This is it, folks. The MA Constitutional Convention will reconvene at 1 pm on June 14th. At that time, it is probable that the anti-equality marriage amendment will be addressed. This amendment would, for the first time in Massachusetts history, strip a minority of civil rights. Specifically, access to civil marriage.
Friends & Allies, it is time to open your phone books and call each and every person you know in the Bay State, and make sure that they tell their legislators to kill this amendment in June. Do not rely on others to act for you. The pro-equality organizations are hard at work for us, but they can’t deliver the most powerful message a legislator can hear: direct words from a constituent. Use MassEquality’s great new interactive maps to see which legislators most need our attention. Contact infomation is provided. Tell them to kill this amendment.
Btw, the legislature proved in the last session that it is A-OK to kill an amendment procedurally by not voting on it. They did this with the Health Care Amendment. If the 151 votes aren’t there in June to kill the anti-equality amendment by direct vote, they can kill it procedurally with only 101 votes. There are no excuses for allowing this discriminatory amendment to proceed.
If your legislator seems committed to voting for this amendment, think about asking them this: Are there any other minority groups in the commonwealth that should have their citizenship limited? Please tell me which specific rights they should not have.
but there’s another state rep in my town — but not my precinct — who ain’t. Is there any pressure I can apply, or is the only worthwhile pressure that which comes from his own constituents (who also live in my town)?
Just let the legislator know that you aren’t a constituent but that you live in a town he covers and that you’ll gladly work your butt off for his pro-marriage opponent next year!
<
p>
And while you’re at it, tell Rep. Rush that quite a few of his constituents are with you…
Thanks for the call to action, Laurel. Couldn’t say it better. We need people to contact their legislators NOW and tell them a vote by the majority on a minority’s rights is wrong. We particularly need calls to legislators who haven’t been with us on this issue. MassEquality’s website has information and tools to make this easy. Please ask friends or family in these districts to contact their legislators and ask them to oppose the amendment. If your reps are on board, ask them to support a procedural kill if necessary.
Every time I hear someone say there is a Con Con that is the first thing that pops into my mind.
<
p>
That said, over 100,000 people signed a petition to get this on the ballot. It is the Legislatures duty to vote, so said the SJC. So they should vote.
with zero chance of personally losing anything as a result of this vote. Your concern for a just America slays me.
Do you believe that what you see as a personal investment makes your opinion on this matter count more? I’ll repeat that these are everybody’s rights whether they use them or not, so do we not all have something at stake?
<
p>
On a related note, does this mean my opinions on abortion are less important because I’m not a woman? By the same token, are prisoners’ opinions on sentencing practices the only ones that should count because they have the most to lose?
I’ll answer your question with the question I posed above to legislators. Are there any other minority groups in the commonwealth that should have their citizenship limited?
There are some citizens and Legislators who feel wealthy people should pay a higher tax rate than those less wealthy.
<
p>
That is, wealthy people, clearly a minority, would, under a progressive tax system be compelled by the majority to give up a greater percentage of property than those less wealthy. The majority get to pay a low rate, the minority group wouldn’t have that right, under a progressive system.
….of a minority for this and the below example that is implied is not the same as the definition of a political minority which is what Laurel is clearly referring to. The law discriminates against technically numerical minorities all the time and this is not improper. So to offer wealthy people, or trappers as minorities synonymous with gay people is disingenuous and insulting.
<
p>
Minority in the political sense is a group of people with one some or all of these traits – discrete and insular minority with a history of being discriminated against on the basis of an immutable or irrelevant characteristic who have a history of being excluded or marginalized from the political process and the benefits of civil liberty that are afforded to those in the majority.
<
p>
So, no, wealthy people, while perhaps a numerical minority, are not a political minority and to date progressive tax schemes are considered proper as per due process so there is no violation anyway.
<
p>
So the definition of minority requires a history of discrimination against that group by the majority ?
<
p>
Like say, when the majority votes in a high marginal rate that applies only to that group?
<
p>
I can think of no greater right than property rights. Squirm as you may with your nuanced definition, the wealthy are a minority; the majority routinely imposes greater tax burden upon this minority, and does so by popular vote and in accordance with due process of the laws and constitution.
