Rep THOREAU The right to equal treatment before the law is fundamental to our system of government and trumps even the language of our constitution in this case. Therefore, I am introducing a proposal that, if adopted by the voters, would prohibit amending the constitution to deny equal rights to any group. After all, if this issue is serious enough to cause us to disobey Article 48, it is too serious to leave to the individual consciences of future legislators.
Sen PARKS Of all the constitutional amendments that have ever been thwarted by the legislature in this way, only the anti-marriage amendment rises–or perhaps I should say sinks–to the standard of seeking to repeal human rights. It is therefore especially incumbent on us to ensure that a vote is taken on other constitutional amendments, including the health-care amendment, whether or not we agree with those amendments. I appeal to the leadership and my colleagues to let that vote go forward.
Sen KING Finally, I humbly acknowledge that with this act we disobey our constitution and the oath we took to uphold. I take these actions with resolve, but also with a heavy heart, not because I do not respect the constitution but because I respect is spirit even more. Still, I have broken an oath.
Therefore, when the Senate convenes for its new section in two days, I will not be there. I resign from my seat effective with the dissolution of the current session. I expect my conduct to be an issue on the election to fill this vacancy, for which I will stand. Given the things that the circumstances of this amendment and my conscience have compelled me, this is the least that I can do.
I am not holding my breath for any of this, but would just note two things.
The first is that statements like the above would go far in restoring the integrity of the legislature and in framing the anti-marriage issue correctly as a human-rights issue. The silence of elected representative checking their shoeshines, on the other hand, make the wrong statement.
The second is, Thank you Jay Kaufman!
Is that the state cannot practice civil disobedience without ceasing to be a constitutional government.
<
p>
As the HCA people discovered, our Commonwealth is governed in no small measure by the whim of the Senate President.
rather than the constitutional government we might wish we had.
<
p>
“Civil disobedience,” as I tried to depict it above, is a fantasy that tried to imagine what a principled violation of the state constitution might be like.
<
p>
It is 180 degrees away from the sordid reality–which is not civil disobedience, but backroom nudges and winks as usual.
<
p>
Your comments are very pertinent (and well put), but I would just add this.
<
p>
At least as far as Article 48 goes, your standard of “a constitutional government” is, alas, also a fantasy.
<
p>
Given that, its not at all clear to me that “legislative civil disobedience’ would not have been better.