One of the things you can do on the new Patrick/Murray Transition site is send your comments directly to one of the various “working groups,” each of which is charged with looking at the current situation in state government and in the state generally and making recommendations to the new administration.
And one of the working groups is called “Civic Engagement.” I don’t know exactly what that means, but it sounds kind of like “keeping the incredible grassroots organization that put me in office alive and engaged so that I can look to those people for strength and support when I need it to advance my agenda, particularly when entrenched Beacon Hill interests are against me.”
Well, we know a little bit about that grassroots organization, and we might have some ideas on how to keep it going. So if you’ve got a thought on “Civil Engagement” that the transition working group should hear, head on over to the “comments” page and let ’em hear it!
And anyone who isn’t is an asshole!
… huh?
The recent posts on the anti-equality marriage amendment have been tremendouly damaging to the relationship of many LGBT people with the rest of the progressive mvt. I am profoundly saddened to be faced with another round the the same old same old. HETEROSEXUAL WITH NOTHING TO LOSE IF GAY MARRIAGE OUTLAWED SAYS: “Hey gay people, we like you, please work with us on x, y and z and we’ll help relieve your plight…just as soon as we do these much more important things…any decade now, honest, we’ll take your plight on as if it were our own, which it isn’t so we don’t really, fundamentally give a rats *ss, but hey thanks just the same for all your hard work and money, suckas.”
<
p>
Here’s what needs to happen:
The progressives out there who DO NOT fit the description above need to step forward NOW and identify themselves before the last rays of hope are extinguished in this and many a gay heart. Do NOT be compliceit with your silence.
<
p>
To those “progressives” who have lately been echoing the rhetoric of VoteOnMarriage, you need to suck it up and do right by your brothers and sisters. Now. Loudly. Or all your credibility is lost. You can talk midstate votes and gubenatorial appointments ad nauseum, but no one will care about your opinion any more.
Look, I get this is a completely passionate issue. I get that no one wants mob rule (or rather, fringe rule in this case) to determine if gay relationships are legitimate in the eyes of the government. I get that it would suck to have those anti-gay assholes running around our state, many of them from elsewhere, spewing their total utter nonsense.
<
p>
I get it. Please don’t insult me by telling me I don’t because I’m not gay or because I see both sides of this issue.
<
p>
I get that some people have been very obstinate on both sides in regards to whether the ConCon should have taken a vote. And that people have staked out their little hilltops and stuck their respective flags in – on ALL sides.
<
p>
I’ve argued that actually, the issue is that this loophole allows such drastic changes to our constitution is the problem that needs immediate addressing. That part seems to get lost on most people.
<
p>
But do you HONESTLY believe that any good progressive here wants to see those assholes win? That we haven’t done as much as humanly possible to fight these guys? Can we leave off the rhetoric of divisiveness and hate? That’s what anti-gay groups do, they hate. We’re better than that.
<
p>
Rhetoric like your invective here does so little good to your movement or the larger progressive movement. And I will say the same thing to the other side. For god’s sake people we agree on the issues! Take a step back, breath, and understand that as personal an issue as this is, it does no one any good to go off half-cocked and emotional when discussing it. That’s a big mistake we’ve always made on issues like abortion rights and I for one am so tired of using the tools of the “other side” like hateful rhetoric to disassemble one another.
<
p>
All of you, act like grownups. Act like a community.
on the history of political gamesmanship with gay civil rights. It is vast and flows generally in one direction. The current MA legislature is a blessed anomaly.
Is a downright rocky one. This one has been no different…
<
p>
Women fought for how long before getting the federally-recognized right to vote?
<
p>
The current MA legislature has been flowing in the RIGHT direction, with anti-gay legislators being replaced (by retirement or outright losing) with progressive, pro-gay ones. I wouldn’t have been surprised if, in the next legislative session, we found ourselves in the enviable position of not even having the 50 votes for this low-standard ConCon amendment in the first place and it never got on the ballot.
<
p>
This flow is because the progressive movement embraces the gay rights movement within in – we elect people with those values. And people with those values are appealing to more and more people.
<
p>
That said, this fight is not over, and it won’t be until the older generation of leadership is totally replaced by their younger, more tolerant counterparts. It’s our job to hold the line and advance it when we can, and to open the hearts of our young people to tolerance and respect. That is happening in large part BECAUSE you are part of a larger movement, which has embraced your cause.
