

            "DiMasi knows he can take a vote any time he wants. He's trying to hide behind the smoke screen that 'formal sessions are over' and he is powerless to do anything about it. But that's not true; he can call a formal session any day he desires."

            Atty. Pawlick says it's sad to see the Speaker going down the same road that led Tom Birmingham to the dust-heap in 2002, along with Shannon O'Brien.

            "This is a bi-partisan disgrace," says Atty. Pawlick. "Although the Democrats have been the biggest violators of the Constitution by far, there have been a few Republicans who have joined, notably the Minority Leader of the Senate, Brian Lees (R-Springfield), who has been very active in the unfair tactics used in promoting gay marriage. He is the right-hand man on this issue.

            "In addition, Mitt Romney embarrassed his own wife and son in his vain attempts to straddle the issue as he strives to become President."

 

How Can Atty. Pawlick Say DiMasi's Already Broken the Law?

            MassNews asked Atty. Pawlick why he says that the Speaker has already broken the law.
            "I've written legal briefs which clearly show that it is inherent in the state Constitution, which President John Adams wrote for us in 1780 before we had a Federal Constitution, that the right to Remove oppressive judges cannot be sent to a committee. We cannot delegate this important duty to 6, 10 or 100 people on a committee. Every Legislator is required to vote and be counted. 

            "When Tom Finneran was Speaker at the beginning of 2004, his lawyer ruled that the Resolution to Remove Margaret Marshall and her three cohorts must go directly to the floor of the House, and not be sent to a committee. After Finneran sent it to a committee, Finneran never looked at me again and resigned shortly thereafter because he knew he had done wrong. He knows more about politics than I want to know, but he also realizes that he is not an experienced, savvy trial lawyer, and he cannot  sit in the same room with me on such issues.

            "The Legislature has sent 'Bills of Address' to various committees in the past, inasmuch as the power structure, particularly the lawyers, has never liked John Adams’ idea of allowing oppressive judges to be removed. But the process of sending a 'Bill of Address' to a committee is nowhere to be found in the Constitution. This is just another way for powerful politicians to either delay or kill the entire process and thwart the will of the voters.

            "Representative Goguen filed his 'Bill of Address' as a Resolution, but somewhere, someone, back when Speaker Finneran was in charge, changed it to an ordinary Bill which was submitted to a Committee. The Committee mysteriously killed the measure even though the Committee never officially met.

            "Speaker DiMasi has already violated the state Constitution in 2005 by sending Goguen's Resolution to a committee."

 

Action of Legislature Was Clearly Unconstitutional in 2002, According to State House News Service
            It's interesting to read material from the State House News Service, which explains the process to be followed for any Amendment to the state Constitution in 2005, including the one forbidding gay marriage.

            The story from the News Service indicates what should have occurred in 2002 to the MCM Amendment, known as the Protection of Marriage Amendment.

            "Those seeking changes in the State Constitution [in 2005] will find their initiatives placed before a Constitutional Convention, a joint session of the 200 House and Senate members. Those proposed amendments must win 50 affirmative convention votes next year and then another 50 in a similar convention of the House and Senate seated for the 2007-2008 session. Then they would be placed on the ballot in the 2008 election."

            That is what should have happened in 2002, but Sen. Tom Birmingham refused to take a vote as required.

 

DiMasi and Pawlick Both Trial Lawyers

            Atty. Pawlick was a trial lawyer before he founded Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly in 1972 after suddenly becoming the sole parent of his four children, who were 10, 8, 6 and 4. He could no longer practice law and did not want a nanny to raise his children. So he raised them himself, at the same time establishing his new business from his home. He continued as CEO of the business (even after it grew to 120 employees including 40 lawyers) until he sold it in 1997 and started Massachusetts News. He's had to become a trial lawyer again while battling the establishment in Massachusetts since 1977.

 

 Judges at Mercy of DiMasi

            Judge Marshall and the three judges who voted with her, don't yet realize they're at the mercy of Sal DiMasi, says Atty. J. Edward Pawlick.         

            "If those judges do not resign and are 'Removed' by the Legislature --- which will surely happen when this finally comes to a vote --- the judges will lose their pensions which amount to well over $1 million each. But will DiMasi bring Rep. Goguen's Resolution to a vote? No one knows for sure. The only thing they do know is that Speaker DiMasi will do whatever is good for Sal DiMasi.

