Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Demand debate time from Sen. Travaglini

By

[David requested that I re-post this comment in a diary.  Happy to oblige.]

This is something everyone can agree on, regardless of “process” philosophy.

DEMAND DEBATE TIME FROM SEN TRAVAGLINI

One of the most onerous aspects of the past concon was lack of debate time due to Sen. Trav. zipping directly to a vote.  I think we should all raise a loud and prolonged stink over this extraordinarily undemocratic move.

To-do list:

  • Call him frequently and ask why he did it, and state that you expect him to change his ways by next ConCon.

  • E-mails and letters, send them weekly

  • Write the Globe Ombuds and ask why they ignore this travesty, and request some good op-ed coverage;

  • stop by and lobby the senator personally.  You needn;t live in his district, since in his capacity as Senate President his actions hurts affects us all.

  • Contact your own rep & sen and complain

    What y’all think?  Are there other approaches that would work better with him?

    Please share widely!
    fb-share-icon
    Tweet
    0

    • Comments

    1. The Senate and House are in different, and not necessarily parallel, universes.

      <

      p>
      Different staff, rules, customs, budgets, etc.

      <

      p>
      Unless they happen to be chums, you Rep. has no influence over your Senator.  They may not even speak.

      • How am I to know the power dynamics in the legislature?  Not knowing who eats lunch with whom, it can’t hurt to weigh in with each and every one of them. My rep & sen will do or not do whatever they see fit with my complains.  If I don’t tell them I’m u[set, they may assume I don’t care.  Wrong.

        <

        p>
        Don’t tell me, PP, that you’re advocating not communicating with one’s legislators on important matters?  Shocked, I’m shocked!

        • Concentrate you elequence on your Senator.

          <

          p>
          Suggestion – check their OCPF records.  See is there’s anyone you know, a person whose voice they may not have heard in this context.  Ask THEM to ask the Sen. to vote no!

          • It’s important to contact both Reps and Senators in this debate, for a lot of different reasons.

            <

            p>
            However, the word on the street was that the forced vote was Traviglini’s “F-U” directed at the House in general and DiMasi in particular.

            <

            p>
            So, talking to your Rep will accomplish a lot, but pressuring Trav isn’t necessarily one of them.

            • …don’t be afraid to find a different voice or a different angle to present.

              <

              p>
              Too many ‘activists’ and progresives think that if they return and repeat an identical message again and again, THEN they are really showing the DEPTH and PASSION of their commitment!  Yeah, baby!  It makes THEM feel good and changes no minds.  Years later, there are some names I FLINCH when I hear, because they are so smug, so self-rightous (note – merely being correct on an issue does not preserve you from being self-rightous).  They are avoided, or legislators dig in their heels rather than listen to them.

              <

              p>
              Case in point – years ago, I was talking to a gay lobbyist, Bill Conlon.  Bill talked about justice, about the moral basis of his cause, etc.  I observed that was all very nice, but the person he was going to talk to wasn’t very interested in all that.  Could he find a hard economic basis for his cause?  He returned with a list of all the Fortune 500 companies in Mass. that would be hurt by the Super DOMA.  After THAT session, he changed a vote.  Preaching would have done bupkis.

              <

              p>
              Look at their committees.  Look at their organizations, charities, causes.  They are valuable clues as to how to frame an argument to reach them.  And perhaps change a vote.

              <

              p>
              Chanting and rudeness does nothing but make the person acting that way feel good for ten minutes.  Apply some intelligence to your lobbying, instead of passion, and you may prevail.

              • Thanks PP.  I know that individuals I’ve met who have had discussions with their legislators do indeed approach the subject from as many angles as they can think of, especially ones that they think are important to that particular legislator.  That said, you’re probably right that most people’s first attempt is a personal appeal to fairness.  And as you implied, that just won’t get very far with certain legislators (obviously!).  I know some legislators have resonated with the thought that modifying the constitution is a grave affair.  They may not particularily support or care about marriage equality, but they feel strongly about diddling with the doc.  WHatever works. I agree.

    2. ….ah, heck, I’ll be a wet blanket.  Pick a legislative leader of recent vintage in Massachusetts — Trav, DiMasi, Bulger, Finneran…did they ever seem to hold back on using their gavel power because they were bombarded with calls?  Will calling his office “frequently” make him more attentive, will weekly emails be more effective than one good one?

