CLT UPDATE
Tuesday, January 2, 2007
Massachusetts: "A government
of laws" or "of men"?
The odds were nil that the Supreme Judicial Court would order
lawmakers to vote on the proposed amendment to ban gay marriage. Instead, the
justices did the only thing they could do.
In a unanimous opinion, the court yesterday gave lawmakers a rhetorical
tongue-lashing, upbraiding the 109 representatives and senators who flouted
their duty to vote on an amendment that would ban gay marriage, by voting to
recess before taking a final vote....
Those who defend the defiant lawmakers argue, unconvincingly, that the refusal
to vote is some noble act of civil disobedience. They’re the same people who
vest their authority in this same court’s decision to allow gay marriage. So
which opinion is OK to ignore?
A Boston Herald editorial
Thursday, December 28, 2006
It’s clear as day: Vote isn’t optional
Nearly three years ago, the Supreme Judicial Court of
Massachusetts read between the lines of the state constitution to
discover a right to same-sex marriage previously undetected across the
decades. The court then gave the legislature six months to rewrite state
law to accommodate its diktat....
In its ruling this week, it agreed that the legislature's duty to vote
on the measure was "unambiguous." But it claimed to be powerless to
compel a vote. So the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, whose own
arrogation of power created this mess, has suddenly discovered the
limits of its power to clean it up.
All in all, this is quite the political spectacle. First judges usurp
the power of the legislature to dictate their own social policy. Then
the legislature uses a procedural ruse to deny voters a say on the
gay-marriage issue. And these are some of the same people who say Iraqis
aren't ready for democracy.
The Wall Street Journal
December 29, 2006
REVIEW & OUTLOOK
Contempt in Boston
Lawmakers targeted in a $5 million federal lawsuit by an
anti-gay marriage group shot back last week, giving the group 21 days to
withdraw the suit on the grounds that it is "frivolous."
The lawsuit, filed earlier this month in U.S. District Court by
VoteOnMarriage.org, argues the 109 lawmakers who voted to recess a joint
constitutional convention instead of voting on a proposed constitutional
amendment barring same-sex marriage violated the supporters' rights to free
speech, to petition the government and due process under the law....
The countersuit also argues that "members of the Massachusetts Legislature are
absolutely immune from liability ... for actions taken in the 'sphere of
legislative activity."
Kris Mineau of the Massachusetts Family Institute, which helped gather 170,000
signatures to support the amendment, is one of those who brought the suit
against the lawmakers.
"We do not consider it frivolous," he said. "We consider it well substantiated."
Associated Press
Monday, January 1, 2007
Pro-gay marriage lawmakers ask
lawsuit be found 'frivolous'
The state's highest court ruled last week that legislators
are bound by the Massachusetts Constitution to vote on the amendment, though the
court said it cannot compel them do so.
The ruling took away the argument of gay marriage supporters that nothing in the
constitution required lawmakers to vote on the measure. The decision also left
lawmakers who support gay marriage with a choice between following the
constitution or ignoring it....
[William Lantigua, D-Lawrence] will follow the Supreme Judicial Court's ruling.
"The people went out and got their signatures and followed the democratic
process," Lantigua said. "The court said it is our duty to comply with our
requirements to follow the constitution."
The Salem News
Monday, January 1, 2007
Lawmakers keep silent on gay marriage vote
Supporters of same-sex marriage are scrambling to hold
together a shaky coalition of lawmakers today in hopes of blocking a vote on a
proposed constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage in
Massachusetts.
Both sides in the emotion-packed debate said yesterday that an air of
uncertainty has gripped today's constitutional convention because of the recent
Supreme Judicial Court ruling saying lawmakers have a constitutional duty to
vote on the proposed amendment....
"We are very definitely struggling with the court's clear decision that we are
obligated to vote on the merits of the petition," said state Representative Jay
Kaufman, a Lexington Democrat and a strong advocate of same-sex marriage.
Kaufman voted in November to recess, saying, like many of his colleagues, that
he feels obligated to prevent what he considers discrimination from being
included in the state constitution. He said he is torn over his decision in
light of the court's decision.
"I am not alone." said Kaufman. "I've spent many hours rereading the
constitution and in phone calls with colleagues. Many of us are struggling with
the decision and the consequences." ...
