CLT
UPDATE
Wednesday, July 26, 2006
State Rep. Petersen steps in it
again
Barbara Anderson's vitriolic tirade against the
Massachusetts Legislature last week ("Legislative trickery at work on
gay marriage debate," Viewpoint, Thursday, July 20) makes me think she
has perhaps been attending columnist Ann Coulter boot camp retreats on
the sly.
My colleagues and I were compared to bad spouses, lemon cars, and -
excuse the crassness - upchuck. If, Barbara, you were seeking a
nomination to the Guinness Book of World Records for most amount of
vitriol and invective in one column, I so nominate you.
Barbara and I may differ greatly on what her and my vision is for the
commonwealth of Massachusetts but her colorful accusations that I, as
her "alleged" representative, am not heeding her and other voter's will,
are false.
It is my constitutional duty, as framed by our founding fathers, to
consider what matters should be voted on by our citizens....
Sadly, Barbara Anderson's constant harangue against our Massachusetts
government - while occasionally entertaining for its witty analogies -
does little more than fuel the intractable divide that exists in our
country today.
Barbara is, of course, entitled to her opinions, as is Ann Coulter. In
Coulter's case we've seen that the more outrageous her invectives
against legislators who don't buy into her world view, the more books
she sells. I sincerely hope that Barbara isn't forsaking constructive
dialogue for caustic cheap shots to sell more newspapers.
The Salem News
Wednesday, July 26, 2006
Gay marriage:
Anderson needs to tone down the rhetoric
By Douglas W. Petersen
Rep. Douglas Petersen says a critical newspaper column by
Barbara Anderson, accusing him of cowardice for not supporting a move that would
put a proposed gay marriage ban to a public vote, was riddled with inaccuracies.
Petersen, a Marblehead Democrat whose district includes the town as well as
Swampscott and part of Lynn, found himself the target of Anderson's pen after
the Legislature voted to recess until Nov. 9.
In doing so, no action was taken on the amendment to ban gay marriage. Petersen
repeatedly has stated he would not vote for such a ban. Anderson, a Marblehead
resident best known for her tax reform initiatives, has said the issue should be
put to a public referendum in 2008....
Petersen described Anderson's column, which compared him to a rodent and vomit,
as grossly inaccurate.
"It was not terribly factual and over the wall," he said. "Maybe she got up on
the wrong side of the bed or had a bad day at work. You would need a shoehorn to
fit any more invectives in there.
The Lynn Daily Item
Wednesday, July 26, 2006
Marblehead rep defends stance on gay marriage
After twenty-six years being cited in newspaper items across
the commonwealth, I have found my favorite mention ever! From the July 26 Daily
News story, "Petersen fires
back at Anderson," comes this prize-winning sentence: "Petersen described
Anderson's column, which compared him to a rodent and vomit, as grossly
inaccurate."
I love it, but must still ask for a slight correction....
What was wrongly done to deny a fair vote to gay marriage opponents could in the
future be done to any of us who collect signatures for any constitutional
amendment.
So, to clarify my attack: My state rep is a rat protecting the chickens. Makes
me want to upchuck.
Letter to the Editor
The Daily Item
July 26, 2006
by Barbara Anderson
Barbara Anderson's CLT Commentary
Chip sent you
my column about the Constitutional
Convention and my state rep, Doug Petersen. Today Petersen responded,
and we simply have to share this with you. Just in case you think,
sometimes, that our opponents are smart.
My column ran in the Salem News, so Doug did an op-ed to that paper,
comparing me to Ann Coulter. Apparently he considers this an insult.
Then note that he says, again, just in case anyone missed it the first
two times, that he doesn’t think legislators should vote on
controversial issues in an election year!
Even more fun is the interview he did with our other local paper, the
Lynn Daily Item, which does not carry my column. So Lynn readers also
got to read my attack, and will hopefully get to read my letter to the
editor.
I really didn’t call him a rodent and vomit, but he seems to think I
did, and responds that this is "grossly inaccurate." A Marblehead
activist e-mailed me to ask why he didn’t say "totally inaccurate." Good
question.
