Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Kill Bill S321 — twelve cosponsors have withdrawn

By

Does the above language mean that concerned school teachers or councillors are prohibited from having frank discussions with children regarding, for example, bullying or abuse without first getting parental permission?  What if the parent has very good reason to be embarrassed for what they inflict on their child?  It would be consistent with the typical massresistance sort of rhetoric — so I think it would be fair play — to ask your legislator why they are supporting a bill to provide protection to parents who wish to rape their children in the privacy of their own homes.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. of pressure from people in our area, Rep. Lew Evangelidis wrote in emails yesterday that he has asked his name be removed from the sponsor list.  I see he still appears on the list (via the link) as of this moment, but he has done some serious backpedalling in response to a scathing email barrage from some folks in my town.  Let’s see if he follows through and actually gets his name removed….

    • KTN has just sent out its revised email blast and we left Evangelidis on until he sends us a formal email.  Great work Holden area!!!

      <

      p>
      So chief sponsor, Senator Hedlund’s office is still holding firm to Senator Tisei being the “only one” for which Hedlund cannot find a record of a confirmation to be included as a sponsor of S321…interesting…

      <

      p>
      Also, I spoke with Paul Donato last night and he read me one of the emails that Camenker’s crew sent him after they heard that he was removing his name.  The gist of the email was as follows…”How dare you not support this bill you f’ing fudgepacker, I hope that you feel good about yourself when you go home tonight and tuck Carl Sciortino into bed!!”  I think I was close enough in what was read to me by Donato to put that in quotes.

      <

      p>
      Keep up the good work, and yes this is about children–of course it is.

      • No matter how I might feel about his politics, Paul Donato?s being called a fudgepacker pained me in exactly the way it does when the recipient of the insult is me or any other gay man.  It doesn?t matter that Donato is heterosexual, it still pained me because he suffered an attempt to make him something less than a human being.  That was the intention of Brian Camenker?s crew and it was the intention of S321, which sought (and still seeks) to rob all gay men of their humanity by baldly equating our sexual orientation with bestiality.  Fudgepackers, that?s what we are to the authors and sponsors of S321, so I sincerely thank Mr. Donato for dissociating himself from the bill publicly and unambiguously.

        <

        p>
        But come next week at the constitutional convention, will Mr. Donato understand that voting affirmatively on a move to deprive gay people of the right to marry in Massachusetts will make him no better than Camenker?s cronies?  Since the nineteenth century our federal and state court systems have continuously referred to marriage as one of the most intrinsically human institutions into which two people can enter.  When my partner and I married one another two years ago I was stunned by the wave of acceptance and public affirmation that washed over my somewhat jaded sense of self.  As many people do during their wedding ceremonies, during ours I felt more human because my partner and I were finally free to solidify a profound, intrinsically human bond with no fear retribution.  We were loved and understood.  We were human beings.

        <

        p>
        Within our social milieu all humans are presumed to be equal; however, the question has always been which of us is human?  Laws and regulations designed specifically to distinguish any aspect of my life from a heterosexual?s life are dehumanizing, so historically and logically I can expect to be treated differently when they are passed.  In short, when legislation such as this is introduced, I will be considered and treated subtly or overtly like the fudgepacker.  That said, I would ask Mr. Donato to think long and hard over the weekend to determine whether he will rise above the Brian Camenkers of the world by voting against the constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. 

        <

        p>
        The line has been drawn and it will be up to him whether or not to do unto his brothers what has just been done to him.

        • If i may suggest or even plead, that you just sign what you wrote here on BMG and send it off to Rep Donato.

          <

          p>
          And a version to all the other fence sitters and anti-ssm leges.

          <

          p>
          You hit the nail right on the head.  Are we human or are we not?  And if we are then anything but full equality is immoral, unethical and for what it is worth “un-American.”

      • I hope that you feel good about yourself when you go home tonight and tuck Carl Sciortino into bed!!

        <

        p>
        This would be funny if it weren’t so damn serious.