Representative Philip Travis, a Rehoboth Democrat and a strong opponent of
same-sex unions, said the court decision was the catalyst that has turned the
tide. "They had victory in their jaw and it was snatched right from them," he
said....
[Arline Isaacson, cochairwoman of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political
Caucus] declined to discuss what tactics are being considered. But their most
viable options include pushing another vote to adjourn the convention for the
year or recessing it to midnight, when the session legally expires.
If a majority were to approve such a move, the initiative petition would be
blocked from appearing on the 2008 state ballot. Another option would be for
enough same-sex marriage supporters to boycott the session so that it did not
have a quorum to conduct business.
The Boston Globe
Tuesday, January 2, 2007
Gay marriage outcome today uncertain
The SJC has declared that the Constitution of Massachusetts
provides that all members of the Legislature have a duty to vote by the yeas and
nays on the merits of the initiative amendment. The SJC says that this is your
"lawful obligation."
Although the SJC was responding on the marriage issue, the
same duty applies to any initiative amendment, including the "health care for
Massachusetts" amendment that awaits its second Constitutional Convention vote
on Tuesday.
As members of the Legislature who are also lawyers, you twice
took an oath to uphold the Constitution of Massachusetts. You break that oath
if you now wrongfully avoid your unequivocally declared duty under the
Constitution to vote by the yeas and nays on the merits of the initiative
amendment.
Letter from Barbara Anderson
to all legislators who are also attorneys
Friday, December 29, 2006
Senate President Robert E. Travaglini and House Speaker
Salvatore F. DiMasi are hunkering down in 11th-hour strategic planning this
morning.
Both refused to divulge yesterday what they might do.
“They have taken an oath of office to uphold the constitution,” said Ed
Saunders, executive director of the Massachusetts Catholic Conference, an
organizer of the anti-gay marriage petition movement. “Anything short of a yea
or nea vote on the amendment itself is a violation of that constitution.”
The Boston Herald
Tuesday, January 2, 2007
Gay-wed opponents vow fight to the end
Chip Ford's CLT Commentary
Even The Wall Street Journal has now termed it
"Contempt in Boston," and what else can an alleged constitutional
government which has been running roughshod over the rights of the
people be termed but contemptuous?
But this time these arrogant little politicians are
dealing with a BIG ONE -- the very state Constitution
itself. Are you aware of what this means: the
ramifications?
We CAN NOT allow these self-interested
lightweight legislators of today to arbitrarily determine the basic CONSTRUCT of the law upon
which all other laws are based, the state Constitution under which we currently provide them
with our authority to temporarily make decisions governing us, allegedly to
represent us in those collective decisions.
This is WAY BIGGER than issues of the moment on
either side of the political spectrum. This is the very heart of
how we govern ourselves -- or allow ourselves to be governed.
On Friday morning, forty-two individual letters from
Barbara were mailed to each legislator who is also a member of the
Massachusetts Bar Association, i.e., every member who is an attorney.
It reminded each of not only the oath taken as a legislator to uphold
the Constitution -- but the oath also taken on becoming a lawyer and
being admitted to the bar. (To those fourteen whose overnight
express mail was returned "undeliverable," we also sent an e-mail
version last night.)
Today, when the Legislature meets on the final day of
its 2006 session, when the Constitutional Convention is called to order
as was promised, we will discover whether ours is still "a government of
laws" or has become "a government of men," unworthy men (and women) at
that.
 |
|
Chip Ford |
-- A Sample
Letter --
CITIZENS
for
Limited Taxation
PO Box 1147
9
Marblehead,
Massachusetts 01945
9 ***@cltg.org
9
www.clt.org
Barbara Anderson (508) 384-0100
9
Chip Ford (781) 631-6842
9
Chip Faulkner (508) 384-0100
December 29, 2006
Representative Salvatore F. DiMasi, Esq.
220 Commercial Street
Boston, MA 02109
Dear Representative DiMasi,
When you became a lawyer you took an
oath that stated: "I, Salvatore F. DiMasi, do solemnly
swear that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts and will support the
Constitution thereof. So help me God."
Now the SJC has ruled in Doyle v.
Secretary of the Commonwealth that, without
qualification, the Legislature has a duty under the
Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to
vote by the yeas and nays on the merits of the
initiative amendment declaring that marriage is the
union of one man and one woman. This means you cannot
close the last scheduled session of the Legislature on
January 2, 2007 without taking up this issue.
