Scot Lehigh’s column today echoes a lot of the debate that’s been raging here over the past few days.
For same-sex marriage supporters, the opportunity to kill the amendment now simply proved too tempting — even though doing so meant abusing the constitutional process.
And if you think that only amendments to ban same-sex marriage suffer process abuses, well, think again. The Health Care for Massachusetts Campaign has collected some 66,000 signatures for an amendment to guarantee affordable, comprehensive healthcare for all state residents. That amendment got 153 legislative votes in July 2004.
But the legislative leadership was skeptical of the measure. And so, in July, the Legislature sent the healthcare amendment to a so-called study committee, a long-established method of scuttling something without killing it outright.
That amendment, too, deserved an up-or-down vote. Had it received one, it would likely be heading for the 2008 ballot. Instead, it too is all but certain to die on Jan. 2….
Why does it matter? Listen to Donald Stern, who served as legal counsel to Michael Dukakis and later as US attorney, and who is now representing the healthcare campaign.
“The constitution provides that mechanism for voters to decide whether to amend the constitution or not,” Stern says. “If the Legislature can simply not vote, and by that inaction deny the voters the right to have a matter placed on the ballot, they will have taken away an important right.” …
I realize it’s hard for people to look beyond their own position on an issue to consider constitutional concerns. Instead, the ends will almost inevitably justify the means for partisans.
But there’s a broader principle at issue here: Do citizens really want a Legislature that repeatedly ignores an essential provision of the very constitution it is sworn to uphold?
Further, if lawmakers can disregard the constitution with impunity, who, really, is sovereign?
After last week, it’s hard to argue that the real amending power lies with the citizens.
I think that’s basically right. I know a lot of you don’t, and apparently a lot of you think that respect for the process isn’t really all that important as long as the “right” substantive goals are being advanced. But the reason process matters is that, sure, today’s someone else’s ox is being gored. But tomorrow it may be yours.
and that is why I am sure you will be leading the charge when a small fringe of society puts forward an amendment to the constitution creating a “speech committee” through which all news must flow for proper “editing” before being published. Extreme? Yes. But the point still stands. Somethings are not amenable to amendment because they fundamentally alter the underpinnings upon which the amendment process is based. Injecting discrimination into the constitution fundamentally alters the purpose of what the constitution is intended to do, which is mainly to protect rights.
Injecting discrimination into the constitution fundamentally alters the purpose of what the constitution is intended to do, which is mainly to protect rights.
<
p>
Then nobody better try to push a progressive tax amendment pass us, ’cause that discriminates against rich folks.
But Andy, if the group really were a “small fringe”, then they wouldn’t have reached both the signature count and the 1/4 on the ConCon to put it on the ballot in the first place. Regardless of what you think of the amendment, anything that gets the votes of a quarter of the ConCon will represent a significant portion of society — in this case, a bigoted portion, but a significant portion nonetheless. Furthermore, even if it does truly represent a small fringe, then there should be little worry about putting it on the ballot, because it will fail anyway.
<
p>
So yes, if any group passes the (democratically-agreed-to) constitutional provisions for a ballot initiative, then we should all support putting it on the ballot, even if we would vote no. Similarly, we must support the free speech rights of everyone, even those we most bitterly disagree with. Anything less undermines core democratic principles. We undermine those principles at our own peril. This will come back to bite us, if it hasn’t already with the shafting of the health care amendment.
The threshold is relative low. I am sorry but getting 50 elected officials in the legislature isn’t that tough nor is the signature requirement. Plus, you have no justification for saying:
It is possible for a quarter in the legislature to represent basically no one. Just because a legislator votes for something doesn’t mean he always represents his constituency which is the fallacy of your premise.
But tomorrow it may be yours.
<
p>
When is it going to be your turn to give up something, David? We’ve seen plenty evidence over the last several days of the lengths you’re willing to go to on behalf of your own priorities.
The thing of it is, David, that yesterday it was our ox. It was term limits, it was reproductive rights, it was education, it was clean elections — all killed by the same or similar maneuvering. So, what makes this the line in the sand? What makes marriage equality the sacrifice that must be made in the name of process?
