|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Editorial & Columnist Support June 1, 2007 - Boston Herald - Commentary - Howie Carr: "If you can't buy their vote, buy their job" March 27, 2007 - The Patriot Pedger - Editorial - OUR VIEW: The right decision December 30, 2006 - The Patriot Ledger - Editorial - OUR VIEW: One more chance December 29, 2006 - MetroWest Daily News - Editorial: Lawmakers, remember your oaths December 29, 2006 - Wall Street Journal - Editorial: Contempt in Boston December 28, 2006 - Boston Herald - Editorial - It’s clear as day: Vote isn’t optional December 23, 2006 - Boston Globe - Commentary - Barbara Anderson: "A vote for democracy" December 22, 2006 - MetroWest Daily News - Editorial: Bring gay marriage up for a vote December 21, 2006 - Boston Herald - Editorial: SJC can tell ’em the law matters December 16, 2006 - Lowell Sun - Editorial: It's all a joke to Rep. Charlie Murphy December 4, 2006 - The Patriot Ledger - Editorial - "Gay marriage, back before the SJC" December 3, 2006 - Providence Journal - Editorial - "Constitutional Crisis" November 29, 2006 - Sentinel & Enterprise - Editorial - "Let the people vote on gay marriage issue" November 29, 2006 - Duxbury Clipper - Kim O'Sullivan: "Stellar resumes, not stellar voters" November 28, 2006 - MetroWest Daily News - Editorial - "Let the SJC interpret the constitution" November 28, 2006 - Wall Street Journal - Commentary - Brendan Miniter: "Beyond Same-Sex Marriage" November 27, 2006 - The Lowell Sun - Editorial - "Marriage by divorce?" November 26, 2006 - The Boston Globe - Commentary - Sam Allis: "Giving process its due" November 25, 2006 - Human Events - Commentary - Bill O'Reilly: "Here Comes the Left" November 24, 2006 - Milford Daily News - Editorial - "Health care, marriage deserve a vote" November 20, 2006 - The Patriot Ledger - Editorial - "Does he mean it?" November 15, 2006 - The Boston Globe - Commentary - Jeff Jacoby: "Democracy and same-sex marriage" November 15, 2006 - The Boston Herald - Editorial - "Up-or-down vote is the only answer" November 14, 2006 - Wall Street Journal - Editorial - "Same-Sex Chicanery" November 11, 2006 - The Washington Times - Editorial - "Marriage fiat in Massachusetts" November 11, 2006 - The Patriot Ledger - Editorial - "OUR VIEW: Cowardly solons win another round" November 10, 2006 - Eagle-Tribune - Editorial - "Legislature makes a sham of democracy" November 9, 2006 - The Boston Herald - Editorial - "It's time to trust the voters" October 29, 2006 - Eagle-Tribune - Editorial - "Leave definition of marriage to the people" July 17, 2006 - Sentinel & Enterprise - Editorial - "Send gay marriage issue to the voters" July 11, 2006 - MetroWest Daily News - Editorial - "An honest debate, vote on marriage" July 10, 2006 - Eagle-Tribune - Edtiorial - "Let the people vote on gay marriage" July 10, 2006 - The Lowell Sun - Editorial - "Stand up and vote" July 8, 2006 - The Boston Globe - Editorial - "Vote the ban down" June 30, 2006 - Salem News - Editorial - "Let voters decide definition of marriage"
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
If you can’t buy their vote,
buy their job The way the gay “advocates” look at it, it shouldn’t be this hard to buy a few votes. The “We’re a Family Too” crowd wants to make sure the voters of Massachusetts never get a chance to weigh in on “gay marriage” next year. Funny how all the Globe polls claim the homosexuals would win at the ballot box, but the gays don’t seem that confident. In fact, they’re hysterical. Maybe because no electorate ever votes for gay marriage - when they get the chance, that is. So here’s the convoluted deal. Gay marriage, so-called, imposed from above by a bare majority of a renegade court, will be on the ballot here in November 2008. But only if the supporters of the constitutional amendment banning it can get 50 votes out of 200 in the Legislature. This vote will be taken at a joint meeting of the House and Senate scheduled for June 14. Last January, the let-the-people-decide forces got 62 votes. (They have to take two votes, in different legislative sessions - I told you it was convoluted). The problem is, several of those 62 were lame ducks, who are now out of the Legislature. The consensus is that the let-the-people-decide crowd is down to 53 or 54. If they can stay at 50 or above, the electorate will make the decision. But if the gays can switch - or eliminate - three or four of those 50-plus votes, then the highhanded decision of four PC mandarins will trump the will of the people. Which is just how the “advocates” want it. So they ask each other, can’t these nasty homophobic reps be bought off? With a nice hack sinecure, somewhere. I mean, Gov. Deval Patrick owes the homosexual lobby, big-time. The Mass. Teachers Association, run by leading lesbian Arline Isaacson, pumped millions into his campaign last year. There’s only one problem with Deval handing out jobs for votes. It’s Chapter 268A, section 2 of the Mass. General Laws. The law prohibits “corruptly offering gifts, or anything of value, to influence any official act.” OK, say the gays, maybe you can’t buy them off. But what if you just got some of the hetero hacks to take a hike, and not vote? Sorry, that’s covered by Chapter 268A as well. You can’t get any public official to “omit any official act.” This isn’t to say the gays haven’t been busy, beyond the $700,000 TV buy and the endless vigils, candlelight and otherwise, at the State House. They’ve already flipped at least one vote in the squishy Senate - an epiphany on the road to Northampton. Meanwhile, Rep. Brian Wallace of South Boston, one of the 62 let-the-people-vote reps last January, is checking out of the Legislature today. Got himself a nice hack state job. Hey, look, here’s another hack job opening - sergeant-at-arms. You know, the guy with the top hat and the stick who leads the governor into the House chambers for the State of the State address. Kevin Fitzgerald, a/k/a “Money Fitz,” a sleazy crony of Tommy Taxes, just retired with a $4,542.78-a-month pension. The gays daydream. They count and they recount. They scheme and they make up their lists and they check them out twice. How about Paul Kujawski? Does the commonwealth need an official beer taster, perhaps? The gays figure, they’re just hacks, we can buy ’em. Probably not, and anyway, there’s not much time left, and think of the spotlight the solons would be shining on themselves. In the end it would all be up to Deval to try to fix the case. As inept as he has proven himself to be as governor, Deval did once work at DOJ. He understands how easy it is to be taken down, if someone with subpoena
power and an appropriate statute (Chapter 268A) has a mind to do you in.
And if he’s forgotten, he can always take a stroll down Beacon Street
and ask Buddy Cianci. OUR VIEW: The right decision Last Thursday, a day after her fellow senators elected her to one of the three most powerful posts on Beacon Hill, Therese Murray made it clear she will stress fairness and integrity as the new Senate president. With a controversial vote on gay marriage expected to come up in early May, Murray said she’ll allow a vote on the proposed constitutional amendment seeking to reverse the historic 2003 court ruling allowing same-sex marriage in Massachusetts. When the measure last year came up for a vote, Murray - a Plymouth Democrat and gay-marriage supporter - favored killing the measure by using a parliamentary maneuver to block a vote. That was her prerogative as one of 200 voting members of the constitution convention. But now that she will be the one holding the gavel and presiding over the next joint session of the House and Senate, Murray wants the process to be fair and open. Murray could call for the vote or, as has been more typical on Beacon Hill, decide to recess the convention to a later date. But the state constitution calls for a vote on a qualifying citizens petition, not killing it through parliamentary procedure. Even the state Supreme Judicial Court - the body that declared gay marriage allowable under existing statutes in a 2003 ruling - found that lawmakers have shirked their constitutional duties in the past by recessing instead of voting on the proposal. All sides in the contentious debate deserve to be heard. Some 170,000 gay marriage opponents signed a petition seeking a 2008 ballot question that would allow voters to decide whether same-sex marriage should remain legal in Massachusetts. The amendment needs to be approved by 50 votes in the 200-member Legislature in two successive legislative sessions to appear on the 2008 ballot. So far it has received one of those two needed approvals. While she will call for a vote on the measure, Murray adds that she still opposes it, and will work to secure votes to defeat the measure. ‘‘My vote is going to be just what it was the last time, but I am not going to move to adjourn,’’ she said. ‘‘I will call for a vote and I will try to help the advocates get the votes that they need.’' That’s fair. Copyright 2007 The Patriot Ledger Editorial - The right vote: Lawmakers
did their constitutional duty Massachusetts’ legislative leaders did the right thing twice yesterday, first by resisting pressure to convene then immediately recess the constitutional convention, then by promptly calling a roll call vote on whether the initiative petition on marriage should be moved forward for a second vote in the 2007-08 session. The Supreme Judicial Court last week left no doubt as to where lawmakers’ duty lay. In a unanimous decision, the justices ruled that the Legislature was required by the state constitution to act on the initiative. Sixty-two lawmakers voted to move forward the proposed amendment, 12 more than the 50 votes needed. A second vote is needed to place the proposal on the November 2008 ballot.
