With thanks to alert reader Pablo, here are the 62 legislators who voted yesterday to prevent people who love each other in Massachusetts from getting married. The Scurrilous 62 have weakened our society, undermined our economy, and voiced their support for a Constitution that divides rather than unites our Commonwealth.
Interestingly, 76% of Democrats were pro-family; just 24% (41 of 169) were opposed to marriage. By contrast, 78% (21 of 27) of Republicans were opposed to marriage; just 22% were pro-family.
HOUSE:
Bruce J. Ayers, D-Quincy – Y
John J. Binienda, D-Worcester – Y
Christine E. Canavan, D-Brockton – Y
Gale D. Candaras, D-Wilbraham – Y
Mark J. Carron, D-Southbridge – Y
Paul C. Casey, D-Winchester – Y
Virginia Coppola, R-Foxborough – Y
Robert Correia, D-Fall River – Y
Geraldine Creedon, D-Brockton – Y
Sean Curran, D-Springfield – Y
Viriato Manuel deMacedo, R-Plymouth – Y
Paul J. Donato, D-Medford – Y
Lewis G. Evangelidis, R-Holden – Y
James H. Fagan, D-Taunton – Y
David L. Flynn, D-Bridgewater – Y
John P. Fresolo, D-Worcester – Y
Paul K. Frost, R-Auburn – Y
Colleen M. Garry, D-Dracut – Y
Susan W. Gifford, R-Wareham – Y
Emile J. Goguen, D-Fitchburg – Y (Replaced in ’07 by DiNatale)
Shirley Gomes, R-South Harwich – Y (Replaced in ’07 by Peake)
William G. Greene Jr., D-Billerica – Y
Robert S. Hargraves, R-Groton – Y
Donald F. Humason Jr., R-Westfield – Y
Frank M. Hynes, D-Marshfield – Y
Michael F. Kane, D-Holyoke – Y
Paul Kujawski, D-Webster – Y
William Lantigua, D-Lawrence – Y
John A. Lepper, R-Attleboro – Y
Paul J. Loscocco, R-Holliston – Y
James R. Miceli, D-Wilmington – Y
James M. Murphy, D-Weymouth – Y
David M. Nangle, D-Lowell – Y
Robert J. Nyman, D-Hanover – Y
Shirley Owens-Hicks, D-Boston – Y (Replaced in ’07 by Allen)
Marie J. Parente, D-Milford – Y (Replaced in ’07 by Fernandes)
Jeffrey D. Perry, R-Sandwich – Y
George N. Peterson Jr., R-Grafton – Y
Thomas M. Petrolati, D-Ludlow – Y
Elizabeth A. Poirier, R-North Attleboro – Y
Karyn E. Polito, R-Shrewsbury – Y
Susan W. Pope, R-Wayland – Y (Replaced in ’07 by Conroy)
Mary S. Rogeness, R-Longmeadow – Y
Richard Ross, R-Wrentham – Y
Michael F. Rush, D-Boston – Y
Angelo M. Scaccia, D-Boston – Y
Todd Smola, R-Palmer – Y
Joyce A. Spiliotis, D-Peabody – Y
Walter F. Timilty, D-Milton – Y
A. Stephen Tobin, D-Quincy – Y
Philip Travis, D-Rehoboth – Y (Replaced in ’07 by D’Amico)
James E. Vallee, D-Franklin – Y
Anthony J. Verga, D-Gloucester – Y
Brian P. Wallace, D-Boston – Y
Daniel K. Webster, R-Hanson – Y
SENATE:
Scott P. Brown, R-Wrentham – Y
Robert S. Creedon, D-Brockton – Y
Robert L. Hedlund, R-Weymouth – Y
Richard T. Moore, D-Uxbridge – Y
Michael W. Morrissey, D-Quincy – Y
Steven C. Panagiotakos, D-Lowell – Y
Robert E. Travaglini, D-Boston – Y
Republicans not withstanding…..the majority of the 62 are Roman Catholic….As I said in another post, My rep.John Fresolo,has said, while in his district, “it’s my religion, I can’t publicly vote in support of Gay marriage”. As a matter of fact his opponent in the primary, made that her battle cry….she just wasn’t the best of candidates, but that’s a whole other thread!
<
p>
So does that mean that their religions will supersede law, equality and anything not faith based?
<
p>
I start tomorrow working to see that my rights as a disabled person ARE NOT the NEXT MINORITY that THEY go after.
