This is ultimately a question over who should bear final responsibility for establishing, maintaining, and protecting our rights as citizens of our Commonwealth. I, for one, say ALL OF US. In an act that became the model for the process that produced our Federal Constitution, We, the People of Massachusetts, voted to ratify our State Constitution. We constituted this government, not the Legislature. They are wrong to stand between the People and our Constitution. We bear the ultimate responsibility for the organic process that we call our constitutional democracy, not any one single branch of government.
Depending on the moment, many of those who approve of the Legislature’s well-intentioned, yet misguided actions allude to a “tyranny of the minority” (the petitioners) or a “tyranny of the majority” (the voters). What is better? Concentrating the decision-making power in the hands of 200 people or, better yet, 7? In the moment, that may seem comforting, but in the long run, it is a prescription for the same tyrannical abuses of the “executive” (King George III) and the legislature (parliament) that led to this whole thing that we like to call democracy.
Does this set us up for a pleasant, riskless process? Of course not. But I very respectfully remind folks, democracy has always been painful, it has always been costly, it has always been inefficient. And if it done correctly in a state of millions and a nation of hundreds of millions, it always will be that way. Yet, to paraphrase Churchill, it remains the worst form of government except for all the others that we try from time to time. Why is it the best of the lot? Because ultimate responsibility is borne by all of us. I assure you that we risk far, far more by allowing the Legislature or the courts to assume our own responsibilities (and powers) than we do by embracing a true government “by the People and for the People.”
The Legislature should vote. They should vote “no.” If they are unable to muster the 151 votes necessary to stop this in a procedurally-legitimate manner in either of the consecutive ConCons, then we should be prepared to make the sacrifices necessary to assure the rights of same sex couples AND the integrity of our constitutional government.
Nice to see you back, Tom.
I was a voice for the Reilly campaign, not the voice! đŸ˜‰ Thanks for the warm welcome.
We should be prepared to make the sacrifices necessary to assure the rights of same sex couples AND the integrity of our constitutional government.
<
p>
But how do we achieve that? The only sacrifice being talked about falls entirely on a minority of the population that, frankly, is tired of serving as a pinata for every right-wing demagogue in the country to take whacks at. We believe in the common good just as much as you do, just as much as anyone does. That’s what is so excruciating about this.
<
p>
We just disagree that our role to play in making the better society that we all want is to hang here from the ceiling “for just a little while longer, I promise, it’s just that there’s some really, really important stuff we have to deal with first.”
<
p>
It’s very uncomfortable to be put in a position of arguing in favor of parliamentary shenanigans. EVERYONE is in favor of model process in the abstract, aren’t they? How many people are in favor of it when it directly threatens their ability to care for their families? I, for one, am not, and I’m perfectly willing to admit my subjectivity. What I don’t accept are claims from people whose families are not being threatened that they are inherently more “objective” and committed to principle than I am. (They may be, but I refuse to accept the current situation as a test of that. And, as a matter of fact, I happen to be pretty damn principled.)
<
p>
Perhaps unfortunately, definitely for better or worse, right or wrong, that sentiment informs how I read many of the comments here.
Sacrifice indeed. LGBT people are made to sacrifice human dignity every day of their lives, and the whole concept of being allowed to vote to take away our rights is morally repugnant. The idea that anyone, anywhere would ever be allowed to impose discrimination or marginalization or oppression on another human being is morally repugnant.
<
p>
Democracy may be painful at times, but the only folks who will feel pain if this comes to a vote are in the LGBT community. If — God forbid — such a thing should ever pass, obviously we will be folks who take the pain. No one else will have lost rights. But even if it didn’t pass, it is a reality that every time there is a ballot measure anywhere aimed at curtailing LGBT rights, gay-bashings go up. Is this what they want to take place in Massachusetts? If you think it’s OK to put the LGBT citizens of Massachusetts at a greater risk of harm just for some stupid parliamentary procedure, well, that’s between you and God.
<
p>
World citizen, you were not being subjective at all in your points. It’s both funny and sad how people who are not effected by the possible result can act as though they are objective, when in reality they cannot be since they lose nothing from any result. They are concerned for the process, but not for whether the process itself is unjust. It’s obvious that it MA, there are plenty of non-LGBT folks who stand with us and recognize the injustice of allowing such votes to occur. But, it is very sad that there are those that say they support us, but in reality don’t get it. They won’t get bashed, no one attacks their humanity, and again, if the amendment ever comes to be, they lose nothing. They cannot be “objective” because they cannot see (or refuse to see) the totality of the situation.
<
p>
In his Letter from a Birmingham Jail, MLK wrote, “We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.” And here we are again, our freedom wasn’t voluntarily given, the legislators and/or voters never stood up and made sure the law was fair to us; it had to be ordered by a court. No legislative action or vote of the people brought equality to LGBT folks in Massachusetts, it was by force….judicial force, but force just the same.
<
p>
To allow a vote to take away rights from people is an immoral course of action, whether it follows procedures or not. If that is the process, then the process itself is unjust, and not only should not be followed, but should be changed.
World Citizen, a well-written post.
<
p>
Just to clarify, I have never claimed that I am more objective or committed to principle than those who share a contrary opinion. Nor am I ignorant of the fact that the risks inherent in an adherence to procedure would be disproportionately borne by a minority of the population. Believe me: I strongly consider all of your arguments when assessing this matter. They weigh very heavily upon me.
<
p>
But the fact of the matter is that, while the idea of everybody shouldering an equal load is the democratic ideal, it is not practical. As citizens, do we all shoulder the same load when our country goes to war, or do the men and women in our service bear more? In our criminal justice, do we all shoulder the same load when the Commonwealth prosecutes a rapist, or is the victim asked to make a special sacrafice by reliving the terrible ordeal?
<
p>
For me, this isn’t about adherence to a model process for the sake of process. This is about maintaining the credibility of a process that is critically important to all of us.
<
p>
I no more relish the idea of asking another citizen to put something precious on the line than a President must feel when asking a citizen to go to war. But if we look at the history of our democracy, those are precisely the sacrafices that we have had to ask of one another.
<
p>
I’m not sure if I am expressing myself effectively, but my point is that I am not oblivious to your arguments, even if I continue to believe that the state of our democracy and each of us will be better served by a vote by the Legislature.
Just to clarify, I have never claimed that I am more objective or committed to principle than those who share a contrary opinion.
<
p>
I know you didn’t explicitly do that, but I think it’s implied every time someone makes an argument like yours. (For an extreme example of the genre, check out John Howard’s diary. Yes, I realize John’s opinions are his own and that he doesn’t necessarily wield a lot of influence here, but as far as substance of the argument goes, you and he sound more or less the same to me. Obviously you’re much gentler and politer about it–and I do believe you’re sincere when you tell me that at least you understand what I’m saying.)
<
p>
Anyway, you got to the party a little late, so you were the lucky one that got my broad final answer to the whole multi-thread shebang. đŸ™‚
<
p>
I continue to believe that the state of our democracy and each of us will be better served by a vote by the Legislature.
<
p>
If the lege were going to vote it down, that would be true. But if not, I am certain that some of us will not be better served by it at all.
But my HTML didn’t work. I was referring to the diary entitled “Gay marriage vs. health care.”
[http:// ((the link goes here)) the text you want to have linked]. Those [ and ] brackets are subsequently reformatted to make a link in our system.
it’s the reverse: [nifty search engine http://www.google.com] will appear nifty search engine
In other words, text comes before URL inside the brackets.
World Citizen, just to re-emphasize the point of my response: I believe that those who hold a differing opinion to my own are every bit as objective and principled as those who share a similar viewpoint. That our conclusions differ is not a reflection upon our relative objectivity or principles. On an issue as complex as tis, two equally principled people can look at the same issue and arrive at differing conclusions. Personally, in reading your thoughtful comments, I believe that is where we stand. Any attempt to seperate these arguments into rigid “more principled” vs. “less principled” boxes creates a false distinction. Our positions are simply different, but no less principled.
MavDem,
<
p>
Welcome back. I’ve missed you and our discussions.
<
p>
Just wanted to ask a point of clarification on your post. For the most part, it seems to me that you are arguing that this amendment should go to the people because you trust the people more than the legislature. That would suggest that the legislature vote “yes” on this amendment simply to allow a public vote (which I would argue is a more certain dereliction of duty than using procedural maneuvers to stop the amendment). However, at the end of your post you state that the legislature should vote “no” on the amendment. Just left me a little confused and was hoping you could clarify.
<
p>
Another question. The natural extension of your argument would seem to be we abolish the courts and the legislature altogether and go to a direct vote of the people on all matters. Obviously, that system of government, outside the town meetings that still exists in some smaller towns, would be hard to manage. So some form of representative government is necessary for the government to function at all. Which raises the question, at what point do we stop relying on our elected representatives to do their job and represent the interest of their constituents and step in to insert the “will of the people” in their place? This isn’t meant as an argument, just an honest question to see where you would draw that line.
