Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

The People Have Spoken

By

Through their representatives. This is a much stronger affirmation of support for marriage and strong families than ever was achieved in the past in the legislature because it was done properly, according to the Constitution and our laws: without procedural shenanigans.

The people have spoken, through the great tradition of representative democracy that is the bedrock of our system of government. Their position is that Massachusetts supports marriage and strong families.

This is an excellent result for our communities, our families, and our state and its economy. It wasn’t achieved by accident, and I echo David’s congratulations to everyone who pushed to make this result happen, especially MassEquality.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

      • The opinion of the Legislature of the people who placed them in a position of authority has been demonstrated – 45 to 151.

        <

        p>
        Sheesh… 

        • …Ms. Porcupine.

          <

          p>
          I wonder how many registered users they have at RMG, in comparison to the number of registered users at BMG.

          • Posting volume is fairly low on RMG, I think mainly because many (most?) of them spend a lot of time over here. 

            <

            p>
            The two recent gay marriage threads pulled a lot of people out of the woodwork, but the longest of the them only hit 45 comments…

          • …was amused to read that it was advocating term limits for MA state legislators.  I don’t know the bios of those who voted “yes” on the amendment.  But surveys tend to show that those who are against same sex marriage tend to be older, and those who have no problem with that tend to be younger.

            <

            p>
            I would take from that, that most of those legislators who voted “yes” today are probably older and, like Marie Parente (defeated last fall) have been around the statehouse for long enough that they would be term-limited out.  Making way for younger legislators, who would likely be even less interested in voting for an amendment like this.

    • Too bad they won’t be able to find a single factual example to back up their innuendo.

      <

      p>
      They seem to be taking the advice of Dylan Thomas. Let them take their fight elsewhere…

      <

      p>

      Do Not Go Gentle Into That Good Night

      Do not go gentle into that good night,
      Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
      Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

      Though wise men at their end know dark is right,
      Because their words had forked no lightning they
      Do not go gentle into that good night.

      Good men, the last wave by, crying how bright
      Their frail deeds might have danced in a green bay,
      Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

      Wild men who caught and sang the sun in flight,
      And learn, too late, they grieved it on its way,
      Do not go gentle into that good night.

      Grave men, near death, who see with blinding sight
      Blind eyes could blaze like meteors and be gay,
      Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

      And you, my father, there on the sad height,
      Curse, bless me now with your fierce tears, I pray.
      Do not go gentle into that good night.
      Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

        — Dylan Thomas

    • …not to know that legislators trade their votes for favors all the time.

      <

      p>
      Then again maybe they are.

      <

      p>
      It will be fun listening to Howie Carr whining today.

  2. It’s not like there were 149 votes against the amendment, 49 votes for it, and 2 mysteriously away from the State House.

    <

    p>
    151 votes against the amendment means that there were no parliamentary dodges or legislators ducking away from the vote that day – that, at most, less than the necessary 50 Yeas were possible.

    <

    p>
    151 is a stand-out number.

  3. after Wisconsites passed their ban in November 2006.  I’m overwhelmed by today’s vote.  I didn’t know what it felt like to win this kind of fight until now.  I’m proud to call MA my new home!  Thanks to everyone who has been here for a long while fighting to make this (not) happen.

    • if too many pro-gay rights activists move from their home state to MA, it’ll be harder to win the fights in other states.

      <

      p>
      It looks like New England will move toward equality within 5-10 years, and NY will likely join.  But, what about the rest of the country?

      <

      p>
      That’s a discussion for tomorrow.  Today, we just celebrate.

      • …the Knight Initiative seems to be an impediment to enactment of same-sex marriage via the legislative route.  In the near term, it would have to come via the courts, and the CA supreme court isn’t known for being particularly liberal.

      • The fight has already been lost in most states. Strategically, the best thing to do is probably to leave things as they are for a while (or gently push states to adopt civil unions and recognize MA marriages). 5 years from now, MA will have plenty of data showing that gay marriage doesn’t cause problems for society. At some point, the DOMA will be repealed. But the country isn’t ready for that yet. If it came to a vote now, an anti-gay marriage amendment would make it into the US constitution.

        <

        p>
        Rhode Island is considering recognizing gay marriages from MA. If they start doing that, it shouldn’t take much work to eventually convince them to allow homosexuals to marry without crossing the border. There are several states that allow civil unions, or are likely to soon. After people in those states accept the idea of civil unions, it will be time to start pushing for marriage in those states. Perhaps in another 10 years there will be enough support to start pushing for gay marriage nationally. But until there are 13 states that would vote down an anti-gay marriage amendment, it is probably better to not take chances. 50 years from now, people will wonder why this was such a difficult fight. Time is on our side. Eventually, gay marriage will be legal throughout the country. But I think patience is key.