…you can think of no greater rights than property rights is fun for you, but as you say – due process is served and the Courts are in agreement and entirely deferential to duly enacted progressive taxes. They are, however, not entirely deferential when it comes to due process and/or equal protection for gay people. Not the MA courts, or the courts of many other states or the varied federal jurisdictions including the SCOTUS.
<
p>
Also, and correct me if I’m mistaken, the SCOTUS hasn’t recognized gay/lesbian as a suspect class for Fourteenth amendment analysis has it?
<
p>
If not, then my definition of “wealthy” as a political minority, is at least as grounded in the law as your definition of “gay/lesbian” as a political minority. Meaning, the Constition doesn’t protect either from discrimination!
…..has defended the rights of gay people using rational basis review both under the equal protection (Romer v. Evans) and due process clause (Lawrence v. Texas) of the 14th amendment. The fact that they did not announce them to be a suspect class is not dispositive of the fact that gays are not a political minority and therefore synonymous with a mere numerical minority as you would indicate. So, the constitution does protect gay people from discrimination!
<
p>
You are wrong.
….by way of example that the SCOTUS also protected gender status under the 14th amendment for a time using rational basis review (e.g. Reed v. Reed and Frontiero) before announcing the intermediate level of scrutiny in Craig v. Boren. Does that mean that Women were not a political minority before the Craig decision?? I think not.
What it means is that you’ve picked the term “political minority” and you’re trying to define it, when it lacks definition.
<
p>
It seems to be in the eye of the beholder and changes depending on the cohesion of the group and society’s view of the group.
<
p>
A change in taxation to tax the rich takes property from a minority group. It’s legal, withstands due process, takes place at the federal level, yet it would if passed take property from a minority group. Whether its a “political minority” or not, means something to you, not me.
Romer v. Evans gives gay/lesbian groups, rich groups, poor groups, blonde groups, tall groups, bald or short the same protection:
<
p>
<
p>
Legislation that attacks any specific group, lacking rational reason is unconstitional–rational reason being, of course, the lowest hurdle. Romer doesn’t protect gay people from discrimination any more than it protects any group from an irrational law.
<
p>
This is a moot point of course, since as we both know the SCOTUS hasn’t ruled on DOMA. I do think it’s a fair point you must concede that under current law, gay/lesbian aren’t protected from discrimination under the US Constitition. If however, you wish to cling to the Romer v. Evans, be my guest, but it’s too broad a statement to make that Romer v. Evans stands for the proposition that:
<
p>
<
p>
It doesn’t. You’ve not even come close to distinguishing my “wealthy minority group” from your “gay/lesbian” group. Under Romer, either group would get the same protection.
<
p>
This discussion is further complicated because we aren’t talking US, we’re talking Mass.
<
p>
Laurel has ask which other minority group do you choose to take rights from? My answer is that there’s a movement afoot (graduated rates) to take a property right away from the wealthy–not a pitiable minority group, but a minority group nonetheless.
<
p>
Presently, by Constitution, we have a flat tax. Change that to a progressive tax, and you take property from the wealthy. Wealthy is a minority group, and BTW receive the same protection under Romer v. Evans as do gay/lesbians, blondes, or bald men.
<
p>
Pass an Amendment,recognizing all the nicieties of due process, that taxes the wealthy (or blondes or bald men) under a progressive scheme and you take away a property right from that minority group. Wouldn’t be illegal, but it would be discriminatory, and it would clearly take away a right.
<
p>
….aren’t progressive taxes unconstitutional?
It’s right in the Mass Constitution.
<
p>
Why aren’t they for Federal? Great question. It was! The SCOTUS said so in 1894 and the progressive tax was VOTED (you know, by people taking away rights from other people) into the Constitution by Amendment in 1913 by the 16th amendment.
<
p>
You really walked into that one.
nothing. Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co was not about progressive taxation, it was about taxation of rental income and NOWHERE in the opinion are wealthy people singled out as a class worthy of protection (I disagree with your take on Romer and you certainly can’t make any such claim with Lawrence). The 16th amendment was not a popular vote to take away rights granted to a minority.
