The attorney for MCM, J. Edward Pawlick, told SJC Justice John Greaney on Februaury 25th that there has to be a remedy when the Legislature violates the state Constitution and then ignores a ruling from the SJC. Pawlick said that his proposal of moving the Marriage Amendment to the new Legislature is the best idea he has thought of, but if the Court has a better solution, that would be fine. Justice Greaney dismissed the lawsuit without comment on February 28th and it will now go before the full seven-judge Supreme Judicial Court. <caption here>

2nd in Series: We Won the “Protection of Marriage Amendment,” Who Took It Away? From the Massachusetts Lawyer with First-Hand Knowledge This is the 2nd in a series, which examines the enormous effort spent by Mass. Citizens for Marriage and MassNews on the 'Protection of Marriage Amendment." Has it done any good?

Sidebar:
Margaret Marshall Knows Ethics Complaint Has Been Filed Against Her
Margaret Marshall knows that an Ethics Complaint, to remove her from both cases about homosexual marriage, has been filed with the Commission on Judicial Conduct because of the judge's close friendship and association with Atty. Mary Bonauto, the homosexual lawyer for the plaintiffs in the Goodridge case, as well as other partisans in the case.

Report to 130,000 Citizens Who Signed the Marriage Amendment

What's It Like to Tell Six Judges of the Supreme Court that They Are Breaking the Law?

Is it Lonely? Where Are the 'Leaders' of the Family Movement?

By Atty. J. Edward Pawlick

How does it feel to finally tell the judges of the Mass. Supreme Court -- in person -- how they're doing?

Is it fun and exciting?

There are thousands of citizens who would love to do that, but it's really a sad event -- as I told the judges earlier this month.

It's sad to watch this group of black-robed lawyers sit there like a bunch of owls on a tree limb, expressionless.

Do they have thoughts or beliefs? Never in all my years as a lawyer, have I seen such withdrawn people.

Who are the males who sit on that Court? Are they a new breed of man? It's obvious, as I sat there and watched the other cases that were heard before us, that the women are dominant. They are the thinkers and the leaders, with Martha Sosman being the most inquisitive and independent; Judith Cowin also was involved in the cases; Chief Margaret Marshall rules the roost without question.

All the males seem content with their passive role.

It was the fourth time I stood in that courtroom since last October. (Two of those times I stood before a single Justice and two times before all the judges. It's obvious that not one of them ever read any of the briefs that were prepared for them.)

In the first three encounters, I believed they would converse intelligently with me and have some spirited discussion. But that was not to be (with the possible exception of Judge Greaney in the Single Justice session).

It's clear that Margaret Marshall is an agent of the New York Times Company.

(That Company owns both the New York Times newspaper and the Boston Globe. That does not mean that they tell her what to do. They are not that crass. They knew when they orchestrated her appointment to the SJC that they both have the same goals. They work together as a team to accomplish them. Her husband is the well-known, extremely liberal columnist at the Times, Anthony Lewis. One of their goals is to have Margaret Marshall appointed to the United States Supreme Court.)

But how about the other judges? What causes them to prejudge a case before they have heard it, with their decision a foregone conclusion?