In my simple-minded way, I figure either you agree with a process or you don’t. Either you respect the integrity of the initiative/referendum process or you don’t (and some clearly don’t like the process — fine. At least they’re consistent). If you want to respect this feature of democracy in Massachuseets, you want the following to happen:
- Income taxes rolled back to 5%
- Implementation of a Clean Elections funding regime
- A Legislative vote on marriage equality presumably followed by a popular vote.
- A Legislative vote on a new health care regime likely followed by a popular vote.
Now the hard part — if you want any one of those, you need to accept the other three. Full stop. I know that there are plenty of exceptionalists, who only want to follow legal procedure for “good” cases, and not the “bad” ones. You may have good arguments, but tough. That’s not how the law works and you know it. It’s all or nothing if you want this process to have integrity with the citizenry and legislature of the state.
I’m setting a stark choice like this because anytime the Legislature is supported when they violate this legal procedure, they are sent a clear message that they can do it again. With this precedent, we’ve essentially thrown out the process. So if you’ve backed the Legilsture in ignoring the results of the 2000 referendum on income tax rollback, you’ve handed the Lege all the tools they needed to kill Clean Elections, and can use to ignore the Health Care Amendment. So not only is such a position hypcritical, but it’s gone to snuff direct democracy in this state.
I’ve visited this issue before, but now the stakes are higher. We are now looking at essentially voiding a procedure that would have given us Clean Elections (and probably a health care regime), had activists not been happy to throw it out the window when it became inconvenient on the tax issue.
And in something utterly baffling to me, many marriage equality activists want to keep this issue alive by obliterating established procedure and leaving the hate amendment to die without a vote. Rather than take on the opposition and kill it in what would assuredly be a noisy and ugly campaign, we’re going to run away and hide and hope marriage equality survives. That seems horribly short-sighted.
One of our fellow denizens decided to go so far as to say that “no one, except the few conservatives here, wants this to go to ballot”
I guess that makes me a conservative. Who knew. I guess the following is a list of things that “conservatives” like me don’t want:
- Marriage equality gains new vigor as a national conservative cause celebre, to motivate people to vote against their own interests at the ballot box.
- The resolution of this issue is delayed for several years until we have an honest Legislature in place for two consecutive sessions that will actually follow constitutiona procedure and put this to a vote. We will fight this battle. Why not now? (Trust me, these folks haev the money and motivation to collect signatures again. And again.)
- It fans the flames of bigotry and hatred for “activist judges”.
- It leaves a tenuous, 5-4 court decision as the sole foundation of this precious civil right.
I’m a fan of the initiative process. That’s why I want it to have integrity. If you don’t like the process, then things have been going well for you. Hope there aren’t too many regrets down the road.
Well, first off, I am not a fan of the initiative process. Most people I know did not even vote on Question Three because they couldn’t figure it out. That’s what we have a legislature for – to deliberate.
<
p>
That said, even if I were a fan of the initiative process, I find your conclusion flawed.
<
p>
Now the hard part — if you want any one of those, you need to accept the other three.
<
p>
But one of those three is not like the other. Neither universal health care, lower income taxes, nor publically funded elections are constitutional rights. Equal marriage is. And you do not put constitutional rights up for a popular vote.
…is the rejoinder of those who oppose you. the crux of this discussion is that our opposition does not agree that they are a constitutional right. If they did, there really wouldn’t be a debate.
<
p>
Thus, we move into the arena of political discourse, and the final trump in political discourse is victory at the polls.
Sabutai, would you have put the right of African-Americans to sit at a lunch counter or ride in the front of a bus to a vote in Alabama and Mississippi in the 1950s? Are not questions of fundamental individual rights different in kind from even such admittedly important issues as taxation levels, campaign finance, and health care?
<
p>
Strategically, I agree with you: we would win this fight at the ballot box and it would defuse the issue and weaken the forces of ignorance and bigotry. But there is a greater principle at stake here: if we believe, self-evidently, that people have certain fundamental rights, we uphold and defend those rights and distinguish them from the normal political questions that we sometimes put to the voters.
Article 48 includes a whole list of “excluded matters” that can’t be brought before the people either in an initiative for a law or a constitutional amendment.
<
p>
The full text is below but the short version is: certain governmental functions; individual rights listed in the original declaration of rights; and individual rights created later that by their own terms are specifically exempted from the initiative process.
<
p>
The SJC can’t create a right that is exempt from the initiative process. When it decides that one part of our constitution demands that all couples be able to marry it doesn’t create a new section of the constitution that explicitly says “and you can’t repeal this by initiative”. If the Goodrich decision had, the Attorney General could not have certified the question. If he had done it in error the SJC would have shot him down. Marriage equality advocates did challenge certification of the gay marriage ban and the SJC held that it was the proper subject for an initiative. That’s how we got to this point.