             "If anyone thinks that we at MCM are being cruel and mean-spirited to the four judges, they should remember back to 2002 when those same judges 'sat-on-their-hands' after MCM spent $1.7 million and tens-of-thousands-of-people-hours in an honest, law-abiding effort to pass a Constitutional Amendment. Those judges chose to ignore our law-abiding citizens. 

            "I, personally, have given my life as a trial lawyer since 1997 trying to get some justice in this matter. But all I have seen is corruption at every level. It is led by the New York Times Company and its three newspapers which dominate this state, the Boston Globe,  the Worcester Telegram and the New York Times newspaper, plus the Associated Press, a cooperative which is controlled by The New York Times Company.
            "I don't understand why I don't have more anger at these judges. I should. However, if they do not now resign and if they continue to harass and plague the honest citizens who are trying to follow the law by passing  lawful Amendments to the Constitution, we will join any angry citizens who seek to strip the judges' pensions now  It won't matter what the judges do in the future to try and get back in the good graces of the citizens.

            "This isn't a friendly game we're playing with these judges and Sal DiMasi.  Mass. Citizens spent $1.7 million in 2001-2002. Tens-of-thousands of our volunteers worked long hours to get the 130,000 signatures of registered voters, which put it way over-the-top. But the Democratic politicians refused to vote on sending the Amendment to the voters because they knew it would pass if they did."
            The big question is who told Birmingham and Finneran what to do?

Tom Finneran Accomplishes Everything with a Smile; It Always Helps His Personal Career
by Atty. J. Edward Pawlick
     Tom Finneran was a legend in 2001.
     He was first elected Speaker in 1996 after painting himself as the consensus candidate and then reaching out to Republicans for support. At least that’s what his alma mater, Northeastern, said when it gave him an honorary degree a year later in 1997.
     Sally and I first became apprised of Finneran when he was four years into his job. The head of the Catholic Conference, Gerry D’Avolio invited us to a meeting. We had never met D’Avolio before and we were not Catholic, but he informed us and several others that Finneran was “hanging by his fingernails” in efforts to stop “domestic partnerships” which had already passed the Senate.
     We were aware of what just happened in Vermont and we understood the terrible consequences to our society if homosexual marriage/civil unions were allowed in Massachusetts as the extreme feminists desired.
     So Sally immediately started Mass. Citizens for Marriage in May 2001. We leased offices near Route 128 and hired two new graduates of Brandeis and two others to work with them. They were in complete charge.
     We were unaware that we were treading on the toes of the owner of the New York Times, Pinch Sulzberger. We had never heard of the Sulzberger family, Pinch had just agreed with Margaret Marshall in 1999 that a suit would be brought by the same lawyer, Mary Bonauto, who had prevailed in Vermont and was based in Boston. Judge Marshall would ensure she was successful.
     Nor were we aware that Finneran was a nice man who probably had good instincts but is motivated mainly by his own career.
     When we started our petition drive for signatures, everyone, including Sulzberger’s Boston Globe, thought we didn’t stand a chance and the Globe ignored the story, hoping we would just die and go away. But the citizens disagreed. We got over 130,000 signatures during the last few months of 2001, including a great effort by Gerry D’Avolio and the Catholic Church.

     That’s when Sulzberger became involved. He libeled Mass. Citizens and Sally fifteen times in the Boston Globe (which he owns) and once with a huge full-page story in the Sunday New York Times (which he also owns), which went to 1.6 million homes across the country. It falsely accused Sally, personally, of fraud in getting the signatures. That personal, malicious attack by the New York Times newspaper on Sally made me quite upset.  
     It all came to a head on July 17, 2002, when 500 MCM supporters flooded the State House by chartered busses, cars and foot to watch the vote of the Legislators. The Amendment required only 25% approval to send it on to the people for a vote at the ballot box. But the Democratic legislature refused to allow a vote of any of the 200 Legislators even though it was required by the Constitution. The Legislature was sitting (both Senators and Reps) as a Constitutional Convention. It was chaired by the President of the Senate, Tom Birmingham.
     Tom Finneran voted against Birmingham's illegal plan which did not allow any vote to take place. But Finneran didn’t utter a word during the sordid and unconstitutional process. (It was unconstitutional according to the unanimous opinion of the SJC, even including Judge Marshall, on Dec.20, 2002).
      The lack of concern by Finneran caused many to wonder why he just sat there and smiled. Both of our volunteer lobbyists, Gerry D’Avolio and Ron Crews, of the Focus on the Family affiliate, “Mass. Family Institute” assured us that Finneran was totally on our side.

