I appreciate Representative Linsky’s willingness to enter into the debate over the Nov 9th ConCon. I also would like to thank him for his past support of the Health Care Amendmnet and for voting to defeat the legislative gay marriage ban. By casting that vote the Representative did two powerful things: 1)he met his constitutional duty to cast an up or down vote on the merits of every constitutional amendment that comes before the General Court; and 2)he made a vote of conscience affirming the importance of marriage equality.
But no matter how abhorrent the initiative amendment to ban gay marriage may be there is really only one question here.
ARE WE ALL EQUAL BEFORE THE LAW? Unless the answer to that question is “YES, ALWAYS” and our political institutions act accordingly then none of us can be truly secure in the rights we have.
Article 48 of the Massachusetts Constitution is very clear. The General Court MUST take “final action” on every constitutional amendment that comes before it whether put there by legislators or by the people. Twice the Supreme Judicial Court has held that “final action” means an up or down vote on the merits – not a procedural dodge or adjournment. The future of a legislative amendment hangs on the decision of a majority of the members present and voting – up or down. The future of a citizens petition depends on whether there are 50 members who approve of it. The law is settled.
No one’s constitutional rights have been violated yet. The Session doesn’t end until midnight on January 2nd. If the General Court votes up or down on the merits of all the amendments before it at that time, including the Health Care Amendment and the Gay Marriage Ban, it will have performed its constitutional duty. The vote can be NO. The people don’t have an absolute right to vote on an amendment they send to the Legislature. But the people do have an absolute right to demand that the votes mandated by Article 48 be taken.
I have emailed my legislators to thank them for unanimously defeating the legislative mariage amendment and will call them again to ask them to vote NO on the gay marriage ban put before them by the people. But I will also remind them that they have a duty to cast an up or down vote on the merits of every amendment before them.
Stripping some citizens of their rights to protect the rights of others shreds the very fabric of our democracy. The decisions can be paingful but the principle is clear and goes to the core of our system of government in Massachusetts.
Barbara Waters Roop, PhD, JD, Co-Chair
Health Care Amendment Campaign
That, it seems to me, changes the equation, and possibly my position on whether the legislature’s action in the ConCon was defensible or not. Do you have references for those cases? I’d like to look at them.
The most recent case is Limits v. President of the Senate, 414 Mass. 31 (1992)
<
p>
It is what is called a rescript opinion from an earlier case. Unfortunately I don’t have a legal library and can’t get you the earlier case cite.
<
p>
The real issue is whether or not the SJC will enforce the opinion and to date the answer has been no.
<
p>
Barbara Roop
I’ll look that one up.
As Rep. Linsky posted,
Dan Kennedy has a more detailed analysis, including discussion of an SJC ruling from 1992:
<
p> – Dan
I think he misread those cases. I agree with the author of this post: the SJC spoke pretty clearly on what “final action” means, and that it is constitutionally required. The fact that the SJC doesn’t have a way to force the legislature to take final action — a separation of powers problem — doesn’t alter the meaning of the Constitution. Rights and remedies are not always coextensive.
Unfortunately, I cannot find the text of the Limits case anywhere. I know as recently as 2002, the SJC stated that a vote to recess was not “final action” on an amendment.
<
p>
However, I’d be interested to know whether the SJC ever specifically stated whether a “permanent” recess was not constitutionally permissible. And, if so, did the SJC refuse to do anything about it on separation of powers grounds or because the issue was then moot?
You’re right. It doesn’t matter how ugly or wrong the constitutional amendment is (and I think it’s discriminatory and wrong), the constitution dictates that it must be voted on, so it must. It was the same constitution that dictated that same-sex marriage must be legal in the first place.
can you define “final legislative action?” As I see it legislative action is fairly encompassing. Adjournment being an act of the Legislature should qualify as final legislative action shouldn’t it?
The Supreme Judicial Court has defined “final action” for us already – at least as it applies to action on proposed constitutional amendments. It means an up or down vote on the merits of the Amendment. Recessing, adjourning, sending things to study committees and other procedural dodges don’t cut it.
Upon ratification of this amendment and thereafter, it shall be the obligation and duty of the Legislature and executive officials, on behalf of the Commonwealth, to enact and implement such laws, subject to approval by the voters at a statewide election, as will ensure that no Massachusetts resident lacks comprehensive, affordable and equitably financed health insurance coverage for all medically necessary preventive, acute and chronic health care and mental health care services, prescription drugs and devices.
<
p>
This is it. What does it actually do?
<
p>
Would the main effect be to give the SJC the authority to review and/or, if necessary, write health care legislation according to its interpretation of “comprehensive”, “affordable”, “equitably financed”, and “medically necessary”?
<
p>
It also seems to suggest that all health care legislation must be ratified by plebiscite. Is that what your organization wants?
<
p>
Neither idea seems very good to me. What am I missing?
The Amendment gives the people a political and a legal tool to require action from their elected officials to ensure universal access to affordable, comprehensive and fairly funded health and mental health coverage.
<
p>
It would make the reforms recently enacted the floor and require the Legislature to finish the job by enacting the laws needed to make this year’s reforms truly affordable by improving the quality of care and cutting administrative waste.
