There were many excellent responses to my how-de-do post — thanks to all for their thoughtful contributions. There is (at least) one very practical suggestion in there which actually strikes me as holding some promise. And I’m pleased to note that the source was John Howard, whom I confess I had nearly written off as a one-slightly-wacky-issue BMG contributor. Well done, John.
John’s idea, distilled from these three comments, is this:
- Everyone votes to advance the anti-marriage amendment to next year’s session. In doing so, they make clear that they are doing so simply in order to get to the health care (and other) amendments remaining on the agenda, so that their votes cannot be construed as anti-gay marriage. Then they proceed through the rest of the items on the calendar.
- In the next session, the legislature will be more heavily pro-equal marriage than it is now, because Travis, Goguen, Parente, and others, are leaving. So there are then two possibilities. One, the pro-equal marriage forces round up 151 votes to kill the amendment once and for all, which may actually be doable in light of the changed membership, in which case they do so as soon as possible. Two, they do what they appear to be doing now — kill it procedurally (not my favorite option, but the hypothesis for now remains that this thing should be killed by any means possible). Since next session’s legislature is more pro-equal marriage than this one, there is no reason at all to think that they can’t pull off the same procedural maneuvers next year that they can pull off now.
It’s really quite a clever solution, in that it takes excellent advantage of the fact that the health care amendment is on its second vote, but the marriage amendment is on its first. And, if it works out according to plan, everyone should get what they want. Now, of course, the best laid plans of mice and men, and all that …
Discuss.
and should it end up behind the gay marriage amendment on the calendar next time around, we could end up in the same situation we are in now. If its not healthcare, its something else.
<
p>
Best thing to do, in any and all cases, is to vote on all the amendments, and work like hell to make sure your side wins. At least then its a legitimate win, or loss.
er…I mean Carron, Broadhurst, and Pope, all gay marriage opponents also replaced with gay marriage supporters. Whether there are now 151 gay marriage supporters in the legislature is questionable, but it is really close.
<
p>
The one problem with the above-mentioned strategy is that it would yet again require the legislature to bring up the gay marriage issue. Obviously some people here want to see that happen, but the salient point is that the majority of legislators do not. So why would they vote to force the next session to take this up again simply so they can get to other amendments that they’ve already agreed should wait to see how recently passed legislation runs its course(health care amendment, I’m looking at you…).
It makes it one step closer to legalizing the discrimination against my basic human rights. Whether or not we’ll have the votes next session is not a forgone conclusion. It would still be a difficult prospect.
<
p>
The clear solution is trying to get the legislature to take up the healthcare amendment (and others) before the gay marriage ban.
<
p>
How’s this for a counter proposal: let’s ask our state reps and senators to motion to move the gay marriage ban amendment LAST this time around?
<
p>
Then, in the future, let’s work to change the initiative process to make it 50% approval to get it on the ballot, 2/3rds to change the constitution via the populace.
The one problem is that I believe it takes unianimous consent to move around items on the calendar and take them out of order. That won’t happen on January 2nd.
<
p>
My (not so bold) prediction is that it’s a simply a gavel in-gavel out session on the 2nd.
<
p>
I also predict that many around here will be disgusted with the supposed “terrible process” the legislature used to kill the amendment. Many others, however, will be thankful that it won’t be their marriage up for a popular vote, and that for once they will be able to live their lives in peace. You know where my sympathies lie.
<
p>
that is a ridiculously stupid idea. we should be encouraging to vote against the hateful bill. terrible plan.
I’m not really seeing a response to the argument presented in the post, other than “terrible plan.” If you think so, explain why it won’t work.
I think the main reason this wouldn’t work is because most legislators have (reasonably, in my opinion) determined that a vote on the “procedure” of this vote is equal to the vote on the merits.
<
p>
In other words, I think that those voting against moving it to the next session are pro-gay marriage on the merits. Most (though not all) of those voting for moving the amendment to the next session are anti-gay marriage. Because of this, I don’t see much movement on this issue at this point.
<
p>
Not a direct response to this proposal, perhaps, but certainly a major practical reason why this proposal wouldn’t work.
