Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

ConCon: th-th-th-that’s all, folks!

By

The joint session has voted 109-87 to adjourn until January 2, 2007, at 2 pm.  In theory, I suppose, there’s no reason they couldn’t still vote to advance the marriage question to the next session at that point, since the session doesn’t expire until the new members are sworn in (which will be the following day, January 3).  So I’m not exactly sure what the point of this is, other than to drag the issue out yet again.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. I could understand doing it after January 3rd… but other than that, it makes no sense. They should have just gotten it over with one way or the other today, or killed it dead through parliamentary procedure. This was pretty much the worst thing they could do.

  2. I asked what this means on the last post.  They adjourned to a date when this year’s legislature will still have the power to vote on this.  But, I guess it is highly unlikely that will happen.  I mean, all that prep for the inauguration and all, 2 days later.

    <

    p>
    Thanks bunches for blogging this, BTW.

    • <

      p>

      Except in cases where the elimination or prevention of the development or spread of a substandard, decadent or blighted open area is provided by law, the taking of land or interests therein by eminent domain for the sole purpose of economic development is hereby declared not to be a public use of commonwealth under the first paragraph of Article X of Part the First of the Constitution.

      • And with a blockquote to boot.  Damn!

        <

        p>
        BTW, the health care amendment was sent back to committee last time, iirc.

      • Who introduced that?  Well done, whomever it was, though I could do without that whole first clause.

        • I saw that 1st clause too. 

          <

          p>
          Kinda takes the teeth out of the amendment, although on reflection I pretty much think all of Cambridge as blighted and wouldn’t mind some serious excavation. 😉

        • the purpose of the amendment seems to be intended to preserve the existing state of the law; Kelo determined that the US Constitution would allow non-blighted property to be taken for purposes of economic development, so this amendment writes in the requirement that only property determined to be blighted may be taken for purposes of economic development. Prior to Kelo, it was assumed that the “public purpose” requirement meant that such projects could only be justified to deal with “blight.”

  4. this question could be irrelevent on multiple respects, but… since the majority of people arguing for it were lame ducks, would the new legislature that starts on Jan 3rd still have the votes to pass it?

    <

    p>
    I thought we were close here, and if several anti-marriage legislatures were knocked out, what’s the new legislature look like?

    • it has to pass* in this session, and in the next. 

      <

      p>
      * where “pass” means to get 25% of the vote

    • But we don’t actually know what the vote tally was for letting it go forward.

      <

      p>
      CW said there were 54 votes for letting it go forward.

      <

      p>
      5 anti-equality legislators lost.  So there’d be only 49.  IF CW is correct.

      • And how did he/she get that 54 number?

        <

        p>
        And how does it correlate to the # of those that lost?  This would still be in the lame duck session, correct?  According to Bay Windows, seven, not five anti-equality legislators lost their seats.

        • This was based upon public statements by current legislators and their prospective replacements.

          <

          p>
          7?  Cool, I could only count 5 when I was looking at results.

          <

          p>
          If that’s the case, it really is dead.  No matter how much out-of-state money is poured into signature collection.

  7. How many more times are they going to do this?

    <

    p>
    Can we pass a law that says we don’t have to pay them for every day they continue to waste our time and money?

    <

    p>
    What is the point of this?

    • If it becomes apparent that the legislature is not going to take up a vote the SJC has ruled that the Governor can call them back into session.  Jan 2 is the very last day they could vote on this before it dies.  By scheduling another Con Con on the last possible day it prevents Romney from calling them back since they have manifested an intention to consider the amendment on Jan. 2.  The fail to vote, Jan. 3 new legislature, no option to call old legislature back into session.  Amendment dead.  That is why they are doing this.

  10. According to Bay Windows there is a reason why they picked recess.

    <

    p>

    The significance of the recess vote as opposed to an adjournment vote is that Governor Mitt Romney cannot call the legislature back into session.

    • And if they adjourn on January 2 without taking up the measure, Romney will never be able to call them back into session. I’m pretty sure that’s the entire rationale for this.

  11. Re this comment:

    <

    p>
    “BTW, the health care amendment was sent back to committee last time, iirc.
    by: JillK.”

    <

    p>
    WRONG WRONG WRONG. The CITIZENS health care amendment not “sent back” anywhere. It was dealt a VERY underhanded and unethical blow by legislative leadership who seem not to value establishing the right to health care.  Sen. Moore withdrew the study committee motion so that leadership could spend an hour twisting arms and blackmailing legislators to vote in favor of “sending it to study”.  A tactic used at the behest of the insurance industry, most likely, to kill it.  Despicable at best.

    <

    p>
    Gee, is it too much to ask that we join the rest of the civilized industrialized world?  Is it too much to ask that the people of this state lead the way on that?  Many folks seem to feel that we can lead the way on other human rights, ones that do not DIRECTLY relate to thousands of people living or dying.  For 3 years many of us activists have supported the work to beat back the anti marriage equality amendment while working to advance a right to health care.  Is it too much to ask that people who value equality and dignity also help this effort to establish a right to comprehensive affordable health care?

    <

    p>
    The health care amendment was created by hundreds of clinicians, patients who are UNINSURED, and by many other ordinary people who share a commitment to making health care a human right.  This will give us the VITALLY needed tool to set publicly accountable standards and a strong legal platform for health system reforms.  These elements are sorely lacking at present.

    • I know health care providers and insurance may be against it, but I haven’t been able to find discussion of opposing views.