<
p>
The rest of Article 48 makes it clear that the Legislature must vote – up or down – before midnight on january 2nd on both the Health Care Amendment and the Gay Marriage Ban.
<
p>
I have a very strong opinion on how legislators should vote and I will pass it on to them. But the real issue is that they MUST VOTE on BOTH to uphold the constitution they are sworn to obey.
<
p>
Barbara Roop, PhD, JD, Co-Chair
Health Care Constitutional Amendment Campaign
<
p>
Article 48
<
p>
Section 2. Excluded Matters. – No measure that relates to religion, religious practices or religious institutions; or to the appointment, qualification, tenure, removal, recall or compensation of judges; or to the reversal of a judicial decision; or to the powers, creation or abolition of courts; or the operation of which is restricted to a particular town, city or other political division or to particular districts or localities of the commonwealth; or that makes a specific appropriation of money from the treasury of the commonwealth, shall be proposed by an initiative petition; but if a law approved by the people is not repealed, the general court shall raise by taxation or otherwise and shall appropriate such money as may be necessary to carry such law into effect.
<
p>
Neither the eighteenth amendment of the constitution, as approved and ratified to take effect on the first day of October in the year nineteen hundred and eighteen, nor this provision for its protection, shall be the subject of an initiative amendment.
<
p>
No proposition inconsistent with any one of the following rights of the individual, as at present declared in the declaration of rights, shall be the subject of an initiative or referendum petition: The right to receive compensation for private property appropriated to public use; the right of access to and protection in courts of justice; the right of trial by jury; protection from unreasonable search, unreasonable bail and the law martial; freedom of the press; freedom of speech; freedom of elections; and the right of peaceable assembly.
<
p>
No part of the constitution specifically excluding any matter from the operation of the popular initiative and referendum shall be the subject of an initiative petition; nor shall this section be the subject of such a petition.
I thought it was implemented. Didn’t Warren Toleman use clean election money when he ran for Governor?
The SJC awarded Tolman the money when he sued – but they cannot compel the legislature to fund or fulfill the law. So, everybody else – in both parties – who went out and qualified by getting the $5 donations and signatures – well, too bad for you.
<
p>
And you wonder WHY we call a 90% Democrat legislature dysfunctional?
Warren Tolman was one of several clean elections candidates who were plaintiffs in a lawsuit against the legislature (John Bonifaz was the lead attorney on that case). The SJC ruling told the legislature to fund the law; they refused; the SJC gave the plaintiffs the right to sell of state property to fund the law. Any candidate who ran as clean elections was eligible to participate and get funded. Unfortunately it took so long that it already hurt – they didn’t have money to spend until pretty late in the campaign.
<
p>
The following year, the legislature repealed the clean elections law.
<
p>
Note: Jill Stein was another one of the plaintiffs in the same case as Tolman.
The legislature did not “ignore the voters” on the tax rollback. You seem to forget that the tax rate was 5.85% before the initative, and the rate WAS rolled back to 5.3%, where it currently stands. You can make the argument that this should go the whole way to 5.0%, but to claim that the legislature ignored the voters on this is simply not accurate.
…”Nobody signed a petition to create civil unions”
<
p>
Nobdy voted for 5.3%.
<
p>
What, are we supposed to get excited when they listen to us a LITTLE it and throw us a bone?
but I’m just pointing out that the argument that the legislature “ignored” the voters on the rollback is false, or else the tax rate would be at 5.85% right now.
<
p>
And like I’ve said perhaps a hundred times already, the people have spoken about what they think of the legislature. I’m listening to what they say, and after several elections since the tax rollback vote and the gay marriage decision, it tells me they like what they see.
How about that. It’s still outrageous.
So, let me ask you this — as a result of the voters voting to rollback the tax rate to 5.0%, does this mean that the tax rate must forever remain at 5.0% (or presumably lower)?
<
p>
Would it be “outrageous” for the legislature, in response to a major fiscal crisis in the year 2046, to raise the income tax rate back up to 5.85%? Would that be “ignoring the voters” in the tax rollback vote of 2000? If not, then when do you consider the “statute of limitations” to be for these types of votes?
<
p>
This is a perfectly legitimate question that I believe gets at the heart of why the “respect the vote!” argument doesn’t work as well as some people think.
Let me take you back 26 years, to when there WAS a healthy number of GOP’s in the legislature. Even though they hated it, it never OCCURED to the Legislature to ignore Prop. 2 1/2 – because the VOTERS had decided it! That was the biggest shock to the Rollback proponents – that they would DARE to ignore the will of the people. Please imagine what your property tax bill would look like now if there WASN’T that brake on it – that people have to affirmatively vote to raise more taxes. And the 2 2/1 figure, decried as too low at the time, has actually been in line with inflation.
<
p>
You can talk all you like about how the voters have reelected Dems – I’ve heard the idea of ‘sending a message’ on Iraq invoked in State Senate races! It isn’t an apporval of a renegade legislature – it’s response to a PR effort.