<
p>
HECK, the FEDS will not let 2 disabled live together at the same address, unless we DO MARRY. And when we do, they take away the check for any SSI you get, thus less with 2 incomes.. SO – HOW DO YOU DO!!!!
<
p>
Been there done that! My late husband, Peter and I had to marry just 4 months after we met, he’d lost his accessible apt. and if we wanted to be together we had to marry. I lost all my SSI money until his death, then I got it back!!!!
<
p>
So, once they square this anti-gay marriage issue-(or believe they have, ARE THE DISABLED NEXT? Our voices are not loud at all….and we have had only 16 years of freedom since the ADA. to learn how to be loud, and some have NO voice at all,,,, literally)
<
p>
And NO Democrat has been governor since the ADA (1990)…..That is why DEVAL has really been our hope…but now I’m scared too for my reasons, it is about 200 men and women deciding the civl rights of millions.
<
p>
Last census, disability pop. was 1.5+ million citizens!
<
p>
YOU Bet, I’m scared. and I am not alone, because every issue in Massachusetts, affects some part of my life too, from curbs and sidewalks to who we can marry….and if we can find accessible housing……
<
p>
While some (or most) of the “62” can hide behind religion on this one, (though not admitting publicl), I’m very curious what they would say as the factor for the disabled….
<
p>
Thought this would give some other things to ponder and give Gay marriage a chance to breathe on this great Wed.
YES, MARTHA, IT’S MOVING DAY FOR MITT!!!!!!
<
p>
Enjoy it Willard, your 15 minutes of fame will be gone sooner than you hoped!
Or at least a clever one. đŸ™‚
<
p>
Incoming Maryland State Senator Jamie Raskin was testifying before the Maryland legislature last year regarding marriage issues. A right wing Senator said something along the lines of “my Bible says marriage is between a man and a woman; what do you have to say about that?”
<
p>
His response was classic — “Senator, you put your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution. You didn’t put your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible.”
Mike Rush (Boston) also has a smidge of my town. He’s not my rep, but he’s the closest ‘Y’ Rep to me, as he covers 12% of my town.
<
p>
I’ve already sent him a note saying that I hope that * the next ConCon is before the November election * he changes his vote
otherwise he’s just recruited a volunteer for his primary opponent.
<
p>
So, start contacting your legislators. Do it early and often. Encourage others to do so. Don’t let them forget about this vote.
Find someone good to run against those who voted Yes. Tell them to start getting around the district, meeting people, making lists of potential supporters. Maybe run yourself. Prepare to donate some money and time to pro-marriage equality candidates.
<
p>
BMG can play a role here in publicizing grassroots efforts to knock off enough of the 62 to flat out win this issue the next time it comes before the Con Con. And not just publicizing: organizing, recruiting candidates, fundraising, the whole package. This would be a great way to demonstrate the power of the netroots.
<
p>
Sure, some of the 62 are very safe in their districts, and some have taken their position as a result of a heartfelt stand on principle (however misguided some of us believe it to be) and won’t change their votes because of a political threat. We don’t need to scare/beat all of them — with the newly elected legislature, it’s down to a half dozen or so. AND, since the Con Con vote can be delayed until after November 2008, we can beat enough of these folks in the 2008 primaries and general to deny them even the 25% of the Con Con needed to put the question on the ballot.
<
p>
The best way to defeat bigotry and oppression is to stand up to it and kick its ass, door to door, town by town, district by district.
What a lot of people, including you Publius, don’t seem to understand is that the elections in 2006 that just happened are our final numbers, as they will be voting on this during the 2007-2008 session — nobody elected in the 2008 elections will be voting to advance this question.
<
p>
As things stand now there is a net pickup of 5 seats for the 07-08 session. The only thing that could change would be in special elections, Jim Leary and Dan Bosley for example, but they are both pro-equality votes anyway.
<
p>
Publius, while your intentions are well intentioned your point is not made.
<
p>
~~
<
p>
The one thing that I do want to mention is this talk of “process liberals.” The editors on this board and others made a mistake of endorsing the process — which more than anything else makes them part of a small intellectually “progressive” elite who sit at their computers while the other progressives are out knocking on doors, raising money and electing our leaders.
