His career record on gay rights:
“In any journey, there are going to be episodes that get taken out of context. But if someone looks at the record from day one to where we are now, I think a fair person would say ‘He’s been pretty good. Perfect, no, but pretty damn good – for a long time.'”
His early support for civil unions and on having a record:
“I was an early proponent of civil unions before anyone else in constitutional office in this state was for civil unions,” he said.
Again, pointing to his record, Reilly said, “You will find that I testified – actually testified – in opposition against a constitutional amendment before Goodridge even occurred.” In fact, Reilly did speak out against H 3190, on April 28, 2002, before a joint House and Senate public service committee in the Gardner Auditorium. He also spoke out against a similar bill, H 4840, in 2003. “House 4840 rather than strengthening the bonds of marriage tears at the fabric of our community and divides us,” he said in testimony at that time. “For this reason alone, the measure should be rejected.” He was the first person that day to testify. . .
Taking square aim at his opponents, he also asked rhetorically, “Where was everyone else?” Reilly continued, “Neither one of my opponents took a stand on that issue. I did. I didn’t have to do that. I did it because I thought it was important.” And he said, “That takes a measure of someone. That gives a very good sign of me. It’s not just words, it’s action.”
Doing his job as Attorney General and his rejection of Mitt Romney’s request for a stay of the Goodridge decision:
“When the lawsuit was filed, I had a job to do. My job was to defend the laws of the state, which I did,” he explained. “And when the court made it very clear that same-sex marriage would come into effect in Massachusetts, I not only enforced the law, I stared the governor down. When [Romney] asked for a stay, he didn’t get the stay because I wouldn’t let him go into court.” The governor hoped, by going to court, he could delay the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couple, so that voters could weigh in on the matter.
His Irish-Catholic upbringing:
“I grew up in a very religious home but we also lived in a very diverse neighborhood in Springfield,” he said. “I believe I was taught in my church, but certainly taught at home, and my life experience has been to measure people by the content of their character, not by the color of their skin or sexual orientation or any other factors,” Reilly explained. “It’s been an overriding factor in the way I’ve lived my life,” he added. “So if there are any conflicts with Church teaching, I accept they can teach what they want but it’s up to me to live my life. I have my conscience.”
His support for gay parenting:
On the question of gay parenting, Reilly said it was both “ridiculous” and “offensive” that Gov. Romney could not give a straight-up answer about gays being good parents. “I think most people see it that way,” he said. “They know it’s whether or not you love the child, do you care about the child, and are you able to provide a nurturing and supportive environment for the child,” Reilly went on to explain. “That’s the most important thing. Gay people can do that as well as other folks. Most people see that.”
In my opinion, two things make this article impressive.
First, I am impressed that both the writer and his editor(s) allowed Tom Reilly to discuss his record without a shred of editorializing, while providing an appropriate and helpful level of context. That is a rare occurrence in this day and age. As Colbert points out, “The major road bump, if not total roadblock, for a number of GLBT voters is the question of gay marriage.” Yet the writer and the publication opt instead for a detour that provides an insightful interview, for which they should be commended.
Second is Tom Reilly himself. Rather than avoiding a complicated and potentially awkward set of issues, Reilly offers his record, admittedly not “perfect” but “pretty damn good.” He is accountable. (Contrast that with this Bay Windows editorial (scroll down link to read) that chastises Deval Patrick supporters’ “over the top defense” of their inquiry into his role in United Airline’s highly-publicized and contentious opposition to a San Francisco ordinance requiring domestic partner benefits.) It is great to see Tom Reilly slugging away for the GLBT vote in both September and November.
By virtue of his office, Tom Reilly has been on the frontlines and accountable on a set of Massachusetts gay rights issues that his opponents now have the luxury to sit back and treat as theoretical exercises. However, governing will require more than Monday-morning quarterbacking. As the SJC’s recent unanimous decision supporting Tom Reilly’s certification of a proposed constitutional amendment illustrates, there are many powerful, valid, and sometimes competing interests at stake.
As the In Newsweekly article illustrates, Tom Reilly has actually experienced those competing interest first-hand while occupying a position of relevance, providing him with a record that goes way beyond any single event or campaign-season “would of-could have-should haves.”
but I love articles/posts like this one by B<>MaverickDem.
