The folks backing the proposed constitutional amendment on health care have filed an amicus brief in the lawsuit, filed by Mitt Romney and others, to force the anti-marriage amendment onto the ballot.
You can read the whole thing here. Basically, their argument is that the failure of the legislature to vote should be deemed the equivalent of 25% of the legislature voting in favor of an amendment. If the SJC were to adopt that solution, the effect would be to advance the health care amendment to the 2008 ballot (since it has already received one of the two required legislative votes), and to advance the anti-marriage amendment to the 2007-08 legislative session.
Oral argument in the marriage lawsuit is tomorrow morning at 9 am. You can watch it live at this link. The health care folks have asked permission to participate in the argument, but the online docket does not show whether the court has acted on their request.
Before the legislature did what it did, we both were both in agreement with what the state leg should do. However, and I’m sure you’ll agree with this, the SJC has no authority to override the state legislature.
<
p>
Furthermore, it’s time for us to move past this issue. What happened, happened. A lot of people have been turned off by the healthcare folks on my blog – and even at you. I’ve stuck up for you, but I think it’s time to denounce the healthcare folks for dividing the progressive movement.
<
p>
Seeing as how most people in the gay rights movement identify as either liberal or progressive and have powerful infrastructure, wouldn’t it be put to better use working in concert to make sure health care is a gauranteed right in Massachusetts?
<
p>
The only thing the healthcare folks who have sent the amicus brief have managed to do is side with a bunch of homophobes and divide the movement. Dividing the movement makes us weak. All of our progress over the past year has come from working together and getting all these small, diverse organizations on the same page for the Big Picture. When the organizations start attacking other liberal and progressive organizations, it’s a recipe for disaster.
ryan, there is a hugely important point to be clear on here: the amicus brief is a “friend of the COURT” legal act, NOT a “friend of romney et al”- not in the least! so please do not create any semblance of an alliance between the HC amendment folks and the anti-marriage equality folks when there is NONE. we are not “siding with them to divide the movement” as you imply. that is just not true. and it creates its own “Ughh” directed to some marriage rights supporters that would try to pit us (healthcare rights and marriage rights) against each other.
<
p>
the lawsuit filed on behalf of the HC amendment on Nov 10 is very different in its details from the anti marriage lawsuit. the HC amendment lawsuit argues that 2 votes have already been taken on it–the 153 yes votes in July 2004, and the 76 votes against killing the HC amendment with the Sen Moore study motion in July 2206–and that these 2 vote results are sufficient to place the HC amendment on the 2008 ballot if no 2nd up or down vote is taken on Jan 2. so there is NO WAY for the anti-marraige folks to join in the HC amendment lawsuit since the details differ so dramatically (thank heavens). so please do not lump us together as one. thank you.
<
p>
i do belive that we are all looking and listening carefully to our deeply held values to guide us on this one.
<
p>
there are gay marriage supporters, including gay married couples (who I know) and family members who fiercely want equal rights for their loved ones, who believe that the concon process should be followed and all items should be voted on up or down, even for the hateful anti marraige equality item. many folks including me believe that it can be defeated that way–not letting it get the 2 required votes of 50-plus legislators. this totally sucks to have such a thing put forward. and it is wrenching to have had the tactics used by the legislature in trying to kill the HC amendment end up forcing 2 human rights issues against each other in a perverse way (sen travaglini placed the health care amendment behind the marriage equality amendment knowing that the concon items have to be taken in the order they are placed on the concon agenda).
<
p>
i must say, the beacon hill political environment seems like such a poisoned toxic environment, so much that it poisons the spirit of whoever gets deeply involved in trying to advance a policy issue in the political arena over a long period of time…i feel like i’m overdue for a “political detox” of some kind!!! i wonder, is it always like that? is that what “politics” are at their core, and the toxicity only differs in the details at different points in time and depending on who the “players” are? gosh, that’s a discouraging thought but one i’m increasingly grappling with. sometimes i feel so naive about these things that i feel incredibly stupid. or maybe it’s just the toxins reaching a critical level?… ah well, it’s time to get back to my 6 yo finishing his homework about measuring things…
David started the diary “The folks backing the proposed constitutional amendment on health care have filed an amicus brief in the lawsuit, filed by Mitt Romney and others, to force the anti-marriage amendment onto the ballot.”