<
p>
It certainly isn’t brave to sit back and blog about how a process should be respected even if it restricts the rights of a minority. While the editors of this blog obviously have something to offer as far as providing an intellectual forum, this whole issue is an example of how many bloggers are unfit to make policy (or make smart policy recommendations) and unable to stand up for progressive values in the face of a good old fashioned philosophy discussion.
If there’s one thing I learned in 2006 it’s that incumbents would much rather run unopposed than have a challenger. There may be two or three legislators who would rather switch their vote and keep their seat rather than have to face a serious challenge in 2008. The trick is finding out which ones those are.
oppose them all, starting today.
If an “unknown” started today, wouldn’t they be known, in two years?
Look at Mitt Romney
Just preserve your convictions!
Peace
Rem
It’s not necessary to replace the
6257, though that might be aesthetically preferable. It is only necessary to convince138 of them to abstain or be out of the room during the vote.<
p>
Do you really suppose each of those legislators really cares so very much about this? So much so that they will be unwilling to finnesse their position with an abstention or absence, if the right pressure is brought?
<
p>
That sure isn’t the legislature I know!
Migraine is, of course, correct that the newly elected legislature is the one that will vote on the amendment if a vote is taken in the new session. This had not escaped me, but it is an important fact.
<
p>
One question, it seems to me, is: can the threat of serious opposition get a small number of these folks to change their minds/votes before the next Con Con? For purposes of persuading these “Yes” voters, the best thing to do is start running vigorous campaigns against them NOW, and schedule the Con Con at a time BEFORE the primary and general in 2008.
<
p>
If we can put enough pressure on enough of those who voted “yes” yesterday, we may be able to turn their “Yesses” to “Nos.” Didn’t a fair number of people who voted against marriage equality a year or two ago come around yesterday? Who is to say we can’t bring more of them around over the next year or so?
<
p>
Alternatively, scheduling the Con Con vote AFTER the November elections in 2008 would delay any vote on the statewide ballot until November, 2010. This would NOT put electoral pressure on gay marriage opponents in the legislature that takes office today, and from that point of view such late scheduling of the Con Con would be a minus. What it would do, however, is give our state two more years of experience with equal marriage. Those citizens who are still uncertain/on the fence would have two more years to see that the sky is not falling because gays and straights have the same rights to marry.
<
p>
OK, Migraine? Con Con vote pre-election in 2008 will mean pressure on the opponents to change their minds/votes or risk losing. Con Con vote post-election in 2008 will mean two more years for the positive change in our society and culture to take root in the electorate and make more likely a victory for marriage equality at the ballot box.
<
p>
And you can spare us your lecture about “process liberals,” the bravery of blogging, and the inability of bloggers to stand up for progressive values. Some of us actually can hold dear multiple principles — like democracy, constitutionalism, equality, and family — that are sometimes in tension with each other.
I share your hope but I do feel like we’re already at the bare bones of who’s voting which way. Take Marie Parente who wouldn’t change even in the face of a primary opponent or some of the others who easily warded off primary challenges.
Sorry Publius!
Other than the 6 already voted out, everyone voting yesterday will vote in the next ConCon.
The only hope is to scare them!
Let us find strong candidates in each of the 56 remaining districts today to begin challenging these Legislators.
Do not give them 1-2 years of peace.
Question them, challenge them, do not let up. Do it daily on every vote they take, on every comment they make and on every political statement issued.
Fight the local media that has traditionally supported the incumbents. Contact ALL advertisers you see in the offending publication. Ten local negative calls, with follow through threats of boycot’s will do more than any demonstration at the State House.
Also go to the Statehouse!
Throw it back at them, the politicians!
Make it personal for all of your family, friends, neighbors, coworkers and anyone else you accidentally encounter.
MAKE THEM FEAR taking a vote before the next election, because of our opposition! Then make them take it!
Remember it’s only 6 people in all of Massachuttes denying us our basic human rights!
<
p>
Peace and Love
Rem
The gay lobby and 3 million dollars didn’t work
<
p>
We will now expose this hate group for what they are;
<
p>
a bunch of whining losers with no respect for the constitution
<
p>
LET THE PEOPLE VOTE!
What’s the matter Paul?
<
p>
You got kicked off the blog at Know thy Neighbor for being overly abusive and hateful…now you come here to pick a fight?
<
p>
You are the loser you imbecile. You just fail to see it!
<
p>
You and folks like you shall NEVER vote on our civil rights.
<
p>
NEVER PJ….that’s a promise!