<
p>
Just a comment on the idea that the more people involved in the decision the better. Taking the argument as true at face value (which I’m not so sure we should, otherwise we may still have prohibitions against inter-racial marriage and other laws designed to harm minority groups), isn’t this process not really a good example of that? Yes, the Goodridge decision was close, but a majority voted for equal marriage. (Also, a majority of the legislature voted to recess and effectively kill the amendment). However, in the amendment process, the anti-marriage folks obtained 170,000 signatures. That’s only 2.8% of the population of the state. (I won’t even go into the arguments about how some of those were fraudulently obtained and how it strikes me that paying for signature gatherers to gather signatures doesn’t really feel like grassroots democracy at work to me). Then the amendment only needs 50 of 200 legislators to move forward, or 25%. This hardly seems to represent the idea of government by the people and for the people.
<
p>
Yes, the final hurdle is a majority vote of the general electorate. But given that the Consitution is meant to represent those ideals, rights and values that are most dear, shouldn’t that hurdle be slightly higher?
I believe a failure to vote at all would be a dereliction of duty. However, I believe that if the Legislature were to vote to kill the amendment, i.e. 151 or more legislators vote “no,” that would be a procedurally legitimate resolution that is consistent with the constitutional amendment process. It is clear that the requirement of at least 50 votes (25%)was meant as a limited safeguard against abuses. However, the fact that the threshold was set at a relatively low 25% (as opposed to a simple majority or a super majority) merely underscores the fundamental principle that the People should have liberal access to their own Constitution and the only a super-majority of the Legislature in two successive years should bar such access. So, yes, the Legislature should vote, but my personal preference would be that they vote “no.”
<
p>
The logical extension of my argument does not suggest that we should abolish the Legislature and the courts. That would be preposterous. They play a critical role within our constitutional government. My point is that those branches of government should not replace the People when it comes to the final word on our Constitution. (And chalk me up as one person who does not believe that Goodridge was an example of “judicial activism,” a much-abused term.) The Legislature acts under the framework of the Constitution. The Courts make their decisions under the Constitution. To give any branch of government broad authority to control the content of the Constitution is to empower them to set their own agenda and their own rules. We control them, not vice versa.
<
p>
As I mentioned already, I am not advocating for the principle of government by ballot. Not every issue is a valid exercise of our constitutional amendment process. But when a matter is legitimately presented by the required number of citizens to the Constitutional Convention for its consideration, it should be respected with a vote by those legislators. The people established the process and the process clearly contemplated that only those proposals that failt to receive a modicum of support (25%) in successive Con Cons should be barred from a public referendum.
<
p>
The procedure for ratifying the Federal Constitution was based on the Massachusetts model precisely because John Adams and others were willing to risk failure by placing it to a public vote in order to insure that the state’s government had legitimacy. I believe that the Constitution was ratified by a bare majority. Some people may have disagreed with it, but nobody questioned its legitimacy. That is why process is so important and fundamental to a working, healthy democracy.
<
p>
Here we have a process and it is relatively clear. Legitimacy requires a vote.
I misunderstood the point you were making about popular votes versus the legislature etc. and thought you meant for all lawmaking and not just constitutional amendments. (which I agree would be preposterous).
231 our of 351 municipalities in Mass. are governed by open town meeting.
<
p>
So exactly who is in the minority?
I don’t have the time to look it up, but if you add the population of all those towns, does it exceed the towns and cities that do not have town meetings?
<
p>
Also, would you advocate abolishing the state legislature and having direct democracy? The Congress? That was my point.
<
p>
BTW Peter, did you ever see my post in response to your comment on prohibition?
This is a repost from one of the lenghty dairies from yesterday.
<
p>
The debate here, and the legislative actions of the Con Con, is classic example of the historic struggle of serving the two masters of your duty and your conscience. IÂ’m no lawyer and IÂ’ll defer to DavidÂ’s argument that the Constitution and SJC ruling compel the Con Con to vote on the ban of gay marriages. But like most of us at BMG, I see gay marriage as a basic human right. How could I ever support any measure that potentially denies friends (and fellow members of my community) basic rights I have to make decisions about my family and offer the same protections under the law.
At the same time we are a community only because we have basic laws that we all follow and accept. When the US Supreme Court voted in George Bush, we all accepted that—even though we all opposed the idea and felt the system let us down. But we believe in the rule of law and accepted this imperfect result. We elect people to make and implement these laws and require them to take an oath of to uphold both the state and federal constitution which are the fiber that holds together our society.
<
p>
But what happens when various forces converge that creates a conflict for our elected representatives between their/our basic values system and the rules we require them to uphold? This is an old dilemma, without easy answers. I would not want to be a legislator voting on this matter. If I helped maneuver a non-vote on this matter, I would do so with pride—but may feel compelled to resign my seat for failing to uphold my legal obligations. If I fulfilled this obligation and allowed the vote, I would feel compelled to defray all other tasks until this anti-rights movement is defeated.
<
p>
We do not have a perfect system. To those who say you can not vote away people’s civil rights, I wish that were true. We founded our country counting a black person as being 2/3rds that of a white person. We’ve had a Supreme Court basically declare black people were property. We still have a perverse system in which money (in the form of a corporation) has the right of speech and other constitutional protections. No, we may think, rightfully, that we have the best system of government—but it is far from perfect
When ghosts stop ressurecting them!
<
p>
tee hee I made a funny.
…maybe addressing it in the first place, instead of tee heeing it, so it won’t reappear.
it was directed at mavdem’s diary… and it was a joke.
<
p>
Consider it some social commentary on me being sick and tired of another thread saying the same exact thing.
<
p>
If this is what it’s like on BMG in November, I hate to see what it’ll be like toward the end of December/early January. Let’s hope the holiday spirit warms peoples souls and they decide to give up on ripping each other apart in the progressive movement (not that Mav Dem would probably consider himself a part of that, so I’ll excuse him =p)
But spirited discussion. If you’re out of arguments that is fine, but no need to cast aspersions. More to the point, if the progressive movement can’t tolerate debate, then how progressive is it really?
of the ConCon.
I debated on and on and on. Probably more than anyone else.
<
p>
There’s a time to debate – and a time in which debating goes too far. About a gazillion threads and hundreds of comments went too far – witness the replies on my blog for evidence. A lot of people were turned away, people we need on the side of the progressive movement on things other than gay rights. We need them to support health care, k-12 education, public higher ed, getting more police on the streets and dozens of important proposals.
<
p>
We need to take this progressive movement we’ve built in Massachusetts over the course of the election – and use it. We can’t use it if people tear each other apart. We need to have some loyalty to the core members of our movement, even when those loyalties sometimes conflict with our own beliefs.
<
p>
Not only did I not mind David pointing out what he viewed as hypocrisy, but I supported his position since he first convinced me of it during the summer. However, the legislature did what it did and there’s very little we can do about it. Let’s focus on things that we can do.
<
p>
I laid out my last, best idea. It was something that several people liked, including AnnEm of the health-care camp. Let’s try to get our state legislature to move the gay marriage ban last – that way, everything else will get a chance for a vote. Even if you need unanimous consent to move the order, at the very least we can get a vote and get our legislators on record one last time to see how strongly they really support health care – then use the evidence next primary season.
MaverickDem, welcome back.
<
p>
I disagree with your position that the legislature’s actions with respect to the ConCon is a dereliction of duty. Legislators have a duty to consider the proposed amendment and to take such actions — as may be permitted by the Mass Constitution and legislative rules and procedures — as they deem appropriate and in best interests of the Commonwealth and its residents. The legislators are entirely within their right — and there is ample precedent from 1982 (state budget amendment defeated when ConCon adjourned without action), 1990 (two amendments (reproductive rights and education) defeated when ConCon failed to achieve quorum), 1992 (term limit amendment defeated when ConCon adjourned without action) and 2002 (gay marriage prohibition amendment defeated when ConCon adjourned without action) — to use procedural methods to defeat the gay marriage amendment.
<
p>
In 1935 (Opinion of the Justices to the Senate and the House of Representatives), the SJC held:
<
p>
However, according to the SJC, the “mandate” in Article 48 is without recourse. In 1992 (Limits v. President of the Senate), the SJC held:
<
p>
I’m sorry, but I don’t see the legislative action to defeat the anti-gay marriage amendment a threat to the integrity of our constitutional goverment. I think the defeat was accomplished using tools that are very much a part of our legislative system (and common law history). I am concerned, however, that the zeal for procedural purity seems to be raised only now and only with respect to the procedures used to defeat the anti-gay marriage amendment.
CD, thanks for the welcome and for your excellent comment.
