I was going to write up a post very much along these lines, but the Globe beat me to it. In an editorial published today, the Globe correctly argues that the legislature should vote against the anti-marriage amendment – but that they should not kill the amendment through parliamentary maneuvers.
Legislators face a difficult tactical choice next week, however, with many advocates of gay marriage urging the leaders to scuttle the amendment by ignoring the constitution’s own mandate and ducking a vote altogether. This would be a mistake, and short-sighted. Legislators should not violate the constitution in order to protect it….
The best course is for legislators to meet Wednesday and deny the proposal the required 50 votes. Failing that, efforts should be redoubled to deny the 50 votes required in the 2007-2008 Legislature. Failing that, the amendment should be, and we believe would be, soundly defeated on the 2008 ballot….
Civic and business leaders are right to worry that a full-blown campaign in 2008 would be divisive and distracting. But the tension that now exists will not be relieved if opponents of gay marriage, who chafe at the narrow SJC ruling, are denied a legitimate vote in the Legislature because of political trickery.
I would add this partisan thought. Kerry Healey may be publicly calling for the legislature to vote on the amendment, but privately she is desperately hoping that they kill it without voting. If the Senate President engages in parliamentary trickery to kill the amendment without a vote, Healey will have hit the legislative trifecta in only a couple of weeks: the Ruane pension brouhaha, the ongoing Turnpike Authority fiasco, and then this. In each case, she will argue with some force, the legislative leadership is ignoring “the people” to serve narrow interests: helping out one of its own instead of guarding the public fisc (Ruane), engaging in partisan warfare instead of letting appointed officials do their job (Turnpike), and imposing their own views on gay marriage instead of allowing the constitutional process to play out. The more ammunition the legislature hands Healey, the easier her job becomes.
By the way, as I said a couple of days ago, Deval Patrick is right to criticize the legislature on Ruane and the Turnpike, but he’s wrong on backing parliamentary tactics to defeat the anti-marriage amendment. Both on small “d” democratic and on political grounds, he should want the legislature to vote. UPDATE (thanks MavDem): Tom Reilly, on the other hand, has said that the legislature should take up the proposed amendment, even though he personally opposes it and would vote against it if he were a legislator. Exactly right: kudos to Reilly for that one. And Gabrieli apparently has no position. Lame.
There’s a right way to defeat the anti-marriage amendment in the legislature: convince 151 legislators to vote “no.” If that happens, then the backers of the amendment have lost fair and square, and it’s game over. But if the amendment isn’t allowed to come up for a vote, it’s a good day for Kerry Healey, and a bad day for the democratic process.
Advocates are fearful that the 151 votes needed to defeat the amendment are not there. An amendment about basic fundamental rights of individuals in this society should not be subject to the ballot box, EVER.
<
p>
Once again the Globe talks out of both sides of their mouthâ¦.They want a vote on the amendment, however if it passes they will blame the Legislators for not doing the job of the people in defeating it.
<
p>
The rules of the Convention allow for a recess or adjournment. I would be pleased with either.
<
p>
We have a representative form of Government â If you do not like how your representative votes use the Democratic process that is in place by casting another choice in November. We should not be casting votes that would take rights of equality away from our fellow man or woman.
<
p>
p.s. with the Supreme aligning itself on the right, the next issue at the ballot box will be a womenâs right to choose.
why is it that a 3/4 majority is required to keep it off the ballot, rather than the other way around? It would seem that those seeking change should be the ones to come up with a supermajority, or at least a majority. This makes no sense.
just how important the authors of our constitutional amendment process thought it was that the people almost always (they still need a minimum level of support from 1/4 of the legislature in two consecutive years) have access to THEIR constitution. It’s not the Legislature’s constitution. It’s not the SJC’s constitution. It is ours, which is a beautiful thing. It makes perfect sense.
<
p>
Remember, even if the legislature approves it this year, we can kick the stuffing out of those who supported it over the next year. If that doesn’t work, we will defeat it at the polls.