For days, posters here (including yourself David) have been attacking the legislature for somehow abandoning what they see as the legislature’s duty to have an up or down vote on the anti-marriage amendment. Now you are suggesting that the legislators abandon their constitutional duty to determine whether or not a ballot initiative should go before the public in order to expedite a vote on another amendment?
<
p>
So, it’s not ok for a legislator to breach their so-called duty to protect the rights of a minority group and defeat a hateful amendment but its perfectly fine for them to breach this same duty to allow for a vote on an amendment that a majority of legislators probably oppose (hence the reason it wasn’t brought through a legislative initiative)?
<
p>
Am I missing something here?
I think it’s a tad inconsistent. Why is it not okay to use procedural tactics to kill the marriage amendment on the first round, but it would be okay (if necessary) to use them on the second round.
of the post is that the amendment must be killed by any means necessary, including procedural (as I stated in the body of the post itself). As you know, I’m not of that view, but I think it’s a useful exercise to assume that state of affairs and then see what the options are.
What you’re missing is that the proposed unanimous vote is an up-or-down vote on the amendment, and it would have the effect of advancing the amendment to the next session. You’re also missing the idea that, since the amendment has to survive the next session as well as this one, and all indications are that the amendment’s survival will be more difficult in light of the changed membership, the playing field really isn’t altered much by advancing the amendment.
David,
<
p>
The vote would be an up and down vote in name only. If there is a constitutional duty to have an up and down vote, than there is surely a constitutional duty to have the legislators vote on the merits of the amendment. So in order to advance one duty (an up or down vote) you would have the legislators subvert another (voting on the merits of the amendment). If you are so concerned about upholding these principals and duties, how does that work? Why should constitutional principals be trampled upon to allow for the health care amendment to move forward but not used to secure marriage equality?
<
p>
What you are missing is that this battle has been raging for four years now and the legislature finally has a chance to end this once and for all. I don’t think those not affected by this issue truly understand how hurtful this debate is, and how damaging it is to gays and lesbians. While this very well may go down in defeat in the next session (either procedurally or because of lack of 50 votes) I don’t think any member of the gay and lesbian community (a) wants to take that chance and (b) wants to spend the next year as we have the last 4, fighting for our right to marry. It’s not just another year…it’s another year of uncertainty, of painful, hurtful speaches made by our elected representatives, of not knowing whether I will be able to marry the person I choose to spend the rest of my life with.
If there is a constitutional duty to have an up and down vote, than there is surely a constitutional duty to have the legislators vote on the merits of the amendment.
<
p>
No, the constitution just says they have to vote on all the amendments. I mean, they could just vote on the merits, and then kill it next year, but it would be divisive and the legislators don’t want to do that. By all voting yes, it gives them cover, so they don’t have to say how they would have voted if it was the second year. There is no Consitutional principle – and certainly no Constitutional requirement – to vote how they feel on any issue. Heck, they trade votes all the time.
<
p>
What you are missing is that this battle has been raging for four years now and the legislature finally has a chance to end this once and for all.
<
p>
No, I think everyone understands that killing it kills it, but they don’t finally have a chance, they get that chance every time. They’ve killed it once and for all four times now. Yes, this would probably be the last one, I can’t see them trying to do this again, but it can be killed next year. Why be so afraid of that?
Actually, the Constitution on its face doesn’t say they need to vote, that was the judicial interpretation. When talking about advancing an amendment, the Constitution talks about the amendment being “agreed to” and not only voted on. So, if a legislator is voting “yes” they are agreeing to the amendment, not that the amendment should move forward a step. Also, I don’t think that all that many legislators are looking for cover. At this point, the views on almost everybody at the state house is known on this issue (with some exceptions).
<
p>
They haven’t killed every amendment every time. As you may recall, in 2004, the legislature voted to move an amendment that would have outlawed marriage but created civil unions forward to the next session (where it was then defeated). I remember that because I was at the state house and had the distinct displeasure of watching a legislative body that is supposed to represent my best interests tell me that I was a second class citizen.