<
p>
And rights have been up for a vote before, delicate ones too. Every civil right enshrined in the Bill of Rights had to go through the states for a vote. So spare me that argument. I understand it, but it is the case that rights have gone before the public before and they will again. You should be celebrating the fact that the amendment probably had little chance anyway, even if it got on the ballot! That is a result of all of our hard work. Instead, you jump all over anyone who even dares question the morality of thwarting the process in one case but condemning that thwarting in another.
<
p>
Let’s try the shoe on the other foot theory, shall we? Would you be angry if there was a pro-gay-marriage amendment (to enshrine that right in the MA constitution) at the ConCon and the anti-gay legislators killed it?
I assume that Laurel, who has been registered at BMG for all of 2 days but confers upon herself authority to speak for “what needs to happen” at this and every other corner of the progressive community, is talking at least in part to me.
<
p>
Well, sorry Laurel, but I say what I think. That’s the only way I, or anyone else around here, establishes any credibility. If you don’t like or agree with my viewpoint, that’s fine. Let’s discuss and debate. But screaming and demonizing has never yet convinced anyone of anything.
a history of posting on BMG with authority on this issue or any other? we as a community work and speak together in many ways and places. i thought it was as legit to speak here as well as at a board meeting.
<
p>
i think, David, that you do not realize that you and some others on BMG are quickly alienating gay people by being willing to play fast and loose with this amendment that will profoundly affect our lives. i know you dont support the amendment, but you also are willing to risk a ‘yes’ vote on it . that is not, shall we say, unconditional love. it is simply not acceptable. so yes, i am screaming, because you and others of your opinion on this matter are letting us down, and the routine is such a classic by now.
being around here for more than 2 days with having some sense of what this site/community is, who’s around, how it operates, etc. Need I remind you that your first comment here was this one:
<
p>
<
p>
Confrontational much?
<
p>
You then added:
<
p>
<
p>
Without bothering to dissect the numerous problems with that view, it just doesn’t make me very interested in talking to you.
<
p>
All of that said, of course it’s legit to speak here about this or any other topic you want. That’s why this site is here. But I’d respectfully suggest that you’re doing your cause more harm than good by, for example, turning off folks (like Lynne) who actually agree with you on process as well as on the merits.
You came here with a chip on your shoulder, and you acted belligerantly. It’s understandable, given that this is so terrible an amendment and would take away hard-won rights, but you do not help your fellow members of the gay rights movement, and you are only alienating those who are your staunchest allies.
<
p>
The point David has been making, yes, he’s being insistant, some might even say obstenate. But you’re being mean. That’s not being part of a community, that’s showing shit on a wall and not even waiting to see if it sticks.
<
p>
I prefer discussion and debate to rhetoric. I will call it when I see it, even if it’s someone like David saying it. So far, I see one rhetorical person in the room, and that’s you.
Hard-nosed? Cocksure? Stiff-necked? Brick wall? Mulish?
that I know you well enough to know you’re smiling as you type that! đŸ˜‰
I thought I was picking my teeth. Ah well. ;P
I actually wonder just how few of your fellow activists you speak for, given that I find most gay rights activists to be reasonable people who also prefer discussion and debate to rhetoric.
I should not suppose to speak for anyone but myself. Thank you for catching that. Pleas let me state that I speak only for myself. Pehaps some will sigh with relief to hear that.
“But I’d respectfully suggest that you’re doing your cause more harm than good by, for example, turning off folks (like…”
<
p>
I think you just said, in a quieter way, what I’m saying to you.
<
p>
Perhaps you are not interested in talking to me because you are not interested in examining your blind spots. I’ve tried pointing the main one out rhetorically with that farce of a divorce challenge.
I don’t mean to sound all super-self-aware or whatever, but I really don’t think I have a “blind spot” about this issue. My own brother is gay, for God’s sake, so it’s not like I don’t have some kind of personal stake in this issue, for whatever that’s worth. I know how much this issue means to people, even if it doesn’t directly affect my own marriage. Furthermore, I really don’t accept the notion that someone who isn’t directly, personally affected by an issue has no “standing” to talk about it. That’s about as anti-democratic as you can get, short of dictatorship, and taking it seriously would lead very quickly to all kinds of ghastly results that neither you nor I want to see.