<
p>
As far as the MA constitution goes, that is a provision for taxation, not a fundamental right grant to the wealthy class. Wanna bet on how fast an amendment to allow progressive taxation in MA would be thrown out if challenged on a substantive due process basis?
<
p>
Exactly correct.
<
p>
All the progressive tax statute would have to show is that there is ‘rational’ basis for the statute. Similarly, all DOMA has to show is that there’s rational basis for the statute. The ‘wealthy’ class has the exact same status as the ‘gay/lesbian’ class in such analysis.
<
p>
My point, again is taking away the right to marriage takes away a right from a minority class.
<
p>
The progressive tax amendment that was voted on, and failed, years ago, attempted to take away a right from a minority class.
<
p>
It’s wrong to attempt to take away the rights from a minority group. But, it’s happened before.
…that adjudication using the rational basis level of review is synonymous to equanimity of status of any group that has had its rights considered under it is without merit.
<
p>
And the basis of review for DOMA will be decided by the Court if a case ever gets to them. It might not be rational basis, you don’t know, just the same way that those who argued Craig v. Boren didn’t know that gender was goin to receive hightened scrutiny. Or, as in Lawrence they may speak about a history of discrimination and respect for meaninful adult relationships but still find that there is not even a rational basis so no hightened review is required.
<
p>
Just because a law discriminates against a numerical minority doesn’t mean it discriminates against a political minority. Wealthy people are not a political minority by any definition. The assertion that they are is comical.
What’s comical is that you look at an issue that’s important to a group, whether it be same-sex marriage or right to a flat tax, and conclude that their right can’t possibly be as important as yours, and that their right can be taken away by vote, but yours cannot. Y
<
p>
our reasoning: gay/lesbian is a political minority. Wealthy people aren’t a political minority. Your reason for the distinction? Make the argument. I haven’t seen it. A minority group is a minority group. You added ‘political’ to fit your agenda.
Memo
To
Self:
<
p>
This
far
down,
make
very
narrow
arguments.
which is that it is harmful to some to revoke this civil right, but harmful to none to let equality stand. why do something harmful?
Which right, exactly? It would be helpful if we kept civil unions in mind. Do you mean it would be harmful to revoke marriage and go back to pre-Goodridge, or it would be harmful to revoke marriage even if we go to Civil Unions that don’t grant conception rights? I know, you don’t want to revoke marriage at all, but it’s unfair to act as though there is no distinction between those two possibile futures.
I responded upthread. I said, it’s wrong, but it’s not unique. Votes to amend constitution often revoke a right.
<
p>
For example, I happen to think it’s harmful to revoke a wealthy taxpayer’s right to pay tax at the same rate as all other citizens, but the amendment procedure resulted in a vote to do just that just a few years ago.
……I’m not going to re-state it. Further, there is a fundamental right to privacy and intimacy that extends to gay people, so says the SCOTUS. There is no fundamental right not to be subject to a progressive tax. The distinction is plain. You choose to contend that wealthy people may be considered a political minority to further your point but you have no precedent to back that statement up. There has never been a constitutional decision that protected the rights of wealthy people as a class, and I suspect there never will be.
Can I quote you on that?
Fundamental right to privacy extends to wealthy people too. No diff. And wealthy gay people!
<
p>
<
p>
Conjecture away. There has never been a US constitutional decision that protected the rights of gay/lesbian people as a class beyond that of rational basis scrunity. It’s clear that it’s the same level of scrutiny afforded to all classes: wealthy class, the class of VW owners, the class of 2007….
….level of scrutiny does not imply equanimity among recipients. Lawrence affirmatively extended a right to privacy to gay people that was held not to exist in Bowers. It was a civil rights case. Gay people as a class were held to have rights that could not be legislated away, because the only rational basis for doing so was discrimination. Protection by the SCOTUS for a political minority and the Language in Lawrence bears that out. The level of scrutiny employed is not a determinative factor.
A far more useful definition of political minority is one based on whether people choose to be in a group or if they are just in the group because that’s how things are. Ethnicity is not a choice, neither is sex. Those are clearly groups that should not have their rights taken away because they are in those groups. There is some debate over whether homosexuality is genetic or not, but there are very few rational arguments that suggest it is a choice. Which means that homosexuality is a group characteristic that members of the group can’t decide to stop having. That is why they should not be singled out for discrimination.
