Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Let’s make THIS THREAD the ConCon live-blog

By

Personally, I have no idea what’s going on because I can’t get into the webcast.  If you’ve got better info, feel free to post in the comments.  I’ll update as necessary.

OK, word is that there’s a roll-call going on to establish a quorum…. Quorum is established.  Onward.

Roll-call on the motion to reconsider is now ongoing, according to people (unlike me) who won the webcast lottery! — apparently, Trav has voted “yes” on the motion.  Strikes me as a significant development, since that may signal the rest of the Senate to vote “yes” as well.

UPDATE: The motion to reconsider has been agreed to: 117-75.  Now what? — of course!  Another recess!  Until 4:30, apparently.

FURTHER UPDATE: The lege is back in session, and may be voting again on the amendment.  Awaiting confirmation … and it looks like they’ve approved the amendment again and gone into recess.  Still looking for more detail on exactly what happened…

FURTHER FURTHER UPDATE: It seems that the anti-marriage amendment has been well and truly passed on to the next session with 62 affirmative votes.  We have our work cut out for us.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  4. Keep your fingers crossed, but I’ve got a good feed at the moment.

    <

    p>
    Yes, roll call being taken.

  7. Mr. Rushing is now to begin speaking re: reconsideration.

    <

    p>
    appreciates having the recess.

    <

    p>
    assumed there would be 70 votes for the amendments. 9 had changed their minds.

    <

    p>
    wanted more time to change some more minds.

    <

    p>
    is now ready to vote again for reconsideration now.

    • trav voted yes to reconsider? i’m confused, why would he want to reconsider if he is for the ballot initiative, it already won

      • He’s been playing both sides of the issue and is not committed like Birmingham to do what is needed to shut it down. But at heart, he’s likely tired of this crap and would be happy for it to be defeated by means that don’t involve his hands.

      • If they vote to reconsider, then vote to adjourn before reconsidering, the ballot question is dead.

        <

        p>
        I think.

    • A well-informed reader called my attention to a 1956 Opinion of the Justices (334 Mass. 745, for you law junkies), which holds pretty clearly that, even if a roll-call vote is taken to advance a proposed constitutional amendment to the next session, a subsequent motion for reconsideration filed in conformity with the legislative rules must be “adversely disposed of” before the vote can stand as “final action.”  If they don’t defeat the motion to reconsider, and then the session adjourns, there was no final vote on the amendment.

      <

      p>
      In other words, if Rushing is able to move for reconsideration, the previous vote is pretty much nullified unless and until his motion is defeated.  At least, that’s my current understanding.

      <

      p>
      And the intrigue continues.

    • that if the motion passes, and they then adjourn, the amendment is dead.  If it passes, they have to vote again for the vote to be valid.  See the post I just put up (below this one).

    • but you can’t be sure how the other side’s tricks will muck up yours -or their votes.

      • My point, which was not stated clearly, is that at the beginningof the ConCon, I was really angry with Travaglini, but now it seems as if he may have been part of a wider movement to put an end to this thing.  The most confusing part was that he voted yes on the ammendment and then voted to reconsider the ammendment.

        • And immediately thereafter, having a nearly 1 hour sitdown with Travaglini immediately before the ConCon.  (According to Bay Windows)

          <

          p>
          Patrick certainly doesn’t want to start off his administration with a defeat.  Nor would Travaglini want another clash with Patrick.  For now, at least.

        • can only be proposed by someone who votes on the prevailing side. So Trav’s vote for the amendment the first time around may have been so he could later move to reconsider.  That’s not an uncommon parliamentary strategy.  A motion by Rushing to reconsider would have been out of order, since he voted No initially.  This, of course, is if the lege follows Robert’s Rules.  I don’t know if they have their own rules. 

    • Do they vote again?  Or do they consider the first vote fulfilling their duty, and now vote to adjourn after the recondiration passes?

        • In the 1956 case, the legislature adjourned without disposing of the motion to reconsider.  The question was what that meant; the answer was it meant the amendment was dead.

        • 291 Mass. 578  (1935)

          <

          p>
          At a joint session of the Senate and the House of Representatives held according to art. 48 of the Amendments to the Constitution of the Commonwealth, an affirmative vote of more than one fourth of the members on an initiative petition for an amendment of the Constitution may be reconsidered by vote of a majority of the members present; a vote to reconsider would not be “an unfavorable vote” at a “stage preceding final action” within art. 48, Part IV, § 4, and may be by voice vote (Field and Lummus, JJ., dissenting); and after reconsideration, the petition still would be pending before that General Court for further action at either of its annual sessions, and could be submitted to another joint session of the two branches without further committee proceedings.

          • I notice yours is SPECIFICALLY about a citizen petition (25% vote) and might be more relevant.  Daivd’s has to do with advancing a ConCon amendment, but does not stipulate if it is legislative or citizen.

            <

            p>
            If I read yours right, and they adjourn without taking a reconsideration vote, then the petition CAN advance without further vote.

            <

            p>
            Clarify?  Gary?  David?

            • “…that General Court for further action at either of its annual sessions, and could be submitted to another joint session of the two branches without further committee proceedings.”

