Sunday, October 23, 2005

On the Radio...

While driving yesterday I heard an ad on WBZ. It started "I'm Rep. Emile Goguen..." The gist of the ad was that MA Rep. Emile Goguen wanted people to call the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court and ask them to resign so "They can keep their retirement benefits". The Mass Citizens for Marriage are the sponsors of the ads. This is the group headed by Sally Pawlick, wife of Atty. J. Edward Pawlick (from the infamous MassNews). The same group that "collected" the thousands of signatures in 2000 to stop same sex marriage.

J. Edward Pawlick was counting down the days until "The judges were fired" but apparently he was concerned about the judges losing their millions of dollars worth of benefits. So he kept writing that the judges should resign, to save their benefits of course. He flew banners suggesting the judges resign. They never did.

Their tact now, it appears from the ad I heard and the one written on the MassNews website, is to get people to tie up the MA SJC phonelines with requests for the judges to resign. The ridiculousness of the whole thing is the question of how getting these 4 judges will actually stop same sex couples from marrying. It won't. (For some reason they even attribute Tom Finneran's leaving the legislature on same sex marriage which is a complete mystery since Finneran was against both same sex marriage AND civil unions)

I'm not an attorney, but I don't believe the departure of four judges would automatically void same sex marriage. Rather, another lawsuit, commenced by someone with standing, would need to wind its way through the court system giving this new SJC the opportunity to overrule its prior decision. The problem for the anti-gay folks would be to find someone who was harmed by the decision. They tried doing this before May 17, 2004 and it didn't work then. No one has been harmed since the decision either.

The Article 8 people would want people to believe the "David Parker Incident" was a result of same sex marriage in Massachusetts, except that David Parker was the reason for the "Incident" not same sex marriage. You didn't see lesbian couples holding up in the elementary schools in Lexington did you?

For a throw back to the 60's or even the Civil War era read Massnews' posts about Judge Ireland:
The bitter irony is that Margaret Marshall is from South Africa, one of the nastiest countries toward blacks. Many of them pointed that out when she was first appointed in 1996, saying that she was only using them to promote her own self. But Rick Ireland appears to enjoy being at her beck-and-call like a servant, although it hardly appears appropriate for the first black ever appointed to the SJC.
And this:
The people at Eliot Church also do not know that Atty. Pawlick has "black" grandchildren in that one of his daughters married a wonderful black man. Atty. Pawlick has always told his children that the color of a person's skin is unimportant in God's eyes and should also be unimportant in ours.
Yeah, some of my best friends are "straight" too.


Anonymous said...

The Article 8 people would want people to believe the "David Parker Incident" was a result of same sex marriage in Massachusetts, except that David Parker was the reason for the "Incident" not same sex marriage.

Yes, we all know that Mad Dad's big deal "isn't about a book." But the book that triggered his over-hyped act of civil disobedience was originally published in 1995 and has been in the Lexington (and many other schools) FOR YEARS. Additionally, Lexington's curricula and other programs advancing openness, diversity, and inclusivity have been in development and use for many years as well. Mad Dad and his non-associate associate Brian Camenker may want to blame this "problem" on same-sex marriage, but their foundation is built on sand.

Anonymous said... is one of my favorite sites! Pawlick (a decent man, though a bit loony) claims that Finneran had to resign because he did not allow a vote on the bill of address.

And removing the 4 judges probably will stop gay marriage. With 4 new appointees, the state can again prohibit gay marriage, be challenged in court, etc. and have the SJC revisit it decision.