Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

ConCon: no end in sight for marriage debate

By

After another interlude featuring two of the week’s biggest losers, we return you to the still-ongoing marriage debate.

Loscocco is still going, making perhaps the most tortured argument yet heard today…. Now we’re taking one of these incredibly annoying and time-consuming roll-calls to establish the existence of a quorum….

Roll call is done.  Loscocco has just moved to refer Question 19 back to committee and move on to Q20, and there will now be a roll-call vote on the motion.

Sounds like pro-marriage equality Senators are voting “no,” which would mean that the debate on Q19 will continue for a while yet.

UPDATE: Actually, almost every Senator voted “no.”  The House is now voting.  The roll-call machines are usually open for 4 minutes, but this time they’re only open for 3 minutes, which is usually a sign that the chair is getting concerned about running out of time.

FURTHER UPDATE: The motion to refer Q19 to a committee has failed by a vote of 25-168, and debate on it therefore continues.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

    • Always reminded me of Hector from Troilus and Cressida, but I don’t know WTF I’m talking about.

  2. You get to get up, take a bathroom break, watch some legislators from who-knows where have a conversation, grab something from the fridge, check email, watch some other people standing around checking out the carpet pattern, wonder why they chose that carpet pattern….

    <

    p>
    The possibilities are endless, really!

    • Reading the same announcement over and over and over again until you start to doubt your sanity!

      <

      p>
      Yeah!

    • the theme from “Jeopardy!”

      <

      p>
      Dee dee dee dee dee dee dee
      Dee dee dee dee deeeeeeeee dee-dee-dee-dee-dee
      Dee dee dee dee dee dee dee
      Dum de dum-dum dum, dum, DUM. Boom boom.

      <

      p>
      Time’s up!

      • Antonioni is usually pretty good on this issue.  It’s my St. Rep. Hargraves (R-Groton) who is a total asshat on this.  And he was just re-elected.  Awesome…

    • I believe they’re voting on whether to table the motion. i.e. a no vote means they want to vote on Q19.

      <

      p>
      Q19 is the extreme one, so it seems it’d be good to have a vote and a failure on it.

        • I disagree… I would rather see no votes to table, so it has to get a vote, and can be voted down (this is the extreme one that will in no way pass).

          <

          p>
          On Q20, well, I can see either way there…

      • I can’t find the Joint Session rule on point either.  But, here’s the House rule (House Rule 1A):

        <

        p>

        The House shall not be called to order before the hour of ten oÂ’clock A.M. nor meet beyond the hour of nine oÂ’clock P.M. At the hour of nine oÂ’clock P.M., if the House is in session, the Speaker shall interrupt the business then pending and shall, without debate, place before the House the question on suspension of this rule which shall be decided by a majority of members present and voting by a recorded yea and nay vote. If the vote is in the affirmative, said vote shall permit the House to remain in session until the hour of midnight; provided that the session shall not continue beyond the hour of midnight, unless by unanimous consent of the members present.

        <

        p>
        Not sure if it applies here.

        • I should have been more precise.  I can’t find a similar provision in the Joint Rules regarding continuing the joint session past certain times.

  6. I wanted to leap through the screen when he talked about appearing on “Christian TV” and being asked what was going on in Massachusetts.  Jeebus, what a geezer.

    <

    p>
    The correct answer, of course, was “civilization.”

    <

    p>
    I hope he enjoys his retirement — far, far, far away.

    <

    p>
    And now Rushing is up.

    • I think such a bill is a bad idea, and I’ll tell you why. And its not because I disagree.

      <

      p>
      First, the court already ruled that the constitution already covers that. Therefore it would be redundant.

      <

      p>
      Second (or, well, really, because of that) it would be a lot easier to defeat in the general election. Why vote for an amendment that is already in effect?

      <

      p>
      And third (or, well, really, because of that), a loss in the general election could give more wind to a vote the other way.

      <

      p>
      Whether this goes down in the legislature today, next year, or on the general ballot, it should be gotten over with.

    • and am following the debate only on the pages of BMG but if it is accurate about Losocco ursuping the role of the General Court, then he is correct.  I point out here that in Part the Second, Chapter III, Section IV, Article V of the Constitution the courts are given no role in deciding marriage law, aside from what the Legislature gives them.

  8. The vote to adjourn before consideration has begun.

    <

    p>
    I almost wish this were South Korea; I’d like some fisticuffs in the aisles.

  9. Why should the majority vote on the rights of the minority?  We already have married gay couple in Massachusetts, many with children, why the hell should I be allowed to deligitamize a marriage or a family simply because I’m uncomfortable with it?  Courts decide what is Constitutional and what is not.  The Court has ruled.  People have married.  It’s clearly not an issue for the people of this state or we would see chaos in the streets.  I hope they just nix this thing once and for all.

Archives