      <

      p>
      Or should we find our 6 best candidates to switch votes on the next ConCon and work on them?

      • First, calls, etc can’t hurt, right?  And why let him totally get away with it?  WHy not put the spotlight on him?  That’s as good as an endorsement.  My suggestions constitute a very minimal amount of effort, and it has potential benefit.  We can;t moan about his actions and lack of press coverage over them if we ourselves don’t speak up.

        <

        p>
        Work on the 6?  Absolutely!  Neither of these activities are mutually exclusive.  And who knows, maybe some well-deserved airing of grievances in public about the senator will shake one of the 6 magic voters awake.

    3. I already emailed my senator, Susan Fargo, last week calling for new leadership elections in the Senate: Trav is a disgrace, and has got to go.

    4. Thanks, Laurel. I agree that bugging our legislators, particularly Sir Bobby, is essential and smart.

      <

      p>
      By the bye, he turns wonderful shades when he is annoyed, and he is easily annoyed.

      <

      p>
      He is reachable through:

      <

      p>
      Senate President Robert E. Travaglini
      State House
      Room 330
      Boston, MA 02133
      (617) 722-1500
      Robert.Travaglini@state.ma.us

      <

      p>
      Many will say that personal lobbying like that is a waste. We don’t know and can’t until we try. We do know from experience that legislators and other politicians tend not to get many calls or letters. Each has a multiplier effect.

      <

      p>
      Bobby played the “democracy” card when it suited him on the last afternoon of the ConCon. He cut off democratic debate on the amendment that Sal DiMasi requested. Then he cut off any consideration for the health-care agendum. He should benefit from hearing what people think of that level of democracy.

      <

      p>
      Word is that he is tired of his job. Perhaps we can inspire him to declare victory and leave it.

      • These campaigns use out-of-state talent and money, and they are very well organized. Sometimes a legislator has shown up with a one-on-one meeting with a constituent and gotten ambushed with 100 protestors. One legislator was picketed while he was handing out groceries at a food bank.

        <

        p>
        People on our side have been too complacent.

      • I got a decidedly chilly reception from the person answering the phone at Sen Trav’s office.  She didn’t care to take my name or phone number.  But that could mean anything, including her lunch was burning in the microwave.

        <

        p>
        Regarding what steverino said about people being complacent – Well, by the light response I’ve gotten to this so far, I am getting the impression that picking up the phone is regarded as a useless task not worth the calorie it would burn.  I don’t get it.  I am hoping it’s more that people are actually calling in in droves and so are just too busy to chime in here.

        <

        p>
        Something else I’m wondering.  If the senator is working his way to retirement (big gossipy if) and on to a higher-paying job, he will really care about the reputation he leaves behind.  He very well may have rammed through the vote last time to show his political verility.  Yet, he very well may wish to be more gracious to a fuller democratic undertaking next time so that he leaves the sweet smell of “fairness” in his wake as he exits.  This is my wishfull thinking of course, but hey, if Bill Frist can diagnose Terry Schivo from a video tape, I’ll give long-distance psychologizing a whirl myself.

        • that the “rule” was enforced only when it affected gay people, well, that would attract some negative PR. And negative PR is the last thing that employers like Partners are looking for, if you get my drift.

          <

          p>
          However, there isn’t much of a groundswell to recognize this as a scandal at the moment.

    5. The debate at the concons is such a waste of time, you don’t seriously think any of the members sit there and actually listen to any of it do you?  They’ve just got to go up and say something for the record, and they already did that the first time.  They don’t change each other’s minds, their position is already set, like yours seems to be.  Heck, even when shown how your position is hurting people by denying them federal recognition and the benefits and protections they need, as well as hurting same-sex couples in other states, and even when shown why same-sex couples should not have the right to attempt to conceive children together, you don’t budge.  If you – or BayWindows – really think this debate is divisive and dangerous, why do you a) want to raise the volume of the debate (do you really think it is the arguments for traditional marriage that makes people angry at gays?) b) ignore a great solution that ends the debate while extending benefits and protections that are currently being denied.

      • Oh, anything can rile our square-headed leader. Think of him as an alcoholic parent. You can cower and become paralyzed, or you can do the right things yourself. The latter is much more satisfying and less likely to lead to harm.

