News Analysis

Another Democratic Politician, Sal DiMasi, Breaks Solemn Promise --- But He Will Undoubtedly Change His Mind

By MassNews Staff
††††††††††† Sal DiMasi is now saying it's too late to call a vote on gay marriage this year because there are more pressing matters to consider.
††††††††††† He claims to regret the breaking of his solemn promise to have a vote on the Resolution of Rep. Emile Goguen, which would Remove Chief Justice Margaret Marshall and the three Associate Justices who voted with her on gay marriage.
††††††††††† DiMasi knows that the three Justices who disagreed with Marshall, wrote passionately that only the Legislature, not the Court, has the power to do what she wanted. Those three judges said that Marshall is operating a rogue court.

Speaker Knows Reps Are Not Behind Him
††††††††††† Speaker DiMasi knows he doesn't have the Reps behind him. The usual left-wing groups, led by Arlene Isaacson, attempted to preempt the matter earlier in the year by pressuring the Reps to give their public support for gay marriage. Despite a tremendous effort, only 20% agreed to do so. That means that 80% are ready to vote either way, depending upon what they hear from the voters.
††††††††††† It's expected that the Speaker will probably change his mind and allow a vote when he sees three airplanes from "Mass. Citizens for Marriage" in formation, circling the skies over Boston and beyond with the following banner:

††††††††††† It's not too late for the Speaker to call a vote, says the attorney for Mass. Citizens, J. Edward Pawlick.††††††††††
††††††††††† "DiMasi knows he can take a vote any time he wants. He's trying to hide behind the smoke screen that 'formal sessions are over' and he is powerless to do anything about it. But that's not true; he can call a formal session any day he desires."
††††††††††† Atty. Pawlick says it's sad to see the Speaker going down the same road that led Tom Birmingham to the dust-heap in 2002, along with Shannon O'Brien.
††††††††††† "This is a bi-partisan disgrace," says Atty. Pawlick. "Although the Democrats have been the biggest violators of the Constitution by far, there have been a few Republicans who have joined, notably the Minority Leader of the Senate, Brian Lees (R-Springfield), who has been very active in the unfair tactics used in promoting gay marriage. He is the right-hand man on this issue.
††††††††††† "In addition, Mitt Romney embarrassed his own wife and son in his vain attempts to straddle the issue as he strives to become President."

How Can Atty. Pawlick Say DiMasi's Already Broken the Law?
††††††††††† MassNews asked Atty. Pawlick why he says that the Speaker has already broken the law.
††††††††††† "I've written legal briefs which clearly show that it is inherent in the state Constitution, which President John Adams wrote for us in 1780 before we had a Federal Constitution, that the right to Remove oppressive judges cannot be sent to a committee. We cannot delegate this important duty to 6, 10 or 100 people on a committee. Every Legislator is required to vote and be counted.
††††††††††† "When Tom Finneran was Speaker at the beginning of 2004, his lawyer ruled that the Resolution to Remove Margaret Marshall and her three cohorts must go directly to the floor of the House, and not be sent to a committee. After Finneran sent it to a committee, he never looked at me again and resigned shortly thereafter because he knew he had done wrong.
††††††††††† "The Legislature has sent 'Bills of Address' to various committees in the past, inasmuch as the power structure, particularly the lawyers, has never liked John Adamsí idea of allowing oppressive judges to be removed. But the process of sending a 'Bill of Address' to a committee is nowhere to be found in the Constitution. This is just another way for powerful politicians to either delay or kill the entire process and thwart the will of the voters.
††††††††††† "Representative Goguen (D-Fitchburg) filed his 'Bill of Address' as a Resolution, but somewhere, someone, back when Speaker Finneran was in charge, changed it to an ordinary Bill which was submitted to a Committee which mysteriously killed the measure even though the Committee never officially met.
††††††††††† "Speaker DiMasi has already violated the state Constitution again in 2005 by sending Goguen's Resolution to a committee."

Action of Legislature in 2002 Was Clearly Unconstitutional, According to State House News Service
††††††††††† It's interesting to read material from the State House News Service, which explains the process to be followed for any Amendment to the state Constitution in 2005, including the one forbidding gay marriage if they get the required number of signatures.
††††††††††† The story from the News Service indicates what should have occurred in 2002 to the Mass. Citizens Amendment, known as the "Protection of Marriage Amendment.". They say:†††††††††
††††††††††† "Those seeking changes in the State Constitution [in 2005] will find their initiatives placed before a Constitutional Convention, a joint session of the 200 House and Senate members. Those proposed amendments must win 50 affirmative convention votes next year and then another 50 in a similar convention of the House and Senate seated for the 2007-2008 session. Then they would be placed on the ballot in the 2008 election."

DiMasi and Pawlick Both Trial Lawyers
††††††††††† Atty. Pawlick was a trial lawyer before he founded Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly in 1972 after suddenly becoming the sole parent of his four children, who were 10, 8, 6 and 4. He could no longer practice law and did not want a nanny to raise his children. So he raised them himself, at the same time establishing his new business from his home. He continued as CEO of the business (even after it grew to 120 employees including 40 lawyers) until he sold it in 1997 and started Massachusetts News. He's had to become a trial lawyer again while battling the establishment in Massachusetts since 1977.

Copyright 2005©All Rights Reserved
Massachusetts News®, Inc.
PO Box 688
Marlborough, MA 01752