Amendment Article 48 of the state Constitution provides two ways to get a proposed constitutional amendment onto the ballot. A “legislative amendment” is initiated by the state legislature and must receive a majority vote in two successive legislatures to get to the ballot. An “initiative amendment,” on the other hand, is initiated by citizens via a signature drive, and requires only 25% support from the legislature in two successive legislatures to get to the ballot. The idea is to give “the people” more direct control over the content of the state Constitution, so that if a proposal to amend the Constitution comes from the people rather than from the legislature, only a token level of legislative support is required.
<
p>
Make sense?
It appears that this would be among the “excluded matters” (reversal of a judicial decision). But perhaps that only means a decision in the sense of a verdict.
<
p>
My problem with this process is the effect it would have. I thought that the SJC overreached somewhat in their decision, in particular refusing to allow the legislature to create domestic partnerships as in Vermont. The multi-stage process to put an amendment on the ballot may be sensible in most matters, but when it comes to this situation–extending the right to certain persons to marry, and then coming back two or three years later and rescinding that right…I find extremely troubling. Put yourself in the shoes of someone who has gotten married under this law, bought a house, settled down, then after four years of wedded bliss finds out that their marriage has been declared null and void. Now, if the amendment were merely to rename marriages as “domestic partnerships” it would not be so bad (just kind of insulting). However, if the point is (as I understand it) to prohibit same-sex couples from enjoying the same rights as male-female couples, than a serious injustice would result. Also, the notion that a vote against will settle this issue greatly underestimates the persistence of the right-wing crowd. They don’t give up.
just imagine that Goodridge had been decided in reverse and then you will appreciate the foresight and wisdom of the constitional amendment process.
I believe the legislature could enact a statute authorizing domestic partnerships or even marriage, though the latter would be unlikely. It’s hard to imagine a successful initiative petition to authorize same-sex marriage (don’t have to imagine successful petitions to ban it, even when it doesn’t exist…Florida will almost certainly have one on the ballot in 2008 that will ban same-sex domestic partnership as well as marriage. It will probably pass, too.)
The exclusion of “reversal of a judicial decision” is exactly the provision that opponents of the amendment hoped Tom Reilly would use to keep it off the ballot. However, Reilly concluded (I think probably correctly) that that exclusion applies only to the actual parties to the case. That is, Hilary Goodridge’s marriage is safe regardless of what happens to the amendment – that’s why the amendment expressly does not apply to marriages entered into before its effective date (so anyone who gets married before November of 2008 has nothing to worry about). But Reilly found no bar to allowing the people to amend the Constitution to overrule the SJC’s interpretation prospectively. I think he was right about that.
<
p>
As for the persistence of the right-wing crowd, no one expects them to go quietly. The point, however, is that their best argument – “let the people decide” – will be greatly undercut if the amendment legitimately fails to get enough support to get on the ballot, or if it gets to the ballot but is defeated. My guess is that most MA residents don’t see gay marriage as all that big an issue, and I have no doubt that the really loud anti-marriage activists are quite a small minority. But the “let the people decide” meme has legs regardless of one’s views on marriage, and we shouldn’t underestimate that.
The Globe editorial is Tom Reilly’s position.
<
p>
The Legislature should fulfill its obligation to vote and individual legislators should vote against the measure. Personally, I hope the Legislature has the necessary votes to put an end to the ballot initiative at the Con Con, but if they do not, WE THE PEOPLE will have to defeat it at the polls. This is how our democracy was intended to work and for good reason.
<
p>
With all do respect, those who argue that these matters whould never be put to a vote are being short-sighted. With just one changed vote, the Goodridge court would have ruled against same sex marriage and then we would be having the same discussion right now about a constitutional amendment TO recognize same sex marriage.
<
p>
THE PEOPLE should never be separated from THEIR Constitution. A popular vote is of concern to those who support same sex marriage, such as myself, but an omnipotent judiciary is a far greater threat to our democracy than the people ever will be. There are two lines of defense against same sex marriage proponents: lobby your legislators and, if necessary, campaign and go to the polls in 2008. Undermining the constitutional amendment process should not be considered.