Here is what the Court said on this
point:
"The members of the joint session
have a constitutional duty to vote, by the yeas and
nays, on the merits of all pending initiative amendments
before recessing on January 2, 2007 . . . the language
of art. 48 is not ambiguous."
"Even counsel conceded at oral
argument that it would have been inconceivable to the
drafters of art. 48 that the Legislature would refuse to
comply with its obligation to vote on a pending
amendment that had been introduced by the initiative
process. Yet, that is precisely what could happen on
January 2, 2007, should a majority of the members of the
joint session vote to recess without first taking a roll
call vote on the merits of the initiative amendment."
"Today's discussion and holding on
the meaning of the duty lays any doubt to rest. The
members of the General Court are the people's elected
representatives, and each one of them has taken an oath
to uphold the Constitution of the Commonwealth. Those
members who now seek to avoid their lawful obligations,
by a vote to recess without a roll call vote by yeas and
nays on the merits of the initiative amendment (or by
other procedural vote of similar consequence),
ultimately will have to answer to the people who elected
them."
The SJC has declared that the
Constitution of Massachusetts provides that all members
of the Legislature have a duty to vote by the yeas and
nays on the merits of the initiative amendment. The SJC
says that this is your "lawful obligation."
Although the SJC was responding on
the marriage issue, the same duty applies to any
initiative amendment, including the "health care for
Massachusetts" amendment that awaits its second
Constitutional Convention vote on Tuesday.
As members of the Legislature who are
also lawyers, you twice took an oath to uphold the
Constitution of Massachusetts. You break that oath
if you now wrongfully avoid your unequivocally declared
duty under the Constitution to vote by the yeas and nays
on the merits of the initiative amendment.
The Rules of Professional Conduct
promulgated by the SJC, and which govern the conduct of
all lawyers in Massachusetts, provide at section 8.4(h)
that "It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to . .
. engage in any other conduct that adversely reflects on
his or her fitness to practice law." Comment no. 3 to
this Rule states: "Lawyers holding public office assume
legal responsibilities going beyond those of other
citizens. A lawyer's abuse of public office can suggest
an inability to fulfill the professional role of a
lawyer."
You have a declared duty under the
Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to
vote by the yeas and nays on the initiative amendment at
the further joint session of the Legislature scheduled
for January 2, 2007. You took an oath as an attorney to
uphold the Constitution of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts. You have a "lawful obligation" to vote by
the yeas and nays on the merits. Your wrongful failure
to vote by the yeas and nays would be a violation of
your oath as an attorney, a violation of your lawful
obligation under the Constitution of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, and a violation of your professional
obligations under the Rules of Professional Conduct.
I have signed neither petition and
have no position yet on either, though I have signed on
to the "health care for Massachusetts" lawsuit that is
similar to the one filed by "defense of marriage"
petitioners. My abiding interest is the defense of
Article 48. Therefore please be on notice that I and
others who respect the state constitution will bring any
wrongful failure of yours to vote by the yeas and nays
on the initiative amendment to the attention of the
Board of Bar Overseers and ask that appropriate action
be taken against you.
Sincerely,
Barbara Anderson
Executive Director
Citizens for Limited Taxation
The Boston Herald
Thursday, December 28, 2006
A Boston Globe editorial
It’s clear as day: Vote isn’t optional
The odds were nil that the Supreme Judicial Court would order lawmakers
to vote on the proposed amendment to ban gay marriage. Instead, the
justices did the only thing they could do.
In a unanimous opinion, the court yesterday gave lawmakers a rhetorical
tongue-lashing, upbraiding the 109 representatives and senators who
flouted their duty to vote on an amendment that would ban gay marriage,
by voting to recess before taking a final vote.
The court also gave the Legislature a much-needed lesson in obeying the
law and their oaths of office -- a lesson it would be impossible for
them to now ignore.
"The members of the General Court are the people’s elected
representatives, and each one of them has taken an oath to uphold the
Constitution of the Commonwealth," wrote Justice John Greaney. "Those
members who now seek to avoid their lawful obligations, by a vote to
recess without a roll call vote . . . ultimately will have to answer to
the people who elected them."
If the lawmakers had an ounce of respect for the people who elected
them, they would accept the SJC’s unambiguous counsel when they
reconvene on Jan. 2.