The apparent certainty of advocates of same-sex marriage that Massachusetts will endorse the marriage amendment is curious. Polls suggest that a majority, if not enthusiastic about same-sex marriage, at least have a live-and-let-live attitude. Make no mistake: Yesterday’s vote by no means nullified the 2003 SJC decision. The vote does give both sides of the marriage debate the opportunity to win hearts and minds. It was high time the issue was moved out of judicial chambers and political back rooms and into the public forum. Editorial - OUR VIEW: One more
chance With the state Supreme Judicial Court now having instructed them on their duty, members of the Legislature return to Beacon Hill on Tuesday with another chance to do the right thing on the ballot initiative to ban gay marriage. We hope they do better than they did in November. A majority of legislators took the coward's way out two months ago. Meeting in a joint session, they declined to vote on whether to let the citizens of the Commonwealth decide this question for themselves. Opponents of same-sex marriages had to gather 170,000 signatures to put before voters a proposed change to the state Constitution that would define marriage as being exclusively between a man and a woman. We don't think that amendment should be adopted, but it is outrageous to ignore the will of at least 170,000 citizens, and their constitutional duty, which is what the legislators did. To amend the constitution, a minimum of 50 of the 200 members of the House and Senate must vote to put the question to voters in a statewide election, and then 50 members of the House and Senate must vote again in the next session of the Legislature to put the question to voters. We can't know how such a vote would have gone in November, but there is a pretty good clue. When legislative leaders moved to adjourn without a vote on the citizen initiative, 87 members bucked the leadership and said, yes, take a vote. Unfortunately, there were 109 votes to weasel out and call it quits until Jan. 2. So on the last day of the current session, they return to Beacon Hill with the chance to again insult the citizenry or to vote to let the people decide this most contentious issue. The Supreme Judicial Court ruled this week that legislators have a duty under the state constitution to vote on a citizen initiative that legitimately comes before them, and pointed out to legislators that they took an oath to uphold that constitution. The court, however, doesn't have a militia at its disposal, and acknowledged it has no power to order the Legislature to vote. The Supreme Judicial Court got it right in 2003 when it said the state Constitution's guarantee of equal treatment under the law made it illegal to deny a marriage license to single-sex couples. We recognize, however, that this is an issue that stirs passion and determination on both sides. It is best in a situation like this that 200 men and women at the State House not decide what is right for 6.4 million people across the state. Our message to the Legislature: Let the people vote. Editorial - Duty calls: SJC unambiguous
on lawmaerks' responsibility It is symptomatic of Massachusetts' dysfunctional civic discourse on same-sex marriage that proponents and opponents of the proposed amendment defining marriage as the legal union of a man and a woman both claimed victory in the Supreme Judicial Court this week. Proponents emphasized the court's affirmation that the Legislature is required by the state constitution to act on the initiative. Opponents noted that the justices acknowledged they could not force the Legislature to act. The focus on legislative responsibility is appropriate, since much of the controversy stems from the Legislature's refusal to either endorse or reject same-sex marriage - or even the sort of civil unions that exist elsewhere.
On Tuesday, the Senate and House leaders have another opportunity to do their constitutional duty. It is a responsibility they should not shirk. Editorial: Lawmakers, remember
your oaths When the state Legislature recessed last month rather than vote on two constitutional amendments proposed by citizen petition, it wasn't the first time lawmakers had played fast and loose with Article 48 of the constitution. Legislators have regularly used parliamentary maneuvers to stymie the referendum process. But never before have the Legislature's actions been so clearly exposed as in Wednesday's ruling by the Supreme Judicial Court. The language of Article 48, which calls for all legally submitted petitions to be voted on ``by call of the yeas and nays'' and the 1917 debate which accompanied its adoption, ``lays any doubt to rest,'' Justice John M. Greaney wrote for the unanimous court. Proposed amendments must be brought up for a vote, and if they win the support of 25 percent of the legislators, they move to the next stage of the process, and eventually a spot on the ballot. Opponents of the proposed amendment to prohibit same-sex marriage say they will still push for the Legislature to adjourn next Tuesday before bringing the proposal for a vote. The people should not be allowed to vote on any measure that would add discrimination to the constitution, they argue, so any means of stopping that vote is justified. But we are a nation of laws, not sentiment, and the most important of these is the constitution. Article 48 specifies certain rights as being exempt from the amendment process, but the right to marry is not among them. It specifies procedures for petitioners and the responsibilities of legislators - responsibilities those legislators have failed to carry out. The SJC recognized it has no authority to order the Legislature to bring the marriage and healthcare amendments up for a vote before adjourning its session. But its stern warning ought to be enough to sway those legislators who take seriously their oaths of office. While this page has long supported gay marriage, we find the position of those who will endorse any tactic to keep the amendment off the ballot misguided and sad. Either they lack the courage of their convictions or they lack faith in the voters of Massachusetts, who have given every indication they would not vote to prohibit gay marriage. Whatever their motivations, their end-justifies-the-means reasoning is reprehensible. But the lobbyists and activists don't have to raise their hands and solemnly swear to uphold the state constitution. Within 24 hours of Tuesday's scheduled resumption of the Constitutional Convention, nearly all current legislators will be asked to do exactly that. If at that point they have, by recess or other procedural means, avoided what the SJC calls their ``lawful obligations'' under the constitution, they shouldn't just raise their right hands as they take the oath. They should hang their heads in shame. 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. 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? Legislature’s cowardice also not ambiguous If they could have, they would have. That much is clear from reading the opinion of the Supreme Judicial Court yesterday on whether it could force the Legislature to take a vote at the Constitutional Convention on the same-sex marriage ballot question. “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. We have no statutory authority to issue a declaratory judgment concerning the constitutionality of legislative action, or inaction, in this matter,” the SJC opinion states. But that’s just one part of the hard-charging, explicit opinion. Here’s more: “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. With respect to legislative action on proposals for Constitutional amendments introduced to the General Court by initiative petition, the language of art. 48 is not ambiguous.” Not ambiguous, as in clear as a bell. So lawmakers, kindly described by the SJC as having “reasoned in good faith” that their procedural votes met the requirements of the Constitution, have been shown the light and it’s as glaring as the sun in August: When it comes to the requirements of Article 48, there is no such thing as “close enough for government work.” They’ve got to vote, up or down, on the merits. Nor is this really their “Sophie’s Choice” moment. Those passionate that the rights of a minority should never be put to a popular vote can simply vote “nay.” And that ought to be good enough for their constituents and the special interests which have brought such pressure to bear on lawmakers on this issue. For those special interests to ask lawmakers, again, to kill the same-sex marriage ballot question by procedural maneuver is asking way too much. It is also the height of hypocrisy. The same court which they hailed when it made Massachusetts the only state in the nation to sanction gay marriage ought now be ignored when it clearly says lawmakers have to vote? Legislative leaders can pat themselves on the back for effectively denying Gov. Mitt Romney his national soapbox by pushing the vote to the last day of the session. But they’ve now played this political drama out as far as they can. They ought to “vote their conscience,” representatives from Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders said yesterday in reaction to the SJC ruling. In doing so, advocates hope the Legislature will “end the debate once and for all.” However, in examining their consciences, legislators would be remiss if they didn’t consider this final admonition from the court: “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.” Is there