              <

              p>
              Emphassis mine on the “that General Court” meaning the petition may be presented to ‘that’ (and not another) for consideration. 

              <

              p>
              Seems the next chess move is either to i) vote, in which case the same voting will likely happen ii) motion to adjourn. 

              <

              p>
              The outcome is in Travilini’s hands, no?

    • HOUSE:

      <

      p>
      Cory Atkins, D-Concord – N

      <

      p>
      Demetrius J. Atsalis, D-Hyannis – N

      <

      p>
      Bruce J. Ayers, D-Quincy – Y

      <

      p>
      Ruth B. Balser, D-Newton – N

      <

      p>
      John J. Binienda, D-Worcester – Y

      <

      p>
      Daniel E. Bosley, D-North Adams – X

      <

      p>
      Garrett J. Bradley, D-Hingham – N

      <

      p>
      Arthur J. Broadhurst, D-Methuen – N

      <

      p>
      Antonio F. D. Cabral, D-New Bedford – N

      <

      p>
      Jennifer M. Callahan, D-Sutton – N

      <

      p>
      Christine E. Canavan, D-Brockton – Y

      <

      p>
      Gale D. Candaras, D-Wilbraham – Y

      <

      p>
      Stephen R. Canessa, D-New Bedford – N

      <

      p>
      Mark J. Carron, D-Southbridge – Y

      <

      p>
      Paul C. Casey, D-Winchester – Y

      <

      p>
      Cheryl A. Coakley-Rivera, D-Springfield – N

      <

      p>
      Virginia Coppola, R-Foxborough – Y

      <

      p>
      Robert Correia, D-Fall River – Y

      <

      p>
      Michael A. Costello, D-Newburyport – N

      <

      p>
      Robert K. Coughlin, D-Dedham – N

      <

      p>
      Geraldine Creedon, D-Brockton – Y

      <

      p>
      Sean Curran, D-Springfield – Y

      <

      p>
      Robert A. DeLeo, D-Winthrop – N

      <

      p>
      Viriato Manuel deMacedo, R-Plymouth – Y

      <

      p>
      Brian S. Dempsey, D-Haverhill – N

      <

      p>
      Salvatore F. DiMasi, D-Boston – N

      <

      p>
      Paul J. Donato, D-Medford – Y

      <

      p>
      Christopher J. Donelan, D-Orange – N

      <

      p>
      Joseph R. Driscoll, D-Braintree – N

      <

      p>
      James B. Eldridge, D-Acton – N

      <

      p>
      Lewis G. Evangelidis, R-Holden – Y

      <

      p>
      James H. Fagan, D-Taunton – Y

      <

      p>
      Christopher G. Fallon, D-Malden – N

      <

      p>
      Mark V. Falzone, D-Saugus – N

      <

      p>
      Robert F. Fennell, D-Lynn – N

      <

      p>
      Michael E. Festa, D-Melrose – N

      <

      p>
      Barry R. Finegold, D-Andover – N

      <

      p>
      Jennifer Flanagan, D-Leominster – N

      <

      p>
      David L. Flynn, D-Bridgewater – Y

      <

      p>
      Linda Dorcena Forry, D-Boston – N

      <

      p>
      Gloria L. Fox, D-Boston – N

      <

      p>
      John P. Fresolo, D-Worcester – Y

      <

      p>
      Paul K. Frost, R-Auburn – Y

      <

      p>
      William C. Galvin, D-Canton – N

      <

      p>
      Colleen M. Garry, D-Dracut – Y

      <

      p>
      Susan W. Gifford, R-Wareham – Y

      <

      p>
      Anne M. Gobi, D-Spencer – N

      <

      p>
      Emile J. Goguen, D-Fitchburg – Y

      <

      p>
      Thomas A. Golden Jr., D-Lowell – N

      <

      p>
      Shirley Gomes, R-South Harwich – Y

      <

      p>
      Mary E. Grant, D-Beverly – N

      <

      p>
      William G. Greene Jr., D-Billerica – Y

      <

      p>
      Dennis Guyer, D-Dalton – N

      <

      p>
      Patricia A. Haddad, D-Somerset – N

      <

      p>
      Geoffrey D. Hall, D-Westford – N

      <

      p>
      Robert S. Hargraves, R-Groton – Y

      <

      p>
      Lida E. Harkins, D-Needham – N

      <

      p>
      Bradford Hill, R-Ipswich – N

      <

      p>
      Kevin G. Honan, D-Boston – N

      <

      p>
      Donald F. Humason Jr., R-Westfield – Y

      <

      p>
      Frank M. Hynes, D-Marshfield – Y

      <

      p>
      Bradley H. Jones Jr., R-North Reading – N

      <

      p>
      Louis L. Kafka, D-Sharon – N

      <

      p>
      Michael F. Kane, D-Holyoke – Y

      <

      p>
      Rachel Kaprielian, D-Watertown – N
      Jay R. Kaufman, D-Lexington – N
      Article Tools

      <

      p>  * PRINTER FRIENDLYPrinter friendly  * SINGLE PAGESingle page  * E-MAILE-mail to a friend  * RSS FEEDSMass. RSS feed  * RSS FEEDSAvailable RSS feeds  * MOST E-MAILEDMost e-mailed  * Share on Facebook  * Tag with Del.icio.us Save this article  * powered by Del.icio.us

