In her continuing effort to distance herself from her increasingly right-wing boss, Lt. Gov. Kerry Healey has come out in favor of civil unions for gay couples, and in favor of the Travaglini-Lees "compromise" constitutional amendment that Mitt Romney originally backed but for which he has now withdrawn his support. Healey, of course, publicly announced her support for the morning-after pill legislation, later vetoed by Romney, and her comments on civil unions appear to be another effort by Healey to retain the support of some of the Democrats and independents who put Romney in office but who undoubtedly now regret having done so.
Will Healey’s support for Travaglini-Lees increase its chances of garnering 101 votes in the ConCon? Unlikely – with the new "no compromise" ballot proposal in the game, conservatives are just as likely to abandon the compromise now as they were before, and besides, Romney is still the governor. Nonetheless, this strikes me as a significant development. First, of course, it makes it seem even more likely that Romney will not run for reelection in 2006. The morning-after pill was important, but it was a one-shot deal. Romney vetoed the bill; the legislature will override the veto; end of story. Gay marriage, in contrast, is an ongoing debate, and it would be awkward at best for Romney to be running for reelection with such substantial disagreement on such a major issue being aired publicly. As you’ll recall from the 2004 campaign, Dick Cheney voiced some disagreement with Bush’s position on gay rights, but promptly followed it up with statements to the effect that Bush was responsible for setting policy and that he would defer to Bush. That’s not how Kerry Healey is talking, and it suggests that she no longer needs to defer to Romney because she knows Romney is not in the game for long.
It’s also significant because not long ago it would have been unthinkable for a Republican in as high an office as Lieutenant Governor of a major state to back "marriage equivalent" civil unions for gay couples (in fact, as you undoubtedly recall, it wasn’t so easy to get elected Democrats on board with civil unions). No, it’s not "marriage" – it’s "barriage," or something like it. But whatever it is, it’s more than most Republicans used to favor, and that’s a step in the right direction. I continue to be baffled by the notion that it’s OK to give gay couples all the legal incidents of marriage but not OK to call it "marriage." But moving from a debate about substantive rights to a debate largely about semantics is, in my view, progress.
the-troll says
Now don’t laigh, but I can see Kery Healy being our next governor. She can reilly, partick and galvin if she can distamce herself from the Ken doll. She is not another Jane Swift
the-troll says
beat reily, galvan or patrick
anonymous says
But the flip side is a marginally competent campaign from the other side should use as much 2002-era film as it takes to make sure she can’t distance herself from His Willardness…
the-troll says
That will have no effect anonymous. She will be her own person and the voters will accept that. Question is will they vote for her. But everyone will know she is not Romney
lynne says
Actually, no one really knows her. Or her name. Or her position. She’s more unknown than Patrick, I’d wager.
the-troll says
Doesn’t matter. With money you can be known in 10 minutes. Like Mitt Romney, and Bill Weld, Christy Mihos, the Kennedy’s, Jack E. Robinson, Jim Rappaport, Ernie Boch, Jr. (kidding)
brittain33 says
and Chris Gabrieli…
the-troll says
don’t forget John O’Connor – democrat – rember him?Then there is the Hillary way.
john-galway says
“I continue to be baffled by the notion that it’s OK to give gay couples all the legal incidents of marriage but not OK to call it “marriage.” DAVIDAre you as baffled by the notion that the people through their Representatives weren’t allowed to participate in a monumnetal public policy change which would have educated the public (the legislative debate) to the distinction between civil & religious marriage and allowed quite possibly an understanding by dispaprate sides what exactly the other sides concerns are? No, because the PR types, like phony Barrios & others, dream up slogans & 5 second soundbites like: “No Discrimination in the Constitution,” and “it’s civil rights” and on and on and with the repeat of the press (the anti-Catholic Globe whose editorial board has at least 3 openly Gay members, so much for allowing people to receive the news objectively), folks assume the notions are correct enough to warrant them not to vote a certain way. It’s all a brilliant strategy and I give the gay community credit for the way they have used the SJC and a compliant & scared Legislature to get what 3 Justices of the SJC said was unconstitutional interpretation and the people HAVE NOT had a say yet. And when they do speak, civil unions (on the table this Wednesday for an historic vote) will be looking good, never mind “marriage.”
charley-on-the-mta says
“And when they do speak, civil unions (on the table this Wednesday for an historic vote) will be looking good, never mind “marriage.””John, what do you base that on? Are you seeing different polls than we’re seeing? If so, I’d like to see them.