any real danger that lawmakers will be voted out of office for defying the Constitution? Probably not, given the power of incumbency and the weakness of the opposition party. But as Romney put it, “the issue is now whether the Legislature will follow the law.” Or whether, by shirking their responsibility, they will make a mockery of the law, democracy, their oath and, ultimately, themselves. A vote for democracy MAYBE YOU need to have been there. Maybe you had to have been an Irish Democrat in 1918, feeling powerless against the Yankee Republican ruling class, fighting for a constitutional amendment that would give citizens like you the right to get signatures and put issues on the ballot. Maybe, at some point in your life, you had to care deeply about an issue that, no matter how strong your arguments to the power structure on Beacon Hill, you knew you had no chance to get passed by an indifferent Legislature. Name the issue: taxation, animal rights, the environment, birth control, allowing Sunday sporting events, assistance for the elderly or the blind, veterans' preferences. Politicians and lobbyists had the power, and you had no chance. You may have worked to elect new legislators who would help you with your issue; but the power of incumbency -- the fund-raising ability, the name recognition, the ability to do favors for constituents with government money -- was very hard to overcome. So you were glad that, after intense debate, the state Constitution was amended with Article 48 at a Constitutional Convention, allowing initiative petitions for either laws or other constitutional amendments. You drafted your petition and took it to the attorney general, whose job is to ensure that you followed all the constitutional rules. If you had, you could then take your issue to the streets, spending evenings at shopping malls and weekends at fairs, the town dump or the post office, collecting tens of thousands of required signatures over two months. Maybe you also raised money to pay a petition company to help you. You delivered your signatures to local city and town halls, across the commonwealth, so that registrars and city/town clerks could identify the registered voters in their jurisdiction; then you returned two weeks later to pick them up and file them with the secretary of state. You and your supporters attended a State House hearing on your petition, waiting until legislators testified first, because their time is more valuable than yours. If, seeing all the signatures, the Legislature was supportive, it became law. If not, you went back to the street corners, collected thousands more signatures, and finally were on the November ballot. You raised money for media, trying to be competitive against usually better-funded establishment opponents. You debated them, wrote letters to the editor, visited editorial boards looking for support. In the end, having made your best case to the voters, you won, or you lost. But thanks to Article 48, you -- the average citizen, the committed activist -- had a chance. If you won, you'd created a law. Nowadays, of course, legislators who didn't like it in the first place -- or they would have passed it themselves, saving you all that time, money, and trouble -- just repeal it or amend it to death. They resent the average citizen getting directly involved in his or her own government -- who do you think you are? If instead of creating a new law, you want to amend the Constitution, you must do all of the above except get the second round of signatures to bypass the Legislature. A proposed constitutional amendment, with its tens of thousands of signatures, is sent to a Constitutional Convention , where the 200 House and Senate legislators are required by Article 48 to take a rollcall vote, up or down. All constitutional amendments require voter approval to pass, and legislators can also file one for Constitutional Convention debate; but because they don't collect any signatures, they need the usual majority to move it to the ballot. Petitioners, because they worked so hard, get an advantage: you need only your thousands of signatures and 50 votes -- one-quarter of the legislators in the State House -- to move forward. If you get this, you must wait two years for the next Constitutional Convention , get 50 votes again, then you're finally on the ballot -- where a majority of voters is required to pass your petition after an open, democratic ballot campaign. Then you win or you lose, but democracy itself always wins. This is the way it works, when everyone follows the Article 48 rules. But when legislators violate their oath of office to uphold the Constitution, and refuse to vote in the Constitutional Convention , your petition just dies without voters ever expressing their opinion. This is what is happening right now with two citizen petitions: Health Care for Massachusetts, and the Marriage Amendment. This is why proponents of both these petitions are asking the Supreme Judicial Court to move their petitions forward to the ballot, bypassing the Legislature when it denies their civil rights. Many of us who have "been there" on various issues wish them well. Barbara Anderson, executive director of Citizens for Limited Taxation, is one of the 10 signers of the Health Care for Massachusetts lawsuit. Editorial: Bring gay marriage
up for a vote Lawyers on both sides of the argument over a ballot initiative banning gay marriage agreed Wednesday on a most important point: Even if the Supreme Judicial Court is convinced the Legislature violated the state constitution when it recessed instead of voting on the proposal, there isn't much the court can do about it. The constitution requires joint legislative sessions take up citizen petitions proposing constitutional amendments in two consecutive sessions. But rather than vote last month on the anti-gay marriage amendment - as well as an amendment on health care it had already approved once - the Legislature voted to recess until Jan. 2, the last day of the session. This isn't the first time the Legislature has ducked its responsibility to consider citizen initiatives, and the SJC should rule on whether the practice violates the constitution. But then what? The court has no constitutional authority to put an amendment on the ballot without a vote of the Legislature. Any attempt by the court to punish the Legislature or order it to do something would violate the constitutional separation of powers. There's still time for the Legislature to do the right thing. It can reconvene on Jan. 2 and bring both amendments to an honest vote. Debates over universal health care and same-sex marriage will continue whatever the Legislature does. Lawmakers should not undermine respect for constitutional process just to win one parliamentary round in a long and important civic discussion. After the vote to recess, most people assumed the Legislature would not reconvene, but that decision rests largely with Senate President Robert Travaglini, who would preside over the Constitutional Convention. In a radio interview Wednesday, Travaglini said he thought it ''appropriate'' to bring the amendments up for a vote. Then do it, Mr. President. Gavel the Constitutional Convention back into session and do what the constitution requires. Editorial: SJC can tell ’em the law matters Voters know and clearly the justices of the Supreme Judicial Court know
that the Legislature has shirked its constitutional duty to vote on the
anti-gay marriage petition. And lawmakers have given every indication
they will continue to do so. But what can the SJC do? If there is no judicial remedy - especially given the strong separation
of powers clause of the Massachusetts Constitution - what role is left
for the court? Well, as Chief Justice Margaret Marshall said at yesterday’s hearing
on the case, “Certainly it’s the duty of the court to clarify
what the Constitution means.” It is indeed. And perhaps that’s the best the petitioners in this case - those who want to put on the ballot a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages - can hope for. Time and again on a variety of issues legislators have shirked their
constitutional duty to do what they were sent to Beacon Hill to do - to
vote. Up or down, it doesn’t matter. But these profiles in courage
can’t even do that. Sure, it’s a simple thing to repeat the truism, as Assistant Attorney
General Peter Sacks (representing the Senate president) did, that the
only real remedy is at the ballot box. That when legislators don’t
fairly represent their constituents, it remains for voters to vote them
out. But in practical terms we all know that rarely happens. And surely the court should do something other than throwing up its
hands and saying “Hey, you’re right, but it’s not our problem.”
The result, as Justice Martha Sosman indicated, would be that “the
Constitution will continue to be violated.” A ban on gay marriage isn’t the only issue the Legislature ducked
before recessing until Jan. 2, the day before the 2006 session is due
to end. They also failed to vote on an initiative petition on universal
health care. That is being heard as a separate case in which supporters
are asking the court to “deem” the petition approved in the
absence of a vote and order the secretary of state to put it on the 2008
ballot. It would be delightful to imagine the court sending out marshals to
round up lawmakers and giving them a police escort back to the State House.
But that only happens in Texas. And then what? It can’t force a vote.
