Lawless in Massachussetts

New Campaign slogan: They want their rights, do they care about yours? The legislature was obligated to vote. The leaders who promised it before the election, and then pulled this fast one, are corrupt to the core. A minority of the state legislarure (25 percent) has a constitutional right to put this measure before the people, provided it gains one-quarter of the legislature two years running. Can you recognize a clear violation of constitutional rights, and basic decency when you see it? The NYT today:

"Lawmakers in Massachusetts, the only state where same-sex marriage is legal, dealt what appeared to be a fatal blow Thursday to a proposed constitutional amendment to ban it.

In a flurry of strategic maneuvering, supporters of same-sex marriage managed to persuade enough legislators to vote to recess a constitutional convention until the afternoon of Jan. 2, the last day of the legislative session.

On that day, lawmakers and advocates on both sides said, it appeared likely that the legislature would adjourn without voting on the measure, killing it.

"For all intents and purposes, the debate has ended," said Representative Byron Rushing, a Boston Democrat and the assistant majority leader. "What members are expecting is that the majority of constituents are going to say, 'Thank you, we’re glad it's over, we think it has been discussed enough.'"

The measure had been expected by both sides to gain easily the 50 votes required from the 200 legislators as the first step toward making same-sex marriages illegal.

Kris Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute, which sponsored the amendment, called the recess vote a "travesty" and, waving a copy of the State Constitution, said the legislators had "just said that it's irrelevant."

As for whether the fight was over, Mr. Mineau said, "We're assessing the situation."

Gov. Mitt Romney, a Republican who opposes same-sex marriage, said the vote was a "triumph of arrogance over democracy." He said that he would "explore any alternatives" to try to force a vote, but that "my options are limited."

Eric Fehrnstrom, a spokesman for Mr. Romney, said: "The fact that they put this off until the end of the year makes it easier for them to adjourn. If they were giving consideration, I think they would have recessed until tomorrow or maybe Monday or Tuesday next week."

The action on Thursday came two days after Massachusetts voters elected Deval L. Patrick, a same-sex marriage supporter, as the state's first Democratic governor in 16 years. Democrats were also elected to all of the statewide offices, leaving the state’s Republican Party in shambles.

But the fact that the amendment had enough supporters to pass the first 50-vote round indicated that the issue of same-sex marriage remains divisive three years after the state's highest court ruled that such marriages were constitutional in Massachusetts. More than 8,000 same-sex couples have since married.

To bring the amendment before the legislature, the Massachusetts Family Institute had gathered 170,000 petition signatures. If the amendment were to get 50 votes, it would then require the votes of 50 legislators in another constitutional convention in the 2007-8 legislative session. Then it would be voted on in a referendum in November 2008.

Polls have generally found that just more than half of the citizens surveyed supported same-sex marriage, but about the same number wanted the constitutional amendment to come before voters.

The vote to recess followed a day of intense politicking and strategizing by supporters of same-sex marriage. Many legislators, even supporters of such marriages, had said they planned to vote for the amendment for fear that if they did not they would appear to be shirking their responsibility.

Gay rights advocates persuaded the legislators to first take up another amendment to ban same-sex marriage, one introduced nearly two years ago by a conservative lawmaker, but which was now considered by Mr. Mineau and other same-sex marriage opponents to be unable to pass constitutional muster because it would nullify the same-sex marriages that had already taken place.

Because that amendment had been initiated by a legislator and not a citizens' group, it would have needed 101 votes to pass. On Thursday it was defeated unanimously.

Arline Isaacson, co-chairwoman of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus, said the plan was to give the legislators political cover with their constituents, because they "can all point to the fact that they fully debated same-sex marriage and took a vote on it."

Same-sex marriage advocates also persuaded lawmakers to vote for a recess and not an adjournment because if they adjourned, Governor Romney could call them back into session.

Representative Michael A. Costello, a Democrat from Newburyport and a strong opponent of the amendment, said: "The way I looked at it was that we would kill it with a handgun or a hand grenade. It's never been proper to put civil rights on the ballot. So we killed it through procedure, rather than on substance."

The debate in the House was full of impassioned speeches.

"I'm 3,000 feet to the right of Attila the Hun, they tell me," Representative Marie J. Parente, a Democrat from Milford who had lost her re-election bid on Tuesday, told her colleagues. "But you're not. You're the other side. The gracious people, the liberal people, the socially conscious people."

For the 170,000 people who signed the petition and want a referendum, "does your graciousness end?" she asked. "Give the people the right to be heard."

Senator Jarrett T. Barrios, who is gay and married, told the chamber, "It's time for a little straight talk."

Pointing to his wedding band, he said: "You don’t have to live next to us. You don’t have to like us. We are only asking you to end the debate," so that "we will at least have the right to enjoy the same rights that the rest of you have enjoyed from time immemorial."

posted by maggie at 7:11 AM VOTE

11 Comments:

At 11/10/2006 12:47 PM,  Anonymous said...

