Hold pundits, political bloggers and newspaper editorialists responsible for their unprincipled calls for fealty to an arcane provision of a heretofore obscure constitutional amendment versus longstanding democratic principles that recognize fundamental human rights such as the right to marry. We must bring this debate back to the place from which it has strayed: the moral code by which we live.
Make no mistake, these editorials, columns and blog posts had a devastating impact on the proceedings. Influential opinion makers like Boston Globe columnist Scot Lehigh, the Globe editorial board and CBS News political analyst Jon Keller need to explain why they called for a different set of rules for the legislature’s handling of a measure that seeks to take away from gay people already established rights. Unlike the way the legislature typically handles proposed constitutional amendments year in and year out, these new rules called for a standard that was much more difficult to meet.
And let’s just say it over and over and over again: the Supreme Judicial Court’s Dec. 27 statement that lawmakers have a constitutional obligation to take up-or-down votes on constitutional amendments brought via initiative petition was a grotesque example of judicial activism. The statement was irrelevant to the court’s legal ruling, which was a quick dismissal of the lawsuit seeking to force lawmakers to vote. And it was an example of judges telling legislators what to do even though the judges, by their own admission, had no authority over the matter. What on earth do you think social conservatives, who have created a cottage industry out of the notion of “legislating from the bench,” would have done with this opinion if they didn’t agree with it?
We must be in frequent contact with our state reps and senators demanding that they put an end to this debate once and for all. Here’s something to think about: some of your lawmakers, the very ones who have told you that they unequivocally support your right to marry, have whined to those advocating on your behalf that they’ve done enough already. They haven’t. No one has. Our right to marry has yet to be secured. Make it absolutely clear to your representatives that it is not enough to support your right to marry. You want someone who will defend your right to marry even if it means killing the marriage amendment via procedural vote. (Feel free, by the way, to point out the absurdity of the notion that taking a procedural vote is somehow courageous.)
The organizations advocating on your behalf need your help: MassEquality, Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus, the Freedom to Marry Coalition, the Religious Coalition for the Freedom to Marry, to name just a few. Send money. Ask your friends and family to make donations. Volunteer.
We can win this fight. And we will. We have made unimaginable gains over the last three years. Just after the SJC issued its Goodridge ruling, a mere handful of lawmakers supported our right to marry. Today, 134 do. Not a single pro-equality lawmaker has lost his or her seat. Compare that with the entrenched anti-gay incumbents (Vinny Ciampa, Susan Pope, Marie Parente and Mark Howland), who have been tossed out of office. Many new lawmakers have been sent to Beacon Hill thanks, in part, to their strong support for marriage equality. More than 17,000 of us have exercised our right to marry. We have created a political movement in Massachusetts that’s become a model for the nation.
We will not win if we try to coast on this success. It’s time to dig in and build on what we’ve already achieved.
Of course, they DID get to vote in the first place, which is perhaps WHY there was no political will to rescind the amendment.
<
p>
And please note – amendments CAN be rescinded – like Prohibition.
It should be noted that Massachusetts rejected woman’s suffrage when they got a chance to vote on it in 1915.
One of the reasons the 1915 vote failed is that there was a large women group called the Anti’s that thought the women were more effective without the vote. So the women fractured their own vote.
<
p>
Weird. Guess you had to be there.
As I’ve already explained at length elsewhere, comparing what happens to federal constitutional issues that either are or are not overturned by constitutional amendments with what happens here in MA is comparing apples and oranges. Of course no one got to vote on Brown v. Board of Education, or on women’s suffrage, or prohibition, or flag-burning, or anything else having to do with the US Constitution. But that’s not because it’s “wrong” to vote on such issues — it’s because there is no role for a plebiscite in the federal constitutional process. The courts decide what the current text of the US Constitution means; Congress and the state legislatures have the power to alter the document’s text. “The people” don’t get to play. That’s not how it works here — as everyone is well aware, amending the MA Constitution requires a popular vote. Let’s try to keep our arguments coherent.
I ask, becasue I’m still waiting for the ERA to pass….
is an interesting case — the original proposing statute as you know contained a 7-year limit on how quickly the states had to ratify; it was later extended but they still didn’t get enough states; and then the 27th amendment was ratified over 200 years after it was first proposed, thereby throwing the whole issue of whether these things can be time-limited into question. No one knows whether ERA would take effect if three more states decided to ratify — it would no doubt go to the Supreme Court. Which might decide the question, or not.
<
p>
Anyway, I don’t see what a “plebiscite,” which refers to a direct vote by the people, has to do with ratification of any federal constitutional amendment — that procedure simply does not apply under Article V.
Then I guess the judges would have more power. Now whose interests do they serve …
I think one of the most onerous aspects of the past concon was lack of debate time due to Sen. Trav. zipping directly to a vote.
<
p>
I think we should all raise a loud and prolonged stink over this extraordinarily undemocratic move.
<
p>
THis should be is something everyone can agree on, regardless of “process” philosophy. It is also something that should be easy to do. Phone calls – keep them up; E-mails and letter, 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
hurtsaffects us all.<
p>
What y’all think?
orry for my disorganization. David asked me to move this into a diary. might be best to comment in there, if you wish to comment. thanks.
I refer to what sounds like be a ringing call to defend marriage rights by asking Trav and the legislature (again) to kill the amendment.
