Newsletter About Prayer and Homosexual Marriage Being Mailed to over 100,000 This Week
      The following Newsletter is being mailed to over 100,000 people across the country this week, in addition to radio and newspaper exposure, as Massachusetts (and the nation) finally confronts the New York Times on the issue of homosexual "marriage."

Millions Joining Massachusetts Citizens in Prayer to End “Gay Marriage” . . . Now . . .
This Month, January 2005
End of “Gay Marriage” Will Occur Everywhere, Not Just in Massachusetts

Main Mission in Sally Pawlick’s Life Is Not about Homosexual “Marriage”
                   The main mission of MCM President Sarah Ann Pawlick (Sally) is not about homosexual “marriage.” It is about nurturing her family, providing support to her husband, Atty. J. Edward Pawlick, 3 children and 4 grandchildren (who are all four-years-old and under) and his 4 children and 9 grandchildren (who are seven years and under).
            A 1957 graduate of Wellesley College, she founded MCM in 2000 in response to what happened that year in Vermont, where five, well-funded, Boston-based homosexual attorneys, successfully argued for civil unions and would soon do the same back home in Massachusetts. They had an estimated $1 million staff at Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD), with 16 people, lawyers, paralegals, receptionists etc. --- just for New England.
            Pawlick says there was no one anywhere in the entire country prepared to fight this dreadnaught which was suddenly apparent in Boston. Even so, major family organizations, such as Focus on the Family (without one attorney on staff) kept assuring us they would protect us from the carefully-planned attack which was about to be launched. ...Click Here...
           
                           I
         Speaker of Mass. House Has Agreed to Allow a Vote
              The new Speaker of the Mass. House of Representatives, Sal DiMasi (D-Boston), has agreed to allow a vote of his 160 members on the Resolution by Rep. Emile Goguen (D-Fitchburg) to “remove” (under John Adams’ provision) the four judges who voted in Nov. 2003 to impose homosexual “marriage” upon the state. DiMasi has no other choice because the Democratic support of homosexual "marriage” is destroying their party in Massachusetts.
            He has witnessed two powerful leaders of the legislature go to political graveyards since 2002, first Senate President Tom Birmingham (who had been slated to become Governor in 2002) and then Speaker Tom Finneran who resigned last summer. In addition, DiMasi has also felt the sting of national Democratic pundits who immediately blamed the four judges for the loss by John Kerry of the Presidential election.
            DiMasi has no choice other than to quickly put this issue behind him and his Party. He 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.

How Will This Work?
            Many are now asking how this will work. What will take place? What is crucial is that after the four judges are removed from the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) the remaining judges will 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 --- undoubtedly forever --- and homosexuals (the vast majority of whom have no desire to get “married”) will be able to return to a normal life. The extreme feminists at NOW will have to accept the fact that only a tiny number of women believe that traditional marriage is deleterious to all women or wish it destroyed, nor do the majority believe that wives are “parasites.”
            This vote could occur in one day, first in the House and then the Senate, but it will undoubtedly take more time as those on the opposite side desperately try to stop the “removal process” (not “impeachment” but “removal”), which is unique to John Adams and the Massachusetts Constitution.

DiMasi Understands About Birmingham and Finneran
            Speaker DiMasi is an astute, crafty veteran, a survivor who realizes what happened to Tom Birmingham and Tom Finneran and has no desire to watch the Democratic Party continue to self-destruct  under his leadership.
He saw the ambitions of Senate President Tom Birmingham to become Governor deflated 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 in a desperate effort to stop MCM’s “Protection of Marriage Amendment” from going to a vote in the legislature.
            DiMasi understands that former Speaker Tom Finneran is also a private lawyer now because he, too, violated the state Constitution in 2002. (Finneran personally did not vote to violate the Constitution that year and pretended to be against violating the law, while letting Birmingham take the heat).

           Speaker Finneran, repeated his unlawful activities again in the summer of 2004 when he refused to allow a vote to take place on the Resolution by Rep. 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, 2004 (as well as in the sky over many locations across the state, including the State House).
             The Speaker heard ads on major radio stations, including the 50,000 watt, clear-channel affiliate of CBS in Boston, WBZ, which included this one:

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 were not innocuous to one who knew in his heart he was “guilty as charged” and had enough decency to understand that.