<
p>
Wealthy people and people in particular professions have chosen to be members of those groups. If wealthy people don’t like paying higher taxes, they can choose to lower their income – few companies would ever refuse to give someone a pay cut if they ask for it. Can you find any reports of people deciding to lower their income as a result of progressive taxes? Apparently wealthy people don’t mind the discrimination enough to stop being wealthy people. They must be foolish enough to think that paying higher taxes is not so much of a burden that they can’t justify keeping their higher after-tax incomes.
Ok, except the Supreme Court in New York City Transit Authority v. Beazer found that Methadone users constituted a ‘political minority’ and in doing so found unconstitutional a statute that discriminated against them.
<
p>
I’m thinking Methadone users have a choice.
…incorrect.
<
p>
Here is the closing statement of Justice Stevens Majority Opinion –
<
p>
I had the holding reversed. My bad. But nevertheless, the SCOTUS rational basis testing as applied to the group of methadone users
<
p>
<
p>
Similarly, rational basis is the criteria with the ‘political minority’ of opticians (williamson v. Lee Optical); the local dairymen (Minnesota v. Clover Leaf Creamery). Likely, the same basis for scruntity that would be used for DOMA, or for any statute that affects any group other than women, elderly, or race.
….degree of scrutiny that defines the group it is the outcome of the decision. Methadone users not a political minority see NYCTA v. Beazer, Homosexuals are a political minority see Romer and Lawrence. I’ll say it again, level of scrutiny applied does not imply equality of status of all those groups subject to it. Point to the dicta or decision that contradicts that if you can.
<
p>
The words “political minority” have never been used by the Supreme Court in an Equal Protection Case. Don’t believe me, run the Lexis search.
<
p>
You continue to define a word that the courts have never defined in the context of Equal Protection.
<
p>
The words “political minority” have been used in precisely 10 cases and not one of them is an Equal Protection Case.
<
p>
Romer, nor Lawrence, nor any other case establishes gay/lesbians with any greater right–as a group–than any other minority group I care to name: bald men, blondes, optomitrists, gay/lesbians, methadone users, wealthy people, people with one leg……..
<
p>
It so happens that there have been cases, where the Court has utilized heightened scrutiny (race) and medium (gender). But for all others minorities, the rational basis test is the only one used.
<
p>
I have no decision that says all other ‘political minorities’ are entitled to the same rational basis test. I have no decision that says otherwise.
<
p>
It’s quite easy to imagine however, that if the Legislature passed a law that said, “Blondes can’t drive a car in Boston because we think that Blondes are stupid,” then the applicable Federal court would find that the violates the rights of that particular “policial minority”. Similarly, if the statute discriminated against Gay/Lesbian, same outcome.
….gays and lesbians have been repeatedly discriminated against in legislation and the Court and other courts blessed such discrimination for years and now, seeing the error of their ways are choosing to protect a political minority group that has been repeatedly and deliberately excluded from the political process by the majority. It has happened in the Federal Circuits, the SCOTUS and state courts around the country.
<
p>
Blondes, bald people, wealthy people, not so much. Gay people are a political minority by virtue of how they have been treated by the political process, not by virture of how the Courts weigh their decisions. Even if your blonde law were to be enacted it would not make blondes a political minority. You are desperately trying to hang your definition on the concept of rational basis as the decisive factor, and ultimately, how a tribunal chooses to weight the equities of a suit brough by a group of people is the least dispositive factory.
<
p>
Show me how bald people, blonds, wealthy people or opticians have been deliberately and repeatedly negatively impacted by exclusion from the political process for decades including their treatement by various tribunals throughout the country and then show me how their treatment by those tribunals fundamentally shifts to ensure that they are no longer going to be excluded from the political process by the forces of animus or discrimination(and those words comes right out of Romer and Lawrence) and you might have a point. You won’t be able to, however.
<
p>
And you’re desperately trying to hang onto the gay/lesbian group as a ‘political minority’ when, aside from you own definition, I see no guidance from the Federal Court what that means.
<
p>
I tried. I searched Lexis. Political minority as it pertains to equal protection in general or gay/lesbian in paticular, simply doesn’t appear to exist as a meaningful phrase.