The court has only one real weapon at its disposal right now - the ability
to tell legislators what their duty under the Constitution is. Because
given their current behavior clearly they have forgotten that. Editorial: It's all a joke to
Rep. Charlie Murphy Nor do 70 percent of Sun readers who, in a www.lowellsun.com survey, said lawmakers should vote on a citizen petition concerning gay marriage. Murphy is one of 109 chicken dancers in the state Legislature who have denied the state's constitutional process from happening. The others in our area are Reps. Cory Atkins, D-Concord; James Eldridge, D-Acton; Barry Finegold, D-Andover; and Sens. Bob Havern, D-Arlington; and Pam Resor, D-Acton. They won't vote on the gay-marriage petition, falsely believing that to deny one group their constitutional right is more important than protecting another's. But if the Massachusetts Constitution is to be a living document as endorsed by its author, John Adams, there is no reason why it shouldn't be subject to change when and if the people necessitate it is right to do so. The people of the commonwealth have a right to appeal lawmakers' decisions, and one such avenue is through a citizen initiative petition. MoveOnMarriage.org [sic], the architects of the citizen's petition, recently filed a $5 million lawsuit in U.S. District Court against the 109 legislators who have worked to deny democracy and derail the constitutional convention vote from going forward. MoveOnMarriage.org's petition seeks to amend the constitution by defining marriage as between one man and one woman. "That's it? That's not bad," joked Murphy when told he could be liable for $46,000 if the lawsuit is successful. To most people, $46,000 is a big deal. But obviously it isn't to Murphy. He pulls down $55,550 as a so-called full-time legislator who votes on issues only when he considers it in his interest. Plus, he's a working attorney, earning as much as an extra $100,000 annually, based on a financial disclosure form he filed with the Secretary of State's Office. Murphy was elected to do the people's business, and that means voting on constitutional issues. Whether one agrees or not with the MoveOnMarriage.org's [sic] position on gay marriage, the organization has played by the Legislature's rules, legally obtaining 170,000 certified signatures from registered voters across the state. The petition deserves an up-or-down vote by the state's 200 lawmakers. Murphy, Finegold and Atkins think it takes courage to be a constitutional obstructionist, but they're wrong. If MoveOnMarriage.org's [sic] petition were to succeed and go before voters in 2008, it would take real courage to fight it and convince voters that once civil rights are granted, they should never be taken away. And if voters disagree -- and reject gay marriage -- Murphy, Finegold, Atkins and the rest will get their chance to stand up and deny the will of the people -- just like they have on the death penalty, Clean Elections, and the income-tax rollback. So what's the big fear of having Massachusetts democracy take its course? It's a big joke, Rep. Charlie Murphy, isn't it? Yeah, on the rest of
us who do care. Marriage vote dodge was a sleazy
betrayal In view of the long history of chicanery in the Massachusetts Legislature, we should not be surprised by the latest betrayal. Still, the cowardly maneuver used once again to deny the people’s right to be heard on a proposed constitutional amendment came as a shock. Perhaps I was naïve to believe Senate President Robert E. Travaglini when in July he said he will bring the issue of same-sex marriage to a vote at the Nov. 9 constitutional convention. Instead, he pulled the same trick that one of his infamous predecessors, William M. Bulger, played on the electorate a decade earlier. After the state Supreme Judicial Court declared same-sex marriage legal in 2003, a grass-roots petition drive produced 170,000 signatures in favor of a constitutional amendment to reverse the ruling. To place the initiative petition on the 2008 election ballot, at least 50 of the 200 legislators must vote “yes” in two consecutive legislative sessions of the House and Senate meeting in a joint constitutional convention. On July 12, the marriage issue, relegated to the bottom of the convention agenda, was sidestepped. Mr. Travaglini recessed the session until Nov. 9, two days after the elections, pledging to take up the amendment for a vote. Sen. Edward M. Augustus Jr. explained that gay marriage proponents needed more time to line up votes against the amendment. Emboldened by their party’s success on Election Day, freshly re-elected Democrats saw no need to play it fair. With House Speaker Salvatore E. DiMasi pulling the strings in the background, lawmakers again recessed without taking a vote, effectively killing the same-sex amendment. Sens. Augustus, Robert A. Antonioni, Harriette L. Chandler and Pamela P. Resor blocked the amendment both on July 12 and on Nov. 9. I don’t hesitate to mention their names because I’m sure they’re proud of their consistency. Sen. Richard T. Moore voted against recess each time, and Sen. Stephen M. Brewer did so on Nov. 9. Gov. Mitt Romney put it mildly when he said, “Failure to vote is a violation of the oath of office we all take to uphold the constitution.” To put it bluntly, what happened was a sleazy manipulation of parliamentary rules. It was cowardly dereliction of duty. It was a mockery of democracy. Make no mistake: The lawmakers were not asked to take a stand on whether they favored or opposed same-sex marriage. The vote they avoided through parliamentary maneuvering was to allow the voters to make that decision in 2008 — a right the state constitution guarantees, and the SJC specifically upheld earlier this year. It takes only 101 votes to recess, and thus kill the amendment by inaction, rather than the 150 votes needed to stop its progress. While the ploy was deplorable, it wasn’t even original. Billy Bulger wrote this scenario of deception in 1992, when an organization called LIMITS collected nearly 100,000 signatures to place a constitutional amendment on the 1994 ballot to limit the terms of elected officials to eight years. Relegated to the bottom of the agenda, the proposed amendment died when Senate President Bulger recessed the constitutional convention without taking a vote. When Gov. William F. Weld called the Legislature back to reconsider, the amendment was filibustered until time ran out. Travaglini, DiMasi & Co. simply copied the Bulger playbook, (Term limitation was adopted briefly in 1994 by a binding referendum to prohibit ballot access to politicians who have already served eight years in the same office. The law produced remarkable improvement on Beacon Hill, until the SJC threw it out, ruling that only a constitutional amendment can impose term limitation. So much for Catch-22.) Sadly, the people’s voice in the One-Party-State of Massachusetts is often a voice in the wilderness. The Legislature flagrantly ignored an overwhelming referendum vote to roll back the income tax “temporarily” imposed during the Dukakis era. It made short shrift of the plebiscite in favor of “clean elections.” When the Legislature engineered an automatic pay hike system for itself back in the Finneran era, it made it repeal-proof and immune to referendum. The Legislature, which controls the purse strings for the judiciary, can easily influence the courts as well. So the marriage amendment went down the drain without the voters having a chance to speak. It wasn’t the first betrayal, and it is unlikely to be the last. The in-your-face process will continue as long as we keep re-electing the betrayers. Robert Z. Nemeth’s column appears regularly in the Sunday Telegram. Editorial: Gay marriage, back
before the SJC The thorny and apparently interminable issue of gay marriage heads back to the state supreme court later this month. The Supreme Judicial Court set a hearing for Dec. 20 to consider a motion from Gov. Mitt Romney and others to force action on a proposed constitutional amendment on the legality of same-sex nuptials. Backers of the proposed ballot question, which would define future marriages in Massachusetts as the union of one man and one woman, gathered more than 170,000 signatures of people in support of putting the measure on the 2008 ballot. The state constitution requires the measure to pass in two successive legislative sessions to be placed on the ballot. The question needs the backing of 50 of 200 lawmakers in the current two-year legislative session. It then would come up for a second vote in the new legislative session, where it would also need the backing of 50 lawmakers. Yet, in the waning days of the 2005-2006 session, state lawmakers have so far refused to either accept or reject on it. On Nov. 9 they punted by voting to adjourn until 2 p.m. Jan. 2 - the last day of the current legislative session, after which the proposed ballot question, and all the work that went into it, will have been for naught. Legislative inaction prompted Romney and others to run to the state supreme court. They’re calling on the justices to order lawmakers to take an up-or-down vote on putting the question on the 2008 ballot - or, failing that, to order Secretary of State William Galvin to sidestep the legislative chicanery by allowing the question on the ballot. It’s hardly an ideal scenario. The SJC is the same panel that ruled 4-3 in 2003 that the state could no longer deny marriage licenses to gay couples. Voters deserve their say in the controversial matter, but so far state lawmakers are preventing that from happening. It is highly ironic the same people who castigate the judiciary for its social policy interpretation of the constitution now are pinning hopes of their statewide referendum on that same bench of judges. Romney in particular can’t say enough about activist Massachusetts judges while he’s elsewhere in the country, peddling his presidential ambitions. Romney aside, citizens do need recourse to the law. And if our spineless legislators won’t