Not Unfair to Judges
            The opposition will attempt to say that the “removal” process of John Adams is “unfair” to the four judges even though all the rules of fairness will be followed. This 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 requires only a simple majority in the House and in the Senate. (For a complete discussion, search the print archives of massnews.com for “What Is Removal of Judges?”)
            Regardless of which way a Senator or Rep votes, he must face the citizens at the next election and explain his vote. This process frightens most legislators because they want to hide. They prefer the never-ending Amendment process which occurred last winter when no one could agree whether any vote was for or against traditional marriage.
            Such confusion is what many legislators desire. But there will be no confusion 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 will be considered separately under Rep. Goguen’s Resolution.
            There will be attempts to delay the procedure by taking this to federal courts and saying that President John Adams was violating the “fairness” of the federal Constitution (which was not yet written in 1780). But the pundits of the Democratic Party will say, “Stop. Enough is enough.” They understand that this would destroy the credibility of the national Democratic Party forever. They know we are monitoring and reporting everything they do.

II
Defeat of John Kerry Changed Everything

            The defeat of John Kerry changed everything. Democratic pundits instantly began blaming Margaret Marshall and her opinion about “gay marriage” for the loss of the Presidential election, and correctly so.
             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 ruling. He put the Globe behind Marshall’s appointment as Chief Justice in 1999 so she could make the ruling.            

We Have Always Known that Sulzberger Would Abandon Margaret Marshall
            We have always known that Pinch Sulzberger would abandon Margaret Marshall if things got tough, the same way he abandoned Jayson Blair and his top two editors, both close friends of his, in 2003. It is now evident that Marshall is joining Jayson Blair. Her time has come. Both Sulzberger and Marshall were terribly shaken (as was the entire Democratic Party) by the election with its rejection of John Kerry and its endorsement of amendments across the country to ban “gay marriage.” Evidence of Sulzberger’s panic came on Saturday, Nov. 13, 2004, in a strange article by his columnist at the Globe, Alex Beam. Here’s the beginning paragraph of that column in its entirety:
            “I am a great fan of micro-history; if you want to call it gossip, you won't offend me in the least. I was intrigued to learn that, after all the crocodile tears were shed for John Kerry's wrenching electoral loss, the name on everyone's lips was not Margaret Marshall, but . . . Judith Cowin.”            

Judith Cowin Is Responsible for Gay Marriage!?!
            Judge Cowin is the “moderate” Republican who made it a 3-3 tie among the Associates on the SJC and allowed Chief Justice Marshall (and Sulzberger) to move forward on the scheme to impose “gay marriage” on the country. After Marshall had voted, this gave her a very slim 4-3 decision. (Atty. Pawlick warned Marshall in open court twice in 2002-2003 not to do that or she would suffer wrath from the citizens.) The three judges against her (all Massachusetts liberals) were unusually passionate in their opposition, saying that she had no rightful power to do this.
But that was kept quiet by the Times/Globe empire of Sulzberger and the rest of the compliant media, including the Associated Press in which the Sulzbergers are very active at the national level. As far as they’re  concerned, this was a unanimous decision written by the “courageous civil rights activist,” Judge Margaret Marshall.

Sulzberger Is in Trouble
            It is clear that Sulzberger is in trouble with his 12 cousins who were unhappy when he was appointed Chairman of the Times by his father in 1997.
            They insisted that a cousin,Michael Golden, be made Vice Chairman in case Pinch ever stumbled Golden is sitting right down the hall and watching everything.
            Pinch did stumble badly in 2003 and felt it necessary to blame and fire his two close friends as Editors of the Times in order to contain the scandal of Jayson Blair. But he did not fire himself; he remained. Golden is able to see that the new book by Atty. Pawlick, “Libel by New York Times”, is rapidly going across the country to tell everyone about the evil that the Times is creating under Pinch Sulzberger. (We sent Golden a copy a few months ago.) The cousins do not want that threat to their very profitable business from this weird cousin.

What Did the Globe Columnist Write about Judge Cowin?
            The article by columnist Alex Beam about Judge Cowin was totally incoherent. His second paragraph said that some people are saying that Marshall’s decision was the reason for the tremendous defeat of John Kerry. But we all know that the primary instigator of the decision was Pinch Sulzberger. If it is true that Marshall’s decision caused the terrible defeat of the Democrats, then the true villain among all Democrats is the New York Times and its inept, bungling Chairman. By what strange reason does Sulzberger believe he can get out of this if he blames Judy Cowin?
            The next paragraph of his compliant columnist begins: “What about Justice Cowin?”
            Well, what about Judy Cowin?!? (She is a 1955 graduate of Wellesley College, two years ahead of Sally Pawlick.) Well ... Cowin is a registered Republican who was characterized by the Globe as a “conservative” when she was appointed in 1999. Should we believe that Judy Cowin voted as she did just to hurt the Democrats?
            And that is how the article ended --- with total incoherence. It was much like the personal attack against Atty. Pawlick on April 14, 2004, which was the lead story at the top of the Globe’s Business section. In it, another columnist, Steve Bailey, attempted to do a hatchet job in which he told lawyers not to subscribe to Atty. Pawlick’s daughter’s newspaper, Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly (the bible of the industry), because it would somehow help Atty. Pawlick, the “screwiest fringe.” But the whole debacle merely gave the new book some excellent publicity.