<
p>
The themes ought to be, Keep government out of marriage, keep marriage safe and legal, don’t outlaw families, etc.
<
p>
Ironically you might see the legislature supress the amendment (or reject it outright) in the face of that kind of campaign, but if the theme is, Down with the SJC and the process liberals, we will never get that kind of ctitical mass movement.
there is nothing inherently “down with” anythiing by asking for debate. except perhaps down with tyrany.
not to yours, which (1) I think is right on and (2) was not even posted when I wrote my response. (Read the quoted bay Windows opinion.)
<
p>
Okay?
I need a nap.
I have to admit to having given up on getting a straight answer out of the Legislative leadership on anything procedural after the last ConCon.
<
p>
I figure there are only two steps left (albeit complex ones):
<
p>
1. Try to get 6 returning legislators to switch votes for the next ConCon. I’ve seen comment that there are 55 anti-equality votes in the upcoming Legislature, which means we need six more.
<
p>
2. Get 50% + 1 of the state population by 2008. I’m much more optimistic about this, not least of all because of the timing. I think that the 2008 presiential race will eat up all the airtime even locally, thereby sucking oxygen out of the anti-equality media campaign. At the same time, these out-of-state orgs will be scurrying to fund the anti-gay amendments of dozens of states, while also trying to help an appropriately hate-mongering candidate to the White House. This should spread them thinner than they’d be in an off-year.
If someone is waffling, debate time could make a difference during the next concon.
<
p>
Interesting theory on the ’08 election and our opponents being spread thin. If it comes to that, I like to think your are right on this!
Find all the pro marriage legislators who voted for the measure to bring marriage to the ballot and call their offices non stop, clog their email accounts, and tell them they aren’t being helpful to the cause that they supposedly believe in and that WE will hold them accountable. Also let the anti-marriage politicians know that we WILL throw them out come November. Its as simple as that, maybe some votes will change, also have Deval actively threaten to veto any of their proposals unless they switch their votes. We gotta play hardball, this measure CANNOT come to the ballot it will destroy our state.
check out grace ross’s new post at queertoday…
Do you REALLY think that threatening and bullying will solve this? Will change a single mind or vote? You can’t throw ANYBODY out until November of 2008, AFTER the vote is taken – and don’t count on ‘we’ living in their districts. People generally elect those who represent – them. Not we.
<
p>
Find a way to give them a way to vote yes that won’t lose them their seat, instead of shrieking, threatening email (who does THAT hurt but HIS?) and proclaiming veto (“I veto this bill to give needy children milk, because the WRONG PERSON first proposed it…”). I mean really, THAT’LL WORK….>:-(
Let’s network through Patrick campaign contacts, progressive dems, etc. within the districts of the 62 anti-equity reps. Then, call, write, e-mail,visit these guys, get your friends and family to do it also, and try to convince them either to abstain from voting in the next ConCon round, or to switch their vote.
<
p>
I live in Malden. In the fall and last week, I carried my little home-made sign that says,”I’m straight, I’m happily married, and I support marriage for all–the happiness of others enhances mine.”
<
p>
My representatives, Sen. Tisei aned Rep. Fallon, both voted to squash the anti-equity amendment. However, Sen. Donato, who has constituents through part of Malden and Medford and elsewhere (?) voted to pass the damned thing forward.
<
p>
I am linking with Medford’s Patrick people and hope to find Malden folks also, to push on Donato to convince him at least to abstain. My understanding is that Donato had indicated to a fellow legislator that he would support marriage equity, but then did not. Donato apparently is following two things, that he thinks his constituents are anti-gay marriage, and that he himself thinks gay marriage is wrong because of his own religious beliefs. Switching Donato to a pro-equity vote is less likely than switching him to an abstention. When I called Donato’s office after the vote, the staffer’s comments and rigidity lead me to suspect that abstention is the best we could get. But that would be enough.
<
p>
We should emphasize the influx of out-of-state money for anti-democratic and anti-Democratic campaigns that will accompany the anti-equity amendment if it reaches a general election ballot. This puts all Democratic positions throughout the state, into a more perilous position, as well as occupying MA people who might otherwise be able to help in other states.
<
p>
For the 62 anti-marriage members, do we have BlueMassGroup members in their districts–or at least for 6-9 of them? We only need to get the number of anti-marriage votes below 50. With change from the Nov. elections, we gained about 5 pro-marriage votes, so that the 62 should go to 57 or so. Soooo..can we work to get some abstentions, some switches?
<
p>
Please, if you are interested in particular in working in Medford on Donato, e-mail to me off-group. I have several names of people who are planning to go work on
Donato.
Flipping from “yes” to “present” (or absent) is as good, parliamentarily, as flipping to “no,” for the purpose of defeating this amendment.
Baba, this sounds excellent. The determination in your “voice” to actually act, and now, is clear. Using existing networks that still should be warm if not hot seems to me a very smart approach.
<
p>
I don’t live in any of the 62 districts (Rep Kaufman & Sen Havern have been excellent from day 1 – thanks Rep & Sen!), but I will be assisting from the “outside” in every way I can. This means calling firends & colleagues to see if any of them have ties in those districts. Others in my situation can do the same.
I plan to contact all 62 legislators (or whatever we’re down to post-election), even though I’m not in any of their districts.
<
p>
What they do affects all of us, so I think they need to listen to all of us.
You should expand this into a diary post.