<
p>
The last thing the SJC will want to do is get in the business of writing health reform legislation. A similar right to public education in our state constitution has been used very effectively to push education reform and pressure the Legislature to keep it as a funding priority. That’s what the Health Care Amendment would do as well.
<
p>
The voter approval language was added by the Legislature in the first Session when it approved the Amendment by a 153 to 41 vote. We had a choice of letting the Amendment die or accepting one of two amendments: 1) change comprehensive to basic coverage; or 2) accept the voter approval language. The first would have enshrined an unequal health care system in our constitution so we took a pass. We think the voter approval language actually reflects political reality. If there is any major reform and any of the major stakeholders – from taxpayers to hospitals, insurers and employers – feels they got the short end of the stick they’ll take it to the ballot to try to repeal it. A couple of weeks before we accepted the language California’s employer mandate had been repealed at the ballot. So, to be honest, we didn’t think we were making much of a concession.
<
p>
Since then it’s become clear to us that it actually has a real value that its sponsors never intended. (They were looking for political cover in case they had to raise taxes.) It gives all of us – as patients, consumers and taxpayers – a seat at the table when there are comprehensive reform negotiations because we will have to approve them. It can’t just be done in the back rooms of the Legislature – business as usual – without really considering what it means for the folks paying the bills – us.
<
p>
I can go on forever. You might want to check out our website http://www.healthcareformass.org There’s a “legal library” with a memo on what the voter approval language applies to and why it doesn’t mean everything goes to the ballot -only comprehensive reforms.
<
p>
Sorry to take so long getting back. I’m a little new to this and couldn’t even find my own comment much less figure out that other people had commented back.
<
p>
Thanks for your interest.
<
p>
Barbara Roop
I respond to World Citizen’s important questions by directing you to the campaign website section that has the amendment language with detailed referenced footnotes.
<
p>
I expect Brabara Roop might have more to add.
Your dedication and your first hand knowledge of the problems your patients face every day as they try to get needed care from a health care bureaucracy that undermines the work of determined caregivers like you show us all why this Amendment is so important.
<
p>
BWR
I agree with Barbara that the Health Care Amendment must receive an up or down vote by the legislature under Article 48. Just as the legislature violated Article 48 when it refused to take any action on the Massachusetts Clean Elections Law (resulting in our case before the Supreme Judicial Court forcing such action), it will open itself up to new litigation if it refuses to vote on the merits of the Health Care Amendment. (The Massachusetts Clean Elections Law, of course, was a ballot initiative not a constitutional amendment, but the same principle of Article 48 applies here.)
<
p>
However, missing from this debate is the question of whether the anti-gay marriage amendment is even properly before the legislature. As KnowThyNeighbor and Mass Equality documented last fall, there were numerous complaints of alleged fraud in the signature-gathering process for that amendment. Those allegations ought to be fully investigated by the legislature prior to any up or down vote on the amendment. At this stage, the amendment remains under a cloud of fraud — with neither the Secretary of State nor outgoing Attorney General having conducted a thorough investigation.
<
p>
The rights guaranteed under Article 48 do not extend to proposed constitutional amendments which come before the legislature via illegal conduct.
147,000 were certified. They needed only 65,825 certified.
<
p>
There is no cloud of fraud.
the question is: how big is the cloud? Is it 30,000 big? 100,00 big? 125,000 big?
equal protection before the law is fundamentally important.
<
p>
now i also agree with John Bonifaz’s argument that the marriage ban amendment should be delayed until a real investigation is done into the fraud carried out. the legislature should look into what can be done in this regard.
The amendment which was unanimously defeaed, I think #19, was a red herring introduced by a legislator. It was defeated by both proponents and decriers of the ban.
<
p>
The people’s petition, which I think was #20, was NOT voted on befoe the recess – that was the one which needed the fifty votes. Like the health care amendment, it was not acted upon.
<
p>
You may have noticed during one of te debates, Kerry Healey was asked about Clean Elections, since she was promoting the tax rollback. She replied, surprising Ms. Ross, that she DID think Clean Elections should be implemented, as it was the expressed will of the people, just like the tax rollback.
<
p>
We SHOULD be equal under the law, Mr. Roop – you deserve a vot on health care, and I deserve one on gay marriage.
Read the constitution, and note that the amendment that has been cited as requiring an up or down vote on every initative constitutional amendment actually has two separate sections. ONe deals with initiative amendments, the other with initiative laws.
<
p>
The section cited as requiring a vote on all amendments deals with amending proposed initiative amendments. The language refers to the legislature voting on the language as submitted by petition, unless a 3/4 majority changes the language. So the requirement of voting on the amendment as submitted is not a requirement that a vote be taken, only a requirement that the amendment not be changed if a vote is taken, unless 3/4 of the members vote to amend the proposal.
<
p>
Also, there is a remedy in the constitution for the legislature not voting on a LAW proposed by initiative petition. Another round of signatures automatically sends it to the people without further legislative action. This reinforced the idea that the drafter’s intent was not to REQUIRE an up or down vote in the case of a initiative constitutional amendment, only to require that any vote be on the amendment as submitted unless it is changed by a supermajority — otherwise there would have been a remedy crafted for the failure of the legislature to vote.
