The health care lobby has tried to pin that on gay people – as if WE’RE to blame for this whole mess. I’ll note that when this bill died – months and months ago – it came up for a vote before gay marriage. If it died then, before gay marriage was even up for a vote, what makes these schmucks short-sighted individuals think marriage equality has anything to do with this?
I’ll note that I was willing to put my rights – as a gay man – to risk. Before the last ConCon, I decided we should just have the vote. I was prepared for the battle that would be ahead, when this issue would likely have made it to the ballot because of the mere 25% threshold.
However, a foul ball went my way. Foul balls almost always go to the connected and well-funded. But for once, the state legislature was willing to throw a foul in the direction of good. They were willing to stand up and say “we don’t think this is right” and use all the tactics available to them to protect the rights of a minority that has been subjected to hundreds of years of malice.
Sometimes people say the gay rights movement should slow down. To shame. To shame. It reminds me of a famous quote from Martin Luther King, Jr.
For years now I have heard the word “Wait!” It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This “Wait” has almost always meant ‘Never.” We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that “justice too long delayed is justice denied.”
We have waited and sacrificed – a long time – for equal rights in Massachusetts. Now that we have it, we’re not suddenly going to risk giving them up. The legislature shouldn’t be denounced for sticking up for what’s right, they should be applauded.
However, while I would merely be angry and disappointed by the short-sightedness of the people behind the health care amendment, I am outraged. Why? It’s not only that they disagree with gay rights activists. It’s not that they’re throwing a pitch fork in the middle of the progressive movement, one that could severely damage everything we’ve worked for. It’s not even that I necessarily disagree with their rights to get involved in the matter.
The outrage is in their remedy.
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.
They’re advancing the causes of blatantly homophobic people. They’re pretending to argue for something that they’re really arguing against: honoring the constitution. The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts has no legal standing or precedent to override the legislature on deciding what gets on the ballot as an amendment to the constitution. In essense, they’re selfishly arguing for their cause by claiming the legislature is violating the constitution – and asking for the SJC to violate it too, as a remedy.
It makes me seriously question whether or not the people behind the health care amendment are homophobic. Clearly, they don’t care a shred about the rights of gays and lesbians. I urge anyone who supports healthcare – as I do – to shun this so-called health care advocacy group. They only serve to weaken the entire progressive movement out of their selfishness.
I hope the sex was worth it, because the morning after is going to be grim.
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 (including me) 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. We are not bedfellows. please.
<
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 many powerful MLK Jr quotes, and i certainly don’t want to measure different human rights up to each other. the below MLK quote gives me the strength to carry on in this struggle when the going gets really rough, as it has pretty regularly over the last 4 years since the HC amendment was created
<
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.
<
p>
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, and previously sen moore proposed a “study motion” as a blatant tactic to attempt to kill the HC amendment; that’s not right and we will not let it go down without a fight. so the HC amendment is not dead, as you say with glee (it so it seems and is very sad to point out).
<
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?… so we should just go away and let those who want to deny equal rights for marriage and to deny equal rights for health care be the ones to make the noise in the courts and in the misleading headlines (about the state’s healthcare reform law?). that’s not right.
by throwing gay rights under the bus.
<
p>
Martin Luther King never would have thrown civil rights under the bus to advocate for other rights. That’s absurd.
<
p>
I’m a huge proponent of health care – that’s why I now vehemently oppose your organization. You only do the cause harm by dividing the entire movement. Congratulations.
i want to repeat, “i do belive that we are all looking and listening carefully to our deeply held values to guide us on this one. …there are many powerful MLK Jr quotes, and i certainly don’t want to [or mean in any way to] measure different human rights up to each other…” that certianly would be absurd.
The toxins come from you deciding to play politics and divide the movement we’ve built over the past year – the one that elected this state’s first democrat in 16 years and first african american governor ever. You’ve decided to play inside politics instead of focus on the grassroots. You’ve decided to throw what credibility you have toward Team Homophobia because of one reason: selfishness.
<
p>
If the situations were reversed and health care were somehow saved because of parliamentary procedure, but that caused gay rights to be pushed back, I NEVER would have attacked health care. Why? I believe in a greater movement. Ultimately, it’s that kind of belief system which allows progressives to win. Your tactics are the same losing tactics that have made groups like NARAL, the Seirra Club and even HRC, among dozens of others, next to useless.
<
p>
You’re allowing non-progressive forces to divide and conquer.
Civil Rights are inalienable, you don’t get to vote on them. Because of apathy and hysteria the petition has gotten this far, but the legislators are doing their job by trying to kill this vessel of hatred.
<
p>
The Assistant Attorney General was asked by the SJC if people could petition to have slavery brought back. He said yes. Does this line of logic still make sense to you?!
<
p>
Don’t ask me for any favor in the future when the HC bill is killed, because you just lost a bunch of support with this backstab. I have nothing else to say to you. Good day!
I thought there was a common ground of deeply held human values… I am saddened beyond words that there is such apparent misunderstanding of the facts and of the goals here.