<
p>
The precedent has been set. The fact of the matter is that Lehigh is right when he says that if the lege disagrees, we don’t have any recourse other than the ballot box. He seems to think that legislators cannot be replaced, but even looking at last week’s election we see that’s not true in every case. Legislators can be defeated. It’s hard, but it can be done and if this issue resonated with the majority of voters, they would be.
What makes it a line in the sand is that these were citizen petition to amend the constitution. The others were plain citizen petitions to make laws, which CAN be changed/overridden by the legislature quite legitimately. Health care and DOMA are different in that there is a stipulated procedure for dealing with them which the legislature is abrogating.
<
p>
Tell ya what – I would be DELIGHTED with a citizen petition to amend our constitution for term limits. I would be happy to see you on the barricades if you want to help start a drive.
I think I’m turning into a Republican.
This isn’t any different from those other proceedings. They were just as bad. But no one was blogging about it then. đŸ˜‰
Words cannot express my depth of commitment to both gay rights and to establishing a right to health care. So please, weren’t we trying to move to being constructive on this DILEMMA THAT IS NOT OF OUR MAKING?
<
p>
Certainly i do not mean to imply a wish to shut down dialogue. but let’s not allow the fact that someone else (scot lehigh) shares and get printed many of the views that some here on BMG ascrible to, to re-open/worsen what are starting to feel like self-inflicted wounds among the progressive community.
<
p>
David, put Ryan’s “A Proposal” back up at the top of the homepage, will ya?
even most supporters of marraige equality would admit that the lege is employing a little chicanery to achieve an ultimate objective.
<
p>
and what is that objective? . . . to insure that the right of equality is established once and finally and for all.
<
p>
and the chicanery that the lege is using to kill the healthcare amendment serves what objective?
<
p>
who has said? who has asked?
<
p>
is the objective it to serve the interest and welfare of the people?
one would hope. but let’s hear someome stand up and explain how killing the healthcare amendment achieves that.
<
p>
Info I received, follows:
<
p>
<
p>
Many people know those above reasons not to be true; this conclusion is based on mounds and mounds and years of evidence. Why are the facts so hard to see/to accept? Because they are so distasteful?
<
p>
To learn more about the real reasons Read This Comment written by a well-informed source with years of professional experience working on this issue.
<
p>
Then tell me why you believe the above reasons to be true and I’ll listen.
It’s from Senator Moore.
Next, as fairdeal suggests, why not ask Sen. Moore to support a constructive public dialogue on the topic. Perhaps he and his good Co-Chair Rep. Patricia Walrath of both the “Special Study Committee” and the legislative Health Finance Committee, would participate in a Public Forum to openly and honestly discuss the pros and cons of the citizens health care effort.
<
p>
What: A 4 person panel discussion with Co-chairs Sen. Moore and Rep. Walrath and Health Care Amendment Campaign Co-chairs Barbara Roop and John Goodson, with the general public in the audience sounds like a lively mix to me.
<
p>
Where to hold it? The Boston Anatheum across from the State House perhaps.
<
p>
Who to moderate?
<
p>
How and When?
<
p>
Am I dreaming?
I don’t know if they are absolutely true, but they seem absolutely reasonable to me. I venture to say they would seem reasonable to much of the voting public, at least those who aren’t healthcare activists.
But let’s test it out, reweel. It sounds like you’ll help get the health care amendment its second due ConCon vote and if it passes it goes on to the ballot. Then the “voting public, at least those who aren’t healthcare activists” will have their opportunity to exercise their voting rights and you’ll have your opportunity to test your quite nastily-phrased hypothesis.
AnnEM, I’m not sure how you construed raweel’s comment as nasty, but I don’t think it was nasty at all. It seems to me that raweel is merely stating that the reasons attributed to Sen. Moore for referring the amendment to a special committee seem reasonable.
then why did it have to include
<
p>
“…at least those who aren’t healthcare activists”
<
p>
folks who support the hc amendment aren’t some extremist totally homogenous group, which it what those words imply.
<
p>
And it felt like a swipe. But thanks for your perspective, CD. Good night.
After thinking about the potential consequences, I don’t support the Health Care Amendment but I respect the work that has gone into getting it as far as it has. I certainly wouldn’t want to imply that only healthcare activists would support the amendment. But I think at this point healthcare activists need to be educating the public about why this should be an amendment. Claiming the new system is broken without giving it a chance to work is not a winning strategy, imho.