<
p>
This stuff is complicated. Taking the time to digest the big picture and giving the candidate an opportunity to speak at length about the details and nuances is vitally important. It’s true that we don’t have enough time to review five or six candidates’ worth of details on a dozen issues each, but getting a bit more depth every once in a while is not only a really nice change, but helps to understand a bit more about the character and vision of the candidate, not just their wonkish policy proposals.
<
p>
So, thank you for the post Mav, and I hope we see more articles like this in the future for all candidates, even Healy and Mihos.
I’m glad that you enjoyed the post.
High praise, MavDem, for a very positive post about your candidate.
<
p>
I think it’s a great reminder of how we, as Dems, all have much more in common than not.
<
p>
After the Primary, we’ll all come together to promote our common cause, and as hard as we try now to differentiate our candidates from each other, the truth is that the winner of the Primary, whoever that is, will have a lot more to offer to all of us than will the opposition candidates.
<
p>
Not surprisingly, you didn’t win me over, but you gave me a much greater and deeper understanding of your candidate, and I truly appreciate that.
There’s a truncation in the Mass O’ Politics feed that’s unfortunate for Reilly — Political Intelligence reports that he says he was an early opponent of the gay marriage ban (supporting civil unions before Goodridge), but the summary truncates this to “early opponent of gay marriage”.
<
p>
In the spirit of saying something nice about our less-preferred primary candidates, I’ll say that Reilly does not appear to be particularly bigoted at all. As someone who lived in Boston in the 1970’s, I don’t take such a virtue for granted, particularly in an Irish Catholic politician. I find a lot of merit in the argument that he’s getting a raw deal on the certification of the anti-GM amendment, as he was affirmed by the SJC as being correct on the law.
<
p>
Here’s a question to which I don’t know the answer. The step from state AG to governor is a cliche, to the extent that the Association of Attorneys General is popularly known as the Association of Aspiring Governors. But how many governors have come from that experience, and how well have they done? (Bill Weld was a federal prosecutor, but not state AG. Prior Mass AG’s who have run for governor have included Bellotti and Harshbarger, both unsuccessful. Spitzer in NY will probably go directly from AG to governor. Anybody know of other examples?
the AG spot has been a challenging position from which to run for Governor due to a host of complicated, competing issues that the AG is required to address. We need look no further than this post for an example of why this is the case.
<
p>
I do not know how all previous AG’s have fared in their gubernatorial runs, but I personally believe that the responsibilities of being AG pose a greater challenge in the Democratic Primary than they do in the General Election. For example, if Bellotti had defeated Silber in the primary, I believe Bellotti would have beat Weld. Harshbarger was a different story because, in my opinion, he was more liberal than your typical AG and, therefore, more appealing to some left-leaning Democratic Primary voters and less appealing to middle-leaning (if that is possible) General Election voters.
The quick summary: AGs are heavily hyped and usually fall flat on their face, either before or after the election.
<
p>
Jennifer Granholm (Michigan) and Jim Doyle (Wisconsin) both ran for governor successfully in 2002. In both cases, they were expected to be shoo-ins for office, but ran much closer than expected on election day, couldn’t get anywhere with Republican legislatures, and are facing tough reelections. Similar story for Christine Gregoire in Washington in 2004, who did not have a Republican legislature to make things worse, at least.
<
p>
Ben Chandler ran unsuccessfully for Governor of Kentucky in 2003. Heidi Heitkamp fell short in North Dakota in 2002. Both can be attributed to the partisan environment and strong opponents. Dan Lungren lost to Gray Davis in 1998 when the state was very ready to elect a Democrat and he was too closely identified with social conservatives. In Pennsylvania, Republican AG Mike Fisher ran into the brick wall named Ed Rendell in 2002.
<
p>
Betty Montgomery in Ohio either came in third or dropped out of the Republican primary in 2006. South Carolina’s Charlie Condon lost in the primary to Mark Sanford in 2002.