<
p>
that would seem to lump them together. if they are not related, why are the HC folks having anything to do with Willard’s lawsuit?
and one that would not apply to the anti-marriage amendment.
<
p>
I don’t know if the SJC will go for it, though.
You can’t deny that your amicus brief is in support of Mitt Romney’s position and is written to help their cause, because it helps yours. It’s being blatantly selfish.
<
p>
And to critize “some” marriage equality supporters for pitting us against each other is rediculous. Your group had a choice: it could either have decided to stake a position that puts you at direct odds with marriage equality, or it could have adopted a longer term strategy which would have kept the movement united. You can’t blame marriage equality supporters for getting angry. It was YOUR fault.
<
p>
I confess myself disappointed, Ann. You were enthusiastic about my proposal months ago to work together. Everything your organization has done here is an affront to that agreement.
<
p>
You seriously need to read “Crashing the Gate.” Because, in the end, what your organization has done today will only hurt YOU. It only weakens YOU. It’s short-sighted, selfish and I because of that I no longer support your organization’s efforts to get this amendment passed. Either another organization, with decent moral standards, will have to replace it or I’ll just have to hope Deval closely oversees the new health care bill and hope that everyone’s rights to health care are honored by upstanding progressives who care about the entire movement and not just their own specific issue.
But trashing the entire process of constitutional government, which is the bulwark that protects all of everyone’s civil rights, into the bin in order to avoid a vote on whether the law uses a word you like rather than a word you do not like is selfless liberal leadership.
So it’s ok to follow process as long as only a small minority’s rights are affected?
<
p>
It’s not a word people like me exactly likes, but it’s the one word that carries with it all the benefits and responsiblies that heterosexuals have been enjoying for years. Would you want your relationship defined differently in the eyes of the law than the couple across the street who also pays their taxes the same as you?
Process is the most important thing, because without it, everything else is meaningless verbiage.
<
p>
As has been pointed out repeatedly –search for it yourself on this site, David spelled it out repeatedly– adjournment is not the process. The constitution requires a substantive vote. Anything less is a breach of the oath of office.
<
p>
Worse, the attempt to protect this political issue from the political process, if successful, will have the effect of permanently undermining the peoples’ right to amend our constitution. One would be hard pressed to find a nicer holiday gift for the “anti-progressive” world than that.
“As has been pointed out repeatedly –search for it yourself on this site, David spelled it out repeatedly– adjournment is not the process. “
<
p>
Ok, so if you say so and David says so, it must be so? LOL! I’m sure you can do better than that!
is whether the SJC says so sometime in the next couple of days. Then things will really get interesting, no?
here it is
<
p>
This isn’t just an argument, it is the holding of the SJC. And they wouldn’t just, you know, make something up out of whole cloth, would they?
the same court that gave us Goodrich.
<
p>
I’ll be surprised if they don’t say it again.
<
p>
I’ll be very surprised if they do anything further.
…that anyone’s civil rights are at stake here, other than gay and lesbian people’s civil right of equal treatment under the law, is false. Being able to amend the constitution by this or that particular procedure is not a civil right.
<
p>
For better or worse, adjourning a concon is a well-established part of the process and has been for decades. Anti-gay bigots can’t win that way so they want to change the rules.
Its exactly the opposite, in fact. Marriage is not a civil right, but following the Constitutional path to amend that document is.
<
p>
Civil rights are those rights that enable all people full access to government – rights like access to the ballot box and to petition their government. You do not need to be married on order to fully participate in our democracy. If you are barred from amending your own Constitution by an outside force (in this case 109 legislators violating their oaths), then your civil rights have been violated.
<
p>
It is not those who want the amendment to move forward who want to change the rules – they are playing by them. It is those who seek to kill the amendment by all means possible who are trying to change the rules, and I fear they are winning. If the ConCon simply votes the amendment down, if it doesn’t give it the votes it needs to progress, then gay marriage will be preserved and no ones civil rights will have been violated.
Equal treatment under the law is a civil right. (If not, I don’t know what is.)
<
p>
So is the “government of laws” guaranteed by Article XXX.
<
p>
Specifically in this case, the legislature may not excercise judicial power (as it does when legislators reinterpret the Consitution or say say they “doen’t have to” follow it).