<
p>
My point was that the objections that have been raised to the amendment are reasonable ones to make. There are probably other under-the-table political tradeoffs happening that the backers of the amendment would be more aware of, but they are irrelevant to the merits of the amendment.
<
p>
I’m very much behind universal access but I don’t think the amendment route is the best way to accomplish this.
“It sounds like you’ll help get the health care amendment its second due ConCon vote and if it passes it goes on to the ballot.”
<
p>
No, I wouldn’t, but it has nothing to do with same-sex marriage OR health care.
<
p>
As I’ve explained on other posts, I believe the citizen initiative process should be used except in the rarest of cases. What are the appropriate cases? I believe the initiative process is best used to directly address the composition or standing of the legislature (ie term limits). I would most definitely support initiative for universal access legislation, on the other hand.
<
p>
I know tensions are high and much has been invested in the process. But I have to say politically it upsets me more that the Health Care Amendment was put forward as an initiative than it upsets me that the marriage amendment was put forward.
At least for the anti-same-sex marriage crowd, a citizen’s initiative was one of the last options available to advance their cause.
<
p>
where has been the airing of these arguments?
<
p>
at the phantom “study commitee”?
<
p>
“. . .but it appears that the Legislature wants to approach changes in the Constitution with great caution . . “
<
p>
the “Legislature” has already indicated a willingness to consider the merits via an up-or-down vote. So why not have the debate? and then the vote?
<
p>
i believe “the Leadership” would be a more accurate ID of the prime mover here.
Gary-
<
p>
Thanks for putting the list up. You’re right these are the questions/objections most frequently raised.
<
p>
But before I respond to them one by one I’d like to say again what the Amendment does and doesn’t do…and then move on to addressing the specific objections
<
p>
(link is to a very thorough comment posted by Barbara Roop in reply to these objections on another thread)
You have no idea how much it means to me, Ann, that we seem to have found some common ground. If my proposal fails, I promise to work to no ends to make sure that we bring the charge on health care up once again – and this time more organized than ever, so the legislature can’t squash the cause (lest they want a public uproar – and primary opponents).
when judges won’t hear new evidence because of a law.
<
p>
Where do we get the arrogance to dare to vote for another person’s rights?
<
p>
We do NOT have the “right” to vote on equal marriage. From what I can tell, it should already be legal under the U.S. Constitution’s 14th amendment, which guarantees citizens of a state to the same rights and responsibilities as every other citizen. Plus protecting the rights of the minority is kind of a huge part of our supposed democracy.
<
p>
And, since civil marriage has been the tradition in the United States ever since the Puritans came over on the Mayflower, that gives the state the right to license a marriage.
<
p>
Any religious oganization can forbid religious unions, discrimate all they want to (they should be taxed, however, for advocating political positions, but that’s another story). But the government cannot.
<
p>
I still have not heard one good reason for being against gay civil marriage that doesn’t reveal homophobia. Please, someone, give me a good reason that’s not one of the following supposedly non-homophobic ones:
(a) “Marriage should be between a man and a woman.”
(b) “We can’t/shouldn’t change the definition of marriage.”
(c) “We should call gay marriages “unions,” not marriages.”
<
p>
Who says marriage should only be between a man and a woman? Dictionary definitions change all the time. This view smacks of pseudo-religious morality. Again, religion is not allowed to dictate law. Ethics may suggest law, and religious organizations have a terrible history with ethics (the Inquisition, witch trials, pedophilia). Ethics as generally accepted here in the U.S. of A. tend to favor equality, not discrimination.
<
p>
If someone is not in favor of equal marriage, then that person is prejudiced. If someone thinks this issue should be resolved by the masses (the masses liked Hitler, too), they are at best missing the point of equal marriage and at worst, prejudiced as well, no matter how many gay friends they supposedly have.
I still have not heard one good reason for being against gay civil marriage that doesn’t reveal homophobia. Please, someone, give me a good reason that’s not one of the following supposedly non-homophobic ones
<
p>
It is not homophobic to feel that genetic engineering to create people is bad and should be prohibited. It is not homophobic to feel that all people should be created equal, from the union of a man’s sperm and a woman’s egg.