<
p>
So what if gay/lesbians have or have not been discriminated against as a group. If the courts haven’t bestowed any greater protection to them than befalls any group (my blonde group for example “don’t hate me because I’m beautiful”), then they’re no more–or less–a ‘political minority’.
<
p>
Here’s the test. How will the SCOTUS review the constitutionality of DOMA?
….minority is my term. I never attributed it to the Supreme Court. I used it in order to distinguish gay people as a minority group from mere numerical minorities. When the SCOTUS is given what has always been an accepted rational basis for a law that was considered for decades to be constitutional and throws it out and says that the reason is insufficient and we find instead animus and discrimination then the group in question (gays and lesbians)are more of a political minority. Mere numerical minorities are not protected from the animus of the majority in opionions by the SCOTUS that discuss decades of discrimination and changing trends in the values and traditions of teh country and the western world.
<
p>
DOMA will be thrown out, not on equal protection or due process grounds. It will be thrown out because Congress has no power to make such a law. If ever there was an issue that belonged solely to the states that is in fact not substantially related to interstate commerce it is marriage and family law. I bet you a quarter that Scalia and Thomas even join the majority on that one.
No bet, I got no horse in the race.
<
p>
Hire me though and that’s different story. National Moot Court quarter finalist back in the day….
…with what you are trying to say, and in fact, discrimiation based on immutable characteristics is one of the bright line points in determining if a group is a political minority.
<
p>
It is, however, not an absolutely reliable test, since religion can be a choice and discrimination based on religious affiliation is unconstitutional.
marriage equality harms no one and helps strengthen families. why open up the possibility of it reverting back to a special right for heterosexuals again?
Since you ask. Civil Unions would strengthen families just as much as marriage would, without either stripping marriage of its inherent right to conceive children or granting same-sex couples conception rights. People should only have the right to conceive with someone of the other sex.
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
1) Civil Unions would strengthen families just as much as marriage would.
<
p>
Keep in mind that the only difference should be conception rights. Civil Unions like that would protect same-sex couples more. It would actually harm same-sex families to have conception rights, because it sets them up for exploitation by unscrupulous doctors and biotech companies, it disadvantages their existing children when their parents have to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on their doted-on experimental brother, it harms the children created (even if by luck they turn out healthy, they are harmed by having been exposed to the risk and brought into the world so artificially, just as any victim is harmed even if they are not physically harmed) and harms existing children who are not adopted while couples wait to see if it is ever possible, it harms young people today who are brought up to believe they will be able to have children with either sex, because it very probably will never be possible or legal. Civil unions would strengthen same-sex families more than marriage because the benefits of having conception rights are far outweighed by the costs, not only to society and the children, but the couple themselves.
<
p>
And I haven’t even mentioned the fact that civil unions could be recognized federally and in all the other states much more easily if there is a clear and important distinction between civil unions and marriages. Being recognized federally would give direct benefits to real same-sex families today, and insisting on marriage harms those families in a real way. Not everyone is in high school, you know.
<
p>
2) without either stripping marriage of its inherent right to conceive children or granting same-sex couples conception rights.
<
p>
Those are the only two outcomes possible given same-sex marriage. The first outcome happens if married same-sex couples are not allowed by any labs capable of attempting same-sex conception to actually attempt it, or if state or federal cloning laws are expansive enough to prohibit same-sex conception (like Missouri’s law is). If those marriages are equal to all marriages, then all marriages can be denied or prohibited from having a child together. Currently all marriages (even same-sex ones) have conception rights and cannot be prohibited from conceiving together.
<
p>
The second outcome is likely when same-sex conception is being defended as a right of same-sex marriages. It might be much harder to regulate unscrupuous doctors and protect couples from exploitation if same-sex marriages are held to have the same conception rights that all marriages have.
<
p>
3) People should only have the right to conceive with someone of the other sex.
<
p>
We should all be created equal, from the union of a man and a woman. None of us should be products of a genetics lab.
<
p>
please delete the above comment, I reposted it below with proper html.
<
p>
And anthony, I’d be interested to know what you felt was wrong, if you’d be so kind as to explain.