Sometimes all you can do is have fun.
|
 |
|
Barbara Anderson |
The Salem News
Wednesday, July 26, 2006
Gay marriage:
Anderson needs to tone down the rhetoric
By Douglas W. Petersen
Barbara Anderson's vitriolic tirade against the Massachusetts
Legislature last week ("Legislative trickery at work on gay marriage
debate," Viewpoint, Thursday, July 20) makes me think she has perhaps
been attending columnist Ann Coulter boot camp retreats on the sly.
My colleagues and I were compared to bad spouses, lemon cars, and -
excuse the crassness - upchuck. If, Barbara, you were seeking a
nomination to the Guinness Book of World Records for most amount of
vitriol and invective in one column, I so nominate you.
Barbara and I may differ greatly on what her and my vision is for the
commonwealth of Massachusetts but her colorful accusations that I, as
her "alleged" representative, am not heeding her and other voter's will,
are false.
It is my constitutional duty, as framed by our founding fathers, to
consider what matters should be voted on by our citizens. It is also my
duty to make sure that every citizen of the commonwealth be treated
equally under our laws.
With respect to the gay marriage ballot initiative brought forth to the
Constitutional Convention on July 12, legislators were asked to consider
a petition that in my view would write discrimination into our
constitution by taking away civil rights from gay and lesbian citizens.
As a fellow representative of mine recently remarked, "Sometimes there
are important civil rights and human rights issues that should not go to
a popular vote (slavery, segregation) ....Changing our Massachusetts
Constitution to deny any minority a right enjoyed by the majority is
very dangerous."
Columnist Anderson called the vote to adjourn the Constitutional
Convention before taking a vote on the ballot initiative "trickery," and
quoted me as saying that many legislators may have done this for
political reasons.
I would say that the vote to adjourn reflects not trickery but a
cooperative effort by legislators to gain more time to consider a matter
of extraordinary and serious significance. It seems very reasonable that
on an issue of this magnitude, legislators should deliberate on this
matter without the glare of the media and the heat of elections. We are
scheduled to take up this issue again on Nov. 9, 2006.
Like my colleague Rep. Teahan (whom I quoted above), I agree with her
that toying with civil rights on a ballot initiative is very dangerous.
Our founding fathers took great pains to ensure that the majority could
not deny the rights of the minority. I respect that.
Speaking for myself, I am not "tricking" anyone. I have been very
forthright in my views that I cannot support a ballot initiative that
would exclude certain people from rights enjoyed by a majority -
particularly if that exclusion is written into the constitution. So yes,
I feel strongly that this is an inappropriate issue to put before
citizens.
It should be noted that many of the people who find themselves in the
minority are gay and lesbian families in the very same district Barbara
Anderson asserts I am "disgracing." These families are working, paying
their taxes, caring for children, caring for elders, devoting time to
their communities, and yes, worrying that the protections of marriage
may be stripped away from them by a citizen-driven initiative backed by
opponents of marriage equality.
Sadly, Barbara Anderson's constant harangue against our Massachusetts
government - while occasionally entertaining for its witty analogies -
does little more than fuel the intractable divide that exists in our
country today.
Barbara is, of course, entitled to her opinions, as is Ann Coulter. In
Coulter's case we've seen that the more outrageous her invectives
against legislators who don't buy into her world view, the more books
she sells. I sincerely hope that Barbara isn't forsaking constructive
dialogue for caustic cheap shots to sell more newspapers.
Douglas W. Petersen of Marblehead is currently in his eighth term as
state representative from the 8th Essex District.
Return to top
The Lynn Daily Item
Wednesday, July 26, 2006
Marblehead rep defends stance on gay marriage
Petersen fires back at Anderson
By David Liscio
MARBLEHEAD -- Rep. Douglas Petersen says a critical newspaper column by
Barbara Anderson, accusing him of cowardice for not supporting a move
that would put a proposed gay marriage ban to a public vote, was riddled
with inaccuracies.
Petersen, a Marblehead Democrat whose district includes the town as well
as Swampscott and part of Lynn, found himself the target of Anderson's
pen after the Legislature voted to recess until Nov. 9.
In doing so, no action was taken on the amendment to ban gay marriage.
Petersen repeatedly has stated he would not vote for such a ban.
Anderson, a Marblehead resident best known for her tax reform
initiatives, has said the issue should be put to a public referendum in
2008.