  2. EIGHT legislators have removed their names

    <

    p>
    Senator Tisei
    Senator Tarr
    Rep. Donato
    Rep. Fallon
    Rep. Hill
    Rep. Polito
    Rep. Evangelidis
    Rep. Perry

  3. …I haven’t paid much attention to it, but it is my impression that a state senator or representative is supposed to–if not required to–introduce a bill on request of a constituent.  If so, that would not mean that the legislator who submits the bill necessarily supports the bill.

    • Not required to, but it’s common practice to assist a constituent in this way, even if the bill has major problems.

      <

      p>
      You are definitely correct that the legislator submitting the bill does not necessarily support it. That’s why the “by request” designation is noted directly on the bill itself.

      • …I would infer from that that the legislator who submits the bill does not necessarily support the bill. 

        <

        p>
        I would also infer that those who are labeled as “co-sponsors” do support the bill.

      • Actually, submitting the bill is a requirement.

        <

        p>
        There really isn’t a penalty for not doing so and sometimes the legislators say the petition is incomplete and they can’t proceed.

        <

        p>
        More commonly though, they throw it in a hopper with a recommendation that it should not pass. Death to bill.

        <

        p>
        This is the “right of free petition.” The plain language explanation of it is at: http://www.mass.gov/…

        • “by request” of a constituent from Cohasset.  Hedlund says that after he submitted it that his office received requests from the other 25 leges asking to be put on it.

          <

          p>
          Senator Hedlund told KTN that often, “legislators will withdraw support” after they have studied a bill especially a “bad one” like this.  I asked Hedlund, if he would be removing his name from this bill based on his comment.  He said, “I don’t know yet, I haven’t read it.”

          <

          p>
          He claims to be “too busy thinking about the marriage amendment” to read the bill that he filed and is in the midst of all this controversy.

        • As the link you provided points out:

          <

          p>

          Although it is not mandatory that a representative or senator sponsor a citizen’s bill, the rules of the House and Senate provide that a petition must be endorsed for presentation by a member before it can be considered by the General Court.

          <

          p>
          So, as I mentioned, it is not mandatory. The “right of free petition” refers to the ability of citizens to file legislation. It’s not mandatory that any individual Rep. or Sen. file it on the citizen’s behalf, however.

          <

          p>
          In any case, raj is correct that co-sponsors must take an affirmative action to co-sponsor the bill after it’s been filed, but as we’ve seen, even that does not necessarily mean support, especially well before a bill even receives a public hearing (when the devil comes out of the details).

        • I worked for more than a decade under the impression that as a legislator, I am required to file any bill requested by a constituent. Two years ago I asked the House Clerk to explain the “right of free petition.” He said, in short, that I was mistaken.

          <

          p>
          The right of free petition allows any citizen of Massachusetts to file a petition for legislation with the Clerk of the House or Senate. The petition remains in the hands of the Clerk until a legislator, any legislator, files the petition as legislation, but no legislator is required to accept the petition.

          <

          p>
          I think that most legislators do not know this detail about the right of free petition. I also think that most would file any legislation with the notation “by request” if asked by a constituent.
          Rep. Jim Marzilli

          • Thanks for expanding on this. As a tech writer, I am often amused when attorneys and Objectivists among others get tied up such things. It is a curse of my profession too.

            <

            p>
            The rules of both houses in the General Court require it. Thus it is mandatory in reality. It’s kind of like traffic laws — state law that a pedestrian in a crosswalk with no active control signal has right of way, in contrast to the looser local regulation about a specific speed limit in a spot. Both have the effect of law, but only one is a law.

            <

            p>
            True enough that there is no constitutional specification mandating that a legislator file these bills (even if they diss them into oblivion). Many activists do know that legislators are compelled by the rules of their house.

            <

            p>
            Well, if a lawmaker is stupid enough to blow off a citizen passionate about some proposed change, and simultaneously thumb his nose at his house’s rules, he can say he really didn’t have to submit it.

            <

            p>
            In practical terms, it remains mandatory.

            <

            p>
            I’d like to see how many get submitted this way annually, how many of those come with the submitting legislator’s “ought not pass” comment, and how many total get into and out of committee. 

  4. of Desi Arnes in “I Love Lucy” when I think of Sen. Hedlund’s office. I remember that famous line, “Lucy! You got some ‘splainen’ to do!”

    <

    p>
    I so pine for the exlanation to how these legislators names could have been put on this bill as co-sponsors without their permission.