      <

      p>
      More:

      <

      p>  * Globe City/Region stories |  * Latest local news |  * Globe front page |  * Boston.com

      <

      p>  * Sign up for: Globe Headlines e-mail |  * Breaking News Alerts

      <

      p>
      John Keenan, D-Salem – N

      <

      p>
      Thomas P. Kennedy, D-Brockton – N

      <

      p>
      Kay Khan, D-Newton – N

      <

      p>
      Peter V. Kocot, D-Florence – N

      <

      p>
      Robert M. Koczera, D-New Bedford – N

      <

      p>
      Peter J. Koutoujian, D-Waltham – N

      <

      p>
      Paul Kujawski, D-Webster – Y

      <

      p>
      Stephen Kulik, D-Worthington – N

      <

      p>
      William Lantigua, D-Lawrence – Y

      <

      p>
      James Brendan Leary, D-Worcester – N

      <

      p>
      Stephen P. LeDuc, D-Marlboro – N

      <

      p>
      John A. Lepper, R-Attleboro – Y

      <

      p>
      David P. Linsky, D-Natick – N

      <

      p>
      Barbara A. L’Italien, D-Andover – N

      <

      p>
      Paul J. Loscocco, R-Holliston – Y

      <

      p>
      Elizabeth A. Malia, D-Boston – N

      <

      p>
      Ronald Mariano, D-Quincy – N

      <

      p>
      James J. Marzilli Jr., D-Arlington – N

      <

      p>
      James R. Miceli, D-Wilmington – Y

      <

      p>
      Michael J. Moran, D-Boston – N

      <

      p>
      Charles A. Murphy, D-Burlington – N

      <

      p>
      James M. Murphy, D-Weymouth – Y

      <

      p>
      Kevin J. Murphy, D-Lowell – N

      <

      p>
      David M. Nangle, D-Lowell – Y

      <

      p>
      Patrick Natale, D-Woburn – N

      <

      p>
      Harold P. Naughton Jr., D-Clinton – N

      <

      p>
      Robert J. Nyman, D-Hanover – Y

      <

      p>
      Thomas J. O’Brien, D-Kingston – N

      <

      p>
      Eugene L. O’Flaherty, D-Chelsea – N

      <

      p>
      Shirley Owens-Hicks, D-Boston – X

      <

      p>
      Marie J. Parente, D-Milford – Y

      <

      p>
      Matthew Patrick, D-Falmouth – N

      <

      p>
      Anne M. Paulsen, D-Belmont – N

      <

      p>
      Vincent A. Pedone, D-Worcester – N

      <

      p>
      Alice H. Peisch, D-Wellesley – N

      <

      p>
      Jeffrey D. Perry, R-Sandwich – Y

      <

      p>
      Douglas W. Petersen, D-Marblehead – N

      <

      p>
      George N. Peterson Jr., R-Grafton – Y

      <

      p>
      Thomas M. Petrolati, D-Ludlow – Y

      <

      p>
      Anthony Petruccelli, D-Boston – N

      <

      p>
      William “Smitty” Pignatelli, D-Lenox – X

      <

      p>
      Elizabeth A. Poirier, R-North Attleboro – Y

      <

      p>
      Karyn E. Polito, R-Shrewsbury – Y

      <

      p>
      Susan W. Pope, R-Wayland – Y

      <

      p>
      Denise Provost, D-Somerville – N

      <

      p>
      John F. Quinn, D-Dartmouth – N

      <

      p>
      Kathi-Anne Reinstein, D-Revere – N

      <

      p>
      Robert Rice, D-Gardner – N

      <

      p>
      Michael J. Rodrigues, D-Westport – N

      <

      p>
      Mary S. Rogeness, R-Longmeadow – Y

      <

      p>
      John H. Rogers, D-Norwood – N

      <

      p>
      Richard Ross, R-Wrentham – Y

      <

      p>
      Michael F. Rush, D-Boston – Y

      <

      p>
      Byron Rushing, D-Boston – N

      <

      p>
      Jeffrey Sanchez, D-Boston – N

      <

      p>
      Tom Sannicandro, D-Ashland – N

      <

      p>
      Angelo M. Scaccia, D-Boston – Y

      <

      p>
      John W. Scibak, D-South Hadley – N

      <

      p>
      Carl Sciortino, D-Somerville – N

      <

      p>
      Frank Israel Smizik, D-Brookline – N

      <

      p>
      Todd Smola, R-Palmer – Y

      <

      p>
      Theodore C. Speliotis, D-Danvers – N

      <

      p>
      Robert P. Spellane, D-Worcester – N

      <

      p>
      Christopher N. Speranzo – D-Springfield – N

      <

      p>
      Joyce A. Spiliotis, D-Peabody – Y

      <

      p>
      Harriett L. Stanley, D-West Newbury – N

      <

      p>
      Thomas M. Stanley, D-Waltham – N

      <

      p>
      Marie P. St.Fleur, D-Boston – N

      <

      p>
      Ellen Story, D-Amherst – N

      <

      p>
      William M. Straus, D-Mattapoisett – N

      <

      p>
      David B. Sullivan, D-Fall River – N

      <

      p>
      Benjamin Swan, D-Springfield – N

      <

      p>
      Kathleen M. Teahan, D-Whitman – N

