January 3, 2007

Boston Two-Step

Hatched by Dafydd

The Massachusetts state legislature (a.k.a, the Massachusetts General Court; and isn't that a pompous title?), sitting as a constitutional convention (I think), has finally been shamed into allowing the people to vote on whether to restore the traditional definition of marriage... well, almost.

I must report, in some amazement, that the scolding the legislature took from the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts seems to have done the trick, even though the Court insisted there was nothing they could do to force the lege to act.

Here is what has happened: A citizen initiative was circulated to the people, and 170,000 valid signatures were collected; that means the traditionalists needed but 25% of the legislature in both houses -- in two distinct legislative sessions -- to put the initiative constitutional amendment on the 2008 ballot (primary or general, I don't know). The initiative would ban future same-sex or polyamorous marriages but leave intact the existing 8,000-odd marriages conducted while it was legal. (If it passes, there will be a rush of gays to get "married" and be grandfathered.)

Judging from the way the articles are written (badly), it appears as if, when they're meeting in constitutional convention mode, all you need is 25% of the combined total of the two chambers; there are 40 senators and 160 representatives, so the initiative needed 50 total votes to be sent along:

The amendment would need to be approved by 50 member [sic] of the current Legislature and 50 members of the new Legislature before going to voters on the 2008 ballot. On Tuesday, 61 lawmakers backed moving the measure forward, compared to 132 opposed.

The 61 votes moves the initiative one step closer to being sent to the people; this seems to have infuriated some of the more liberal members (recalling that in Massachusetts, the "more liberal members" call each other "comrade") as well as incoming Gov. Deval Patrick, who replaces Mitt Romney. In a different story, this one from Reuters, Patrick eloquently expressed what he thinks of allowing voters in Massachusetts, rather than the Supreme Judicial Court (an actual court this time, not a legislature), to decide what the state will call "marriage":

"I believe a vote to advance this question to the 2008 ballot is irresponsible and wrong," Patrick, who will be sworn in this week, said in a statement before the vote. "It would do nothing more than condemn us all to more years of debate and expense on a matter that is legally and practically settled."

By "legally and practically settled," Patrick of course means that the Massachusetts courts ruled in favor of his position. The civitas has never been allowed to vote on it, and Patrick jolly well vows to make sure they never do.

However, it appears not to be quite "settled" yet, as it's likely that this bill will, in fact, head to the people... notwithstanding a vote two hours later to "reconsider" the earlier vote. As 75 legislators voted against the call to reconsider, it's hard to see how a dozen of the original 61 votes would change their minds on the second calling of that vote, which should be Thursday, I believe. Or for that matter on the second reading of the question later this year.

Late-breaking update: according to AP, the legislature has already held the reconsideration vote... and this time, 62 members voted to send it on to the next phase -- one more than the first time (probably a member piqued at being delayed heading out to Cape Cod for a few days). From AP:

Arline Isaacson, co-chairwoman of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus, vowed to continue the fight into the next session to ensure the question is not put on a statewide ballot.

"We have no choice. We're talking about our lives," Isaacson said. But she acknowledged: "It's a huge task. We might not be able to do it."

Deval Patrick -- the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party -- and the co-charwoman of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus and Marching Society (why they're asking "the help," I don't know)... I detect a pattern here: everyone on the Left is truly and deeply concerned that, if this initiative actually goes to the people, the people will restore the traditional definition of marriage.

Why else would everyone supporting same-sex marriage be so panic-stricken at the thought of the people voting? They seem to know just how this will all turn out, once the vox populi speaks.

Patrick or no Patrick (alas, we haven't the option to put Romney back in), the initiative seems destined to be put to a vote by the good people of this commonwealth ("state" isn't good enough for the great Massachusetts Great and General Court).

Unlike the Massachusetts Left, I have no crystal ball; but I certainly put a lot more faith in the citizens of Massachusetts than I do in the Democratic super-dominated legislature.

Hatched by Dafydd on this day, January 3, 2007, at the time of 2:56 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this hissing: http://biglizards.net/mt3.36/earendiltrack.cgi/1634

Comments

The following hissed in response by: Xrlq

Patrick or no Patrick (alas, we haven't the option to put Romney back in), the initiative seems destined to be put to a vote by the good people of this commonwealth ("state" isn't good enough for the great Massachusetts Great and General Court).

True, but it doesn't make sense to single out Mass on that one. AFAIK all four commonwealths (VA, PA and KY being the other three) employ the same terminology. CA has a Secretary of State; VA has a Secretary of the Commonwealth. Retarded, maybe, but fairly standard nonetheless.

The above hissed in response by: Xrlq [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 3, 2007 6:12 AM

The following hissed in response by: staghounds

You can't trust those damned Massachusetts voters. I'm old enough to remember when they refused to be disarmed.

The above hissed in response by: staghounds [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 3, 2007 6:24 AM

The following hissed in response by: snochasr

It seems to me that the court of Massachusetts has tacitly decided that gay marriage is NOT a civil rights issue. Those DO get decided/protected by the courts, not the public at large or their (supposedly) representatives in the legislature. Having made that decision, the courts would seem to be, then and IMHO, duty-bound to rescind their earlier edict.

The above hissed in response by: snochasr [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 3, 2007 10:15 AM

The following hissed in response by: LarryD

I detect a pattern here: everyone on the Left is truly and deeply concerned that, if this initiative actually goes to the people, the people will restore the traditional definition of marriage.

Yep, the lowest traditional marriage amendments have gotten is 59% of the vote. Passed in every state where the voters have been given the chance to vote on the issue.

Back in 2000, when this issue first showed up in California (in a non amendment form) and same sex marriage lost handily, the Left really should have decided to wait a few decades. Now they've triggered a backlash that is harding attitudes against them on this issue, even among the younger set.

The above hissed in response by: LarryD [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 3, 2007 10:59 AM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Staghounds:

I'm old enough to remember when they refused to be disarmed.

You mean... at Lexington and Concord?

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 3, 2007 1:05 PM

The following hissed in response by: Xrlq

Yep, the lowest traditional marriage amendments have gotten is 59% of the vote. Passed in every state where the voters have been given the chance to vote on the issue.

As Bill said to Monica's replacement, that was close but no cigar. A marriage amendment failed in Arizona this past November.

The above hissed in response by: Xrlq [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 3, 2007 3:23 PM

Post a comment

Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)

(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)


Remember me unto the end of days?


© 2005-2009 by Dafydd ab Hugh - All Rights Reserved