<
p>
If this is, as you admit, the last time an amendment will come about, the the chance to kill this amendment really amounts to the chance to kill this issue. I would hope you could understand why I would take that option rather than face another year of uncertainty and demagoguery. Also, nothing in life is certain. A lot can change between now and a year from now and quite frankly, I am simply not willing to bet my rights on the unkown.
For some reason, they were specific about this. Legislative amendments have to be “agreed to” twice, but initiative amendments only have to receive “affirmative votes”. I suppose there must be a difference, perhaps just for this sort of case. Maybe they could forsee situations that legislators would not be in agreement with an initiative position, but would give it an affirmative vote anyhow.
<
p>
<
p>
As to you being a second class citizen, please stop thinking that way. All of us would lose the right to marry someone of the other sex, myself included, and I would not take that to mean that I was a second class citizen.
David,
<
p>
I took a look back through the archives and found posts where you (at least seem) to be advocating for a filibuster to block Samuel Alito’s appointment to the high court. Now, the debate regarding filibusters is really similar to that being waged here regarding the procedure used by the MA. legislature this week. Basically, that the Senate’s role is “advise and consent” and therefore they have a duty, perhaps even a constitutional duty, to hold an up or down vote on any Presidential nomination. Yet you said that the Senators should be able to vote their conscience, and that their conscience would hopefully be to vote for a filibuster.
<
p>
So, explain to me how filibustering to block a Supreme Court nominee is different than recessing to kill the anti-marriage amendment. Both are using procedural maneuvers to prevent an unwanted result. And both would, at least under your rationale, violate the duty our elected representatives have. If anything, it seems that the filibuster is more a violation in that a minority would be able to prevent the vote while in the ConCon it was a majority who voted to recess.
Interesting that you should cite this in your argument regarding the Alito nomination, to which the Senate as a whole was allowed to give no advice to the President.
<
p>
The senate signals its consent by voting its approval. If, for any reason, the senate doesn’t vote, it doesn’t approve: it is withholding its consent. Effectively, an abstention with real teeth, not unlike the President of the United States making a pocket veto: he doesn’t sign the bill, so it can’t become law even if he doesn’t formally veto the bill. If the senate votes down a nomination, it’s like the President formally vetoing a bill.
<
p>
The filibuster is a protection of the rights of the minority, and we have seen how fragile those rights are in these past years. It may be maddening when it’s your bill or nominee that’s being held up…but it’s a price I’m willing to pay as a check against the potential tyrrany of the (temporary) majority in this democracy.
<
p>
I’ll let David address your attempt to equate the ConCon and U.S. Senate parliamentary maneuvers and procedures as being equally heinous violations of their duties as our elective representatives, if he wishes. But the notion that there’s a constitutional duty for the Senate to give an up-or-down vote to any nomination the President happens to submit is pernicious nonsense. A refusal to give consent is a refusal whether it’s a negative vote or a withholding of approval.
You make the following statement:
<
p>
“The filibuster is a protection of the rights of the minority, and we have seen how fragile those rights are in these past years. It may be maddening when it’s your bill or nominee that’s being held up…but it’s a price I’m willing to pay as a check against the potential tyrrany of the (temporary) majority in this democracy.”
<
p>
Isn’t that, in essence, the same argument I am making regarding the parliamentary procedures used in this ConCon. It was a procedure that protects the rights of a minority group (gays and lesbians) against the majority (or more specifically a potential majority).
<
p>
The Massachusetts Consitution requires the ConCon to “agree to” an amendment for it to move forward. Isn’t thwarting the amendment through a procedural tactic that same as not agreeing to it by voting it down?
<
p>
My point is that if you are opposed to procedural tactics designed to thwart a process, you should be so across the board and not pick and choose which tactics are more legitimate than others. I believe that the filibuster is a good thing. I also believe that what happened at the ConCon was a good thing.
With all due respect to David, who has been wonderful at promoting discussion on the topic, this suggestion holds no promise — practical or otherwise — and it sets up marriage equality as a sacrificial lamb to appease two groups: (1) health care amendment proponents and (2) Article 48 strict constructionalists (the motives of some of whom seem genuine and of others are suspect at best).