<
p>
My position, as I hope I’ve made clear, is that constitutional principles should trump pretty much everything else — and yes, I’d say the same thing if the amendment were one that would deny Jews the right to vote, or something else that directly affected me personally.
<
p>
My proposal is this. If they vote (which they probably won’t), and if they advance it to the next session, I’ll happily do whatever I can to back a competing amendment that would go to the ballot in 2010 and that would guarantee that the right to marry may not be denied or abridged on the basis of sexual orientation. I’m certain we can get a legislator to file that amendment, or collect the signatures needed to do it by an initiative. And I assume that you would want them to vote on that one!
if I would be upset if the legislature dodged a vote on an amendment that would place marriage equality in the constitution.
<
p>
This is not a fair juxtaposition of the current situation. An amendment that would remove civil rights from a minority should NEVER be entertained in the first place, let alone voted on. An amendment given equal rights to everyone is ok, but I really don’t believe marriage law should be dealt with at all in the state constitution.
<
p>
Thank you David for your proposal. If it comes to that, I will certainly expect and help of all those who support equality. however, it should never be allowed to get to that point. And here is where I guess we shall just disagree.
Here’s one for you: What if society decided that owning guns was harming us way more than it was helping, and the 2nd Amendment was outdated because it was intended to keep citizen militias in order that a tyranical government can be overthrown, which in this day and age means citizens would need tanks, helicopters with machine guns and nukes, making it a little bit of a moot point as a right?
<
p>
I’m not saying this can or will or should ever happen, but what if it did? What if it became very obvious that re-amending the constitution to get rid of the second amendment was the best thing for our country and a happy society?
<
p>
That would be taking away a right, and under your definition, should never even come up for a vote.
<
p>
It’s not that I don’t understand that the anti-gay amendment is a heinous and stupid rights-stripping attack on gays. It’s that your arguments do not hold up under scruntiny.
<
p>
Your gut correctly says “it’s just not right for gay marriage to come down to a popular vote!” and you’re trying to justify it. The justification doesn’t come from the legal argument at all, and therefore your argument against David is not working.
<
p>
If you want to make a MORAL argument that this rights-stripping amendment shouldn’t come up for a popular vote on the ballot, fine, but you don’t have constitutional or legal grounds to justify your gut reaction here.
an amendment that affects all citizens equally, are you not? prohibition is the famous such case of restricting rights in the federal constitution. that is restricting rights across the board. that is not at all the same thing as granting/restricting rights for a minority only. no comparison.
<
p>
please don’t put words into my gut. it is patronizing and prone to error. you want a legal arguement? the amendment is unconstitutional because it singles out a minority for discrimination. the question is, would the court have the guts to rule that it is unconstitutional. i won’t hold my breath. neither should you.
something that is part of the Constitution can not be Unconstitutional.
for the discussion. It’s why this site exists.
Your logic is correct. Your argument is correct…EXCEPT. Where you and I differ is that I believe that there is more constitutionality here than is suggested by your argument. You are right that there is a constitutional procedure here to be considered but there is also a simultaneous constitutional mandate, irrespective to marriage, that states that we are not only equal but that discrimination is unacceptable. As long as those principles are part of the constitution I think we are at odds on whether we can entertain an amendment that would embody both discrimination and inequality. If we first amend the constitution to say that rights are granted by the majority and then entertain this disgusting amendment then I see no constitutional problem. Short of that I cannot wrap my brain around how our federal and state constitutions declare our equality (and our federal constitution specifically calls marriage a fundamental right) while our state constitution simultaneously takes away a sliver of that equality.
Where does the justification/definition of engendering inequality end? Who decides?
<
p>
It might be obvious in this case, but it’s a dangerous precident to say that anything “that takes away someone’s civil rights” is the definition of something taboo to bring up for constitutional amendment, and to kill something based on that justification. Kill it for other reasons, but that justification is bad precident.
<
p>
I’m not saying I want a vote on this amendment, BTW. I’ve made my whole opinion on this whole process very clear – the whole process needs fixing, not excepting the health care amendment which I otherwise might support. And I’d just as soon have these loonies outta here instead of lobbying on behalf of their anti-gay amendment for the next two years – it’s a bonus to have them shut up for a little while. The damage they would inflict on the harmony of our citizens in their stupid quest isn’t worth it…
<
p>
We’re arguing on minutia here, anyway. But at least it’s become more civil somewhat.