I saw that debate. She didn’t even seem to know it was passed by the people – and never once during a stump speech did I hear her talk about the importance of the Clean Elections bill because the people passed it. If you honestly think she would have championed bringing back Clean Elections, then you’re… well… it’s not a very nice thing to say, so I won’t call you it.
With all due respect Peter, you had your vote. There was an an amendment that was proposed, debated, and voted on twice…once it was passed and then failed the second time around. How many sessions will we have to keep debating and voting on this issue until opponents of equal marriage realize that they will not win. A vast majority of both the legislature and the population of Massachusetts oppose this amendment. Allowing this amendment to go to a vote of the public will do nothing except start a terrible and divisive debate that will be expensive in terms of dollars and the damage it will do to citizens of the state, both straight and gay.
Until the electorate is allowed to vote.
Let’s say that the legislature meets on January 2nd and votes 151-49 against the amendment, thereby killing it. Or say it passed this time and failed in the next session. Neither would be satisfactory to you? Why not?
<
p>
Why should the people be allowed to vote on this issue as opposed to any other issue? As I and others have stated before, never in the history of the United States has a vote been taken to take away rights that a group currently enjoys. What makes gay marriage different? Should there have been a vote after Loving on interracial marraige? Surveys at that time showed higher opposition to that issue than current polls show oppositions to gay marriage nationally.
I find this part of your post most interesting.
<
p>
<
p>
Which to me means, that we are equal on the fundamental question before the legislature – whether we each have the right to chose the person we will marry.
<
p>
<
p>
If you understand the question as repugnant to the notion of equality under the law, than using the availible options to dispose of the question does protect us equally.
<
p>
As another poster noted elsewhere, many of the rights we think we have can be disposed of or changed, so how secure are they really anyway? I’ll go with the people who understand the harm involved in moving toward the direction of allowing peole to vote on whether we are all the right to marry. Or any other right.
<
p>
That right certainly seems less secure will all the posters here demanding a vote on on it.
no one, except the few conservatives here, wants this to go to ballot: almost everyone here agrees that the right to equal marriage is fundamental and needs to be protected. but the disagreement is whether the legislature should throw the baby out with the bathwater.
<
p>
if the amendment passes by a couple votes this session, same-sex marriage is protected. if neccezsary, i’d support using procedural moves to kill it in the next session, but i doubt it will need too, as we probably have the 75% needed in the next session. but let’s look at what we lose if we get that small victory:
<
p>
I am absolutely in favor of defeating the marriage ban by almost any method neccesary, but not if means dealing serious harm to our democracy in the process. as Ian MacKaye once said “the means are always just as important as the ends”
On which is more harmful – To me, the answer is clear. Voting on equal treatment under the law is worse.
<
p>
But, you seem to say, vote it directly up or down this time, then, even if the 50 votes to put it on the ballot exist, kill it next time? Huh?
<
p>
If you agree it should be killed with any availible means, and there are availible means, why should we wait to dispose of it?
I wanted to just wanted to relate an interesting experience I had during the last ConCon. I was there for the gay marriage ammendment, but I am also committed to healthcare for all. I was standing with some people from the Healthcare for all group. A young novitiate in full garb walked by wearing a pin that said “Let the People vote.” When we asked her to wear a pin supporting the healthcare for all ammendment, she declined, saying she couldn’t.
<
p>
Yes as people have suggested, the means is as important as the ends, but the reality is that the means never live up to our expectations. Too many times the legislature has found a way to obviate the process, clean elctions, voting on domestic partnership. I cannot honestly say that I am troubled by this action. I am one who believes that this issue is not one that is appropriate for redress by popular vote.
<
p>
The healthcare ammendment will not be voted upon becuase the legislature is committed to their new healthcare plan. I do not agree with that, but I recognize the legitimate power and authority that the legislature has. I suggest that those who are unhappy with what the legislature has done, on the issue of gay marriage or the healthcare ammendment, call their legislators, petition the federal courtas people have threatened to do, express your outrage with the process, but let’s be done with this insanity. let us not squander or money or our enthusiasm on fighting an ammendment that will further fracture the Democratic Party and pul resources of all kins away from our efforts to elect a Democrat in 2008. Sometimes it is important to be pragmatic, and fall short of the ideals that one would like to have and could have if the world were more equitable and just.
many people, counting myself among them, believe that certain things are worth fighting for. And fighting with all you’ve got, especially if lives hang in the balance.
<
p>
what’s that quote about “inaction in the face of injustice being a form of evil” ?
<
p>
As a nurse, witnessing what I have over the past 15 years and actually being a direct participant to much preventable suffering and premature death merely by working within such a dysfunctional system, and as a human being, I am forced to confront and to act on what I know to be true.
<
p>
“Of all forms of inequality, injustice in health care is the most shocking and inhumane” -Martin Luther King, Jr.
<
p>
<
p>
I must admit that I’ve found the reasoning in your post to be quite wishy-washy and thus hard to take e.g.