<
p>
First, I think it is overly idealistic (to put it mildly) to propose that everyone vote to advance the gay marriage ban to the next session. There are a number of pro-equality legislators who have fought this amendment (and similar proposals) at every turn. Why in the world would these legislators vote to advance the amendment — especially when they are so close to killing it for good?? They would not.
<
p>
Second, the proposal ignores the reality of the situation facing the health care amendment … that a majority of the ConCon opposes it (or at least has been convinced to send it to die in joint committee). So, why would this same majority — even if presented with the opportunity — be inclined to withdraw the amendment from the joint committee so that it could be voted upon by the ConCon? Even if more than 50 members of the ConCon support the health care amendment, I think the procedures employed to date have demonstrated that a majority of ConCon do not support it, and they are willing to use process and procedure to kill it. Imagine the irony if marriage-equality proponents go along with this suggestion and sacrifice a potential victory of killing the anti-marriage amendment by using parliamentary tactics to give the health care amendment a chance, and then the health care amendment falls victim to those same parliamentary tactics.
Well, that would be ironic indeed. But at least we’d know where everyone stands on it. And that would be a good thing.
<
p>
As for agreeing to advance the marriage amendment unanimously, I agree it’ll be a tough sell. But perhaps the pro-marriage equality legislators could agree to advance the amendment (thereby allowing the vote on health care) in this session in exchange for promises in the next to vote the marriage amendment down — that is, if they can round up the votes they need now, then there’s no harm in voting to advance — and they could get the pro-health care legislators to help, since it’s in their interests. There’s no mystery here — everyone knows exactly who the legislators are going to be in the next session. Go out, count votes, secure written pledges, do what you have to do. There’s plenty of time between now and Jan. 2.
It would only be ironic if you were a gay man and you were somehow doing this to advance gay rights.
<
p>
What it would be is tragic, as in “gay people worked with BMG during the election, then David threw them under the bus in a quixotic quest to embed health care in the state Constitution.”
<
p>
Besides, the plan makes the plot of Ocean’s 12 seem plausible.
Readers might find it useful to hear some of these details:
<
p>
Re CD’s comment
“Second, the proposal ignores the reality of the situation facing the health care amendment … that a majority of the ConCon opposes it (or at least has been convinced to send it to die in joint committee). So, why would this same majority — even if presented with the opportunity — be inclined to withdraw the amendment from the joint committee so that it could be voted upon by the ConCon?”
<
p>
CD, The timing of the July 12 ConCon is crucial to understanding what went down then and how. i don’t have all the gory/gorey details but i have some. On July 12, with the end of session clock ticking quite loudly (ends on July 31), that made the leadership’s VERY aggresive tactics to strong arm/ blackmail committee chairs and members with threats to stall their bills that needed a vote before the end of session very potent.
<
p>
please remember, the hc amendment got 153 YES VOTES in the Juily 2004 ConCon for heavens sake. and the passage of the new hc law, chap 58, does NOT firmly set the state on course for affordable sustainable coverage for all. MANY legislators testified to that fact on July 12 2006 when urging colleagues to reject the study motion and vote yes to send it to ballot. even some leges who testified in that way at the podium eventually voted for the study motion. CRAZY, yes, but that’s what leadership and their leiutenants putting the screws on you at the end of the legislative session can accomplish.
<
p>
Re: David’s How-de-do update: a concrete proposal, I had a reaction similar to some others’, that is, i don’t feel good about that idea; why not just try to vote down the marriage item and know who we really have to hone in on in advance of the 2nd ConCon vote, should it get more than 50 votes and move on to that.
<
p>
But i’d rather pursue moving the hc item up on the calendar of items for Jan 2. That’s a must do-de-do.
<
p>
p.s. shedding some public light and attention on the fact that said “special study committee”, appointed at the July 12 ConCon and composed of the HC Finance Cmte members (Sen Richard Moore and Rep Patricia Walrath are the Co-chairs), has NEVER convened a meeting and has no attention of doing so (from what all sources indicate), would be an important element of any strategy that seriously attempts to get a vote on the hc amendment. Letting Moore and Walrath know of our attention would help too. State House switchboard # 617-722-2000.
why not just try to vote down the marriage item and know who we really have to hone in on in advance of the 2nd ConCon vote, should it get more than 50 votes and move on to that.