Judge Marshall Came Out of Seclusion to Protect Herself from Pinch
            Judge Marshall came out of seclusion on the day that the Beam column ran. She told A.P. reporter Jennifer Peters on that day (see A.P. story of Monday, Nov. 15) in an attempt to rehabilitate herself. "I think you simply do the best that you can, you decide the case and you move onto the next case." [sic]
            According to Peters: “Marshall said she welcomes scrutiny of the court and said the ability of the public to criticize its decisions is one of the great hallmarks of an independent judiciary in a healthy democracy. ‘I think judges play an important constitutional role, and the label that somebody puts onto that is one that varies from time to time. I think as long as I'm not viewed as a lazy judge,’ [sic] she said. ‘I - like, I think, 350 other judges - do the best they can to uphold the constitution, and the statutes and the common law in this commonwealth,’ she said, ‘and then we move on to the next case.’”
            Nowhere did Peters ever note that the vote was a tie among the other six judges on the court, with Marshall breaking the tie and imposing her will upon the state and nation. As far as A.P. was concerned, it was a major victory for “civil rights.” Peters quoted many “right-wingers” who disagreed with A.P.’s interpretation of the event but nowhere did she reveal that the most passionate of those dissenters were three liberal judges right on Marshall’s court. Nor did she note that the owners of the Times sit on all the national boards of A.P. and control it at every level.
            The lead lawyer in the homosexual “marriage” case, Mary Bonauto from GLAD, also attempted to assist Judge Marshall, her friend. Pinch had her write a column in the Globe (Tuesday, Nov. 9) in which she revealed she is also receiving flack from “national Democrats” for causing the debacle to John Kerry. In her spin, she told many whoppers but we don’t have the space or the desire to critique all that again when it’s obvious to anyone.

III
Rep. Emile Goguen Is a Hero to Most

            Rep. Emile Goguen is a hero to most of his hometown, the hard-hit industrial city of Fitchburg, Worcester County, in the central part of the state.
            Many worried when homosexual activists sent thousands of dollars and many “volunteers” from across the country to defeat Goguen in the primary election of 2004. But Goguen remained steadfast and won both the primary and general election (in which he was unopposed) by over 70% of the vote both times. (The largest and most important homosexual organization, the Human Rights Campaign, sent vast contributions to Massachusetts, including a last minute “emergency” donation of $500,000 when they realized how bad things were for them here.)
            Goguen served for 28 years on the Fitchburg City Council and has been in the legislature since 1991. He has his own homeless shelter, which he personally supervises on a daily basis.
            Sally Pawlick is so impressed with Goguen that she is rooting for him to star in a movie modeled after the Christmas favorite, “It’s a Wonderful Life” --- about a real-life hero who has changed the world for many. Unfortunately, many sophisticates in Boston do not understand what life is like in a struggling city like Fitchburg.

Washington Post Sends a Reporter and Photographer to Attack Goguen
            When the Graham family at the Washington Post saw the problems that Pinch Sulzberger was having with the opponents of homosexual “marriage,” they dispatched a reporter and a photographer to write an attack piece on Rep. Goguen. But he welcomed them, as he does everyone, and invited them to follow him wherever he went at home or at the State House. As a result, the article appeared on May 22, 2004, but it was not an “attack” story, but a “pussycat.” . It was an editorial masquerading as a news story. Its principal source was an anonymous "State House insider," who said the following about Emile’s Resolution to “remove” the four judges who voted for “gay marriage.”
            "It's not taken very seriously on Beacon Hill," said the insider, apparently Mike Barnicle, the discredited Globe reporter who was terminated a few years back for fabricating his stories. The “insider” was quoted in the Post’s lead sentence as saying that Goguen’s Resolution to remove the four judges was "moronic." That was really important, up-to-date news, an anonymous tip from a discredited newspaperman, who was terminated a few years back for writing fiction, instead of news.
            The Post also insulted Fitchburg, saying, "Drive the streets of this industrial city, a city with a lot of brick and boarded-up store fronts, a city just waiting for Richard Russo to write a novel about it, and the only signs of political life are some discontent about the prospect of widening Route 12." It made many in Massachusetts wonder if the reporter had ever strolled the streets of Washington lately. He has a lot to do at home without worrying about Fitchburg. But Emile says he was a nice man. And Emile meant it sincerely.