        • Upon ratification of this amendment and thereafter, it shall be the obligation and duty of the Legislature and executive officials, on behalf of the Commonwealth, to enact and implement such laws, subject to approval by the voters at a statewide election, as will ensure that no Massachusetts resident lacks comprehensive, affordable and equitably financed health insurance coverage for all medically necessary preventive, acute and chronic health care and mental health care services, prescription drugs and devices.

          <

          p>
          Doesn’t the current Reform adequately address the issue of the uninsured? 

          <

          p>
          The above language is nice and fluffy, but my question is how does this amendment change things?  What is industry’s opposition?

          • and it’s one that is answered about 3/4 of the way down the campaign homepage also excerpted below for your ease:

            <

            p>
            Frequently Asked Question

            <

            p>
            Some people have recently asked “Do we need the Constitutional Amendment now that we have a health reform bill?”

            <

            p>
            The answer is: “Yes, Now More Than Ever!”

            <

            p>
            We need the Health Care Constitutional Amendment now more than ever to make sure the promise of these current health reforms is fulfilled and that we have the tools to finish the job if we need them to ensure that comprehensive coverage for everyone is affordable and sustainable over time.

            <

            p>
            History tells us that legislation by itself is not enough.  The employer mandate in the 1988 Massachusetts Universal Health Care Law was repealed before it was ever implemented. History also tells us that even a ballot initiative for a law may not be enough.  The people enacted the Clean Elections Law only to be stalled and eventually repealed by the Legislature.  The only major, progressive reform that has been fully implemented – education reform – has a constitutional anchor backed up by the Supreme Judicial Court.

            <

            p>
            The Health Care Amendment creates that constitutional anchor for affordable, comprehensive, equitable coverage.  It will make sure that the promise of today’s reform is fulfilled and that if additional reform is needed tomorrow, we’ll have the political and legal tools we need to get the job done.

            <

            p>
            Now ann will add her two cents worth:

            <

            p>
            our new state health reform law Chapter 58 has some very harmful and wasteful financing mechanisms, those being the individual mandate, sliding scale subsidies, tax penalites.

            <

            p>
            Do we really need more bureacracy and fragmentation to address the problems in our bloated and fragmented health system? The new Connector automatically sucks up $25 mil in state budget funds, and instead of simply expanding MassHealth the law creates more layers of commercial insurance products to be sold at a profit to folks forced to buy them under threat of financial penalty–half the price of an annual premium will be the penalty in the law’s 2nd year.

            <

            p>
            Romney even put out a press release last April trumpeting the new law and how the individual mandate/Connector component in it came from the [right wing] Heritage Foundation.

            <

            p>
            “…if additional reform is needed tomorrow, we’ll have the political and legal tools we need to get the job done.”

            <

            p>
            If we could only have this amendment tool tomorrow it wouldn’t be soon enough IMHO!

        • why would the insurance industry be against a law that would result in the companies gaining something on the order of 30% more business?

          • armageddon for the private health insurance industry would be a single payer system, which would basically eliminate the need for their ‘services’.
            any step towards that ultimate end is going to be wildly opposed.

    • I was uncertain what happened, hence the “iirc”.  Thanks for setting us all straight, but throttle back a bit.  I wasn’t happy to see it not happen.  I work in Health Care. 

      <

      p>
      Thanks!

    • is what I meant to “say”.

      <

      p>
      Why does it seem that people can only care about one “rights” issue at a time?

      <

      p>
      PLEEEZ learn about this right to health care issue through the campaign site and thru our site which is run by front-line health care clinicians, many of whom work caring for the poor and uninsured, soem of the 18,000 people who DIE each year as in the U.S. as a direct result of not having health insurance (this from the National Institute of Medicine-report link on Resources page).

      <

      p>
      Have a heart, and a soul.  Support a right to health care or at least discuss why it does not deserve support, if that’s what the BMG silence means.

    • because I know that you are a very passionate advocate about this issue and have worked long and hard.

      <

      p>

      Is it too much to ask that people who value equality and dignity also help this effort to establish a right to comprehensive affordable health care?

      <

      p>
      It’s a valid question, but screaming at people you are trying to ally with is probably not a great strategy. 

      • I see the effects of inadequate or non-existent health coverage every single work day.  I don’t need to be lectured to nor screamed at.

        <

        p>
        I’d suggest writing a diary draft, setting it aside for a day or two, editing out the hostile/lecturing/condescending/angry bits and then publishing it. Make sure to tag it appropriately so folks interested in the issue can find it using the ‘Search’ function on this site.

        <

        p>
        If it’s good enough, it will be promoted to the front page and you will have effectively reached lots of people.

        <

        p>
        Thanks!

        • Imagine how effective it would have been if you had replied this way:

          <

          p>
          “Hi JillK.  You’re kind of close.  In the last ConCon, legislators voted to “send the Citizens Health Care Amendment to study” – a tactic used to kill it. It was a blow since the effort to establish a right to comprehensive affordable health care had involved hundreds of concerned Mass citizens – clinicians, uninsured patients and many ordinary people – for over three years.

          <

          p>
          But we were not defeated! Go to our website for more information on how you can get involved in making healthcare a right in Massachusetts — a right as inviolable as the right to choose who you wish to marry.”

