A reader who lives in Malden passed along an excellent letter he sent to his state representative, Hall of Shame member Paul Donato (D-Medford), and gave me permission to publish it. Here it is.
January 3, 2007
Hon. Paul J. Donato
Room 185
House of Representatives
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Boston, MA 02133
Dear Rep. Donato:
I am writing to you not only as your constituent but also as someone who felt deeply moved by the meeting my partner Marcony and I had in your office last November, and particularly touched that I reminded you of your late nephew. Your vote yesterday in the Constitutional Convention to advance the amendment that seeks to ban future same-sex marriages was a sad, sorrowful act. Not surprisingly, your nephew was the first person I thought of when I read your name off of the roll call.
I am not sure how you reached this difficult and tortured decision, but you left clues in our meeting that you were grappling with several key points on both sides of the debate. You appeared to cling to two statistics in particular, which privately, I am quite certain, helped you determine your vote: the 123,000 certified signatures gathered to generate this amendment; and your annual surveys to constituents.
As I hope you know, the 123,000 signatures are not a guarantee that an initiative ought to be placed on a ballot. If it were, then why would the Constitution require the 50-vote minimum of both chambers in two successive years in order to advance the petition? You and your colleagues are not a mere pass-through for this or any amendment; your deliberative and collective energies are required to evaluate its merits. Regrettably, you felt my personal rights were insignificant enough to be put to a popular vote.
Additionally, you were very proud of your annual constituent surveys, and equally impressed that, since 2004 – months after the November 2003 SJC ruling – the results have moved from a wide margin against gay marriage to a rather slim majority against in our district. You even acknowledged that one day soon, the majorities might be reversed. With all due respect, sir, this is a funny way to run a railroad.
These surveys are not scientific and surely skewed to represent the most conservative members of your constituency. How? Even if you send them to every registered voter in the district (and if you send them only to a select mailing list, then surely these results are not accurate), think about the type of voter who is most likely to respond to a Paul Donato survey. They are probably older, more likely-to-vote, long-term voters in your district, who recognize your name on the newsletter, maybe even know you personally for 30 years; senior voters who, in scientific polling are the least likely to support same-sex marriage. I personally have never received one of these surveys, and I am an excellent voter; after our meeting in November, I asked everyone one in my building if they filled out and responded to your survey; none had even seen it. I asked neighbors on Gould Avenue; same answer.
Who exactly does receive this survey?
I think, if this survey holds so much sway in your vote on my personal rights, it should give you pause that in your narrowly-defined universe of survey respondents, the fact that your results were so close suggests that there is probably majority support in your district for same-sex marriage if you used a scientific polling method for your research.
I certainly hope you reconsider your position on both your survey, but more importantly, at next year’s Constitutional Convention, in which, unfortunately, the amendment will once again re-surface. And when it does, you remember that my family is no different than yours: Italian-American, strong on family values, Sunday dinner with those whom you love. Why wouldn’t I want the same protections for my love of Marcony as you have with your spouse? Why wouldn’t you want them for your nephew?
Until you reconsider, you have not only lost my vote, but more importantly, you have lost my respect.
Sincerely,
Mark P.
c.c.: Hon. Richard R. Tisei, State Senator
What a painful irony that Mark’s senator, Republican Richard R. Tisei, voted the right way on both the anti-marriage amendment and the health care amendment. Perhaps amicus is onto something — since the state Republican party is an empty shell right now anyway, might it be worth trying to fill it with progressive candidates to knock off DINOs? One could always switch after the election. Or not — and never mind the party of Saltonstall, you could work on restoring the party of Lincoln. It would be an interesting exercise in redefining what political parties mean, since such a candidate would probably be more of a Deval-backer than the typical legislative Democrat. The tactical question, I guess, is whether it’s easier to win as a Dem in a low-turnout primary, or win as a Republican in a Democratic district in the general.
I’m also struck by Mark’s suggestion about polling. Does anyone know how much district-by-district scientific polling would cost? If we could sponsor a polling project for districts represented by “persuadable” legislators (and perhaps Donato is one), it might prove to be a real eye-opener.
This might be a good place to start, although I don’t know if they do polling by specific district.
Here is the link:
<
p>
http://www.statehous…
<
p>
I don’t know what they charge, but anyway, Gary Chervinsky who is in charge of this aspect is a pro at it.
<
p>
You mean like the keen, incisive polling done by Cyndi Roy? Before she quit to be Deval’s Communications Director?
<
p>
It depends on what you want from the poll. do you want numbrs to butress your argument? Groovy. Suffolk, SHNS, all of them will tell you what you want to hear.