<
p>
75% of the electorate say that while they may or may not support the marriage amendment, they DO want to be able to vote on it, like over 30 other states (where apparently it WASN’T a constitutional right?)
<
p>
If you think people will not remember they were lied to, you are wrong. It is time for the Legislature to throw off the weasel Birmingham tactics, and have the guts to vote instead of hide.
<
p>
Yer either fer it er agaynst it? Alls I wants is a up er down vote, y’all! Fool me once… and I can’t be fooled again!
<
p>
Seriously, are you really looking to President Bush for your prose?
<
p>
So much for this nice little thing called nuance. How about being for the initiative process as an occasionally-used method for change – but against only needing 25% of the legislature and 50% of the popular vote to change the Constitution?
<
p>
There’s plenty of room for nuance, but sadly you and President Bush aren’t into seeing it.
<
p>
PS
<
p>
<
p>
I’m so sorry my marriage rights are so very inconvienant to your quests to win elections. I suppose we should put blacks in the back of the bus because it may just help us win the South, right? No? Well, pardon me for thinking it pretty – oh, what’s the word for it? – nauseating to think you’d sacrifice MILLIONS of lives in the quest to increase our lead in the House and Senate.
<
p>
However, if it can fit into your ‘I hate nuance’ meme, you’ll note the Wisconsin amendment to ban gay marriage actually HELPED elect Democrats – and the amendment to ban gay marriage in Arizona FAILED – so you officially have no idea of what you’re talking about. Stop buying into CV wisdom and think fer yerself, y’all!
The legislature has already voted on this issue, apparently you just didn’t like that vote.
<
p>
The petition signed by 170,000 has NOT been voted on.
<
p>
And the fact that a state voted AGAINST a DOMA proves my point – the electorate is capapbe of deciding this, sometimes even to your satisfaction.
Here
I called out the Globe for it’s representation of that in the very first sentence. Yes, the legislature voted on it – just not the vote some people wanted. Too bad for them.
It did NOT vote on the matter, no matter how many hoops you twist yourself through.
And the vote was a recess. Again, it voted, but not the vote you were looking for. I think it’s a rolling stones song, but “you can’t always get what you want.”
Ryan, your argument really isn’t holding up old chap.
Ryan, you’re right the Legislature has already voted on the issue of of gay marriage this Session – twice in fact. Both times, once in September and once last Thursday to defeat LEGISLATIVE amendments that would limit or abolish same sex marriage in this state. A majority of the members defeated it just as required by Article 48.
<
p>
But the core issue here is too important. Article 48 requires an up or down vote on EVERY amendment before it. There are five left. The Gay Marriage Ban and the Health Care Amendment are citizen initiatives requiring 50 vote approvals to move forward. The other three are legislative amendments requiring a simple majority.
<
p>
If there were ten gay marriage bans on the ConCon Calendar the Legislature would have to cast ten votes on the merits to meet its constitutional obligation. And defeating one of them by a majority vote can’t replace a vote that requires only 50 votes to win.
<
p>
The people don’t have an automatic right to vote on initiative amendments. They need the 50 votes in the Legislature to win. But if they are denied a vote we have all been stripped of our rights under the initiative process which as of today is the law of the land in Massachusetts.
<
p>
Barbara Roop
Again, I reiterate, the legislature voted – just not in the way you liked. Too bad, so sad.
<
p>
If enough people wish to discuss the merits on January 2nd, sadly there just won’t be enough time to vote “up or down” – President Bush style – before another, far clearer Constitutional measure kicks in: the 9pm closing, when the session must end.
Do you think it really helps your argument if you compare someone who doesn’t agree with you to President Bush? Do you really have all the answers already, or are you hoping that if you’re offensive enough nobody will notice the holes in your arguments? Please try to write your prose without reaching so for superiority — you’ll find it will be more effective.
<
p>
See, in Massachusetts, when people vote, they don’t get to fill in a box labelled “nuance”. It’s a stark choice — same thing when legislators vote. While you may think it’s a weakness that our legal system is clear cut, I find it a strength. You’re proposing changing the system, a proposal that would have some merit. But if you are changing a system, that means you disagree with it as constituted. Follow so far? From your demeanor, I’m trying to intuit that we agree on marriage equality, but we disagree that those ends justify the means of shredding the initiative process once again. What I said, and what you decided not to address is this: if you are willing to shred the initiative process for your ends, do you seriously expect to politicians to feel different when it intereferes with their ends?
<
p>
I just don’t agree that violating a legal procedure for convenience makes since. If I’m brought up on jaywalking, and the judge gives me 10 to 12 and calls it “nuance” is that a victory for the system?
<
p>
And you’re the one who brought up elections, not me. You did a great job cherry picking the two of several anti-equality initiatives that didn’t work out.
<
p>
That says it all.