vote yes or no on the ballot issue, then perhaps the SJC can show them how a branch of government with backbone can conduct the people’s business. Editorial: Constitutional crisis In Massachusetts, the same-sex-marriage issue isn't quite done. In fact, the state faces something of a political and constitutional conundrum whose outcome is hard to predict. The issue came to a head when 170,000 voters signed petitions to put the question of ending new same-sex marriage on the ballot as a referendum question in 2008. Under the state constitution, written in 1780 (by John Adams), as amended, these signatures require the legislature's 200 members, voting jointly in constitutional convention, to formally vote on the matter. If fewer than 50 members vote yea the issue dies. If 50 or more -- in other words, a fourth -- vote yea, the matter comes up a second time before the new legislature elected on Nov. 7. If 50 or more support it the second time (either in 2007 or 2008), it goes on the 2008 ballot. A simple majority of the people could then end new same-sex marriages. (Those that have taken place since May 2004, when the procedure became lawful, would be unaffected.) A simple majority could also settle the question by saving same-sex marriage. The constitutional problem is that the measure currently has well more than 50 legislative votes -- but fewer than a 101-vote majority. So the leadership has cutely used a majority vote to adjourn the constitutional convention without taking the mandated vote. Enter Governor Romney, with a petition to the Supreme Judicial Court to order the legislature to take the vote, or, if it refuses to do so, to order Secretary of State William Galvin to put the referendum question directly on the 2008 ballot, without the constitutionally mandated 50 votes of two successive legislatures. This happens to be the same Supreme Judicial Court that created same-sex marriage by a 4-to-3 margin, in 2003. And, of course, it is the same once putatively moderate Republican governor about to announce his candidacy for president as (in his own bragging) the truest conservative Republican since Ronald Reagan. The legislature has unquestionably broken the law and failed to do its duty by refusing to take a vote on the proposed amendment. But there may be no constitutional remedy for this politically slatternly inaction. It may be a separation-of-powers issue in which the Supreme Judicial Court is powerless to punish a co-equal branch of government. There doesn't seem to be any overt constitutional language authorizing the court to nullify the 50-vote-twice requirement, as Governor Romney has demanded. But, as we note, there is also no language authorizing the legislature to refuse to vote. Politically speaking, the worst of all outcomes would be for the same 4-to-3 majority that created same-sex marriage to whitewash the legislature's failure to perform its duty. That would save same-sex marriage, but it would guarantee that the issue would take on the same bitter recriminations that the abortion issue has for the last 33 years. Politically and morally speaking, the best outcome would be for the legislature to relent and to take its required up-or-down vote before this year's session ends. But a constitutional crisis seems more likely. Fargo: In Massachusetts, it’s always been
rights first As citizens of our commonwealth we share in a unique and truly historic bond that was forged by John Adams in 1780 - our state constitution. The constitution does more than provide the framework of our government; it also articulates individual rights and freedoms. Adams believed so strongly in safeguarding individual rights and freedoms that he purposely placed the Declaration of Rights before the Frame of Government in our constitution. He expressed his desire that the U.S. Constituion be drafted similarly, although it was not. Today, 226 years later, as we contemplate removing the civil marriage rights of same-gender couples, legislators and private citizens should be mindful of his "rights-first" philosophy. In 2003, the State Supreme Judicial Court acknowledged that exempting same-gender couples from the benefits and obligations of civil marriage "violates the basic premises of individual liberty and equality" protected by the Massachusetts Constitution. Recently, the General Court met in Constitutional Convention to consider several amendments, including two that seek to alter the Constitution in a way that would countermand the court’s ruling. After several joint sessions more than a dozen votes have been taken about the issue. I would adamantly vote against any future amendment to the Constitution that would reduce or remove civil rights from any citizen; this is consistent with the votes that I have already taken. Safeguarding civil rights is paramount, something Adams understood implicitly. As our joint convention approached, there was speculation that legislators would stay away and thus deny a quorum needed to attend to the lengthy agenda. All items in our Constitutional Convention, including the Universal Health Care proposal, must be given due consideration. I gave my word that I would attend and that I would take no action to thwart votes being recorded on the issues. I also said that if any votes were taken on the marriage amendments to define marriage as exclusively between a man and a woman, that I hoped that they would be defeated and that I would vote against any and all attempts to add discrimination to our Constitution. As you may recall, when a vote was recently taken on the legislative marriage proposal, I voted against it. Some have looked at the next vote, to recess our session, and have tried to draw conclusions about where individual legislators stand on the fundamental issues of marriage equality. I am certain that Adams, a scholar of parliamentary procedure and legislative bodies, would respect that each individual legislator must act in accordance with their own experiences and logic and in consideration of the views of their constituents. My vote against recessing to the final day of the session is not a vote for discrimination. Simply looking at the YES and NO columns on the vote to recess does not indicate which legislators oppose or support the constitutional amendment. Several other senators and representatives, who oppose the amendment, as I do, also voted not to recess. More than a dozen votes have been recorded on the issue. In the early stages of the process some marriage equality defenders actually encouraged legislators to vote in favor of onerous amendments with a theory that they would be more easily defeated later on. I have consistently voted "no" on these amendments. Since November 2003, when the SJC rendered its decision, more constituents have contacted me on this issue than on any other. Many have told me that they believe Article 48 of the constitution requires the Legislature to act on the issue. Even staunch marriage equality defenders living in this Senate district have expressed this view. On many occasions as an official at the municipal, county and state levels of government, I have taken oaths to protect and defend the constitution. The words expressed in what is today the oldest functioning written constitution in the world have meaning to me in principal and in practice. Recent public opinion research shows a citizenry that disclaims the dire prognostications made by opponents of marriage equality and the ends that they espouse. The electorate’s growing appetite to participate in a vote to protect and defend equality is heartening in terms of civics and civility. As it was with Adams, I respect the rule of law and the dignity and equality of all individuals. Sen. Susan Fargo, D-Lincoln, represents Chelmsford in the Third Middlesex Senate District. Legislators have trashed the constitution When he authored the Massachusetts Constitution in 1779, John Adams could not have possibly anticipated a future controversy as bizarre as same-sex marriage encroaching upon the very document that would become the blueprint for the Constitution of the United States. And yet in a pretentious and even comical ploy, the proponents of same sex marriage constantly refer to John Adam's constitution as if he somehow inserted a constitutional loophole with them in mind- so desperate are they to extrapolate whatever they can from this document to feed their delusionary agenda. But Adams probably dwelled on same-sex marriage about as much as he dwelled on same sibling marriage. Neither would John Adams, as a classical scholar of the Enlightenment, have found any reference to same-sex marriage in those two primary ancient sources that served as the basis of his state constitution - Periclean Athens and the Roman Republic. While homosexuality was certainly common in these forerunners of western civilization, neither of them ever legalized homosexual marriage. So alien was the concept of same-sex marriage even in antiquity. So alien is it still today in the world beyond the Newton-Cambridge-Brookline axis of lunacy. The Massachusetts Constitution that he created revolves around the rights of the citizenry and the checks and balances within government to help facilitate those rights, foremost of which is the right of the people to seek redress with their government through petition. The state constitution is very precise on the procedure for the state legislature to address a "qualified petition." Governor Romney summed it up best, "The Constitution plainly states that when a qualified petition is placed before them, the legislature 'shall' vote. It does not say may vote, or vote if its procedures permit a vote, or vote if there are enough of the members in attendance. It says 'shall' vote." "A decision not to vote is a decision to usurp the constitution, to abandon democracy, and substitute a form of what this nation's founders called tyranny, that is, the imposition of the will of those in power on the people." Simply put, the legislature is bound by law to honor and facilitate qualified petitions. If such a