<
p>
They were under lots of pressure to kill it now, and didn’t want to have a vote for or against it to have to defend to half of their constituents. That’s the point of this proposal: This way they can tell all of their constituents that they agree with them, just as well as they could if they don’t vote on it at all. If they all vote for it, they can tell their gay rights constituents that they only voted it forward so that they could get to the health care initiative, and their traditional-marriage constituents that they voted for it. They’d have to agree to give each other cover by all voting for it. If some of them don’t, it won’t work, we’ll have the same divisive mess they wanted to avoid. Well, maybe a few zealots could position themselves for the future as uber-principled on gay marriage and refuse to vote yes, but most of the others would be happy to let them stand out that way, while they were able to show how principled they were about following the process and pragmatic they were about not impeding the health care initiative.
<
p>
The problem I think is that they don’t want to have “a duty and obligation” to come up with affordable health care for all residents. They don’t want it imposed on them. Even if they agree with the cause, they don’t want the amendment because they lose it as an issue, they can’t take credit for it and show how indespensible they are as a champion of health care. So both sides are against it, but neither side wants to be seen voting against a right to health care. And they don’t have a believable reason to use parliamentary tactics to kill that bill as they do with marriage. They can’t say “people’s rights should not be put up for a vote. Imagine if people voted on the rights of other minorities?” because this bill establishes a right (but does it really?), rather than takes one away.
<
p>
So they stuck it after the marriage amendment so that they could then say “I’m for health care, of course, and would have voted for it, but we couldn’t vote on it because (blames radical gays/religious right/other legislators, depending on venue).”
They’d have to agree to give each other cover by all voting for it.
<
p>
Or, by all voting against it.
But how ’bout this:
<
p>
Everyone votes to reject the anti-marriage amendment. In doing so, they make clear that they are doing so simply in order to get to the health care (and other) amendments remaining on the agenda, so that their votes cannot be construed as pro-gay marriage. Then they proceed through the rest of the items on the calendar.
<
p>
That option never occurred to anyone? Is that because it’s second nature to expect gay people to compromise, to concede, to go along to get along, to prioritize our own needs behind those of others, to always be more generous that our antagonists? Is it because it’s second nature to expect nothing but destructive intransigence at all costs from opponents of equality?
The difference is that voting for it sends it to next year’s concention, so the people that join the other side this year in order to get to the health care amendment know that they can kill it next year. But voting against it kills it right now, there won’t be a next year to change back to voting for it.
That actually makes the whole thing simpler, doesn’t it? There’s only one step.
But World, there are members that want it to get to the ballot. They’ll be happy to vote yes for it, but they won’t vote no, because they won’t get another chance to get their way next year. People that don’t want it on the ballot can vote yes and still change their vote next year.
Everyone seems to agree it’s a lost cause, and should be, so they are selfishly sacrificing health care to their fit of spite, no?
That is my argument David for why this plan is a bad one. A rigid adherence to principle for the sake of a rigid adherence to principle is just plain nonsense. In a free society the right of any single individual to have the same rights as another individual is NEVER an issue for the ballot. The entire essence of a constitution is protect rights, not to deny them. What John Howard is suggesting is that we pursue a lemming like strategy even if it leads us off the cliff…just because we think the process tells us so.
<
p>
On another issue, David your arguments for following the process have in one sense been excellent. You argue your point well, albeit narrowly. That must be the lawyer training. 😉 There is a much bigger issue involved here and that is whether a very narrow minority truly has the right to subject a group of individuals to forcibly give up their rights. No democratic process in the world, taken to its logical conclusion, could uphold such an undemocratic result.
that the health care advocates who have poured their hearts and souls into getting the health care amendment on the ballot will appreciate your thoughtful take on the issue, which basically boils down to “I’m right, and anyone who doesn’t think so is an idiot.”
There are a lot of hearts and souls wrapped up here, David. How long are you going to keep stirring this sh*tstorm?