<
p>
If the Judiciary somehow reached the conclusion that minimum wage statutes were unconstitutional, and you Legislature weaseled around voting otherwise for amendment, what would the reaction be?
<
p>
Not a likely example, for sure, but not impossible.
Why even bother with petitions, and initiative petitions anymore?
<
p>
I’m increasingly coming to the conclusion that government by referendum is a terrible idea. Even proposals that sound wonderful have unforeseen consequences. The best intentions sometimes go awry, and many petition campaigns have downright questionable intentions (and large advertising budgets) to begin with.
<
p>
As a general rule, I say let the legislature do its job, and let’s work to revitalize the democratic process by which we choose legislators instead of promoting end-runs around them. If we can’t generate enough public engagement with the issues to get the “right” candidates into office in the first place, why would we think we have enough to have the public directly write the laws.
<
p>
The exception, as a recent diary pointed out, is when there is a clear conflict of interest for legislators.
and sometimes legislatures don’t or won’t do the right thing. This election cycle, five states raised their minimum wage levels by initiative which means that citizens used the initiative process to implement an important and necessary change that state legislatures were unwilling to do.
<
p>
The initiative process, while sometimes messy and imperfect, is an important one and insures that “the people” can make laws directly when they deem it necessary.
but did they write minimum wage laws into their constitutions? Legislative and constitutional amendments are two different beasts.
Could the lege reduce it to 5.0% one day, and then increase it back to 5.3% the next? Would that obey the “letter” of the vote? Surely the lege isn’t required to keep the tax at 5.0% for ever… so when could they move it from 5.0 to something else?
When the people voted it to 5% years ago, it instantly became 5%. The legislature soon changed the law again because 5% just wasn’t feasible, given the fiscal situation.
The initiative that was enacted was a stepped roll-back from 5.85% to 5.0% over (I think) three years. The legislature allowed the first two steps (to 5.6 and then 5.3%) to occur, then froze the rollback at 5.3 by amending the law that the voters enacted. Since then, the lege enacted chapter 186, which is a much slower rollback that will eventually (by 2014, IIRC) get the rate down to 5.0%.
This petition is not the will of the people of the state of Massachusetts. It is a vessel of hatred that has been pushed through by dishonest people and money from interest groups outside of the state. Nearly 50,000 signatures were thrown out due to fraud, and now there is a criminal investigation into the matter. The fraud exposed is not a result of investigation, it is a result of victims coming forward and reporting their signatures stolen by the signature gatherers of Arno Political Consultants. This company was paid approximately $80,000 to gather signatures, and they hired ex-cons from out of state, paying them per the signature. Do you see now how this would cause fraud?
<
p>
Through a series of poor judgements this petition was allowed to move forward instead of being thrown out, and it is hardly a reason to vote on the civil rights of your fellow citizens. Our legislators did what is best for our state by killing this amendment before it wastes more of our time and causes more social division. Sometimes when the emperor has no clothes on the senate must say, “The emperor has no clothes on.” Were this to go to a vote of the public, and let’s say it were to win, the SJC would have to intervene once again and redirect us because it is unconstitutional for us to try and create to classes of citizens. It is also illegal to overrule an SJC decision in the matter of gay marriage. You really should look up from the law books and see you fellow citizens who deserve to be treated equally, at least by their government. Not one person has evre answered this question to my satisfaction, “What sacrifices have you had to make in your own life that would justify removing the right to marry someone of the same sex?” Give it a try if you like.
Now you see how tenuous “rights” are when they rest solely on a single judicial decision. A far better course of action is to grasp the nettle and win legislative approval.
Let’s get rid of choice, anti-segregation matters, allow laws banning sodomy again (yes, that’s right, just a few years ago in some states I could be arrested for having sex)… and all sorts of other goodies. Habius Corpus? Who needs it – after all, it rests on judicial decision making. We really can’t trust those judges… I mean, they aren’t elected and beholden to the tyranny of the majority after all!
Can you possibly think that the (unelected) US Supreme Court, if faced with the issue, would find a right to gay marriage in the US Constitution? Remember, with a swing of only one vote on the SJC, the case would have come out the opposite way, and methinks you’d be singing a different tune on the wisdom of entrusting these kinds of things completely to the courts, elected or not.
<
p>
As for habeas, see US Const. Art. I, s. 9 (“The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.”)
I can’t say what I’d be doing now if Goodridge was decided differently. At the time, I was either a Sr. in HS or Freshman in college. I wasn’t out – maybe not even to myself. That said, courts have ruled in ways I have disagreed with time and time again. Yet, you don’t hear me singing that different tune. I thought the “under God” case was a pretty weak ruling, but wasn’t crying because I disagreed with it.
<
p>
I can only say that if we lost Goodridge, we would have either kept fighting in the courts or through the legislature. We’d probably still be fighting for Civil Unions, but maybe not be far removed (if removed at all) from it. We may have focused on other issues – and there’s nothing wrong with that. There’s still discrimination, still Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and still a hundred other heinous policies that aren’t likely to be resolved by the courts. I’m not crying – I’m working towards the greater movement.