petition, submitted with the required number of registered voters, is presented to the legislature to appear as a public ballot question, the legislature must carry it through to fruition and let the people vote on the designated ballot question. There is no leeway on this. It's the law. The governor was of course referring to the successful ballot initiative where 126,000 citizens petitioned the state legislature to place on the ballot in 2008 a statewide referendum that would define marriage as between a man and a woman, thereby overturning by popular vote the decision of four judges of the Supreme Judicial Court that sanctioned same-sex marriage. Such a draconian edict by the judicial branch is the kind of abuse of power that Adams would expect to be overturned by the state legislature, and if they failed to act, then by the people through petition. Which is what 126,000 citizens did. But the state legislature refused to act on the petition, shelving it until the last day of the legislative session, which in effect means they have no intention of honoring the petition, or for that matter, the Constitution. To redress such an egregious act of government abuse John Adams had one last course of action- revolution: call out the state militia and storm the gates of the State House. In a perfect world such a popular uprising, common in Adams' era, would certainly be a worthwhile endeavor. In colonial times the Speaker of the House, Sal DiMasi, ringleader of these legislative charlatans, would have been dragged down the steps of the State House, tarred and feathered, then banished to Canada. If only that option were open to us right now. Our three State Reps, Ruth Balser, Kay Khan and Peter Koutoujian, abused their offices by conspiring with the Speaker to usurp the rights of the petitioners. They were among the 109 state legislators that violated their oath of office to the state constitution when they refused to honor this petition. Their intentions are clear: they don't like the petition, so they don't want it to appear on the ballot because they fear that the people will overturn gay marriage. Peter Koutoujian, as a lawyer, knows that what he has done is unconstitutional, but he's hoping few people in The Lake will take notice. Ruth Balser, our socialist-in-residence at the State House, cares only what her extremist comrades on the far left think. Kay Khan does whatever Sal DiMasi expects her to. These three profiles in cowardice have denied the people the right to vote and they're hoping and expecting that the people will do nothing. Yet even those who agree with same sex marriage ought to be alarmed at how these state legislators have conspired to deny a legal petition to be voted on by the public. It sets a dangerous precedent, one that could easily come back to haunt those liberals among us who think that defying the state constitution is a great idea. What will they do in fifty years if a reactionary court outlaws abortion, the people submit a qualified petition for redress, and the state legislature refuses to put the issue to the voters? Everyone inevitably suffers when the government trashes the Constitution. Something that John Adams was well aware of. Editorial: Let the people vote
on gay marriage issue Gov. Mitt Romney asked the state's Supreme Judicial Court last week to force the state Legislature to take a stand on same-sex marriage, or put the proposed ban on the 2008 ballot without their input. Romney filed the complaint in response to the Legislature's refusal to vote on the question during a constitutional convention twice during the last year, including earlier this month, a move that comes in stark contrast to the wishes of the majority of state residents. The question requires approval by at least 50 of the 200 lawmakers in two consecutive legislative cycles before it can appear on the statewide ballot. Lawmakers, many of whom are in favor of same-sex marriage, recessed in July without taking up the question, and recessed again on Nov. 9 without a vote. Several area legislators, including state Reps. Jennifer Flanagan, James Eldridge and state Sen. Robert Antonioni, refused to take up the question, which would have put a citizen's initiative to ban same-sex marriage on the ballot. They voted to recess instead. Not only did they show incredible arrogance by ignoring the will of the people, but they wouldn't even stand up and vote to show people where they stood on the issue. The body is scheduled to reconvene on Tuesday, Jan. 2 -- the last day of the two-year legislative cycle, and the last possible chance for the question to receive approval. The recess, rather than an adjournment, prevents Romney from using his executive powers to call the Legislature back into session. Critics say it also appears to be a plan by gay marriage supporters to run out the clock on the legislative calendar. "The serial recesses, and the public statements of legislators respecting them, confirm a legislative plan, pattern and strategy calculated to thwart the meaning and intent of (the state constitution) to persist in a practice of avoiding a vote, and to defeat the Marriage Initiative Amendment by simply letting the legislative session expire," the complaint states. Kris Mineau, spokesman for VoteOnMarriage.Org, the organization pushing the amendment, praised Romney's action in a written statement issued Friday. "(The complaint stems) from a failure of the joint session of the Massachusetts Legislature to afford the citizens a fair up or down vote on these measures in Constitutional Convention, a move political observers agree was a deliberate effort by those in the legislature to kill the marriage amendment," the statement read. We agree. Certainly reasonable people can disagree on whether same-sex marriage should be banned in the state. But the refusal by so many of our local legislators to even give the people they're supposed to represent a chance to vote on the matter shows arrogance and an unwillingness to do the people's business. We urge the SJC to order the proposed ban to be put on the ballot, so the people of the Commonwealth can decide such an important matter. Stellar resumes, not stellar voters I am proud to recognize that ALL house republicans voted no to delay the taxpayer's right to vote on marriage as well as (2) senate republicans. Locally, they are Sen. Bob Hedlund and Rep. Dan Webster. However, I'm disappointed to recognize the senate republicans who voted yes to delay the taxpayer's right to vote on marriage and they are, Brian Lees, Michael Knapik and Richard Tisei. As a registered republican, many of you might be wondering why I would demonize my own, especially if they don't represent our district. My answer is that I no longer consider pointing fingers across the aisle as "progress" and how our politicians vote absolutely affects our district, regardless. At this juncture, the Republican Party has nothing to lose because we have already lost in MA and the U.S. I opine that if you are a liberal republican, be a democrat and if you are a conservative democrat, be a republican. Sadly, "moderate" is extinct in both parties which I think represents the majority of voters. We are forced to support the far left or the far right because that's how most of our politicians create the bills and vote on them. I would also like to take this opportunity to clear the record relative to the hurtful accusation by Greg Hanley's campaign who wrote "deceit and spin" in response to my editorial about his endorsement by AFT. I was saddened that Mr. Hanley didn't apologize nor the democratic party because my AFT reporting was completely accurate and the info was easily accessible on the AFT website for verification. Coincidently, my family and I were harassed at our home after my last editorial was published and is still under investigation. I realize that freedom of speech is not free and comes with a price but one that I'm grateful for as an American. I also realize that apathy is socially more acceptable and a better resume builder. I can only hope that you, the generous taxpayer, start to recognize HOW your politicians vote, define their ideology and hold your own accountable. A fresh, grassroots approach to this standard in voting I hope will transcend into the upcoming school committee election. Are the incumbents rubber stampers or have they exemplified backbone to consistently vote NO on the popular issues? Resumes and social circles should be the last deciding factor at the polls because they're irrelevant if incumbents or candidates raise fees, taxes and rubber stamp wasteful spending. Let's face it, most politicians have stellar resumes but are not stellar voters, despite how nice they are or which party they belong to. Editorial: Let the SJC interpret