Yesterday’s opinion clarifies, beyond any doubt, what the Legislature’s
duty is. It also serves as a sharp reminder of this Legislature’s
supreme arrogance.
The framers of the initiative process never intended that a procedural
vote could block an initiative, Greaney wrote. In fact, a "Mr. Quincy"
could barely conceive of it back in 1917. "I do not believe we need to
consider seriously that contingency or a defiance of the provisions of
the amendment," Greaney quoted the lawmaker as saying. Ah, but Mr.
Quincy never met Mr. DiMasi or Mr. Barrios!
Despite the crystal-clarity with which the court interpreted the
Legislature’s duty, it acknowledged there is no "viable remedy" for its
refusal to do it.
"Beyond resorting to aspirational language that relies on the
presumptive good faith of elected representatives, there is no presently
articulated judicial remedy for the Legislature’s indifference to, or
defiance of, its constitutional duties," Greaney wrote.
Those who defend the defiant lawmakers argue, unconvincingly, that the
refusal to vote is some noble act of civil disobedience. They’re the
same people who vest their authority in this same court’s decision to
allow gay marriage. So which opinion is OK to ignore?
The Wall Street Journal
December 29, 2006
REVIEW & OUTLOOK
Contempt in Boston
Nearly three years ago, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts read
between the lines of the state constitution to discover a right to
same-sex marriage previously undetected across the decades. The court
then gave the legislature six months to rewrite state law to accommodate
its diktat.
On Wednesday, however, the same court suddenly rediscovered the humility
so lacking in its previous foray into the marriage debate. Before the
court was a case brought by the governor together with citizens who had
presented an initiative to amend the state constitution and so define
marriage as a pact between a man and a woman. The petitioners had
gathered more than 150,000 signatures. According to the state
constitution, the legislature must now vote twice on the measure in
successive legislative sessions before the amendment can be put on the
ballot for a vote by the electorate.
The constitution only requires that 25% of both houses of the
legislature vote to put the measure on the ballot, a bar set
deliberately low to ensure that the people would have their say in all
but the most extreme cases. But the legislature has so far refused to
vote on the measure at all. In November, its members recessed until next
Tuesday, the last day of the current legislative session, and to all
appearances the politicians intend to adjourn the session without voting
on the measure at all -- thus letting it die.
Departing Governor Mitt Romney has threatened to withhold approval of
legislators' raises for next year unless they vote on the initiative,
but this has purely symbolic value. Thanks to a voter-passed
constitutional amendment from 1998, legislators are guaranteed raises
every two years. Yet this is that same constitutional-amendment
procedure that is now being flouted by legislators who lack the votes to
defeat the measure on a straight vote.
The petitioners sued the legislature for abrogating its constitutional
duty, and the state Supreme Judicial Court took the case. In its ruling
this week, it agreed that the legislature's duty to vote on the measure
was "unambiguous." But it claimed to be powerless to compel a vote. So
the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, whose own arrogation of
power created this mess, has suddenly discovered the limits of its power
to clean it up.
All in all, this is quite the political spectacle. First judges usurp
the power of the legislature to dictate their own social policy. Then
the legislature uses a procedural ruse to deny voters a say on the
gay-marriage issue. And these are some of the same people who say Iraqis
aren't ready for democracy.
Associated Press
Monday, January 1, 2007
Pro-gay marriage lawmakers ask lawsuit be found 'frivolous'
Lawmakers targeted in a $5 million federal lawsuit by an anti-gay
marriage group shot back last week, giving the group 21 days to withdraw
the suit on the grounds that it is "frivolous."
The lawsuit, filed earlier this month in U.S. District Court by
VoteOnMarriage.org, argues the 109 lawmakers who voted to recess a joint
constitutional convention instead of voting on a proposed constitutional
amendment barring same-sex marriage violated the supporters' rights to
free speech, to petition the government and due process under the law.
The group is asking the federal court to interpret the vote to recess a
joint meeting of the House and Senate as a vote in favor of the
amendment even though many lawmakers said the vote was designed to kill
the amendment.
The lawsuit also seeks $500,000 from the lawmakers for the cost of the
group's legal battles and another $5 million in punitive damages. The
damages would be split 109 ways and lawmakers would be held personally
liable.
On Friday, 14 of the lawmakers sent a countersuit to VoteOnMarriage.org
asking them to withdraw the lawsuit. If the group refuses, the
countersuit is automatically filed with the court.