I think you are wrong David but I certainly DO NOT think you are an idiot. I am wont to agree with you because 99% of the time I believe in following the process because that is how we keep things fair. Here, however, we are talking about institutionalizing inequality which is fundamentally unfair and this is why I cannot agree in following like lemmings over a cliff.
The passion associated with health care advocacy is tantamount to the passion one would feel at the prospect of losing an existing right to marry the person of one’s choosing?
<
p>
With all due respect, you really don’t get it. Heart and souls indeed. You have consistently tried to draw an equivalency between these two issues that doesn’t exist. (And before anyone attempts to scold or lecture me on the need for health care coverage for all, you can stop right now. I worked 16 years in community-based primary care medicine and don’t need to be lectured on the health care crisis thankyouverymuch.)
<
p>
The treatment of this issue on this site has turned the potential stripping of people’s rights into sport. Worse, there’s little patience by those who view themselves as somehow more “authoritative” with those who don’t view this intensely personal issue with the same clinical detachment.
<
p>
The failure to appreciate the visceral nature of the loss of marriage rights is at the root of the problem here. Ryan’s attempt to make people understand fell, largely, on many deaf ears. So yes, there are people telling yelling at you and others that anything that doesn’t guarantee their right to marry is unacceptable. That essentially delegitimizing those families, many with children, already recognized through marriage is unacceptable, your exasperation notwithstanding. And they are absolutely justified in doing so, given the nature of the issue.
<
p>
Now that’s just inaccurate, no? Narrow minority of at least 51% following two (2) considered ConCon votes.
there only needs to be 50 votes out of 200. That is a narrow minority to me.
You can not simply pick and choose the parts of the Constitution you are going to follow. The same Constitution that gave citizens recourse to the initiative process is the same Constitution that gave us Goodridge, after all.
<
p>
To say that this is simply about earning a gold star for good government is missing the point. If any part of our Constitution is going to mean anything (such as the part that guarantees equal justice, for instance) all of it must mean something.
The entire discussion has acquired a life of its own. Trying to marry, if you will, the fate of the anti-marriage petition with the health care amendment is a perversion. Indeed, the process has become like kudzu, overrunning common sense and decency, as was pointed out by Andy’s post below, rendering the anti-marriage amendment an abstraction, something detached from those who would actually be harmed–we’re talking freakin’ harm here–in order to pay homage to purity of process and to enhance the chances of another freakin’ amendment.
<
p>
Perverse. Positively perverse. This is not a game. This is not the 4th quarter of the Super Bowl, although the gamesmanship of the discussion on this site for the past few days makes differentiating between the two difficult.
<
p>
Meanwhile, like-minded individuals are unnecessarily scuffling with and antagonizing people with whom they’d normally be allied.
<
p>
This is what happens when politics and the law become divorced from the lives of those who live its consequences.
<
p>
The process has become a fetish.
Lightiris you are wonderful! You have captured very beautifully the problem with John Howard and David’s arguments — they are detached from the real harm of the passage of the anti-human, anti-freedom amendment! The legislative trading being suggested neglects to mention that what is being traded isn’t a few million dollars from this project for that project but instead is trading the fundamental freedom of a person to marry the person of his or her choosing for the stupid sanctity of process! Perverse indeed.
The trade is to put off killing the marriage amendment until next year, so that we can put the health care initiative on the ballot. There is virtually zero chance that it won’t be killed next year, and it might even be able to be voted down legitimately. Why do you have so little faith that next years ConCon won’t be able to do that? Why are you so afraid that if it survives this year, then my right to marry another man will be stripped from me?