the constitution In filing suit to force an anti-gay marriage amendment on to the 2008 state ballot, Gov. Mitt Romney has acknowledged one thing most marriage opponents have been reluctant to concede: It is the job of the Supreme Judicial Court to interpret the state constitution. People complain about "judicial activism" whenever they don't like however a particular court ruled. Courts have no business ruling on such an important issue, they say. But interpreting the constitution is the court's business, and that's exactly what the SJC did when seven same-sex couples filed suit demanding the state issue marriage licenses to them. That's the SJC's responsibility: It looks at the constitution, weighs precedent and legal arguments, and tries to answer the question plaintiffs put before it. Romney may be pursuing political points with the anti-marriage crowd, but the question he is putting to the SJC isn't specific to same-sex marriage. He wants the SJC to rule on whether it is legal for the state Legislature, meeting as a constitutional convention, to avoid a direct vote on a constitutional amendment submitted by citizen petition. On Nov. 9, the constitutional convention voted to recess until Jan. 2 before it got around to voting on a proposed amendment banning gay marriage. The procedural route gave an advantage to amendment opponents: It only took 100 votes to recess, while it would have required 150 to prevent the amendment from going forward. There was collateral damage in the vote to recess: The recess also prevented a vote on an amendment committing the state to universal health care. If it takes Romney's case, the SJC will be looking at Article 48, which sets the rules for constitutional amendments, including specifically this: "Final legislative action in the joint session upon any amendment shall be taken only by call of the yeas and nays." That seems clear enough that this page, which supports gay marriage, has urged legislators to give the amendment an up or down vote. If the Legislature has violated Article 48, what is the remedy? Romney asks the SJC to instruct the Secretary of State to place the amendment on the ballot without legislative consideration. That would seem to violate Article 48 even more directly. There is also legal debate over whether Romney's suit is premature. The Legislature could still return as scheduled in its final day to fulfill the constitution's requirements, and some legal scholars argue that he really doesn't have a case until the Legislature adjourns its session. Insiders have said the Legislative leadership has no intention of reconvening on Jan. 2, and the timing of Romney's suit indicates he may be applying political pressure to get them to take up the marriage amendment at the last minute. By some counts, this is the fifth time the Legislature has thwarted a citizens initiative petition by failing to take a vote "by call of the ayes and nays." Courts are traditionally reluctant to tell another branch how to do its job, and you can expect the Legislature's lawyers to argue that procedural loopholes are integral to how lawmakers do their job. But if citizens initiatives are to remain an avenue for constitutional amendment, all parties in the process should follow the procedures set out in Article 48. Determining whether the Legislature has been following those rules is the SJC's job, and the justices should not shrink from that responsibility. Beyond Same-Sex Marriage Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney is taking the battle over same-sex marriage to a new level by taking it back to the very court that made this mess: the state's Supreme Judicial Court. On Friday Mr. Romney--perhaps laying the groundwork for a presidential run--filed a lawsuit against his state Legislature for failing to vote on whether to put a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage on the ballot. He says the Legislature was required to do just that after a record number of residents (170,000) signed petitions demanding a popular vote. Mr. Romney's case isn't expected go very far. Aside from the obvious separation-of-powers problem, Mr. Romney is asking the same court that imposed same-sex marriage three years ago to parse his constitutional logic. Like a second marriage, expecting the court to allow a rebuke of its earlier decision is a triumph of hope over experience. But Mr. Romney's case does have one salutary effect. He filed suit against the Legislature not for failing to endorse a ban on same-sex marriage, but for using a series of procedural moves to avoid voting on the issue and thereby keeping it off the ballot. Mr. Romney's lawsuit is, therefore, an attempt to use the state's high court for what it has heretofore resisted being: A bulwark for democracy. Because Massachusetts' Constitution requires votes in favor of an amendment from only one-fourth of the Legislature in two successive terms to get it on the ballot, the governor would likely win the fight if only the Democratic leaders of the Legislature would allow a vote. But the real target here isn't the judiciary or even the Legislature. Mr. Romney filed his case in an attempted to push the debate over marriage back into the court of public opinion. And he's thinking well beyond the confines of Massachusetts--where voters are eager for an opportunity to weigh in on the issue--and into Republican presidential primaries, where he aspires to be the candidate with the strongest social conservative credentials. It is here that Mr. Romney performs a public service. Dozens of states have already enacted their own constitutional amendments banning gay marriage. But as these amendments have passed with overwhelming margins in even liberal states (and helped turn out Republican voters in 2004), the debate over the merits of traditional marriage has largely died down. Passing the marriage amendments have been exercises in the expression of the popular will, without also serving as an opportunity to reach a consensus on why marriage as an institution is worth protecting. Although advocates of same-sex marriage will deny there is any connection to extending the institution to gay couples, a recent report released by the National Center for Health Statistics reveals why this debate is worth having now. The study found that although teen pregnancy rates are dropping, the number of out-of-wedlock births in America has been steadily rising since the 1990s. It seems women in their 20s and 30s are having children without getting married first. Last year the proportion of births that are illegitimate reached an all time high of 37%, or 1.5 million children. The debate on how to address this growing social problem will likely only take place in a presidential race and only if at least one candidate vying for the Oval Office is willing to cogently make the case for marriage, rather than push the issue off to the side by calling for a federal constitutional amendment. Editorial: Marriage by divorce? The legal chaos over gay marriage continues to spread, even in states where there is no law on the books. NEWS ITEM: On Oct. 23, a lesbian couple married in Massachusetts has filed for divorce in Rhode Island family court. This has set up a legal conundrum for Rhode Island, a state that has not a single shred of legal policy on same-sex marriage. Still, the Massachusetts-married couple, who reside in Rhode Island, saw fit to file for divorce there. This should be interesting. Obviously, it would be difficult for the Rhode Island court to set divorce terms on a marriage that the state acknowledges doesn't exist by statute. Or will this prove to be a back-end way to grant the right to gay marriage in Rhode Island, through the very dissolution of it? Hopefully, the Rhode Island court won't pull out of a hat a gay-marriage law like the Massachusetts' high court did in 2003 -- the only high court in the land to do so. A preliminary hearing is set Dec. 5. Stay tuned. Giving process its due Call me a process liberal. This is the dismissive term used by Arline Isaacson, the fiery co chairwoman
of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus, to describe those
whose support of a lefty cause is tempered by their commitment to play
by the rules. It is, in this case, aimed at people like me who support gay marriage
but oppose the legislative dodge, all but killing a constitutional ballot
initiative barring gay marriage, exercised earlier this month by the House
and Senate, sitting together as a Constitutional Convention. "It's not a dodge at all," Isaacson maintains about the Nov.
9 vote to recess rather than vote on the amendment. "What we stand
to lose is so significant, and it's so unfair for our supporters to expect
that we should just lie down and say, 'It's OK, the process is more important
than our rights.' " Process liberals get tagged in torrid single-issue causes whose advocates
like Isaacson conclude that the end justifies the means. That the goal
is so important, they can ignore due process, in this case the state constitution. "It's not a matter of following the constitution," says John
Reinstein, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts.
"It's following the constitution down the drain." Great line, but, of course, once you start choosing which parts of the
constitution to obey, you're practicing cafeteria constitutionalism, which
invites cynicism. Say for the sake of argument that the ballot initiative would embed in
the constitution the right of gays to marry and that the Legislature dodged
a vote on it. Isaacson and Reinstein would, in righteous dudgeon, demand
that legislators honor their oath of office to obey the state constitution. They would demand that a Constitutional Convention follow Article 48
of the document, whose clear intent calls for a vote on an initiative
before it. (If there are 50 votes in favor, the proposal goes on the ballot
in the next statewide election.) The irony is that Article 48 was added
to the constitution in 1918 to provide citizens a means to thwart an obstructionist
legislature. There was nothing pretty about the 109-to-87 vote to skate on the gay
marriage initiative, which drew a record 170,000 signatures. No profiles
in courage either. The leaders of both houses took a powder instead of
defending the craven recess vote. Nothing around this issue is clean. It is, for starters, deeply unsettling
to line up with Governor Mitt Romney , who with 10 plaintiffs petitioned
the Supreme Judicial Court last Friday to order Secretary of State William
F. Galvin to put the initiative on the 2008 ballot. Romney, whose White
House ambition dictates his every move, has a case here, however cynically
motivated. It's not just Romney and gay marriage. Another constitutional amendment
that got sidetracked calls for affordable, comprehensive health care for
everyone in the state. (It was banished to a study group that has never
met.) Earlier this month, former U S attorney Donald K. Stern filed a
complaint to the SJC similar to the Romney suit on behalf of a group behind
this initiative. Supporters argue that while a universal health care law already exists,
it can be repealed, as occurred to such coverage under Michael S. Dukakis
before that statute even went into effect. They want the initiative on
the 2008 ballot if the Legislature fails to act before it adjourns Jan.
