Lawsuit for Libel Filed Against New York Times Company by Sponsors of Marriage Amendment

Two Subsidiaries, Boston Globe and NY Times, Responsible for Defamation

Full Text of Complaint (PDF - need free Acrobat Reader to open)

MassNews Staff
April 15, 2003

A lawsuit is being filed today in federal court in Boston against the New York Times Company by two sponsors of the Protection of Marriage Amendment for libel by two newspaper subsidiaries of the company, the Boston Globe and the New York Times.

The two plaintiffs, Massachusetts Citizens for Marriage and its president, Sarah McVay Pawlick, are seeking damages in excess of $1.7 million.

"Most lawyers will say that we do not stand a chance in this lawsuit," said Atty. J. Edward Pawlick.

"But they do not understand the egregious facts in this case," he continued. "This is the classic case of a 'bully in the schoolyard,' which the Times claims to be against, but they are the biggest bully of all. At the very least, many more people will come to understand that. When these facts are exposed, I believe a lot of people will be surprised. We may start to see much more awareness of the power structure and of the many changes that are necessary in our state."

The lawsuit says that the Globe and the Times have the right to oppose the Amendment and to urge that the courts impose homosexual marriage in the state -- which would not be allowed if the Amendment is approved.

However, the suit says, "Both the Times and the Globe have gone far beyond the ethics of journalistic standards and have used their news columns to promote their beliefs, including false and libelous statements about Pawlick and MCM."

The suit says that the claims of "Save Our Horses," which have been heavily publicized by the Globe since November 21, 2001, "gave the impression that Pawlick and MCM were lying and using deceptive practices, particularly in regard to those who wanted to sign the horse petition and had been 'tricked' into signing the plaintiffs' petition instead."

It says that the New York Times newspaper jumped in on Sunday, April 7, 2002, only three days before the hearing in the Legislature, with a large story in its national edition and a banner headline across the top of page 22, "Drive to Ban Gay Marriage Is Accused of Duping Signers." This was an attempt to influence the hearing even though there was nothing new to report, says the suit.

Pawlick says in the suit that that charge of fraud was used against her many times at that hostile hearing before which she testified.

The suit says that the amount of damages will depend upon what the Supreme Judicial Court decides next month, on May 9, 2003, as to whether that court agrees to instruct the Secretary of State to send the Amendment to the new Legislature as though it had been approved by the old one. If it does not do so, then the plaintiffs will be seeking the entire $1.7 million that was spent on the Amendment. However, if the SJC does move it on, then the damages would approximately $500,000 which was spent since July 31, 2002, in an attempt to counter the libel of the defendant and to inform the public of the facts.

In addition, Pawlick is also seeking punitive damages and damages for emotional distress.