<
p>
Similarly, the court may not excercise legislative power, which is why it will be disinclined to grant any specific relief in this case other than a strongly worded opinion.
about marriage as a civil right, for reasons already stated, but you are probably right that the court isn’t going to offer much relief.
<
p>
Then again, the power to decide who can marry and who cant is specifically granted to the gov and the GC by the Constitution, and not to the courts. The SJC had no problem stepping over the line there to excersize the legislative power, so who knows that will happen this time. As they are on record as being in favor of gay marriage,however, my money is on the strongly worded opinion as well.
It’s a right – whether you like it or not.
According to the United States Supreme Court Ruling Loving v. Virginia 1967, Marriage is a civil right. Just because it has not been demanded before by the gay community does not make it less ours. You don’t get to vote away someone else’s civil rights. The chief justice doesn’t beat around the bush, he says it outright. Look it up if you don’t believe me.
<
p>
That aside, where is OUR due process? I hear a lot of people saying all the want is their right to vote. Don’t I have a right to know why you are intitled to vote on my rights to begin with? I think this petition is putting the cart before the horse. You don’t go straight to the jury; there is a trial first. I guess if you’re gay you shouldn’t expect to be treated fairly. After all, bigotry is an American tradition.
Rights that are actually specifically included in the document as written don’t exist, but rights that someone found by sniffing the emissions and emanations and interpreting the delicate aromas are crucial.
<
p>
Ugh.
For the record, the “penumbras and emanations” idea you seem to be referring to was used in one US Supreme Court case. You may disagree with the Court’s interpretations of the Due Process Clause, but last I saw the Due Process Clause was very much a specifically included part of the Constitution.
<
p>
Anyway, if you feel like the MA legislature has “violated its oath of office”, then why don’t you try to actually do something and work to vote them out of office since you think it’s such an important issue. Don’t try to get the SJC to do the dirty work for you based upon bad legal arguments.
I can’t believe that this is happening. So much for the mutual support between the two camps. HC can now die on the table as far as I am concerned, and the legislators I talk to will hear that from me.
<
p>
You don’t get to vote on people’s civil rights!
<
p>
In throwing the gay community under the bus the HC people have thrown away an alliance that would have helped both causes. I will not forget this.
And since you brought up the notion of throwing a person under the bus, as it has in the past, this phrase brings to mind visions of severe bodily harm and that could lead conveniently to a discussion about the need for a right to health care, in order to prevent the obscene health inequities and needless suffering that pervade our current system and which the health care amendment seeks to remedy.
<
p>
No one here is “choosing” one group or issue or cause over another. We are sincerely looking to our deepest values to guide us toward action, toward taking a stand on what we believe in. We’re doing it for our brothers and sisters, in the largest sense. Just as you are, I imagine.
<
p>
And speaking of brothers and sisters, this amendment is as much for my sister and every other human being who struggles with serious chronic mental illness or any other serious illness that needs and deserves care. These good people much much too often do not receive the care they need and they deserve, often for lacking the right “insurance”. My sister had “good” insurance when she had her first psychotic episode 20 years ago. After a few weeks at McLean’s, she was still terribly ill and sufferring horribly and the meds were not working too well. One day her insurance coverage “ran out” for mental illness services so the hospital staff shipped her strapped down in four point restraints, very ill and very very frightened, to a state psychiatric hospital where they had no beds available.
<
p>
So they put her on a matress on the floor. On the floor in the “Day Room”. Then the family was notified. I got her transferred to the Deaconess Hospital the next day. I won’t go into the other litany of horrors of her and the family’s experiences. Most of these “problems accessing needed care” were preventable if we actually had a functional health care system, one that prioritizes people’s clinical needs and population health over market competition and profits.
<
p>
These kinds of things are still happening to thousands of people, very sick people who need and deserve care, and to their families ALL THE TIME. EVERY DAY. WITH EVERY KIND OF SERIOUS ILLNESS. Talk about feeling like you’ve been sacrified or thrown under the bus… My sister, my family and many many others – countless others – know how that feels. I’m not saying you don’t know it too. Let’s not throw daggers, please. This is really hard stuff. please let’s not make it worse and in the process make it easier for the real opposition to obstruct fulfillment of BOTH of these fundamental human rights.