      <

      p>
      Walter F. Timilty, D-Milton – Y

      <

      p>
      A. Stephen Tobin, D-Quincy – Y

      <

      p>
      Timothy J. Toomey Jr., D-Cambridge – N

      <

      p>
      David M. Torrisi, D-North Andover – N

      <

      p>
      Philip Travis, D-Rehoboth – Y

      <

      p>
      Eric Turkington, D-Falmouth – N

      <

      p>
      Cleon Turner, D-Dennis – N

      <

      p>
      James E. Vallee, D-Franklin – Y

      <

      p>
      Anthony J. Verga, D-Gloucester – Y

      <

      p>
      Joseph F. Wagner, D-Chicopee – N

      <

      p>
      Brian P. Wallace, D-Boston – Y

      <

      p>
      Patricia A. Walrath, D-Stow – N

      <

      p>
      Martin J. Walsh, D-Boston – N

      <

      p>
      Steven M. Walsh, D-Lynn – N

      <

      p>
      Marty Walz, D-Boston – N

      <

      p>
      Daniel K. Webster, R-Hanson – Y

      <

      p>
      James T. Welch, D-West Springfield – N

      <

      p>
      Alice K. Wolf, D-Cambridge – N

      <

      p>
      SENATE

      <

      p>
      Robert A. Antonioni, D-Leominster – N

      <

      p>
      Edward M. Augustus, D-Worcester – N

      <

      p>
      Steven A. Baddour, D-Methuen – N

      <

      p>
      Jarrett T. Barrios, D-Cambridge – N

      <

      p>
      Frederick E. Berry, D-Peabody – N

      <

      p>
      Stephen M. Brewer, D-Barre – N

      <

      p>
      Scott P. Brown, R-Wrentham – Y

      <

      p>
      Stephen J. Buoniconti, D-West Springfield – N

      <

      p>
      Harriette L. Chandler, D-Worcester – N

      <

      p>
      Robert S. Creedon, D-Brockton – Y

      <

      p>
      Cynthia Stone Creem, D-Newton – N

      <

      p>
      Susan C. Fargo, D-Lincoln – N

      <

      p>
      John A. Hart, D-Boston – N

      <

      p>
      Robert A. Havern, D-Arlington – N

      <

      p>
      Robert L. Hedlund, R-Weymouth – Y

      <

      p>
      Patricia Jehlen, D-Somerville – N

      <

      p>
      Brian A. Joyce, D-Milton – N

      <

      p>
      Michael R. Knapik, R-Westfield – N

      <

      p>
      Brian P. Lees, R-East Longmeadow – N

      <

      p>
      Thomas M McGee, D-Lynn – N

      <

      p>
      Joan M. Menard, D-Somerset – N

      <

      p>
      Mark C. Montigny, D-New Bedford – N

      <

      p>
      Richard T. Moore, D-Uxbridge – Y

      <

      p>
      Michael W. Morrissey, D-Quincy – Y

      <

      p>
      Therese Murray, D-Plymouth – N

      <

      p>
      Andrea F. Nuciforo, D-Pittsfield – X

      <

      p>
      Robert D. O’Leary, D-Barnstable – N

      <

      p>
      Marc R. Pacheco, D-Taunton – N

      <

      p>
      Steven C. Panagiotakos, D-Lowell – Y

      <

      p>
      Pamela P. Resor, D-Acton – N

      <

      p>
      Stanley C. Rosenberg, D-Amherst – N

      <

      p>
      Karen E. Spilka, D-Ashland – N

      <

      p>
      Bruce E. Tarr, R-Gloucester – N

      <

      p>
      James E. Timilty, D-Walpole – N

      <

      p>
      Richard R. Tisei, R-Wakefield – N

      <

      p>
      Steve A. Tolman, D-Boston – N

      <

      p>
      Robert E. Travaglini, D-Boston – Y

      <

      p>
      Susan C. Tucker, D-Andover – N

      <

      p>
      Marian Walsh, D-West Roxbury – N

      <

      p>
      Dianne Wilkerson, D-Boston – N

      <

      p>

      <

      p>
      N no

      <

      p>
      Y yes

      <

      p>
      X not voting

      <

      p>
      P present

  21. basically, gay marriage is safe. the reconsideration vote wipes out the original vote to put gay marriage on the ballot. if the con-con either adjourns before gay marriage comes up again or if the con-con runs out of time (if they debate until midnight but never take up gay marriage again), then the orginial gay marriage vote is erased. I think.

    • There were enough votes to advance the measure, but a DIFFERENT procedural mechanism was used to kill it?

      <

      p>
      It THAT their plan to satisfy the SJC?  Hey, we took a vote!  It just wasn’t the LAST vote!

      <

      p>
      I know you think the Federal case is worthless David – but what about this?  Can you say it DOESN’T violate the rights of Mass. voters?

      • It certainly is enough to confuse the 98% that don’t follow issues closely, and allow them to tell the voters, “We voted.”

      • Already my prediction has come to pass.

