CLT
UPDATE
Thursday, July 13, 2006
"Democracy lost today," again and
more
State lawmakers ducked the gay marriage issue again
yesterday, delaying until after the November elections a vote on a
constitutional amendment that would restrict civil marriages to
heterosexual couples.
The early evening, 100-91 decision to put off the vote until Nov. 9 came
after hundreds of demonstrators on both sides of the contentious issue
argued their cases - often loudly.
"Democracy lost today," said state Rep. Marie Parente (D-Milford),
speaking outside the House chamber. "It doesn’t matter where you are on
the issue ... I’m a supporter of the people’s right to vote." ...
State Rep. Thomas Sannicandro (D-Ashland), who supports same-sex
marriage, said he voted for the delay so fellow lawmakers could vote
without the pressure of having to face voters soon thereafter.
"They will absolutely vote their conscience because there’s no campaign
issue or no election in front of them," he said....
A previous bid for a constitutional amendment fell short when
legislators adjourned a Constitutional Convention without taking up the
matter.
The Boston Herald
Thursday, July 13, 2006
Pols do chicken dance over gay wed
The Legislature on Wednesday afternoon dealt a huge blow to
thousands of citizen activists pushing a plan to make health insurance access a
constitutional right, rerouting the petition to a committee where most on Beacon
Hill believe it will die.
State House News Service
Wednesday, July 12, 2006
Health care plan assigned to
constitutional convention committee
Who says politics is not for the faint of heart? By our count
there are at least 100 unabashed cowards toiling away in the state Legislature.
Voters would do well to keep that in mind when they head to the polls on Nov.
7....
It was the ultimate easy-way-out, a path well-traveled by this bunch. Lawmakers
running for re-election avoid the tough vote right now. Then, barely recovered
from their election-night victory parties, they’ll reconvene on Nov. 9 to
consider the amendment without fear of political reprisal. Subtle, guys - real
subtle.
Yes, Senate President Robert Travaglini, who chairs the convention, promised a
vote on all agenda items, but warned that a packed agenda meant it might not
come yesterday. And the marriage amendment was almost last on the list.
But what’s to stop them from reconvening tomorrow, or next week, or the week
after that? Vacations? Nah, they’re in session until July 31. That leaves
politics, pure and simple. Lawmakers have acted in their own best interests here
instead of in the interests of the people who elect them and deserve a swift
resolution to this nagging question (not to mention an opportunity to vote on it
themselves).
A Boston Herald editorial
Thursday, July 13, 2006
Political cowards rule on the Hill
No principled argument justified the Legislature's decision
late yesterday to delay portions of the state Constitutional Convention --
including consideration of the amendment to ban gay marriage -- until after the
state elections in November. Still, delay is far better than killing the
proposal by refusing to take it up, or by other legislative trickery....
When they do vote, and we assume it is when, not if, the legislators should vote
their conscience, not simply pass the decision along to the electorate. The
constitution asks for their judgment on what amendments should go to the voters,
and they should exercise it.
A Boston Globe editorial
Thursday, July 13, 2006
Delayed, not denied
Legislators face a difficult tactical choice next week,
however, with many advocates of gay marriage urging the leaders to scuttle the
amendment by ignoring the constitution's own mandate and ducking a vote
altogether. This would be a mistake, and short-sighted. Legislators should not
violate the constitution in order to protect it....
But the tension that now exists will not be relieved if opponents of gay
marriage, who chafe at the narrow SJC ruling, are denied a legitimate vote in
the Legislature because of political trickery.
A Boston Globe editorial
Saturday, July 8, 2006
Vote the ban down
Chip Ford's CLT Commentary
The good news is, during yesterday's Constitutional
Convention, state Sen. Stanley Rosenberg's attempt to amend the
constitution to
drive a stake
through the heart of the initiative and referendum process was
overwhelmingly defeated by a vote of 3-189. During the brief
debate, state Sen. Edward Augustus, Jr. (D-Worcester) stated:
"This would radically raise the threshold required for folks to access
the ballot. Folks on both sides of the spectrum opposed this."
The bad news is, by the end of the day the House and
Senate in Constitutional Convention assembled, drove a stake through the
heart of the initiative and referendum process regardless -- by ignoring
constitutional amendments proposed by citizens from both the left and
the right, simply by disregarding the people they allegedly represent
and their own constitutional duties, again.
Even the Boston Globe in its Saturday edition called
for an up-or-down vote on the gay marriage amendment once and for all.
Its editorial reminded legislators: "The wording in the
constitution is clear, that such proposed amendments 'shall ... be laid
before a joint session of the two houses,' and that a failure to vote
requires a governor to call a special session."