        • to ask two people in love to wait.

          <

          p>
          I’m not saying you’re wrong on timing, just pointing out that “eventually” we’re all dead… even gays who are in love.

          • …societal change moves at a glacial pace.

            <

            p>
            It took almost 60 years to go from Plessy vs. Ferguson to Brown vs. Board of Education.  And the sad fact is that that “separate and equal is inherently unequal” would not have been enacted in many states or even at the federal level legislatively even in 1954.  Even in supposedly liberal states, desegregation orders from the courts were not taken kindly–recall Louise Day Hicks and the white riots at South Boston High School when black kids were bussed in?

            <

            p>
            More to the SBHS point, one of my (Southern) uncles noted sardonically that Northerners were telling them to do something that they weren’t willing to do themselves.  And that was before I moved to Massachusetts.

  4. And maybe Kris needs to update the message;

    <

    p>
    “Citizens in 45 states have weighed in on the definition of marriage either through the legislative process or by constitutional amendments. VoteOnMarriage.org vows to continue the fight for the people of Massachusetts to be heard on this issue.”

    <

    p>
    I think we can make that 46 states since our legislative process was just gone through and finished.

    • Mineau should ask his friends Vinnie Ciampa and Marie Parente if the citizens have been “heard on this issue”.

      <

      p>  – Dan

  5. This has to be the worst.

    <

    p>
    The people have actually been prevented from speaking, to be precise.  What has happened is the exact opposite of your title.

    <

    p>
    If you wanted the people to speak then you’d be for a vote.  Clearly that was not the goal here, so fine, but to claim that the people have indeed spoken “through their reps” is silly at best.  My goodness.

    • …you were all for an up or down vote as long as it was in your favor?  Quel suprise!

      • just because I think the title is an obvious lie doesn’t mean the end result really matters to me.  It doesn’t, really.  If it went to a vote it probably would have lost.  But the title is ridiculous.  I’m trying to help you guys with “reality” here.

        <

        p>
        What I dont like is when unelected judges invent entirely new laws.

        <

        p>
        I also don’t like when the legislature discards the importance of the will of the people, as they did with the income tax rollback vote.

        • …no sense whatsoever.  The people have spoken, just not how you think they should.  Oh well.

    • for these senators and representatives.  Oh what, you thought you could just skip the legislative elections and show up to take your one bigoted vote next November?  Sorry, don’t work that way. 

      • the post is overdue and should have been made after the election, with regards to the election.

        <

        p>
        When Bush invaded Iraq, did you proclaim that the people had spoken then?

        <

        p>
        When congress tried to vote no confidence in AG Gonzalez was that the people speaking?  When it failed was that the people speaking?

        <

        p>
        Come on, this is absurd.

            • whether same sex couples can marry? 

              <

              p>
              Perhaps the energy you expend trashing the process, the victory, the lives of perfect strangers, and the notions of inclusion and fairness should be directed towards examining your own motivations.  That might be more productive. 

              • I dont in fact care, hardly at all. 

                <

                p>
                I do care about judicial activism, which I hate.  And I do think that stopping things from going to a vote, or for that matter ignoring the outcome of a vote (see: income tax rollback) is not good.

                <

                p>
                Are you so over the moon about events that you can’t see the lie in the title?

                • that you can’t grasp the basics of a representative democracy? 

                  <

                  p>
                  Newsflash:  you don’t get to redefine our system of government because the complexity gets in the way of your simplistic worldview.  The people have spoken; they elected their representation and their representation voted.  Period, the end. 

    • 1) We live in a representative democracy, not a direct democracy.

      <

      p>
      2) The MA Constitution was followed to the letter.

      <

      p>
      If you dispute either proposition, which apparently you do, I’d love to hear the reasoning.

      • I objected to the characterization of a prevented popular vote as “the people have spoken”.  I did not as far as I can tell dispute the constitutionality nor the legality of what happened. 

        <

        p>
        Maybe you could say something like “the elected representatives of the people have spoken” and since this is a representative democracy, even though sometimes things end up being put to the popular ballot, in this case the elected representatives felt that the people didn’t need to speak on the issue (or prevented it for whatever reason, who cares)

        <

        p>
        The peoples’ representatives have spoken, does that work for you?

        <

        p>
        Or would you prefer the peoples’ republic has spoken?  (relax, joking)

        • the amount of correspondence the legislators have gotten on this issue?  The people have most definitely spoken about this.  They didn’t have a direct vote today, but the legislature would not have voted in such overwhelming numbers if they did not have the support of their constituencies.