        • thoughtful pieces on the health care/ gay marriage ConCon issue and in fact one was recently promoted to the front page (thanks!) but then no comments were posted on it so I was left to ponder “does anyone even care?”.  (maybe I should have been pondering “I’m not that bad a writer, am I?” …)

          <

          p>
          None of this is about me personally.  It’s about the hundreds of thousands of people across our state and the millions across the country who need and deserve comprehensive health care and the all of us who need ande deserve a functional affordable health system.

          <

          p>
          Many of the activists working for this health care amendment are also front-line clinicians working in / mired in our dysfunctional health care system.  We bear witness to the needless suffering, by working within the system we are a part of the obscene waste that our system perpetuates. It is very demoralizing for many.  It is intense for most.  Yes, rewarding too but often exhausting.

          <

          p>
          So four years ago the clinicians and patients at the Alliance and many other groups and individuals, set about to create a citizen’s campaign to establish a constitutional right to “comprehensive, affordble and equitably financed” health care. Please see Health Care For Mass campaign site for all the language including detailed footnotes and more.

          <

          p>
          This amendment campaign has been undertaken in order to change the health reform debate and the policy work from “if” and “for who” to “now” and “for all”.  Yes, it is a very serious undertaking and was not done lightly. It is expected to be an approach to make health system improvements that will last, that will have permanence. 

          <

          p>
          Many good reforms that were achieved have been undone.  We then have to re-fight the same fight to help some folks get access to some services, and be left to wonder how long will they last this time?

          <

          p>
          A constitutional right has staying power.  It also frames the public dialogue where it belongs, in a discussion about values and rights and shared obligation in our society. The “shared obligation” component of the healht care amendment is the reason that Deval Patrick offered to me for why “I can get behind it” (Patrick’s words) when I spoke with him last winter at a health conference and asked for his opinion and his support for the effort.

          <

          p>
          Adding the proposed health care amendment language to our state constitution will provide a vitally needed tool, a tool with legal teeth, to set clear and publicly accountable standards for state health system reform.  Those standards are the amendment language written by a team of constitutional law attorneys, clinicians and health policy experts. Read the testimony from many of these individuals in support of the amendment and why the rationale for its approach is sound–heck, read the July 12 ConCon testimony in support of the health care amendment to understand the rationale.

          <

          p>
          I hope many of you kind readers will understand my passion and my limitations. I am a working mom with 2 small kids, 2 jobs, and a commitment to civic engagement and social justice that takes its toll at times.  Hopefully not a toll on my kids, my family, and not harshly on anyone else.  Maybe my “shouting” was partly from that.

    • You really picked a defensive way to go about pointing it out. You may want to take a second look at jillk’s comment. Notice the “iirc”. That means “if I remember correctly”, in case you were unaware…

    • JillK didn’t deserve the tone of your response.  IIRC invites civil correction if the “remember correctly” part of the comment is wrong.  Geez. 

  12. I support same sex marriange and would work hard to defeat the amendement should it come to a popular vote…..

    <

    p>
    But doesn’t this maneuver amount to the kind of majority bullying that makes us despise the Republicans in Federal government?

    <

    p>
    I think that it would be much better to hand the “one man one women” people a sound defeat at the polls and give them no reason to feel cheated.

    • I agree, and I am so glad someone else said it…While MassEquality and marriage proponents are declaring victory, it just is not settling well with me.  The choice to use this technique does not address the issue at all, and instead is like hiding behind a political screen instead of doing what’s right.  I believe what is right is not allowing the majority to dictate discrimination into our constitution against a minority, and as a majority we vote in the representitives who vote in Congress; therefore our voices are heard.  This “let the people vote” campaign ignores the reality that the people have voted, through the representitive government in place, and who they chose to elect.  By utilizing a political scheme, to skew the truth in this issue, they are being unfair, and closeminded.  Yet the tactics used to ignore the issue by Congress is similarly underhanded, so how much of a victory is this?

      • Sometimes Legislators just need to lead.  The South had Jim Crow laws for nearly a century. And it took the Federal Government stepping in for them to even start on the road of granting equal rights to all their citizens.

        <

        p>
        If you want a Massachusetts example, think of all the injustices committed against Quakers – torture, imprisonment, executions – by the Puritan majority.  Do we really need to go through that again?

        <

        p>
        For issues where prejudice and false information cloud the voters’ minds, letting them decide is not the best route.  The resulting injustices can take decades to redress.

        • A better argument is that the Constitution gives the legislature power to decide which issues get sent to a vote, precisely to allow a No on some issues.

          • argument, and it’s an argument that is legitimate.  We can debate which approach is “best,” but the fact remains that both have merit.  We elect representation for a purpose, not the least of which is to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.  We can all predict with some certainty what would have happened if we’d put Jim Crow laws in the South or court-ordered desegregation of the schools in Massachusetts to a popular vote when the issues were timely.

            <

            p>
            The argument is valid and compelling, but you are, of course, free to disagree. 

        • The vote was down.  In flames.  I sent a note to my two legislators thanking them for once again voting the right way.  Clearly they are listening to their constituents — my rep beat her “let the people vote” opponent 71-25.

          <

          p>
          There have been two elections since the legislators had to take their stands on the issue, and the only people fooled have been those who thought supporting equal marriage would be a minus.  The message is clear: it’s time to move on.

          <

          p>  – Dan 

        • Which ones of the 101+ legislators who voted to recess until Jan 2 promised an up or down vote in this Session?… a session which, incidentally, isn’t technically over.