<
p>
“Too many times the legislature has found a way to obviate the process, clean elctions, voting on domestic partnership. I cannot honestly say that I am troubled by this action.”
<
p>
and later:
<
p>
“The healthcare ammendment will not be voted upon becuase the legislature is committed to their new healthcare plan. [aptly nicknamed the “Trojan Horse Plan” and the “Leave No Insurance Co. Behind Plan”]. I do not agree with that, but I recognize the legitimate power and authority that the legislature has.”
<
p>
<
p>
we’ve gotta be able to do better than this
If this is really an issue of MA constitutional law, then you should look for the courts for support.
<
p>
Seachange Bulletin has the story
Mandamus?
<
p>
David?
<
p>
~President Bush Barbara Waters Roop
<
p>
<
p>
Please tell me how and why people have had their rights stripped in this process? Other than the fact that thousands of people were either lied or cheated to when they “signed” this ballot – and thought they were signing a law for wine. Fraud doesn’t take away their rights, does it? And before people say there’s a small amount of people this effected – there are so many that there are actual commenters on this website who accidentally signed the petition who found it anathema to everything they stand for – but they were duped. Perusing the knowthyneighbor website, I’ve found people from every town or city I looked at who signed affidavids saying they didn’t sign it (and I’ve looked at big communities such as Lynn, as well as small communities such as Lynnfield and Swampscott).
<
p>
Please tell me how anyone has had their rights stripped, I just can’t understand it? How does this bill not passing onto the voters equate to breaking anyone’s civil rights? Parliamentary procedure is a fact of life – a basic form of protection against heinous bills such as the marriage ban.
<
p>
The Massachusetts Constitutional Amendment process has become inordinately easy to pass. 25% of the legislature is rediculous, especially when only 50% + 1 votes is required to change the constitution. That’s what’s known as absurdity. Constitutional amendments aren’t supposed to be easy to pass; parliamentary procedures are just one check to make sure nothing’s too easy when changing the constitution or creating laws.
<
p>
I’m sorry, but you don’t get to say it should be easy to strip away my every rights. I enjoy the fact that – for the first time ever – I feel comfortable in society as a gay person. I can get married, just like every other person out there. Maybe you don’t get how amazing that is, but I assure you its incredible. It’s so basic, yet incredible. You can’t take that away from me – not without a fight. And 25% of the legislatures ain’t gonna be enough.
exactly what I was signing, and so did most of the people who did. Was there some fraud? I hope not, but I can’t rule it out. Still, I am sure that the vast majority of people who signed knew what they were signing, and certainly enough of them to put this before the ConCon did.
<
p>
By recessing the ConCon violated my Constitutional rights, and those of everyone else who signed that petition, not to mention those who signed petitions for the healthcare amendment.
They cannot believe that people would sign a petition for a vote. Because that would mean that they are out of touch with the voters. So it must be fraud.
<
p>
Isn’t it equally likely that people who thought they were signing a wine petition signed a health care petition? Where are the concerns about fraud there?
<
p>
There will be another petition drive if there is no vote. And organizations like Know they Neighbor will try their intimidation tactics again (and plese don’t say there weren’t any – in Truro, a person was dismised from a safety board because they signed the petion and was asked by Dem. acivist Paul Asher-Best if they would refuse to rescue gay people in a fire, so they had to go!) Lawns were defaced and homes were vandalized – for signing the petition. These people will sign again, and friends on the fence, who still may not suport the amendment, will sign too – because of how they were treated.
And you will lose. The people of Massachusetts have decided again and again and again. Every time someone has been up for reelection who supports gay marriage, that person has one. The same cannot be said for people who oppose equality.
<
p>
The system is working, you’re just blinded by your ignorance.
…the PEOPLE have yet to speak.
The people have voted again and again and again. All of the people who support gay marriage in the legislature and are willing to use parliamentary procedures to protect it have been up for election again and again. None of them have lost.
<
p>
This is the way Representative Democracy works. We elect Representatives to make our case for us. If they cease to accurately or proudly represent us, we vote them out of power in favor of those who will. No gay marriage supporter has been kicked out of office yet – yet more than one opponent has been sent packing.
<
p>
The people have voted, but again in a way you didn’t like. Too bad – you don’t get to just make up new rules because you don’t like the outcome.
at the beginning of this Session –
<
p>
<
p>
The only mistake the GOP candidates made was not calling him a liar before the fact.
No, there was a LOT of fraud.
<
p>
Without having a full investigation of the issue, there’s no way to say whether or not the “vast majority” knew what they were signing. According to the one person who went on record – and participated in an investigative report – people would get paid dollars for every signature… and went to extrordinary means to get paid hundreds of dollars every day.
<
p>
Thousands, already, are on record as being victims of fraud in this petition. Not “some,” but thousands.
<
p>
Your rights have not been violated, though you’d be happy to destroy my every right and demonize me by essentially calling me a second class citizen. And don’t give me any “I’m not anti-gay” BS – you just revealed yourself with this post: you signed the petition! So OF COURSE you’re against equality in marriage.
<
p>
That’s all I have to say to Team Homophobia.
there was no investitgation, so we can’t be sure exactly how much fraud there was. However, with over 170,000 names on it, I am confident that there are more than 60,000 that are valid to properly put it before the ConCon. If there was no investigation, you have to ask why the pro-gay marriage AG didn’t conduct one.