<
p>
Virginia only has three statewide elected office, and LG is usually the same party as Governor, so the AG always runs. In 2005, Jerry Kilgore ran and lost; in 2001, Mark Earley lost in the primary; in 1997, Jim Gimore won and became the governor who screwed all Republicans running statewide for years to come with his mismanagement; and in 1993, Democrat Mary Sue Terry was the early front-runner who went on to lose to a young congressman named George Felix Allen.
<
p>
Missouri’s long-serving Attorney General Jay Nixon, a Democrat, failed to move up to the Senate against Kit Bond (I think) because he made too many enemies among the African-American community.
<
p>
I assume most people here are familiar with Connecticut’s Hamlet, Dick Blumenthal, who was always told he could walk into the Governor’s office but has never been willing to run.
<
p>
On the plus side, we have 2006 candidates Spitzer and Mike Beebe in Arkansas, but you know what? They look a lot like Granholm and Doyle did four years ago. Let’s hope they have better luck.
for pointing out the unfortunate result of Mass o’ Politics truncation. It had me rolling my eyes. One word can make a BIG difference!
<
p>
Maybe it is just coincidence, but it seems like Political Intelligence finds us intelligent. đŸ˜‰
Regardless of whether Tom Reilly was an a. early adopter and defender of gay marriage (or civil unions), b. just following the law all along, even when it hurt, or c. was just late to the party — I’ve often felt the hostility of the pro-marriage crowd towards him was misplaced. I mean, even if it was “c”, don’t you want to reward people who come around to your way of thinking? And the article seems to show that it was more “a” than we realize.
<
p>
(Where’s this Tom Reilly been in the campaign? Why doesn’t he speak with that kind of clarity and candor all the time? It only comes out once in a while, but when it does, it really adds something. Maybe he’s over-managed or over-consulted, I don’t know.)
<
p>
Anyway, great post, and thanks.
Sometimes, as in the Keller interview, he’s painfully boring and cautious, mumbling his answers, saying “uh” after practically every word. Totally uninteresting and uninspiring.
<
p>
Other times, as in the new 60-second spot on his site, he’s really quite good. If that guy (it’s the same guy who spoke at the convention, btw) showed up more often, he’d be polling much better, IMHO.
but I think “that guy” is going to rip through the end of this campaign like a hurricane.
<
p>
Hurricane Reilly!
you don’t need to be an articulate Bill Clinton or Obama to be elected. What you do need is the average person to believe you and see the honesty in your voice.
It’s funny that you talk about honesty and W in a post of gay rights. As you may recall, when he ran in 2000, W told a group of prominent gay Republicans that he wouldn’t “kick the gays around” in order to score political points. However, twice during his administration when Republicans needed a boost among their conservatice base he has done just that by publically calling for the adoption of the Federal Marriage Amendment, an amendment that would deny equal marriage or civil unions (and possibly even any contractual relationship) to gay and lesbian couples, knowing that the amendment had zero chance of passing the Senate.
that’s my point. I saw that in the Watertown ad. It’s been lacking in some of his other appearances – particularly the Keller interview, in which I thought he came across as not especially believable.
The key thing people have to ask themselves to the people who chose “c” is “do I really think they’re geniune.”
<
p>
Since Tom Reilly came out in favor of gay marriage, I haven’t seen the kind of follow-up that makes me feel he’s geniune in his support – or at the very least that he’s strongly going to support it as a priority held paramount (since it’s a civil rights issue, I think it deserves that status – but I am gay, so perhaps I’m biased).
<
p>
Tom Reilly has done a number of things that bother me – and none of them have anything to do with Goodridge. I was bothered that he was so quick to support Mitt Romney in using a 1913 racist law to make sure out-of-staters didn’t get married. Could he use the law? Certainly. But then he may as well go and arrest every guy who forgets to bring their guns to church on Sunday too, because that’s a Massachusetts law as well.
<
p>
However, what really has me worried is his inaction on the ballot fraud. Not only was the ballot fraud a gay rights issue (since the ballot drive – which employed fraudalent tactics on thousands of registered voters), it’s also an affront to democracy in general. Any ballot fraud should be heavily investigated – and I, as someone who was paying attention from the very beginning, never saw that attention.