          <

          p>
          You’ve made lots of claims over the past few days about the Dems in the lege, without links — and things that certainly aren’t common knowledge.  So, got some links?  I ain’t saying you’re wrong, but I have no reason to believe that you’re right either.

    • The idea is that issues of basic human rights are not subject to popular vote, and attempts to bring them to popular vote can and should  be defeated by any means necessary. It’s an idea I happen to agree with.

      <

      p>
      Would you agree with an initiative to put desegregation to a popular vote? Women’s right to own land/vote? In my eyes, it’s pretty much the same thing.

      • Our system explicitly allows for votes on “basic human rights” and everything else. That’s why we have an amendment process. You’d do better to focus on the process argument, as I noted above, than making these blanket claims about “basic” rights: what is basic today is different from what was basic before, and no doubt will be different from what is basic in the future, but the process has remained relatively stable.

        • In my opinion, the process which brings these initiatives to ConCon and maybe the popular vote should have limitations, including the very simple idea that we stand as citizens before the Commonwealth as equals. I do agree and understand that is not currently the case.

          <

          p>
          When the judicial system made its decision, same sex marriage became a basic civil right. Their interpretation of the state Constitution resulted in the decision that the previous exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage was incorrect, and that needed to be changed. End of discussion. So I respectfully disagree, I think it’s a fine argument to talk about the rights aspect.

          <

          p>
          In the past when issues of injustice and equality, whether racial/social/sexual/etc. have come up the decisions to change them have been made primarily by the judicial branch of government. There is a reason for this, some of which fall back on the discussion earlier today that justices are protected from the next election cycle. You are correct that what is basic is a fluid, malleable thing but…Once it has been affirmed as an interpretation of the framework of the Commonwealth, that’s that IMHO.

          <

          p>
          I’ll get back to the question I asked before, even though no one seems to want to provide an answer: Do you think it would be OK if we put to popular vote the idea of racial equality? If a group had collected enough signatures to ask the voters to end desegregation, would you feel that was a valid use of the democratic processes you obviously hold dear? I’m not trying to patronize you, but essentially I believe that there are things that should not be subject to the amendment processes. Desegregation is one, same-sex marriage is another, and there are a few more. The amendment system needs to be altered, in my belief, to keep us from having to undertake this discussion. Until it is, I support whatever tactics the Legislature undertakes to kill this ASAP.

          <

          p>
          It’s a basic civil right, and it should not be on the table.

      • Isn’t the main thing that the scientific consensus has moved on this?  In 1950, one might have diagnosed homosexuality as a neurosis or character disorder; one might think it did not run very deep, that no one was “born” that way.  Now, there’s considerable evidence that it is not a psychological disorder and it is not something one can change.  It is not, as the religious right likes to call it, a “lifestyle”.  It runs deeper.

        <

        p>
        So, in 1950, gay rights did not seem like a human rights issue.  It seemed and was treated like the right to be paranoid. Those days are gone.  Today, we don’t speak of homosexuality, the condition, but of gay people whom we know rather than read about.

        <

        p>
        Marriage has morphed too.

        <

        p>
        Centuries ago, marriage was indeed a union of man and wife.  Women were clearly subordinate, expected to be subordinate, and treated as subordinate.  Today we would regard marriages where women are treated that way as sick marriages needing help.  The equalizing of marital roles has changed the institution so again it makes sense to think about gay couples getting married.  A marriage between two men in 1900 might be greeted with the question, “Which one is the wife?”  In 2006, straight people ask themselves, “What does it mean to be a wife?”  Roles are fluid enough that they require creativity.

        <

        p>
        This is how something once untraditional is becoming increasingly traditional and how something no one would have recognized as a human right now looks very much like a human right.

    • and maybe not even such a good result, if the health care amendment dies alongside the anti-SSM amendment.

    • The problem GLBT advocates have to wrestle with is that the poisonous debate opponents of GLBT equality engage in, broadcast over the media for weeks and weeks, leads to a rise in gaybashings. We saw that in 1996 when DOMA passed in Washington, and we’ve seen it in Mass. particularly in 2004. Excuse me if I don’t care to get thrashed by teen homophobes who’ve been incited by the hateful anti-gay rhetoric coming from the religious right, so that people who have no comprehension of homophobia can feel good about popular democracy. The GLBT community will not be moved by concerns like these, because we’re the ones on the business ends of the basher’s fists. Deal with it. (Insert finger snap here.)

      • I can relate to the concern about being on the receiving end of a fist.  Sometimes I was beat up by white kids and a couple times it was by black kids “for thinking I could be an oreo”.

        <

        p>
        In the late 1980’s I went to a talk given by Barney Frank at the Community Church of Boston about the need for universal health care reform.  Barney’s one of the best speakers on the health care issue that I’ve ever heard (of course, he’s great on most all issues). Later I tried to intervene when some homophobes were hassling him outside on Boylston St.  He got into a cab but I was really shook up and pissed.  I know what you’re talking about, tudor 586.

        <

        p>
        In 2006, now having worked in health care for 30 years and the past 14 as a nurse caring mostly for folks who are poor and sick I’ve gained an expanded view on discrimination, suffering, injustice, inequality, and on the callousness to said human conditions.  For many years I’ve been trying to be an effective health care justice activist rooted in social justice. I worked with Boston ACT-UP in the late ’80’s and early ’90’s. These days, realizing my limitations and other life commitments I’ve choosen to tackle what I know best: health care inequality and the need for a legal right to care.