<
p>
On the basis of your research, other arguments that I have heard, and my understanding of consitutional law, it seems that the SJC has concluded that:
<
p>
1.) Yes, the Legislature “must take final action” before the conclusion of the ConCon (although they can suspend from time to time);
<
p>
2.) Yes, it is likely that those who object to the Legislature’s failure take “final action,” i.e. vote on a legitimate proposal, will not be able to seek redress from the SJC.
<
p>
However, that does not mean that the Legislature’s failure to act is not wrong or that the SJC endorses such an outcome. In fact, the 1935 opinion expressly states that there “must be final action.” Rather the Court appears to be saying in its 1992 holding that the issue is non-justiciable. It is the judicial equivalent of saying, “We do not believe that inserting ourselves into this particular debate is in the public’s interest.” Why? Because courts are reluctant to address political questions that may embarass or undermine the co-equal branches of government. Therefore, they may very well leave it to the people.
<
p>
However, the ballot box is not our only recourse. (Although clearly it is first and foremost on the hearts and minds of legislators, since they worked hard postpone this decision until they were least vulnerable to the voters.) Advocacy is also important, which is why I am making my opinions known now. Again, all of this goes to my fundamental argument that We, the People of Massachusetts are responsible to maintaining and preserving our constitutional democracy and guarding against the encroachments of the Legislature or whoever.
<
p>
Finally, my zeal for honoring the procedural underpinnings of our democracy is not new. It serves as a significant basis for my very vocal opinion (read my diaries) that the Legislature has failed the system by refusing to honor the tax rollback referendum. Or perhaps a better example is the Clean Elections Law, which I personally oppose, but strongly believe should have been respected by the Legislature.
<
p>
I am not a procedural purist. That creates a myth that this is al about procedure for procedure’s sake. I simply believe that our democracy works best when the will of the people is respected or opposed only through procedurally legitimate means.
…who told Romney there was no compelling reason for an expedited judgement defining his authority to fire people at the Turnpike, as he would eventualy be able to appoint new members? Three months befoe the tragedy?
<
p>
It seems there’s LOTS of things they don’t feel they can insert themselves into.
that understands and is contrained by Article XXX of the Massachusetts Constitution:
for modesty.
to decline a request – and I’m not even saying that they would be wrong to invoke the political question doctrine in the case of the same sex marriage amendment.
<
p>
Therefore, if the Governor was seeking a formal opinion – and I admit to not following that issue closely at the time, but I believe that was the case – the SJC has tremendous discretion to accept/decline such a request.
Either way, it difficult to tie their ultimate decision to the tragic outcome.
<
p>
Their failure to address his question pales in comparison to the years of neglect by our political leadership. When sizing up all of the players – members of both parties – I’d place the SJC VERY low on the list of those culpable.
Thanks, MaverickDem. I appreciate your response (as well as your zeal). I must, however, continue to respectfully disagree with your position.
that you respectfully disagree. You set a high standard of civil discourse, as do many others on this thread.
Clearly the thing to do is amend the constitution to provide for recourse. Make it either an automatic yes unless voted down or have it pass onto the next session with the same standing (so if it was new this session, it would count as new again and if it had been approved once it would only need to be approved once more). Currently, it seems that it counts as having been voted down unless it is actually voted on. I would support making a change like this, but I don’t care enough to actively campaign for it.
<
p>
While we’re changing the process, I agree that Article 48 makes things too easy. 1/4 of the legislature and 1/2 the voting population should not be enough to change the constitution. I think some kind of a sliding scale would make more sense. So if 1/2 the legislature approves, then only 1/2 the voters have to approve, but if only 1/4 of the legislature approves, then 2/3 of the voters have to. This would require broad support for changes to the constitution.
Then where will we be. I think that is MD’s basic point.
If you read the article it is amendment proof.
You just have to do it by legislative amendment – you can’t use the initiative.
Sorry, but this post is just over the top. Comparing the legislature’s effort to protect the Commonwealth’s GLBT community from inevitable vicious attacks in a ballot campaign to King George III’s abuses is the height of hyperbole.
<
p>
Further, the fact remains that we, the People of Massachusetts voted in the members of the legislature, and we have the power to fire them. Yet not a single pro-SSM legislator has lost, showing that perhaps that having an anti-gay marriage ballot campaign is more important to many at BMG than it is to we, the People of Massachusetts in general. Why is this point always ignored?
On Feb. 6, 2004, President Robert Travaglini, Associated Press –
<
p>
“It is my hope that the debate on this intensely personal issue will be dignified and orderly. As the presiding officer, I will afford everyone an opportunity to be heard and there will be a vote on the marriage issue.”
<
p>
I have restrained myself from calling some posts – especialy from Ryan – hyperbole as I try to realize that there are strong feelings accompanying some of the things written. I myself have strong feelings about being directy lied to, so you will have to pardon some ‘hyperbolic’ comments by those who are offended by this abrogation of authority.
those with strong feelings on this and think it’s as important as overthrowing King George III are free to work to try and get new legislators elected on the basis of this issue.
I had no idea.
…
I don’t think you were lied to so much as Travaglini wrote a check that his ass couldn’t cash. Sure, as Senate President Trav has a very important role in the ConCon, but he cannot require a vote by himself. He could, however, essentially prevent a vote (by gaveling the session closed etc.)
<
p>
I think what he should have said is that he, personally, would not do anything to prevent a vote from occurring a la Birmingham(which is true, he even voted against the recess).
<
p>
And Peter, let’s call a spade a spade. You would not be nearly this upset if your weren’t on the losing side of the issue. I haven’t seen any posts from you calling out W for lying to the American public about Donald Rumsfield right before the election. Or how about all the lies that Mitt Romney told when he ran for office in 2002?
<
p>
A lot of people are claiming to be upset by the process, and I’m sure some of the concern is legitimate. But it strikes me that a lot of this outcry has more to do with the outcome than any perceived procedural breach.
ruled the motion to recess out of order, as not all the business before the ConCon had been taken up yet. I suppose being only a recess, and not an adjournment, makes that a tougher call, but should a quorum appear in Jan. and someone moves to adjourn, then he could refuse to entertain the motion.
<
p>
I may be wrong about this, but if they never adjourn then I don’t think the new legislators can be sworn in. You can’t open one session while another is still going on. Even still, so long as they never adjourn, the deans of the two chambers could refuse to gavel in the inaugurations of members until the Con Con finishes its work.
<
p>
Ive seen the House adjourn and then immediately gavel back into session to speed through a bill. For enactment each bill must be passed on three different days, but this means legislative days, not 24 hour days. Conceivably this could be put into reverse. Rather than have three short legislative days inside one 24 hour day, they could have one long legislative day spread out over as many 24 hour days (or weeks, or months) as needed.
The current legislative session expires at midnight on Jan 2nd. And all business in that session, bills, budgets etc. expire as well.
since that quote. Are you suggesting that quote from two and half years ago was referring to this specific amendment?
<
p>
I didn’t even notice the date. Trav’s was talking about the first post-Goodridge ConCon which led to the so called Traviligni-Lees amendment (no gay marriage but civil unions). That passed the first vote of the ConCon is 2004 (barely) and then was voted down in 2005.
<
p>
So Peter, Trav didn’t lie to you at all on that one. You just lost.
My comparison is hardly over the top since I am comparing the concentration of power within a few (the Legislature) with a top-heavy system of government that we rejected under the Revolution. I was not comparing issues, I was comparing political systems. It is not a direct comparison, but rather a conceptual one.
<
p>
Furthermore, the notion that those who share an opinion on this, or any, topic should hold their voices until handed a ballot seriously underestimates the depth of our democracy. Do we sit in silence when George Bush mismanages the war, only to wait our turn in 4 years? Do we sit in silence when Mitt Romney garnishes his presidential resume with self-serving budget cuts, only to wait until some (hopefull, none will present itself) opportunity to vote against him? No, we don’t – and we shouldn’t.
<
p>
Letting our voices and opinions be heard is part of the democratic process. The Legislature postponed this action precisely so that they would be as far removed from the ballot box as possible. They are relying on the fact that most people are not willing/able to participate in the day-to-day workings of our democracy and that those who do will have too many other things to worry about over the next 2 years. If I disagree with them – and I do – why should I oblige their maneuvering by sitting back and letting two years erode the quality of a discussion that is far more meaningful today?
<
p>
Again – for the record – I believe that they should vote and vote “no.” Every ounce of my being supports the idea of same sex marriage. However, I believe that the Legislature’s actions to-date denigrate our constitutional government with great costs. In balancing those interests, I am advocating for a particular course of action and thank God that others are doing the same, even if they disagree with me.
George III was an unelected monarch. Our legislature is made up of 200 legislators all of whom are up for re-election every two years. Even if you’re just “comparing political systems” this analogy makes little sense and is clearly hyperbolic.