<
p>
I just don’t see the point in spending all this time on this issue. Almost all of us – be it supporters or those who are opposed – probably are in agreement when I say this is a dead issue. The amendment is essentially dead, lots of people in the legislature from both camps have essentially admitted it.
<
p>
There are a hundred more important issues. I know you, David, have an opinion on it. For a while, I shared your opinion. I’ve gone back and forth. Part of me actually wants this on the ballot. I’d love to see us rub it in the faces of people like MassResistance and flex our muscles – I think we’d win. Then again, we may not.
<
p>
All that I know is that the legislature has taken a specific strategy and it’s on track to winning out. It wasn’t something I was pushing for. A week ago, I was content to see this turn up again next year and hoping we could defeat it then once and for all too. However, what’s happened has happened – and I’m NOT going to push against it. Not when there are so many important – real – issues.
<
p>
Don’t you see that by focusing on this, we’re hurting ourselves? Don’t you see that we just lost a whole weekend of important issues – so we could argue back and forth over a divisive and DEAD issue? An issue we essentially agree on (marriage equality)?
<
p>
Why don’t we focus on what’s important – instead of trying to tear each other down, even if we’re both being relatively polite to each other in doing so. We could be spending this time trying to get the legislature to pass the healthcare amendment, instead we have people from the healthcare camp screaming down my lungs about gay marriage. Don’t you all see how this is doing no good? Don’t you see how this MAKES US ALL WEAKER?
<
p>
We’re all on the same side, even if we don’t agree on every last thing. Let’s stick to the things we DO agree on. Give up on this marriage amendment; it’s dead anyway. We have bigger fish to fry, but that will never get done if we’re bickering like school children.
I don’t see any way that we are ‘hurting ourselves’ just because we disagree on this issue. If the Health Care Amendment hadn’t been buried in the process, we probably wouldn’t be devoting much discussion time to it at all. In any event, disagreement can be healthy, and doesn’t detract from the many issues where we all agree.
in-fighting isn’t. While I wouldn’t call what happened over the weekend a civil war, it’s got to at least be on the lines of sectarian violence =p
The fact that injustice has been part of our history and ways for so long does not make it right. Might of the majority does not make right either. Where are the people who stand up for principle on its merit alone? Voltaire once said, “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
<
p> The denial of gay marriage is based upon religious beliefs, even though we live in a country that has religious freedom, and seperation of church and state. What is reality is that the majority has forced its beliefs upon the unwilling minority of people who are gay, and gays are just now starting to stand up for themselves. As they do this the SJC has to recognize, and has, that there is no need to deny them their equal rights. As they have already ruled, our constitution calls for equality to all citizens.
<
p>
I find it rather arrogant for my fellow citizens to think that they have a right to vote away my rights because they don’t like the life choices I have made. I thought I lived in America, not Amerika. Are we now a communist society that I have to gain the approval of every action I take? My life, my liberty, my happiness, are inalienable rights promised to me by our founding fathers, and you need to have a damn good reason to strip me of them. Being gay is not a crime, and I will not allow someone to take my rights away because I believe God made me who I am.
<
p>
With 50% divorce and 72 hour marriages from Rev. Elvis in the drive through chapel the sanctity of marriage argument is lost. If you want to try to say that there are no gays worthy of what you throw away willingly, that says something about your character, not mine. I feel no need to prove my worthiness for marriage as there is no such standard inflicted upon my fellow citizens. I believe the burden of proof is in the lap of those who would oppose marriage equality to to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this goverment sanctioned discrimination is needed for the welfare of the public.
<
p>
As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality.
<
p>
George Washington, 1790
Same-sex couples can’t conceive children together! And EVERYBODY KNOWS that’s supposed to be the highest function of marriage! [/snark]
for the claim that 50,000 signatures were thrown out due to fraud? Thousands of signatures are routinely thrown out in these signature drives, but usually for reasons other than “fraud.” Like I’ve said elsewhere, I believe the reports of deceitful conduct by some signature gatherers, and I therefore believe that some signatures were gathered through fraud, but this is the first time I’ve heard anyone claim that as many as 50,000 were actually fraudulent.
Why then the criminal investigation?
A criminal investigation is underway because SOME people contend their signitures were forged and/or they were mislead about what they were signing. This represents a tiny amount of people, and has nothing to do with the 50,000 disallowed sigs. Besides, when did an investigation become a guilty verdict?
Indeed, most disallowed signatures are thrown out for prosaic reasons such as not being a registered voter, signing the wrong town’s petition form, being unreadable, and so forth.
First of all it is premature to say how many voters were misled, and likely it will be impossible to determine an exact amount. The fact that there is a criminal investigation strongly suggests fraud was comitted. The Attorney General’s office does not issue such actions without evidence.