        <

        p>
        This rights-based approach takes health care out of the “commodity” context and places in squarely in the “individual and social good” context whre it belongs. Tragically, the new state health law pushes health care farther in the commodity direction.  And it wastes huge amounts of public money in the process.

        <

        p>
        So I feel compelled to ask you: Is there some way that we, tudor586 and other GLBT activists together with health justice activists, can work together to defeat the anti marriage equalty rights amendment while we simultaneously advance the right to health care amendment in getting its 2nd due vote at the Jan 2 ConCon?

  13. Killing it by intentional neglect is not such a bad way to go.  Those who would vote to put it on the ballot also realize that they are at risk because their constituencies, for the most part, have voted for Patrick.  Very few can claim a voter mandate at this point.

    <

    p>
    Those who would vote to kill it fear–and rightly–an obscene debacle in this state for the next two years that would make the lives of gays, lesbians, and their families a living hell.  Every religious nutbag who isn’t already a Borg for the Westboro Baptist Church (Kansas, that is) will be mobilized to front the ugly battle for the home-grown Christian conservatives, chief among them devout Catholics, in the Commonwealth. 

    <

    p>
    I predict no quorum on January 2. 

    <

    p> 

  14. The point of recessing instead of adjourning is that the Mittster could keep calling the legislature back into session interminably if they adjourned sine die. And he would. If they adjourn on January 2d, the date before the old session ends and the petition dies, the Mittster’s powers will be all but drained. If he tries anything then, there will no better response to Slick Willard and his homophobic deeds than the words spoken by Glenda the Good Witch to the Wicked Witch of the West, who was interloping in Munchkinland: “Oh rubbish! You have no power here! Be gone, before somebody drops a house on you!” Think of it as a farewell gesture to the Mittster from his GLBT friends!

  15. This is starting to stink.  As someone who is a firm believer in and activist for marriage equality, I detest the idea of a procedural kill on the ban on marriage equality.  It might kill the threat at the moment, but it keeps it alive as an issue.

    <

    p>
    I do have faith that a majority of Bay Staters would vote for equality in a referendum.  But even if I am wrong, keeping marriage equality on the books thanks to unelected judges and procedural three-card-monte only continues this as a motivating issue for conservatives.

    <

    p>
    I think the best comparison is abortion.  Abortion is widely supported across this country, even in South Dakota, which defeated a ban engineered by Governor Rounds that would have made Pope Benedict proud.  But as long as it is viewed as protected by Roe rather than protected by the democratic will of the American people, it will be a great lever for conservative anger.  If abortion were but on more referednums/initiatives around the country and confirmed by popular vote, it would take the wind out of the sails of abortion opponents.  Same with gay marriage.

    <

    p>
    Until it can be demonstrated that the people support marriage equality, conservatives will still rake in huge amounts of cash denouncing this as a scheme perpretated by activist judges.  If we want to take this off the table as a right-wing scare tactic, if we want to be 100% secure in the permanence of equality, we must let the people vote. 

    • I assume you mean motivation for conservatives nationally, rather than here in Massachusetts — since obviously MA conservatives, even if motivated because of gay marriage, have lost miserably at the polls in both 2004 and 2006 in the Commonwealth. I’m not too worried about them.

      <

      p>
      But even if MA voters voted to support marriage equality, then why would this de-motivate conservatives nationwide? Right-wingers in other states have denounced Massachusetts ever since we took a leading role in overthrowing British control as well as with the abolitionist movement. Why would they stop now? And since our vote would have nothing to do with them, they would still be amending their constitutions to ban gay marriage and the like anyway.

      <

      p>
      So I guess I am not clear on your point.

  16. Despite my agreement with the idea of killing this vote however necessary, I do think that it sucks that all of the items behind #20 stand to die without being aired out. (I think I’m correct that this is what will happen…?)

    • there’s no quorum, or they just gavel the session closed, yes, that’s what will happen.  So the health care amendment, the eminent domain amendment, the redistricting amendment, and the rainy day fund amendment will all die.  However, all of them can easily be reintroduced — except the health care amendment, which is an initiative and was here having already been passed by the last legislature (this was the last stop before the ballot).  So it really sucks for the health care amendment; it’s a bump in the road and a year’s delay for the rest of them.

      • since these can appear on the ballot only in even-numbered years.  The rainy day fund amendment was approved by last year’s ConCon, if I’m reading the agenda correctly.  If it dies, it will have to start over.

        • try to convince our legislators that any group of citizens “who have labored in good faith over the past 3 years, assiduously respecting and following the citizen initiative process” deserve to at least have their amendment voted on.  Then the health care amendment can simply be taken in turn.

          <

          p>
          Since no one expects that to happen, you would have to convince those who are plotting to kill the SSM amendment to show up and vote to take the healthcare (and e. domain, etc) amendment out of order, vote on them, and then adjourn before they got to SSM.

          <

          p>
          I don’t expect that to happen either, however.  Looks like a lot of people are going to lose out because some people believe the end justifies the means.

          • the individuals and organizations that initiated the HC amendment back in 2002 have been attempting to meaningfully address fundamental health system public policy, and its inherent elements as a human rights issue, for over a decade in concerted fashion.