<
p>
If I had been advocating shutting down newpapers, radio, BMG and all other places for political discourse, your third paragraph would make a lot more sense. Of course people should complain to their fellow citizens and legislators if they think the government isn’t acting correctly. But I don’t understand your suggestion that this process is somehow like “staying silent” while waiting for the opportunity to vote. I think just here on BMG people have been far from silent on this, and that’s a good thing. But this has nothing to do with the legislature’s decision to not send the anti-gay marriage amendment to the voters.
<
p>
Also, sorry, but the Legislature did not postpone this action because it’s long time away from the ballot box. Being pro-SSM is politically advantageous, as the past two elections indicate. There are few, if any, Reps and Senators with absolutely no stated and publically available position on gay marriage itself. Those who are pro-SSM have survived two consecutive elections, including 2004 when this issue was made a priority by Republicans. The legislature is hardly afraid that this issue will hamper them politically. As I’ve said hundreds of time already, I welcome the Republicans to make a big issue out of this again in ’08 and I hope they do.
Also, sorry, but the Legislature did not postpone this action because it’s long time away from the ballot box. Being pro-SSM is politically advantageous, as the past two elections indicate.
<
p>
I have to say “no” to your first point and “yes” to your second. I’ll address the second first, since that is where we agree. Yes, it is politically advantageous – and increasingly so – for legislators to support same sex marriage.
<
p>
However, although lessened, there is still a degree of political risk involved with voting on the same sex marriage amendment. Why? Because it is not just about same sex marriage. The ConCon is about how democracy works. For example, I have a friend who says that he is in favor of same sex marriage, but believes that he should have a vote on it. (Personally, I disagree. I do not believe that I am entitled to a vote and – to wit – our Constitution says that I am only entitled to vote when a proposed amendment receives 50 or more votes in two consecutive ConCons). I use the example of my friend, and there are other variations, to illustrate that the politics of the “vote or not to vote” debate is not as simple as doing the math on same sex marriage.
<
p>
The history of this ConCon is a casestudy in minimizing political accountability. When the ConCon convened earlier in the year, they recessed. Why? So that they could wait to see if the Attorney General’s certification of the question would survive an appeal to the SJC, i.e., in hope that the SJC would resolve the issue for them. When the SJC unanimously ruled in favor of the AG’s certification, the ConCon reconvened and recessed until two days after the General Election. Why? In order to avoid making the “vote or not to vote” issue (as distinguished from same sex marriage) an issue in their elections. Now the ConCon has convened and recessed again until January 2. Why? Because even though legislators know that most residents now support same sex marriage, why risk alientating those who oppose it or simply want a vote by actually going on the record? Plus, by recessing until the last day of this session they avoid a recall by Romney. Bottom line: the Legislature wants to accomplish through the anonymity of adjournment what it is unwilling to accomplish through personal accountability.
<
p>
Remember, a vote would put every single legislator on record and, if same sex marriage opponents succeed at securing 50+ votes, subject each legislator to a year of lobbying by both sides. There will be no anonymity, only accountability.
<
p>
My final point: actions speak louder than words (and, in this case, inaction). And, frankly, pro-SSM legislators could have placed anti-SSM legislators on the firing line with a vote earlier this year. Why didn’t they? Because that strategy carried some risk and, hey, why do anything remotely risky during an election year.
because the ultimate reason legislators recessed was to kill the marriage amendment plain and simple, knowing that they didn’t have the 151 “no” votes but enough “yes” votes to recess. It was not to avoid responsibility for a position on gay marriage. I can just about guarantee that the gay marriage issue came up in every contested race before the elections, so voters knew the position of each before they voted.
<
p>
And don’t forget that back in ’05 legislators DID vote on a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, and it failed overwhelmingly. You can note some of the tactical concerns some had for voting no (gay marriage opponents voting “no” because it was too much of a compromise, for instance), but the fact is that every single one of the legislators went on the record and their constituents were free to contact them on this issue and vote accordingly.
<
p>
The fact that we can fire representatives and senators every two years is the definition of accountability. That people have not voted out any pro-SSM legislators tells us one of two things: 1) MA voters are overwhelmingly pro-SSM, or (and?) 2) don’t assign much importance to this issue.
<
p>
Fair enough if you believe that legislators recessed to “avoid accountability”, but I just disagree. The majority recessed to kill the amendment because they thought it was wrong, not to hide their position on the issue. I know of none that refuse to tell their constituents their position on gay marriage.
Who among those who think the anti-gay amendment MUST be voted on vows to get a divorce, should the amendment ultimately be passed by The People? Send me your names – I’m keeping a list and will ask you and your spouse to sign an affidavit of intent. I’ll remind you of your commitment should the need arise. I may choose to read further commentary only by those who agree, as those who do not have no real stake in the outcome and therefore are free to sell the farm from under their little Aunti Laurel.
consider these counterpoints.
<
p>
First, the amendment on the table won’t require anyone to get divorced, and it won’t nullify any existing marriages. But of course it would prohibit new same-sex marriages from occurring after its date of enactment. Luckily for me, I’m already married, so I don’t have to promise not to enter into any future marriages — I already made that promise.
<
p>
Second, do you have health insurance? If so, do you vow to give up your health insurance if the health care amendment is voted down, or — more likely at this point — dies through inaction? Do you vow to immediately put your home on the market if the eminent domain amendment suffers a similar fate? You see my point — every legislative proposal, whether for a constitutional amendment or for an ordinary law, affects the public unequally.
There is a big difference between the two amendments, David, in that one amendment would take away existing rights from a group of people while the other seeks to add rights to a group of people (or really all people). If the health care amendment fails, people won’t get something they currently do not have. If the marriage amendment passes, people will lose something that they currently do have (the right to marry).
Every legislative proposal, whether for a constitutional amendment or for an ordinary law, affects the public unequally.
<
p>
But not every proposal is specifically intended to require the government to treat people unequally based on a biological characteristic.
<
p>
Off-topic:
<
p>
David, have you addressed the merits of this health-care amendment in a posting anywhere? As someone who has already stated that I’m willing to place ends over means in the current situation, I’d like to hear why this health-care amendment is worth fighting for.
<
p>
Specifically, 1) is it a good idea to give the courts oversight of health-care financing? And 2) is it a good idea to require any future legislative changes to the system to require a public referendum to take effect?
to the numerous comments and posts by AnnEM for a much better explanation of the health care amendment than I could ever hope to give.
this comment
<
p>
written by Barbara Roop, JD, PhD (in health policy), Co-chair of the HC Amendment Campaign. It is a VERY substantive review of the Health Care Amendment, what it does and does seek to do, and rebuttals to each of the reasons put forth by Sen. Richard Moore for not wanting to advance the amendment to the ballot and possibly into our constitution.
<
p>
My posts are very contextual and at times impassioned, so you might be best served going “for the facts” in Barbara’s comment.
my point at all. My point is that you and every other heterosexual have nothing to lose if the anti-equality amendment gets ratified in 2008. BFD to you. You are all snug and cozy, knowing that even if your current marriage dissolves, you can just hop off and remarry someone else whenever you please, anywhere you like. There is nothing at stake for you in such a vote, so you are free and happy to shoot craps with the continuence of my civil rights. So unless you ante up something of equal value (your marriage), you really shouldn;t even be in this dicussion. You have no standing in this debate.
…and my conscience is clear. I will be calling my representatives and letting them know that I hope they will not vote on the amendment. I have faith that democracy will proceed on its due course the following day, no worse for the wear. There are rare times when the end does justify the means. I personally feel that precedurally killing this amendment or any amendment for that matter is not constitutionally objectionable but even if that were the case I would support this decison as an exeption to the ends/means doctrine.
đŸ˜‰
There really hasn’t been much substantive discussion on the subject, it seems to me.
I’ve read with great interest this discussion about the Constitutional Convention, and whether the gay marriage issue should have been allowed to be voted on by the public. What I believe has been missing is an acknowledgement that there’s always tension between democracy and liberty, and the Founding Fathers were very much aware of this. In fact, the system of checks and balances they set up CLEARLY included numerous restraints on the popular will as much as one branch of government upon another.
<
p>
The framers of the U.S. Constitution created the Electoral College because they didn’t trust the people to directly elect a president. They created a Senate that was chosen by legislators, not direct election. They gave Senators terms of six years, not two. This was clearly all designed to blunt “mob rule” and not facilitate direct democracy.
<
p>
<
p>
I hold a deep reverence for the U.S. Constitution and great admiration for what the Founding Fathers accomplished. And I am quite sure they did NOT believe the will of all the people was always superior to the decisions of an elected body. You may find that elitist in the 21st century, but it’s just plain wrong to say that the leaders of the American Revolution would have always supported direct popular will over the actions of an elected legislature.