<
p>
The next time you point out that someone may be presuming things, try not doing it yourself. Your title declares as fact that I deliberately changed the subject. Do you have proof this is, or is this your assumption?
<
p>
If you or anyone else wants to get an insight as to how much potential fraud is out there, watch this Fox25 Undercover Report:
<
p>
http://knowthyneighb…
Then why did the court decision say that the Legislature could act, but has chosen not to?
<
p>
Hard cases make bad law, Mr. Hosty. Not wishing to hurt people affected does not make this a better law. Casting aspersions upon the signature gatherers does not make this a better law, and in fact slanders all the people who DID sign, knowing what they were signing and disagreeing with you. Your organization has cast an unprecedented amount of sunshine onto what was alwyas a public record by posting the names of the signers. Where were the hundred thousand protests of ‘I didn’t sign that’ necesssary to invalidate the petition? It didn’t happen, did it?
<
p>
If this is such a decided matter, if the people of Massachsetts approve of this, if there is nothing to see, move along here – then why the fear of the vote of the people? Are you afraid you cannot control the electorate the way you do the legislators?
The number of valid signatures on the petition does not take away from the fact that people are trying to force a vote on the civil rights of fellow citizens. I believe that the SJC is like any of us, and not immune to political pressure. In my opinion they took enough heat by bringing light to the injustice and is confident the legislature will do the right thing.
<
p>
Were we to go through the 100,000+ validated signatures and verify each one, I am confident we would not have enough to move forward. Let us not forget that attorney general Tom Reiley was running for governor when he made this decision, and he too is not immune to political pressure from the haters. This same exact group that collected signatures in this state did so for the same type of petition in Illinios, and were caught with so much fraud that the state through out the whole petition and told the Illinios version of Massachusetts Family Institite to start from scratch. I noticed you mentioned nothing about the criminal investigation into this matter here in our state. Are we to ignore the elephant in the room?
<
p>
I have not yet mentioned how voters were corralled by the Catholic Church and asked to sign this petition in the churches. This is an act that violates their federal tax exemption status as a non-profit organization. Peer pressure and your pastor standing over you is a good reason not to allow such a thing. Did you know that after all the pomp and circumstance Cardinal O’Maley didn’t even sign the petition himself?! As a matter of fact neither did 75% of the catholic priests of this state.
<
p>
Is being gay a crime? The answer is no, so one should wonder why gays are penalized by their government. I do not fear a vote in this matter. The poll currently being conducted on Boston.com proves that the legislature would be wasting our time by moving this onto the 2008 ballot. Opponents of gay marriage have not provided anyone with the one thing that is most important to their cause; need.
<
p>
“The hope of a secure and livable world lies with disciplined nonconformists who are dedicated to justice, peace and brotherhood.” ~Martin Luther King Jr.
Tax-exempt churches are forbidden to endorse or oppose candidates, but the law is a lot less clear on what they are allowed to do in ballot-issue campaigns.
<
p>
OR
<
p>
<
p>
Are the number of valid signatures irrelevant, or are the number of valid signatures fraudulent?
I didn’t see this post until just now, but it is worth responding to. The answer is both. The signatures were in great numbers fraudulently obtained as will be proven or not in the criminal investigation, AND it doesn’t matter how many valid signatures there are, you don’t get to vote away the rights of your neighbors.
<
p>
This seems to be about one groups desire to force another group to live within it’s system of beliefs. That is not an American way, and the fact that it took us this long to start questioning the wisdom of this discrimination shouldn’t be hailed as a worthy tradition. Equality is not conditional.
Why are basic facts so hard to come by?
<
p>
The MA Supreme Court (formally known as the Supreme Judicial Court, aka SJC) has SEVEN justices.
<
p>
The Goodridge decision was 4-3.
<
p>
http://www.mass.gov/…
<
p>
The United States Supreme Court has nine justices and a number of 5-4 opinions.
You want us to follow the process. Part of that process is that to get on the ballot, a constitutional amendment needs either the support of 50% of the legislature, or a certain number of signatures plus 25% of the legislature. If the legislature votes on this amendment and it gets less than 25%, the process will have been honored. It doesn’t make sense to decry that in the name of honoring the process. That legislative vote isn’t just there for window dressing.
If they can’t get 50 votes, then good riddance. I’m talking about the strong possibility that legislative leaders are looking to run out the clock on the Con-Con without the Legislature voting on it at all.
Lawmakers have many tools at their disposal, one of them being Robert’s rules of order that governs the legislative process. If the legislators decide to allow the clock to expire this petition, then let them. If they deicide to not show up on Jan. 2, and quorum is called, so be it. We elected them to be our eyes and ears, to speak for us in the governent. This is their job, and if they elect to use tactics that have been used before in 2004 (feel free to correct me) then so be it. They may choose to vote on this issue, or they may not, but either way they are doing their job by trying to do what they believe is in our best interest.