            <

            p>
            why on earth should this hc amendment go down as a result of a group of bigots advancing something that doesn’t even have the merit of being considered a constitutional right?  they’re not trying to uphold a right they’re trying to discriminate and enshrine inequality.  it would not pass opn the ballot.  it wouldn’t even pass in a 2nd ConCon.

            <

            p>
            In 2002-03 we convened multiple open meetings and using input form those the team drafted multiple versions of the proposed amendment language.  the draft process was led by a constitutional law attorney who modeled the language structure on that of the existing constitutional language authored by john adams that established the right to public education.

            <

            p>
            Mass. was the first state to include public education in its state constitution. then other states followed suit and then ultimately the nation did.  Mass. now has the opportunity to lead on establishing and upholding comprehensive health care as a universal right too.

            <

            p>
            since its official launch in 2003, the hc amendment campaign has been endorsed by over 130 organizations across the state.  because most of those groups have multiple issues on their agenda, only a handful of groups have made the arduous hc amendment campaign a top priority.  this has been dissapointing but the reality.  and to compound the challenge, because the hc amendment effort has encountered such persistent underhanded and destructive tactics with little help form “leading” advocacy groups (whose style is to make backroom deals that include selling out the hc amendment) many groups feel overwhelmed and defeated already by the magnitude of this struggle.

            <

            p>
            the Alliance to Defend Health Care formed in 1996 after years of legislative efforts to enact universal health care and responsible efficient healthcare financing went nowhere on a broad scale.  In 1998 we helped launch what became the statewide binding ballot initiative known as Question 5 in 2000.

            <

            p>
            Q5 sought to establish a state system for universal healthcare by July 2004 and to set a 10% limit on admin. spending by health insurers.  Q5 was outspent 100 to 1 by our state’s non-profit HMO’s (BCBS leading the pack) and it lost 48 to 52%.  The problems have not gone away.  In fact most have gotten worse.  Although there are fewer without any insurance at all, the costs are crippling all of us–employers, families, individuals and the state budget, and the coverage is getting increasingly skimpy leading to bankruptcies and home foreclosures for those people who develop severe illness and have insurance!

            <

            p>
            the hc system is such a mess in so many ways–the foremost one of these being the tragic preventable deaths and unimaginable suffering that families and clinicians bear witness to every day–so we advocates are keeping our eye on the prize of comprehensive affordable care for all.  the hc amendment seems our last best hope to advance toward that goal.

  17. I’m not really seeing why there’s as much opposition to killing this amendment through “procedural” means rather than “an up or down vote”.

    <

    p>
    First off, do people object to the SJC’s decision in Goodridge because it was decided by an unrepresentative court? Perhaps this is a legitimate position to take, but I’d be surprised for liberals to be making it. So if you agree with the decision, why the distaste over the legislature killing it through “procedural” means? If the latter is “undemocratic”, why isn’t the former?

    <

    p>
    Secondly, nearly everyone following this at all knows that a vote for recess is a vote for gay marriage rights. So I don’t think the issue is so easily divided into “procedural” and “substantive” parts.

    <

    p>
    Thirdly, it is the job of the legislature to represent the residents of the Commonwealth as well as help safeguard our rights in our Constitution. I’m not clear on how declining to take up an anti-gay marriage vote is failing on either count. If, in the judgment of the legislature, declining to take this up is the right thing to do in pursuit of resident’s rights, then I don’t see the problem. The people will be able to vote against their legislator if they so choose in the next election if they don’t like how s/he’s representing them, just like they did in 2004 and 2006.

    <

    p>
    Thoughts?

    • Goodridge went the other way, and the SJC did not find a right to SSM in the Constitution.  Outraged, a group of citizens collected a record number of signatures to explicitly write into the Constitution a right to SSM.

      <

      p>
      During the ConCon, however, a group of anti-SSM legislators were trying to kill it through procedural manovers, and denying a vote on it all together, efffectivly killing other important amendments as well.  Would everyone still support this type of action then, or would everyone on BMG be up in arms?  I have to believe that it is the latter.

    • The SJC’s role in gay marriage is quite democratic, because the judicial system is part of this democracy.  Each branch of government is given powers for rule under the constitution, and just because the SJC is not elected does not mean itÂ’s not democratic.  However, the constitution also gives the people the ability to make decisions through popular vote with a citizen’s petition, if they can get 25% of the legislature to agree with them.  Just because a citizenÂ’s initiative is made, does not mean legislators will agree or that it will go to the public.  By utilizing political (which does not have to be democratic) tools that allows a majority in Congress to get away with killing the amendment instead of dealing with it, Congress is acting undemocratic.  This is because the democratic procedure is the signatures and 25% of legislature, not ignoring it until it goes away.  Just because we are for the amendment dying, doesnÂ’t mean we should compromise the principles that uphold our government through Machiavellian understanding.  The end does not always justify the means.

      • The SJC’s role in gay marriage is quite democratic, because the judicial system is part of this democracy.

        <

        p>
        Perhaps, but the legislature is obviously “part of this democracy” and the people have the chance to vote legislatures out of office to boot. So the legislature makes a “procedural” decision here in a way that it thinks best represents the interest of the people, and this is somehow undemocratic?

        <

        p>
        I still do not understand this reasoning.

