With all apologies to sabutai I think we need to instead look inward and figure out why we took the stance we did in the first place instead of placing blame elsewhere. Then knowing what we know now (or should have known) what is your position. I shared the position that we should let the “process” determine the outcome and wanted the legislature to vote down the marriage amendment. I’m not that young and thought of myself as pretty savvy person but I don’t feel that way these days. For those of you stuck on the SJC ruling the Massachusetts legislature slammed that argument shut with adjourning prior to voting on all amendments.
Updated quiz to see if you are a Process Liberal:
1. You receive an e-mail from an official from foreign country looking to set up a business relationship that will transfer funds to your bank account. Do you?
a. Provide the person with your bank account number and personal information
b. Figure out immediately it’s a scam and contact the appropriate authorities
2. After going out to dinner one night you decide to take a stroll through Charlestown. You notice the lights on Zakim Bridge and watch for a while, a person walks up to you and offers the purchase of the bridge for $100. Do you?
a. Give the person $100
b. Tell the person to get lost or you’ll call the police
If you answered A to both questions then you are a Process Liberal.
Bonus Question
Once you find out that you’ve been taken by the person asking for your bank account information. Do you?
a. Contact the Attorney General’s office and complain that you didn’t know why anyone would try to steal your money and demand immediate action. Then continue to complain and blame everyone else.
b. Think why you were so stupid in the first place and try to rectify the situation.
No answer key for that one, but I know my answer.
We have work to do. Let’s do it.
<
p>
This might make you feel better, but it’s not going to change any votes at the next ConCon.
You main paged the 1st quiz, which is a feel-good device for process liberals. Now you say “lets get on with it” when a process liberal honestly wants to put their beliefs in the context of recent events. Um, a bit disingenuous, one might say.
(OK, OK, that was a joke đŸ™‚
I haven’t heard anyone make the case that based on what the legislature did at the Con Con we should continue to push “Process”. It has become pretty clear that the legislature does not care about putting amendments on an up and down vote. So anyone with that argument is just plain wrong. Based on this, why is marriage equity the target for “Process”?
<
p>
I’m for pushing our reps in the next 6 months to get the votes needed. But if the votes are not there, then they need to kill it period. Reps should also be pushed to take this stance as well. So if your Rep voted to kill the amendment, they are not free and clear, they also need to hear that once they take their internal polls (and they do, they will know how many votes they have) and they don’t have enough, then adjourn and kill this thing once and for all.
<
p>
For those who still believe in that the legislature should continue the vote even though they know it will get on a ballot (if they know they don’t have the votes), you know what, the legislature is laughing in your face and you still don’t get it. Ask the people supporting HCA.
johnk, I think you make an excellent point about our needing to be sure our legislators know that we know the process approach in this context is a proven joke. You’re absolutely right, they need know that we expect them to sink the anti-equality amendment no matter what, and that includes via a vote to adjourn if that is what makes sense at the time.
I’m all for pushing the lege and have already contacted Jay Barrows (Committee to Elect number) who’s replacing Coppola. No answer, but my guess he’s going with pushing the marriage amendment. The question is what do you do if you don’t have the votes. I’m for killing it.
Let’s try to get the votes before we figure out what to do if we can’t get them.
The high road, not so much. When they voted for reconsideration what were your true thoughts? It was that they are going to a manuever and kill it, and you might have been kind of happy about it when the votes weren’t there.
I wanted them to kill it, and I didn’t particularly care how. I wrote as much that morning.
<
p>
But that’s done now. Trav has proved that if he wants a vote, he’ll get a vote.
<
p>
Let’s try to make sure that next time, we win that vote.
<
p>
By my count we have to change nine votes. Who those nine might be is what I’m interested in, not in scoring points against people who thought that the lege was obligated to vote on the matter.
getting the process people to STFU, so that the legislature has the room to use procedural maneuvers if they need to.
<
p>
And that won’t be easy. Some of them would positively enjoy holding a woman’s hands behind her back while her drunk husbands bludgeons her, just because hitting back isn’t the proper process.
…that the Legislature doesn’t care what the process liberals think. They’re more than willing to throw process out the window when it suits their purpose. Should it come to that, we will need to make sure that it suits their purpose. But there’s time for that before the next ConCon.
<
p>
Energy is better spent right now trying to figure out how to change the minds of 9 legislators. To do that we need the help of every person who is in favor of marriage equality, no matter if they thought that the SJC required a vote or not.
The ConCon went into session in the full glare of publicity on their so-called “constitutional duty” to vote on SSM–a glare intensified by self-proclaimed process liberals in government, in the activist community and among the punditocracy.
<
p>
There was no such glare for the HCA.
<
p>
So, the HCA was dispatched in the dark of night, and the SSM passed on the front page of the Globe.
<
p>
If the legislature gets another 13 or so sure votes, great. That doesn’t mean that we avoid “putting our energy” into pressuring them to use procedural methods if they have to. In fact, we redouble our energy devoted to that.
<
p>
And the process people still need to STFU.
for your personal honesty.
I’m hetero, married with two kids (and a third on the way BTW). I’ve changed my mind on this and people should start re-thinking their position.
Apparently “process liberal” has replaced “incrementalist” as the preffered insult for those of us who are left-leaning, but not radical enough.
<
p>The phrase has already worn out it’s welcome and probably belongs on the List of Banished Words.
I have to disagree. I don’t see it as a perjorative at all. I think the process approach makes sense when everyone agrees to play by the same rules. Clearly, that is not the case here and now. But that doesn’t mean it isn’t a valid ideal. I’ts just a naive and unworkable one in the present context.
for those of us who have a problem with applying process requirements in a highly selective and discriminatory way.
both from ultraright homophobes and a slice of the pro-equality progressive left? Hmmm…I’ve been fung shui’d! I feel so balanced now!
the latest updates to what we may and may not say that we can refrain from making mistakes? This is a very important development with which we Fabians would like to remain current.
<
p>
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
the Index Verborum Prohibitum right now.