        • So what you are really objecting to is the technical title of this particuar Blue Mass Group post. Good, since there is no argument against the two statements I mentioned above.

          • How bout actual title, or just title.

            <

            p>
            Yes, because the title is a falsehood and it does a disservice to everyone, both those who didnt get to vote and those who claim victory and the high ground, by injecting a brainless lie.

            • both those who didnt get to vote and those who claim victory and the high ground

              <

              p>
              Well, equal marriage did claim victory (by perfectly constitutional means), does have the high ground (which will become clear in a few years), and if you don’t like how your duly elected representatives voted on this issue, you’re free to work and vote against them in the next election.

        • The title says “The People Have Spoken” followed by the first sentence “Through their representatives.” it’s pretty clear that what you are suggesting Bob should have written is exactly what Bob did write.

          • “The people have spoken through their representatives.” The problem is that Demolisher only likes democracy when it produces the result they want.

    • a representative democracy which means we elect people to run our Government and vote for what we want them to. Thus the reason the peoples voice has been heard. If you look at poll after poll after poll the people did not want gay marriage banned in the state. that is why some of the votes that switched came from the Person who voted for the amendment the first time getting voted out in November.

    • with respect to the nature of a representative democracy–which is the sort of government we have in his nation–is appalling. 

  6. but please don’t say that the people have spoken.  You know that they have been gagged.  You know they have been throttled.  You know that the masses have been rebuffed.  Please stop pissing on me and calling it rain.

    • just what kind of a government do you think we have, RegularJoe?  do you ever put your hand over your heart and pledge allegiance “…to the REPUBLIC…”?  look it up, that thingie called “republic”, then understand that any golden showers raining down on you are a result of your own pissing into the wind.

      • you don’t know if I am pro or anti.  Stop jerking your knee, it makes you seem narrow minded.  All I am saying is that the people were prevented from speaking.  You know it, I know it, everyone knows it.

        <

        p>
        BTW . . . Personally, I am against plebicites when it comes to civil rights. 

        • sure you are, and that’s why you insist that the people should have been able to “speak” at the ballot box, because you’re against plebiscites.  LOL!  talk about credibility problems! LOLOLOLOLO!!!!!!!!!!!!!

        • On the one hand, you say the people’s voice has been gagged . . . throttled, which to me sounds like you think the pro-discrimination amendment should have been put to a popular vote.

          <

          p>
          And then you add,

          BTW . . . Personally, I am against plebicites when it comes to civil rights.

          <

          p>
          Can you see why people are confused about your position?

          <

          p>
          Maybe you are just a little vague on how our democracy works. Read the reply a little further down to cmfost’s post for a concise explanation:

          We live in a  representative democracy which means we elect people to run our Government and vote for what we want them to. Thus the reason the peoples voice has been heard. If you look at poll after poll after poll the people did not want gay marriage banned in the state. that is why some of the votes that switched came from the Person who voted for the amendment the first time getting voted out in November.

          <

          p>
          Definition of republic (as in, ” . . . and to the republic, for which it stands . . . “:

          a political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them.

          <

          p>
          If you were truly against civil rights by popular vote, you would be celebrating this vote as a real example of democracy in action.

    • … The petitioners are a svery small group.  This small group, of course, is entitled to put together the petition for the amendment.  The rules let them.  They followed the rules.  This small group of people, if they meet a small minimum number signatures, gets to have the legislature consider thier amendment for inclusion on a ballot.  We think they got these signatures.

      <

      p>
      The legislature, on the other hand, is elected by a great number of people.  They are elected to exercise their judgment, keeping in mind the will of their constituents, in consideration of legislative matters.  Part of that is legislative consideration of such petitions.  They can resolve their consideration one way or the other.  The threshold is very small for such a petition to clear this hurdle.  With such a low threshold, when a measure like this gets defeated, it is a statement of the profundity of the negative aspects to measure.

      <

      p>
      So… a great deal of people elected legislatures to represent them in consideration of a petition by a small number of people.  As a group, they concluded the merit of this petition by a small number of people is so low that it shouldn’t clear the low threshold for it to advance.

      <

      p>
      Not only have the people spoken (through their representatives), but they have spoken resoundingly.

      • and since you do not impress me as a stupid person I am inferring that you are just acting that way.

  7. the people were prevented from speaking.  I don’t agree with the majority who believe in banning gay marriage.  But a title the people have spoken is rubbish.  It is false and misleading and everyone knows it.

Archives