<
p>
The reasons to oppose genetic engineering have nothing to do with feeling the willies about a gay couple or thinking that homosexual acts are an abomination. Hopefully, people that are perfectly comfortable with homosexuality and believe that all people should have the right to love and live with who ever they want to can also be allowed to oppose labs creating people through genetic engineering.
<
p>
It actually IS homophobic to imply that not being bio-related to your child implies that you cannot love your child or your partner as much as a couple that are both bio-related to their children do. And that is what is implied by the insistance on pursuing same-sex conception.
There is no logical correlation between gay marriage and genetic engineering. People who oppose gay marriage have tacked this issue on for their political convenience and claim that naturally gay people after getting married are going to want to run out and engineer children who they are both genetically linked to. It is the high tech version of “if you let the gays marry then they will want to marry farm animals and young children next.” To even suggest that this is a reason to deny gay marriage is in fact homophobic and shameful.
There certainly isn’t any correlation between gay rights and genetic engineering, but marriage grants the couple the right to attempt to have children together, which means same-sex marriage grants couples the right to attempt to have children together, creating a right to use genetic engineering.
<
p>
All I want to do is make sure that labs are prohibited from attempting to create a person from anything other than a woman’s egg fertilized by a man’s sperm. They aren’t currently, but if Congress passes the egg and sperm law, they would be. This means that people would have a right to conceive with someone of the other sex, and no one would have a right to conceive with someone of the same sex. Leaving aside marriage for the moment, are you still with me, as far as that goes? You aren’t about to start saying the opposite of what you just said above, are you? You are OK with genetic engineering being prohibited and making natural egg and sperm conception the only legal method to conceive?
<
p>
OK, good, so we enact the law with your full approval. Now if a same-sex couple were married, but were also prohibited from joining their gametes, it would mean that marriage – all marriages – would suddenly, for the first time in history, not grant a couple the right to conceive children together. This could have ramifications very soon, it could easily mean that a man carrying a “bad” gene could be denied the right to have a child with his wife, and instead be forced to use a donor sperm or have his own genes genetically modified. It could even lead to forced sterilizations again, since the logic of Skinner doesn’t apply if sperm donation and genetic engineering are considered equivilent to having your own children.
Please, please tell me you have been sent from the future to lead us away from the path of extinction. If so, please go back and tell them we aren’t ready to listen to you yet. Before you go, if you give me a few stock tips (or Superbowl picks), I promise I will create the foundation from my future extraordinary wealth to build the time machine that has sent you to us in your mission to save the world.
<
p>
In the meantime, since you have been singularly focused on this issue, instead of fighting against this homosexual red herring, consider the slippery slope of infertile heterosexual couples trying to conceive. First, it’s not one egg and one sperm, it will be one cheek cell from a female and one sperm from a male.
<
p>
And it seems to me that if this produces viable offspring and is morally acceptable (and I bet it would be acceptable to the general public), you would have absolutely no logical basis to continue this one-man campaign to preemptively ban hypothetical ‘same-sex’ reproduction.
<
p>
Don’t forget those stock tips…
<
p>
They are imprinted differently. They can’t be joined without genetic engineering.
<
p>
Someday, it might be feasible to somehow use the dna from a man’s cheek cell to create a sperm for that man, which he could then use to conceive with a the genes of a woman. This would all be private medical procedures in order to restore health. That’s what medicine does, it restores health. Healthy people can conceive with someone of the other sex. And we have a right to use medicine to get ourselves healthy. It wouldn’t require any genetic modifications, only transfers of chromosomes from one kind of cell into another, and maybe some culturing and growing until it was possible to join it with someone else’s genes. And whether or not it was risky, it would be their decision, they would have a right to try to do what healthy people have a right to do.
<
p>
But trying to combine genes with someone’s of the same sex would require genetic engineering, and it would not restore health. A healthy person cannot conceive with someone of the same sex. The genes are imprinted differently throughout the genome, and cannot be swapped out and substituted for someone’s of the other sex Same-sex conception requires genetic engineering, and is a public, non-medical, non-health-restoring procedure. It should be prohibited now, before too much money is wasted developing this, and before any people are put at grave risk of being created in this inhumane manner. We don’t have to wait until the future to prohibit it, we should prohibit it now, while we are discussing the rights of same-sex couples.