The truth comes out. How revealing. And disappointing. Funny, I thought you guys wanted everyone’s favor in getting the health care amendment passed – but I guess it’s just the VoM crowd you’re depending on now. You’ll note, however, you’re depending on a small slice of the pie… and those people are at direct odds with the many Representatives and Senators who support your cause and organization. Trying to threaten the legislature isn’t a great way to achieve victory for your cause, either, and that’s what this suit is all about. The great irony is you’re asking the SJC to blatantly disregard the Constitution too.
<
p>
…if that was true. but it’s not: the legislature has not acted to affirm equal marriage rights at all. they spent the 6 months after the court decision trying to pretend it didn’t happen, and hoping it would go away: we’ve gone over two and half years now and (as far as I know) there has been no policy standardization or anything, except the ad hoc stuff put together by the Romney administration… they need to stand up for what’s right: playing games to avoid doing so is not enough.
<
p>
now, I am as you know a democracy hawk: I do believe that a fair democratic process has to be fundamental. as such, i believe the legislature and those who support their actions have alienated many progressives by throwing away democracy so quickly: with the caveats to the fraud involved in the process, the legislature has to carry out final action, or our democracy is broken (as has been shown many times). in absolutely no way should this go to ballot, but I can’t throw away the constitution that quickly with out trying every legitimate route we can.
<
p>
that said, the remedy proposed that quote is ill-reasoned and also unconstitutional: just as inaction should not kill an anemdment, it should push it up a step in the process. i think the most reasonable argument that could be made is that inaction in a legislative session would preserve an amendments place in line and carry over until a legislature accepts or rejects, and not sure why the health care group didn’t push for that (Romney’s not going to cause he only wants it there to help him in 08, and probably doesn’t care and just likes gay-bashing for the conservative homophobe votes)
<
p>
i think accusing the health care activists of being homophobic is just as silly of eaqual marriage activists being accused of hating democracy: i just think everyone is just focused on what they’re trying to achieve too much to look broadly.
<
p>
overall, i’m never going to shed a tear about the anti-marriage amendment being killed, but i think they way they did it was just wrong, and will likely be counterproductive in the long run.
” So I hope you hear the depth and the sincerity of my enthusiasm when I say “Thank you!!”~Ann Malone via email to John Hosty December 2, 2006
<
p>
I think understand part of what Ryan has issue with. The people behind the HC amendment had not spoken to those of us who were trying to help them lobby for their cause about this new approach. Instead, they just let us find out for ourselves because they new in essence this approach amounts to thowing our cause to the wolves.
<
p>
Prior to this Ryan, myself, and others had contacted legislators directly and were getting advice on how to make sure their cause would still be on the 2008 ballot. The advice I was giving them was coming directly from Beacon Hill, but I guess they decided that wasn’t good enough.
<
p>
They certainly will not endear themselves to the legislators with this approach. Say goodbye HC amendment once the legislators have the final say now that the HC supporters have played dirty pool.
in an open and forthright manner. it does sadden me tremendously that these wounds are being re-opened when i think that could have been avoided. the HC amendment is a volunteer-led effort that is not some well oiled machine; it’s a group of activists trying to do what we feel and think is the right thing to do to help build a healthier society. and we certainly need, welcome, and appreciate others’ involvement, as my email that you quoted above clearly expresses.
<
p>
look, i did not know that the email that was sent out by the campaign yesterday was coming–had i known i would have tried to insist that it be explained more clearly that the HC folks are NOT IN ANY WAY in an alliance with the anti-marriage rights folks. WE ARE NOT. i am sorry it appeared that way.
<
p>
yesterday i started an email to you, john, but i never got to finishing it and sending it. i’m also trying to live a rounded life too. yesterday i had an important commitment at my 2 year-old’s daycare in the morning and then at my 6 year-old’s school for his holiday sing in the afternoon, and i had a tech volunteer scheduled to come in and help with some computer problems in the office in between. i am sorry i did not successfully make the time yesterday to send you an email (it’s still in my drafts folder) that describes how badly i feel about the campaign update wording that was sent out. then i looked at BMG and saw the fury being expressed, so thought my time should be spent responding there/here.
You are speaking about the process, and he is fixed upon the result/consequences of that process. Hard cases make bad law.
<
p>
I do not want to violate the process to achieve a goal, no matter how laudable it may be. For instance, imagine if Term Limts hadn’t been subverted the way it was! IMHO, the Legislature would be a healtier and more responsive body! Yet, thepowers that be decided that ‘we’ didn’t know what we wre doing – like Clean Elections – and subverted the process.
<
p>
This is not about health care. This is not about gay marriage. This is about a rogue legislature.
<
p>
Coming from a spokeswoman who’s organization opened up the wounds via sending the amicus brief.
Don’t they feel that knife in their back that this SSM idiocy put there? Die, already!
Your suggestion is as logical as Bush ‘fighting back’ by invading terrorists. Gay rights activists had and have NOTHING to do with the health care being shelved.
except for that shiv in their back as their project gets “adjourned” to death
I have no idea what you’re even talking about. No one’s getting back stabbed. The legislature came attacked this one right from the front.
Iraq, not terrorists.