Promote homophobia. There are as many or more horror stories coming from the gblt movement. Childhood suicide is epidemic. If our marriage rights were stripped from us, that would only go up.
<
p>
You made a mistake. You need to accept that. You decided to be a divider, instead of a uniter. Your organization could have agreed to work together. It would have taken a longer period of time, but we would have won together. By dividing the progressive movement, you’re doing your best effort to make sure health is never a right enshrined in our state constitution. That’s why we need a health care group that really advocates for the best interest of the public’s health – your tactics are anathema to longterm success.
I don’t think you have any strong basis for saying this action “promotes homophobia.” You see the connection, but reasonable people can disagree, in my opinion.
<
p>
You certainly don’t have any basis to speak for the entire “progressive movement,” whatever that is.
<
p>
Maybe it would be more constructive to speak to the substance of the legal arguments, rather than the perceived politics.
But I have a fairly broad understanding of a lot of the core beliefs behind the neo-progressive movement, mainly the phenomenon of “crashing the gate.” Organizations are free to divide the greater-progressive movement, but they make us all weaker in the process.
<
p>
I can speak for myself by saying I disagree with every part of this action. That is my right.
<
p>
The legal ramifications are clear: their case is very weak. However, I’m not going to base the substance of my arguments on legal points because there are legal experts on this forum – and I’m not one of them.
<
p>
My largest concern, as a citizen-activist-blogger, is progress. To achieve that progress, we need a broad coalition. Certainly, that coalition doesn’t have to – and can’t – agree on everything. However, the one thing we all should agree on is to not subvert each others’ causes, at least when possible.
<
p>
The only way to get a healthcare amendment passed is through that large coalition. Healthcare groups can’t do it alone. They need the aide and support of progressives that fall under pro-choice camps, glbt camps, poverty-issue camps, gun safety camps, etc. etc. etc. That’s what I feel passionately about, that’s what I’m going to write about.
<
p>
If I am overly passionate in that speech, I apologize. However, it pales in comparison to the ramifications of this backstab. I never would have actively sought to put down another progressive element in favor of my own. Heck, I cared more about the health care amendment than anything having to do with gay marriage until the health care folks started to attack us (see what that division causes? groups have to defend their own against other progressive groups – instead of going on the attack on behalf of all our issues).
i truly don’t get it when you say:
“until the health care folks started to attack us”
<
p>
i have not attacked anyone and actually i feel attacked by you saying that i attacked you. what is going on here? i am a social justice activist first and foremost; i focus on healthcare because it is what i know best from my family’s and my work experiences. i know all about gay hate crimes and the suicide rates and homelessness among gay teens, both from my personal life and my work as a nurse with healthcare for the homeless over 3 years. i totally am committed to ending those injustices and the inhumane and cruel treatment that arises from homophobia and the fear that comes from not understanding (an element that gives rise to homophobia, i think).
<
p>
division among progressive causes and groups is just what the opposition needs, as you allude to, and it is something i try mightily to not contribute to. there’s teh issue of doing what i feel and think is the right thing to do in the bigger sense and that has to do with democracy and all of us knowing our rights and what we can expect out of our democracy. without that, so many things could come crasing down on us…look at Bush and the harm he has unleashed by flouting the constitution, for one example.
<
p>
i truly am sorry that you feel attacked by me and the other activists who seek to create a right to “comprehensive, affordable, and equitably financed health insurance” but i cannot find the words to express how strongly i reject the notion that any attack by us has occurred. does this mean that i should not feel attacked by you? i’ll have to give that some thought…
FWIW, is that Ryan has plenty of grounds for saying this action promotes homophobia.
<
p>
His basis for saying so seems stronger than any basis for saying nay, as a matter of fact.
<
p>
This is a court case filed by a single issue hate group for one reason only. (And it isn’t because they care about the democratic process.)
<
p>
If there were a vital legal principle being defended in a principled way, support for the hate group might be justified. But that doesn’t seem to be what’s happening in this case.
I was just offering a suggestion as to argumentative strategy.
Most of these “problems accessing needed care” were preventable if we actually had a functional health care system…
<
p>
Some of us believe that your amendment accomplishes, practically speaking, absolutely nothing toward creating a functional health care system. It’s true that the major advocacy organization for health care in Mass–Health Care for All–does not support your amendment, right?
actually “Health Care For All” endorsed the HC amendment in 2004 after the 70,000 voter signatures had been collected. the group’s e.d. john mcdonough gave powerful supportive testimony for the hc amendment at the april 2004 hearing on it.