  18. Ugh!! This is just getting stupid…

    <

    p>

    1. The legislature needs to stop playing these games. It’s a despicable amendment but it got the signatures, and our constitution says we need 75% support to override it. (A caveat to do with signature fraud, and that seems an obvious reason to delay during investigation, what happened with that?) Now we know there’s only 49 anti-marriage legislators left, why not have an up-and-down vote, let it pass by a few and then kill it in another ConCon in mid-January? Can someone explain why that can’t work? If some how it still passes, then the people will come out strong to defeat it at the ballot box.
    2. It will be an absolute utter shame to kill the our right to health care, along with very important initiatives on eminent domain, independent redistricting, and creating a pernament rainy day fund. These are extremely important issues  that need to be dealt with. Stop playing games with our health care and our democracy!

    • If we know we have the votes to kill it, it would have been a show of strength to end this thing now. 

      <

      p>
      I understand Bob’s process argument and I agree with him.  But we lose face in public dialogue like this, and like it or not, the equal marriage issue is still very much being played out in public.  They’re not going to understand this move.

      <

      p>
      Just win the damn vote.

      • I wouldn’t be so confident that we will have the votes next year.  The 49 number that is being thrown around is not real.  It’s based on a ballpark number that we were “around five votes short” for the ConCon this year. 

        <

        p>
        I wouldn’t be so confident.  I think the REAL answer is that we don’t know.

  19. This Op Ed in the Boston Globe by Linda Dorcena Forry discusses a marriage vote taken in Alabama just 6 years ago.  Alabama still had a law on the books banning interracial marriage and they were voting to officially get rid of the ban.  Seems like an easy vote doesn’t it?  The ban was lifted but 40% of the voters voted to keep the ban on interracial marriage in place.  Can you imagine that?  That is a lot of people in the state who thought that people of different races shouldn’t mix.

    <

    p>
    This ship has sailed.  We have lots of gay marriages in Massachusetts now, the sky still hasn’t fallen and the voters don’t need to have the right to tell them they have to go backwards.  Every thing that comes up before the legislature doesn’t have a right to get voted on or passed.  We have processes and the process to change the constitution is purposefully not easy.

  20. But would you want the people of Massachusetts to vote on YOUR marriage.  Assuming that most of you are heterosexual, would you want someone else voting on whether you have equal rights or not?  Regardless of whether we have the votes, these type of things should never be put to a majority vote.  What’s next?  Should we vote on who is able to have children or not? If a citizen’s petition was put forth to declare that all red headed people should have no rights do you think that should go to the voters.  Let’s be real.  Somethings should never be voted on.  This amendment was taking away rights from a certain group.  The legislators backed away from the gay marriage slant and tried to put it in a “legislative” light but a rose is a rose is a rose.  This amendment was about discrimination, pure and simple.

    • IF this is so clear cut – wy wasn’t it adjourned last July, not postponed until AFTER the election?  Why did Traviglini say there WOULD be an up or down vote?

      <

      p>
      Upthread, there is a coment about what the response would be if it was an issue you APPROVED of that was being blocked from a vote by procedureal maneuvering.  Would THAT be OK?  Or is this justification only for issues you agree with?

      <

      p>
      The SSM forces are hypocrites.  IF any end justifies the means, which is the stance they support, they had better beware the whirlwind they may be sowing.

      • This parliamentary move would not have been possible if a clear majority of the citizens were supportive of a ban on SSM. The legislature simply wouldn’t have been able to get away with it. At this point most of us are comfortable with the SSM status quo. This measure was destined to fail but only after a protracted campaign bringing in forces and money from outside the state. The majority of the legislature saw it this way and saved us from the consequent misery. Let’s move on with issues that are central to the well-being of the people of the commonwealth.

        • And I ask again – if the citizenry is so supportive, WHY did the ConCon need to be moved to AFTER the election so the Legislators wouldn’t be held accountable for two more years?

          <

          p>
          Why did Traviglini feel the need to LIE about allowing a vote?  PLEASE don’t ask me to believe he didn’t LIE, but that he was outfoxed on a procedural amendment by that wily Jarrett Barrios and Byron Rushing (fine front men they are, too!)

          <

          p>
          MANY Democrats run as ‘conservatives’ – some SAID they would let people vote – Rep. Atsalis comes to mind.  After he was safely reelected, he voted ‘Yes’.  He LIED about the issue.

          <

          p>
          Again, I was NOT a big supporter of the petition, and I did not oppose gay marriage.  I am DEFINITELY now for the right of the electorate to vote, and my position on the second is getting a little shaky too.  And 75% of the electorate agree with me!

          • Sorry, but legislators have been “accountable” on gay marriage for two consecutive elections in 2004 and 2006. So far, not a single pro-SSM legislator has lost, while several opponents have.

            <

            p>
            Anti-SSM or “Let the People Vote” type have the right to vote legislators out of office if they so choose. The fact that it hasn’t happened, even when Mitt made it a big issue in ’04, means that people don’t care about this as much as you think they do.

            <

            p>
            The legislature did the right thing here, period. The legisalture is under the Constitutional obligation to represent the people, and the people are happy with that representation as seen from the ’04 and ’06 votes.

            <

            p>
            The gay marriage debate in MA is, for most people, over. Time to move on to important issues like the economy and education.

            • for taking the time to respond to this. 

              <

              p>
              I think it is interesting that, as the post below says, ‘laws are made – or not made – like this every day.

              <

              p>
              Here’s the thing that I see getting lost in this ‘the constitution requires a vote’ stuff –

              <

              p>
              If the lack of quorum, recess, adjournment, fillabuster, etc., are all part of the rules of the convention, then they are legitimate tactics to use. 