They’re always the ones who can’t stop thinking about gay sex.
I hope people who are settled on their positions on the moral and social aspects of this issue look at another side of it: the economic argument.
<
p>
We need jobs, we need more investment and innovation, we need tourist dollars. Promoting our state as a gay-friendly destination makes good business sense. Passing this amendment makes bad business sense. It’s like removing a popular item from the supermarket shelves: it’s just a dumb idea.
<
p>
So when you’re getting anxious over whether you want legalized gambling here; when you’re debating whether we should give tax breaks to businesses we’re hoping will move here; when you’re fretting over the brain and population drain we’re teetering on the edge of; when you’re gnashing your teeth and shaking your fist over the newly increased property tax bill you just received, remember this: gay-friendly communities thrive, while others merely survive.
I suspect most people don’t think about their bottom line ’til the first time they have to pay their tax bill!
I was talking to a friend who lives in Senator Moore’s district until next week: his mom is an elected official locally, and I suggested to him she should run for State Senate next time. He said he would if he wasn’t officially moving to Allston đŸ™‚ But anyway, they defeated Parente last time, so if they find some one good, they can get him out of there.
I think for most it is the word marriage that is upsetting. Ask Aunt Lucy or Uncle Ben, and it appears that the word more that the equal rights remain the main issues.
<
p>
The definition of Marriage, the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc. does not say “equal rights”.
<
p>
It is the Insurance Companies and family law issues that drive the need for a “married distinction”.
<
p>
As long as we have two sides waging war rather than dialog, the middle will continue to win.
<
p>
Massachusetts needs to compromise, which I hope our new Governor will bring forward in fairness and respect to all.
I’m terrible eager to know which part of yourself you are willing to compromise away in order to make your neighbors more comfortable.
so in order to satisfy the sensibilities of others, you are comfortable in taking away an existing legal right from a group of people that you, as a presumably heterosexual, do not need to similarly sacrifice?
<
p>
Unbelievable.
New Jersey and Connecticut wouldn’t even have the “compromise” they do today if it weren’t for Massachusetts. Our state changed the terms of the debate.
<
p>
If we go back on it now, other states like Rhode Island and New Hampshire, which are on the tipping point of granting some form of legal recognition to same-sex relationships, will tip backward.
I can respect your opinion; it’s one a lot of people seem to have. “Oh, if we only call them ‘civil unions’, that’ll make everybody happy.”
<
p>
Problem is, that’s just plain wrong. And not just on the “separate but equal” grounds, which I think is obvious. (You know the one, that “separate but equal” is never truly equal.)
<
p>
The other aspect here is that there are over ONE THOUSAND rights and obligations that marriage confers on couples that unmarried folks don’t have, no matter how civilly unionized they are. And that’s just in Federal law, nevermind state law, corporate policy, insurance, hospitals, etc.
<
p>
ONE THOUSAND.
<
p>
Unless you have a good, quick and easy way to amend ONE THOUSAND pieces of Federal legislation, it’s a lot easier to say “gays can get married” than it is to actually find a workable “compromise”.
“The Emperor of the Blackstone Valley” by former Senate minority leader Brian Lees for nothing. The Worcester & Norfolk senate district is one of the most conservative in the state, and his constituents love him. Attempting to unseat him would be a bloody affair. I don’t see it happening, especially if it’s a progressive candidate.
Let’s just make sure these 62 know that there’s a cost associated with a “yes” vote, and we should do anything in our power to make sure it’s higher than the cost of a “no” vote.
<
p>
Sen. Moore, by the way has the smallest campaign account of any of the Senators voting yes. If nothing else, a challenge will force him to raise money.
that Trav. will be re-elected senate leader?
<
p>
Wouldn’t this be a good time to find someone to oppose him?
<
p>
FAST!
it’ll be Therese Murray. Done deal.
…if ever there were a movie about her, would almost certainly be played by Felicity Huffman.
Check out how many of these were unopposed last election. All but a dozen or so.
<
p>
It’s pointless to say “I’m going to volunteer for your opponent” when so many of them are by themselves on the ballot.
<
p>
This, I think can be a test of the Massachusetts political blogosphere. Can we exert the appropriate pressure on each of these 62? Who would respond best if we threatend to recruit a challenger? Who would respond better to overtures from constituents?
<
p>
Our goal should not necessarily be to replace these legislators — next election will be too late to stop the marriage amendment. We need to figure out which seven or eight of these we can get to switch sides.