<
p>
Those who seek to undermine the constitutional amendment process feel that they can afford to do so because we like the SJC’s decision, but that very process will protect us from decisions that we may not like from future courts. Remember, Goodridge was 5-4, so these threats are very real.
<
p>
The Globe is right and Reilly is right.
Just a minor point.
I was thinking in terms of 9. Thanks for the correction, but the point remains.
If so, do you have a link? I’d like to give him credit for it. Thanks.
Here’s the article and here’s the quote:
<
p>
Not sure how I missed that one. I’ve updated the post.
is that Deval Patrick has the opposite position and Chris Gabrieli somehow doesn’t have a position.
if you could add Reilly’s stand the post! 🙂
Excerpts from the June 30, 2006 Boston Globe (I don’t have a link):
<
p>
Reilly presses for vote on gay marriage ban
Only Democrat to do so at debate
By Scott Helman, Globe Staff
<
p>
NEWTON — Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly urged the Legislature yesterday to vote on a proposed ban of same-sex marriage next month, using a debate among Democratic candidates for governor to say that lawmakers should not try to kill the measure through procedural maneuvers.
<
p>
Reilly, who initially opposed same-sex marriage but came to support it, was the only Democrat yesterday to say the scheduled vote should take place. Deval L. Patrick said he would accept a tactic that derailed the measure, and Christopher F. Gabrieli refused to say either way.
<
p>
Reilly said that although he’s against the constitutional amendment, which seeks to outlaw same-sex marriage in 2008, he believes that the Legislature should take it up.
<
p>
“I would vote against it if I was a legislator,” Reilly said. “But they should vote on this.”
<
p>
…[skip to Patrick and Gabrielli]
<
p>
Patrick said during the debate that he wished there weren’t going to be a vote on same-sex marriage and likened the issue to a fight 40 years ago over interracial marriage. The US Supreme Court stepped in and struck down prohibitions in many states against blacks and whites marrying, he said, even though Congress and the public probably would not have done the same.
<
p>
“There was a constitutional decision made,” Patrick said of the 2003 Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision allowing same-sex marriage. “I think it was the right decision. Let’s move on.”
<
p>
Gabrieli, also a supporter of gay marriage, was pressed for his opinion, but would say only that he would work to defeat the proposed ban if elected governor.
This isn’t obvious. Has any whip done the counting? I’m skeptical that there are 151 votes; furthermore, I’d bet there are a tremendous number of moderate Dems who want to keep gay marriage, but would just assume not go on record, since it will only make reelection more difficult.
If a white supremacist group came along with petitions and wanted to revoke interracial marriages, they would be laughed out of BlueMassGroup and denounced from the top of the copper dome by every politician in there. They would have figured out 5 different ways to scuttle that.
<
p>
I’m deeply saddened that my neighbor’s civil rights are being threatened by people who hate, and I would do any maneuver to prevent the haters from getting a foothold.
Mem, that’s EXACTLY the point! Your proposed amendment would NEVER get 50 votes in the legislature. The democratic process would work to defeat it.
<
p>
Also, respectfully, you are not doing your side any favors by describing people who disagree with you on the merits of same-sex marriage as “haters.” Some of them are. But many are not. We cannot win this battle by demonizing those on the other side.
I propose leaving the Constitutional rights of my neighbors alone. And as I said, it would be scuttled so fast that it would never get to the legislature for a vote. 50 is not an issue.
<
p>
And I didn’t say all were “haters”. But as you admit they are certainly some proportion. And I believe this is driven by haters, non-haters would not have initiated this. But they may be along for the ride.
<
p>
The haters plan to win by demonizing the other side. We cannot win letting them slide by. They use fear and confusion to roll over others. I’m not rolling. I’m calling them out.
I just think you’re wrong about that. If somehow a white supremacist group were able to gather the thousands of signatures needed, it would automatically go to the legislature, and there it would be voted down 200-0 in a second. That would be the end of it. It’s MUCH easier to do these things the right way than to rely on parliamentary maneuvers to achieve results that you’re afraid you won’t achieve with a vote.
