As the Globe reported this morning, it is still possible that the anti-equality amendment may still be voted onto the ballet when the next Con Con reconvenes in June. Why are the big GLBT organizations still trying to turn a handful of legislators rather than advocating for a vote to kill the amendment? They would only need a simple majority for that. I know about the SJC decision but look at what happened to the health care amendment. I?m one of the people celebrating my three years of legal marriage (10 of the non legal kind). The legislature should be pushed to just kill this thing. As Laurel says ?It?s wrong to vote on someone?s rights?.
Please share widely!
On the principle that no one should ever get to vote to take away the civil rights of a minority, i agree that the most ethical thing for the legislature to do is vote to adjourn*. However, I do see wisdom in a vote on the amendment itself if it will drive another nail into the coffin of a larger bigoted endeavor (that’s a reaaallly big if). But ONLY if the 151 legislative votes PLUS a good safety margin are ABSOLUTELY there. IMO this margin of safety is essential, since VOM has proven themselves to be unethical and happy to skirt legality. Who knows what they are offering legislators in exchange for saying say one thing now but doing the other at the crucial moment. But still, I think it is in principle wrong for such an amendment to ever come before the constitutional convention, so really any direct vote on it in a sense endorses such amendments as somehow legitimate and worthy of any consideration whatsoever. So when I sum it all up, I am most in favor of a vote to adjourn.
<
p>
*As they did with the health care amendment in January, so we know that it’s a-ok to do that. I wonder if in retrospect we will laud Robert Travaglini for killing the HCA in that way. He made it abundantly clear that the legislature is free to kill a petition initiative amendment by adjournment, and provided us with a fresh confirmation of an old precedent. Intentionally or not, he may have thus insured the continuance of marriage equality in Massachusetts.
We can still hope to kill this amendment outright, and our supporters could still use other parlimentary procedures if we don’t get the votes we need. We should explore turning the few opposing legislator’s votes from a position of strength, knowing that we have the majority’s power on our side.
…why the opponents of the amendment (which is a majority of the leadership) just do not boycott the convention. I don’t have the state constitution’s text before me, but IIRC the state constitution requires that there be a quorum (over 50%) of the legislators in order for a vote to be valid. And that is regardless of the number of votes in favor of a proposed amendment (which, by initiative petition, requires favorable at least 25% of the members of the legislature, whether or not they are present).
<
p>
Let me pull it all together. The initiative petitioners are entitled to the process: quorum and vote, and other parliamentary procedures. Nothing less, but nothing more. If the opponents walk out en mass, there will not be a quorum, and so any vote will be invalid.
This happened back in 1990 when there was an initiative proposed guaranteeing the right to an abortion. Supporters had the votes, but did not have a majority. The Catholic Church and the antichoice forces coordinated a walkout so that they could not achieve a quorum.