Finneran Was Not Able to Hide in 2004
     In 2004, Tom Birmingham was gone and the effort to Remove the judges, led by Rep. Emile Goguen, involved only the House. There was no place for Tom Finneran to hide in 2004. He was in total charge of what happened in the House. He could no longer just smile at everyone and blame the President of the Senate or anyone else for what was happening.
     It is difficult to understand why Finneran was so protective of Margaret Marshall, who was no friend of his in her rulings and was nasty to his core conservative constituency.
     Some unknown leader of the national Democratic Party had to have been instructing Tom Finneran on what to do. Did that unknown leader have any connections with the Sulzberger family at The New York Times Company?

How Would Removal of Four Judges Work?        After 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 in 2004 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 in the summer of 2004 beginning on July 4. 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. 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.         . The process understandably frightens most legislators because they want to hide. They prefer the Amendment process which has proven to be a total failure for honest citizens.         Confusion is what many legislators desire. But 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.

Airplane Banner Delights Bathers on Cape Cod; But Not Speaker's Wife
This 100-foot banner with ten-foot letters flew off to delight Cape Cod bathers on July Fourth 2004, but not House Speaker Finneran, who was at his vacation home for the holiday.

The banner, "FINNERAN - LET THE REPS VOTE," was carried from one end of the Cape to the other and back again by Murray Randall and Aero Ads in Berkley.

Trying to Pass Amendments Has Been Impossible
           The state legislature approved an amendment on March 30, 2004 that no one would want to vote for.
           One of the good guys in this battle, Rep. Vinny DeMacedo (R-Kingston) explains, "No problem, you can vote to define marriage as between a man and a woman, but the only way you can do so is by creating civil unions that are entirely the same as marriage." Ultimately, if this ever makes it to the ballot, it will fail.
           But the legislators covered all the bases in their own interest. Representatives and Senators are now able to say that they voted to define marriage as a man and a woman, at the same time giving the homosexual lobby all the legal trappings of marriage without the title...

DiMasi Understands What Happened to Birmingham and Finneran
            DiMasi has personally witnessed two powerful leaders go to political graveyards since 2002, Senate President Tom Birmingham (who had been slated to become Governor in 2002) and Speaker Tom Finneran who suddenly resigned in the summer of 2004. In addition, DiMasi has also felt the sting of national Democratic pundits who blame the loss of John Kerry on the four SJC judges who imposed gay marriage upon Massachusetts,            The Speaker had no choice other than to quickly put this issue behind him and his Party. He privately assured legislators he would follow the law and allow a vote to be taken.
            He saw the ambitions of Senate President Tom Birmingham to become Governor deflated when he 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 in a desperate effort to stop the “Protection of Marriage Amendment” from Massachusetts Citizens for Marriage from going to a vote in the legislature.
            DiMasi also knows that former Speaker Tom Finneran is a private lawyer now because he, too, violated the state Constitution in 2002 and 2004.. (Finneran personally did not vote to violate the Constitution in 2002 and pretended to be against any violation of the law, while letting Birmingham take the heat for the violations that were taking place.)           
         Speaker Finneran repeated his unlawful activities again in the summer of 2004 by refusing to allow a vote to take place. As a result, Finneran’s wife was besieged with banner airplanes flying over their house on the Cape beginning on July 4, 2004 (as well as in the sky over many locations across the state, including the State House).

Emile Goguen’s Pilot
            The pilot who tows the huge banners around the state for Emile Goguen is Harry Nikitas from Aerial Supersigns from Goguen’s hometown of Fitchburg. They are good friends but their working happily together on this project is just happenstance.
            Nikitas also did the flying in 2004 up and down the Cape and around the state, which caused Speaker Finneran’s wife to realize there was no place they could hide anymore.