Not only the words, but the form. That was a legislator petition, which can be dealth with by an adjournment, as opposed to a CITIZEN petion which cannot be cynically amended like the 2004 one was, and which MUST be acted upon.
<
p>
Their eyes and ears have little to do with it. they mus somehow find the courage to go on record, but there seems to be only a thimblefull between them.
“as opposed to a CITIZEN petion which cannot be cynically amended like the 2004 one was”
<
p>
If the bill must be acted upon as you suggest, there should be some explicit language in the Article to specify what happens if the legislature fails to take action. The lack of such language doesn’t help the voteonmarriage or health care amendment folks right now.
<
p>
From your post, I think we’ve discovered why the Health Care Amendment activists have gone the route of citizen initiative when it seems like they could easily find the sponsors in the legislature to introduce a similar legislative petition.
<
p>
The downsides of government by referendum seem increasingly obvious.
the hc amendment undertook the MUCH MORE ARDUOUS approach of the citizen initiative process for these reasons:
<
p>
because from years of hard fought experience attempting to get serious reform action thru the legislature, and repeatedly encountering a legislature that demonstrated themselves to be, by their actions time and time again, under EXCESSIVE and UNHEALTHY influence by corporate interest stakeholders such as the insurance co’s, large hospital systems, and drug co’s, and others, it was determined that the only way to have a hope of breaking thru that corrupted strangle-hold on our political process was setting out on a course (citizen initiative) that reduced most of the slimy legislative tactics that so often bring down important reforms.
<
p>
legislative reforms that attempt to place ordinary peoples’ intersts and needs (taxpayers, most, btw) above corporate profit-driven intersts and corporate needs to maintain control have a high record of failure in this state’s legislature. Getting big money our of politics, as others have posted, is crucial. I did a lot to support the clean elections law and look at what good that did us.
<
p>
these are the very deliberative and respectable reasons why it is the type of campaign it is. do you still feel it deserves what i understood as being maligned comments toward it that you made above? i sincerely want to understand your perception about this.
<
p>
oh, one other thing, Rep Walrath who is now House Co-chair of the HC FInance Cmte told a group of 6 of us in her office a few months back that it was told to her many years ago by a more senior lege at the time and it’s still true today, that:
<
p>
“No bill gets through the Health Care Committee without the approval of the insurance companies in this state. They’re very powerful.”
<
p>
Indeed they are.
“these are the very deliberative and respectable reasons why it is the type of campaign it is. do you still feel it deserves what i understood as being maligned comments toward it that you made above? i sincerely want to understand your perception about this.”
<
p>
i would call your reasons deliberative but not necessarily respectable. your solution to lack of legislative progress is to try a constitutional run-around and isolate the corporations that for the most part, deliver sorely needed services? this doesn’t exactly look like a win/win situation for the commonwealth.
You wrote:
<
p>
<
p>
Well first, I’ll assume you meant “four” instead of “three” in the last sentence. But the flaw in this arguement is that the first two items–Income Taxes and Clean Elections–are laws and the latter two items are amendments to the state constitution. Big difference. The first two things change a law and, if the “rule of the mob” was wrong, the legislature changes the law. If the latter two were part of the constitution and proved to be bad ideas, we’d ahve to go through the long three year process again.
<
p>
I’ve been sitting this arguement out. And just dipping my toe in…if I have time, I may jump in.
About the difference between a legal change and a constitutional change. Thanks for bringing it up. As for the other thing, I did indeed mean “three” because I learned real good that 4 (total options) – 1 (if you want one) = 3 (must accept other three).
The debate here, and the legislative actions of the Con Con, is classic example of the historic struggle of serving the two masters of your duty and your conscience. Im no lawyer and Ill defer to Davids argument that the Constitution and SJC ruling compel the Con Con to vote on the ban of gay marriages. But like most of us at BMG, I see gay marriage as a basic human right. How could I ever support any measure that potentially denies friends (and fellow members of my community) basic rights I have to make decisions about my family and offer the same protections under the law.
<
p>
At the same time we are a community only because we have basic laws that we all follow and accept. When the US Supreme Court voted in George Bush, we all accepted thateven though we all opposed the idea and felt the system let us down. But we believe in the rule of law and accepted this imperfect result. We elect people to make and implement these laws and require them to take an oath of to uphold both the state and federal constitution which are the fiber that holds together our society.
<
p>
But what happens when various forces converge that creates a conflict for our elected representatives between their/our basic values system and the rules we require them to uphold? This is an old dilemma, without easy answers. I would not want to be a legislator voting on this matter. If I helped maneuver a non-vote on this matter, I would do so with pridebut may feel compelled to resign my seat for failing to uphold my legal obligations. If I fulfilled this obligation and allowed the vote, I would feel compelled to defray all other tasks until this anti-rights movement is defeated.