<
p>
Tom Reilly was in a position to do things about these issues. He could have stood up and truly stuck his leg out there… but it would have been politically dangerous. So I don’t trust him on GLBT issues. It’s not enough that he won’t actively seek to destroy equality in marriage, he needs to do more than that. He needs to defend us and stick his neck out there the way Deval has on issues like Cape Wind and property taxes.
I don’t even know where to begin in responding to this post.
<
p>
First, let me start out by saying that I don’t believe that Reilly is homophobic or anti-gay in any way. And yes, he has in certain instances been supportive of certain GLBT issues. However, it is clear that his record and his stance of GLBT issues pale in comparison to Chris Gabrieli (who has provided significant time and resources for GLBT causes ) and Deval Patrick (who has a record going back to his time in the Clinton administration supporting GLBT issues and had his first campaign event with the GLBT community).
<
p>
Second, let me talk about the offensive comment regarding the so called myopic obsession with the Goodrige decision. MavDem, when your elected officials vocally and forcefully oppose your right to decide who you get to marry, that is a big issue. We are fortunate in Massachusetts that the bar regarding GLBT issues is rather high. It’s generally accepted that discrimination against gay and lesbians in employment, housing, and other day to day matters should not be tolerated and our laws reflect that. However, so much of our day to day lives, and the rights and privileges afforded people by the government are tied to marriage. Until gays and lesbians are granted full and equal access to marriage, they will not truly be equal. So despite anything you say or do, if you oppose equal marriage you are saying you don’t view gays and lesbians as equal citizens. That is an incredibly hurtful position for gays and lesbians. I have never felt so abandoned by my elected leaders or so failed by my government when a little over two years ago the state legislature moved the first constitutional forward. Once your government has told you you are not an equal citizen, then you will understand why this issue, and this case, are so important.
<
p>
Reilly was not defending the state law as he stated. The law did not say that marriage was between a man and woman, it had been interpretted that way by many people, including Reilly himself. Reilly was defending an interpretation (a tradition if you will) of what he wanted the law to mean and not what the law said. As the SJC decided in Goodridge, the state constitution prevented this particular interpretation. No law had to be changed to allow for same-sex marriage (only some forms). And it is truly disengenuous for him to say he was only trying to uphold the law (which was false) when he was saying at the time that his personal belief was marriage should be between a man and a woman. He was seeking a result that was in line with his beliefs.
<
p>
It’s also important to note that Reilly and his office fought marriage equality vigorously. As those involved in the case have stated, the defense put on by Reilly was the most vigours that marriage equality proponents had faced in the courts up unto that point (much more so than Hawaii and Vermont). Reilly wasn’t just doing his job…he never wanted to see marriage equality in the state of Massachusetts.
<
p>
Did Reilly defy the governor eventually. Yes. But that wasn’t a hard stance to take. The Governor hadn’t provided a single legal rationale for seeking a stay. As the media reported at the time, the brief provided to Reilly asking Reilly to go back to the courts did not contain any legal reasoning, but was instead full of moral and semi-religious arguments. Reilly wasn’t being brave…he had no basis on which to go forward with a legal challenge. He couldn’t even if he wanted to, so he spun it to his advantage, eyeing a potential gubenatorial run.
<
p>
Your post also conveniently ignores that Reilly didn’t simply accept the decision once it was handed down. His office was involved in a subsequent case brought unsuccessfully before the SJC which tried to reinterpret Goodridge as allowing for civil unions rather than full marriage. That’s right, contrary to his and your claim, Reilly sought to have marriage equality blocked even AFTER Goodridge was decided.
<
p>
And then there are the issues of his defense and continued support for the 1913 law as well as the certification. First, regarding the certification, although the SJC did support his certification, one can only wonder if the result would have been the same if he had denied certification and the appeal had come from anti-marriage forces. Nothing in the SJC decision say that Reilly had a duty or obligation to certify the amendment, only that his certification was permissible under the Constitution. And then there is the 1913 law. Here we have a law that was passed for racially motivated reasons (to prevent out of state interracial couples from marrying), was ignored for decades only to be dusted off for another discriminatory purpose by the Governor. If Reilly truly wanted to stand up to the Governor, opposing his interpretation of this law would have been bold. The truly troubling part about Reilly’s support for the 1913 law is not that he believes it can be used to prevent out of state gay marriage, it’s that he believes its right to have such a law.