<
p>
<
p>
It may be true that allowing the public to vote on, and approve, gay marriage would give it broader support. But I don’t care. Once a Constitution has been adopted, frankly I do not believe in popular elections to decide whether to take away someone’s basic civil liberties. Period. If our legislators have found a legal way to prevent this from happening, I support it.
I like your historical perspective — but I draw a different conclusion from it than you do.
<
p>
<
p>
Couldn’t agree more — that’s why there are several checks on the people’s ability to alter the Constitution, such as getting a bunch of signatures and getting 50 votes in two consecutive sessions. Not good enough? Maybe — that’s another topic. But that’s why they’re there.
<
p>
Also, you mention some of the original anti-democratic measures, such as the election of Senators and of the President, but you don’t mention that the trend in recent years has been away from those structures, and toward direct democracy. Senators are now elected directly, of course, and the electoral college is all but neutered as a check on direct democracy, since it’s front-page news if an elector doesn’t vote the way his or her state voted. All of which is to say that much of the Founders’ fears of direct democracy have been rejected in recent years.
<
p>
You say that “It may be true that allowing the public to vote on, and approve, gay marriage would give it broader support. But I don’t care.” Note, however, that neither I nor most other people making the “process” argument are also making the “let the people vote” argument. I’m all for finding the 151 votes needed to kill this thing dead — and I think we’d probably have them in the next session, if perhaps not in this one (and there’s no reason a ConCon can’t be called early in the session to keep this from dragging out for too long). That’s a perfectly legitimate outcome.
<
p>
Article 48, of course, is a creation not of John Adams’ time, but of the early 20th century, so it’s part of that trend toward direct democracy. I think, in fact, that a provision like Article 48 in its current form would have been inconceivable in the 1780s. But we’ve got it now. Should we fix it? Maybe. Should we follow its rules until we do? I’m still not convinced we shouldn’t.
that to me, seemed to imply the Founding Fathers generally endorsed the concept of direct popular will over that of a legislature when deciding specific issues. That’s simply not true.
<
p>
And actually, if we’re talking about the history of the Massachusetts Constitution, the original document of 1778 was overwhelmingly defeated. It only won passage when a bill of rights was added in 1780, one article noting that “all men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned … that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.”
<
p>
The majority may not always want to grant rights to the minority. That’s the downside of allowing everything to be decided by popular vote. For example, I think there are parts of this country where the majority would happily vote, if they could, to institute an official religion.
<
p>
I agree that there’s been a general trend toward more direct democracy over the centuries, but our democracy continues to be founded upon a belief that certain things shouldn’t be subject to the direct popular will. Modern Americans don’t always like that, and often don’t even acknowledge it, because it seems elitist and anti-democratic. But it’s balance that has allowed our system to flourish as it has so long and so well. Democracy is indeed a wonderful form of government, and I love our democracy. But 100% unchecked raw, unfiltered public will isn’t always a desirable thing, and the Founding Fathers were very wise in their creation of a delicately balanced system.
<
p>
I’m not an expert on the Massachusetts Constitution. All I can say is that I feel deeply that while the people are the source of all government power (which is why legislators may only serve at the pleasure of the voters), citizens’ basic, fundamental civil liberties should not be subject to the whim of direct popular vote. If there are enough voters who feel strongly about the need for this issue to come to a vote, they are ultimately the masters of their representatives and can work to get others elected. To me, that feels like an appropriate hurdle to place before a movement to alter the Constitution to deny people civil liberties that our judges have ruled that our Constitution grants them.
<
p>
My one issue with this is that both arguments, practically speaking, are one and the same. Everyone knows that there aren’t 151 legislators who will vote “no” now. While possible that there could be 151 next session, the only way that would happen is if a few switched their current positions, since the incoming freshmen (almost all pro-SSM) don’t make up the difference.
<
p>
This means that a “vote on the merits”, so-called, is the same as “letting the people vote”. For those who believe, in turn, that the practical implications of “letting the people vote” will be a 2-year scare campaign waged against loving same-sex married couples, it is reasonable to use “procedural” means to kill this now.
<
p>
It’s fine to talk of process, but in the end it all comes down to the best thing for the Commonwealth and the best real-life practical outcome. If people think putting marriage rights up for a popular vote is the best outcome (“letting the people vote”), or getting to the health care amendment is worth putting these rights up to a vote, then making a side argument about “procedure” is, to me, just hiding the ball. Everyone should just come right out and say what they believe on the substance, because that’s ultimately what’s at issue here.
I’m against the anti-marriage amendment, and I hope it dies the miserable, wretched death that it deserves. (Obviously, I think the best way for that to happen is to find the votes in the lege to do it.)
<
p>
I’m undecided on the health care amendment.
<
p>
I’m in favor of our Constitution, and I believe that adherence to it is more important than any single issue. It’s the oldest continuously-functioning Constitution in the world; we’re justly proud of that; and we should respect it, even when doing so may lead to results we don’t like.
<
p>
Also, FWIW, I’m not enmeshed in vote-counting, but are you really so sure that there aren’t the votes to kill the anti-marriage amendment next session? Technically, there don’t have to be 151 “no” votes — there have to be 50 “yes” votes, which isn’t exactly the same thing (if all 200 legislators aren’t present). And it’s certainly not unprecedented for legislators to switch their views on this thing — it’s already happened with several of them.
You OK with that too?
I like the trend toward increased liberties and less elitism. The Founding Fathers did an amazing job for the times they lived in, and created a system that was able to grow and change as the country did.
<
p>
My point isn’t that we need to do everything they did exactly. My point is that people who cite the American Revolution era as backing for direct popular vote are not necessarily telling the full story about what the Founding Fathers believed and stood for.
<
p>
I’m in favor of expanded liberties. I’m not in favor of direct popular vote to curtail a civil liberty that’s been ruled to already exist in our Constitution.
I don’t have much to say on this topic that I haven’t already posted in the earlier ones, but want to at least go on the record here. I don’t feel that using legislative maneuvering to kill this ballot question is anymore a “deriliction of duty” than a senate filibuster. “We, the people of Massachusetts”* have the ability to vote our representatives out of office should they displease us. I for one, applaud them for sparing us the grim spectacle of having Massachusetts become ground zero in a “culture war” that well-funded interest groups are eager to start here. Gay and Lesbian citizens would be the ones to bear the brunt of the ugly emotions that would be unleashed in such an environment. Do you not imagine that people would come to real, physical harm? “Does this set us up for a pleasant, riskless process? Of course not.” is too glib by half, I think.
<
p>
* This rhetorical construction is about as subtle as a flying mallet. And as clumsy.
It’s already gotten ugly. Just read PP’s posts about canary’s in coalmines.
<
p>
Lately I’ve been thinking of BMG in terms of the Monty Python “Dennis Moore” skit. You know the one where he steals Lupins…
<
p>
http://www.jumpstati…
<
p>
Dennis Moore, Dennis Moore
Riding through the land
Dennis Moore, Dennis Moore
Without a merry band
He steals from the poor.
And gives to the rich
Stupid b****.
Make that “canaries.”
<
p>
Not enough coffee…
So, apparently there is going to be a rally this weekend over this very issue. Here’s a link the the Boston.com article:
<
p>
http://www.boston.co…
<
p>
Now I definitely know I am on the side of the angels as it looks like Romney, the Massachusetts Family Insitute and the local Catholic Church are the main organizers of this event. đŸ™‚
<
p>
This article raises some interesting points. First, yet more hypocrisy from the Catholic Church. Why are they so upset by the use of procedural tactics to kill this amendment when they advocated the use of similar tactics in the early 90’s to defeat an amendment that would have written reproductive rights into the state Constitution?
<
p>
Second, it shows that a lot (not all, but a lot) of the so-called “outrage” over this supposed abuse by the legislature is really not about process at all, but is really about homophobia and opposition to gay marriage.
<
p>
So my (admittedly snarky, sarcastic) question to those here who simply cannot stand what the legislature has done…Will you be attending the rally this weekend and standing with Mitt Romney, the Massachusetts Family Institute and Bishop O’Malley to express your outrage over this issue? đŸ™‚
…because my outrage IS grounded in abuse of process, not opposition to the amnedment.
<
p>
I think I’ll go to church instead….
In previous posts you have stated that you think this process should continue until the public votes. So even if there had been an up and down vote and the amendment failed to get the 50 votes it needs, it seems that you would still be outraged. So be honest, it’s not any abuse of process but the fact that the amendment is dead that has got you all worked up.
Wahoowa – if the legislature votes it down, then the issue is dead. Many will be unhappy, but I would not be out collecting signatures on it if there is a vote.
<
p>
If there is a Weasel Dance, I will work night and day to get it back in front of the Legislature again.
<
p>
In my personal opinion, they SHOULD vote yes and let the people vote. But they have the authority to vote No – a vote on the question, not an adjournment or recess.