IV
Atty. Pawlick Is One of the Most Tolerant Anywhere

            Atty. Pawlick had homosexual friends at Williams College and excellent homosexual employees at Lawyers Weekly. In addition, his four children all have the Jewish blood of their beloved grandfather, Herman Greenburg, in their veins. (Herm attended Temple throughout his life.) Also, Atty. Pawlick has three “black” grandchildren because he always taught his children that the color of a person’s skin was immaterial in life. As a result, one of his daughters fell in love with a wonderful black man (even though he was a Yale man).
            Pawlick challenges anyone to show a more tolerant face than his. However, he does differentiate between his homosexual friends and his family. He believes that his homosexual friends are making a foolish mistake that is damaging their lives and those of many around them. However, he also realizes that we all make serious mistakes constantly in our lives. That includes Pinch Sulzberger, who had a terrible childhood and is doing irreparable damage. But if Sulzberger truly stops, there will no longer be any hard feelings against him.
            Pawlick bristled in 1999 when the Boston Globe responded to his initial attempt to begin an “Intelligent Discussion” about what is taught to teenagers about homosexuality. Its answer was a prominent headline about hate: “Gays Say Sherborn Lawyer Sent ‘Hate Mail.’”
            In other words, there was to be no discussion at all. Pawlick had been an elected member of a 10,000 pupil, autonomous school board in Pennsylvania Dutch country and the Chairman of its Teachers Committee. Therefore, he felt qualified to discuss those issues. But that was not to be allowed in Massachusetts. As a result, Pawlick visited Jeff Epperly, editor of Boston’s homosexual newspaper, Bay Windows. None of his male employees would go with him. So Sally did. They had an hour-long visit with Epperly and satisfied him that Pawlick bore no grudge toward anyone but did not want teenagers being encouraged to be sexually active in any manner.
            Epperly accepted what was said and that newspaper became the only newspaper that Pawlick trusted. Whenever their reporter called Pawlick, he would return the call immediately, knowing what was reported would be accurate and truthful, without spin. They did not agree on the issues, but they did respect the ability of each other.
            On the way home from Bay Windows, the Pawlicks stopped at the Unitarian Church in Sherborn to talk with the woman minister, but she was frightened to even be seen with them. She was full of hate and suspicion and had no desire to learn more even though Atty. Pawlick had been a member for nine years of the Unitarian Church in Weston, which had a minister who still  believed in God.
            (The Unitarians have been featured as the “leading religious voice” for homosexual marriage by A.P. But the truth is that very few Unitarians believe in a God anymore. They are a debating and political society. They themselves report they have only 9.5% Christians, 46.1% Humanists who by definition do not believe in God, 19.0% Earth/Nature centered, 13.0 Theist, 6.2% Mystic, 3.6% Buddhist, 1.3% Jewish, 0.4% Hindu, 0.1 Moslem and 13.3% other. The numbers total more than 100% because some people gave more than one choice. The above survey was taken in 1997 and can be found on the Unitarian website, www.uua.org under the “Needs and Aspirations Survey.”)
Fifty-percent of the plaintiffs in the homosexual "marriage lawsuit are Unitarians, including Hillary Goodridge.
            A week or so later in 1999 when the minister held a meeting at her beautiful, historic “church,” the Pawlicks attended and found about ten of her members and townspeople, along with 85 homosexual activists from around the state. All the major TV stations came but they weren’t allowed inside the church and were forced by the minister to show the scene from outside. Their television viewers were told that all of those inside the building were local people who were upset by the Pawlicks. Then each TV truck would quickly zoom off to their next assignment.
            One high school boy from Sherborn, was encouraged by the crowd of homosexual activists to “out” himself at the meeting. Afterwards, while Sally and Atty. Pawlick were talking with Fred Kuhn, the erudite editor of the other homosexual newspaper in Boston, “innewsweekly,” the boy came up to them, sobbing and saying, “I don’t want to be different. I don’t want to be different.” If the Pawlicks hadn’t hated seeing a youngster acquire that terrible habit before this tragic encounter, they certainly did afterwards. The Sherborn schools were encouraging the boy to practice that habit and they were proud of that fact. We could write more but it’s all in our archives if anyone is interested.