<
p>
Assuming for a moment that thousands of people were conned into signed this petition, I would add that they should be more careful when putting their John Hancocks on legal documents. If they had simply looked at what they were signing beforehand, they wouldn’t have been in this position.
<
p>
Regardless, Ryan, I maintain that I am not anti-gay. I opposed the War, but not the friends and family I have over there fighting it. I oppose gay marriage, but not the friends I have who entered into them. You don’t have to believe that if you don’t want to, but its the truth. If you and I sat down for a couple beers I think it would be pretty clear pretty fast that I in no way want to demonize you.
<blockquotethere was no investitgation, so we can't be sure exactly how much fraud there was.
And that’s your… defense? With a defense like that, do I even need to reply?
<blockquoteIf there was no investigation, you have to ask why the pro-gay marriage AG didn't conduct one.
Maybe because his actual record on gay marriage was shoddy? Maybe because he was against it before he was for it? Maybe because I think his being “for it” was actually posturing?
Maybe because I think he was a lousy AG who didn’t fight the good fight on any number of issues, so why should I be surprised he didn’t do the right thing on this one?
<blockquoteAssuming for a moment that thousands of people were conned into signed this petition, I would add that they should be more careful when putting their John Hancocks on legal documents.
It doesn’t matter. Fraud is illegal. And, if you actually took the time to watch the undercover video of it happening and read about what actually happened, it would be pretty easy for MANY intelligent people to have signed that petition. What was done was illegal and regardless of whether or not there was actually enough signatures, it deserves to be investigated. Until that investigation takes place, we’ll never really know just how many people actually signed that measure.
So you… ahhh… hate the sin, but not the sinner? LOL
If you have gay friends who entered into marriages, and you respected those friends, you wouldn’t try to end their marriages. If you want to end my right, you want to say that I’m less than human. You think that I should have less rights. You think I’m not as worthy as you are. In effect, your constant attacks on my rights on this forum is tantamount to demonizing me. Don’t you have better things to do?
and I would support an investigation as well. I still think that there would be enough legitimate signatures, but in the absence of a finding that there are not, it should go forward.
<
p>
As I have already proclaimed my agnosticism on BMG, I wouldnt exactly call it hating the sin and loving the sinner, but thats about right, I guess. As I have stated before on here, I dont believe marriage to be a right, whether it be a civil, human or Constitutional right. If I dont want you to be able to marry another man, and I dont think marriage is a right, I cant want to take rights away from you. My gay married friends can respect me, even though they strongly disagree with me, and I can as well. I would hope that you could do the same, Ryan. I certainly respect you and the passion you bring to the issue.
Surely, your first paragraph was a typo. So I’m fixing it with a bolded word to make it make sense.
<
p>
<
p>
Should we throw someone in jail because the evidence was against he or she and most of the jury thought a crime was committed? Should David Ortiz go up to bat with a broken thumb because most of his fingers are fine?
<
p>
You don’t know how much fraud there was. Other than the fact that there are thousands of people, I don’t know either. An investigation should have been done before this bill was allowed to proceed. Case closed.
If the AG or Gov had called for an investigation, I would have supported it. There were months and months and months in which to conduct one, but one wasn’t. The presumption must be then that all the signatures certified were valid. That is why they have to be certified in the frst place – to ensure they are actual voters.
<
p>
Are you sugesting that after certification we investigate every petition brought before the General Court to ensure that none were obtained fraudulently? OK, but thats going to take a whole lot of time and money – time and money that (as so often been pointed out on BMG) could be better spent elsewhere.
It’s pretty sick when a person claims to be friends to someone/folks but wants to discriminate against them, dehumanize them, disenfranchise them, make them officially “less than” before the law, etc etc etc. I can’t think of a whole lot of things that are further from any plausible concept of friendship.
<
p>
Makes one wonder precisely what they’d want to do to their enemies, don’t you think? 😉
I would allow you to vote, to have access to counsel, to worship as you choose, to have free speech, to….
<
p>
Your EVERY right? Please.
Would you support same-sex marriage as a policy decision instead being cast as an issue of rights?
would not, but it would be a MUCH stronger argument.
If it is more convincing as a policy issue, start taking it seriously as one.
<
p>
For example, if the anti-same-sex-marriage legislators were to introduce legislation that created a parallel system of civil unions with rights and benefits of marriage open to all today, that wasn’t tied to ANY marriage ban, they might show to marriage-equality folks that this isn’t about homophobia at all, but about respecting the hallowed ‘will of the people’.
<
p>
But if the movement can’t even grant civil unions, then that shows something about the movement’s less-than-democratic intentions.
I don’t believe there has been any.
I’ve been married over three decades, and I agree – the gay GOP town committee chair here on Cape has done me no harm by marrying his partner. That’s why I would vote against it.
<
p>
But the harm done is that our right to MAKE a decision has been superceded by activists wsho claim to be smarter/better/more enlightened/better looking/better educated/on and on than those who want a vote.