john-galway says
Charley:In today’s politically correct world, do you think people really respond the actual way they feel on an issue? I understand the strategy of the pro-Gay Marriage forces, “continue with deception and spin until we win.” When people go into the privacy of the voting booth, they will reject Gay Marriage because they’re sick & tired of seeing Gays parade their children in front of cameras for photo ops and being featured in Globe specials and having their agenda shoved down little kids throats in school under the banner of sensitivity training. 11 other States said NO Charley, Massachusets will be next if the people ever get to decide on this issue. The Legislature will thwart the will of the people however by succumbing to the rhetoric from the left, “no discrimination” and all the other hogwash but a vote will take place and Gay Marriage will be history, mark my words. Now, how do civil unions sound? and while we’re at it, how about some benefits for 2 brothers that live together and never married, oh wait, they don’t have sex with each other so their “love” relationship isn’t the same as 2 homosexuals. Hmmm. the more you ponder this beyond throwing “bigot” labels around, the more the SSM argumnets flutter and will fail
david says
John, as in the thread in which you raised the issue of polygamy but, when I asked you to explain your view, you never really responded to the point I was making, here your arguments really don’t make much sense. You think “the people” should have a say on whether MA implements “gay marriage”? Fine – that’s a respectable position, and I assume you have called your legislators to tell them your view. But don’t spew this bullshit about three gay people being on the Globe’s editorial board meaning that the Globe can’t offer objective news. Do all gay people think alike (have you heard of the Log Cabin Republicans)? Do all black people think alike? Similarly, don’t give me this “brothers” crap. That’s just another gigantic red herring, like your fake polygamy argument, right out of James Dobson’s playbook. I will repeat my challenge to you from the previous thread, which you never answered: “I’m asking you why the state should sanction marriage at all (assuming that you think it should). After all, it would be perfectly reasonable to have ‘marriage’ be only a religious sacrament, and allow people to enter into whatever contractual relations regarding disposition of property, etc. that they choose. So why should we have the state sanction ‘marriage’? Once you have answered that, we can then determine whether the state should also sanction gay marriage, and whether it should sanction polygamy.”If you can’t answer that, then I’d suggest that you need to figure out the basis of and motives underlying your own position before you call others’ into question. Believe it or not, some people may actually believe the “no discrimination” line, rather than seeing it as deception or spin.
the-troll says
David and JohnAs we all know marriage is state sanctioned to promote famililies. It has a legitimate purpose of course. I agree with your reasonong David, however if we make it contractual shouldn’t there be state laws to protect the contracts between the 2 brothers John referred to?The shouldn’t the state define these types of contracts and protects the contractees? (Employment benefits and so forth)Why should sexual relationship be the test?I would luv to see that. Civil unions for everyone (only 2 per union though. right?) and let your church call it marriage.
the-troll says
Hey David, just read your bio on here for the first time. I then i googled you. I didn’t even know you guys had your bios on here. (see I don’t pay attention)And let me say. That music career…I am impressed. I have assumed you were another David, attorney, work(ed) in state govt. and suprem court clerk. You are not the same guy.GOODThe one I thought you were sucks.See, even I have pre-conceived prejudices.And charley’s a musician too.I am fascinated with musicians because i have tin ear and just don’t understand how you do what you do.Still gonna bust ya balls.
david says
I would luv to see that. Civil unions for everyone (only 2 per union though. right?) and let your church call it marriage.Me too. I think this is the best solution to the whole issue, but unfortunately it will never happen. And therefore, we are left with the need to decide why the state should sanction certain “marriages” but not others. That is what Mr. Galway has never satisfactorily explained.I have assumed you were another David, attorney, work(ed) in state govt. and supreme court clerk. You are not the same guy.They’re both me. I’ve been a busy fellow the last few years!
the-troll says
I think it will happen David. But when our grandchildrens’ grandchildren are old. But I honestly believe the SJC decision polarized peopl in such a way that in the long run it hurt the cause. Did you read that ridiculous op ed by Mary Breslauer in the Globe today. And the inflammatory comments about Reilly by Arlene Issacson last week. Intelligent people showing no respect for the law and reasonong behind it. Rather ther are using deamonizing tactics to win their cause with no regard to facts. Not uncommon among fascist regimes.Dems and real progressives need to seperate themselves from the far left on the bell curve. Blogs like this should continue to point out the hypocricy by certain progressives when we see them. That is what is neded to get credibility which people like Arlene Issacson, Mary Beslauer, Jarett Barios, and the teachers’ unions take away from us every day.Charley has run into one of the far leftest. MedfordDem has been insulted.Hit him with the facts Charley, they can’t deal with facts.
the-troll says
“They’re both me. I’ve been a busy fellow the last few years!”No David you are definitely not the other David I thought you were.Like I said, the guy I am thinking of currently works in state govt., thinks he shits ice cream, and really sucks!
david says
Well, I used to work in state gov’t, but haven’t for several years. But I did clerk for Justice O’Connor, and I am a musician. No comment on the ice cream, though!I read Breslauer’s op-ed, and I agree with you that it’s somewhat unfair – as I’ve already written, I think Reilly did the right thing with respect to certifying the question. That’s not to say that Breslauer doesn’t have a point with respect to Reilly’s own views on the question. He said that he opposes it, yet has been noncommittal on whether he will actively campaign against it. If he wants to be taken seriously as a leader, he ought to stick by his principles and vigorously oppose this thing, even while doing the right thing legally. That’s a good way for an Attorney General to bridge the gap to becoming Governor – something I still think Reilly has a lot of trouble doing.
the-troll says
Maybe Reilly doesn’t want to.David, I know who I am talking about and he does not have the same last name as you or look anything like you, which there was a picture of related to some opera. (ist google site after BMG, don’t worry, not stalking.- although Charlie could be a…. KIDDING) This other person is a real person who I know. I thought you guys were somewhat anonymous and started to assume you were him. The other David has current influential position re; state policy. I’m pretty sure he is gay. Self rightous guy with littlew personality. I was beginning to think you were him. It is not you. You should be very hasppy it is not.I never checked your bios until the other day. So my hunch was completely wrong