              <

              p>
              Those who support marriage equality complain that signature for this initiative and the previous one were gathered fraudulently.  But between this one and the former, they did not change the rules for the number needed, or penalties for fraud, or who could gather them, or under what circumstances.

              <

              p>
              Neither did the other side try to change the rules for dealing with intitiative petitions at the convention.

              <

              p>
              They knew the rules for consideration.  Goodness knows there have been plenty of examples in recent times of the legislature squashing things they disagreed with or did not want to deal with.

              <

              p>
              Opponents tried to change the rules by electing different legislators, but they failed many, many, times over.  We’ve had our vote.

      • I don’t think any amendment that affects people’s lives should be put to a vote.  I do not believe that you have a right to vote on my marriage (and I would never presume that I have a right to vote on yours)  It is my right to marry the person I love not wait until you tell me its ok. Discrimination is NEVER acceptable in the constitution.

      • Even if it went the other way, I would blame the representatives who brought it about not the process itself.

        <

        p>
        The fact is, this kind of procedural stuff goes on every day in every statehouse in the country.  This is how laws are made (or not). It just usually does not happen while so many people are paying attention.

        <

        p>
        The ends do not justify the means in general, but I see no problem with taking legal actions to prevent discrimination even if that gives the appearance of being anti-democratic.

        <

        p>
        Anyway, I don’t know where this so-called “whirlwind” is going to come with.  The voters very clearly are beginning to reject the anti-gay bigots in the state house.  I think if you polled, you would find the majority of people would rather our government focused on economic issues rather than taking rights away from minorities.

  21. Ban Marriage all together and make everyone have a civil union. Then is a church wants to say I will not marry you becuase you are gay that is fine but the state will stilll give them the same rights as every other couple that would want to join in a union.

    <

    p>
    I think everyone gets all up in arms because they think of marriage as a religous event but do not really think of some of the benefits by law you get from marriage. All gay couple are asking for are the same rights when they are in love with someone and want to spend there life with that person that me and my wife wanted and that 1000’s of other couples want.

    <

    p>
    What is wrong with giving people these Civil rights? Nothing at all.

    • that will never happen.

      <

      p>
      If I could wave my magic wand for the outcome you suggest — that “marriage” becomes an affair for whatever religion wants to do with it, and the law merely deals with civil unions, granted equally to all comers — I’d do it in a heartbeat.

      <

      p>
      But marriage is good and truly entrenched in civil law and there’s no strong movement afoot to change that.  So as long as the State is in the business of marrying people, they should be compelled to marry them without discrimination.

      • This is exactly the reason why gay couples need marriage.  Civil unions are great if you only live in VT, CT or possibly NJ but that’s it. But then again, the Federal is not recognizing the gay married couples from Mass, nice isn’t it.  I would love to know how many heterosexual couples would give up their marriages for civil unions.

    • If you ban marriage in MA, then MA residents would lose all federal marriage benefits, so unless you are talking about a US Constitutional amendment to turn marriage into civil unions, it makes no sense.

      • To show solidarity and all?  Why, you make it sound like any of us could POSSIBLY beneift from something as retro as a heterorsexual marriage!  How…how…20th CENTURY of you!  We are FLUID now, says BMG, as are our roles, and even our genders, in New york state.

        <

        p>
        Why make sense?  What was I THINKING of being married to one person for three decades when I could have been flowing all OVER the place?

          • …but the self satisfaction of the commenters is overwhelming.  Mind you, these are the same people who backed Bonifaz over Galvin because HE was for voting rights!

            <

            p>
            Sophistry, hypocricy…it bothers me, as I wish to think well of you.

            • What does hypocrisy have to do with the viability of the so-called “simple” proposal to replace marriage with civil unions?

              <

              p>
              In any case, I don’t believe that hypocrisy is a real issue. Hardly anyone is upset by hypocrisy in people they agree with.  The fact is that all humans are not entirely rational beings and are all hypocrites to some degree, and politicians are even more so given the need to placate voters who may be at odds with each other on a given issue.  Given enough of a paper trail, you could successfully paint literally anyone as a hypocrite.  I don’t believe that it is an interesting or useful claim to make about someone.

  22. some more thoughts:

    <

    p>
    I saw some references comparing this move to the filibuster, but it is actually more like the nuclear option: the rules are that if the citizenry propose an amendement by petition, the legislature can only alter it if 75% agree to, just as a filibuster can only be overriden if 60% of the Senate agree to. This is the rules to protect our democratic rights. That we disagree profoundly with the amendment means that we should urge out legistators to vote it down and if it some how makes it to ballot, vote it down there.

    <

    p>
    Marriage equality is fundamentally important, and I don’t think it should be put in danger. That marriage is open to all in this state is an important part of why my wife and I chose to get married. But we must make a commitment to democracy fundamental.

  23. I don’t get why so many people don’t get it. 

    <

    p>
    I guess I’ll start a petition to get an amendment against interracial marriage on the ballot tomorrow.  Or how about no marriage between citizens and non-citizens.  Or against marriage between Jews and Catholics.  Or against marriage between the Irish and the Italians.

    <

    p>
    First they came for the Communists, and I didnÂ’t speak up, because I wasnÂ’t a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didnÂ’t speak up, because I wasnÂ’t a Jew. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didnÂ’t speak up, because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me.
    Rev. Martin Niemoller, 1945

    <

    p>
    Write your own version here.

Archives