<
p>
Prohibiting it now would reap dividends for same-sex couples and gay people across the country. It would make it possible to create civil unions in all fifty states, because the civil unions would not have the rights of marriage (conception rights would be missing, but all other protections and benefits would be there). It would be an opportunity to work out a compromise for federal recognition of civil unions as marriages, which would give real live same-sex couples important benefits and important recognition. There is really no downside to enacting a federal egg and sperm law now. It could always be repealed if we ever decide that same-sex conception ought to be allowed, at which point we would change same-sex civil unions to marriages. They would then have the same rights as both sex couples (as they do now, since same-sex conception is currently legal, but ought not to be).
It’s 2 am and I can’t believe I’m engaged in a conversation about this. I commend you for your complete selflessness, it is an admirable quality in someone politically motivated. I think you would be perfectly prepared for political office in either political party, you demonstrate patience and respect for your audience. It’s no doubt hard to be sensitive when a lot of people think you’re crazy.
<
p>
But I do worry about this political monomania. You are a young guy, I can’t imagine taking such a public stance is increasing your chances for reproduction đŸ™‚
<
p>
So if you permit me to ask, what I want to know is why…why spend so much time and energy on something that pushes the envelope so far ahead? I joke that you were sent from the future, but in a sense you are. You are thinking like 12 steps ahead in the civil rights game, and the assumptions are worth considering but it is equally important to build up to this. Work for example towards getting civil unions in 50 states, even if you believe this is your ultimate purpose. Try pushing the debate forward without even addressing this issue — and people may catch up sooner than you think.
<
p>
That’s the end of the unsolicited advice.
<
p>
I have no doubt you would have well-thought-out counterarguments to any of the following data points, not to be taken cohesively: imprinting is done by only a small portion of genes, not knowing the science I grant that genetic engineering would be necessary for same-sex reproduction — but might be necessary to correct for heterosexual genetic defects (give me another approach than the restore health argument, too reductive view of medicine when there are augmentative roles as well, medicine can be used improve biological performance). why not address broader target to outlaw genetic engineering on humans. technology improves so what if defect rate was only 99%, what exactly is the moral as opposed to the pragmatic objection. parthenogenesis occurs in non-mammals. gender and reproduction strategies themselves evolve. cloning may be possible. why not allow same-sex couples to clone if they cannot reproduce by other means?
It’s not too soon to prohibit this. It is already done in mice, and one prominent, respected researcher predicted it would be done in humans in three to five years (quoted last year, so that means 2008 to 2010).
<
p>
Also, medicine is not enhancement.
<
p>
As to your questions, yes I do have answers, but why should I be the one proving that it should not be allowed? Shouldn’t we ban it first to be safe and protect children, and then if people want to argue as to why it should be unbanned, let them try to convince us. This is too important a step for us to let it just happen. People have never been manufactured before, and now, in 2008, it might start happening, and that might have pretty huge implications. No one is paying attention or thinking about what the effects might be. It’s like we think it’s just an entertaining Schwarzenegger movie.
“Medicine is not enhancement”. Tell that to a plastic surgeon đŸ™‚
<
p>
One step at a time please. You’ve done more thinking on this than most any one on the planet. Banning this at this point understandably upsets same-sex couples who mistake your concern for homophobia, would only hurt scientists involved in basic research, and is unnecessarily focused on one narrow hypothetical.
<
p>
The science is interesting to learn about, so I’ll pose one final follow up question. From a separate article: “The majority of mammalian genes are present in two copies that are expressed and regulated. A small number of mammalian genes, however, are subject to special regulation by a process called gene imprinting. The imprint is a chemical mark attached to genes during egg or sperm development. Imprinting physically marks a gene in such a way that the parental origin of the gene can be distinguished and expressed accordingly.”
<
p>
If I understand this correctly, there is nothing inherent in the genes themselves that makes it identifiable as male or female DNA. As we understand imprinting better, would we be able to arbitrarily attach these chemical marks to the genes? Take a cheek cell from a male and a cheek cell from a female, but attach a female imprint to the first and a male imprint from the second. Would you argue to ban this as well?
<
p>
Changing the imprinting from one sex to the other is actually what Dr. Richard Scott is trying to do in New Jersey, and many others around the world probably as well. He’s the doctor that expects it to produce children in “three to five years” away, You can’t find this article on the GayCityNews website anymore, but I copied it from Google’s cahced copy and you can read it here.