I can say with the utmost of confidence that any amendment to strip another individual of his or her civil rights is not something that should be voted on, at least not as the constitution currently stands. I would be intellectually dishonest if I said that somethings can’t be talked about (that would be stripping rights đŸ™‚ ). So we can talk away, obviously that is David’s angle hence his reason for these topics. If you are willing to allow the majority to take a vote and strip the minority of its rights then I ask what the purpose of the constitution is at all? What are its protections? So long as my state and federal constitutions say that we are equal in the eyes of the law then I say we cannot use a “democratic” process to foster illegitimate, undemocratic means.
answer my other comment on how it wouldn’t be right to allow a vote on, say, changing the 2nd amendment, if the society had moved to a point where that right had become outdated and not needed?
<
p>
Under your argument of taboo options (if the amendment takes away rights) we’re morally obligated to not even vote on it.
I have written and rewritten this comment a million times. I am engaging in an argument I do not care about. To me the law in this case is so irrelevant. The bottom line for me is that the proposed amendment is repugnant to decent humanity. I will not use my energy nor devote myself to anything that will get this filth and hatred one step closer to being a reality.
It does, Andy? I’ve got my copy sitting on the desk. Could you point out where for me?
Here you go. Also, do you believe that there is constitutional right to privacy? The Constitution isn’t meant to always be read literally.
The word marriage doesn’t appear in the Federal Constitution. In fact, it only appears once in the Massachusetts Constitution, but that venerable document doesn’t grant a right to get married either.
<
p>
The ninth amendment doesn’t say that you shouldn’t read it literally, simply that there are other rights that the state may grant its citizens, or that are held by the people. Three unalienable rights not explicitly granted by the bill of rights quickly come to mind.
You are right I misspoke. There is no specific mention. I overstated what I meant. My point was that the Constitution protects a fundamental right to marriage. My Bush-like looseness words however doesn’t detract from the fact as far as I am concerned all of the states that have banned gay marriage have done so unconstitutionally. Lastly, there is ample evidence in the Constitution that the document isn’t meant to spell out the rights we have and nothing more. That to me suggests that we must read and respect the words written, however, a literal translation is inappropriate.
<
p>
But in the end I don’t really care about the law. See my comment above.
if you add a Constitutional amendment it, by definition, can not be Unconstitutional.
<
p>
You are absolutely correct that “ample evidence in the Constitution that the document isn’t meant to spell out the rights we have and nothing more.” In fact, as you pointed out in the 9th amendment is says exactly that. However, as I have stated elsewhere, a civil right is something that allows you to participate fully in a democracy, such as access to the ballot box or free speech. Something along the right to keep and bear arms is not vital to a democracy, but as it is in our Constitution it is a Constitution right.
<
p>
Something like substantive due process can easily be inferred from the due process clauses of the 5th and 14th amendments, or the right to privacy in the 3rd, 4th and 9th. I don’t think marriage has any such claim. There is nothing in our Constitutional that even comes close to mentioning marriage.
<
p>
But, since you dont care about the law, its kind of a moot point. You’re a lot like the ConCon – you only care about the Constitution when it suits your purposes.
That would NOT allow for same sex marriage. Let’s be clear, traditional marriage laws do not deal in terms of sexual orientation, they deal in terms of sex of the people involved. That is to say, gay people can get married anywhere — they just have to marry someone of the opposite sex.
<
p>
To the larger issue, I think it’s worth allowing for some of Laurel’s anger in her point. Straight folks like us need to remember that no matter how strong our arguments might seem in favor of forcing the legislature to take the up or down vote as mandated by the constitution, it sounds very different to someone who’s life is directly impacted not only by the outcome of the vote but of the harmful and literally dangerous hate campaign to follow.
<
p>
David, what your argument sounds like to a lot of people is this: “I know that there’s been lots of times that the legislature has not voted on proposed amendments, but for this one — that will push YOU back into second class status — we should follow the rules even though we are 99% sure (and we are) that we don’t have the votes to defeat it. But don’t worry gay people, I’ll work really hard to try to protect you later!”
<
p>
Now I know that’s not how David (and others) feel, but that’s how it sounds to many who’s lives are actually on the line.