V
Pinch Sulzberger Began His “Hate Campaign” in 1998

The Lie about Matthew Shepard Is Now Part of Our Folklore
            The “Legend of Matthew Shepard” was created by Pinch Sulzberger in 1998, the year after he became Chairman of the entire New York Times conglomerate and took full control.
            (ABC News broke the news in Dec. 2004 that the Matthew Shepard legend was really a bungled robbery and had nothing to do with homosexuality. Its reporters appeared to be taking their story from Atty. Pawlick’s story written at the time of the event, which has been widely read recently because of the new book, “Libel by New York Times.” However, ABC did not have the courage to report that Sulzberger was responsible for the deception.)

            The killing occurred on Oct. 6 but was not immediately reported by the Globe nor the Times. Meanwhile, on Oct. 8, “People for the American Way” (PAW) published a ten-page attack against the major Christian organizations and their “Truth in Love” campaign about many homosexuals who had been successful in changing their lifestyle.   The campaign was characterized as “hate” by PAW. As a result, on Oct. 10, both the Globe and Times suddenly began to report this obscure tragedy from Wyoming.  The papers repeated the spin that the robbery/murder was caused by the ad. It was said to have brought about a climate of hate. This was obviously preposterous but the mainstream media repeats it over and over until this day, led by the Chairman of the Times, Pinch Sulzberger.
                            VI
Haters Are Radical Feminists from NOW,                    Not Homosexuals

            When still flush from their “victory” on July 17, 2002, where the Democratic legislature violated the state Constitution and refused to vote on and thus illegally but effectively, killed the Protection of Marriage Amendment, Bay Windows published a congratulatory editorial. In it, they revealed that the main proponents of homosexual “marriage,” are not male homosexuals but radical feminists from NOW and their allies, who hate men. Their agenda is to destroy traditional marriage in any way they can because they believe it hurts all women.
            (Anyone interested in the agenda of NOW and their friends, should read Atty. Pawlick’s book written in 1998, “Freedom Will Conquer Racism and Sexism,” which narrates this fascinating story.)
            Bay Windows confirmed that it was powerful, national forces from the AFL-CIO, ACLU, Anti-Defamation League, NOW and other liberals who were behind the illegal adjournment of the vote on the Protection of Marriage Amendment on July 17. It indicated that most homosexuals are not interested in the subject. It was like pulling teeth to get them to contribute to the effort, one activist reported.
            "This confirms what we have been saying," said Sally Pawlick. "This is not about homosexuality. It's about a powerful, liberal agenda to change our morality. These liberals are seeking a socialist state similar to Sweden or Cuba, with a free-love society in which children are the responsibility of the state, not their parents. That's why the national, liberal organizations are so interested in what is happening in Massachusetts. They’re hiding behind homosexuals and others to achieve their political objectives. They wish to diminish the institution of marriage which has been the bedrock of our country since its founding."
            Bay Windows emphasized the importance of liberal allies when it wrote: "Gays and lesbians cannot win these fights on their own. They must have strong and committed straight allies, such as labor unions and the ACLU." It also listed other organizations and said, "Our hats are off to them."
            The ACLU trained hundreds of “blockers” to harass voters attempting to sign petitions in 2001. This was an illegal violation of voting rights and caused concern about the safety of  petition gatherers. Bay Windows bragged: "As a result, the petitioners received thousands fewer signatures than they otherwise would have." Soliciting signatures in public places is protected by the U.S. and Massachusetts Constitutions, according to a Memo from the Secretary of State dated Aug. 30, 2001. The “blockers” operated mostly at malls.

VII
Good to Move Beyond “Gay Marriage”, Success Is at Hand

            Now that “gay marriage” is becoming comatose across Massachusetts and the entire U.S., with Pinch Sulzberger and Margaret Marshall fighting each other, the Pawlicks will finally be able to start winding-down their five-year effort to alert the citizens of this state and the nation. (Thousands of out-of-staters come to their websites daily, which increased to over 100,000 visitors/month in 2004 since publication of Pawlick’s new book.)
            With success at hand, the Pawlicks will finally be able to begin a return to their game plan of publishing a daily Internet, conservative newspaper in Massachusetts. It will challenge the inherited monopoly of super-rich Sulzberger and his New York Times and help him join Dan Rather among the discredited, powerful “heroes” of the liberal American press.
            We hope that all our allies in Massachusetts and elsewhere will get on board and help the “express train” of Rep. Emile Goguen (D-Fitchburg) which is on its way to Remove Judges Marshall, Greaney, Ireland and Cowin from our highest court and end the self-destruction of the Democratic Party in Massachusetts and the U.S.