    • They don’t always read the bills.  Sometimes, legislators sign onto bill TITLES and concepts, with actual wording to follow – and the devil is often in those details.

      <

      p>
      Remember, that December deadline is brutal – 8,000 bills swirling around, mass co-signings, etc.  Late filed bills, (that is, a bill filed one day afer that December deadline, or for the rest of the two year term) goes to the Elephant’s Graveyard of the Rules Committee.  From which it cannot emerge without the gracious nod of the Speaker.

      • Brian Camenker and his crew at MassResistance wrote and lobbied for this bill S321.  I was copied on an email sent to ALL sponsors and their legislative aides confirming their sponsorship, thanking them for it AND asking them to sponsor FIVE other heinous bills.

        <

        p>
        This email was sent by MassResistance and signed by the psycho, Amy Contrada.  If you don’t know who she is visit http://www.massresistance.com

        <

        p>
        Enough with the excuses for “not reading the bill.”  These leges need to make good and remove their names from sponsorship.  Nine already have and I expect 17 more.

        • Here’s Rep. Evangelidis backpedaling on his signing of the bill in our local community newspaper The Landmark yesterday:

          <

          p>

          LETTERS, HE GETS LETTERS, AND EMAILS AND PHONE CALLS ? State Rep. Lew Evangelidis (R-Holden) has received a bit of reaction from constituents after a parental notification bill had a hearing in Boston recently. Senate Bill 321 would require parental notification of any school program involving human sexuality, sexual issues or alternative sexual behavior and would prevent schools from offering such programs in mandatory courses. It would also prevent schools from surveying students on personal or private issues. Evangelidis said Tuesday he was not an original sponsor of the bill, and he didn’t testify for or against it in a recent hearing. He did sign on to support it, he said, but it was one of 6,000 bills filed in a year. Evangelidis said he focuses more on the bills he sponsors. Parental notification, however, he said is something he wanted to support, as well as the dialogue that such a bill will elicit. Some constituents, he said, had contacted him before the bill became a hot button issue, saying they’d like input into what their children are being taught. “It seemed reasonable, so I signed onto it,” Evangelidis said Tuesday. “I support the belief that parents want input into their children’s education in the public schools.” Evangelidis said the idea of preventing teachers from teaching or responding to students questions was not, however, the intent. “I’m very open to rethinking that aspect of the bill,” he said.

          <

          p>
          Okay, sure, Lew.  We expect you to read the bills sent to you before you sign them.  I think it’s, like, the 1st or 2nd duty on your job description.  Read first, sign second–unless,perhaps it has a big “REPUBLICAN”  stamped diagonally across it so that you can be spared all that reading. 

      • …someone who votes on a bill without reading it, but I won’t excuse someone who signs on to a bill as a co-sponsor.

        <

        p>
        Sorry, Ms. Porc, but your excuse won’t fly.

        • I was answering a specific question – how can a legislator co-sign a bill, and then claim to have no knowledge of its contents.

          <

          p>
          It was not meant as a apologia for those who did co-sign and have now reneged.  Frankly, it is the single stupidest thing you can do as a legislator, to co-sign something which you haven’t read.

          <

          p>
          However – it happens all the time, and across a wide spectrum of issues, liberal and conservative.  I was merely making the point that it is a not uncommon practice, that BMG readers should be aware happens.

  7. This is fun, but just a sideshow. I hate to rain on anyone’s parade, but won’t anti-marriage legislators use this as an opportunity to triangulate? “Oh, I’m against that awful legislation, just as I am in favor of letting the people vote on [other people’s] marriage.”

    • It is important enough on its own, whether there was a marriage debate or not.  I don’t see it at all as a side show, and neither will those gay kids who will suffer if it passes.  However, it might serve to remind a few more constituents of the decidedly nasty nature of the anti-gay forces working against marriage equality in MA, and to act on that knowledge.  Sure, some legislators may do as you suggest.  But don’t you think they would have done so anyway?  I doubt that KTN’s excellent work on SB321 will have an negative effect whatsoever on the outcome of the marriage debate.  Only potential positive.