<
p>
It should not be shocking that gay folks are largely incredulous about the argument that the law needs followed THIS time when it hasn’t in the past. Like loitering laws that are ignore all the time, until a bunch of black kids are hanging out. Cops say “hey we’re just enforcing the law” but the kids want to know “why THIS time!”
<
p>
I’ve been working against DoMA laws in MA since 2001, and have put literally thousands of hours into it since then. When I started, there were no equal marriage rights. And there was a lot of division within the gay and progressive communities about how to move forward with gay rights. (Many of the key spokespersons around the marriage issue today were the strongest opponents of advocating for equal marriage rights just a few years ago.)
<
p>
Well the court (correctly I believe) turned the world upside down for this issue. Suddenly it was on everyone’s radar and there was no choice about how to move forward. We all had to do everything in our power to protect this right. There were many pieces of the struggle, but the view was that if we lose this — here in liberal Massachusetts — it would be decades before anyone here or in any other state would dare to try again. The stakes were just too high.
<
p>
Then a funny thing happened. People realized that gay marriage is no big deal. Think back to when you learned about other civil rights struggles and how long they took to establish rights that we all, as school kids, just said “duh, of course that’s the right thing” without ever really understanding the decades of struggle, violence, and deaths that went into the victories. But we got there that — the popular acceptance of the right — here in about 3 years. Amazing.
<
p>
The legislature has seen in the past 3 years that the safe vote is the pro gay marriage vote. In the last two years, only 4 legislators lost their seats, 2 in ’04, and 2 this year (not counting Asselin in 2004…special case). All were anti-gay marriage, and all were replaced by pro-gay marriage legislators. Also MOST open seats have been filled by pro gay marriage legislators. Really, Amazing!
<
p>
But we don’t have the votes. There are just over 50 people who would still vote in favor of the amendment.
<
p>
To argue that a constitutional “mandate” which has been ignored many times in the past is important to follow given the stakes of this law, seems to a lot of people as really narrow-minded. Too much has gone into this, and too much is at stake. Add to that the fact that Laurel feels she’s being told not to worry about her rights (and her life), I think we can see why she might be angry.
<
p>
The Constitution lived through this violation many times in the past and still seems okay. How about this “compromise”? We’ll support the procedural vote this one more time, and then all work to find a way to make this provision have real teeth in the future. What’s wrong with that?
<
p>
David, you can believe whatever you’d like about what the right way to deal with the issue is — vote or not. But I think it’d be better to show people like Laurel that you understand what they are living, their hopes for equality, and the very legitimate fears they have, rather than making the issue her tone on this blog.
<
p>
In other words, it’s her life being voted on. Did she have a bad approach, sure. But did there need to be that many posts attacking her for her emotional reaction?
fine, word it however you want. You know what I mean.
<
p>
As for the rest of your comment, do you or anyone else REALLY think that if the legislature adjourns on Jan. 2, that’s the end of the issue here in MA? If so, you’re crazy. They’ll be back, more determined than ever, with as much if not more outside money than ever, gathering signatures and stirring up trouble. And they’ll get their signatures again, and it’ll be back before the ConCon next year, and we’ll go through the same hue and cry we went through this year, with impassioned floor speeches, competing “don’t vote on civil rights” and “let the people vote” demonstrations outside the State House, repeated adjournments and calls of dereliction of duty by the legislature, pronouncements from the Cardinal, the whole thing. They might even pick up a few more supporters the next time around, like our own Peter Porcupine, who is so irked by the lege’s tactics that he’s more receptive now to them than he was before. Maybe Mitt Romney will stop in on a trip from South Carolina as well. Because as passionately as you believe in the rightness of your cause, there are thousands of people in this state who believe just as passionately in the other side. I absolutely believe that their numbers are a relatively small minority of the state’s population — but there are over six million people in this state, and a small percentage still means thousands, maybe tens of thousands, of people.
<
p>
So if you want to argue that this amendment should be killed procedurally, go ahead. But don’t kid yourself as to the effect that doing so will have. It’ll be a temporary reprieve, nothing more. My argument is not only a constitutional/legal one; it’s a tactical one as to what is the best way to achieve the result you and I both want.
Well David, I didn’t know you find this to be the best tactical approach as well. Hate to break it to you but it’s not. It might be if we had the votes, but we don’t. You’re just incorrect about this on a tactical/strategic level.
