1. A majority of either chamber can pass resolutions deploring violence and hate rhetoric against gays (and marriage supporters).
2. Either chamber can hold hearings on signature fraud, keeping the spotlight on this seamy aspect of the anti-marriage campaign.
3. A majority of the joint session can refer the amendment to a study commission, to be recalled only if demands for a full debate are met, and at a time of the majority’s choosing–if at all.
4. As part of the above, the majority can determine when the amendment will be put before the voters: 2008 if voted on in time for the 2008 ballot, 2010 if after that.
5. A majority of the joint session could approve its own proposal to amend the constitution to outlaw discriminatory amendments.
6. In fact, this majority could cause such an amendment to be on the ballot in 2010 and, by delaying the anti-marriage amendment until then, cause both proposals to be before the voters at the same time. The majority could word the ban on discriminatory amendments to apply to the anti-marriage amendment if both passed.
7. A majority of the legislature could amend the general laws to recognize marriage for all, putting an end once and for all to the “activist judges” meme.
8. In fact, the majority could rewrite marriage laws so as to make marriage rights for everyone unseverable–so that the effect of the anti-marriage amendment would be to completely invalidate the law that defines marriage itself. A vote for the anti-marriage amendment would then be a vote to outlaw marriage for everybody.
The above are examples, not prescriptions, and some may be impractical or unwise. None are strategies in themselves. But can we get our heads around the fact that (1) the majority is on our side and has considerable power, and (2) this gives us an important strategic advantage over our opponents?
If so, I’m sure the progressive community can creatively think up some better examples and ideas of how to go forward.
sending these ideas to MassEquality, pronto. Maybe bring them to a town hall meeting.
I like your thinking. I have forwarded a copy of it to my rep. I encourage others to do the same.
People wanting to write, email, visit or call their legislators can find all pertinent contact info here.
Trickle Up has some wonderful ideas about using our legislative majority and governor’s support to help further the cause of marriage equality.
<
p>
I think it makes lots of sense to amend the General Laws to bring them into conformity with the Goodridge ruling. Mitt made quite a bit of mischief with his administrative posturing on implementation of marriage equality. Whether an initiative succeeds or fails, there will be lots of same-sex couples whose interactions with the state will continue to involve their marital status.
<
p>
I also think it makes a lot of sense to refer the marriage amendment to a study committee, and not just for the procedural death it richly deserves. Here in Massachusetts, we have the unique opportunity (in the US, anyway) to create a record of how marriage equality has and hasn’t worked. It would make a lot of sense to invite experts, married couples, both straight and gay, and even the opponents of same-sex marriage to testify before a legislative committee about the impact of same-sex marriage on their themselves, their families, their employers, and others.
<
p>
Hearings offer two advantages. First, they can be the “civil dialogue” on marriage Kris Mineau calls for. He will get a chance to state his case, and proponents of equality will get a chance to state theirs. Second, hearings will give another chance to persuade legislators that this amendment should not go to the ballot. My sense is that SSM marriage has had a powerful positive impact on more than just the married couples.
<
p>
I don’t think it’s unreasonable to ask, as the only state in the US with legal same-sex marriage, that before voters get a chance to end SSM, we all get a chance to see how the first several years of SSM have worked. Hearings would give a chance to change the context, educate the public, and perhaps end the attempt to roll back civil rights.
Has it BEEN refiled timely – that is, so it avoids Sciaccia and the late filed Rules crap?
there are a couple of bills being filed dealing with this. One to codify SSM into the general laws, one to amend the constitution to bar initiatives that restrict civil rights, and probably more that I haven’t heard of.
I heard the Mass. Gay & Lesbian Political Caucus refiled the Marriage bill (two people otherwise eligible to marry will be granted a license regardless of gender, or something like that) and a bill to repeal the discriminatory (despite what the SJC said) 1913 Prohibition for out-of-state gay folks coming to Mass to get married.
Investigating how the Goodridge decision has effected the lives of same-sex couples. Wouldn’t it be great to have a bunch of happy, flowery stories showing how great an asset the Goodridge decision was for tens of thousands of Massachusetts citizens? I dare say quite a few people could change their old ways when they learn, finally, that Goodridge has had only positive effects on Massachusetts society.
what music would we play? Should we serve brie, or would that be over the top?
You’re not supposed to eat brie when you’re pregnant with the genetically engineered egg-and-egg baby of a lesbian couple.