Mike’s got a preview of the ConCon festivities set for June 14. The wheeling and dealing doubtless have already begun, though I have to doubt the stories of Patrick’s administration offering jobs-for-marriage-equality. That sounds goofy, it sounds like an easy media “plant,” and Patrick didn’t fudge in denying it.
But let’s just look at the math here:
- The governor’s pro-equality.
- The Speaker of the House is pro-equality.
- The new Senate Prez is pro-equality.
- There were 62 legislators who voted in January to move the initiative on to the next ConCon. That’s 62 out of 200. We need to get down to 49.
- It’s believed that due to legislative turnover, there are eight legislators whose minds need to be changed.
So, are those legislators targeted for a switch by the leadership in the catbird seat? Or are they getting uncomfortable? I know this stuff is always delicate, and every legislator has his or her own motivations, but like sco, I hope the Big Three aren’t shy with the stick. Insofar as other deals can be worked out with these legislators, I’m fine with that; that’s how the sausage gets made.
But you can’t expect to throw much weight around just for being a member of the Hamlet caucus. These legislators are a minority of a minority, and it’s time for Massachusetts to jettison this divisive and misanthropic proposal. Time for endgame.
Much more from Bay Windows.
I don’t think we can kill this with an up or down vote. MassEquality has proven in the past to be inept at getting the job done. I don’t have a lot of confidence in their hopes now. I know a lot of you disagree with just killing this, but the fact is that the legislature killed an amendment on the very same day they moved this forward on the false pretenses that they had to vote on it.
<
p>
There can only be so much hypocrisy till the system is broken. It broke a long time ago. New rules apply.
<
p>
The rights of the minority should not be stripped away, this isn’t some street light we’re trying to allocate funds for, this isn’t a some ad campaign to bring more tourist revenue to Massachusetts. This is basic rights that we’re talking about here – 25% of the legislature shouldn’t be able to push forward an amendment that could write hatred, homophobia and discrimination into the constitution.
<
p>
If this were almost any other minority, it would have been dead last year and by a long shot. Because it’s gay people, we’re being thrown under the bus again. It’s time to stand up and say no more! This issue is over, it needs to be buried.
As of a few days ago, I heard from multiple sources that it would come up to a vote in the exact time frame of the June 14th date.
<
p>
The chances that they’ll vote on June 14th is high. The only way it’ll change is if the strategy changes.
I seem to recall that all the R’s voted nay in January. I thought it curious at the time. Are they still solid nays?
Here’s MassEquality’s breakdown of where things stand. Of the 57 legislators on their list of possible “yes” votes, 19 are Republicans. So the GOP is overrepresented on the wrong side of this issue, as compared to their overall representation in the legislature.
<
p>
That doesn’t mean that they’re all unpersuadable — rumors were flying a while back about Senator Hedlund having moved from “yes” to “on the fence,” and perhaps there are others too.
As usual, I was misremembering. Minority Leader Jones voted nay along with Brad Hill, but all the other (19 at that time, now down to 17) House Republicans voted yea. I guess Jones didn’t exert much effort trying to lead his flock to the true Land o’ Lincoln.
I’m sure Tom Delay would agree!
Well then, what does Mr. Jones do for the extra $20k per year that this “leadership” position adds to his paycheck?
Instead of just being told how to vote by Lida?
<
p>
I mention the Issue Briefs because Democrats are always asking to borrow them, so they can understand the issue.
<
p>
Did you know Rep. Jones runs a Mentorship program for new reps, to show them how to be effective for their district?
<
p>
The Majority Leader sees to it you get a legal pad and a folding chair in the bullpen. That’s it.
<
p>
He earns his stipend many times over. A better question – who IS the Majority Leader, and what do THEY do for the stipend?
From where do these Issue Briefs originate? Do they come from Mr. Jones’s office? Are they like Cliff’s notes for legislators who are too lazy to read the novel? Could you share one with us? Closing tax loopholes? Marriage? Bond issue?
<
p>
Mentoring and leading are very different concepts in my dictionary. How do you define ‘leader’.