While I am in favor of recognition of gay unions, be they marriage or civil unions, I wish that this constitutional ammendment of theirs would be sent to the voters. I would hope that it would be defeated there once and for all.
This so called resolution just doesn't seem final to me. It has to be resolved in a referendum it seems in order for one side or the other to accept that it's over. They should just put it to the bloody vote and be done with it.

 

At 11/10/2006 6:49 PM,  John Howard said...

I just checked the Constitution, and it says “until final action has been taken upon all amendments pending, the governor shall call such joint session or continuance thereof.”

So he is obligated to call for a continuance of the session, whether it is recessed or adjourned or whatever. I wish they just automatically advanced all the initiatives unless 75% were against it. That is obviously the intent of the Constitution.

 

At 11/11/2006 2:03 AM,  Anonymous said...

Get with it Americans! Even South Africa and Mexico City now recognizes gay marriage and in Scandanavia they've had it or something like it for years now -- stats are in....marriage is enhanced, there's more stability with gays marrying gays instead of divorcing their hetero mates when they finally realize BEING gay is their ORIENTATION -- not a choice. On the "let 'em vote" issue, few minorities ever gain their rights by a majority vote - especially when the majority is as ignorant about sexuality in general as most Americans are. We just assume we're smart -- but we aren't -- the STD/HIV transmission rates prove it.
It's not a matter of whether most people like it....it's a matter of constitutional privilege: Life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness.

 

At 11/11/2006 9:00 PM,  Anonymous said...

I am in favor of Gay marriage fellow anonymous and statistically speaking I'm inclined to agree with you. However, on your premise that gay marriage is a right I don't agree, sad as that makes me. If the government were to revoke heterosexual marriage rights tomorrow I don't believe a reasonable court could find an interpretation of the constitution that would force the government to be in the marriage game. Similarly I don't believe we should try and force this issue judicially. The initial steps that have been made in Vermont and Mass are wonderful but we have accomplished all (maybe even more) that we should by means of the courts. It is time for homosexuals to give up the quick and easy route that the courts (falsely) offer and take ourselves to the legislatures. I have faith that the people of Massachusetts would choose to permit their gay neighbors, friends and relatives to have government recognition of their unions if offered a vote. In many places the consensus just is not present but we are making progress. In New York and California we're slowly achieving recognition the hard way. If the abortion issue in America can teach us nothing else it's that the courts can not provide the final solution to these social issues. Homosexuals have achieved so much and come so far. But we endanger everything we have achieved by over reaching or coming off sounding as high handed and condescending as you do. As painful as it is, we have to slow down and give our neighbors time. I have faith that ultimately they will come around. But not if we try and force them judicially.

 

At 11/12/2006 1:10 AM,  The Elite Patriarchy said...

Dear anonymous at 2:03 a.m.,

If "ORIENTATION" is not a choice, then opposition to "GAY MARRIAGE" might not be a choice either.

Radical determinism cuts both ways.

 

At 11/12/2006 4:26 PM,  José Solano said...

—
Is pedophilia a choice? Is adultery a choice? Is homosexuality a choice? Perhaps sometimes. But we should not presume that humans are so weak willed that they cannot choose not to engage in such practices.

Thank you anonymous at 9:00 PM for your defense of democracy. It is possible that the people of Massachusetts would vote to call a homosexual relationship "marriage." But it can never really be a marriage since it fails to meet the essential criteria for marriage.

I think it's best for homosexuals to simply call their relationship what it is, a Homosexual Relationship. If the people then want to offer special benefits and privileges to those having sex with their own gender they may vote on it. It's clearly deceptive to use euphemism to obtain this end. I think the New Jersey court to a certain extent saw through this. They ordered to give them the benefits but New Jersey may withhold the term marriage which clearly does not apply.

Of course, it's best to let the people make this decision rather than have a developing elite oligarchy impose it.

 

At 11/13/2006 8:24 AM,  Anonymous said...

I'm sure most homosexuals would probably have been fine with some kind of equivalent but differently named setup in the beginning. However deep seated opposition (dare I say animus) towards homosexuality makes it extremely difficult. I remember how exercised people got when Vermont first handed down the civil unions there. At the time the line was that homosexuals should just be greatful they weren't being beaten and arrested any more. For good or ill the advance of same sex marriage has made the social conservatives more willing to accept some form of civil union style arrangement.

 

At 11/13/2006 12:32 PM,  Anonymous said...

Legislators are elected by the people, therefore any act of the legislature is an act of democracy. This canard that democracy is being denied is ludicrous. The people of Mass. have had elections where they elected pro-gay marriage legislators, Those legislators acted. It's democracy at work, as opposed to the democracy run amok where every issue becomes a voter referendum.

 

At 11/13/2006 10:51 PM,  Chairm said...

re: 11/13/2006 8:24 AM

Hawaii enacted reciprocal beneficiares about a decade ago. Its the solution to the problem.

Vermont-style civil union is stupid. That court-ordered arrangement would take the new thing -- which in actuality, and supposedly in the legal recognition, expressly not marriage -- and attach it to the hip of marital status.