      Those four judges are still sitting on the state's highest court, the Supreme Judicial Court, despite their illegal ruling. They are Margaret Marshall, Roderick Ireland, John Greaney and Judy Cowin.
           MCM also supports the Amendment which could take effect in 2008 if passed.
          "We've been waiting for this opportunity to unify the state," says MCM. "We're glad we bided our time. Many national family organizations saw Massachusetts as a place to become famous and rich. There was no way we could compete with their money and staff. So we waited until they left, which has now happened.
         "This is the time to get into action again. Our thousands of volunteers obtained 130,000 signatures in 2001. But we didn't realize how dirty this would become. The owner of the New York Times/Boston Globe conglomerate, Arthur O. Sulzberger, Jr., (Pinch) surprised us by jumping in with his billions of dollars and all his power to make us the first state in his announced plan to help homosexuals across the entire country. We had never heard of the Sulzberger family but we know all about them now. Pinch's father paid $1.1 billion in 1993 just to purchase the Globe.
       "As we look at Vermont, we see that 'fatigue' and 'inertia' have set-in. Whereas the conservatives in that state got a big 'bump' everywhere after civil unions were enacted, they lost it all in the last election. You can't keep people excited about one issue for a long period. The other side knows that. That's why 'delay, delay, delay' is their strongest weapon.
       "We must end gay marriage this year. If we wait until 2008, we will have lost most of our momentum. And we mustn't forget that in Massachusetts the schools are working the other side of the issue as a part of sex education, to convince all the children that homosexuality is normal and positive and anyone who disagrees is a homophobe. Just look at what Lexington is doing to David Parker, the father who went to jail after he objected when they demanded that his young child attend such classes. 

         Representative Goguen filed his Bill of Address as a Resolution, but somewhere, someone, back when Speaker Finneran was in charge, changed it to an ordinary Bill which was submitted to various Committees which mysteriously killed the measure even though they never officially met.

Just Resign
            Of course, everyone at the State House would like the four judges to just admit they made a mistake, resign, go away and stop all this upset.
            If they do that, they keep their million-dollar retirement plans, but they will lose them if they are "Removed" for fault by the legislature. No one, apparently, has a desire to void their pension plans even though MCM spent many thousands of hours and $1.7 million back in 2001-2002. Neither MCM nor Rep. Goguen are vindictive although it would be understandable if they were. However, if they are forced to spend a lot more money now in removing these judges, it is understandable why they would seek some punishment and/or compensation. After all, the citizens at MCM have done nothing except to follow the Constitution.
            The Reps and Senators do not want to vote on this issue because no matter how they vote, someone will be angered. They just want it to go away. The resignation of the judges is the only way  to accomplish that.

Citizens Were Disgusted by Speaker's Lack of Common Courtesy; Worried About Large Quantities of Cash Seen in State House; Bad News for Democrats
         The reliable aide of a Democratic legislator told us that Speaker Finneran and Senate President Travaglini were conspiring to kill the Resolution that had been filed by Rep. Goguen, but Goguen had trouble believing that. about Finneran who had been very kind during the lingering death of Goguen's wife.
         Others believed that a Resolution by Rep. Philip Travis (D-Rehoboth) to remove only Margaret Marshall, would be “allowed” to get to a vote. (That didn’t make sense because the members of the House could have voted to remove only Marshall under Goguen’s proposal if they so desired.)
          Pawlick wrote that he was disgusted with the total lack of common courtesy that the Democratic leaders were showing to anyone. He watched in disbelief as his 69-year-old wife dressed to walk in the rain outside the State House, just to get Tom Finneran to do the right thing and follow the Massachusetts Constitution.
         "This is 2002 all over again," he said as the same Democratic Legislature violated the Constitution.. They refused to vote on the Protection of Marriage Amendment at that time either. "That may discourage most people," said Pawlick, "but they grossly underestimate Sally’s determination.
          It was difficult for anyone to believe that Finneran and Travaglini believed they could sweep this corruption under the rug when Marshall’s promises had been made in public and were recorded.
          What would provoke them to want to try? What was pushing Finneran? Some of those in leadership positions in the House told MCM about their concerns concerning the large cash they saw flowing into the Legislature from all over the world. Some hypothesized that this cash was the reason the Democrats were so anxious to help promote the homosexual lifestyle. They believed the mob is making so much money from the prostitution racket that is legal in Nevada and most parts of the world that they would like to go worldwide. If they could damage the morals of America and lower our age of consent to 12-years, they could recruit those teenagers, boys and girls, for prostitution.  