      • benefit from openness – We all do. I have watched gay friends come out and bloom – contributing their skills and abilities to the benefit of all of us instead of using that energy to  protect themselves.

      • A key piece of information for constituents to remember when talking to sponsors of S321 is that the Massachusetts Family Institute officially took a stand in support of S321.

        <

        p>
        So MFI, the chief sponsor of the the marriage amendment, is also supporting a bill which puts the “existence” of LGBT people in the same category as bestiality, by the bill’s own substance.

        <

        p>
        I think that is one of many important talking points when people are lobbying leges.

        <

        p>
        And don’t think for one minute that the “triangulation” theory doesn’t work in all directions.  Fences sitters on the marriage amendment, may have seen that equal marriage supporters, Sen Tarr and Rep Hill and others sponsored Bill S321 and could use this fact as an excuse to “stop further homosexual influence” on the Commonwealth, ie same-sex marriage.

        <

        p>
        Equal Rights, Dignity, Respect, Fairness and Doing What Is Right should not have to be second guessed by anything including a “more important” legislative action. 

      • Not too long ago I found myself wondering why in the early part of this century (21st) were survivors of clergy sexual abuse able to publicly speak and take action about the crimes committed against them?  Why not in the 60’s, 70’s, 80’s?  Why now and not at any other time in history was the synergy and social crucible prepared to contain the truth about clergy sex abuse?  The abuse has been rampant throughout time?  Why now?

        <

        p>
        My conclusion, my belief is that the revelations of clergy sex abuse were made tenable through the courage and painful (Matthew Shepard and others RIP) emergence of the gay community.  The opening in society by the gay community has been as pain-filled as any birth.  And like birth, it created a new opportunity for victims of sexual assault to come forward with the hope that their voices would be heard.  That they could come forward and speak their truth with a shred of hope that they would not be ridiculed, defiled or banished.

        <

        p>
        The extension of the work of the gay community is greater awareness and perhaps safety for some children.  I for one, feel an enormous debt of gratitude.  To fight back against censorship and inequality is a privilege and a joy.

        <

        p>
        SB 321, die a slow and painful death…let us not forget the darkness enveloped in your words.

  8. Rep. Stephen DiNatale (D-Fitchburg) officially withdrew his sponsorship of S321.  KnowThyNeighbor received the Representative telephone call at 10:15 AM this morning.
    The total sponsorship of S321 is now 16 with 10 official withdrawals of support.

    <

    p>
    Rep. DiNatale stated “upon further review of this bill” he realized that he no longer wants to be part of it.  He said that he was unaware that Brian Camenker and MassResistance was behind this bill.  KnowThyNeighbor thanked him for his leadership and coming forward to remove his name.

  9. Representative Bruce Ayers (D-Quincy) officially withdrew support of S321 today with KTN at 1:35 PM.

    <

    p>
    His Legislative Aide, Michelle, told us that “he is not exactly sure how his name ended up on S321, though he has supported Parental Notification Bills int he past.  But he gave it a ‘good read’ and has determined that he does not want his name associated with this bill.”

  10. I’ve written and called the office, no response.  I imagine that Poirier and Barrows will act in the same manner.  My luck that I have to deal with them on issues.

    • We saw Poirier at the Hearing on S321 proposing her own Bill H521.  She was also really chumming with the Camenker crowd before the hearing, so I would be surprised if she removes her name.

      <

      p>
      Regarding Barrows, however.  I spoke with his aide, Mike, in lengthy detail about the bill, S321.  Mike tells me “that parents deserve a voice” and Barrows is in support of S321.  That being said, Mike has been prompted to argue on behalf of S321 as an opt-in to sex education or health class.  I can’t tell you how many times I tried to get it through Mike’s head that S321 is not just about sex ed class but any and all curriculum and school activity.  I gave specific examples, however, Mike kept repeating that Barrows believes parents should be able to opt in to sex ed.  After about the sixth time, I felt that it was going no where with “Mike.”

      <

      p>
      I hope that helps you when you finally talk to Barrows. 

  11. even if this does get support by some, and does make it to a full vote and somehow does get passed (not likely). does patrick have to sign it into law? if so, I would think he would choose not to do so.

    <

    p>
    Is there really anything to worry about here?