<
p>
Of course it is likely to come back. But every year, we get more pro gay marriage votes. And every year, we get more public support. Eventually, the proposal will look as crazy as an amendment would be to ban interracial marriages.
<
p>
Each year this doesn’t move forward, we come closer to a final and lasting victory. Not only that but we will eventually have other states with the same law which will take a lot of pressure off of us. And every year it is a legislative issue, we kick ass in legislative elections — as I have pointed out. I’d LOVE to have it be an issue if we can take out more reps like Ciampa and Parente.
<
p>
I would respectfully suggest that you stick to your constitutional argument. Even though, I think you’re wrong about that too, at least it’s a reasonable argument.
<
p>
To say that their ought to be an up or down vote on the amendment because that’s the best way for us to win, simply demonstrates a complete ignorance of the process.
Call the guy on the other side “ignorant,” even when you know full well he’s not. Another brilliant strategy designed to win friends and influence people.
<
p>
Re votes, no, we don’t have them in this session. We might have them in the next, but we probably won’t find out.
<
p>
Thanks for your “respectful” suggestions, but I’m going to respectfully ignore them. We disagree on this, and that’s not going to change.
the other side actually IS ignorant? You never explained what your tactical argument is. You just said it is tactical. Seems to me that the reason you aren’t explaining is there is no explaination in the WORLD that could make us more likely to protect gay-marraige by having and losing an up or down vote this session.
<
p>
Please explain how it could. Or maybe admit that you either misspoke or that your misunderstood the facts here. I would entertain that argument that you are not ingnorant but rather you are stupid, but it is clear that you are very intelligent.
<
p>
But the best part is you just attacked my manner of posting — like you did with Laurel and you do so often — in order not to deal with the argument. Perhaps that is a great blogging/rhetorical skill, but for anyone actually reading for content, it is YOU sir who abandons the argument only to insult the other. (You’ll note, that I am talking both about YOU and furthering my agrument at the same time.)
<
p>
I explained why it seemed to me you didn’t understand how this battle is working. You provide still NO evidence to show that you do. So tell me oh knowledgeable one, how does it help us win?
<
p>
Or just insult my argument style, because THAT’S smart!
While I don’t necessarily agree with Laurel’s tone or rhetoric, there is some substance behind what she says. Your comment about progressives not wanting the “assholes” to win is largely true. But there are people on this site who claim to be progressive (or at least very committed Dems, I realize there is a difference, but if they are bothering to post on a progressive site I assume they probably consider themselves progressive) yet are openly for the amendment. I don’t mean that, like David or MavDem, they feel the legislature was wrong in recessing but that the amendment should be voted down (a position I disagree with strongly but nonetheless understand and respect). These are people who want to see a yes vote on the amendment and then a yes vote by the public. Heck, some people here even signed the petition that brought the amendment to the ConCon!
<
p>
Maybe those people aren’t what you meant by “good” progressives then.
<
p>
Though they are entitled to their opinion.
<
p>
I’ve begged my state senator to reconsider his Yes vote, (he’s against gay marriage but for civil unions, which I’ve pointed out many times is a total oxymoron but he persists). He’s a good Dem usually on the issues, he scores pretty OK on the Mass Score Card. I will continue to fight him on this even as I applaude his other votes.
<
p>
The fact is, that shouting down the anti-gay people, even on this site, doesn’t help. (If they are bullshitting rheteric themselves, sometimes it’s best to ignore them, or just call them out on it.)
<
p>
David is not one of those people, so I truly do not understand the ire I have seen on all sides. I don’t think it’s healthy, and I don’t think there are a great number of regressive progressives (or Dems) on this site, such that this is so huge a problem as to warrent this tone. If this tone is even EVER warrented!
Lynne,
<
p>
I really don’t disagree with most if not all of what you say. Obviously shouting down anyone never advances a cause.
<
p>
I think what Laurel’s post speaks to is a growing sense among gay Democrats that we are being taken for a ride. The party knows that given a choice between Dems and Repubs, that the gay community, by and large (something like 1/4 to 1/3 of all gays voted for Bush) will vote Democratic. Look at the PA and TN Senate races. The Dem candidate in both wasn’t exactly a model on gay rights, but the prospect of their opponent winning was even worse. So it seems that the Dems can continue to pay minimum lip service to gay issues, not do anything overly offensive and continue to count on gay support without really advancing gay issues any further.