Tom Finneran Showed that MCM Was Not Hallucinating; He Was a Mole
          The news that Tom Finneran supported the use of embryos for stem cell research demonstrated that he would do almost anything for money. We had not been hallucinating with our insistence that the former Speaker is a mole who had been posing as a devout Catholic for all those years.
         The implications of this are enormous and will be argued for years. The hierarchy of the Church, as far as anyone knows, is still defending Finneran in 2005, as is Gerry D’Avolio, the chief lobbyist of the Church for thirty years.
          At that time, D’Avolio was in total charge of what the Church did about “gay marriage,” including whether to support Rep. Goguen, the devout Catholic who had been just re-elected by 71% and was puzzled why he got no support from D’Avolio (and consequently the Church). The Archbishop moved on to other duties.           

Why Was Gerry D’Avolio Advising Catholic Church to Stick with Speaker Finneran?
          Why was the lobbyist for the Catholic Church, Gerry D’Avolio, advising Archbishop O’Malley to continue supporting Speaker Finneran --- even though it was painfully obvious that Finneran was working heart-and-soul to support the Democratic plan for homosexual “marriage”?
          Atty. J. Edward. Pawlick and his wife, Sally, personally talked with the Bishop's office in the Fall River, Springfield and Worcester dioceses and received enthusiastic agreement to help the efforts of Rep. Emile Goguen. But then we got word that Archbishop O'Malley had put D'Avolio in total charge of the issue of gay marriage for the entire state. Then D'Avolio, for some reason, forbad any Catholic anywhere in the state, including all the bishops, from helping Rep. Goguen.
          Finneran continued to block a vote on Removing Judge Marshall and the three other judges --- even though a vote by the 160 members of the House was required under the state Constitution.
          “This is particularly difficult to understand, said MCM. Rep Goguen is a devout Catholic. He's leading the battle to Remove Judge Marshall. Goguen is getting enthusiastic support from priests and lay people everywhere he goes, but the hierarchy is doing nothing to help those people in their fight to remove homosexual ‘marriage.
          “Bishop O’Malley was very active in the effort to pass Amendments earlier this year, but when that ended in failure in March 2004, he turned the matter over to Gerry, who now is making all the decisions on what the Church does in this momentous and historic matter of gay marriage. Every Catholic in the state reports to him on this issue.”
          MCM said that D’Avolio was the chief lobbyist for Mass. Citizens in 2002, along with Ron Crews from the Mass. Family Institute, when the legislature first violated the state Constitution and refused to vote on the Protection of Marriage Amendment. They were told then that Finneran had worked very hard to obtain a vote.
         “It was difficult to understand how so many legislators could have voted to break the Constitution in 2002 if Finneran was truly working diligently. But we were totally new to the inside politics of Massachusetts, and we accepted the wisdom of the experienced D’Avolio about his friend, Tom Finneran. But it’s obvious now that this scenario just doesn’t make sense.
          “Gerry told several people that he is not working in 2004 to help Goguen because the measure will not pass. But, even if that were true and certain, which it is not, it would not answer the main question: Why was Gerry continuing to work so closely with Finneran, who was attempting to violate the Constitution again, when it was obvious that Finneran was the leader of the Democratic plan to impose gay marriage on the state?” 
          D’Avolio heads a separate organization with a four-person staff, known as the Catholic Conference, with offices on Staniford Street, near the Fleet Center.

DiMasi Will Be Great for Those Who Oppose “Gay Marriage” and Oppose the Teaching of Homosexuality to School Children
          Those who oppose “gay marriage” and also oppose the teaching of homosexuality to school children should have been delighted with the election of Sal DiMasi as Speaker of the House. At last, we thought, we will know who are our friends and who are our opponents with Tom Finneran gone and DiMasi in charge.
         At least we had an "honest" crook in charge. DiMasi wants “gay marriage” and “gay/straight alliances.” He even breaks the Rules of the House, holds secret meetings of the Rules Committee (which are strictly forbidden) and secret votes and then brags to Bay Windows about what he is doing for them.
          Finneran, on the other hand, always assured social conservatives that he was on our side, but he was never able to quite make anything happen.
          As if that weren’t enough, we now had John Rogers, who appears to be solidly on our side, taking the number two position in leadership in the House.
          Therefore, we moved from two leaders who were against us (one solidly so and the other pretending to be with us) to one person who is solidly against us and one who appears to be with us. We understood that DiMasi had assured Rogers that he will allow the Reps to vote on these issues instead of  preventing it as Finneran did.