<
p>
As for his support of civil unions in 2002 and his swipe at his opponents, I think that is an unfair comparison. Reilly was the AG and therefore his opinion would have some wait and be given a public forum. Neither Patrick nor Gabrieli were in public office at the time, so their opinion would have little wait on policy makers. I may feel strongly about an issue, but I don’t hold any position. So what good does my trying to publicize my view do? None. So I seek other ways to advance my views.
<
p>
I’m glad to see Reilly finally attend a GLBT event (the Gay and lesbian political caucus event last week) and to sit down with In Newsweekly. But I can’t help feeling, much like his supposed support for full marriage equality, this is a little johnny come lately. Both Gabs and Patrick have had mutliple events reaching out to the GLBT community. I am a gay democrat, and both campaigns have made an effort to reach out and address any concerns I may have and have sought my support. Reily, well, I have gotten a lot of emails etc from him, but nothing on the GLBT issue. Reilly is the state’s chief legal official…why doesn’t he attend the annual Massachusetts Lesbian and Gay Bar Association dinner in the summer (big shout out to Martha Coakley who was there)?
<
p>
I know a lot of gay people and a lot of politically active gay people here in Boston. Not a single one supports Tom Reilly. In fact, this article is the first time I have heard of any openly gay person support Reilly. It’s also somewhat telling that most of the pro-reilly quotes in the article come from Steve Grossman. Mr. Grossman has been a fantastic supporter of gay rights and should be commended for his support. However, he’s not actually gay. And also, as former DNC Chairman, he definitely fits the insider mold that forms the basis of Reilly’s support. Basically, he’s not your rank and file gay dem, and his support of Reilly really doesn’t represent the views of the gay Democratic community.
<
p>
… that the SJC sided with him both on certification of the amendment (as you say) and the 1913 law. It’s the AG’s job to uphold the law, even if he doesn’t like it. Again, I’m pretty sure Reilly played it straight down the middle and did his job.
<
p>
And I’m also sure of your contention that this cuts absolutely no ice whatsoever with gay Democrats.
With regards to the 1913 law, Reilly has not only said that he was doing his job in defending the use of this long-dormant law, but that he believe the law is correct and should exist and not be overturned. He believes that out of state gay couples should not be allowed to marry here.
<
p>
On the certification issue, my understanding was that beyond believeing he was doing his job, he also though that the amendment should go forward, but then be voted down by the legislature. I admit the SJC did side with Reilly here, but I also think there was room in the decision for him not to have certified the initiative.
<
p>
The ballot iniative also brings up another issue. The press was filled with stories regarding wide-spread fraud in the signature collection process. As the state’s chief legal officer, Reilly really didn’t do anything to investigate these claims.
<
p>
Oh, I forgot to mention…Tom Reilly couldn’t be bothered to march in this year’s Gay Pride parade (which happens to be the second largest parade annually in Boston). Neither could Chris Gabrieli. However, Deval and Diane Patrick were there, despite the weather.
who don’t bring their guns to church on Sunday too. After all, that’s in the law books.
<
p>
There are lots of old fashioned, often racially motivated laws that are ignored. Tom Reilly could have ignored the 1913 law too, but chose not to.
<
p>
Furthermore, if he wanted to follow it, fine. However, where was he on demanding it be repealed? If he came out with a press conference and in an OP-ED declaring that he’d follow the law, but hoped it would be repealed it would have made a huge splash and actually would have been courageous. Tom Reilly didn’t do that.
other than that some people will (and already have) found some value from this post/article and others will not.
<
p>
As counsel for the state, Reilly had to be a “zealous advocate” on behalf of his client, in this case the Board of Health. Yes, he was arguing an interpretation of the law, but it was the position that the Board had taken and it was hardly radical, as evidenced by the SJC’s narrow decision, 3-2.
<
p>
Wahoowa, this isn’t the first time that you and I have had a back-and-forth on these issues. A unanimous SJC supported Tom Reilly in that instance as well as on the 1913 law.