Sometimes politics brings us to a fork in the road and we are forced to choose. It is not always possible to make everyone happy or to serve two good causes equally at the same time. I am a happy and contented individual, but none the less my life as a gay man has been a series of compromises, personal and political. I had to accept dont ask dont tell because it was the furthest they could go at the time, or so I was told. I had to accept DOMA because if we didnt accept Clinton signing it, his veto would have been over ruled anyway and then he would have lost too much political capital and we needed him. I sit patiently waiting for the time to be right to challenge DOMA on constitutional grounds, even though all existing precedent points to its unconstitutionality on several fronts because the Court is too conservative and they will bend the precedent on ideological grounds and enshrine an updated separate but equal doctrine for gay people. All the while my husband and I have to prepare 4 tax returns every year and I panic just a little whenever we leave the state because God forbid something should happen when we go to visit family in Colorado this Christmas and they refuse to recognize my rights, even though we have a health care proxy which we shouldnt need because we are married. I am done with compromising. It is time to take a stand and say clearly and plainly that the compromises are over. Now is the time for my rights to be and stay married and to know that others like me can enjoy those rights in perpetuity to be more important. Im sorry that the healthcare amendment is going to die, but the road to change is peppered with crushing defeats and I have listed but a few that we have had to step over to get to this point. I am confident that the day for universal affordable health care will come but I can’t support that goal being advanced on Jan. 2nd.
David has now demonstrated his willingness to sacrifice gay people for a cause he considers more worthwhile.
<
p>
It’s like the old joke about “would you sleep with me for a million dollars.” We now know he’s going to throw us under the bus, we’re just waiting to find out when and for how much.
<
p>
As Anthony so rightly puts it, the compromises are over.
<
p>
I helped give Deval a mandate, not BMG. I certainly didn’t vote for David. If he’s trying to build a progressive coalition, this is not an auspicious start.
Seriously saying that David has “sacrificed gay people” and “thrown [you] under the bus”? Look, more than one gay friend of mine, some married, have agreed with David’s position on this dilemma. For disclosure, it happens to be my position also. And please don’t just write me off b/c of that; you’d be writing off many of your gay brothers and sisters too.
<
p>
And speaking of throwing a person under the bus, this phrase brings to mind visions of severe bodily harm and that could lead conveniently to a discussion about the need for a right to health care, in order to prevent the obscene health inequities and needless suffering that pervade our current system and which the health care amendment seeks to remedy.
<
p>
No one here, including David I believe, is “choosing” one group or issue or cause over another. We are sincerely looking to our deepest values to guide us toward action, toward taking a stand on what we believe in. Just as you are, I imagine.
<
p>
And speaking of brothers and sisters, this amendment is as much for my sister and every other human being who struggles with serious chronic mental illness. These good people much much too often do not receive the care they need and they deserve, often for lacking the right “insurance”. My sister had “good” insurance when she had her first psychotic episode 20 years ago. After a few weeks at McLean’s, she was still terribly ill and sufferring horribly and the meds were not working too well. One day her insurance coverage “ran out” for mental illness services so the hospital staff shipped her strapped down in four point restraints to a state psychiatric hospital where they had no beds available.
<
p>
So they put her on a matress on the floor. In the “Day Room”. Then the family was notified. I got her transferred to the Deaconess Hospital the next day. I won’t go into the other litany of horrors of her and the family’s experiences. Most of these “problems accessing needed care” were preventable if we actually had a functional health care system, one that prioritizes people’s clinical needs and population health over market competition and profits.
<
p>
These kinds of things are still happening to thousands of people, very sick people who need and deserve care, and to their families ALL THE TIME. EVERY DAY. WITH EVERY KIND OF SERIOUS ILLNESS. Talk about feeling like you’ve been sacrified or thrown under the bus… My sister, my family and many many others know how that feels. I’m not saying you don’t know it too. Let’s not throw daggers, please. We’ve got so much common ground to work together.
AnnEm,
<
p>
I am very sorry to hear your story. Many of us who believe strongly that the legislature did the right thing in blocking the anti-marriage amendment feel that the health care amendment got a bad deal. But a couple of points.
<
p>
First, I’m not positive that the health care amendment would necessarily have solved all the problems that your family faced.