        <

        p>
        You should run for lege, PP, that way instead of telling them what to do, you could actually do it yourself. Called a Republic, and all.

      • Polls show most people in Mass have no problem with marriage equality.  Speaking strictly for myself*, I agree with Deval Patrick that we have more important issues to work on. 

        <

        p>
        So, this “Massachusetts citizen” thinks moving on is just fine.

        <

        p>
        *something I think you should try, Peter.  I think it would make you sound a lot less pompous if you stopped pretending to speak for some constituency!

        • of their Constitution.

          <

          p>
          What chaps my ass is the presumption that the apparatus of the state is somehow not subject to the basic rules that govern the government if it doesn’t agree with those rules.  I find zero difference between all the silly justifications for this tactic and the “signing statements” by Bush, along with the dangerous theory that he somehow isn’t subject to law if he disagrees with it.

          <

          p>
          What it demonstrates is a fundamental disrespect for the most basic institutions of the Commonwelath, which are supposed to mean that ours is a government of laws, not people.

          <

          p>
          I could give a crap what the motivations of the anti-SSM movement are; they made a petition to their government to change their constitution, which the government was bound to act upon.  I hope no one is collecting signatures for the next petition anythime soon, because at the moment I’m almost pissed enough to sign it.

          • I’m sure your feelings are very heartfelt, but since I assume by your name you’re not directly affected by this amendment, you might want to consider how nice it is to kick people while they’re down. Ok, Dad?

          • Don’t worry, we’re getting together a petition to decide whether or not you can keep custody of your children, or the state can just confiscate them. Whether you can vote. Whether you can marry. Whether you’re allowed to blog, or to speak, or practice your religion. Maybe we’ll pick a particular religion and FORCE you to practice it. Maybe your neighbors wnat to tie you up and burn you with cigarettes, why not? And well, your kids, we’ll have to write another petition to cover minors, but we can do it.

            <

            p>
            I don’t want to hear any back talk about rights, either. Those silly things may be in the Constitution now, but not for any particular reason, and they won’t be once we get our petition and our, what is it, 3% of legislators? If it’s funny to take away rights from a persecuted minority and pretend they’re not citizens and barely human, it’ll be triple double terrific for the rest of us. Rights schmites, whatever our fellow citizens decide goes, with no basic liberties involved.

            <

            p>
            And why carp about signing statements, there’s no basic principles involved there. We can amend for that, too. Anything goes. Secret prisons, torture, arbitrary detainemnt, extrajudicial killing, write it down, get a few signatures, we’re good to go!

          • I have supplied the exact words before:

            The FACT is that the Supreme Judicial Court was asked to decide

            whether, consistent with the Massachusetts Constitution,” the Commonwealth could deny those protections, benefits, and obligations to two individuals of the same sex who wish to marry.

            And the court did find that

            barring an individual from the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage solely because that person would marry a person of the same sex violates the Massachusetts Constitution.

            In other words, the court found that denying equal civil marriage rights to gay couples would violate the Massachusetts Constitution.

            <

            p>
            I understand that the haters want to change the Constitution. But if each step is appealed–as it would be–and the SJC continues to point out the freakin’ obvious and confirm its previous decision–as it would–we’d end up in a vicious circle forever. It has to end. And the legislators could have ended it right now (or at least dealt it a crippling blow), today. And they have no freakin’ backbones.

          • Better not be wearing a goatee without paying your licensing fee!  And that is just one of many stupid laws still on the books from previous centuries.  If we are a ‘government of laws and not people’, you better be respecting them all.

            <

            p>
            So, get to totin’ that rifle to meeting house on Sunday in case them damned injuns attack!!  It’s the law!

            <

            p>
            P.S. What possible link is there between Bush’s signing statements (which are essentially from an single executive who has power saying, “I ain’t gonna enforce it as you voted it”) and the actions of a large group of people who don’t have power fighting to preserve equal rights in their state? 

            <

            p>
            Good old false equivalence rears its ugly head again!

            • But they do have power, they’re one of the branches of government!  And there are only three branches, which makes them 1/3 of the government!

              <

              p>
              When Bush makes the signing statements, he is, in effect, stating that one of the branches of government– the executive– is not bound by law because he is doing what he “believes” is right.  In other words, the executive branch is constrained by nothing other than its own feeling of self-righteousness.

              <

              p>
              What the Legislature has done with respect to these citizen initiatives (or attempted to do, I see) was stating that it, the legislature is not bound by law because it is doing what it “believes” is right.  In other words, the legislature is (proposed) to be constrained by nothing other than its own feeling of self-righteousness in doing the right thing, regardless of the rules.

              <

              p>
              The situations are precisely parallell, and disturbing for exactly the same reason:  what if you don’t “believe” that what the government is doing is “right”?  Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

              <

              p>
              We are supposed to have a mechanism for this problem: a constitution, which, in addition to doling out rights to all and sundry, set the rules by which the government operates, which rules apply to everyone, regardless of what they “believe”.  The latter function of the constitution, while eveidently not as sexy to “progressives” as the former, is in my opinion the far more important one.  Without it, all of the supposed rights doled out are merely chimeras, waiting for the next government official to “believe” that such rights need not be respected.

      • At what point would a mandate of principle override procedure? What would have to be proposed?