<
p>
If I said something different, I am sorry I was misunderestimated.
I misunderstood a prior post where I though you insinuated you wouldn’t be satisfied until there was a vote.
But I am not so egocentric as to believe that the Mass. Legislature lives for my satisfaction. But I WOULD accept a NO on the question as legitimate and move on.
<
p>
Perhaps to term limits???
Peter,
<
p>
Your own words contradict your posts here. Here’s part of your lovely blog entry entitled “A Variant of Normal, Elevated to Respectability” or “When did the
Love That Dare Not Speak It's Name' become the Love that cannot shut up about itself?"<p>marriage’ and replace it withI invite people, especially our hosts, to read the whole entry. <p>
<a href="http://capecodporcupine.blogspot.com/2005/07/variant-of-normal-elevated-to.html">http://capecodporcup...</a><p>
<i>I freely admit that I come from a time when gay meant cheerful. Sodomites, as we called them then, certainly existed and many were socially received - but they were expected to be discreet in their relationships, as were heterosexuals, also known as normal men. Only a cad would speak of carnal relations with his wedded wife, but only a beast would speak openly about bedding a person who was not.</i><p>
and<p>
<i>Rather than amend the Constitution, amend Mass. General Laws, Chapter 25, and strike the word
registered union'. We don't have laws about communion or confirmation ceremonies, so why should we have laws about marriages? Authority for marriages would then revert to clerical authorities, where they belong (along with religious divorces). Regardless of sexual persuasion, you would register your union, and celebrate a ceremony calledmarriage’ – or not – in your own way. You would be invested with legal protection, yet `marriage’ – which is a touchstone for so much apprehension – would remain a matter of religion.And thank you for singlehandedly keeping up my sitemeter with your inane research efforts!
“Peter”
<
p>
You’re on record as emphatically opposing calling homosexual unions marriage. You’re writings do seem to favor civil unions, but you’ve made it clear that you oppose gay marriage.
<
p>
Homosexuals have a valid complaint that they cannot leave property, visit in a hospital and so on. Even the tenuous legal bridges that they build can be broken in court. The only thing that magically changes your partner to your legal next-of-kin is a marriage license. Every marriage has two parts. The one paid attention to is ceremony – rings, flowers, vows, and so on. Yet the second part is the only one which the State has any valid interest in – the signing of the license by the principles and witnesses and the legal registration of the couple. Why must that be called marriage?
<
p>
You’ve also made it clear that you favor resubmitting the petition until it is voted on.
<
p>
Why is that so hard for you to admit here? Why do you feel the need to mock me me for quoting your own words? Should we just ignore everything you say?
<
p>
…you take a paragraph from a post in which I sugget that taking the work ‘marriage’ out the the MGL for all citizens regardless of sexual proclivity, would give all such unions the force of law, while allowing churches to retain the franchise – which they invented – called ‘marriage’. Other BMG’s have made the same suggestion. Ironicaly, I see it as the only option which would make gay unions also be recognized at the Federal level, if heterosexuals are placed in the same boat. Many here agree with that premise.
<
p>
And I ask again – show me ANY time, ANY where, that I have said I would vote for the amendment, which is what you are trying to demonstrate, Perry Mason.
Peter,
<
p>
Do you support gay marriage in this state?
<
p>
If this amendment made it through the legislature, would you vote to ban future gay marriages or would you vote to keep them legal?
<
p>
Yes or no?
And I think everybody else should have the same chance to make up their own minds instead of have others make it up for them.
<
p>
And if you were genuinely curious, instead of merely interesting in attempting to slander by excerpting, all you ever had to do was ask directly.
I have asked you this question before, just not on this blog. If you’ve posted an answer, I missed it.
<
p>
You didn’t answer the first part, though. Do you support gay marriage? Or gay rights in general?
<
p>
As for the rest of your response. I’ve very carefully included a link to the original article wherever I’ve quoted you. I’ve even encouraged people to go read the entire article. It’s hard to see that as “slander by excerpting.” I’ll go further and ask how it’s possible to misinterpret your use of words like “sodomite” or your comment on fertility being a valid requirement for marriage.
<
p>
For a simpler example, take this post from HubPolitics. In this one, you’re responding to the news that Deval Patrick and Chris Gabrieli participated in the Massachusetts Democratic Gubernatorial GLBT Forum at Harvard:
<
p>
http://www.hubpoliti…
<
p>
I await my invitation to the heterosexual debate.
<
p>
Posted by: Peter Porcupine at September 14, 2006 10:32 AM
<
p>
That’s the complete post. Do you see understand why I don’t perceive you as exactly gay positive?
<
p>
There are a number of basic responses to your statement, but I suspect you already know them.
<
p>
The posts I quote are all recent, BTW. No playing “Perry Mason” involved.
because they want the legislature to vote “Yes”. I want them to vote “No”.
At least on this site, the numbers who actually favor the amendment on the merits are tiny indeed. The numbers who think the legislature should vote on it are considerably larger. Nor do most of us in the latter category accept the faulty logic of “let the people vote.”
<
p>
So spare us your “snark,” just this once, will you?
Apparently I touched a soft spot. I’ve been posting on this site for a while now, and don’t think that I have been previously snarky at all. In fact, most of my posts get 6’s with some 5’s. On this issue in particular, although I feel very strongly about the issue, I believe my posts and responses have been generally well thought out and devoid of any personal attacks. And, as I stated in my post, my comment was supposed to be sarcastic. So I really don’t think I was deserving of your retaliatory snark.
<
p>
I’m sorry if I offended, but in all honesty, a lot of the ideas on this site recently have been offensive to me. The fact that so much time and energy on this site has been spent on this subject is upsetting. Rather than celebrating what is arguably one of the most important victories for gays and lesbians in the Commonwealth, and really the nation, contributors, led by the editors, have conducted a campaign to make gays and lesbian feels as if this victory is illigitmate and not earned. I’m sorry, but this was a victory and it was well earned through years of hard work and dedication by a lot of very selfless people. Repeatedly, the backers of the HCA are commended for their hard work and shown pity for the way the gays ruined their efforts. Yet, their is no recognition for the hard work of those who have spent years working to get a pro-equality legislature elected and to change the minds of those who might oppose marriage equality.
<
p>
In the course of the debate here, we learn that people here are hiding their true feelings on the amendment and covering them up with arguments about process. Look at Kai. They come on here having never posted before and post one of the first diaries bemoaning this supposed procedural abuse. They then become one of the most active posters on the issue. For days they talk about the process, process, process. Then, they slip and admit that they actually oppose the amendment and then state that they were actually trying to hide their feelings on the amendment. So basically, Kai used the process argument to hide his/her true arguement..that gay marriage is wrong. Wait a second, isn’t that exactly what Romney et al are doing?
<
p>
Or how about you David. After railing against the killing of the marriage amendment through procedural means because of process concerns, you and others here concoct and forward an idea whereby procedural shenanigans would be used to get debate on the HCA (and not necessarily a vote) at the expense of the marriage amendment. The subtext of that debate was basically that the HCA amendment was more important than equal marriage. So basically we would be ok with stripping away rights from a minority group (which has never been done before) in order to allow a debate on an amendment which is duplicative of existing law. That’s offensive.
<
p>
I won’t even start on John Howard’s egg/sperm-civil union compromise.
<
p>
But the most offensive is the undertone of the debate (which sometimes wasn’t an undertone at all but expressly stated) that gays and lesbian were somehow selfish for celebrating the preservation of their rights. That would never be said if we were talking about rights that pertained to women or racial and ethnic minorities. In fact, I highly doubt this debate would have even raged on as long as it has.
my feelings on the amendment itself because I had some ulterior motive. This issue at hand was the ConCon recessing, and I tried to avoid getting dragged into a discussion on the merits of the amendment as it would serve only to distract.
<
p>
What finally pissed me off enough to write a diary was the ConCon recessing, and a call from David for first timers to stop lurking in the shadows and to make thier voices heard.
<
p>
For the record, as a 20something, agnostic and active Democrat, I oppose gay marriage. I don’t think marriage is a right for gays or straights. I think the SJC overreached in their opinion of Goodridge, stepping over the bounds the Constitution lays down for them. Finally I think the 109 members who voted to recess should be ashamed of themselves for violating their oaths and my civil rights as a petition signer. They should resign their seats, en masse.
<
p>
As I’ve commented before, I told my state rep that I know he supports gay marriage and while I disagree, I would respect his vote. Voting to recess was something I could not respect or support at all, and it was a good thing for him that it came after the election because he would have lost my vote. As a matter of fact, had his vote come before mine, I don’t think he would have voted to recess.