In the countersuit, the lawmakers fault the original lawsuit saying it
tries to pursue them both as officials and as private citizens.
"The Complaint is, however, completely bereft of any allegations which
would support the Plaintiffs' assertion that the conduct of the
defendants at issue was undertaken in defendants' 'individual' capacity,
as opposed to their official capacity," the countersuit reads.
The countersuit also argues that "members of the Massachusetts
Legislature are absolutely immune from liability ... for actions taken
in the 'sphere of legislative activity."
Kris Mineau of the Massachusetts Family Institute, which helped gather
170,000 signatures to support the amendment, is one of those who brought
the suit against the lawmakers.
"We do not consider it frivolous," he said. "We consider it well
substantiated."
Mineau said there's one way that the group would withdraw the lawsuit --
if lawmakers decide to take a roll call vote on the proposed amendment
when they gather again in a joint session tomorrow, the last day of
their formal session.
Mineau said that a recent decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial
Court that said lawmakers have a clear constitutional duty to take an up
or down vote on the proposed amendment bolsters the federal lawsuit.
In the same ruling, however, the SJC also acknowledged that they have no
way of forcing lawmakers to take the vote.
The Salem News
Monday, January 1, 2007
Lawmakers keep silent on gay marriage vote
By Jason Tait, Staff Writer
Four local lawmakers who helped block a vote on a constituional
amendment banning same-sex marriage aren't saying how they will vote
when the issue comes up again tomorrow.
The state's highest court ruled last week that legislators are bound by
the Massachusetts Constitution to vote on the amendment, though the
court said it cannot compel them do so.
The ruling took away the argument of gay marriage supporters that
nothing in the constitution required lawmakers to vote on the measure.
The decision also left lawmakers who support gay marriage with a choice
between following the constitution or ignoring it.
Reps. Arthur Broadhurst, D-Methuen, Barry Finegold, D-Andover, Barbara
L'Italien, D-Andover, and David M. Torrisi, D-North Andover, voted in
November not to take up the amendment.
By refusing to act on the amendment, lawmakers can keep it from going
before voters in 2008.
Finegold, L'Italien and Torrisi failed to return telephone calls to
their offices, homes or cell phones from The Eagle-Tribune over the last
three days seeking comment on how they will vote. Broadhurst refused to
comment.
"It's sheer arrogance that they think they know better than we," said
Theresa Gorey of Andover, who collected hundreds of signatures on
petitions last October to put the question on the ballot to define
marriage as between a man and a woman.
Lawmakers have a final chance to vote on the proposed amendment when
they meet tomorrow, the last day of the current Legislative session.
Gorey is traveling to the Statehouse tomorrow to ask lawmakers to allow
a vote on the issue.
"We want them to vote," Gorey said of local representatives. "We want
them to do their job. We want them to vote up or down."
The proposed amendment would keep existing same-sex marriages intact but
ban all future gay marriages.
Rep. Brian Dempsey, D-Haverhill, and William Lantigua, D-Lawrence, want
a vote on the gay marriage ban amendment tomorrow.
Dempsey supports defining a marriage as between a man and a woman, but
also supports civil unions for gays. He is undecided on whether
residents should be allowed to vote on the question in 2008.
"The concern I have for the question is it does not address the civil
unions part of it," Dempsey said.
If a vote on the amendment is taken tomorrow, it needs the support of a
quarter of the Legislature, or 50 lawmakers, in two consecutive
legislative sessions to move to the ballot.
The supporters of the gay marriage ban amendment, such as Gorey,
collected signatures from 170,000 people in an effort to get the
question on the 2008 ballot.
Lantigua will follow the Supreme Judicial Court's ruling.
"The people went out and got their signatures and followed the
democratic process," Lantigua said. "The court said it is our duty to
comply with our requirements to follow the constitution."
The high court ruled in 2003 that the state constitution guaranteed gays
the right to marry.
Since the marriages began in 2004, about 8,000 same-sex couples have wed
in Massachusetts, the only state to allow gay marriage.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
On the record
Here's how local legislators voted on this issue last time and how they
plan to vote tomorrow. "Yes" means a vote to take action on the proposal
to ban gay marriage; "no" means a vote to take no action. If no action
is taken, the proposed ban will not be put before the voters.