Of course by today the Boston Globe editorial elites
were tripping over themselves struggling desperately to find, even
stretch, some principle to overcome their glee at the outcome, calling
yesterday's legislative corruption of the process "Delayed, not denied."
A majority of members in the Con-con voted to send a
citizens' proposed amendment for universal health care to a notorious "study
committee" crypt, angering those on the left, and; voted to postpone the
gay marriage amendment for which citizens collected over 170,000
signatures, thwarting those on the right.
Senator Augustus, folks on both sides of the spectrum
opposed these typical legislative scams as well -- especially after having
done all the work to reach that point, collecting those tens upon tens
of thousands of signatures in the very process you seemed to defend.
But then why would the Legislature need Sen.
Rosenberg's amendment to make collecting signatures more difficult when,
by mere fiat, it can simply ignore its constitutional mandate and screw
the people time after time -- and failing that, simply repeal any law
that makes it to the ballot and wins, such as our tax rollback, the
clean elections law, the charitable deductions law, etc.?
Why go on record by voting to directly gut the
initiative and referendum process itself, when legislators can through
stealth and arrogance simply crush the fruits of a successful citizens' harvest in the end?
 |
|
Chip Ford |
The Boston Herald
Thursday, July 13, 2006
Pols do chicken dance over gay wed
By Emelie Rutherford
State lawmakers ducked the gay marriage issue again yesterday, delaying
until after the November elections a vote on a constitutional amendment
that would restrict civil marriages to heterosexual couples.
The early evening, 100-91 decision to put off the vote until Nov. 9 came
after hundreds of demonstrators on both sides of the contentious issue
argued their cases - often loudly.
"Democracy lost today," said state Rep. Marie Parente (D-Milford),
speaking outside the House chamber. "It doesn’t matter where you are on
the issue ... I’m a supporter of the people’s right to vote."
Massachusetts became the first state to legalize gay marriage in May
2004, after a ruling by the state’s Supreme Judicial Court.
Opponents gathered 170,000 signatures supporting a constitutional
amendment they hope would end gay marriage despite the SJC’s stance.
The proposed amendment can only go to a popular vote if supported by 50
or more lawmakers at one Constitutional Convention this legislative
session and another in 2007. Both representatives and senators attend
the conventions.
Many observers believe the measure would have received the 50 votes it
needed if legislators had voted yesterday.
State Rep. Thomas Sannicandro (D-Ashland), who supports same-sex
marriage, said he voted for the delay so fellow lawmakers could vote
without the pressure of having to face voters soon thereafter.
"They will absolutely vote their conscience because there’s no campaign
issue or no election in front of them," he said.
Still, Sannicandro expressed concern about putting gay marriage on the
ballot. "If we do leave it to the people, it is a discrimination vote,"
Sannicandro said.
Advocates on both sides of the gay marriage debate pledged to spend the
next four months advancing their positions.
"We’ll do our best to make (lawmakers who voted to recess the Con Con)
accountable for the Nov. 7 election," said Kris Mineau, president of the
Newton-based Massachusetts Family Institute, which supports the
constitutional amendment to ban gay marriages.
Marc Solomon, campaign director for MassEquality, a group working to
preserve gay marriage, said he is not worried about any forthcoming
negative campaigning against pro-gay marriage lawmakers. He said such
efforts failed in the 2004 elections.
The 100 lawmakers who voted to recess include House Speaker Salvatore
DiMasi and Senate President Robert Travaglini.
Gov. Mitt Romney, a supporter of the proposed amendment, said in a
prepared statement: "In a democracy, the people are sovereign. Tens of
thousands of citizens have petitioned the government for the right to
have their voices heard. They have played by the rules."
A previous bid for a constitutional amendment fell short when
legislators adjourned a Constitutional Convention without taking up the
matter.
Return to top
State House News Service
Wednesday, July 12, 2006
Health care plan assigned to
constitutional convention committee
By Michael P. Norton and Jim O'Sullivan
The Legislature on Wednesday afternoon dealt a huge blow to thousands of
citizen activists pushing a plan to make health insurance access a
constitutional right, rerouting the petition to a committee where most
on Beacon Hill believe it will die.
Members of the House and Senate voted 118 to 76 to send the proposal to
a special committee of the Constitutional Convention. The Convention
recessed Wednesday until November 9, two days after the statewide
election where sponsors of the constitutional amendment had hoped to
secure a historic vote.
In July 2004, the Legislature advanced the amendment to the current
convention on a 153-41 vote.
Ann Eldridge Malone, a registered nurse from Boston and one of the ten
original signers of the amendment, which had attracted tens of thousands
of signatures of support, said after the vote that "words can't describe
the depth of disappointment."