<
p>
And I stand by my concerns about language like “haters.” You can call Cardinal O’Malley, undoubtedly a ringleader on this issue, a “hater” if you want to, but all that will accomplish is to annoy Catholics who might otherwise disagree with him on this issue and vote your way.
And I have to say that all of my earliest prejudices were formed within the Catholic church!
<
p>
To say that O’Malley’s position on this issue is based on love would make me laugh. “Love one another as I have loved you” did not come with amendments, if I remember correctly.
they were covering the Pope’s visit to Spain. I wasn’t able to find the full text of the speech, but the story used the phrase “dictatorship of relativism” to refer to those wacky secularists.
<
p>
I went looking for confirmation of this phrase, and found this:
<
p>
I’m tired of bringing the knife to the gunfights.
allows white supremicist groups to both exist and to propose absolutely terrible constitutional amendments. That is a fact that we all live with in order to assure our own liberties.
<
p>
The constitutional amendment process provides no guarantees, but it does provide safeguards. First, the petition requires 1/4 support from the legislature in consecutve years. If necessary, it must then receive a majority of the popular vote.
<
p>
Why do we do this? Because someday the shoe may be on the other foot. (As it could very easily have been if one jusge had reversed his/her vote in Goodridge. An entire court of Romney and (God forbid) Healey appointees may someday do something that we do not like. The amendment process exists to give the people – not the legislature, not the courts – final say over their constitution.
<
p>
So, this notion of “whatever it takes” is a terrible position for both the short and long term. The ends does not justify the means, especially when a process designed to protect all of our constitutional rights is at stake.
<
p>
Remember, NOBODY on BMG is saying that same sex marriages should be ended. Nobody. But there is a right way and a wrong way to do this and the right way requires a vote.
The “right” way has a chance of stripping the marriages of my neighbors right out from under them. It seems so wrong.
Because it’s not only the right way, within the terms of our existing constitutional structure, it also is the way with the best likelihood of long-term success i.e. solid protection for all adults to enjoy the benefits of marriage in the Commonwealth.
what the legislator tally looks like right now? I know we’ve been pressuring Lew Evangelidis (who is planning to vote yes) to change his mind, but we’re not making any headway. He’s a lockstep Republican conservative.
<
p>
How close to having 151 are we?
Someone from MassEquality came to my door today. From him, and many others, I get the feeling that it is barely possible to get 151, but rather unlikely.
Where’s Binenda, Chandler, et at? The Dem legislators VASTLY outnumber the GOP ones, but it will be THEIR fault?
<
p>
You need to face facts a partisan vote would get you 90%. But it’s NOT partisan, it is?
What are you talking about? I asked a question about how many legislators are planning to vote YES. What has “fault” got to do with what I posted?
<
p>
I guess you’re trying to make a point based on something you wish to say, but, candidly, your point has nothing whatsoever to do with my question.
<
p>
I don’t know anything about Bienienda’s views on this except to say he wears a really bad rug. Sen. Chandler has already made her feelings known on this subject–she votes NO.
“I know we’ve been pressuring Lew Evangelidis (who is planning to vote yes) to change his mind, but we’re not making any headway. He’s a lockstep Republican conservative.”
<
p>
What about Augustus? Binenda? Pedone? Jim Leary? Do you have all those lockstep Democrats in your 151?
<
p>
It is preposterous to blame this on the 20 GOP House members.
I’m not blaming anybody. Evangelidis is my state rep, and I and many others have been trying to get this one individual to change his vote. Augustus is not mine, Binienda is not mine, and neither is Pedone or Leary. Capisce? I do know, however, that Augustus will vote NO. The rest of my post was asking whether we have a sense of how close we are. I’m well aware that we have a Democratic legislature in this state, thankyouverymuch.
I’ve heard that John Binienda – a Worcester rep formerly on the other side will vote against the ammendment this time around …. minds are being changed and I imagine they will be right up until Wednesday…
<
p>
The thing I find so odd the past two weeks is how Gabrieli has refused to take a position on several issues – not just the gay marriage vote procedure … has any one else noticed this?
<
p>
It’s almost as if he thinks he’s in front in this race and is afraid to stumble at the last second….weird….to me anyway
<
p>