        <

        p>
        Would it be all right for someone to gather enough signatures to try to get a ballot question that  would make all Jews wear gold stars? That would deport those of African-American heritage to Africa? That would force all women of childbearing age to bear children? That would allow the state to kill gay men and women?

        <

        p>
        I am deliberately mentioning extreme scenarios, but all of these share–albeit in increasing severity–a denial of equal rights. As does denial of equal marriage.

        <

        p>
        So if in any of these scenarios, the bigots got enough signatures, would you feel that the legislature should be bound by Article 48 to vote on any of these repulsive and patently unconstitutional questions?

        <

        p>

        • The point is that the rules apply to everyone, and not just the bad guys.

          <

          p>
          I have confidence in the polity that these measures would not become part of the state constitution because they would never garner sufficient signatures to qualify under Article 48, would not garner the legislative votes, and would not pass as a referendum.  But, assuming these are not among the excluded list in Article 48 (and not using the bizzarre theory of exclsuion propounded by Cos et al.) if they did garner the signatures, then they should be acted upon in due course.

          <

          p>
          I gather that you think that there is such a line, beyond which is beyond the pale and which should never be voted upon.  I’d be willing to acknowledge that this is a reasonable position, but only if you concede in return that the Rev. Pat Robertson– or maybe David Duke– gets to be the one who decides where the line is.

          <

          p>
          If you are unwilling to allow such a person to so decide, then you must acknowledge that your civil rights are ultimately protected only by rules that govern how your government governs you, and thus upon the principle that such government is actually subject to such rules.

          <

          p>
          I other words, neither you nor any other self-appointed good guys get to decide where the line is, because there are no lines other than those in the constitution, as it may be amended from time to time.

          • “I have confidence in the polity that these measures would not become part of the state constitution because they would never garner sufficient signatures to qualify under Article 48”

            <

            p>
            Nobody’s ever going to take away my rights, so I can afford to be sanguine, and if you end up back on a plantation in shakles, you can comfort yourself with the thought that I’m a purist and believe that democracy works great and no safeguards are necessary.

            <

            p>
            “there are no lines other than those in the constitution”

            <

            p>
            Unless you believe in the concept of basic rights that reside in the individual and can’t be taken away by the state or the majority, but that’s so 1791. We used that concept to sucker everyone into joining our national project in the first place, but now it’s so over. And don’t even bring up the evolving concept of human rights that pertain to all humans, regardless of whether they’re respected by the governements on the nations in which they live, if the law says you can be stoned to death for smoking, there is no other line except teh border to try and find a more congenial atmosphere. If you’re not allowed by majority rule to cross the border, oh well, sucks to be you, I’m lucky I don’t have to worry.

          • There should be a line. The line was already drawn in the Constitution, both the commonwealth’s and the federal. Equal rights, and the protection of the rights of the minority by the “tyranny of the majority.”  I give that decision-making power to John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, et. al. And the SJC (again). I certainly wouldn’t give it to anyone who would put a religious belief ahead of a legal belief. Yeah, that would go over really well with Adams, Jefferson, Hamilton and ye olde crew of deists.

            <

            p>
            Haters trying to change this fundamental, this most precious building block of American democracy are trying to turn America into a theocracy. They are trying to destroy American democracy. I personally think it’s more patriotic to stop that than to follow a rule that, in this case, would promote discriminate.

            <

            p>
            By the way, the government is ruled by us. “We the people.” Can you dig it?

    • from Milton voted YES!

      <

      p>
      Now Deval must show that he is the great leader and make this a moot issue until the next legislature…..HE has more important things on HIS agenda….and sounds like at least Trav, put it right back in his lap….Trav has no idea, what just what he’s done…but I’m sure it won’t take long for him to learn where Deval will stand on everything….He’s already thrown the “Sign it automatically” pens  out of the 3rd floor window or is that the 4th?

      <

      p>
      Here will be a clue I picked up from the campaign!!!!  On Thursday watch Deval’s facial expressions….He needs very few words if any at all….his face expression is EXACTLY how he’s feeling….

    • that sounds like it could be the way this may play out.

      <

      p>
      that way romney, trav and all the others can say they in no way stopped or hindered a vote from being taken.

      <

      p>
      if that actually happens, it could be a win-win for everyone.

    • Looks as if they well and truly outwitted the haters this time. You wancher vote? You gutcher vote! I foresee a lot of whining and crying in the future. lol

        • are not abuses of power.  Remember, the Senate filibuster is not in the consitition, yet is considered by most to be a perfectly appropriate tool to preserve (Political) minority rights.

        • Wouldn’t it have been NICE if a simple procedural tactic could have killed off a proposal to amend the Constitution to allow FISA to come an arrest me because of my library books? Especially if the measure could have passed with only 25% of the vote?

          <

          p>
          Now, I’m not saying that stripping the civil rights of a particular class of our citizens is in any way abuse of the process. My only concern is whether or not I can gather together a few of my fellow residents and a few members of the Gen Court and banish the concept of civil rights entirely and put whatever violation of anyone’s rights I desire on the ballot. We have to destroy our Constitution and declare our neighbors noncitizens to preserve basic liberty. Obviously.