Citizen volunteers were shocked, Eldridge Malone said, and felt they
would have prevailed had lawmakers voted on the amendment itself. "It
felt like a slap in the face to democracy," she said. "It was a slap in
the face to citizens who have given their all for three years."
Legislative negotiators of this year's historic health care access law
said the constitutional amendment deserves more scrutiny while the new
law is given a chance to work.
Supporters of the constitutional amendment, during debate on the
amendment, said it might be the only option available to force the new
law to be implemented and to prevent an erosion of its ambitious goals.
The constitutional amendment, approved during the 2003-2004 session,
needed only 50 votes to merit a statewide vote on this November's
ballot. Technically, the amendment is still alive as long as the
convention remains open, but its chances appear severely diminished by
today's vote. Legislative leaders acknowledged a chance that the
proposal could be approved and placed on the November 2008 ballot.
The amendment would obligate the Legislature to "ensure that no
Massachusetts resident lacks comprehensive, affordable, and equitably
financed health insurance coverage for all medically necessary
preventive, acute and chronic health care and mental health care
services, prescription drugs and devices," and subject legislation
needed to meet that constitutional mandate to statewide voter approval.
Amendment sponsors consoled each other in the halls of the capitol
afterwards.
Barbara Roop, co-chair of the Health Care for Massachusetts Campaign,
said after the vote that the campaign would do everything it could to
get on the ballot, even in 2008.
"Clearly, we're extremely disappointed that an amendment that had the
overwhelming support of members, based on the testimony, was put into a
study with no direction, no date certain, and unclear to be honest what
they're studying, when in fact the amendment itself is the platform and
lock-in for what they've done," said Roop.
Lawmakers acknowledged the vote had seriously wounded the measure's
prospects.
"We didn't give it an injection of adrenaline by what we did," said Sen.
Steven Tolman (D-Brighton), who spoke in favor of the amendment and
wondered why his colleagues would not support a measure that was
philosophically in sync with the law they just approved.
During debate on the floor, Sen. Richard Moore (D-Uxbridge), who
co-chairs the Joint Committee on Health Care Financing and helped
negotiate the landmark reform, said implementation of the Chapter 58
changes deserve "a chance to work." His committee co-chair, Rep.
Patricia Walrath (D-Stow), another top negotiator, concurred and will
sit with Moore atop the House-dominated committee handling the measure.
Both Senate President Robert Travaglini (D-East Boston) and House
Speaker Salvatore DiMasi (D-North End) voted to reassign the petition to
committee. Several senators changed their vote during the roll call from
opposition to support of the motion.
Rep. Frank Hynes (D-Marshfield) asked Travaglini how to ensure the
committee would report. Travaglini, the presiding officer, drew laughter
with the remark, "The speaker and I have talents that manifest
themselves occasionally" in influencing committee chairs.
Eldridge Malone said she feared the health care access law, like others
before it, would disintegrate without a constitutional mandate.
"Everyone knows if you look closely at Chapter 58, it has some good
sections, but it's like Swiss cheese - it's full of holes," she said.
"History does have a tendency to repeat itself. We've passed other
far-reaching reform laws with good elements that were never fully
implemented because there was opposition that spent a lot of money on
sophisticated lobbying and spreading misinformation perhaps and then the
laws were never implemented and that could very well happen again."
Return to top
The Boston Herald
Thursday, July 13, 2006
A Boston Herald editorial
Political cowards rule on the Hill
Who says politics is not for the faint of heart? By our count there are
at least 100 unabashed cowards toiling away in the state Legislature.
Voters would do well to keep that in mind when they head to the polls on
Nov. 7.
The 100 lawmakers - 70 in the House, 30 in the Senate - late yesterday
voted to put off for another four months a vote on a proposed
constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage. Another 91, it
should be noted, voted against the recess.
It was the ultimate easy-way-out, a path well-traveled by this bunch.
Lawmakers running for re-election avoid the tough vote right now. Then,
barely recovered from their election-night victory parties, they’ll
reconvene on Nov. 9 to consider the amendment without fear of political
reprisal. Subtle, guys - real subtle.
Yes, Senate President Robert Travaglini, who chairs the convention,
promised a vote on all agenda items, but warned that a packed agenda
meant it might not come yesterday. And the marriage amendment was almost
last on the list.
But what’s to stop them from reconvening tomorrow, or next week, or the
week after that? Vacations? Nah, they’re in session until July 31. That
leaves politics, pure and simple. Lawmakers have acted in their own best
interests here instead of in the interests of the people who elect them
and deserve a swift resolution to this nagging question (not to mention
an opportunity to vote on it themselves).
