How is it a game of kick the queers? I would have thought they would blame the marriage amendment if they didn’t continue the session, but they did continue the session, so they can’t really blame the marriage amendment. They just hope that all the stories are going to be about how they did their duty, when in fact, they didn’t.
<
p>
We can still push for universal health care coverage without the amendment, just as we can push for ending gay marriage without the marriage amendment.
tudor586says
One amendment favored by the Senate President wins approval because the SJC said there had to be a vote, while another opposed by said presiding officer gets buried with a different, but constitutionally indistinguishable procedural move. When the rules are selectively applied to the detriment of GLBT’s (as has been known to happen), it seems like “Kick the Queers” to me. The process argument was used by some like the Senate President disingenuously.
but i don’t think that’s what it is, I think they just didn’t want the hc amendment, and all the media attention forced their hand, but only on the gay issue. I doubt we read much about the hc amendment on the front page tomorrow, and they get to crow about doing their duty.
trickle-upsays
First, obviously, demand that the HCA precedent be applied to the anti-marriage amendment, by sending it to a study committee that will be unable to report back later.
<
p>
Alternatively, continue to whittle away at those anti-marriage votes, but also wave the boody shirt on this disgraceful double standard. Demand a constitutional amendment that will require legislative action on all future initiative amendments. (Otherwise, the double-stadard will continue to be applied to kill progressive amendments.)
<
p>
Or maybe
<
p>
Split the difference by doing both at once–insist on the right apply the HCA precedent until the people fix the loophole in the constitution.
<
p>
What do you think?
steverinosays
would be to propose, by petition, a Constitutional Amendment that would force the legislature to vote on all petition amendments BUT require the same 51% approval required for legislative amendments. It’s a good compromise and people would support it; the current petition process is a disaster.
wahoowasays
Good idea with one small problem. Someone (I think Peter Porcupine) noted that Article 48 actually prevents its own amendment by citizen petition. Ironic in a way. So the change you propose would have to come via a legislature proposed amendment.
…who were certain they knew how things would turn out. Yes, that was me.
<
p>
They were turn of the century Goo-Goos (google it…) who really could not concieve that an elected legislature would need the blackmail of media scrutiny to uphold their oaths.
<
p>
HCA was shafted.
laurelsays
massive public education starting tomorrow. We no longer have the leverage of voting legis out of office, since the next concon is before the next election. What will certainly help in this effort and every other LGBT-related issue is simply educate, educate, educate. There are, believe it or not, many Bay Staters who don’t even know what’s going on regarding marriage. We have to get them thinking now, so that they won’t cast knee-jerk conservative votes if this goes to the ballot. IMHO.
Five years ago, instead of manipulating the process, you could have begun said education. You have an uphill climb now.
<
p>
I would suggesst that condescending to people about their fears and concerns is not the way to go; treat them with respect, and they will listen. I know from personal experience that we don’t have an ERA because advocates got snotty about not needing ‘those’ people’s votes.
laurelsays
An endorsement from you is a bit scarry, I have to say. đŸ˜‰
<
p>
You give me too much credit – I didn’t frame the tactics 5 years ago. However, rest assured that we have been educating all along. And I agree, it’s a useless exercise if not done with the proper frame of mind. As for ‘those people’, your point is well taken. However, each org chooses who they will spend time speaking with based on their goals. No org has the resources to speak to each and every person.
steverinosays
“Educating the public” doesn’t mean talking to your kids’ play dates. It means running massive advertising and PR campaigns–something the out-of-state nutjob fundies are able to do, and we are not.
theopensocietysays
Isn’t Deval Patrick getting sworn in as governor tomorrow because people talked to their kid’s play dates and everyone else they knew about him. Yes, the commercials helped, but the grassroots effort was the deciding factor, at least that is what I keep hearing and reading.
<
p>
As for the legislators who voted to send the petition forward, they should not be allowed to characterize their vote as a vote to “allow the people to decide.” Their vote was a vote to violate the civil rights of a specific group of people in the commonwealth. They had a duty to vote, but to vote in a way that conforms with basic principles of our democracy. They failed the second duty when they voted to move the amendment forward. The Boston Globe editorial was right on today.
steverinosays
a record-breaking amount of money. Grassroots movements are very, very expensive to run.
<
p>
You will note that the Globe did not even mention the healthcare amendment, allowing the legislators to lie about “doing their duty.”
<
p>
I also looked in vain for all the letters to the editor from all the process liberals who promised to “go all out” for equality after yesterday. No such luck.
alexwillsays
I haven’t had a chance to write one yet, and I’m guessing not many already have
the globe only has 3 letters today, none to do with the ConCon
laurelsays
“Educating the public” ceraintly can mean big blitz advertising. And like you say, that’ll cost. But I certainly also means talking to your kids’ play dates. It’s not an either-or. It’s doing as much on any front as possible. If each of us committed to doing a few hours of canvassing or speakers bureau talk per month, we would change minds. There are lots of poepl out there who aren’t homophobic, but are just ignorant of the infairness of our situation. They respond well to simple converation.