"The state Constitution clearly spells out that it's the job of the
Legislature and not the general public to make tough decisions,
particularly when they concern amendments like the one to ban gay
marriage," Petersen said Tuedsay. "My wish is that we make this a very
public legislative vote. We are the gatekeepers, which is why the
Founding Fathers brought us into the picture. We aren't just a
pass-through. Besides, I feel very capable of making that decision."
In her column, Anderson also slammed Petersen for earlier statements he
made regarding why the legislative vote on gay marriage should be held
during a year when many of his colleagues are not up for re-election.
Anderson wrote: "The 'defense of marriage' activists, who were looking
for their first vote, also watched in dismay as the constitutional
convention adjourned until Nov. 9. They were told they will get their
vote then; this is probably a lie. Even if it's not, the truth isn't
much better: Rep. Doug Petersen, D-Marblehead, who voted to adjourn, was
quoted in this newspaper explaining that 'It was the judgment of people
on the (convention) floor that many members might vote differently if
they didn't have an election looming in their own backyard. ... Swell.
My alleged representative thinks its OK that his fellow legislators who
have opponents this year are cowards who don't want their constituents
to know how they would vote on gay marriage. Now, pay attention, because
this is where you 'get it.'"
Petersen defended his words, reiterating that the issue of gay marriage
is controversial and any vote could be marred by the glare of the media
spotlight. Instead, the vote should be taken during an off year, giving
legislators opportunity to better focus.
"Frankly, I don't think we should be putting a civil rights issue on the
ballot," he said. "Our Founding Fathers took great pains to point out
that at times the majority can bludgeon the minority, and they put all
sorts of checks and balances in place to assure that doesn't happen. A
ballot question should not address civil rights, unless we're talking
about increasing them. But decreasing them, no, I think that is
extremely dangerous and would be unprecedented."
Petersen described Anderson's column, which compared him to a rodent and
vomit, as grossly inaccurate.
"It was not terribly factual and over the wall," he said. "Maybe she got
up on the wrong side of the bed or had a bad day at work. You would need
a shoehorn to fit any more invectives in there.
"What's next?" he added. "Denying Hispanics the right to vote? Should we
put that on the ballot? The gay marriage ban is an important issue, and
the delay is not something earth-shattering in any way."
Return to top
Letter to the Editor
The Daily Item
Submitted: July 26, 2006
Re: Petersen fires back at Anderson
To the Editor:
After twenty-six years being cited in newspaper items across the
commonwealth, I have found my favorite mention ever! From the July 26
Daily Item news story, "Petersen fires
back at Anderson," comes this prize-winning sentence: "Petersen
described Anderson's column, which compared him to a rodent and vomit,
as grossly inaccurate."
I love it, but must still ask for a slight correction. I did not compare
him to vomit. My exact statement, which referred to the Legislature in
general, was "If state
government were a car, we'd get a refund through the Lemon Law. If it
were a spouse, we'd get an annulment or divorce. If it were a meal, we'd
upchuck." This clearly refers to my response to Petersen's actions, and
is not a description of his persona. Odd that he took it as such.
I was writing about the Big Digaster and about the Legislature's actions
in the recent Constitutional Convention on the gay marriage issue.
Petersen says that it is his job
to decide if an initiative petition for a constitutional amendment
should go on the ballot, and he is correct. The constitution requires
that 50 legislators must vote Yea on a petition before it can go
forward, and if proponents can't get 50 votes, there is no ballot
campaign. But there MUST be a vote, one way or the other.
It is NOT Petersen's job to ignore a petition signed by thousands of
registered voters, and refuse to vote on it at all, just because he
doesn't agree with it. I don't know how
I feel about the issue myself. But I do know that, according to Article
48 of the state constitution, it is his sworn constitutional duty to
give both opponents and proponents a fair debate and a roll call vote,
Yea or Nay, on the issue. He admits again that he voted to adjourn the
Convention so that legislators did not have to take a controversial vote
before the election.
What was wrongly done to deny a fair vote to gay marriage opponents
could in the future be done to any of us who collect signatures for any
constitutional amendment.
So, to clarify my attack: My state rep is a rat protecting the chickens.
Makes me want to upchuck.
Barbara Anderson
Marblehead
also executive director, Citizens for Limited Taxation
Anyone wanting to read the entire column attacking Petersen can go to
www.cltg.org
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
|