Bay Windows reports that the state GOP party committee voted May 24 to instruct GOP party chairman Peter Torkildsen to write a letter to Republican lawmakers instructing them to back the marriage amendment to be considered at the June 14 constitutional convention.
Please share widely!
There are still some of those left in the legislature?
As you can see, it is mostly republicans that are voting against equality. One thing I have a hard time understanding is why democrats are voting against something that is a part of the party platform. Won’t they lose their ability to claim the democratic ticket next time around?
Sorry, I forgot the link:
<
p>
http://www.massequal…
We’re meeting with her next week. I don’t know what to expect from her vote, but I’ll get my two cents in.
Interesting to read that, while the motion passed to have this “if you please” letter written, it’s a limp missive at best.
Also, it looks like the more traditional falvor of republican is starting to wise up and speak up about how stripping away civil rights just isn’t good for getting elected.
Do you have a count on the votes? Is there a record of which Republicans at the GOP party committee meeting voted against the self-destructive, anti-civil rights amendment other than the individuals identfied in the Bay Windows report?
so the count may be difficult to get–mostly through eye-witnesses. I was told that Isaac Mass from Greenfield may have been another fair-minded person who stood up “for the record” and asked that he be counted as a “no.”
<
p>
We can email and ask committee members by going to the GOP website link http://www.massgop.c…
<
p>
I wonder how Peter Porcupine voted, will she tell us? Peter, you aren’t at work so you are free post today.
…in fact, I left thinking we had voted NOT to send the letter! Issac Maas stood up immediately when the motion was seconded to state his going on the record, which is why his remarks stand out. A request for a roll call failed, and was replaced with a motion to table and close debate.
<
p>
That said, if the letter was voted on, it was to allow it to go to the voters – NOT a measure of support for the amendment per se, which is what Bay Windows is reporting.
<
p>
I voted to close debate, which would have prevented the vote (and which I thought had passed). I would have voted to send the amendment to the electorate, but not to express support. There was nothing in writing, and a lot happening. As I said, I thought we had voted not to send the letter, and look forward to the minutes, myself.
if you, whip-spankin smarty, can come out of there thinking the decision made was the opposite of the actual decision made, wither the MA GOP methods are a shambles, or someone pulled a swiftie.
…and many things were not handled in the way they usually were when Crate was Chairman.
<
p>
An unwritten motion from the Floor was the least of it.
<
p>
Not wrong, but different. I’m probably not the only person who noticed a big change in the way the meeting was run, and indeed, how the members comported themselves.
Hating the gays has been a politically successful tactic in many states of this nation, and, doubtless, the national GOP’s consultants and leaders are advising all the state GOP’s to push hate-the-gays legislation and amendments. Their organization is so in love with obedience and following that the Mass GOP committee hasn’t got enough brains to see that won’t work in Massachusetts.
<
p>
Moderate people in Massachusetts don’t think homophobia is acceptable. Moreover, moderate people can plainly see that marriage equality has hurt hetero-marriages at all.
<
p>
The Mass GOP thinks it will grow by alienating moderates.
<
p>
Assinine.
Will this vote force pro-equality GOP lawmakers like Senator Tarr, Senator Tisei, to switch their votes? The majority of the GOP Senate Caucus is in favor of equality and its about split in the House so I am surprised by this motion and I doubt it is binding, if it is the GOP just shot itself in the foot.
It might influence legislators, but it won’t bind them.
What is the GOP going to do if the legislators don’t vote their way — refuse to help them the way they’ve “helped” Massachusetts Republicans over tyhe last two election cycles? Is there a deep bench I’m not aware of here?
…try to recruit someone to oppose any incumbent who refuses to toe the party line in the next primary election.
The state committee can’t even recruit enough candidates to run against Democrats, they’re not going to go after their own.
…I know full well that the Republicans did not field candidates in 2/3 of the electoral districts in 2006, and that the races are largely won in the primaries.
<
p>
On the other hand, there are conservative Dems in conservative districts who will vote against things like qual rights for gay people, and who will not be slapped down by the state Dem party.
And have been. It may not have come in the form of the state party, but constituents voting in primaries have certainly made their voices heard.
After many converstaions – the GOP has turned around and said – we need to support the people’s right to vote.
<
p>
At least that is what I am hearing.
A leading gay marriage opponent is urging top prosecutors to probe allegations that the Patrick administration has floated job offers to induce anti-gay marriage lawmakers to leave the Legislature before a critical vote next week.
<
p> Kris Mineau, spokesman for VoteOnMarriage.org, said he has heard persistent complaints about alleged job offers as lobbying has intensified in recent days. Lawmakers are scheduled to vote next Thursday on whether to put a proposed constitutional ban on gay marriage on the ballot in 2008.
<
p> ?From what we?re hearing (of the job offers), the level of this would warrant a look by the (state) attorney general or the U.S. Attorney?s Office,? Mineau said yesterday. ?If one were to read the laws about bribery in government, this would appear to fall into that category.?
<
p> Patrick previously denied making job offers after the Herald reported that he had made such overtures to lawmakers. A spokesman for Patrick said last night, ?Employment decisions in this administration are based on qualifications and the merits.?
<
p> Mineau said he has not directly contacted Attorney General Martha Coakley or the U.S. Attorney?s Office in Boston to ask for a formal investigation. He also declined to identify specific lawmakers who have allegedly received job offers, saying he does not want to subject them to more public scrutiny. Patrick is currently trying to fill several posts in agencies overseen by his office.
<
p> ?The pressure on our legislators is absolutely unprecedented,? Mineau said yesterday. He said the calls are not just coming from local gay marriage supporters, but from national officials such as Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-New York), Democratic Party chief Howard Dean and U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who held an event at the Park Plaza Hotel yesterday and a fund-raiser last night.
<
p> As of the last official count, the proposed ban would pass by seven votes, but supporters of gay marriage have been lobbying fiercely to turn the tables.
<
p> ?We?re continuing to work hard, and the legislators are listening,? said Marc Solomon, campaign director of MassEquality, which is leading efforts to keep gay marriage legal. ?We have had good discussions with a number of legislators who have not yet voted with us.?