I may be sick.
How is it a game of kick the queers? I would have thought they would blame the marriage amendment if they didn’t continue the session, but they did continue the session, so they can’t really blame the marriage amendment. They just hope that all the stories are going to be about how they did their duty, when in fact, they didn’t.
<
p>
We can still push for universal health care coverage without the amendment, just as we can push for ending gay marriage without the marriage amendment.
One amendment favored by the Senate President wins approval because the SJC said there had to be a vote, while another opposed by said presiding officer gets buried with a different, but constitutionally indistinguishable procedural move. When the rules are selectively applied to the detriment of GLBT’s (as has been known to happen), it seems like “Kick the Queers” to me. The process argument was used by some like the Senate President disingenuously.
but i don’t think that’s what it is, I think they just didn’t want the hc amendment, and all the media attention forced their hand, but only on the gay issue. I doubt we read much about the hc amendment on the front page tomorrow, and they get to crow about doing their duty.
First, obviously, demand that the HCA precedent be applied to the anti-marriage amendment, by sending it to a study committee that will be unable to report back later.
<
p>
Alternatively, continue to whittle away at those anti-marriage votes, but also wave the boody shirt on this disgraceful double standard. Demand a constitutional amendment that will require legislative action on all future initiative amendments. (Otherwise, the double-stadard will continue to be applied to kill progressive amendments.)
<
p>
Or maybe
<
p>
Split the difference by doing both at once–insist on the right apply the HCA precedent until the people fix the loophole in the constitution.
<
p>
What do you think?
would be to propose, by petition, a Constitutional Amendment that would force the legislature to vote on all petition amendments BUT require the same 51% approval required for legislative amendments. It’s a good compromise and people would support it; the current petition process is a disaster.
Good idea with one small problem. Someone (I think Peter Porcupine) noted that Article 48 actually prevents its own amendment by citizen petition. Ironic in a way. So the change you propose would have to come via a legislature proposed amendment.
…who were certain they knew how things would turn out. Yes, that was me.
<
p>
They were turn of the century Goo-Goos (google it…) who really could not concieve that an elected legislature would need the blackmail of media scrutiny to uphold their oaths.
<
p>
HCA was shafted.
massive public education starting tomorrow. We no longer have the leverage of voting legis out of office, since the next concon is before the next election. What will certainly help in this effort and every other LGBT-related issue is simply educate, educate, educate. There are, believe it or not, many Bay Staters who don’t even know what’s going on regarding marriage. We have to get them thinking now, so that they won’t cast knee-jerk conservative votes if this goes to the ballot. IMHO.
Five years ago, instead of manipulating the process, you could have begun said education. You have an uphill climb now.
<
p>
I would suggesst that condescending to people about their fears and concerns is not the way to go; treat them with respect, and they will listen. I know from personal experience that we don’t have an ERA because advocates got snotty about not needing ‘those’ people’s votes.
An endorsement from you is a bit scarry, I have to say. đŸ˜‰
<
p>
You give me too much credit – I didn’t frame the tactics 5 years ago. However, rest assured that we have been educating all along. And I agree, it’s a useless exercise if not done with the proper frame of mind. As for ‘those people’, your point is well taken. However, each org chooses who they will spend time speaking with based on their goals. No org has the resources to speak to each and every person.
“Educating the public” doesn’t mean talking to your kids’ play dates. It means running massive advertising and PR campaigns–something the out-of-state nutjob fundies are able to do, and we are not.
Isn’t Deval Patrick getting sworn in as governor tomorrow because people talked to their kid’s play dates and everyone else they knew about him. Yes, the commercials helped, but the grassroots effort was the deciding factor, at least that is what I keep hearing and reading.
<
p>
As for the legislators who voted to send the petition forward, they should not be allowed to characterize their vote as a vote to “allow the people to decide.” Their vote was a vote to violate the civil rights of a specific group of people in the commonwealth. They had a duty to vote, but to vote in a way that conforms with basic principles of our democracy. They failed the second duty when they voted to move the amendment forward. The Boston Globe editorial was right on today.
a record-breaking amount of money. Grassroots movements are very, very expensive to run.
<
p>
You will note that the Globe did not even mention the healthcare amendment, allowing the legislators to lie about “doing their duty.”
<
p>
I also looked in vain for all the letters to the editor from all the process liberals who promised to “go all out” for equality after yesterday. No such luck.
“Educating the public” ceraintly can mean big blitz advertising. And like you say, that’ll cost. But I certainly also means talking to your kids’ play dates. It’s not an either-or. It’s doing as much on any front as possible. If each of us committed to doing a few hours of canvassing or speakers bureau talk per month, we would change minds. There are lots of poepl out there who aren’t homophobic, but are just ignorant of the infairness of our situation. They respond well to simple converation.