Atty. Pawlick will soon begin reaching people outside of Massachusetts with copy like this about his new book, "Libel by New York Times," in order that everyone across the country will understand the role of the New York Times (and the Boston Globe) in imposing homosexual "marriage" upon this state.

Why Has New York Times Pushed Gay Marriage in Massachusetts So Frantically?
By Attorney J. Edward Pawlick

     As a former trial lawyer, I wondered why the New York Times and its subsidiary, the Boston Globe, were so frantic and nasty about promoting gay marriage in Massachusetts - until I discovered the “dots” and connected them.
     Then I wrote a book so that everyone would know. That was just after Chief Justice Margaret Marshall issued her famous opinion last year.
     I’ve been intimately involved in the gay marriage battle in Massachusetts since 2000 when our neighbor, Vermont, shocked the nation with civil unions. That caused my wife, Sally, to quickly organize Mass. Citizens for Marriage to prevent that from happening here.
     I publish a conservative Internet newspaper for Massachusetts, having sold my business of 120 employees, including 30 lawyers, which publishes newspapers for lawyers, that are avidly read by 30% of the practicing lawyers in the country.
     When my book came out: “Libel by New York Times,” with the subhead, “Gay Marriage didn’t just happen in Massachusetts, It was engineered by the New York Times,” the reaction was immediate. Readers were enthusiastic, including Alan Keyes, but I didn’t have time to promote it outside our state. We were working night and day to prevent gay marriage from happening before the court’s May 17, 2004 deadline.
     I appeared before our Supreme Court four times in 2002-2003 to urge them to allow the citizens to vote on Sally’s Amendment. They quickly agreed the Legislature violated our Constitution with their refusal to allow a vote in that they knew we would get the 25% necessary to send it to the voters. However, Justice Marshall gave no remedy for this gross violation of our democracy. Her ruling was useless, as she had intended, and the Amendment died.
     My last appearance before her Court came in May 2003, just after her unusual “oral argument” two months before. She allowed only two lawyers to appear before her then even though the case involved the basic structure of society. The plaintiffs had one lawyer. The state had an Assistant Attorney General. That was the only discussion that Marshall ever allowed, except for me.
     After listening to the oral argument, we filed an Ethics Complaint against Marshall. She stated in a public speech to a homosexual group in 1999 that she favored gay marriage. We didn’t expect to win our complaint because it was people who report to Marshall who would decide. But we wanted her to understand that we knew her conduct was unethical and we would dog her footsteps with the truth if she persisted.
     In my last appearance before the Court, I threw caution to the wind. I didn’t argue the law. I gave a political speech and told the seven judges that if they imposed gay marriage, there would be a citizens revolt. I expected Marshall to stop me, but she didn’t until I had said everything I planned. It was obvious that the judges were more attentive than in my first three appearances.
They were respectful and listened. It was clear I “reached” Justice Cordy (who wrote the lead dissenting opinion). It was not certain what anyone else was thinking but three of the six judges disagreed vehemently with Marshall and agreed with me in their final opinion.
     After that argument, I started researching the history of the New York Times. What I discovered was startling!
     The Times has not been an impartial newspaper since the man who purchased it in 1896 and made it into an American treasure, Adolph Ochs, died in 1935, leaving his radical daughter and her husband, Arthur H. Sulzberger, in charge. They have changed our history many times with this powerful institution which was so carefully crafted by Ochs.
     The Sulzbergers have run it like a shoe store, a fiefdom that is theirs alone. Except for one publisher who died unexpectedly, there have been only three publishers since 1935: Pinch Sulzberger; his father, Punch Sulzberger; and his grandfather, Arthur H. Sulzberger.
     You’ll be amazed to read this fascinating yarn about how the dysfunctional Sulzberger family has continually changed our society for the worse - including the imposition of gay marriage  all the while retaining an image of an impartial “newspaper of record.” Who is the family member pushing gay marriage at the Times?
     If you truly want to understand the foundation of “liberal media bias” while reading a fascinating story with tales of intrigue, and if you want to help defend your state against the Times, you will want to read this book.