<
p>
Do you want to predict how people might actually VOTE or THINK? Look furthr afied, at less compromised entities – and you won’t be as surprised by events.
My understanding is that Gary Chervinsky is the only professional who does polls at SHNS. I am not affiliated, have never used them, no connection. I am confused by the reference to Cyndi Roy. Sorry. Was she a SHNS employee?
I never pretended to be the polling expert around here, but you need a minium of at atleast 22 random samples to have a valid crosstab of a state reps district–although many will argue for 40 to 60 to have a more manageable MOE and stable numbers. So, to do it right you’d have to target about 75 random cals into 60 or so districts.
I think MassEquality has done some polling. They would be a good place to start asking.
If you are going to run against an anti-gay, anti-marriage equality rep or senator, run as a member of the Green-Rainbow Party. Green-Rainbow candidates must support marriage equality in order garner the endorsement of the state GRP. The GRP needs a voice in the legislature and you’d be among the progressive caucus either way. As a GRP you’re guaranteed a walk into the general election and don’t have to bother with the primary. Like you say, after the election, if you must you can change parties.
<
p>
PEACE,
Saint Kermit
I’m not sure if Kermie is right or not, but it is an interesting thought process.
for allowing it to be shared with us, and for acting on your convictions with such moving openess, honesty, and your thoughtful analysis of the dynamics that are influencing not only your rep but possibly many other leges as well.
<
p>
and as for st kermit’s suggestions, would this open the door to a domain name change, BGMG perhaps? (teal is such a soothing color, isn’t it?…)
..that the Republican Party is just some empty vessel, awaiting your damn rescue.
<
p>
YOUR party is the corrupt one – why don’t you continue to run primary candidates there? Because the truth is, once elected, they are swallowed up in the overall Democrat corruption, and will be back whining to you in six month why they HAD to take that vote, see, and…
<
p>
This is not a one shot thing – it has happened again and again.
<
p>
My party offers genuine opposition, and a genuinely different point of view, and when POLLING (the great demi-god of progressives!) is done, asking people their stances on issues without identifying party – THEY AGREE WITH REPUBLICANS!
<
p>
We don’t need your help, thank you. Go back and try to sweeten your own Augean stable.
More like a hostile takeover! đŸ˜‰
when POLLING (the great demi-god of progressives!) is done, asking people their stances on issues without identifying party – THEY AGREE WITH REPUBLICANS!
<
p>
Which Republicans do they agree with? The kind Mitt ran as when he wanted to be Senator or Governor, or the kind he’s running as now that he wants to be president?
Well then I can agree! I always vote for my State Senator Richard Tisei. He’s the only Republican I find worth voting for, in these parts. Would that there were more like him.
he only gets a 60% from the Mass. League of Environmental Voters.
Can you post a link?
The Mass. Dem platform calls for equal marriage rights and access for all to health care. How’d that work out for us the other day?
First, I think platforms are aspirational – not procruteam…I am not sure if adherence to the platform of a party is required to get funding or support. Does anyone know about this?
<
p>
Also, deciding that one will follow the counsel of the SJC and accept that there is a duty to have a vote, is not in and of itself homophobic at all.
<
p>
I expect that some who voted ’cause they had to vote will work against Mineau and his crowd’s mean-spirited amendment.
<
p>
Further, besides the issue I have with “the State” being in the marriage business at all, hasn’t anyone noticed that a whole bunch of countries allow same sex marriage? The ones I am aware of that allow same-sex marriage are Canada, Spain, Belgium, and now South America (where Chief Justice Marshall was born and raised).
<
p>
Why? Well, for starters, allowing the parents of children to marry so there is clear accountability for child support if the family comes apart, and clear rules for “visitation and custody” is, quite frankly, better for children.
It should be “procrustean” after a mythological psychopath…you all know the story, right?
<
p>
Deb
<
p>
If not, here is the definition:
I checked, and there isn’t a link on the MassGOP web site.
First, thank you Peter Porcupine – in the absence of accurate information, reasonable discussion is not possible.
<
p>
I ask about “platforms” because both parties will soon be caucusing, and chosing delegates for an “issues convention” as part of platform work. In a way, that is where both Democrats and Republicans can impact their parties, I think. For Democrats the date is Feb 3, 2007. Also, it is only by checking in, staying in, and building alliances that are solid that real chance in ANYTHING WILL ACTUALLY HAPPEN.
<
p>
Maybe Margaret Meade said it best:
<
p>
“A small group of committed citizens can change the world. It is the only thing that ever has.”
We don’t HAVE an ‘issues convention’. We did our platform at the last convention, and it’s the last one we’ll see for four years.
As in, which issues/what polls, etc. Were they done by SHNS? Suffolk University? The Globe?
