From what little I can tell, the joint session has agreed to recess for an hour. I do not know whether Rep. Rushing’s motion to reconsider passed, failed, or wasn’t voted on.
Per Laurel’s suggestion, I’ll open up a new thread at 3:30 (or whenever they come back), and will do all the live-blogging from there so that people don’t have to keep track of different posts.
Let’s hope they work out the “technical issues” with the webcast between now and 3:30. Good luck with that.
UPDATE: According to Bay Windows, Rushing switched his motion from “reconsider” to “recess,” so the motion for reconsideration was withdrawn.
Please share widely!
Here’s an update from our paper’s Beacon Hill reporter
<
p>
Springfield Republican
Nobody–Bay Windows, Springfield Republican–seems to know what happened with Byron Rushing’s motion to reconsider…
does any know how to see who each rep/senator voted? If mine flipped, I want to try to call his office now.
How do process people feel about that?
No idea what Trav thought he was doing.
…at least it’s somebody else who has to deal with the consequences.
Unless it abuses gay people, process is just a “technicality.”
hasn’t been debated. I thought they debated and then put off voting until today.
since the SJC non-decision. One would think an extra-constitutional decision by the SJC would bear some debate.
<
p>
But hey, let’s not get caught up in trivialities, unless it helps attack gay people and their children.
If he had allowed debate, someone could have made a motion to adjourn.
<
p>
By immediately calling the question, Trav mnade sure there could be no motion to adjourn, and thus he could force the vote.
<
p>
That is the negative about having the presiding officer of the ConCon on the wrong side of the issue. Hopefully this won’t be an issue when this comes up again in 2007 or 2008.
It looks like that simply having a vote on this amendment did not singlehandedly usher in an era of good government.
<
p>
But hey, now we get to debate Philip Travis, Marie Parente, and Kris Mineau for the next 23 months about whether gays are disgusting or not. Hooray.
especially as there was a question on “emergency appointments of elected officials” on the agenda before the anti-marriage amendment.
For those who thought this question would be decided on constitutional niceties, behold the exercise of raw power. Trav used his gavel to pretermit debate and force an immediate vote. So it wasn’t the SJC’s legal reasoning that counted, it was Trav’s pretextual use of that dicta to require a vote regardless of whether a majority would have ended debate. That’s very ugly.
“As best we can tell, Senate President Robert Travaglini himself introduced the motion to vote on the amendment. When State Rep. Byron Rushing offered his motion to reconsider, which was quickly changed to a motion to recess, Travaglini tried to block the motion.”
<
p>
Ah, the beauty of process.
<
p>
I think the process advocates have now been exposed as concern trolls.
This experience is frustrating for those of us directly affected by the vote, but most of the people here are our allies and disagree out of principle. We may disagree with their reasoning and their conclusions, but ultimately they are coming from a good place.
I imagine they don’t care as the process people will go on to the next issue and leave gays and lesbians out of their calculus with a shrug and “sorry”.
<
p>
We will get to live through all this for several more years.
Bay Windows is reporting:
<
p>
State Rep. Byron Rushing did offer a motion to reconsider, but immediately switched his motion to a motion to recess for an hour. The ConCon is currently in recess.
<
p>
What does that mean then?
…another article has to be acted upon before a vote to reconsider can be taken, although INTENT to reconsider can be announced immediately. A recess vote would accomplish two things – it would be the next agenda item, AND it gives them time to beat people up (that’s what WE do at town meeting).
<
p>
So – Rushing announced his intent, a recess vote was taken. Reconsideration must be voted on in one hour, or a deadline passes. Upon return, a reconsideration vote – simple majority – must pass for another vote to be taken on the petition. If it fails, or if a reconsideration vote is not taken (merely intent announced) then the initial vote stands.
<
p>
Gee whiz, what do you city folk DO at your council meetings? Just stand there and listen? WE like to take the gears of gubmint into our own hands here in the country.
thanks for your willingness to be our encyclopedia.
We LIKE town meeting in our town! Better than TV!
will trav be back next session?
… and there’s no reason to believe that the Democratic Caucus will toss him out. This isn’t bad enough.
<
p>
Besides, I think some of the folks named in the federal suit wanted out from under. This forces dismissal of that case.
exposes the total bull behind the process arguments. Going to a federal court to force a state legislature to vote on a state matter? That’s good process?
<
p>
Ha.
In which the individual legislators were named.
<
p>
It’s not pretty.
So, if they come back from recess,vote affirmatively for reconsideration and then adjourn, what happens?
Seriously, the initial vote – whatever it is, and there are conflicting reports – stands. Mind you, I’ve never seen this done – and I don’t have Town Meeting Time or Robert’s Rules here with me – but a yes vote on reconsideration ALLOWS another vote – I don’t think it REQUIRES it.
baywindows reports:
3:31 p.m. — A recount of the vote to recess, according to the Senate clerk’s office, shows that lawmakers did not, in fact, vote to recess. The vote was 101 against recessing and 94 for it.
Bay Windows says that the ConCon did not vote to recess. So the gay marriage issue has been all but decided by Trav’s fiat, with enough votes to pass the next time around despite the retirements.