But thanks to the fear of political reprisal, the happily married gay
couples who showed up at the State House yesterday to fight the
amendment, along with the church groups who prayed in the halls for its
approval, had to once again pack up their signs and their bongo drums
and head home. Because political cowardice ruled the day.
Return to top
The Boston Globe
Thursday, July 13, 2006
A Boston Globe editorial
Delayed, not denied
No principled argument justified the Legislature's decision late
yesterday to delay portions of the state Constitutional Convention --
including consideration of the amendment to ban gay marriage -- until
after the state elections in November. Still, delay is far better than
killing the proposal by refusing to take it up, or by other legislative
trickery.
Senate President Robert Travaglini has indicated he intends to put the
proposed amendment before the convention, as the state constitution
requires. If he does that when the session reconvenes on Thursday, Nov.
9, he will have carried out his responsibility.
It will then be up to the legislators to decide whether to move the
issue on to the next Legislature, which could put it on the ballot in
2008. Only 50 votes -- one-quarter of the membership -- are required
from each Legislature.
We believe strongly that the amendment deserves a resounding defeat. The
extra four months for public debate could contribute to that defeat if
it is informed by experience rather than the name-calling and hyperbole
that have been heard from some advocates on both sides.
Same-sex marriage will have been legal in Massachusetts for 2 1/2 years
when the legislators reconvene. This is not enough time to add
appreciably to evidence about the well-being of children brought up by
same-sex parents, although the evidence so far has mostly been positive.
But it is enough time for more citizens to decide whether gay couples
make good neighbors, or pose any kind of a threat to heterosexuals. So
far, experience has shown few if any problems.
Many gay-marriage advocates who are working hard to keep the issue off
the 2008 ballot were heartened at yesterday's action, even though it
will probably keep the issue alive in this year's campaign. And in fact
the delay needn't produce a nasty debate if proponents on both sides
focus on the real consequences of same-sex marriage in the state.
It is true that some of those who would vote in November would be lame
ducks, headed out of office by retirement or defeat, but this should not
change many votes. The great majority of legislators have already been
recorded on the issue one way or another.
When they do vote, and we assume it is when, not if, the legislators
should vote their conscience, not simply pass the decision along to the
electorate. The constitution asks for their judgment on what amendments
should go to the voters, and they should exercise it.
Return to top
The Boston Globe
Saturday, July 8, 2006
A Boston Globe editorial
Vote the ban down
Gay marriage has earned respect in Massachusetts, and for the most part
has been given it.
Opponents, however, are seeking to amend the state constitution to ban
same-sex marriage, a process that would tarnish the 226-year-old
constitution by using it as an instrument of discrimination. The
amendment deserves a resounding defeat.
Legislators face a difficult tactical choice next week, however, with
many advocates of gay marriage urging the leaders to scuttle the
amendment by ignoring the constitution's own mandate and ducking a vote
altogether. This would be a mistake, and short-sighted. Legislators
should not violate the constitution in order to protect it.
The wording in the constitution is clear, that such proposed amendments
"shall ... be laid before a joint session of the two houses," and that a
failure to vote requires a governor to call a special session. But no
sanctions are listed and the constitution is not self-enforcing. So
there have been occasions, as in 2002 on a similar proposal, when the
constitutional convention was adjourned without ever considering
amendments, no special session was held and the issues died.
The call to repeat this action is strong and understandable.
We share the belief of many that gay marriage is essentially a civil
rights issue and the state Supreme Judicial Court was correct in
November 2003, in recognizing it as a fundamental right.
Few would want to put voting rights or school desegregation at risk in a
popular referendum.
We hope and believe that before very long the right of same-sex couples
to marry will be seen as protected by the United States Constitution.
Certainly the effort of opponents to amend the federal constitution to
nullify that right betrays a fear that it exists.
Until that time, it is difficult to define rights -- property rights?,
privacy rights? -- that should be exempt from abridgement by state
constitutional amendments. The best course is for legislators to meet
Wednesday and deny the proposal the required 50 votes. Failing that,
efforts should be redoubled to deny the 50 votes required in the
2007-2008 Legislature. Failing that, the amendment should be, and we
believe would be, soundly defeated on the 2008 ballot. Opponents'
arguments grow thinner by the day. The strong institution of marriage is
threatened, they say, but where is the threat? After 26 months and
counting, there is none.
Civic and business leaders are right to worry that a full-blown campaign
in 2008 would be divisive and distracting.
But the tension that now exists will not be relieved if opponents of gay
marriage, who chafe at the narrow SJC ruling, are denied a legitimate
vote in the Legislature because of political trickery.
Return to top
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this
material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior
interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes
only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
|