<
p>
We do not have a perfect system. To those who say you can not vote away peoples civil rights, I wish that were true. We founded our country counting a black person as being 2/3rds that of a white person. Weve had a Supreme Court basically declare black people were property. We still have a perverse system in which money (in the form of a corporation) has the right of speech and other constitutional protections. No, we may think, rightfully, that we have the best system of governmentbut it is far from perfect
I wish I could rate your comment higher than a six. I think an even better example than Beckett would be Thomas More who, I believe, is the patron saint of statesmen. More went to his scaffold saying “I die the King’s good servant, but God’s first.”
<
p>
As I told my state rep, who I know very well and who was one of the 108, that if he had voted against the amendment that I would not like it, but I could respect it. However, recessing to kill the amendment (in essence picking and choosing the parts of the Constitution we like and will follow) was something I could not respect. I suppose I need to now modify it. I would have great respect for anyone voted to recess, and then resigned their seat for violating their oath.
<
p>
Excellent post, Frank. Very well done indeed.
If you support gay marriage and/or don’t believe this should move forward in the ammendment process, all you need to do is vote No.
<
p>
Right now the ConCon has voted to recess, preventing the ability to vote yes or no. If they vote, the Con Con will get the 50 votes to go to the next step.
<
p>
The real “profile of courage” vote I’m referring to would heve been to not to recess and let the other vote happen.
“I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law.” ~Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
And Thoreau stated that if you break the law (in his case not paying a tax to protest the Mexican War) to protest an injustice, you also must by willing to accept the price for breaking the law. Maybe that explains why MLK went to jail so often…so if that is the case, the legislators who stop this vote are breaking their oaths “in the highest respect for the law”. Fine. Let them vote to not vote and they should pay the price of ignoring their sworn oaths to up hold the state constitution and resign their seats.
… like protesters who harass women outside abortion clinics, or the odious Mr. Phelps who protests at military funerals that the soldier died as God’s judgement upon an immoral America. Their hysteria is prompted by a desire ” to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, [and] is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law”.
<
p>
The choice to choose to break the law is an extreme one and a highly idiosyncratic one. And, as Frank says, it should be accompained by a willingness to take the consequences.
<
p>
Our legislators have had eight years to contemplate this issue, and their response is still a cowardly parliamentary maneuver, a contravention of their sworn oath to uphold our constitution. No consequences necessary, please.
<
p>
If this is so setttled – why the fear to go on record? The truth is they don’t have the votes to squelch it any other way, so they take the world’s longest lunch break for eight weeks.
<
p>
The sad thing is, the PEOPLE would likely vote it down, given the chance. But of course, they voted for these weasels, too, so maybe that is where the mistrust is born.
I don’t think it is fear that motivates the reps relectance to vote on this issue at all. Rather I think they are concerned with the fact that there are just enough bigots still left in office to solidify the minimum 50 votes needed to drag out the inevitable for another 2 years. The people of Massachusetts don’t really want to vote on marriage, that is just what we are being fed by groups like MFI. The petition itself was created under dubious circumstances, and the legislators see this for what it is; a vessel of hatred.
<
p>
I think that history will record those leaders who turn their back on this ammendment as heroes, not villians.
This article 48 thing is assumed to be the eond all of this argument, but this is a little more comlicated than that. First off, we have to understand that some people see the petition as a vessel of hatred that should have never been allowed to be penned in the first place. Putting the rights of certain citizens to a vote while other citizen’s rights are protected is an ugly situation. The argument that I am hearing now comes down to the finites of the law, so let’s look at them more carefully.
<
p>
SPECIAL RULES WITH REFERENCE TO THE CONSIDERATION, IN JOINT SESSION, OF
PROPOSALS FOR AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION.
<
p> [Adopted by the Senate and the House of Representatives as the rules
for the joint session to be held May 11, 2005 and for any subsequent
joint sessions which may be held.]
<
p>
“Rule A. After a Proposal for an Initiative Amendment has been read,
the question shall then be on agreeing to the Amendment; whereupon it
shall be open to debate and any motion provided for in special Rule F.”
<
p>
“Rule F. When the main question is under debate the President shall
receive no motion that does not relate to the same, except the motion
to adjourn or some other motion which has precedence by express rule or
because it is privileged in its nature; and he shall receive no motion
relating to the same except:
<
p> For the previous question;
<
p> To close debate at a specified time;
<
p> To postpone until the two houses meet again in joint
session;
<
p>
To commit (or recommit), with or without instructions, to a
<
p>
special committee of the joint session composed of members of both
houses;
<
p>
To amend (excepting during consideration by the second
<
p>
successive General Court);
<
p>
Which several motions shall have precedence in the order
<
p>
here arranged.
<
p>
No motion to reconsider a vote on a main question shall be
<
p> entertained unless made on the same day on which the vote was taken;
and if moved, shall be considered at the time it is made.”
<
p>
I am not a lawyer, but I understand what I read, and this says they can adjourn without voting.