The issue is not simply the ConCon recessing, but the ConCon recessing because of the issue at hand. I think very few here would argue that process trumps everything and therefore you have to weigh the procedural concerns against the end result. That would be the case is the recess was gay marriage, the HCA, abortion, or whether wine could be sold at gas stations. I would dare say it is intellectually dishonest not to consider the end result when considering any “breach” of process. Everyone will say that for certain issues the end result trumps process. For me, this result on this issue does.
<
p>
Whether marriage is a right or a privilege or whatever doesn’t actually matter to the analysis. The SJC’s decision does not rest on the idea that marriage is a right. It is a thing that the government controls, regulates, grants etc. The SJC found that if the government was going to grant this thing onto people, it could not make a distinction between gay and straight couples because it had no rational basis to do so. In fact, it specifically rejected your children rationale (which I will posit I find to be rooted in homophobia).
<
p>
I love when Democrats are against equal marriage. Isn’t one of the parties central tenents equality for all? In fact, it appears several times in the party platform. It’s also one of the big “selling points” the party uses when comparing itself to the Republican party. Amazing how that equality seems to stop just short of gays and lesbians. Especially given that gays and lesbians are the second largest minority voting block within the party.
I have no problem, and indeed have myself engaged in, civil disobedience to combat an injustice. In this case while I agree the 25% bar is far too low, I do not consider it to be unjust. In this, and nearly all cases, I must insist that we play by the rules, even if we don’t like the expected outcome.
<
p>
So, when you say “Everyone will say that for certain issues the end result trumps process” I have to disagree. You can justify just about anything if you accept the argument that the ends justify the means. Think of how many awful things have been done in this world because they were simply means to an end.
<
p>
As for the equality argument, no one has yet told me why a man shouldn’t be allowed to marry his sterile sister. Does their equal right to marry the person of their choice not matter because the incest lobby doesn’t have a strong voting block in the party?
<
p>
In a word, yes. So what? When there are sufficient numbers of incestous consenting adults committed to changing the prevailing attitudes on incestuous marriage, then I suspect we’ll hear from them, too.
The only people who deserve equality are those with big soap boxes?
Your obsession with incestuous relationships is bizarre. I’m not commenting further on the subject with you as I suspect something’s up.
<
p>
Soap boxes are not the issue. Large groups of people–e.g., black Americans during the civil rights era and women at the turn of the centure–make their grievances known. They seek relief from their government, as is their right.
<
p>
You are irrational on this subject, and further discussion is futile. Go on perseverating about incestuous couples if that’s what floats your little boat. You homophobia becomes more readily apparent with every comment you make on this subject. For someone in the their 20s, you’ve got some serious sexual issues if your comments here are any indication.
I don’t think it is arguing the margins. It is taking an argument one logical step further. Even if it were the margin, someday someone and her brother are going to appear before the court to “seek relief from their government, as is their right” and they are going wave Goodridge all the way to the bench. When the court rules then, its going to be out of the margin and on page one of the Globe. How would Chief Justice lightiris rule?
Slippery slope fallacies are a waste of time and the refuge of those who can’t argue on the relevant merits. Go get your incest giggles somewhere else. You’re creepy.
<
p>
and why? please give us your considered opinion on this “next step”, since you clearly have pondered it more than most.
that I would rule against them both. Going back to Aristotle, we see that if you break society down into smaller and smaller segments, you find the most basic unit is the family. Man is incomplete, and thus he joins woman. Only together can they reproduce. Alone a family can not have everything it needs and wants so several join together in a village, then villages into a city, and on and on. Civilized society is built on the family.
<
p>
If you remove the bricks that nature intended, and replace them with something else, you can’t be sure the foundation will hold.
This is where your anti-gay sentiment plays a role into your rationale. You don’t think it’s unjust because you don’t believe in gay marriage. I, and others here, think that it is patently unjust to allow the public to vote to take away existing rights from a group of the population. Therefore, the recess was not only permissible, but necessary.
<
p>
The great fallback of anti-marriage advocates…incest! Next up polygamy?
<
p>
I think that one thing that hasn’t been addressed here is how horrible things will be if this amendment is allowed to go for a public vote. People here though that Kerry Healy’s ads were disgusting and that bringing Patrick’s family into the campaign was low, wait until you see what happens in the year to two years prior to a vote on the amendment. Every day the tv, radio and papers will be running hate filled messages that degenerate gays and lesbians. I’m sure that will have a positive impact on society as a whole and the gay and lesbian community. Hey, half of all gay teens attempt suicide…I’m sure these commercials will bring that number down. And continuing messaging that hating gays is ok, can’t imagine that won’t lead to more gay bashings.
<
p>
So, in order to preserve a process, and with and end result (that if the polls today hold…which isn’t guaranteed) will be no different than what we have today, we will waste energy, money, and time that could be dedicated to other issues that really face the Commonwealth (you know like stopping the net loss of citizens, health care, the crumbling infrastucture) and subject gays and lesbians to constant bombardment of both words and potentially violence.
My actions must always be good, even if an injustice comes from them. Likewise, I can not act unjustly even if a good may come from it. I must always employ right actions. I don’t want see violence against anyone, including gay teens, but I don’t want to see our Constitution get trashed either.
<
p>
I’d ask why not polygamy, but since you wont respond to incest, I don’t imagine I’d get a response on this one either. I should be free to marry two women, if they both want to marry me, or each other, or both of us. After all, equality demands it.
our constitution get thrashed if the anti-equality amendment goes throug. What could be a worse thrashing of the document than to use it to officially discriminate against people?
<
p>
And I will answer your incest, etc. question. Heterosexuals opened that pandoras box by creating a civil contract known as civil marriage and writing only themselves into the rules. Selfish, if you ask me.
Ok, so the box is open and Goodridge came flying out. Does it apply to incestuous and polygamous couples as well? It would be selfish to say no.
Goodridge doesn’t lead down a slippery slope to incest or polygamy because the facts are different and therefore the analysis the court would use would also be different, as it would have to assess the facts at hand. In Goodridge, the arguments the state made were about pocreation and the like, and the court found that those interests were not legitimate goverment interests.
<
p>
Polygamy is clealy different. The biggest benefit of marriage from the government’s point of view is ease of administration. If you get sick, your spouse makes decisions. You die, your spouse gets your stuff. Etc. In a polygamous relationship, you take that away. If I have two spouses and I am laying in a hosptial bed, who makes the decision to pull the plug or not? My first spouse? A majority? And if there is a tie? So the government has a rationale basis to limit marriage to two people.
<
p>
With incenst, the rationale interest would most likely be the whole offspring being mutants argument (which you allude to in a prior post). The sterile sister hypo is an interesting one. However, I think there would be problems there. I haven’t thought the issue through, nor am I an expert on how this area of the law would work, but I imagine they would be along the lines that adding a prerequisite for one subclass of one group in order for them to marry would violate some kind of equal protection claim. So, when we started gay marriage, the standards (or whatever that would be appropriate) didn’t change. You have to be of a certain age. You have to have a blood test. Whatever. Straight or gay, the process is the same. Now, if you want incestuous couples to marry, they would have to pass an additional hurdle, namely a fertility exam. Because of that, it would strike me that incest is then struck down completely, because it would have to be an all or nothing deal and it can’t be all.
<
p>
Btw, this line of argument is trite, intellectually lazy and offensive. Lumping equal marriage with polygamy and incest is not really trying to get at any legitimate issue of law. What it seeks to do is create a category of perversions that seeks to cause disgust so as to swing people against equal marriage. It’s the whole “ick factor.” I’m sorry Kai, but I am not a pervert and my relationship is not perverse. It’s also interesting to see your opposition to gay marriage develop. First it was that marriage is not a civil right (which doesn’t matter to the legal analysis). Then the arguments about children started coming out (have you found that study yet that shows the adverse effects of same sex parents?). Now the problem is a slippery slope that doesn’t exist. It would be much more honest if you just came out and said that you don’t like gay people. Hence the reason you signed a petition to have a hate-filled amendment brought to the ConCon.
walked the equal protection path here briefly. This individual is not to be deterred in having this discussion with as many people possible.
I missed that…if I had seen that I would have resisted from biting.
<
p>
Now if you could only bring Howard Dean around on this issue! đŸ™‚
having a fertility test requirement would be an unfair burden to place on a couple, when it wouldn’t be required of others. I shouldn’t have included the requirement that one half of the couple be sterile.
<
p>
However, the Court in Goodridge ruled that “Fertility is not a condition of marriage, nor is it grounds for divorce. People who have never consummated their marriage, and never plan to, may be and stay married.” I think the SJC would rule in favor of the brother and sister and frankly, that scares me.
<
p>
Btw, I’m not going for the ick factor here. I am entirely serious that I worry about how the court would rule should such a case arise. I know the BMG community is far too smart to fall for such an ick ploy, and I know that trying to make gay couples seem icky wouldn’t work here. I really am simply trying to follow the argument out to its logical conclusion.