Legislator -- Previous vote -- Vote on
tomorrow:
Rep. Arthur Broadhurst, D-Methuen -- No -- No
comment
Rep. Brian Dempsey, D-Haverhill -- Yes -- Yes
Rep. Barry Finegold, D-Andover -- No -- Did not return calls
Rep. William Lantigua, D-Lawrence -- Yes -- Yes
Rep. Barbara L'Italien, D-Andover -- No -- Did not return calls
Rep. Harriett Stanley, D-West Newbury -- Yes -- Did not return calls
Rep. David M. Torrisi, D-North Andover -- No -- Did not return calls
Sen. Fred Berry, D-Peabody -- No -- Yes
Rep. Mary Grant, D-Beverly -- No -- Undecided
Rep. Brad Hill, R-Ipswich -- Yes -- Yes
Rep. John Keenan, D-Salem -- No -- Undecided
Rep. Doug Petersen, D-Marblehead -- No -- Undecided
Rep. Ted Speliotis, D-Danvers -- No -- No
Rep. Joyce Spiliotis, D-Peabody -- Yes -- Yes
Sen. Bruce Tarr, R-Gloucester -- Yes -- Yes
Rep. Anthony Verga, D-Gloucester -- Yes -- N/A
The Boston Globe
Tuesday, January 2, 2007
Gay marriage outcome today uncertain
By Frank Phillips, Globe Staff
Supporters of same-sex marriage are scrambling to hold together a shaky
coalition of lawmakers today in hopes of blocking a vote on a proposed
constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage in
Massachusetts.
Both sides in the emotion-packed debate said yesterday that an air of
uncertainty has gripped today's constitutional convention because of the
recent Supreme Judicial Court ruling saying lawmakers have a
constitutional duty to vote on the proposed amendment. Just weeks ago,
advocates of same-sex marriage had confidently predicted the convention
would quietly kill the petition, which is being pushed by social
conservatives and Governor Mitt Romney.
"We don't know what's going to happen for sure, but it does seem
certainly a possibility that a vote on the petition will take place,"
said Arline Isaacson, cochairwoman of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian
Political Caucus.
On Nov. 9, 109 House and Senate lawmakers voted to recess the joint
convention until today, without taking up the petition. Same-sex
marriage supporters hoped to kill the measure today -- the last day of
the current legislative session -- by recessing again. But if lawmakers
vote directly on the measure, Isaacson said the petition has more than
the 50 votes needed to advance it closer to the 2008 statewide ballot.
Isaacson and leaders of groups opposed to same-sex marriage agree that
the unanimous decision last week by the Supreme Judicial Court has
sharply shifted the dynamics of the political struggle. The justices
declared that legislators had a constitutional duty to vote on a ballot
initiative to ban same-sex marriage, but also said that the SJC could
not order the Legislature to vote.
Many among the slim majority who on Nov. 9 had voted to recess the joint
convention are struggling to reconcile their belief that gay marriage is
a civil right not to be subject to popular referendum and the court's
unambiguous decision.
"We are very definitely struggling with the court's clear decision that
we are obligated to vote on the merits of the petition," said state
Representative Jay Kaufman, a Lexington Democrat and a strong advocate
of same-sex marriage.
Kaufman voted in November to recess, saying, like many of his
colleagues, that he feels obligated to prevent what he considers
discrimination from being included in the state constitution. He said he
is torn over his decision in light of the court's decision.
"I am not alone." said Kaufman. "I've spent many hours rereading the
constitution and in phone calls with colleagues. Many of us are
struggling with the decision and the consequences."
Those pushing the amendment, who had all but conceded defeat two months
ago, say they are increasingly optimistic that the court opinion has
shifted the political ground in their favor.
"We are hearing rumblings at the State House hallways that the 109
legislators are very concerned over the court's ruling," said Kris
Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute, which led the
petition drive.
Representative Philip Travis, a Rehoboth Democrat and a strong opponent
of same-sex unions, said the court decision was the catalyst that has
turned the tide. "They had victory in their jaw and it was snatched
right from them," he said.
Romney, who leaves office Thursday, was making calls yesterday to key
lawmakers. A vote to keep the petition alive would also give him a major
political victory; he has used his opposition to same-sex marriage in
his efforts to reach conservative voters as he readies for a run for the
White House.
Both sides also agree that the stakes are high in today's outcome and
the decision will mark a major crossroads for the fate of the country's
only legalization of same-sex unions.