        <

        p>
        He’s entrenched now. Getting poked a bit can’t drive him any deeper. At the worst, a bunch of calls, letters and emails will give him more targets to diffuse his steam.

        <

        p>
        If he stays in office and run the next ConCon, you can be sure he’ll get lots of lobbying from the Dark Side. Remember too that he also wants to look out for the other senators and won’t want to be seen as hurting them politically with the voters who contact him and them.

      • tells me that I’m on the right track with contacting legislators.  Dude, thanks for the (unintended) shot in the arm!

        <

        p>
        p.s. In-vitro fertilization, which must be considered a grand experiment until the oldest so-created individuals make it to elderhood intact to prove it’s safe, is happening daily all over the western world.  Isn’t that of greater concern to you than a form of reporduction that isn’t happening between people of the same sex?  Oh, that’s right, it’s heterosexuals doin the tube, so it must be a-ok.  Never mind.  I withdraw my question.

        • I already answered this – IVF is natural conception, it is not genetic engineering.  IVF is done by homosexuals as well as heterosexuals.  And GE would mostly be done by heterosexuals, not homosexuals.  So your insinuation is wrong – I am not against GE in order to stop same-sex marriage or homosexuality, I am against GE because it would cost too much and waste resources, is unnecessary, would create two classes of gene-rich and gene-poor people, and is super risky.

          <

          p>
          IVF cannot really be banned because of medical and marital privacy, though there are certainly good reasons to ban it nevertheless and I would support a ban.  But as to what it is doing, it is simply a new position, a novel way to join sperm and egg.  Joining the genes of two people of the same-sex is not comparable to IVF, as it requires genetic engineering and introduces HUGE risks of birth defects (as proven in experiments).

          • …involves glass tubes and a stirring rod and hugely unnatural doses of hormones to force production of excess eggs for harvest?  yeah, right.

            • Yes, there are some mighty fetishistic accessories involved, but it is meiosis – natural conception.  The genome that is created is the same as it would have been if that sperm and egg had met through missionary position sex.

              <

              p>
              And I am against it too.  I am also against lots of other things, but what I am trying to stop is genetic engineering.

        • what do you have to say about my points a) and b) above?  You are making life worse for real people that don’t have federal recognition, because you insist on having a right to try to conceive with someone of the same sex.  Is that really worth it?  You are wasting everyone’s time and energy, causing other problems to be ignored.  The Catholic groups only have so much energy, why not let them help homeless people, etc, instead of making them call the state house as much as you do? 

          • i can’t even figure out what you’re asking, so can’t answer your questions.  sorry.

            <

            p>
            as for “you insist on having a right to try to conceive with someone of the same sex”, i do insist that any woman wishing to engage a sperm donor is well within her rights.  however, i don’t support experimental stuff like ivf, and i wouldn’t support the science fiction method you’re concerned with either.  so there.

            • This is what you were ignoring:

              <

              p>

              If you – or BayWindows – really think this debate is divisive and dangerous, why do you a) want to raise the volume of the debate (do you really think it is the arguments for traditional marriage that makes people angry at gays?) b) ignore a great solution that ends the debate while extending benefits and protections that are currently being denied.

              <

              p>
              I think you must like the divisive debate, you must like putting people at risk of gay bashing, you must like preventing older same-sex couples from getting federal benefits and protections.  It is all up to you – you could be the person who leads your friends out of ideologically imposed darkness.  Abandon conception rights for same-sex couples.  Acknowledge that people should only have a right to conceive with someone of the other sex.

              <

              p>
              And it’s not science fiction, it’s been done in mice, the experiments creating engineered human gametes have begun, they are seriously pursuing ways to allow same-sex couples to conceive children together.

              • If you – or BayWindows – really think this debate is divisive and dangerous, why do you a) want to raise the volume of the debate (do you really think it is the arguments for traditional marriage that makes people angry at gays?) b) ignore a great solution that ends the debate while extending benefits and protections that are currently being denied.

                <

                p>
                that doesn’t mean your questions make any more sense than they did free-range on the page.

                • oh, I thought you didn’t know what I meant by a) and b) so I found them for your convenience.  But if they didn’t make sense, I’ll rephrase them. 

                  <

                  p>
                  a) why do you want to raise the volume of debate? I would think you would want to let it die down and not bring it up again until the next concon is scheduled, if at all.  One of the main reasons your side gave for not taking a vote was to end the debate, because people claimed the debate stirred people to violence.  So I am asking why that logic doesn’t hold anymore, why do you want to agitate things?