<
p>
We are not yet ENTIRELY ruled by special interest advocates – so the harm done is dispensing with that pesky electorate in favor of Expers.
Words have way of… catching up to people.
<
p>
<
p>
~Peter Porcupine
<
p>
Peter, Peter, Peter, Peter… there was a vote, you just didn’t like it.
<
p>
LOL. How dare they come “aggressively out” and fight like “mad for their rights”? The idea! Oh, clutch the pearls and get me my smelling salts!
<
p>
Ryan, it’s my considered opinion that most of the underlying opposition against same-sex marriage, and “out” gays and lesbians in general, is what some of my friends call the “ick factor.”
<
p>
As in, “Ick! I don’t want to hear about it. I don’t want to see it. Make them all go away!”
<
p>
“It” being gestures of affection and other behaviors that would be just peachy-keen, nay, wholesome if the parties involved were straight, but are somehow “aggressive” if the parties are not. (My husband and I hold hands in public! Why, how dare we push our blatant heterosexuality in other peoples’ faces!)
<
p>
Well, I don’t like it when horny hetero kids sit on each others’ laps on park benches and swap spit in public, either, but I don’t go howling to the Legislature to forbid such behavior, because I realize that voting on matters of decorum, in order to ban something that may be annoying but hurts no one, is just plain silly and a waste of the Legislature’s time that could better be spent on such things as, oh, I don’t know, decent and affordable health care, perhaps?
<
p>
Again, time is the cure for this syndrome. Once same-sex marriages stop being extraordinary, the “ick” factor will be seen as the quaint reaction it is. And that is why the opponents of SSM want a vote NOW, before that maturation process happens. And that’s also why many of the foes of SSM will argue about process rather than be up front about the ick factor that is the real reason for their opposition.
<
p>
<
p>
Concern is as concern does, Peter. Frankly, my reaction to straight men who get all squicky at having to think about the intentions their male dentist may have toward them is, “Cry me a river.” They are only experiencing the kind of defensive concern most women are of sad necessity forced to have throughout their lives about men they may encounter every single day.
<
p>
And if in fact said squicked opponents are women, then all I can say is that they should know better.
<
p>
As an aside, sometimes I think that in at least a few cases the biggest foes of gays and lesbians protest a bit too much, if you get my drift. Think Ted Haggard as one sad example.
you’re right. but not in the way you think you are.
<
p>
it requires 2 consecutive ConCon votes of 25% of the legislature and then a majority vote on the statewide ballot for a citizen initiative constitutional amendment to be enacted.
<
p>
ryan, just as i cannot exactly walk in your shoes and feel the passion that you do, you likely cannot walk in my shoes and feel the passion that i and other advocates of a just health care system carry in our hearts and minds.
<
p>
have you tended the wounds of a person who has undergone a preventable amputation? changed the bandages and provided pain management education to this person who had half his foot cut off just because he couldn’t afford insurance? he didn’t seek care for a sore foot until he couldn’t work his job as a janitor, and then when he went in to the ER he was diagnosed with diabetes and gangrene that had developed in what began as a minor foot wound? (diabetic nerve damage had reduced the sensation in his foot).
<
p>
this man, lacking family supports, rather quickly became homeless because of not being able to work and not having large savings. I helped to take care of this man as his nurse for many weeks while he was a patient with health care for the homeless.
<
p>
have you cared for the woman undergoing radiation and chemo to treat the symptoms but not cure her advanced esophageal cancer that was not diagnosed while symptoms were mild? she worked as security guard in a hospital but could not afford health insurance. only when she was not able to eat did she seek care in the ER where she worked (for heavens sake) feeling embarrassed and somehow deficient for not having health insurnace coverage.
<
p>
have you taught the familiy of a middle aged woman, now half paralyzed and unable to swallow due to a stroke secondary to high blood pressure that she didn’t even know she had becuase she lacked insurance and access to primary care, how to administer tube feedings and crushed medications thru a tube inserted thru her adbominal wall into her stomach? I was one of her nurses while I worked as a home care nurse with the Boston VNA for 10 years.
<
p>
These tragic scenarios are just the tip of an iceberg. i’ll remind everyone that although we don’t have universal affordable insurance coverage at present we do indeed pay for the care for these persons once they have advanced and expensive illnesses.
<
p>
i don’t mean to lecture. i just want you to feel the sincere passion that fuels our work on the health care amendment. it comes from a place of caring and love and a belief in justice. for all.
<
p>
ryan, we do have an option to fighting each other don’t we? when most of us here seem to be essentially on the same side with respect to our values of equality and dignity of all persons.
<
p>
Last ConCon – during the summer – I called both my state Senator and Rep. You know what I talked to them about first? The Health Care amendment.
<
p>
I viewed the Health Care amendment as the most important amendment up that time around, especially since I knew equality in marriage is over and done with in the hearts and minds of 90% of Massachusetts (even most people who may oppose it aren’t screaming on their longs to get rid of it).
<
p>
<
p>
My mother is a nurse, my aunt is a nurse, my cousin is a doctor… health is something considered paramount in my family. My grandmother sufferred and died from the complications of MS. An Aunt sufferred and died from the effects of cancer. My brother is only alive because my Dad has fantastic medical insurance – his heart valve transplant surgery which kept him in the hospital for more than six months wasn’t exactly something that would have otherwise been affordable.