<
p>
I think the tipping/breaking point came when Dean eliminated the DNC’s GLBT liason and then went on the 700 Club and announced that the Democratic platform supported the concept of marriage being between one man and one woman. Besides being incorrect, I know that comment, and the general idea that Dean and the party leadership was willing to essentially sell out gays to garner conservative support, really put off a lot of gay individuals and groups who have know withdrawn support from the DNC.
<
p>
I’m not sure what Laurel has against David, but I think some of the heat he’s gotten the last couple days relates to the whole marriage amendment/HCA tradeoff he was advocating. As I said elsewhere, there was a sense that David was saying that gay marriage was worth the sacrifice if the HCA amendment was debated. It also seemed, that after objecting to procedural means to kill the marriage amendment, he was advocating for procedural means to bring the HCA to the floor, while pushing the marriage amendment forward another year.
“I think what Laurel’s post speaks to is a growing sense among gay Democrats that we are being taken for a ride.”
<
p>
On a local level, if an ever-increaseingly-gay-friendly progressive legislature taking over for a less progressive, anti-gay one is taking you on a ride, that’s a ride I’d be on any day! If there’s a sense of betrayal regarding the larger movement in MA, then seriously, those people need to review how they might be slightly over-sensative on this point (with good reason, but still). If all it takes is one argument “to have the vote” based on procedural arguments to make them question the progressive movement, that sounds to me like someone needs a hug and some therapy. (OK, we could all use some therapy…I know I could!)
<
p>
The progressive movement and the central Dem party are not always one and the same. And as we move forward, and the public collectively yawns and says, give them their rights and move the hell onward and get me a raise dammit!, you’ll see those guys scrambling to jump on the bandwagon (unless they are, say, George Allen). You’re already seeing it. Our next generation are politically aware, generally progressive and amazingly tolerant. I know it’s hard to wait longer for rights that should be yours today, but we are making huge strides! When I was in high school, there was 1 – count it, 1 – “out” gay man in my school of over 2,000 students. It’s so different already out there. We need to keep working but it IS working! Just like our sisters in the women’s sufferage movement had to have patience, strength, and occasional tussles amongst themselves only to heal the rifts again after, this same cycle repeats itself now. We will win! We’re more than halfway there, believe it or not, regressive gay marriage bans in other states nonewithstanding! Sometimes it feels like one step forward, two steps back, I know…
I should have been a little clearer in my posts. I wasn’t referring to the Dems in the state legislature, who are obviously fantastic on the issue of gay rights (with some individual exceptions, who are becoming fewer and fewer). It’s amazing that we can honestly talk about whether 3/4 of the legislature would vote against an anti-equal marriage amendment. Massachusetts is really special in that regard. My comment was aimed more at the national party. I also understand, as I stated above, that progressives and the Democratic party are not one in the same.
<
p>
And my comments were not based on one argument over procedure (a point I thought I was pretty clear on).
<
p>
As for your progress point: Yes, the progress in gay rights and acceptance of gays generally has been amazing. However, those gains have largely been made in spite of and not due to the Democratic party.
and who has a stake in this matter as well, I find your post to be over the top.
<
p>
Having 2/3 Democratic majorities in the House and Senate and a more progressive Democratic Party in Massachusetts would make this and a lot of other things (health care, national response to global warming, etc.) just go away as issues. Achieving that requires one to work with “progressives” as well as progressives.
There are also people here that are concerned with that decision’s impact on the health care amendment. I could just as easily say “homosexual with adequate health care says”. Both are unfair characterizations. Everyone here wants gay marriage legal and health care universal. Our differences are only how to achieve those ends.
I wrote to the transition team asking them to establish an “Electoral Reform” working group. This group would be charged with studying potential reforms to our voting and electoral system, including same-day registration, clean-elections, voter-verifiable paper trails, instant runoff voting, etc — basically looking into the agenda of MassVOTE.
<
p>
Now perhaps this could fall under “Civic Engagement”, but I think it’s broad and important enough to merit it’s own working group. If you agree, please let them know.
I responded in much the same way, suggesting that you can’t change “Beacon Hill politics” without campaign finance reform. I mentioned general electoral reform as well, but since I think the first step is the financing, I put it under Budget.