On the list.
<
p>
Just a thought after reading this a few times between today and yesterday: Quincy seems like an unlikely home to social conservatives, no? My brother lives there, so I’m around there often, and it has never struck me as old-school-Main-Street-values-USA. What gives?
Quincy is a blue-collar city, with a lot of people who either themselves used to live in Southie or Dorchester, or whose parents came from there. Pretty much like most of the rest of the South Shore. It’s not Bible-thumping Jerry Falwell social conservatism amongst the pols and their constituents on the South Shore, so much as it’s just an old-school traditional Irish-Catholic Lunch Bucket Democrat philosophy.
<
p>An article in MassInc’s CommonWealth Magazine did a great analysis of the state last spring, breaking Massachusetts into ten political regions, and does a good job of explaining Quincy.
It is sort of a statewide version (albeit more political) of Joel Garreau early 1980’s best seller, The Nine Nations of North America.
<
p>
Thanks!
Call or write your rep to let him or her know that you have been watching how they conducted themselves throughout this concon.
I’ve emailed mine to let him know that his courage will not go unrewarded. He was there for me, I’ll be there for him.
Are there 6 to 8 legislators in this list willing to switch? I would think that at this point, it’s quite unlikely. That doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t be tried, of course, but the unlikelihood of it occuring it does open up some new questions.
<
p>
For example, will the fact that a vote on the merits would definitely mean that this gets to the ballot (rather than simply move it to the next session) lead more legislators to support adjournment? And if the amendment does get to the ballot, would it be better to be on the 2008 Presidential ballot or the off-year election in 2010?
This would be much better for an off year election as it would be a local issue. In 2008, this would be a national issue, which is bad for our state, our party, and gay people in general.
This is much better an issue for 2008, when the Presidential election brings out more people. We want all those students who can’t be bothered to vote in an off-year to come out.
This is interesting, because I would have thought that having the vote during a Presidential year would be better. My thinking is that older people (much more anti-gay marriage) are more likely to vote in general, including off-year elections, and thus would make up a larger proportion of the off-year vote. In contrast, younger people could be mobilized by the Presidential race and play a major role in defeating the amendment in ’08.
<
p>
Given that the #1 indicator of a person’s position on gay marriage seems to be age, this factor might play a key role.
someone(didn’t get his name)but I didn’t recognize him, said that they have a no from all of the new incoming so they only have to change 4 or 5.
<
p>
How about getting someone from each of the districts (the 12) to get us reintroduced to just how willing their rep might be open to at least considering changing.? Their own constituent probably know then best. Once they get home to their own districts, they will have to face those voters. Some like my rep, a how we feel.re very active back in the district. I know he WILL hear exactly what’s on our minds and I’m sure he will have at least 2 opponents next election., but we can’t wait until then.
<
p>
So I’m sure a group as large as BMG can bring out someone who has that info.
Out of the 61 yes votes, 53 ran for relection last November and 42 were unopposed. Only two of the eleven “contested” races were even close. If just 10% of these incumbents had felt vulnerable enough to rethink their positions it would have changed the outcome yesterday. Why should anyone expect a different result if all these Reps and Senators are able to cast votes without any political consequences?
… is interesting but, IMHO, a little off-base.
<
p>
What this argument – and those so outraged by the Yes voters – fail to recognize is that the “political consequences” don’t neccessarily play out the way we liberals might hope.
<
p>
While opposition to gay marriage continues to decrease, particuarly in MA where we’ve actually tried it, I would challenge anyone to show me a poll that shows more than 33% support for the concept. Even in MA, the majority of people still oppose “marriage” for same-sex couples.
<
p>
The fact that only about 33% of our legislators supported the Amendment (allowing a public vote on the Amendment, I should say) is actually a testament to the political courage of many “No” voters. If the legislators actually voted exactly as 50.01% of their constituients would want them to, I would argue that the Amendment would have had almost assuredly have had more support.
<
p>
The secureness of incumbancy in the MA legislature actually helped those of us with the poltically unpopular view that same-sex marriage should remain legal.
<
p>
Something to think about (I hope).
<
p>
As mentioned in this article (I’ll look for the actual poll, but I remember this one), a Boston Globe poll a while back showed 56% of MA residents in favor of same-sex marriage. That number probably is higher now, and in any case is probably lower than the number that would be against the constitutional amendment.