                  <

                  p>
                  b) I suggested a compromise that would end the debate, it would keep discrimination out of the constitution, it would render the ammendment moot.  We could resolve the whole thing right now, all we have to do is get behind the idea and suggest it to a few Senators.  Same-sex couples would get federal recognition, but would lose conception rights.  Their “marriages” would officially be called Civil Unions, which would be defined as being exactly like marriages but without conception rights.  Their side would preserve marriage as both conception rights and the union of a man and a woman, but would allow the federal recognition of civil unions.  Other states would probably enact these Civil Unions, because they would not have “all the rights of marriage”. 

                  <

                  p>
                  Why do you throw these older same-sex couples that need federal protections under the bus while you hold out for conception rights for same-sex couples?  We could get them benefits while they can still use them, if we’d change our focus.  The strategy is being dictated too much by high school GSA clubs.  You even said that you didn’t support “science fiction” experiments, but don’t you see that you also demand that they be legal by demanding marriage? 

                  • John, I appreciate that you are trying to find a compromise solution to what you see as two intertwined problems.  However, it is all based on the premise that civil marriage is some sort of license to procreate.  It isn’t.  People are prefectly free to procreate whether they are married or not.  So, by bringing marriage into the arguement at all, you are needlessly complicating it, and making yourself to look like a homophobe to boot.

                    <

                    p>
                    May I make a counter recommendation?  Drop the marriage angle and go straight for pushing a federal law banning the form of procreation you are afraid of.  Clear and to the point.  No need to drag in extraneous issues.  If you took this “clean” approach, you might be surprised at how many allies you have.

                  • People are prefectly free to procreate whether they are married or not.

                    <

                    p>
                    Laurel, give me some credit – don’t you think I know we don’t arrest people for fornication anymore?  And don’t you think I am aware that we repealed illegitimacy laws?  Really, don’t you think I’ve heard your argument before?  I’ve been making this argument for years, and must’ve heard your helpful suggestions a thousand times.  So, once more, with feeling:

                    <

                    p>
                    Marriage still grants a license to conceive, even if we don’t need a licence to conceive anymore.  Please find me one married couple that is prohibited from conceiving.  I can give you names of countless couples that do not have a right to conceive, but without exception, none of these couples are married.  Every married couple is allowed to conceive.  I am not allowed to conceive with or marry my mother, a fifteen year old girl, or a married woman.  I should not be allowed to conceive with another man, either.  (And you agree about that?  That is good news, no one else on BMG has agreed that same-sex conception should be prohibited.)

                    <

                    p>
                    If we “drop the marriage angle” and prohibit non egg and sperm conception, then we will be saying that same-sex couples do not have a right to conceive together – even if they are married.  This would change marriage, for the first time, there would be marriages that do not have a right to conceive.  This would be very dangerous, it would take away every marriage’s conception rights and could eventually lead to some  marriages being prohibited from conceiving due to genetic risks or poverty or poor parenting or values or ideology.  We need to protect marriage’s right to conceive, so that we all continue to have a right to marry and procreate with someone  we mutually choose (excepting the supportable basis to prohibit certain relations from marrying).

                    <

                    p>
                    And no, I don’t think it would be easier to pass the egg and sperm law on its own.  It hasn’t been enacted yet, and meanwhile dozens of states have enacted ssm bans.  I think that every single person that votes for an SSM ban would also vote for an egg and sperm law, and indeed, I think that lots of people thought that was what they were voting for.

            • There are only so many hours in the day, only so many dollars in the checking account, and when people have to “defend marriage” other causes suffer.  Plus, all the effort you are wasting that you could be being useful with.  So, add that to the benefits and protections that same-sex couples aren’t getting because of you and the higher risk of gay bashing you are creating, and all the work Trav’s aides won’t be doing, and wow Laurel, you are sure being helpful!

              • i am responsible for my own opression as delivered by people like you?  John, have you stopped beating your wife yet?

                • I am sorry, I meant to be provocative, but yeah, it isn’t fair to you.  Without j’accusing you specifically, I am trying to show you that the push for ssm is sacrificing lots of people’s immediate benefits, lots of effort is being wasted, and all for the right to do something that probably can’t be done anyhow.

    Archives