Reciprocal Beneficiaries, on the other hand, is an idea that predates the courtcentric SSM campaign. It merely makes certain already existing legal benefits more accessible and more affordable. Doesn't touch marriage and is not available to combinations who are marriageable.

It is also a conservative idea that would benefit more than the few people who'd bother to SSM if it were made available. It is more inclusive than SSM and would easily gain adoption across state lines throughout the country, and probably beyond.

It is contitutional and would not depend on a few judges deciding for all of society.

re: 11/13/2006 12:32 PM

You missed the point about the SSMers twisting the neutral constitutional amending process.

The petitioners got more than double the number of signatures needed. They went through the judicial check and balances and had a legitimate amendment proposed. It needed only 25% of the votes at the constitutional conference; they had about 100 lined-up last time (yes this is the 2nd time) and would get at least that many again this time.

But now it seems the constitution has been rewritten by the new practice of SSMers.

Get at least 51% of the votes at a constitutional conference, then, you can get a count of the 25% you needed to put the proposed amendment to the People for a statewide vote.

This is a repeat, by the way, of what happened prior to the Goodridge decision. Don't mistake that for an act of democracy.

That decision emboldened the SSMers on the court. More than a year earlier, Justice Marshall had virtually predicted to a forum of lawyers -- including the SSM activists involved in the SSM court cases of Massa and nearby states -- the very decision she later wrote in favor of SSM.

The state aG did not enthusiastically argue the pro-marriage case; and Marshall cited a Canadian lower court decision -- ludicrously -- and replaced the recognition of marriage on the basis of her own odd laundry list of things that, according to her, was the purpose of the social institution of marriage.

Now you might feel compelled to call the judiciary's role as a bright example of democracy, but that would require gutting the meaning of democracy and replacing it with your own SSM-centric meaning.

The judiciary does not LEAD on public policy; it interprets the laws written by the People and their elected representatives. The system is not set up so that the judges make the change and society must react to it either with compliance or with a constitutional amendment -- with outright defiance and rebukes of the judiciary's role.

You can call the twice-repeated procedural obstructionism an "act of democracy", but that would require rewriting the state's provisions for democratically amending the constitution. And doing so without use of the existing amending process.

Apparently SSMers in Massachusetts in general have done both. And think it is the best thing since sliced bread, too.

The game is rigged. No minority dictates this way. This erodes liberal democracy and the principles of the very state constitution by which Marshall had conjured up a right to SSM in Massachusetts. The judiciary's role, and the role of the obstructionists, is extreme and illegitimate.

Counting a handful of electoral wins -- based only tangentially on SSM -- as the primary expression of democracy in this mess is like pointing to the guys who sells peanuts at the ballgame and declaring them to be the main attraction.

 

At 11/14/2006 8:32 AM,  Anonymous said...

I'll ignore the democracy strawman rant since I don't think anyone here has claimed that the judicial rulings on SSM are democratic. As for the RB's you mention they are extremely limited in what they can do and in some states will be annulled by the new anti SSM ammendments that forbid arrangements that even imitate marriage. Nor do RB's have anything to do with pensions, inheritance taxes etc... Maybe social conservatives could make some inroads in their case against civil unions and ssm if they'd switch to a positive message and actually suggest something to address the real problems that same sex couples suffer from. RB's seem like a pretty paltry fig leaf, heck conservative politicians don't even try using the things as cover.

 

At 11/17/2006 4:14 AM,  Chairm said...

I don't think anyone here has claimed that the judicial rulings on SSM are democratic

See comment at 11/13/2006 12:32 PM.

But it is interesting that you concede the rulings were not democratic.

Court decisions are supposed to be integrated into our democratic form of government.

The judicial activism that imposed SSM in Massachusetts is now defended by procedural obstructionism contrary to the state constitution. So the two are of a piece: the impostion of SSM is not democratic; the abuse of procedures in thwarting a legitimately proposed amendment is not democratic.

Yet this is democracy in action, as per the comment I noted above.

* * *

As for the RB's you mention they are extremely limited in what they can do and in some states will be annulled by the new anti SSM ammendments that forbid arrangements that even imitate marriage."

The last sentence is false. RB is explicitly nonmarital and is unavailable to marriageable couples. It is not marriage-lite. It is not marriage-like.

What are the limitations you say are extreme in RB? Remember, RB is not marriage-like so don't even both complaining that RB is not all that marital status is.

Nor do RB's have anything to do with pensions, inheritance taxes etc...

And you think that marriage is defined by pensions and inheritance taxes? If these are in need of reform, propose reforms to the relevant provisions in tax and inheritance laws. While we are at it we can consider how to remove the marriage penalty, too.

RB is no fig leaf. But civil union is a fig leaf for enacting SSM as if it were marriage in all but name. RB is upfront: not marriage and not linked to marriage and not merged with marriage.

RB is based on the trust relationship established by affidavit. Various provisions can evolve through legislation based on real problems rather than the blanket attempt to merge nonmarriage with marital status.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home