<
p>
<
p>
Maybe he said “thrity-five years” and the reporter misheard him? Either way, we should be putting medical research resources toward medicine, not human manufacture.
<
p>
Once a genome has been imprinted, it can only be unimprinted and reimprinted with experimental trial-and-error genetic engineering. An unimprinted embryo is the result of the joining of an egg and a sperm. And then, depending on whether or not the sperm carried an X or a Y, the resulting genome is imprinted female or male. So a cloned embryo from a cheek cell would already be imprinted,. So, it could probably be developed replacement gametes for someone that lost their ovaries or testes without having to change the imprinting. But changing it would require random experimental engineering. It would be crazily unsafe.
<
p>
Perhaps the hurt that gay people would feel if this is outlawed could be offset by gaining federal recognition and 50 state recognition.
But it seems your concern really doesn’t involve homosexual rights issues at all. Your concern is over the safety and moral issues surrounding genetic engineering to artificially imprint DNA.
are you really missing the connection? Same-sex couples won’t be allowed to have children if we prohibit non egg and sperm conception. That’s not a gay rights issue? That’s not a marriage issue?
Look at it this way.
<
p>
An abolitionist would probably support affirmative action, but would be considered a “rabidly crazy one-issue absolutist” if he/she went around in 1850 trying to gather popular support for hiring programs that benefitted racial minorities.
<
p>
I think you still owe me some stock tips
Wow, I’ve never heard of this before. The lengths some people will go to to deny their homophobia are actually amusing when they’re this bizarre.
<
p>
Genetic engineering has nothing to do with gay marriage. It’s an ethical issue we will have to deal with some day in the future, but I’d put my money on the people wanting to do it being heterosexual couples who want the perfect child. I think genetic engineering puts us more in danger of creating a new “Aryan Nation” of perfect-looking, perfect-sized, perfectly healthy (and probably perfectly heterosexual) Stepford children than anything else.
<
p>
So maybe we shouldn’t let heterosexual couples marry, either.
<
p>
Gay couples can have children that are at least related to one parent by either sperm or egg donation. I know far more gay couples who have adopted children. And I have never ever EVER heard any of them talk about same-sex conception. They just want the same rights as heterosexuals to get married to the person they love.
Ghandi didn’t have so much respect for the process… so, too, with Thomas Jefferson writing the Declaration of Independence. So much for process then!
<
p>
David, process is important. In fact, it’s paramount, because it fosters stability. However, sometimes when something is fundamentally wrong, extrordinary measures must be taken. Such instances manifest itself tens of millions of dollars worth of tea thrown into Boston Harbor, slaves hiding in homes throughout the Northeast in the Underground Railroad and creating an alternative to Southern Democrats during the Southern Freedom Movement to represent the Democratic Party at the Democratic National Convention even though African Americans weren’t even allowed to register to vote.
<
p>
You can’t be blinded by process when that process is wrong. Lots of people were against African Americans at the Democratic National Committee becuase they weren’t following the process, but the process was fundamentally wrong. Citizens not only had a right to demand full equality before the law, but they had a fundamental duty to do it. Allowing ballot measures that put rights at risk by only a 25% and then a 50% measure is fundamentally WRONG. It needs to be fixed. No rights should be so easy destroy, or truly “someone else’s ox” will be gored on issues that can effect a helluva lot more people than gay marriage.
<
p>
I just want to make one final comment regarding your last words.
<
p>
<
p>
Hypotheticals are nice, but today’s ox threatens to gore tens of thousands of citizens right now. The system needs to be fixed, for sure, and we can work on doing that once what’s right is salvaged. However, we can’t divide the progressive movement and similtaneously put at risk tens of thousands of its base. It could destroy all that we’ve built – not to mention fundamental rights.
I maintain that procedural maneuvers do not circumvent the process but are part of it. They exist on the federal and state level and have stood the test of time as part of the process and neither our system nor the English parliamentary system upon which our legal system is partly based have suffered their existence. No one likes being on the losing end of a procedural maneuver just as no one likes being on the losing end of a vote or an executive order or a committee regulation or any other form of political edict or exercise. Our democracy will continue to spin. From a big picture, historical perspective this is just not a bid deal.
…but the process also includes measures for the legislature to adjourn or to recess a constitutional convention without acting on every item on the agenda. This is also a valid part of the process.