…you have even written on this site regarding this issue. All wrong.
1) Civil Unions would strengthen families just as much as marriage would.
<
p>
Keep in mind that the only difference should be conception rights. Civil Unions like that would protect same-sex couples more. It would actually harm same-sex families to have conception rights, because it sets them up for exploitation by unscrupulous doctors and biotech companies, it disadvantages their existing children when their parents have to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on their doted-on experimental brother, it harms the children created (even if by luck they turn out healthy, they are harmed by having been exposed to the risk and brought into the world so artificially, just as any victim is harmed even if they are not physically harmed) and harms existing children who are not adopted while couples wait to see if it is ever possible, it harms young people today who are brought up to believe they will be able to have children with either sex, because it very probably will never be possible or legal. Civil unions would strengthen same-sex families more than marriage because the benefits of having conception rights are far outweighed by the costs, not only to society and the children, but the couple themselves.
<
p>
And I haven’t even mentioned the fact that civil unions could be recognized federally and in all the other states much more easily if there is a clear and important distinction between civil unions and marriages. Being recognized federally would give direct benefits to real same-sex families today, and insisting on marriage harms those families in a real way. Not everyone is in high school, you know.
<
p>
2) without either stripping marriage of its inherent right to conceive children or granting same-sex couples conception rights.
<
p>
Those are the only two outcomes possible given same-sex marriage. The first outcome happens if married same-sex couples are not allowed by any labs capable of attempting same-sex conception to actually attempt it, or if state or federal cloning laws are expansive enough to prohibit same-sex conception (like Missouri’s law is). If those marriages are equal to all marriages, then all marriages can be denied or prohibited from having a child together. Currently all marriages (even same-sex ones) have conception rights and cannot be prohibited from conceiving together.
<
p>
The second outcome is likely when same-sex conception is being defended as a right of same-sex marriages. It might be much harder to regulate unscrupuous doctors and protect couples from exploitation if same-sex marriages are held to have the same conception rights that all marriages have.
<
p>
3) People should only have the right to conceive with someone of the other sex.
<
p>
We should all be created equal, from the union of a man and a woman. None of us should be products of a genetics lab.
<
p>
of the kind of people who want to vote away other people’s civil rights. thank you john. your posts are almost as good as the westboro baptist church’s picketing of military funerals in showing how nonsensical the anti-equality stance is.
Link people to them. Let people know just how insane some people are, that they actually think conception should be limited to a man and a woman, and we shouldn’t let labs create children any other way. I dare you.
<
p>
Justify the harm you cause to actual couples by insisting on same-sex conception rights of marriage instead of federal recognition of civil unions. You are doing waaay more harm to gay people than I am. I am protecting gay people, both from exploitation and by working for federal recognition, you are harming them and their children. I am protecting children, you are using them and exposing them to extreme risk.
<
p>
(Oh, you’d be interested to know that when I passed out my flyers at the ConCon the other day, I was asked by no less than five VOM people if I went to church and given three “Jesus loves you” pamphlets. There was more hostility to me on their side of the street, with lots of them convinced that I was handing out “crap” and telling their friends not to take it. And even though I explained how these civil unions wouldn’t be marriage in all but name, many still said they could never support civil unions, and were very concerned for my soul for apparently not understanding how evil homosexuality was. So while I don’t mean to diss them, I point out that I’m not one of them, they don’t want me because I do not condemn homosexuality, but am only trying to stop genetic engineering. Kris Mineau gave me a much warmer reception though, and seemed interested in what I was saying (apparently no one had ever bothered to pass on my emails or flyers to him). I explained to some people that they don’t have to support civil unions, but they should definitely support the egg and sperm law. We don’t need every homophobe or transhumanist to be on board to make the compromise work, just the rational middle. Mark Solomon also took a few minutes to talk with me, and you’d be interested that he didn’t bother to ask what it had to do with marriage, he immediately asked why same-sex conception would be a bad thing. He seemed to listen when I explained about genetic imprinting and said he’d look into it, and seemed interested in the idea of a federal compromise.)
…handing out crap. Noone but you believes that gay marriage equals genetic engineering. You are a party of one and you are wrong.
