Globe Worried about Chief Justice Marshall and Gay Marriage Lawsuit

The Boston Globe is so worried about the gay marriage lawsuit which will be announced soon by the Mass. Supreme Court that it printed a "phony" poll on its front page yesterday, says Sarah McVay Pawlick, President of Mass. Citizens for Marriage.

They did this in order to provide "cover" for the court.

The "poll" claimed that 50% of Mass. residents favor gay marriage, but this was only one question out of a long list of fifty-one about everything, ranging from the budget to Mitt Romney, Billy Bulger, etc.

The question about marriage was number 41. That fact was not revealed to the readers (although the Globe did come forth with the information when questioned by MassNews).

"The wording of this question was so confusing," says Pawlick, "that I wouldn't have known how to answer it myself."

The only question about marriage (the wording of which was not revealed to the readers) was: "In general, do you think gay and lesbian marriages should or should not be legally-sanctioned?"

Pawlick points out that the word "sanctioned" has two meanings: 1) approval or 2) the loss of a reward as a result of violating the law.

"So, the Globe made this into a major, front-page story from just one very confusing question," said Pawlick.

"They are desperate and they know that no reader could ever learn about their deceit. Most never will, but there will be many more than the Globe realizes."

"This is good news," Pawlick continued, "because it shows that Margaret Marshall and the Globe are very concerned about whether her court should impose gay marriage on the Commonwealth. The Globe is trying to help her. They know that the people are very much against it. That is why the Globe urged Sen. Tom Birmingham to violate the Constitution last year and not allow the Legislature to vote on the Protection of Marriage Amendment. They know it would pass if it went to the people -- no matter how many phony polls the Globe does."

In addition, said Pawlick, the Globe still hasn't revealed when the questioning was done, the sex or age of the respondents, even though it stated clearly that these are all very important factors to consider. They revealed nothing about the respondents.

"This is clearly another effort by the New York Times, which owns the Globe, to impose its will on the citizens of Massachusetts. They have been the primary opponent of the Amendment from the very beginning.

"They can lie or cheat all the way but it will not help Margaret Marshall because we all know that the citizens oppose gay marriage."

Pawlick said that the refusal to release any of the data about the poll makes it impossible for independent persons to determine if the results cited are credible. Even the Globe said that its results are in "sharp contrast" to other recent polls.

One other question was asked about homosexuals (number 42). It was: "Q42. In general, do you think gay and lesbian unions and partnerships should or should not be legally-sanctioned?"

Even the Globe reporter was confused by this question. He apparently does not understand that there is a big difference between "unions" and "partnerships." He just ignored the word "partnerships" and said that the respondents favored "unions," which is a much more formal and encompassing relationship than "partnerships." If the Globe reporter doesn't understand the question, says Pawlick, it's obvious that the average person, already weary after answering 40 previous questions, is not going to understand it either.

In addition, noted Pawlick, question 42 repeats the confusing word: "sanctioned."

The Globe still cannot bring itself to report that Sen. Birmingham and the Legislature violated the state Constitution last year when they refused to allow a vote on the Amendment. The Supreme Court clearly indicated that this was a violation of the law in its advisory opinion to the Governor on Dec. 20, 2002. However, the Globe still will not report that fact.

Yesterday's story in the Globe said, "A proposal to ban such marriages was killed in the Legislature last year when then-Senate President Thomas F. Birmingham used a procedural maneuver to avoid a vote." However, it was not a "procedural maneuver." It was a violation of the law which had been urged on him by the Globe.

• A poll conducted by MassNews of 500 persons in Oct. 2002 showed that when informed of the situation, 64% of "likely" voters favored the Governor ordering the state legislature back into session to vote on the Marriage Amendment. Only 9% opposed it, and the rest did not know enough to make an opinion.

• A poll by MassNews of 600 persons in 2001 showed that 82% believe that marriage plays a vital or important role in society and 59% favored legislation that would say: "marriage is a civil contract defined as a legal relationship between one man and one woman, who consent to take each other exclusively as husband and wife." Only 34% opposed and 7% were unsure.

• Since the margin of error of yesterday's poll is plus-or-minus 5%, this could also mean that 50% oppose gay marriage and only 45% approve it -- even if you do not factor in the terrible wording of the question.

The code of ethics for the American Association of Public Opinion researchers states in Section III of the code:

Good professional practice imposes the obligation upon all public opinion researchers to include, in any report of research results, or to make available when that report is released, certain essential information about how the research was conducted. At a minimum, the following items should be disclosed:

1) Who sponsored the survey, and who conducted it.
2) The exact wording of questions asked, including the text of any preceding instruction or explanation to the interviewer or respondents that might reasonably be expected to affect the response .