Is Beacon Hill doing something illegal here? No. I don’t see any difference between this (in)action and a Senate filibuster (with the obvious provision being that in the US Senate, if a bill is successfully filibustered, lawmakers may simply move on to the next item on the agenda.)
<
p>
You do, of course, have the option of punishing your rep at the polls in two years ifyour perceived abuse of procedure irks you so. Hell, you could run for office yourself.
By allowing these rules games to be part of the process, you’re effectively saying that what’s in the Constitution for amendment and initiative doesn’t actually carry any weight. Why even put these procedures in if you intended an amendment to be killed by half the votes? Just put that in and forget the 1/4. Instead, the legislation is interposing itself in a way that was not intended.
<
p>
I say this as a married gay man who is gratified by the decision AND who doesn’t like the initative and citizen-sponsored amendment process. What has happened is an abuse of democracy. I don’t know how to change it, and I don’t think that fixating on one amendment is the answer. But I can’t excuse what I see with my own eyes.
Have you ever seen the way they vote for all-star games in professional sports? That’s why the coaches get to name additional players after the votes are counted (and in baseball the coaches name the pitchers, probably the most important position).
David and others decry the lack of process in the Legislature’s decision not to vote on two ballot initiatives. Are they somehow violating the law in not voting? They are doing what is in their prerogative within the process. The constitution gives citizens a voice through ballot initiatives, but it gives the Legislature the athority to decide whether or not to vote on those matters. The citizens can then take it upon themselves to vote out the legislators on election day. It’s all part of the process.
Why would the Constitution state that an amendment can move forward with only 1/4 of the votes if they also imagined that with only 1/2 of the votes the presiding officer could effectively kill it? That does not make any sense. Clearly the intention of the constitution is to allow citizen-sponsored amendments to move to the public with a small minority of support from the legislature, not the 50% you’d need to block adjournment or recess.
by David.
<
p>
At what point can this argument be dismissed as a “talking point”?
If you’d like to rebut, why don’t you cite or blockquote where David has “answered” this question? David has offered opinions, which I’ve read and find unsatisfactory. Your experience, however, may differ. But by dismissing another member’s good-faith argument as a “talking point,” you simultaneously insult someone as being incapable of thinking for themselves and add little to the discussion in the process.
Here
<
p>
And here
<
p>
And here
<
p>
For starters. This argument is veering into “if we say it often enough, it will be true!” territory.
<
p>
We must follow the edicts of the SJC, except when such edicts are inconvenient.
<
p>
SSM rights must not be subject to a vote, except in states where the courts don’t legislate, and there is no other option, in which case it is okay.
<
p>
The sheer intellectual dishonesty of the “progressive” position on this is absolutely maddening.
The argument is not that “SSM must not be subject to a vote except….” It has been stated as either “you don’t vote to take away civil rights” or more narrowly “it’s wrong to take rights away from some but not all.”
<
p>
Neither of those constructions argue against proposals to expand rights. You may not agree, but where is the “intellectual dishonesty?” Those are fighting words for sure.
<
p>
I do think that any legislator who justifies a vote to supress the requirements of the Constitution on any unwritten, superconstitutional grounds ought to be willing to go to extraordinarty steps to justify that vote and those grounds.
<
p>
The claim that there is any fundamental principle that trumps the constitution and justifies an act of legislative civil disobedience implies some defect in that constitution–in this case, the implicit power of the majority to subject a minority to unequal treatment under the law.
<
p>
For a polity such as ours that has a written constitution, it is incumbent on the legislators who feel that way to propose a remedy.
<
p>
I’d rather rely on that to protect rights than the good will of the legislature!
…that legal (rather than common law) Civil Rights, per se, were created by voting for the Civil Rights Act, written by GOP Sen. Everett Dirksen?
that this fact just highlights how far the republican party has shifted from its original core values?
They can’t name ten MAsachusetts Republicans, much less tell you what their values are!
ten MA Republicans? đŸ˜‰
…and THAT was just the committee meeting!
I support what the legislature did AND I see that Lehigh is right and respect his argument.
<
p>
The amendment and initiative process is broken. The legislature has found itself free to ignore the spirit of the law and often the letter of the law when it comes to initiatives. This needs to be fixed.