Some very good Republicans voted against the amendment–Rep. Brad Hill, Senator Bruce Tarr and Minority Leader Brad Jones. The Northshore is VERY proud of its Republicans. The Democratic Rep. Tony Verga (Essex, Rockport, Gloucester), we are NOT happy with however.
Equality is in the air. Oregon just became the 18th state to bar discrimination based on sexual orientation in the workplace, housing and public accommodations, and the 6th state to offer full state-level marriage rights. And it just keeps getting better – New Hampshire governor Lynch is expected to sign the NH Civil Unions bill next week, bringing the tally up to 7 (8 if you count the DP legislation WA passed this spring, which is quite limited in scope). The NH civil unions (and WA DPs, for that matter) are a real milestone since they were passed freely, not ordered by the courts. Progress! Wouldn’t MA look pretty backwards if it allowed itself to be stripped of the equality so many other states are working so hard to attain?
We can all agree that the end justifies the means.
<
p>
Gotta remember that one.
…is preventing discrimination from being enshrined in the Constitution of the Commonwealth and the means is an exercise of legislative power that the SJC said was fully within the purview of the legislature to determine for themselves.
<
p>
Yes, you should remember that, remember it well!!
….be sure to do my dishes and clean my teeth before going to bed.
<
p>
Thanks, Mom.
Republicans should see promoting same sex marriage as “their” cause. It is about protecting families afterall. And being pro-LGBT certainly didn’t harm Congressman Christopher Shays (R)!
I did complain when they decided to not vote on the health care amendment last year. But the legislature and the courts have shown several times now that they don’t have to vote on amendments if they don’t want to. I see no reason to expect that the courts would decide any differently this time. Refusing to vote on this amendment would not be setting a precedent, it would be continuing to do things the way they have been done in the past.
All we need are 21 Senators to vote to remove Terese Murray as Senate President and replace her with a NEW Senate President with las bolas requeridas (male OR female!) to gavel this shut when it comes up on Flag Day. Flag Day!
<
p>
Political Suicide? Who knows – but it would be end of game. For a while.
<
p>
I wish it were that simple.
<
p>
Come on Senator Murray – you say you’re against this – prove it. Slam that gavel and get onto other things.
That is an unsupported false statement.
<
p>
Sorry- no deal – no amount of threatening from Patrick and the big wigs in the Democratic party will change these voTES
<
p>
Do you think we are joking about LET THE PEOPLE VOTE?
<
p>
Do you think legislators who have come this far for the people would abandon them now?
<
p>
You try to paint this as irrelevant and say let’s “move on”
<
p>
But you know what scares you down deep inside – you started the fight and now that its coming down to it – you are chickening out.
If the hatemongers really cared about “LETTING THE PEOPLE VOTE” then you’d be writing your letters-to-the-editor and taking out full-page “purple finger” ads about the healthcare amendment that was so quietly dispatched in January.
<
p>
This is nothing more than a red herring because you know, deep down inside, that if the ConCon votes up or down on the merits of the issues itself, you lose.
If you did indeed protest the dismissal of the other amendment then more power to you.
<
p>
It’s just that, when I hear the radio ads on WBZ, WEEI, WRKO, etc, when I read the editorials and letters in the Herald, the Salem News, the Lynn Item and the full page ad in the North Reading Transcript, the singular focus on the Marriage amendment is more than a little hyprocritical.
<
p>
Apparently the opponents of equality need to revisit the state Constitution if they want us to believe that the ConCon’s responsibility is to simply rubber stamp every initiative petition in the interest of “Letting the People Vote.”
To live in a pro-gay District…
<
p>
MassEquality has a great map that shows you where you could move to and know that your Senator and Representative are as bigotted as you.
<
p>
see map http://www.massequal…
But it must kill you to know that this will go to the ballot next year.
How about we put up to a popular vote heterosexuals’ right to marry? Or guys named Paul’s right to marry? Maybe just vote on homophobes’ right to marry?
<
p>
Please stop with the bullshit about “letting the people vote.” I don’t know a single equal rights advocate who wants to continue with this unAmerican, unconstitutional insult to democracy’s basic values.
