The articles concerning the pending Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision pertaining to gay marriage have left the readers without logical and strongly supported evidence. The most frequently used logic behind any positive decision discusses the fact that the majority of people in Mass oppose such a proposition. The interpretation of the laws, the duty of the
courts, is not and should not be based on public opinion. The court's decision must be based purely upon the interpretation of the state Constitution.

The current case before the court is being argued based upon the
longstanding laws pertaining to marriage. Are gay people being discriminated against by not being allowed to engage in marriage? Public opinion should not factor into such a decision. Legislation such as the marriage protection amendment should and will discuss majority opinion in regards to new laws, but it does not pertain to the court's decision. Such use of statistics, when
they have no bearing on the decision, is a prime example of propaganda, an issue you constantly accuse the Globe of engaging in. -Gary Loomis

Atty. Pawlick's Response

You raise some good points, but I believe the logic is a little fuzzy. Let me correct some factual errors and then I will get to the courts.

-- You really know how to hurt a guy. It's not true that my "most frequently used logic" in support of the Marriage Amendment is that the majority of citizens oppose gay marriage. If you really believe that, I have been wasting my time writing all that I have.

-- The homosexual marriage case before the SJC is not based on "longstanding laws pertaining to marriage." If it were, there wouldn't be a case. The advocates are complaining because the "longstanding" laws do not say what they want them to say. The longstanding laws limit marriage to one-man-one-woman. They want to change that.

-- You are absolutely correct that the Marriage Amendment "should" be the factor in the case, but the Legislature and Governor Swift refuse obey the Constitution. If that Amendment were in effect, the SJC would not have the power to impose homosexual marriage.

As you are aware, we live in a "republic," not a "democracy." We reply upon our representatives to learn more about the issues than we do and to vote intelligently upon them. Those representatives must come back for approval and reelection at specified intervals.

Therefore, the voters are theoretically in charge.

That is not true with the courts. The judges have a lifetime sinecure. They report to no one in our state. That can be good or it can be bad. We could recite a long litany about Marbury v. Madison or Andrew Jackson's statement that Chief Justice Marshall had announced the law, now let him enforce it. But you don't have the time to read that.

A good judge must practice restraint and not legislate from the bench. Most judges today have forgotten that -- if they ever knew it.

What's your view of lawyers? Should we just let them make all the decisions? Then we can play and work without a guilty conscience. That's what we're doing when we ask those seven lawyers on the SJC to decide this basic foundation of our entire society.