<
p>
However, no one is proposing a way to fix the system. Instead, the “best” that could happen would be that DOMA would be singled out for special consideration and treated according to the spirit of the law, and then the legislature would go back to its old tricks as soon as Kris Mineau turned his back. And the health care amendment would get killed as the legislature intended, only with even less press.
<
p>
I don’t know how we fix the system. But I do know that fixating on how one amendment was passed through unethically in the same way that many, many others have been is not a fix. It’s at best a temporary treatment of a symptom, and in service of a truly lousy policy.
…it’s the Legislature that’s broken.
Well, the balot box of course. My money is on no one really caring so much in two years.
Porcupine’s remedy is to elect more Republicans.
<
p>
But haven’t they all moved to New Hampshire?
According to the election they just had, it looks like the Republicans all moved out of New Hampshire!
<
p>
Not sure where they went, though…Tennessee?
would be a constitutional amendment that says how an initiative amendment could get on the ballot if not voted on by the Joint Session.
<
p>
I’d suggest, by petition of one fourth of the members of the Joint Session.
<
p>
Worst case: such an amendment is proposed by initiative petition and blocked from consideration by those same tactics. That would really be a constitutional crisis!
EVERYBODY who says – let’s do this, let’s ditch Article 48, let’s amend that – the problem is that the Legislature WON’T ALLOW THE EXISTING QUESTIONS TO BE VOTED ON!
<
p>
Do you REALLY think they would slap themselves on the forehead and say – Gee! Let’s let this one that will allow voters to amend the constitution without our power and influence just sail through! Why, it’s JUST what we were hoping for!
I’m all in favor of legislators slapping themselves, Peter–but I think one lesson of the current constitutional crisis is that the honor system just isn’t good enough.
<
p>
If I’m right, what is the answer?
There is no crisis. People have been claiming that we are in a constitutional crisis almost constantly since the Constitution was ratified. This is a messy political quagmire that will be settled, one way or the other, in seven weeks and the day after democracy will still stand. There was only one time in our history when there was a real constitutional crisis. I just don’t see how this is as bad as the civil war. That was a constitutional crisis. This is a squabble.
though “constutitional crisis” is the term of art for such extra-constitutional shifts in power–including many (perhaps most) that do not rise to the level of a true crisis. Let alone a civil war.
<
p>
Seems to me views about how serious this one is depend mainly on whose ox is gored. This is not a good principle in general and one that progressives in particular will surely come to regret.
…if the people just ditched Article 48, we’d be no worse off than 26 other states. Do you think the Lege would be against that?
<
p>
But then I sound like a broken record, or an ‘egg and sperm’ activist (just teasing, John Howard).
I totally agree with what you are saying about there being no crisis. It seems as if BMG is the only place where this issue is being talked about ad nauseum. What happened with the legislature happened. If you don’t like it or think that it was a major violation of the constitutional process then do something about it, petititon the federal court, hold a press conference, demand a meeting with Travglini and DiMasi. I think this is truly an issue where good kindhearted people can disagree. In all of the postings no new ground has actually been convered in a few days now. Why do we keep going on about this? What purpose does it serve?
This is a complex question, chock full of twists and precedent. It does not lend itself to an Andy Hiller stand-up piece in front of the State House, or a quick WBZ sound bite. And THAT is where most people get their news. Just the fact that the SJC legal case which states that it is illegal for the Leislature to refuse an up and down vote on the amendment, but the SJC can’t punish them, is the precendent of Term Limits vs. Billy Bulger (or President of the Senate, as he is called there) is likely to pique interest.
<
p>
I would say tht BMG is just the canary in the coal mine.
<
p>
Scott Lehigh’s piece may be just the begining of many, as the implication of the Legislature’s weasel dance begin to sink in – and it will be commented on as Jan. 2 comes closer.
and you would be open to having some company!
I became involved in politics around the gay marriage issue. I thought no legslators would meet with me, but it was actually easy to meet with many of them Where the leadership is concerned you might want to enlist you senator or rep to make that happen. Use the group you represent to make it happen and bring along some journalists who can publically shame these legislators for not meeting with the people. If Travaglini or DiMasi refuses to meet with your group, I think the Globe, Herald, and local area papers would report on that especially when there is such heat on the legislature about not having done their job of voting up or down on these ammendments.