<
p>
then all kinds of machinations took place over the ensuing months adding up to 2 years later, when to many people’s great shock and dismay, that same group, a few days before we hoped to get our 2nd and final vote on the hc amendment May 11, 2006, submitted a letter unendorsing the hc amendment citing “unreconcilable differences”. many legislators used the fact that that group had (bizarely) unendorsed as an attempt to give themselves political cover for voting in favor of the bogus “study” motion. that study tactic was a disingenous attempt to kill the amendment. the “study” motion was introduced and withdrawn and only after more than an hour of “leadership” arm-twisting of legislators (as we were told and was witnessed from the gallery) it was re-introduced and garnered sufficent votes to prevail- for that day.
<
p>
there are a lot more very disheartening details to this saga. if anyone cares to know them.
The healthcare alliance put a huge amount of time and effort into the actual political process in order to advance their own political priority, and the SSM folks, who specifically chose a litigation shortcut, are willing to blithely torpedo their efforts as collateral damage, and it is them who betrayed you?
You obviously haven’t even thought through what you’re saying regarding the “actual political process”.
<
p>
Remind me again when MassEquality sued the legislature to make them do the evil bidding of the gays. And what court order forced Sal DiMasi to get the votes whipped up for a filibuster against this latest freakshow amendment.
<
p>
I’m pretty sure the legislature’s actions have to do with the election results from 2004 and 2006.
I think some in this thread are overreacting a bit to this latest development.
<
p>
I say this because it’s pretty clear the lawsuit is almost completely devoid of legal merit and will not result in the judiciary forcing the legislature to do anything. The idea that the SJC will attempt to divine the intent of legislators and equate one vote (the vote against the study) with a completely different one (the vote not taken on the amendments themselves) deserves to be, and will be, laughed out of court.
then the HC Cmte’s decision to get involved in the legal case is even more tragic. Raising as it does all this anger, division and betrayal. Sad. Tragic.
HC for Mass. argues that the vote to supress the HC amendment by sending it to to committee is equivalent to a vote on the amendment itself. Since the motion to commit received less than 3/4 of the vote, they argue, it really passed. SInce this is its second consideration, therefore, they ask that it be put on the ballot.
<
p>
This is questionable, but even were the court to agree, the argument still would not apply to the anti-marriage amendment. That amendment was not specifically supressed by a motion subsidiary to it and did not already pass a previous joint session.
<
p>
That said, I don’t understand why HC for Mass. is arguing this in the docket initiated by the anti-marriage crowd instead of filing their own case. There may be no legal reason to keep the two cases separate, but there sure is a public-message reason to do so.
on substance:
<
p>
“That said, I don’t understand why HC for Mass. is arguing this in the docket initiated by the anti-marriage crowd instead of filing their own case. There may be no legal reason to keep the two cases separate, but there sure is a public-message reason to do so.”
<
p>
feel free to characterize it as tad less extreme than sad. unfortunate? stupid? ham-handed?
The complaint is here, and the docket is here. They also chose to weigh in in the marriage case, via an amicus brief.
Asking for an order (would that be a writ of mandamus?) that the lege vote is one thing, but this kind of invention of new constitutional procedure is something I would expect any court to shy away from in any circumstance.
Yes, it is an odd request of the court indeed. There is probably no legal precedent for this sort of thing in any American jurisdiction, and the SJC will certainly not fashion such a remedy now. It may scold the legislature again as it did in the LIMITS case, but there is absolutely no way the prayer for relief in this brief will hold water.
<
p>
I will say that at least this brief is at least a far better attempt at a novel (and bad) legal argument than the Vote on Marriage petition against individual legislators filed earlier last week. It actually tries to address the rather major mootness/ripeness issue at play here, for example. If you want a real laugh (and a real lesson in how to embarrass yourself as a lawyer), check out that Vote on Marriage brief.
that shit is scary!
it’s about losing to godless forces and stoking the myth of victimology that sustains the hard core.
<
p>
If you lose to evil, you must be pure. And if you are pure, you are justified in doing anything.