    • And yes, it could become law only if he signed it, or if the lege overrode his veto (there are some other procedural maneuvers available, but that’s the big picture).

      <

      p>
      This bill isn’t going anywhere, don’t worry.  But the fussing over who is and who isn’t a “co-sponsor” has been entertaining — and quite revealing.  Kudos to KTN for their hard and effective work on this.

  12. It exactly means that the school can’t delve into the private lives of students, without parental permission.  There is nothing wrong with this legislation at all. It doesn’t take a village, it takes a parent.

    • So if a couple parents are intensely anti-gay, dressing up their prejudice as religion, and their kid is questioning his/her sexuality, and comes to me for help, I should stay out?  Tell ’em to get lost because of privacy concerns because, hey, if the kid kills him/herself, contributing to the astronomical rate of teen suicide, I can shrug it off because I didn’t delve into anyone’s private business.

      <

      p>
      Or do you just mean I should look the other way when I see bruises on my students’ arms and legs?

    • How are we going to teach literature in this brave new world?  Melville’s Billy Budd?  Huxley’s Brave New World?  Hawthorne’s The Scarlet Letter?  Poe’s “The Fall of the House of Usher”?  Williams’ A Streetcar Named Desire?  Faulkner’s Requiem for a Nun?  Faulkner’s “A Rose for Emily”?  Orwell’s 1984?  Gilman’s Herland?  Chopin’s The Awakening?  Forster’s Maurice?  Hardy’s Jude the Obscure?

      <

      p>
      The list goes on and on. 

      <

      p>
      Now, I’m sure as a parent with advanced degrees in English Literature, you will be able share with me how it is I can teach these texts in class since I’m not allowed to discuss the myriad matters that fall under SB321’s definition of “alternative sexual behavior” without a permission slip.

      <

      p>
      The bill is ignorant, bigoted, and ill-conceived.  Even the most die-hard of right-wing ideologues are getting the picture.  Why can’t you? 

    • It doesn’t take a village, it takes a parent

      <

      p>
      Unless you are going to grow your own food, generate your own power, dig your own wells, dispose of your own sewage, and educate your children from materials that you produced yourself, it takes a village.  Actually, it takes more than a village.  It may even take at least a village to birth the children that you are supposedly parenting.

    • Children need to know that the rights of all citizens, including GLBT are protected. How do we make sure our children know this if they are not taught this in schools? Furthermore, how do we reach the children who are contemplating suicide because they have identified themselves as gay? Are they just out of luck because some people are uncomfortable about the subject?

      <

      p>
      This is all simply an attempt to shield people (yes, children are people) from information. People are always better off when they are informed rather than ignorant.

      • to teach children things which go against their parents core beliefs.  It just isn’t.  On this you and I will probably disagree.

        • …It is equivalent to saying that, if Darwin’s theory of evilution* is contrary to a parent’s core beliefs (creationism, you know), that that parent should be able to prevent his or her child from being exposed to the theory in biology class.

          <

          p>
          The child doesn’t have to believe that the theory describes reality, but that doesn’t exempt the child from the requirement that he or she be exposed to it in order to successfully complete a biology course.

          <

          p>
          *misspelling intentional

        • Government has a compelling interest in educating its citizens.  Perhaps it’s news to you, but children are not chattel in the United States.  You may happen to hold the core belief that females are inherently inferior to males, but your children will be taught otherwise in school.  You may happen to hold the core belief that homosexuals are subhuman, but your children will be taught otherwise in school.  You may happen to hold the core belief that blacks should never have been freed from slavery, but your children will be taught otherwise in school.  You may happen to hold the core belief that Jews are evil and should be exterminated, but your children will be taught otherwise in school. 

          <

          p>
          If you want to indoctrinate your children in “core beliefs” you believe should be immune from scrutiny or challenge, then homeschool your child. 

          <

          p>
          Responsible parenting means teaching a child to think.  Society benefits from children educated to think for themselves.  You wish to indoctrinate, and that is not parenting, it’s fascism. 

        • wants to padlock his children’s minds.  libertarianism is ok for you, but not for them.  nice.

  13. is this being presented as a “gay” issue?  Am I missing something?  I don’t want schools soliciting information from my kids.

Archives