Finneran Is Truly A Legend
          Sally and Atty. Pawlick first ran into Tom Finneran back when they were novices and their lobbying was being done by the Mass. Family Institute and the Catholic Conference. Sally went to a breakfast meeting with the Speaker and came back with a glowing report about family values. She was as excited about this wonderful man as she could get. His words inspired her.
          After a while they were invited to a private coffee with this great person in his elaborate suite at the State House. Atty. Pawlick was also impressed by his honesty and sincerity. When the House later voted overwhelmingly in 2002 to violate the state Constitution and not vote on the Protection of Marriage Amendment, they thought that it wasn’t his fault. It had happened because MCM hadn’t worked hard enough, even though they obtained so many signatures that their opponents didn’t even bother to challenge the results.
          Still, they did have a nagging doubt about Tom Finneran..

Then Came 2004
          Then came 2004 and a vote on gay marriage. Finneran did a “brilliant” move at the very beginning and lost it by only a couple of votes. However, no one seemed to notice that Finneran's top lieutenants voted against him. It would have passed if they had voted for it.
          After they had gone down to ignominious defeat in 2004, Brian Camenker began to promote his brilliant idea of "Removing" Justice Margaret Marshall and the three Associate Justices who had obeyed her orders. They could all be replaced with new judges who would obey the law. It would be strictly bipartisan because Gov. Romney would appoint the judges but the Governor's Council (100% Democrats) would have to approve every one.
          But there was one problem. There's never been anyone more slippery than good old Tom. He couldn’t hide behind the President of the Senate as he did in 2002 when he blamed it all on Tom Birmingham (who promptly lost the Governor’s race in the Primary and correctly blamed it all on the fact that he had opposed the Protection of Marriage Amendment).
          MCM couldn’t believe it was really happening in the spring of 2004 as Finneran chased Sally and Atty. Pawlick around and around in circles. But they had to be sure, 100% sure, that they were right in their assessments. It took weeks to assure themselves that their assessment was accurate. They can’t describe how many hours they spent running here and there in vain as they attempted to play by the rules.
           Finally, they understood and began to strike back, even sending airplanes with banners over the Cape and over the Speaker’s retreat down there. His wife did not enjoy having the neighbors know what their famous neighbor was really about. There were radio ads on many stations about the Speaker.
          So, did MCM really have an effect upon Birmingham and Finneran? They know we did on Birmingham because he said so. Did their efforts also drive Finneran out? They undoubtedly did, but they will never know for sure. They have never believed the “federal charges” against Finneran to which the Globe keeps referring. He is too smart to do anything that stupid.                

Tom Finneran Is a Very Charming Politician
          Sally Pawlick discovered very early that Tom Finneran is a very charming politician.
          She's not totally surprised, but disappointed, that he's managed to maintain an aura of piety to many in Boston, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. He accomplishes this by appearing at Mass every day without fail and greeting every person by name, inquiring about their family members. If someone is ill, he does not forget and may send flowers.
          In the year 2000 or so, Sally was invited to attend a Prayer Breakfast for about 80 people at a club next do the State House where Finneran would be the speaker. She believes it was sponsored by the Mass. Family Institute.
          Sally had never had anything to do with politics before. She was very impressed with what Tom Finneran said at the Breakfast about family values. She came home with enthusiasm for this wonderful man. His words had inspired her.
          Therefore, she understands that anyone who has ever received any of the thoughtfulness and kindness that is continually coming from Tom Finneran would be reluctant to believe he is just a politician.  However, he is now the highly-paid head (over $400,000/year in salary plus benefits) of Massachusetts Biotechnology Council, the lobbying unit of the cloning company, Advanced Cell Technology, Worcester.
          The Bishop of Worcester, Daniel P. Reilly, says about Advanced Cell: “Noble ends cannot justify morally repugnant means. Cloning human beings even at the embryonic stage is rife with other moral dilemmas from many philosophical viewpoints. It robs people of their gift of individuality; it reduces reproduction to a manufacturing process devoid of love or even human interaction; worse still, it treats human life as a commodity to be owned and traded, bought or sold. It is the manufacture of a separate class of life for enslavement.
         “Since adult, stem-cell research has shown equal if not greater promise utilizing morally acceptable means, the need for therapeutic cloning is still not clear. I ask that our legislators move swiftly to ban human cloning for the protection of our Commonwealth and humanity as a whole and, in so doing, publicly acknowledge this scientific breakthrough for what it is, an ethical breakdown.”