<
p>
“Let the people vote” is a transparent and tired cover for homophobia. If you bothered reading either the Massachusetts or US Constitution, you’d see that neither of those documents discriminate according to genetics when it comes to every citizen of a state having the SAME rights and responsibilities. It doesn’t say just straight people. (And just in case you missed this point, only the state has the power to grant people the rights and responsibilities of marriage.)
<
p>
So if you guys would just, for once, be honest, perhaps there could be a more productive discussion about the issue.
<
p>
If we didn’t have to keep repeating the same damn fight every time we want civilization to move forward, we would be a much better society. Same things were said about women, same things were said about blacks. Cut to the chase: Equal rights prevail.
<
p>
And equal rights will prevail not only here, but across the United States. It’s going to happen.
<
p>
Oh, and by the way, do you think we are joking about EQUAL RIGHTS?
<
p>
“”Let the people vote” is a transparent and tired cover for homophobia.”
<
p>
I will remember those words forever. How very true they are.
Riiiiggghhhhhht
<
p>
That is why we want it ammended to read “marriage is between one man and one woman”
Or Noah Webster?
<
p>
“Marriage” is no longer universally defined as between a man and a woman. As a matter of fact, the American Heritage definition of “marry” is
No gender involved.
<
p>
As I said above,
and before, quoting the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution
See if you can follow the logic:
FACT: In the United States, only the state has the right to grant people the rights and responsibilities–the privilege–of marriage. (Civil marriage, by the way, is a precedent on this continent long before the United States was formed; it came over with the pilgrims, those paragons of religious tolerance.)
(With me so far?)
1. If you live in a state, you are a citizen of the state.
2. No state shall enforce or abridge the privileges of a citizen.
3. Therefore, it would be illegal to abridge the rights of GLBT citizens to marry–since the marriage is only legal when performed by the state or a person who applies to the state for permission to marry someone.
<
p>
1 + 2 = 3. Pretty simple math.
<
p>
Religious unions can be as discriminatory, intolerant, and exclusive as possible, because they are not subject to the law. And, of course, purely religious unions aren’t legal marriages, anyway.
<
p>
Any law defining marriage as between a man and a woman is eventually going to be overturned as being patently unconstitutional.
<
p>
I don’t understand what bothers you so much about something that is not your business. It’s obviously not bothered Massachusetts–we have the lowest divorce rate in the country, according to the latest statistics available in the 2004 US Census.
<
p>
Why do you hate so much?
It doesn’t sound as though any votes have changed since January. On the other hand, if June is deal time, and the leadership is serious about protecting marriage, a pro-vote rep has nothing to gain by changing position early.
<
p>
All that needs to happen is for eight of these legislators to take a walk during the vote. I have to believe that the leadership has the carrots and the sticks to achieve that.
<
p>
If they want.
I should know this, but is an absence or abstention as good as a “no” for the
opponents of the amendment? That is, does the yes side need 50 votes, or just
1/4 of those present and voting?
The constitution has “a least one-fourth of all the members elected” as the requirement.
<
p>
So a no-show is as good as a nay. But if there are vacancies, does this mean 1/4 of the whole 200, or 1/4 of the seats filled? (Of course, if there are fewer than 4 vacant seats, it’s 50 votes under either interpretation).
<
p>
Any constitutional scholars or lawyers out there.
Help me out here folks…..
<
p>
As I recall, on Jan 2, there was a vote to adjourn after the motion to reconsider which followed the vote on the discrimination amendment. The vote failed, obviously, but wasn’t it something that was closer than 105-95?
<
p>
Thus, with 5 seats changing from anti-equality to pro-equality, is it possible that a motion to adjourn this Concon would now pass? (regardless of what Sen. Murray has said)
<
p>
In other words, let’s suppose that the very first thing that happens in the ConCon is Sal DeMasi making a motion to adjourn. Are there enough votes?
<
p>
(or even sending it “off to committee for study?”)
It was 109 to 61. We easily have enough votes to make this Amendment go away via parlamentary procedures. What we are trying to get now is a straight out victory. If we get a clear defeat, it sends a message to the rest of the world. Our actions here determine the course of action for more people than you would care to imagine, and they all deserve equality. I strong victory sends out hope to others that their struggles are not in vain.
How hard is it to send the amendment to a study? Or adjourn before it is voted on? Or in some other way prevent the vote from even happening?