<
p>
The post is what it is: additional insight for those who wish to look beyond (or deeper than) Goodridge.
<
p>
MavDem, he wasn’t only advocating for an interpretation, it also happened to be the interpretation he believed in. And he did not accept the decision when it was handed down, he sought to have it modified or read to allow for civil unions.
<
p>
With regards to the 1913 law, just because something is the law doesn’t mean it is morally right. My argument is not that Reilly’s view that the law is valid wasn’t upheld by the SJC, it’s that Reilly’s view that the law is a good one is wrong. You conviently don’t respond to that point (much like you conveniently ignore Reilly’s work to change the Goodridge decision to limit it to civil unions).
<
p>
BTW, I found it very interesting that the box in the article was a cut and paste job from Reilly’s website.
<
p>
Question: I have looked but cannot find anything on Reilly’s response to Romney’s veto of increased funding for the Governor’s Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth and the Governors repeated attempts to either eviscerate or terminate the Commission. I know that Patrick made a statement opposing the governor’s action. Did Reilly?
<
p>
Guess what? That is exactly where I came across the article. I know it sounds crazy, but as a supporter, I actually visit my candidate’s website from time to time. It’s remarkable, I know, but I find it a great way to stay up to date on things. Hey, maybe that’s why these candidates have websites and post articles!
<
p>
As for upholding the law versus “doing what’s morally right” (whose morals?) , I would respectfully suggest that an Attorney General is supposed to uphold the law. I don’t want the Massachusetts AG imposing his/her “morals” any more than I wanted John Ashcroft imposing his as our nation’s AG.
<
p>
We are a nation of laws, not men. The moment we start eroding that principle, we are all in trouble.
Just thought it was somewhat lazy reporting. Also, the fact that everyhting in the article came from the website also undercuts your argument that this article provides any new information or insight into Reilly, since this information has been available all along.
<
p>
I also visit my candidates website, as well as those of his opponents. So you can get off your high horse on that one MavDem.
<
p>
And honestly, you don’t think that morals play a role in the decisions of the AG? The AG has to make all sorts of decisions regarding what cases to prosecute, how to defend cases, and how to use the resources of his/her office. It is only natural that morals will play a role in that. If not, it really wouldn’t matter who we voted for because anybody who was competent would do the same job in that role. Your own candidate would want us to think that morality and beliefs matter and mattered to him in his job. He lists as one of his accomplishments helping a kid who was harassed because he was gay. Well, did he help the kid only because he was gay and gaybashing is wrong (a moral belief) or because harassing anyone is wrong (just doing his job enforcing the law). If the latter, then shouldn’t he remove that from his gay accomplishment sheet? And wouldn’t it be his beliefs and morality that led him to testify at a legislative hearing regarding anti-gay legislation? He wasn’t upholding the law there. He was making a judgment about a proposed law. Obviously he uses beliefs and morality to guide him in his job as AG (as any AG would).
<
p>
BTW, if you are spending so much time on the web and are so up on politics, you may note that John Ashcroft is no longer the country’s AG, Alberto Gonzalez is and has been for a while now.
<
p>
And I would also like to address your post further down about the fraud in the collection of signatures. If you really want your AG to enforce the laws, then why didn’t Reilly investigate the widespread reports of fraud in the process. Maybe the anti-gay hate mongers did get enough signatures legitimately, but we won’t know because the AG and the Secretary of State did nothing to investigate the allegations of fraud. Isn’t obtaining signatures fraudulently a shortcut to a desired end like the ones you rail against?
<
p>
Finally, you still haven’t answered my questions regarding Reilly and his response to Romney’s attacks on the Governors Commission and whether Reilly has hosted any GLBT events? I would actually like to know the answer to both (as one goes to your whole we need to look beyond Goodridge and the other goes to how much Reilly actually cares about the GLBT vote). Obviously I have chosen my candidate already, but if I hadn’t, I have to say that Reilly has done very little in terms of GLBT outreach to try and sway my vote. Marching in the Gay Pride parade may not sound like much, but it has a big impact. I know a lot of people decided to vote for Deval that day because of his appearance and those who already supported him decided to become active and donate to his campaign.