<
p>
I have never said I thought you or your relationship was perverse. Indeed, I am the only one being called a pervert here (admittedly not by you). To clear it up, I don’t think marriage is a right, and that is my response to the “don’t put civil rights to a vote argument.” My arguments about the Courts proper role in the matter of marriage is my argument against the SJC taking on the case in the first place, and my argument about the slippery slope is a worry I have as the logical conslusion of the Goodridge decision.
<
p>
Its not that my arguments are developing, its that the conversation is.
This time, she’s writing against gay marriage over in MassResistanceWatch.
<
p>
The blog owner had quoted the Globe’s Ellen Goodman saying: Shouldn’t they withhold a license, let alone blessings and benefits, from anyone who is infertile? What about those who choose to be childless? Nothing borrowed or blue for them. Indeed the state could offer young couples licenses with sunset clauses. After five years they have to put up (kids) or split up.
<
p>
Here’s Peter’s response:
<
p>
http://massresistanc…
<
p>
At Friday, August 04, 2006 3:25:27 PM, Peter Porcupine said?
<
p>
Ah, but you have to remember the story of Sarah in the Bible, who had a baby at age 80! After a lifetime of infertiltiy – and no drugs!
<
p>
Clearly, heterosexual infertility is not an issue, at least to Peter.
<
p>
You can draw your own conclusions as to where Peter stands on gay marriage.
So as long as Kai is allright with his/her actions, screw everyone else. Nice! Very neighborly of you.
<
p>
Isn’t it at all possible that if what you perceive as a “good action” leads to an injustice, that in fact the action was not good in the first place? Also, if a good comes from a so called unjust act, isn’t it at all possible that the act was in fact just?
I think that everyone should always employ right actions, not just me. It can be argued that if a good comes from an unjust act then it was never unjust to begin with. In fact, this is the argument Bush, et al, are making when pressed on their torture of terrorists. I don’t buy it, and I hope you don’t either.
Allowing gays to marry and torture are equivalent to you?
but that is the argument they are using, and I’m using a high profile case to show how wrong it is, and how dangerous it could be.
I have to say that I am so tired of the “let the people vote” demand in the context of yet another election where State Representatives and State Senators opposing the amendment were elected by the people.
<
p>
In several races, including open seats held by anti-equal marriage Reps and Senators, the voters elected pro-gay marriage (or at least maintain the current status) candidates. If the Legislature does the honorable thing and stops this amendment that targets the rights of a minority, the “People” will have the right to remove them in 2008 should they be so upset.
<
p>
The reality is that 170,000 of 3.5 million isn’t some overwhelming force to demand a vote to strip away the rights of a targted group of men and women. (even Jill Stein managed to get more votes then that didn’t she?)
<
p>
The people vote every two years folks and in 2006 they voted for pro-gay marriage candidates. Let’s not spend two years sellig hate under the disguise of a right to vote that already exists.
that I’m getting a bit tired of this notion that any transgression by a legislator, however extraordinary, is apparently excusable by the fact that there will be an election in a couple of years. Shouldn’t we expect more from our legislators than that? It may turn out, for instance, that William Jefferson of Lousiana, Mr. $90,000 in the freezer, will be reelected (there’s a runoff election coming up for his seat). If he wins, does that make what he did OK?
<
p>
I don’t buy “let the people vote,” but I do buy the notion that legislators should abide by their constitutional duties. All of them.
you can compare voting to “adjourn” with accepting $90,000 worth of bribes.
Yes, yes, yes, I know there’s a difference between murder and jaywalking.
<
p>
I will share some internal GOP polling from the last two election cycles. When asked, people DESPISE the Legislature. BUT – their LEGISLATOR – why, he’s that fine fellow who came to the Eagle Scout dinner and gave Tommy a citation, and helped Mrs. Phelps with that problem she had with her drivers licence, and every year gets the local food pantry funding in the state budget. HE couldn’t be part of the problem – he’s so NICE! There is a total disconnect between the two.
<
p>
They do not know – and many don’t care – if they abuse their oath of office, even those who support having a vote. They are Independents, who don’t vote a straight party line, or wouldn’t if thee was anybody opposed, anyways, and they aren’t litmus test people. No, siree, their guy couldn’t be a part of that.
It was illegal to vote to adjourn? As in, “against the law?” There’s a Massachusetts General Laws chapter out there that says “The Massachusetts General assembly shall not adjourn an ongoing constitutional convention until such time as all ballot initiatives have been given an up or down vote?”
<
p>
If that’s the case, I stand corrected. (I’m not kidding – I want to understand this as best I can so point it out to me if I’m wrong. Chapter and verse.) If it’s not I suggest, as I have in another thread, that what we have hear is an inconsistency in the rules that needs to be ironed out. Rather than bitch about it, why don’t people just work to iron out the inconsistency?
<
p>
In 1935 (Opinion of the Justices to the Senate and the House of Representatives), the SJC held:
<
p>
<
p>
However, according to the SJC, the “mandate” in Article 48 is without recourse. In 1992 (Limits v. President of the Senate), the SJC held:
<
p>
<
p>
When you have resorted to the tactics of Bully Bulger – you know you have gone astray.
Peter, I understand your point and feel your pain (ha!), but it seems to me that the problem lies here:
<
p>
<
p>
That means absolutely nothing without the context of the electoral calender.
The idea that people are only supposed to express themselves on Election Day is ridiculous. I mentioned this above, but the fact is that citizens should be able to hold their representatives accountable 24/7.
<
p>
When we agree with our representatives, we tell our opponents: don’t worry, you can get him/her back on Election Day! When our opponents agree with our representatives, they tell us: don’t worry, you can get him/her back on Election Day!
<
p>
Honestly, is that how democracy is supposed to work? We’re all supposed to ignore the fact that this issue will be resolved on January 2, 2007 because we’ll all have recourse on the second Tuesday of November, 2009?
<
p>
The ballot is just one expression of democracy. To pretend it is the only means of disapproval is simply a device shape this debate in terms favorable to the Legislature (which is acutely aware of the political calendar) and those who happen to agree with the Legislature on this, or any, particular matter.
1) Petition to recall your legislators, or
2) leave them in place but push to clarify the law on the subject mandatory voting on every amendment proposal that makes it to the ConCon, or
3) complain endlessly without offering a vision for moving forward together . or did I miss seeing your vision upthread?
<
p>
and by you i’m not singling out you personally MavDem, but those who are of your viewpoint on this issue.
The people will get exactly what they paid for. A corrupt politician.
<
p>
That’s one of the dangers of Democracy, occasionally unqualified or even downright corrupt politicians win elections. We can try our best to make that not happen, with some success, but making your argument doesn’t make sense in this context. If you have such a problem with the lack of accountability of the vote, maybe we should just get rid of it in total? Surely, a monarchy or oligarchy is exactly what you want if you don’t trust the accountability of the vote?
Note the Constitution says that the Legislature has final say over legislation (such as the tax rate).
<
p>
Not so with constitutional amendments–the case is completely different.
<
p>
An election can, in effect, overrule and dispose of old legislative policy, even one set by referendum. That in fact is the idea.
<
p>
An election is not supposed to be able to overule and dispose of a written constitution.
<
p>
I mean, I know that in practive it can–I read the newspapers. But in terms of political ethics, if such an oymoron can be permitted, it is not allowed.
How many ways and how many times are those of us who are gay and lesbian going to be subjected to the same arguments on the marriage amendment? I can’t say how grateful I am for the patience and persistence of World Citizen, Pucknomad, Wahoowa, Ryepower, CDinBoston, Hoyapaul, Laurel, Schulterkaffe, Sharonmg, Copley and Striker57 who have be willing to engage and engage again on the same arguments in this thread, and the many others who have done so in other discussions of the topic, on other days. Note to MaverickDem and David and the less thoughtful opposition: repeating your arguments doesn’t make them more compelling. It just makes you sound hostile to gays and lesbians. Five of the nine initiative amendments proposed in Massachusetts history were addressed through procedural means. Nothing new or unusual has happened this time from a process perspective.
<
p>
This isn’t about theory. It’s about our lives. Those of us who are gay and lesbian contend with injustice and prejudice every day. I can tell you it was profoundly moving in May 2004 when, citing the power vested in him by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, our JP pronounced us married partners. For the first time, our 11-year relationship had legal recognition. Replace “same sex” marriage with “interracial marriage” and reconsider all of the posts in favor of an up-down vote on the marriage amendment with the eyes of someone in such a marriage. Would you think the posters were principled defenders of the initiative process or just secretly racist?
<
p>
None of us gets to choose the political context of his or her positions and actions. The position some of you have advocated threatens equality, while the vote the legislature took to recess – for which they are fully accountable as others have noted – protected equality, gay and lesbian families and the Constitution from harm.
<
p>
Let’s move on.
<
p>