<
p>
You need not lecture me on the importance of health care – especially when it has nothing to do with equality in marriage. It’s not as if they’re mutually exclusive.
<
p>
<
p>
I feel it, agree with it, support it and have fought for health care for all via my blog time after time again.
If so, they could meet on Jan. 2, vote to move health care to the top of the agenda, vote on that, then adjourn. I suspect they would have done this Thursday if they had a majority for it.
<
p> – Dan
Otherwise they wouldn’t have agreed to bury it back in July in a fake “committee” that has never met. But there are almost certainly 50 votes to move it to the ballot.
David, IIRC you were live blogging on the July 12 ConCon. So you should recall that Sen Moore made the “special study committee” motion and then he almost immediately withdrew the motion.
<
p>
Bizarre. A group of us were watching the COnCOn on tv in Sen Barrios’ staff office b/c the house viewing gallery was full. it was so bizarre trying to figure out what was going on.
<
p>
Over an hour of testimony ensued, most of it strongly in favor of rejecting the study motion and for voting in favor of the hc amendment.
<
p>
as we were told later by state house inside sources, Moore withdrew the motion b/c leadership found out that they did not have the 101 votes needed to kill the amendment. oh, I mean enough votes to “send it to a study committee”. {can you imagine us having to deal with all this, after 4 year’s of work and following all the rules???)
<
p>
Only after about an hour of leadership lieutenants’ arm twisting and outright blackmailing did Moore re-introduce the motion and get the 118 votes. Extremely creepy.
<
p>
I had a committee chair call me the next day and apologize profusely, saying he had “never felt so badly” about having to follow a “leadership vote” before, but that a public health bill that had been sheparded thru for 8 years and was ready to be brought by the speaker to the floor for a vote was threatened to be held back if he did not “line up with leadership” on the hc amdendment study committee vote.
<
p>
this same committee chair had just testified on July 12 in support of the amendment AND AGAINST THE STUDY MOTION on the floor of the ConCon. then he really had the srcews put to him to “line up with leadership”.
<
p>
my own rep ignored 5 or 6 calls i made to his office, as he had previously sent me 2 letters affirming his committment to vote yes on the hc amendment. his name showed up in the study motion column. when i finally caught up to him in person it was pitiful what dancing around he did, never giving a straight answer. pitiful.
<
p>
so David, please don’t say with such certainlty that
<
p>
“No, a majority of them don’t [support the hc amendment]. Otherwise they wouldn’t have agreed to bury it back in July”
<
p>
“agreed”? C’mon…
then please keep fighting for it
<
p>
just as i’ll keep fighting for equal marriage rights
<
p>
and i knew i was at rsk of sounding “lecturey” but didn’t know another way of sharing where much of this health amendment work is coming from
<
p>
certainly we all have intense experiences with health and illness through our various roles in life. i certainly did not mean to diminish that.
<
p>
please keep fighting with us
I have spent my professional life working with one of the most disenfranchised people with regard to medical care,the severely mentally ill. Whether or not the ammendment proposed will actually mean everyone will get quality healthcare remains to be seen. It could well be another thing that does not get funded. The article on the front page is illustrative of what is happening to our healthcare system and obstacles to care. One party payer, in my view, is the only solution.
<
p>
Why is it when someone has a position that people don’t like, they resort to subtle or or not so subtle put downs of the ethics and values of that person. You don’t know me and how I have worked for both gay marriage and healthcare for all citizens. At 50, I long ago got off my high horse and came to my realization that the way to make change is from within a process, however flawed that process might be, and yes at times to manipulate that process to get to what I perceive to be a good end. Does that make me unprincipled, perhaps, and there are times when I question that. I hope someday that it will be different, for now I am willing to fight for goals within the context of political reality. The only thing I beleve that will change political reality,is to get the money out of politics entirely!!!!
if legislators would just shoot straight, i think a lot of people would have more faith in the system. and we’d probably see a lot less frustration boiling over into pretty trivial food fights.
<
p>
i’m sure that pp or others would speak more passionately about the dog and pony show of the marriage equality vote, but for the healthcare amendment, i have to point out that there is a fundamental, baseline truth that dimasi and trav and their machinations are doing everything to obscure.
<
p>
and that is, by deep sixing the healthcare amendment, they are pointedly protecting the profits of the state’s private insurance industry and a handful of hospitals.
<
p>
so, why do you suppose they don’t just come out and say that they’ve got a little agreement with blue cross/blue shield and partners and aim that the healthcare amendment will not ever come up to a vote?
I’ve specifically requested information from Senator Moore for information why the Healthcare Amendment is or isn’t a good idea.
<
p>
I’ve received nothing.
i’ve seen his interaction with the public during open committee meetings.
and i would say that he feels about the same need for public accountability as does hu jintao.
I was running for state rep in the 10th Middlesex before Peter Koutoujian decided he would not run for DA. In taht short peiod of time, I learned very quickly how easy it is to offend someone or to lose the support of an individual or a group that you need to have in order to get elected.