    • It looks like Trav not only pulled the fast vote, but actually voted for the amendment as well on the first vote.  If he indeed voted to reconsider, he is either trying to play every possible side of the fence or something mighty interesting happened during that recess. 

  25. Are you really looking forward to almost two years of debate on gay marriage?  Enough already.  Is this going to become the new abortion issue?  Let it go, move on, and worry about all the other ways and times that the legislature does not fulfill its obligations.  This issue has stood above all else, been reviewed and examined under a microscope.  Let’s pay as much attention to issues of homelessness, healthcare, education, etc. as we have given to this issue.

    <

    p>
    I am generally a process oriented person,but this entire circus has worn on my last nerve and I know from the comments here, I am not alone.

    <

    p>
    I salute the civic engagement of those opposd to same sex marriage.  I only wish that they could find other issues to put their time, money, and energy into that might actually improve someone’s life.

  29. “BREAKING NEWS: A constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage survived a second vote this afternoon after 62 lawmakers moved to advance the initiative. The measure, which only needed 50 votes to stay alive, must still be approved in the next legislative session to make it on the ballot as a referendum in 2008.”

    • [http://www.boston.co…  ….. Gay marriage supporters lost a bid to use parliamentary moves to reverse the vote, which came without debate immediately after Senate President Robert Travaglini officially opened the joint session.

      <

      p>
      Lawmakers recessed for an hour, returned and agreed to reconsider, but backers of the amendment still had plenty of support to move the proposal to the next session.]

    • My question is what do the numbers look like for defeating this thing for the next legislative session? 

    • “Earlier, supporters of the ban declared victory after 61 lawmakers voted in favor of the ballot initiative, easily clearing the 50-vote threshold needed to keep the measure alive. On the other side, 132 lawmakers voted to shelve the issue.

      <

      p>
      The vote after the recess was 134-62.”

      <

      p>
      I count three more votes voting the second time around.  Do we know who couldn’t get out of bed this morning?

  31. i thought i head Pat Jehlen vote yes for the amendment. that would be the 1 vote difference bumping up the yes vote to 62.

    <

    p>
    but i don’t understand that. cause she’s ultra-lib.

    <

    p>
    it may not have been her though, but i though that is what i heard.

    • The added vote was Rep. Shirley Owens-Hicks who was not present for the first vote.  Pat Jehlen twice voted against moving the amendment forward.

  32. If all that meant was a repeat of the earlier vote?

    <

    p>
    As I see it, the only point in moving to reconsider would be to immediately move to adjourn afterwards.

    <

    p>
    That didn’t happen.

    <

    p>
    …all you got was a repeat of the earlier vote.

    <

    p>
    So, anyone have any idea what this was for?

    • Following motion to reconsider, had the speaker entertained a motion to recess or adjourn, and it passed, then end of session and end of the amendment for this General Court.

      • But such a motion never came….so therefore, what was the point of the move to reconsider if the leadership wasn’t going to allow a motion to adjourn anyway….or was this the legislative equivalent of throwing an 80 yard pass downfield with time expired?

  35. It has been so overwhelmed all that’s coming up is an error message:

    <

    p>
    Microsoft JET Database Engine error ‘80004005’

    <

    p>
    Unspecified error

    <

    p>
    /ME2/Apps/CPTraffic/core.asp, line 168

  36. Re: FURTHER FURTHER UPDATE

    <

    p>
    Well, that decision sucks, but what the hell? Let’s fight.

    <

    p>
    I haven’t looked at the polls in Mass, but I assume the majority of the people favor equal benefits and rights. They may not understand, or the idea may need to be reinforced, that marriage is the only currency of commitment the real world universally understands and accepts.

    <

    p>
    When we were fighting for marriage equality in NJ last month, we made a website and some ads to educate our state’s voters on the differences between marriage and civil unions. We’re right here with you, ready to fight.

    • that if it gets as far as being put on the ballot, $$ will be coming in from all the haters in the country and it will be a PR battle royale. I really don’t think anyone wants to go there.

      <

      p>
      Let us hope that between the folks on the haters side that are retiring or were voted out we can concentrate on the few that will be left and do our best to turn them so that it ends in the leg.

      <

      p>
      If it goes to the voters it will get so ugly that none of us will want to be around to see it.

      • I know this is Ms. Issacson’s stance, but it makes no sense to me.

        <

        p>
        We should not vote on the petition because nobody cares except a small group of ‘haters’ – too few people to bother with or squander our attention on.

        <

        p>
        BUT. If it makes it to the ballot, it will lose overwhelmingly because so many are just waiting to vote for it.

        <

        p>
        Which is it?  And please note – out of state peope can’t vote here.  (Although ‘Bay Windows’ DID suggest that Provincetown property owners switch their voter registration two years ago, regardless of actual residency, to defeat Shirley Gomes – who won anyway).

    • I’ve not followed this since the beginning,as I said it doesn’t affect me personally.

      <

      p>
      But what year was this petition put to the voters;  who. voted in large numbers in the affirmative?