Backers of the proposed constitutional amendment collected 170,000
signatures to get the measure on the ballot in 2008.
The state constitution provides that the citizens' petitions for
constitutional amendments need to attract 50 or more votes in two
successive legislative sessions in order to be placed on the ballot. If
the petition against same-sex marriage fails to get the necessary vote
today, it will die at midnight when the 2006 session legally ends. Both
sides agree there are fewer but still sufficient votes in the newly
elected Legislature for the petition to win final approval to appear on
the 2008 ballot.
"The vote today is the vote," said Marc Solomon, campaign director of
MassEquality, which is spearheading the campaign to keep same-sex
marriage legal. "We are at the final hour. This will determine whether
Massachusetts can move on."
Mineau said the Legislature's decision would be be historic. But he also
argued that the future right of citizens to petition for changes in the
state constitution is under fire.
Isaacson, by contrast, said language in the state constitution that
speaks of equal protection and minority rights trumps a provision added
in 1918 providing for citizen-driven petitions to amendment the
two-century year old document.
Gay leaders and their legislative allies, including House Speaker
Salvatore F. DiMasi, spent the last few days assessing the impact of the
court's decision and trying to shore up the coalition. DiMasi has argued
to his House colleagues that a ballot referendum in 2008 over gay
marriage should be avoided, putting him at odds with Senate President
Robert E. Travaglini, the convention chairman who is pushing his Senate
colleagues to put the issue before the voters.
In his conversations with lawmakers and other strategists, DiMasi warned
of the political impact of a 2008 ballot fight, according to those he
has spoken with in recent days. He has painted a picture of an election
that would draw huge sums of money from around the country for what
could be a heated and mean-spirited campaign that would stir up
prejudice against the gay community. Isaacson said she is convinced the
amendment would win in a statewide referendum, although current polls
show support for same-sex marriage.
Isaacson said supporters of same-sex marriage have not decided on a
strategy for today's convention, mainly because legislators have been on
holidays and it has been difficult to take a head count.
She declined to discuss what tactics are being considered. But their
most viable options include pushing another vote to adjourn the
convention for the year or recessing it to midnight, when the session
legally expires.
If a majority were to approve such a move, the initiative petition would
be blocked from appearing on the 2008 state ballot. Another option would
be for enough same-sex marriage supporters to boycott the session so
that it did not have a quorum to conduct business.
The Boston Herald
Tuesday, January 2, 2007
Gay-wed opponents vow fight to the end
By Laurel J. Sweet
Activists vowed to launch an anti-gay marriage petition drive all over
again if legislators kill a proposed ballot measure at the
Constitutional Convention today and legal options are exhausted.
“If we fail in federal court, we certainly have the machinery in place
to start another petition drive,” said Kris Mineau, president of the
Massachusetts Family Institute and spokesman for VoteOnMarriage.org.
“We’re not going to go away until we get our due process.”
Today is the last chance lawmakers have to advance the measure backed by
a petition signed by 123,356 Bay Staters.
Last month, VoteOnMarriage.org filed suit against 109 legislators who
voted to adjourn without voting on the issue in November, claiming
petition signers were deprived of their constitutional right to seek a
ban on gay marriage.
“If they vote, there’ll be no need for the suit,” said Mineau.
Senate President Robert E. Travaglini and House Speaker Salvatore F.
DiMasi are hunkering down in 11th-hour strategic planning this morning.
Both refused to divulge yesterday what they might do.
“They have taken an oath of office to uphold the constitution,” said Ed
Saunders, executive director of the Massachusetts Catholic Conference,
an organizer of the anti-gay marriage petition movement. “Anything short
of a yea or nea vote on the amendment itself is a violation of that
constitution.”
Just 50 yea votes - or 25 percent of the elected officials - would
advance the petition measure, and there are at least that many
supporters of the ban in the Legislature. A second vote would be
required in 2007. If passed, the measure would appear on the ballot on
Election Day 2008.
Lawmakers killed votes on the issue twice last year: At a joint session
in July, they rescheduled the matter until two days after Election Day.
Then in November, the pols voted 109-87 to adjourn the session until
today, the last official day of the session.
Late last week, after Gov. Mitt Romney brought the issue to the state
Supreme Judicial Court, justices publicly admonished legislators for
ducking their “duty” at November’s convention by refusing to vote on the
measure.
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
|