He understood that gay marriage equaled conception rights using technology, although he wasn’t as convinced as me that it necessarily required genetic engineering or was something that should be stopped. Is that what your point is? That same-sex conception is a right, regardless of marriage? Or that it isn’t “genetic engineering” per some definition of yours? Or is your point that we can have gay marriage without granting them a right to try to have children together somehow? If that is your contention, then you are saying that marriage doesn’t grant a couple the right to try to have children together somehow, which not only changes marriage at its core, it denies the basic civil right of man to marry and procreate.
<
p>
And you know, just calling me as you’ve been doing is a blanket unsupported statement and it reduces the level of discourse and interferes with the basic objective of developing bold and constructive ideas. Please raise the discourse and entertain the questions more thoughtfully, so that readers can know how it is wrong, exactly…
…bold and/or constructive idea here. You are wholly and completely wrong.
the bold and constructive idea is a federal egg and sperm civil union compromise. Equal protections, but no genetic engineered conceptions. Same sex conception, like all genetic engineering, should be prohibited. Same-sex couples should have equal protections. The idea is to do both of those at the same time with one federal compromise.
Suddenly, with one popular vote, the rights of a small industry–trappers, a minority–to use leg-hold traps were eliminated in Massachusetts.
How do you propose to explain to the generations of the future that in the 21st century we still did not know any better than to vote of civil rights? This amendment was bought and paid for. It is not the will of the people of this state no matter how many times the uber-right tries to say it is. The petition fraud is being overlooked, even by Governor Patrick himself. I am beside myself with the realization the sometimes the truth just doesn’t matter. Sometimes being right isn’t enough.
<
p>
Discrimination in any form is wrong, and a vote on marriage is just such an example. Look me in the eye as an individual, and tell me what I did wrong before you take away my rights! I am a man, not a number, or a stereotype!
<
p>
Looks like a might blogstorm brewin’ on the horizon. Mighta be a big ‘un. Ayup.
…the SJC said that in there opinion the legislature had an affirmative duty to vote, but that the right to determine the responsibility to the Constitution of the Commonwealth vis a vis a legislative vote belonged to the legislature. This means, of course that the SJC’s opinion, while persuasive is not controlling. It is up to the legislature to decide. If they choose not to vote they will not be violtating the Constitution, they will be making a determination fully within their power to make. Just like they did when they killed the health care amendment. Where oh where are all of the right wing organizations that will seek to punish the legislature for ignoring their duty on that one? Oh, right. There aren’t any, because the lip service paid to constitutional impropriety is just that, lip service and nothing more.
<
p>
It is very intersting to me that when the SJC actually has the power to rule, like in Goodridge, they are to some activists who abuse that power, but when they release some dicta in a case that they dismissed without actually ruling on the same people who want to nullify their actual power run to support their lack of power.
<
p>
Anthony,
<
p>
MFI and VOM were very successful when they tactically used the SJC to get a reading on “the vote.” Though the Leges wre not “required” to vote on merits, many realized that if they did not, VOM would launch even more of a nasty PR campaign against them.
<
p>
Do you really think that all of MEQ’s “pro-Eqaulity” legislators are ACTUALLY pro-equality? I certainly don’t, I talk to them, they are positioning for the “vote of the least resistance” as KTN likes to call it.
<
p>
The maps are really well done.
<
p>
Looks like maybe 60 out of 200 votes to advance the ballot measure. Does anyone have a sense of how many of the 60 or so can be (or have been) persuaded to flip? Seems like a tough challenge to get it to 49.
i think that between oustings in the last election, retirements and special elections, there are 58 legislators on the to-do list. i am not aware of any of them announcing a change of heart/reexamination of the 14th amendment as of yet.
Laurel,
<
p>
I have come to really respect and admire your posts.
<
p>
Anytime that I see or read of someone standing up and fighting back for what is right like you do, I get energized again.
<
p>
We need to start taking a very aggressive arm with these leges. I am concerned about those 15ish that the gay lobby thinks it can sway but also the others who are against equal rights and are not on anyone’s list (expect VOM’s thank you card list that is). We need to be aggressive–an historical talking point keeps coming up in my head, “never forget.” These anti-equality leges need to know that LGBT and supporters in their district will “never forget.”