<
p> – Dan
What the heck is “general reform”? Keep sending in those suggestions. You’ll get him off to a great start!!
We all complain that people aren’t paying enough attention to issues. But some people need an introduction to these topics before they could even begin to form an opinion.
<
p>
“Learn about …”
“Introduction to …”
<
p>
Where these could be government, law, science, public health, literature, local history, blogging, who knows.
<
p>
I have read about the public lectures that used to go on around the state, and they seemed fascinating.
now if we can just get the sheeple off the couch to participate in such a thing.
<
p>
In my very unscientific poll that I’ve taken by talking with neighbors and friends (not currently involved in politics) no one, to a person had any idea about the recent ConCon and what was being discussed.
<
p>
I guess we need to work harder out here in my neck of the woods to get folks to “check back in”
It’s Townsend, dude!
<
p>
grin
We’re going to keep trying. đŸ™‚
has a long-standing monthly forum on the issues for people living in his legislative district (Lexington, Arlington, Woburn). He might be tapped for ideas on how to better engage the next-doors.
I think more of the electeds should get involved doing these types of forums on a district-wide level. We should have contact with them, and not just during election years.
legislators not only do this routinely across the state, but hold fora at highschoolds. that might be a tough scheduling nightmare, but if we want an engaged citizenry, we need informed young citizens.
It’s never too early to be a well informed citizen.
Rep Kaufman does them monthly in his district at the American History Museum in Lexington on wide-ranging topics with speakers and Q & A from the audience. It’s video-taped by the local cable access station I think and then re-broadcast. A great public service. The forums are open to anyone and I ‘ve driven out from Boston to a couple over the years. Very high quality and I didn’t always agree with the speakers, but high quality nonetheless.
<
p>
Maybe the Civic Engagement team could explore encouraging something like these forums to happen in every district, with Rep Kaufman and others providing a template on how to put it together and have the local cable station participate to film and re-broadcast.
<
p>
Gee, I can think of a ga-zillion topics and groups to profile and speakers to invite. Maybe the legislators could even conduct a yearly survey of what topics/issues their constituents would like to learn/talk about and that could guide the programming…
<
p>
Hey, maybe I should submit my resume for this!
<
p>
I also agree that Electoral Reform is hugely important to be addressed ASAP; it’s an issue that underlies all other issues. I’ll go to the Civic Engagement site and add my support for both of these items. and maybe one other; details here!. It was so cool when my brother called from Austin TX as he finished voting at a poll in a Home Depot a week before election day. (not meant as an endorsement of HD!!)
I believe the General Court has something called the Citizens Legislative Acadamy, though I could be wrong on the name. In essence, legislators and others teach seminars on Wednesday mornings inside the building. Its kind of like a high level civics class, IIRC. The seats were limited, but that was OK because almost no one knew about it, and those who did were probably reading Inside Baseball already anyway. You also had to be sponsored by a legislator.
<
p>
I never attended, but I think it would be great if we could expand a program like this.
for both Legislators and the Governor have access to really great speaker series. All can attend those put on for the legislative interns, but only the Gov’s interns can attend those put on by the Gov’s intern program. With only 25 or so interns, its a small enough group that some really great conversations can take place.
political clubs. With a committed faculty member, students can learn, through direct participation, that government really is nothing but their neighbors in action.
<
p>
Even dealing with upper classmen, I find that students are truly detached from their government, as if their representation comes pre-packaged from a warehouse ready for use. I’ve worked hard the past two years to raise the profile of electoral politics at my school and have achieved real results. I think the concept is worth rolling out in a more organized fashion.
Yeah and if Deval doesn’t listen to you. You’ll all be whining in 6 months.
<
p>
Civic engagement is nothing new. All it takes is getting from behind the keyboard and volunteering in your city or town. That’s new????? You need a website to ask you that?
<
p>
I truly believe Deval has potential even though I am of the other party. However having a bit of inside knowledge over the past 16 years, he is going to have to give to get or Trav and Sal can easily put him out of business. It ALL happens behind the scene’s folks. Whether all you good gov, need for transparency types want to believe it or not. Trav and Sal will have more say in defining civic engagement than anyone else.
<
p>
Unless your at the table in room 360, the senate prez office or speakers office you don’t have a say, you follow.
<
p>
So kiss the ring at the inaguration, your man will be a different animal within a year and you won’t be happy.