-from the person who has never written a single BMG diary. Too funny!
<
p>
<
p>
Yes, I am aware that John Ashcroft is no longer our nation’s AG, which is why I employed the past tense: “. . .any more than I wanted John Ashcroft imposing his as our nation’s AG.”
<
p>
As for my post’s relative value to the BMG community, I’ll take some measure of comfort from David’s bullet (“Thanks for finding this, MavDem”) and the six recommendation, almost all of which came from non-Reilly supporters.
<
p>
I never suggested that the article or my post represented the end-all, just more than many people are willing to discuss or many people know.
<
p>
As for our discussions, I think you might agree that they have run their course. There is healthy dialogue and then there is disintegration. We are trending toward the latter.
<
p>
Enjoy your Saturday, Wahoowa!
MavDem,
<
p>
I wasn’t saying your post wasn’t of value. I simply stated that everything you had put forth has been available on Reilly’s website (a website that you often send people to rather than answering certain questions, just as you did today when someone asked for Reilly singular achievement). I think my posts have generally been full of substance. I also generally receive high marks on my posts (almost all 6’s). You cannot post on a site like here and not expect people to respond. Just as I expect people to respond to my posts. That’s the nature of healthy and open debate.
<
p>
So, even though I have written some 40 odd posts on here, because I have never written a diary, my opinion is somehow less valid?
<
p>
And lest I forget to mention MavDem, it was you who started the negative attitude towards me with your comments that my opinions were laughable and that I was somehow trying to flame you when I took umbrage with some of your posts and pointed to evidence as a mean to debate what you had put forth.
<
p>
You gotta admit, taking something verbatim from a website and putting it in an article is pretty lazy. I would say the same regardless of who the candidate was that was profil
There was ballot fraud on that anti-SSM case in the thousands, yet I never saw anything done with it. They caught it on tape… I still never saw anything done with it. Surely, Tom Reilly should have done something and as a GLBT voter, because of his do-nothing attitude, he isn’t getting my vote.
First of all, Ryan, Tom Reilly isn’t getting your primary vote under just about any scenario. In fact, you’ve written him off so many times, I’ve lost count. (Although, oddly, if his campaign is so irrelevant, why do you devote so much ink to it?)
<
p>
Second, the ballot fraud issue is a red herring. The amendment supporters, as misguided as they are, secured more than twice as many signature as they needed – more than 120,000 Secretary of State Bill Galvin, not Tom Reilly, certified those signatures.
<
p>
While there were indications of some underhanded tactics, there was nothing to suggest that the fraudulent activity was so profound that the referendum didn’t easily clear its hurdle and that Galvin’s certification was improper.
<
p>
Again, you don’t stand in the way of the Constitution just because you feel like it. Tom Reilly’s job is to enforce the laws of the Commonwealth, not the laws as Tom Reilly sees fit.
<
p>
Our job is to see that the laws reflect our societal values. When we start asking our elected officials – especially our law enforcement officials – to cut corners for us, we all lose.
<
p>
Don’t just write this off as any other issue. The ballot fraud has been something I’ve been talking about for months and could very well be the fact that made me very uncomfortable supporting either Reilly or Galvin for Governor (you’ll recall, at one point, Galvin was thinking about running).
<
p>
<
p>
If there was one case of fraud, I would want it investigated. The investigation would serve as a deterrent to future fraudalant signature collecting; it would have showed us just how many of those signatures were illegal and it’s the morally right thing to do. This whole ‘it’s only a little wrong’ attitude I get from you and Aaron (both Reilly supporters) I find confusing. If it’s wrong, then it shouldn’t be done.
<
p>
If we’re going to have a democracy, we better damn well protect it. otherwise, we’re no different than Egypt or the Soviet – “electing” their presidents, as they like to call it. Nothing should be more vigorously defended in America than our democracy. I’m not saying the amendment should have been thrown out, I just would have liked an investigation.
<
p>
<
p>
Therein lies the difference between us. You think laws should reflect societal values; I think laws should protect us and make society work. I can see now why you call yourself MaverickDem… I don’t know if Pat Robertson could have written that quote any better.