<
p>
I told my campaign advisor that I was supporting Deval Patrick and she told me that if I went public with that support, it would do harm to me not only in the election, but if I got elected and Gabrielli was the Governor that would be a real pickle. As some one running for office for the first time, you don’t want to risk losing votes of people who might otherwise vote for you except for your support of another candidate.
<
p>
It saddens me to say, though I undertsand why, many politicians with whom I have become friendly backed candidates that they didn’t really support because they thought it was the right thing to do politically. Many people supported no one at the risk of offending a constituent or constituent group.
<
p>
Politicains spend more of their time getting reelected than they do governing. Two year terms are way too short. $60,000-$70,00 to run for state rep is too much and with a $500
maximum,you have to find some way to get the money, unless you can bankroll your own campaign.
<
p>
Why not shoot straight? The risk of not getting the support and money you need to get re-elected is too high.
Linsky claims he’s told lots of people how he supports gay marriage. How he has written op-eds and so on.
<
p>
But until he votes, he’s not ON RECORD.
<
p>
Which is why these heros vote to recess instead of vote like they said they would – they want to be able to tell everybody what THEY want to hear.
You guys are really alienating a group of people who are passionately in favor of gay marriage, 95% of whom support your health care cause. Why not find a way to work together on the issue instead of eating our own?
Got any suggestions?
<
p>
See, the problem is that (1) certain folks opposed to the marriage amendment want the joint session to adjourn on Jan. 2 without doing anything, which kills the healthcare amendment; (2) the healthcare folks want an up-or-down vote on their amendment, which is after the marriage amendment in the calendar, so it’s hard to see how there can be a vote on healthcare without first voting on marriage; and (3) — check me on this one — moving the healthcare amendment to the top of the agenda requires unanimous consent (which they won’t get), as I understand the rules.
<
p>
Bit of a pickle, wouldn’t you say?
But it disgusts me that people are attacking eachother so viciously on this one. They are two progressive issues. I don’t have any suggestions besides more civility, maybe discussion on what positive actions can be taken on both accounts… These are issues many people care deeply and nearly equally about, there’s got to be a compromise or a way to channel the energy for both.
It wasn’t GLAD, HRC or even Ryan’s Take coming on BMG and writing about how we need to screw the health care amendment. It was certiain birdies who shall remain nameless who decried what happened to the marriage amendment because – get this – the health care bill. The logic behind their attacks failed me, but once again interest groups have proven to solely be interested in themselves.
<
p>
Surely they have a better way of getting the healthcare amendment passed than attacking marriage equality? If not, they’re DOOMED.
I was attempting to be diplomatic and not assign blame (clearly the instigators’ messages on this forum are there for all to see, and anyone who gets this down-thread knows quite well who is doing this). But essentially yes – there has got to be a better way to pass the health care ammendment. A way to work together. Ask gay marriage supporters to help you collect signitures for next year and vow to fight it to the finish, or something. Work together instead of eating our own.
in a way and with a logic that’s very confusing. i and the hc advocates never “attacked” marriage equality. the legislature artificially pitted these 2 human rights issues against each other in the ConCon process. they used the intensity around the gay rights issue to give them political cover to deep-six the hc item by placing it (item #3) after item #20, the marriage item.
<
p>
the hc campaign was begun in 2002 and then the 74,000 voter signatures collected in 2003. it has done each and every single thing required in what has been a very arduous, grueling process, accomplished largely with volunteers.
<
p>
please don’t accuse us of attacking anyone. get mad at the legislative leadership. then act on it. like you’ve acted in so many important ways before. and i’ll keep taking actions in support of gay rights.
In response to your statement that the people do have a right to demand by law an up or down vote on all constitutional amendments according to article 48, I beg to differ. The Legislature used a procedural vote to recess in order to kill the amendment because such manuevers have been used successfully by both liberal and conservative factions many times in the past (most amendments actually never get an up or down vote in fact). These procedural methods have been judged legal because the state Constitution in fact says in article 48: “Section 4. Legislative Action. – Final legislative action in the joint session upon any amendment shall be taken only by call of the yeas and nays, which shall be entered upon the journals of the two houses; and an unfavorable vote at any stage preceding final action shall be verified by call of the yeas and nays, to be entered in like manner. At such joint session a legislative amendment receiving the affirmative votes of a majority of all the members elected, or an initiative amendment receiving the affirmative votes of not less than one-fourth of all the members elected, shall be referred to the next general court.” This has been interpreted by the SJC and other courts in the past to mean that only a role call vote will be acceptable when they do in fact vote. It does not mandate a vote, only the form that it can take. It is intended to provide accountability for the votes that the legislators cast, not to require them to vote in the first place. In a representative democracy like ours, our legislators are empowered, and protected by the law when they vote their consciences, either through up or down votes, or by procedural votes. If the anti-gay marriage forces are so sure that they represent the majority (even though majority oppression is anti-American, I believe) then they will not have any trouble electing enough legislators to come back next time and vote to amend. I’m not a lawyer, but I think anyone who can read English can read the article in question and come to the same conclusion that I did. It can be found online at http://www.mass.gov/…