Senator Joyce (D-Milton) is up. This might be a long one, since he’s starting with a historical overview…. Shorter than I thought. Rep. Byron Rushing is up…. Rushing is talking at length — expect someone to rise soon to ask if he’ll yield, and expect him to decline to do so…. Ha! I was right — Rep. Parente asked Rushing to yield, but he didn’t. She then tried to make some wacky point about the anti-aid amendment, which Trav ruled out of order. And Rushing continues….
UPDATE: Debate is done, and they’re calling the roll on question 19.
FURTHER UPDATE: Question 19 goes down to a resounding defeat, as expected, by a vote of 0-196. Big question is whether they repeat the entire debate for question 20, or whether they move quickly to a vote.
He literaly decided the day before he ran for Congress in 2001 that he was pro-choice, after getting rave reviews from Mass. Citizens for Life his whole career.
He was the first guy to take Deval Patrick around, so he’s OK in my book.
http://www.bostonpho…
that he hasn’t done good things, or had good votes. I’m saying that if you switch your position from being prolife to being prochoice when it is so obviously a political ploy, then I cant trust you when other big issues arise.
That’s all I’m saying.
Anyone know the rule for when they have to quit? The joint rules (R. 25) just say they can recess on vote of the majority, but there must be some guidance about when that would be…
<
p>
http://www.mass.gov/…
9:00 p.m.?
He’s like the frakking energizer bunny, but not in a good/funny way. Someone slap a 10 minute time limit on him, please…
<
p>
Seriously, it’s killing me. I appreciate his support… but enough is enough lol.
all no’s so far.
Being out here in the western wilds, all I’ve got is the posts here and at Bay Windows. Help us poor cousins out by giving more deatils!
….can someone briefly say. Thanks
19 is more severe (it would ban civil unions, domestic partnership benefits, etc.) and requires more votes. 20 only requires 50 votes and says nothing about civil unions/domestic partnership/etc.
19 is a legislative ammendment which means it originated in the legislature and needs a majority of the legislature to approve it in two consecutive sessions before it can go on the ballot. It would ban same sex marriage and any other law conferring marriage-like rights on same sex couples. It’s doomed to failure.
<
p>
20 is a citizen initiative which is here because enough signatures were gathered. It requires only 1/4 of the legislature to approve it in two consecutive sessions in order to pass. It would bar future same-sex marriages, but not void those that have already happened. It doesn’t do anything relative to civil unions. This is the one that’s truly at issue today.
Reschedualed for Jan 2 – is that before or after the next term? (I think after.)
<
p>
If it is after, question 20 is null and void. They’ll have to get the signatures all over again.
….just said the vote to recess to 1/2/07 KILLS the amendment. Hope that’s the case!!!!
then it is dead. Might that be the Plan?
They can still vote on it on 1/2/07, or they can kill it then.