The really annoying thing is that the health care amendment being pushed is badly written and has the potential to create all kinds of problems down the road.
<
p>
Inviting the courts to be the final arbiters of how health care is to be financed is a terrible idea in general. What’s worse is that the text of this amendment appears to mandate a public referendum on every subsequent piece of health care legislation that goes through the legislature. (It’s backers claim that that’s not what they mean, but that is nonetheless what the amendment itself says.)
<
p>
Progress on health care requires building the political will to get it done, and an amendment campaign is one tool that might help to accomplish that, yes, but the activists behind this one seem to have become bizarrely fixated.
You’ve hit the nail.
<
p>
Finneran managed to sabotage the health care amendment by getting the legislature to insert language requiring that laws implementing the amendment’s requirement would have to pass public referendum. Because it was passed with that language and we’re now on to a second session vote, it can’t be changed; new language would need to go through two sessions of the legislature again.
<
p>
With the new health care law less than a year old and lots of questions about how it will be implemented and how well it will work, it makes a lot of progressive legislators uneasy about this Finneran-sabotaged amendment – throwing a referendum into the mix right at this time would spur a huge amount of ad spending on the “Vote No” side, which might derail reasonable efforts to make this law work.
<
p>
I’d love to see a health care amendment as originally intended, but I admit I feel very ambivalent about this vote (by which I mean, about whether or not I want legislators to vote yes on it).
of the progressive movement, I think it is a bit unfair to tag the HCA folks with this charge. Health Care for Mass is an advocacy organization, and these organizations don’t exist to work for a greater progressive majority. They exist to promote a specific policy agenda on a particular issue. Say what you will about their causes or their strategies, but the fact remains that the primary concern of the HCA group is the HCA. As to the strategy of the amicus brief–It seems unlikely to work, but at this point it is the best shot for the HCA to get on the ballot.
<
p>
Full disclosure: I worked with Health Care for MA (the HCA organization) over the summer.
The HCA wants to pass a health care amendment. Other groups, who may align closely with HCA, likely agree with them. Now, the organizations could work together on what’s possible and agree to not stab each other in the back on other issues… or they can be selfish, ignore the other causes and just fight for their own at the cost of everything else.
<
p>
If enough people choose that last option, none of these issue groups will get their issues through legislation. For real-world examples just look at the Sierra Club, NARAL, etc. etc. etc.
…the proponents of the health care amendment are so homophobic. I’ll take care to avoid signing any of their petitions in the future.
organization/individual filing an amicus brief supports the core ideas of the group in whose case they filed the amicus. It merely implies that their legal interests are in line. That is the case here. Please do not assume that everyone who supports the health care amendment is also a homophobic bigot.
And it’s not constructive.
that adressed to me or raj? I’m confused
I agree with you.
n/t
Sorry, I disagree.
<
p>
Constructive? What the heck is that supposed to mean? They made their choice.
in this case, would be a reasoned arguement that the proponents of this measure are “so homophobic” (your own words). Can we agree that homophobia is a fear or hatred of homosexuals and homosexual behavior? If so, than feel free to argue that the supporters of the HCA fit this description. If you cannot make this arguement, then by refering to these individuals as homophobes, you are merely name-calling.
Can we agree that homophobia is a fear or hatred of homosexuals and homosexual behavior?
<
p>
Your view of homophobia is way too narrow. To quote from Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (Encyclopedia Britannica edition):
<
p>
Homophobia: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals (emphasis added)
<
p>
By siding with Romney and his crew, the HCA people are siding with discrimination against homosexuals. That should be obvious.
reopening a can of worms that was open for quite a long time on this site (probably before you joined us here, since you only registered today), let me just state categorically that there is a difference between one’s views on the merits of these amendments (substance) and one’s views on how the legislature should manage the joint session (process). Believing that the legislature should vote on the amendments that are properly before them has nothing — repeat, nothing — to do with homophobia, however broadly you choose to define it. There’s lots of difference of opinion here and elsewhere on what the proper and appropriate strategies for dealing with these amendments are, but that’s a different question from who is “homophobic” and who isn’t. So let’s ratchet down the rhetoric a bit.
…whether this lawsuit is a legitimate attempt to address ambiguities in the constitutional amendment process or whether it’s a stunt intended to create media attention for anti-gay hate groups–and to intimidate lawmakers, judges, and citizens who support same-sex marriage.