There’s no way to unseat any of the SSM opponents before the next ConCon whether it’s held in ’07 or January ’08. We need to try to change votes, AND we need to look at the candidates that can be beat in ’08 to let them know their vote will not be forgotten. Here’s some seats to review:
<
p>
Donato, D-Medford
He barely beat a primary challenger in 2000 to get the seat. Same challenger (not necessarily a strong candidate) ran as an independent and got 34% of the primary vote in ’04. Any pro-equality Medford or Malden City Councilor interested? I’ll be a good fundraiser đŸ˜‰
<
p>
Casey, D-Winchester
Placed last (13% of the vote) in a recent primary for a special election to fill Sen. Charles Shannon’s seat (Jehlen won). Didn’t crack 50% in his home town. Could a progressive candidate win in Winchester? I think so.
<
p>
Spiliotis, D-Peabody
She had a pretty close primary race in ’06 (won with 53%). Can we wear her down?
<
p>
Brown, R-Wrentham
Barely beat McQuilken in a special election, then beat him again in ’04 by only 3 percentage points. Given Romney’s unpopularity, could the third time be the charm for McQuilken?
<
p>
Correia, D-Fall River
He’s running for mayor of Fall River in ’07 against pro-equality David Sullivan, D-Fall River. Correia ran for mayor over 10 years ago and got trounced 2-1. Has an OK chance of winning this time. If he does, he’ll be out of the legislature. With Goguen and Travis gone, Correia will be the least progressive rep. remaining. He’ll support a progressive candidate if it suits his needs (Patrick afer the primary). Can the lonely progressives in Fall River field a winning candidate?
Medford has changed considerably since Donato was first elected. Just ask Vinny Ciampa, who represented a neighboring district until the new demographics caught up with him in the 2004 primary. Charley lives in the district.
<
p>
Winchester – how do they keep re-electing Paul Casey? Of course, they never had a choice, and when they did they went for Pat Jehlen for the senate seat. There are at least three good, thoughtful progressives on the school committee who could focus this race on Casey’s anti-education and local aid votes.
<
p>
McQuilken was an awful candidate. And he ran twice. I think Brown was out there donating to McQuilken’s primary race. Jerry Wasserman would have won that district.
Ciampa was notoriously bad in responding to citizens; Donato is actually a very nice person and I enjoy talking with him even though I disagree with him.
<
p>
Somerville has a progressive Democratic organization which helped Sciortino; Medford does not.
<
p>
For his primary win, Sciortino did much better in his Somerville wards than his Medford wards. (I think he lost in Medford but I won’t swear to it.)
<
p>
Somerville has a more active political culture: there are at least issues in the town council elections. Medford’s town council elections are, at best, popularity contests.
“Somerville has a progressive Democratic organization which helped Sciortino; Medford does not.”
<
p>
Medford does have a very active group of committed progressives who have recently “discovered” each other and now has what I would call a well-connected progressive coalition. This group has made a difference in Medford politics.
<
p>
Sciortino may not have won Medford in the primary, but he didn’t lose by much either. Medford also voted for Jehlen in the final election by the biggest percentage (more than Somerville).
<
p>
Deval Patrick won Medford in the primary despite Mayor McGlynn, Donato, etc. endorsements for Reilly. And in the caucuses, Patrick secured a couple of wards despite procedural difficulties.
The illusion of power is sometimes more important than actual power.
<
p>
If a representative views the potential threat to incumbency as coming from an activist progressive base, the official will respond to that base – either by getting friendly or organizing in opposition.
<
p>
Also, the next primary election is the presidential primary – not the legislative primary. The presidential primary also has the town/city Democratic Committee on the ballot. Take control of your ward/town committee, you have a mighty big base from which to operate.
Like the rest of you, I was very disheartened by the results of the Con Con. But we have worked very hard to secure equal marriage rights for all of our citizens and we must not let it get us down. What we need now is a clear message to send to the average voter in MA that will mobilize the support we need. It seems clear that this amendment is going to go before the voters. I also feel that if we can delay the next legislative vote until after the election in ’08, then we can definitely use the extra two years to lobby the voters directly. It’s going to take all the time and money we can get. It also seems that time is always on our side when it comes to social justice issues. A few more Cardinal Laws, or Ted Haggards or Mark Foleys and we can begin to erode the blind obedience to homophobia that is the main weapon of the Catholic Church here in MA.
Just got 3 more today