<
p>
Second, the feeling that David and other posters here are sacrificing the gay marriage issue in favor of the health care amendment has some merit. The position is basically let’s manipulate the gay marriage vote, pushing the anti-marriage amendment one more step towards reality when we have a chance to kill it once and for all, in order to allow for a vote on the health care amendment, whose passage is uncertain at best given the leaderships treatment of the amendment. When in one sentence people are criticizing the legislature for procedural tactics to end the anti-marriage amendment and then in the next advocating a procedural tactic that would move the amendment forward for the sake of a potential vote on the health care amendment, it really seems like they are saying that one is worth sacrificing for the sake of the other. You say people aren’t choosing but instead turning to their values. I don’t think they are mutually exclusive. It seems to me that a lot of people here are deciding that the health care amendment is more important than the gay marriage issue and that therefore, the gays can suck it up so that the health care amendment can be debated.
<
p>
Third, health care and gay marriage are very much a related issue. I have good friends who have been together for over 10 years (not in Massachusetts so no option to marry). One was in a serious accident and lay in the hospital. His partner rushed to the hospital, but was denied visitation because he was not “family.” As terrible as your situation was (and by no means do I intend to take anything away from you or your family) at least you had the right and ability to be involved in your sisters care. If the anti-marriage amendment passes and, God forbid, something were to happen to my partner, I would have no rights or say in his care, even though this is the man I have chosen to spend the rest of my life with.
I’ve been working on a response, but it was nowhere near that eloquent. That is pretty much exactly what I was trying to say. The idea of trading gay marriage votes for health care is just repugnant to me. I support health care, but not at the expense of something I consider a basic civil right.
<
p>
My partner (of 16 years!) and I have living wills and rights of remains from when I was traveling to India for work, but they’re still only an approximation of the rights one gets through marriage.
<
p>
For the record, I believe constitutional tinkering is an absolute last resort. I oppose it for everything from outlawing flag burning to guaranteeing health care.
If you are already married to the man you have chosen to spend the rest of your life with. The amendment would only prohibit new marriages, not nullify the existing ones.
The amendment would ONLY prohibit new marriages? So, I get rights, but people with the misfortune to fall in love after me don’t? How does that work?
<
p>
I’ve been hit with some patronizing arguments in my time, but that one takes the cake. All gays are second class citizens, but a few lucky ones get to pretend to sit at the table? No thanks.
<
p>
The sad thing is David just made essentially the same argument.
the marriages that occurred before the “ban” would end up being viewed, as a result of the realignment of the planets and the new world order, as any of the following or a combination of some or all: a) aberrant b) somewhat illegitimate c) faux and c) sad reminders of a period of time before the contagion was contained.
<
p>
Oh, sweety, pay no attention. It’s not a real marriage, it’s just one of those ersatz marriages that happened before we put a stop to it. Sort of like a spreading viral infection. Great stuff that.
I do have to admit David’s OBSESSION with this topic is leading me to believe otherwise. It’s downright creepy.
of the amendment, just the facts of what will happen should it pass.
Plus it’s important to me that you know that I absolutely understand and have a deep feeling for what you describe about health care and gay marriage / rights being related.
<
p>
A major reason I went into nursing was to help respond humanely to the AIDS pandemic and to counter the the discrimination in care that was occuring. I’d been working in the health care field in other capacities for 15 years already and as the AIDS epidemic in the US unfolded, I was appalled and outraged at what was happening to people and their loved ones facing such a severe and frightening illness.
<
p>
I understand perfectly the scenarios you describe about “visitation” rights and the like. Important beyond words.
<
p>
BTW In 1991-92 I worked at the Hospice at Mission Hill (the first or second hospice in the country, as I recall, founded to care primarily for people dying of AIDS, the other being in San Fran). And before, during and after that time I did what I could as a member of Boston’s ACT-UP group. Actually, now that I think back, maybe that’s another significant part of my life history that makes me so fiercly committed to creating an equal right to comprehensive health care for all. And for thinking that it could actually be accomplished; look at the amazing things accomplished by ACT-UP and other elements of the gay rights movement. So yeah, I truly hear and feel what you’re saying about this and could not agree more.
<
p>
And that leads us to what’s so crazy making about what the legislature has done, putting the HC amemndment (item #3) after the gay marriage amendment (item #20) on the ConCon agenda.
I was in ACT_UP in both Dallas and Boston and my partner was one of the first members AIDS Action buddy program. I fully understand where you’re coming from.
<
p>
Thanks