<
p>
The first question from the bench this morning (courtesy of your excellent coverage, thank you) was, “Why doesn’t the LIMITS case control this?” That’s the question on everyone’s mind, isn’t it? The legal issues in this case have already been resolved a long time ago, and this is about politics alone.
<
p>
A small group of health care demagogues is choosing to participate in a “we hate the lege” temper tantrum. And that’s all it is. They should be held responsible for their poor judgment.
The intent of my post was not so much to spark a debate. I have been discussing similar issues in other venues, and my mind is pretty much made up on it.
included “discrimination against.” Nonetheless, I still don’t believe this qualifies.
They’re helping an organization that wants to destroy marriage equality… there are organizations and people I choose not to associate with out of general principal, regardless of whether or not they’re right. Just because I think the KKK has a right to free speech, doesn’t mean I’m going to go support their right to free speech at their next rally.
You assert, over and over, that the Health Care for Mass. advocates are “helping an organization that wants to destroy marriage.”
<
p>
How are they doing this? Does their brief to the court in this case say anything in support of the anti-marriage crowd?
I should think that would be quite clear. The HC crowd is saying both amendments should get pushed forward. Did you even read the amicus brief – or read David’s post about it?
That ACLU must be racist for putting actual constitutional process over the principal that hate groups are evil.
Sorry if I was ambiguous. Saying I support the KKK’s right to free speech means I support their right to free speech – it’s as easy as that. However, I wouldn’t go to a rally holding a sign “the KKK deserves the right to free speech” because I couldn’t care less about them. However, I wouldn’t stop paying my dues if the ACLU brought a case through to litigation because random town A tried to thwart a kkk rally.
<
p>
It’s not the same thing. Furthermore, the entire reason for the existence of the ACLU is support constitutional rights. So, I’m not so sure if the ACLU would support the HC’s efforts (where’s the ACLU’s amicus brief?) and the HC lobby’s purpose isn’t free speech… so your point is moot on so many counts I’ve lost track.
The supporters of the HCA (the organization, that is) had the option of not filing a brief in support of Romney and the other homophobes. That they did support them more than shows that they they supported discriminating against homosexuals.
Why is it that the people who have filed this amicus brief are making the same false assumption that is made by those who are suing the legislature to force an up or down vote on the constitutional amendment banning gay marriage?
Have they actually read the Mass. Constitution?
It’s really clear. The article in question, 48, says that the only way to approve an amendment by citizen petition is with a yeah or nay vote. That’s it. Period. It’s about having the vote on the record, that’s all. It does not mandate a vote in the first place, only the form that it will take. All of the legal experts involved in this process say that same thing, including the ones advising Romney ( Heil Mittler!). But they choose to move forward for the publicity it might generate for his presidential bid. Any idiot could see through this transparent political posturing. So why hitch your wagon to that bony old nag? It ain’t pullin’ very far.
I believe something like eleven out of the seventeen citizen petition initiatives that have made it to the legislature have been killed by procedural votes and never got an up or down vote. And nobody seemed to mind then. The last time, I think was the case of the abortion rights measure?
The republicans at the national level had used the filibuster something like 89 times during the Clinton administration, but got all huffity when it might be used against them.
Politicians are not a reliable guide of what is or isn’t constitutional or right. I suggest anyone who feels strongly about constitutional procedure or amendments should go right ahead and just read the constitution for themselves. It’s available online at mass.gov.
It’s an eminently readable document.
….but what you are suggeting is not a clear cut point or probably accurate in consideration of existing case law. There is a legitimate question as to the meaning of 48 where scholars of the MA Constitution are concerned and when I first read it I understood it to mean what you suggest. However, the SJC (not insingnificantly the body with the final word on what the MA Constitution means) has weighed in on this and if you read the LIMITS decision it is fairly clear that they believe 48 requires a vote, not just the manner in which the vote should be taken, but that there is no judicial remedy for the failure to vote (that last part may be about to change). During the hearing for the case at hand the Justices seemed to indicate their feelings again and appear poised to issue a clear statement to that effect. A semantic discussion about the literal meaning on one sentence is, unfortunately, moot in the face of existing case law.
<
p>