      <

      p>
      Do you think that perhaps these folks are relying on (and feeding us) info that was several years old?  I keep hearing The people voted, the people voted, I’ve never missed an election in 32 years, and don’t remember this one…Obviously, I may have just skipped over it and not voted a no!  Because it was back then, under the radar,.How many other voters were on the negative, that just didn’t vote on it?  Has that ever been researched or listed?

      <

      p>
      That if, just if it were voted on today, they might actually lose?  Because the climate and circumstances in MA have dramatically changed for the good, since that election vote? I think these folks have a great group of marketing folks and “Spin Doctors”.

      • I really don’t know what you’re talking about…

        <

        p>
        Same-sex marriage has never been voted on in Massachusetts. You didn’t miss anything. I’ve never heard “The people voted”; I keep hearing “Let the people vote”.

        <

        p>
        Can you perhaps clarify your comment?

  38. Any chance of someone other than Trav being elected Senate president in the coming session?

    <

    p>  – Dan

  39. Is there a deadline for the legislature to act on this next session? My understanding is if they approve it next session it would go on the ballot in 2008, but the next session extends beyond the 2008 elections. Any rules on this?

  40. Here’s a naive question: What if the amendment passes the next session, appears on the 2008 ballot, and is approved by voters? Is it automatically law? Can the Governor do anything to prevent it? The voters approved a tax break that never appeared (for good reason) so should this be any different?

    • In the decision about whether the amendment was valid or was an attempt to overturn a judicial decision, Justices Greaney and Ireland suggested another challenge:

      <

      p>
      “the Goodridge decision may be irreversible because of its holding that no rational basis exists, or can be advanced, to support the definition of marriage proposed by the initiative and the fact that the Goodridge holding has become part of the fabric of the equality and liberty guarantees of our Constitution. If the initiative is approved by the Legislature and ultimately adopted, there will be time enough, if an appropriate lawsuit is brought, for this court to resolve the question whether our Constitution can be home to provisions that are apparently mutually inconsistent and irreconcilable.”

    • So much for the they just took the legislative process underground.  IMHO.  I actually can follow along when it’s on television.

      <

      p>
      In some cases, it also shows the disrespect that the members have for the process, when they are asked by the Chair repeatedly to take the conversations outside, and don’t.  And asked to take their seats while a speech is being made at the podium.  I think the problem is still going to be the power struggle between the leg. and Gov. Patrick, or the leg.  and the people from their own district. 

      <

      p>
      I’d vote to find a way to keep the TV broadcasts.  What about Boston’s public access channel…?

      <

      p>
      ****This just in  11:05 PM  John Keller calling Deval a LOSER, and MITT a winner. He said, ” Welcome to the NFL, DEVAL!

      <

      p>
      Also reporting Mitt will file the Prez papers before he leaves and then at 5pm HE WILL WALK DOWN THE FRONT STAIRS, to the camera crews from ALL OVER the COUNTRY! As the newest presidential possible……

      <

      p>
      I certainly won’t be watching.  I’m saving viewing for Thursday.  I just hope those same camera crews are around for the next piece of MA history….Should be interesting….The will make you dizzy!!!!!!!

  42. OK, so now that this is going to the next session, it’s time to take a quick look at the changes in membership to try to see how much support the amendment will have next session. Here’s my quick count:

    <

    p>
    Looking at the 61 “yes” votes from the first vote (because I’m not sure who switched to make the second vote 62), it appears that gay marriage supporters have picked up a total of four or possibly five votes — still short of getting the “yes” number below 50. Here’s my list of pick-ups:

    <

    p>
    1) Peake (replaces Gomes)
    2) Fernandes (replaces Parente)
    3) D’Amico (replaces Travis)
    4) DiNatale (replaces Goguen)
    5) Conroy (replaces Pope)

    <

    p>
    The “yes” votes appear to have picked up one vote, as Candaras (anti-gay marriage) replaces the pro-marriage Lees in the Senate.

    <

    p>
    The question marks seem to be Geraldo Alicea replacing the anti-gay marriage Carron (I can’t find his position on the issue anywhere) and Linda Dean Campbell replacing pro-marriage Broadhurst.

    <

    p>
    There were a few other pro-gay marriage pickups, but they will not affect the vote because none of the replaced Reps. voted today. They are:

    <

    p>
    1) Sandlin (replaces Keenan)
    2) Smith (replaces Connelly)
    3) Allen (replaces Owens-Hicks)

    <

    p>
    So, in short, the anti-gay marriage amendment will pass next session unless either a few members (probably about 6) actively switch their vote from “yes” to “no”, or the Legislature fails to vote on the merits.

    <

    p>
    Hope this is helpful, and add to it if you have any other info.

    • said during his campaign that he wanted to let the people vote. Anyone live in Southbridge who wants to give him a phone call and try to change his mind?

      • Alicia D-Southbridge is good guy at heart and needs some encouragement to support a No vote on the amendment.  Send Tim Murray in to have a chat with him.  Thank God, Carron is history! One of the worst DINO’s along with Moore and the Finneran lineage…aka Petrolati.

        <

        p>
        Candaras D-Springfield needs a good talkin’ to…but she’s stubborn and has her heels dug in.  Curran D-Springfield has proven that he will jump with the bouncing ball. Buoniconti D-Springfield did the right thing, way to go Steve-O, be the leader, go flip Sean!

Archives