<
p>
My reading of the rules indicates that anyone in the joint session can move to adjourn at any time. But I don’t trust my understanding of the process, nor am I sure that I am reading the right rules.
<
p>
<
p>
So amending it isn’t an option, but it can be sent to committee. Adjourning or recessing looks like it only takes a majority. And I think they can postpone it until the next joint session.
There are a few ways to handle this issue. The one I would prefer is to see our best orators come forward, giving their best arguments, then voting on June 14th. I would like to see them end this instead of drag it out any further.
<
p>
Here is the link for the parlimentary procedures that could be used:
<
p>
http://bluemassgroup…
The proposed anti-equality amendment probably probably unconstitutional, according to Attorney General Martha Coakley. Emphases mine.
Everyone of us involved in this understood that legal would be our last resort. It is important to note that the ballot question (if not killed on the 14th) would probably go before the voters and may even pass before Coakley and GLAD et al would seek such remedy.
<
p>
It is important to remember also that MFI/VOM had initially tried to right the ballot initiative with the nullification of existing marriages, but were strategically advised to “not touch those same-sex marriages that already have occurred.” AG Reilly would have not allowed the ballot initiative to progress if our marriages were included in this attack.
<
p>
That being said, Coakley’s posturing is very timely. What is does is it let’s the Legislature know that they will not be “washing their hands of this” after June 14th. The Legislature is being told that it may be responsible for a long, drawn out, costly process of litigation at their and the taxpayers expense. Smart move AG Coakley.
Of course I agree with the sentiment, but the SJC has already qualified this for the ballot, has it not?
<
p>
There is language in some of the Goodrich opinions to support this idea (though as I read it, the logical extension of that line of thinking would be to say that same-sex marraige could be banned only if all marriage was). But as a practical matter, is the court, roundly criticized already, going to overrule a direct referendum?
<
p>
In any case, I do not see how this is helpful at this time. Unfortunately, we need to think in terms of beating this at the legislature and possibly at the polls. Does this help with either? It seems to me to reenforce the whole “let-the-people-decide”-versus-elite-judiciary meme. I mean, if there is a “vote on marriage” (which there jolly well ought not to be), I want to to be about the “marriage” part, not the “voting” part.
<
p>
So this strikes me as a Hail Mary maneuver, certainly worth trying if all else fails, but in the meantime just another red flag to energize the ant-marriage base.
<
p>
I hope I am wrong.
….cleared the amendment in that they said that it does not violate the rule against constitutional amendments directly oveturning judicial decisions. They did not say it was unoffensive to the state Constitution in general. Further, if this amendment were actually passed (which I am confident it will not be) the make-up of the SJC will be different than it was when it was cleared. One justice who dissented from Goodrige is no longer on the court.
anthony, if the amendment did pass, which judicial body would handle the examination of whether it conflicts with other aspects of the constitution? is that the sjc that does that? if a conflict was found, is it usually the newest edition that caused the conflict that is disqualified, or is newer seen as more pertinent and representative of the peoples thinking?
….the SJC that would decide. It could ultimately go either way in terms of final decision, either Amendment is so offensive to basic tenets of the Const. of the Commonwealth that it is null and void or, Amendment alters previous meaning of Const. of the Commonwealth and is permissible. There is no formula that is controlling. In constitutional terms, generally, the latest amendment is controlling but that is not always the case when civil and/or fundamental rights are being abridged.
Can you provide an EXAMPLE of this? I can’t think of one.
<
p>
IF the amendment passed, what would be the rationale for preventing the 2008 vote, when the SJC has already ruled that it did not violate the Const. to hold a plebescite (in Goodridge)?
<
p>
IF (a BIG if) the vote supported the DOMA, it would have to go not only to the SJC, which would have to say in light of the new amendment that its hands were tied, but to SCOTUS – what argument would invalidate the plebescite?
<
p>
BTW – off topic but relevant – killing the vote is merely fuel for a Federal amendment, which could be a real disaster.
has failed repeatedly. and now that the repubs are fleeing from the idiot in chief, even less chance than before. but please, do give generously to marilyn musgrave’s campaign. i’m sure it will be money well spent. đŸ˜‰