<
p>
Surely we all agree that there is a need for true debate and openness at the State House – no matter what party! I have heard the State House, in fact, called “Byzantium on the Hill” – not sure exactly what that means, though.
Not that I think it’s healthy, mind you. I think it in large part accounts for the recent tyrannical behavior of the legislature.
I have received one of Donato’s surveys– and live on Gould Avenue, as it happens, so apparently I’m in Mark P.’s vicinity– but Mark is right, they’re about as scientific as a divining rod. Here’s an interesting thing, though: I don’t remember getting any mailing from Donato’s office until after I wrote a letter to him in favor of gay marriage. (Though he must be mailing the voter rolls as well, because now I get a form Birthday card from his office each year.)
I’ve written, and called and I don’t know what the hell it would take to push Donato over the edge to change his vote. I wish I did.
and have also gotten a birthday card (!) from him (= his office) every year.
“What could push Donato to change his vote?”
<
p>
More like who:
State Senate President Robert Traviligni thats who
<
p>
Which leads to my second point there is a pro-choice, pro-gay marriage Republican in Traviligni’s district who has previously run a State Rep campaign in Cambridge and garnered more than 30% of the vote against an entrenched incumbent. He has previously had the backing of the State and Cambridge GOP and still has some reserve cash left over, its a campaign waiting to get in gear.
<
p>
The nice thing about a Republican challenger is we dont need to worry about the primary and we can start very early to ensure that he gets enough money and grassroots level support to succeed. The only issues I can think of is the fact that I doubt Trav will debate and that the bulk of his district is in lunch pail Democratic strongholds like East Boston, Revere, and East Cambridge which despite the Cambridge part has voted for pro-life anti-marriage State Rep. Toomey for several election cycles now.
<
p>
His name is Henry Irving and here is a link to his 2006 campaign site
<
p>
Oh and try to ignore the Romney-Healy photo op as his issue positions state hes not their type of Republican.
Why did he run against Alice Wolf, though, if he’s such a good guy? I’ve voted for Ms. Wolf every opportunity I’ve had.
A Republican is NEVER going to take out Trav. A Democrat is your only chance.
<
p>
LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE!!!
<
p>
No Rebublican has beat an incumbent Democrat for a legislative seat — especially in the boston area — by being more liberal. I mean, I don’t even know if it’s EVER happened… nevermind the reasoning.
<
p>
The only Democrats who have been ousted in years have been in the Democratic Primaries.
<
p>
Please let’s base our advice on reality.
<
p>
PS, Toomey is actually a gay marriage supporter.
Toomey USED to be a staunch opponent but he faced a tough primary fight two years ago that made him change his mind, people will be surprisingly flexible with their principles if it means keeping their jobs.
<
p>
Hell I dont oppose a democratic primary opponent, but the chances of that person beating Trav are even less likely than a Republican doing some serious damage in the general. Also the second you find a progressive Democrat from the district willing to wage a serious candidacy let me know, so far Ive heard Henry Irving might be stepping up to the plate, we got less than two years to end the reign of the states most powerful legislator, thats a tough act, and it will require lots of action soon to get the ball rolling, get name recognition out, etc. Like i said a progressive dem steps up SOON Ill support him or her, but right now we got a progressive Republican and id prefer that to Trav any day of the week.
Having no chance of winning is better than having a small chance? The logic escapes me.
A democratic primary rival would likely lose, and then fade away, a Republican has a FULL year and a half to keep on fighting and can just raise money and campaign knowing that they can make it to the general which means Trav will continually get a referendum. I say why not field both? Theres no harm done since it leaves us with one candidate to vote for in the primary and another anti Trav candidate still on the ballot in November. Nobody has a better chance to win if nobody runs.
No one deserves a free ride, for the most part I like Alice Wolfe, but as The Alewife stated (and their pretty liberal) they endorsed Irving because Wolfe is bad at getting things done, such as getting state aid for our schools, fixing bridges and traffic issues, installing better safety equipment at Porter Square station, etc. So for the brick and mortar pothole issues I give her a C- and thats why Irving ran.
<
p>
In any case Travaglini is no Alice Wolfe, and Id vote for almost anyone over him.
Henry Irving while a supporter of gay rights in general takes the position that marriage for both heterosexuals and gays should be the sole responsibility of the ecclesiastic community and that civil unions should replace civil marriage and be available to all who seek them. He also supports putting the measure on the ballot though he assures me he would vote it down. So I incorrectly presented his position on this site and for that I apologize to Mr. Irving and to the BMG community. He also recieved 11% and not 30% of the vote in his last election. So the moral of the story is that we should all double check our facts first. That said I still encourage him to run in the spirit of the democratic process.