2 -- the day you can bet your 401(k) the gay marriage amendment will die. Forget Springsteen, these two SJC hearings will be the marquee events
in these parts. Then there is the whole thorny issue of direct democracy -- the euphemism
for law by popular ballot. Should we really make statutes by getting signatures
from people dashing into True Value for duct tape on issues of basic rights
or complicated measures like universal health care? Yet to deny the procedure
because such measures are deemed too important to leave to the masses
smacks of bald elitism. A process liberal knows when the process is broken, and it is now. The
bar in the amendment procedure is set dangerously low. It should take a lot more than 50 votes-- a mere 25 percent of a constitutional
convention-- to propel an initiative onto the ballot. Two-thirds of each house of Congress, in contrast, must ratify a constitutional
amendment before it goes to the states. We should head in that direction
pronto. In the meantime, there is the minor detail of the state constitution. I can't predict the outcomes of the two SJC petitions-- intellectual
mud wrestling among smart lawyers will shape them-- but I do know that
the current situation smells bad. That's why I'm a process liberal. Here Comes the Left Emboldened by the Democrat victory earlier this month, the far left is rising like Dracula at midnight. Just days after the vote, the San Francisco Board of Education voted to ban Junior ROTC in the city's high schools, tossing more than 1,600 students out of those clubs. The Massachusetts legislature refused to allow a vote on gay marriage even though more than 170,000 Bay State voters signed a petition demanding to be heard on the subject, and a Vermont press group honored Judge Edward Cashman, the guy who sentenced a brutal child molester to 60 days in jail. Don't kid yourself, while the majority of Democrats are moderate, there is a fanatical subdivision of the party that is off-the-wall secular-progressive (S-P) and bent on radically changing America. San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsome told the press he was glad the Board of Education waited until after the election because "cheap shot artists like O'Reilly and Fox would have exploited (the vote)." Not exploited, Mayor, reported. I coined the term "San Francisco values" and well understand they have little to do with democracy. How nutty is the San Francisco Board of Ed? We're fighting a lethal worldwide terror movement, and these people are telling high school students the U.S. military is bad, that's how nutty. By the way, the ACLU is MIA in the ROTC controversy. Can you imagine what would have happened if the Board of Ed had banned a gay high school club? San Francisco values strike again. The far left in Massachusetts is almost as bad. Gay marriage was imposed in the Commonwealth by three judges who found a loophole in the state constitution. Marriage was not expressly defined as between a man and a woman. Presto, traditional marriage has company. But my question is this: If marriage is a constitutional right, which it is not, why can't polygamists get legal? How about triads? Why can't you marry your mom? If one alternative lifestyle, homosexuality, is granted license to marry, you have to include other alternative lifestyles as well. That's equal protection under the law, is it not? But the secular-progressive movement doesn't care about the Constitution. It wants a brand-new America where the people don't call the shots -- the "enlightened" minority sets the agenda. So get ready for more of this kind of thing. The state of Vermont has already left the building. It elected Bernie Sanders, a self-proclaimed socialist, as junior senator. Compared to Sanders, Patrick Leahy, the other Vermont senator, is Dick Cheney. By the way, in case you went to public school, a socialist is someone who believes the government has a right to seize private property and do whatever it wants with it. Apparently, Vermonters are down with that, as well as with judges who give child predators the same amount of jail time as bar brawlers. Vermont is the first secular-progressive state to drop all pretenses and declare itself Havana friendly. Wait, that might not be fair. Even Fidel harshly punishes child rapists. If you think I'm exaggerating, you're wrong. The far left feels liberated, and it sees daylight. Expect these people to make a strong power run led by S-P mom Nancy Pelosi, the new speaker of the house. Let's recap: no tolerance for the military, no voting on controversial issues, and let's ease up on those adults sexually brutalizing children. Welcome to the land of the secular-progressive. Have a nice day. Editorial: Health care, marriage deserve a
vote State legislators who used a procedural vote to recess a constitutional
convention last week inflicted damage on an unintended target. In avoiding
an up-or-down vote on an amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage, they
may have killed an amendment guaranteeing quality health care. The amendment, which would write a general commitment to decent health
care into the state constitution in a way similar to the commitment now
made to education, had already been approved once. Another legislative
approval this year would put it on the 2008 ballot for final approval,
and backers believe it has the votes in the Legislature it needs. But health care fell on the agenda behind the amendment prohibiting
same-sex marriage when the constitutional convention met Nov. 9, and it
was the marriage amendment that drew all the attention. A clear majority
opposed the marriage amendment, but support from just 25 percent of representatives
and senators could have moved it forward. A second vote next year, with
the same 25 percent threshold, would have put it on the 2008 ballot. Gay marriage supporters were within 10 votes of killing the amendment
this year, and would have been closer still once the new Legislature is
sworn in next January. But, for reasons that have more to do with fear
than conviction, they chose instead to recess the constitutional convention.
All that took was a simple majority vote, which they took, much to the
chagrin of same-sex marriage opponents, who felt cheated of a straight
vote on their amendment. The recess sent everyone home, at least until Jan. 2, the last day of
the legislative session. Thus, no vote on the health care amendment. This page supports keeping gay marriage legal, as does a clear majority
of the state Legislature. We don't support the amendment, nor do we buy
the argument that "the people" must vote on any definition 170,000
petition-signers feel strongly about. But we also support the constitution,
which strongly implies, at the very least, that amendments by citizen
petition deserve an up-or-down vote. Tactics that use the end to justify
the means breed cynicism - and unintended consequences. In this case, the consequence was to thwart, with neither debate nor
vote, an amendment thousands of people support. The Health Care Amendment
would build into the constitution the aspiration of the state's landmark
universal health care bill, committing the state government to provide
a system for "comprehensive, affordable and equitably financed health
insurance coverage." Legislative insiders have declared the marriage amendment dead on the
assumption that the constitutional convention won't reconvene on Jan.
2, or won't have a quorum if it does. It doesn't have to happen that way. Parliamentary tactics are part of the legislative process, but backers
of both amendments are justified in feeling cheated of the consideration
the constitution requires. Come Jan. 2, legislators ought to come back
and hold an honest vote on both the marriage and health care amendments. Editorial: OUR VIEW: Does he mean it? For a guy who says the people deserve to vote on a citizens’ petition on gay marriage, Senate President Robert Travaglini doesn’t seem to act the part. The presiding officer of the joint legislative constitutional convention, Travaglini last week said he did want a legislative vote on a proposed gay marriage constitutional amendment. The East Boston Democrat told Emily Rooney on Greater Boston last Tuesday night: ‘‘I believe that in order to bring some degree of finality to this discussion if it’s possible, we should allow the people to vote on this issue. My vote reflected that, I voted not to recess, not to adjourn. And I’ve been saying all along, that any action that reflects the will of the constitutional convention will be done by a recorded vote.’’ Yet a week before, Travaglini showed not an inkling of surprise nor outrage when pro-gay marriage legislators used a parliamentary procedure to postpone the debate on the ballot initiative. Tens of thousands of citizens were outraged when lawmakers on Nov. 9 moved to recess the constitutional convention until 2 p.m. on Jan. 2, the last day of the current legislative session. Yet Travaglini - who likes to count himself among those who believe in the ballot initiative process - has said nary a word. It’s one thing to support or oppose gay marriage - that’s between each lawmaker and his or her conscience. But it’s a matter of fairness for lawmakers to hold an up-or-down vote on whether to put the initiative petition on the 2008 ballot, for voters to decide the fate of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts. The plan, of course, is for the pro-gay marriage forces to stall and filibuster at the Jan. 2 joint legislative session until midnight, when the clock runs out on the current legislative year - as well as the gay marriage ballot question. That would be unfair to the more than 170,000 people who signed a petition in good faith to put the subject to the voters. Those citizens worked through our legal and civic requirements and filed a petition for a referendum vote on an issue, and the state constitution stipulates that a vote of the yeas and nays must be taken. When lawmakers voted whether to recess, Travaglini voted no - which gave him some political cover. The measure won anyway, 109 to 87. House Speaker Sal DiMasi, a strong gay marriage supporter, had lobbied for and counted votes beforehand, and his forces must have known they had to votes to put the ballot question on ice. If Travaglini truly wants to act in a fair and evenhanded way, he can speak out now against the effort to finish the legislative session without a vote on the gay marriage ballot question. As the man who holds the gavel, Travaglini is in a position to show leadership and encourage his legislative colleagues to vote their conscience on the matter - and not hide behind parliamentary procedure to ignore citizens trying to play by the rules. Concerned citizens may reach Senate President Travaglini at his State House office by calling (617) 722-1500. Commentary: Recessive traits in rogue Legislature Sometimes, the most effective lies are the biggest ones. On Feb. 6, 2004, Senate President Robert Travaglini told the Associated Press that it was his intention to take up the full calendar of proposed constitutional amendments, including the definition of marriage proposal. ''It is my hope that the debate on this intensely personal issue will be dignified and orderly,'' he said. ''As the presiding officer, I will afford everyone an opportunity to be heard and there will be a vote on the marriage issue.'' Then, the excuses not to vote began. First, the issue would become a hot potato in the election - so in July, the constitutional convention was adjourned until two days after the election. Last Thursday, the Legislature voted to take its longest lunch ever - a ''recess'' until 3 p.m. on Jan. 3, the last day before the new Legislature is sworn in and the last possible day for a vote that they are legally obliged to take. If they had adjourned instead of recessed, the governor could call them back into session and force them to vote on the citizen petition before them, which they are required to act upon. There have been two separate petitions over the last five years, and they were different types. The first was a legislator petition, sponsored by Democratic Rep. Phil Travis. The Constitution requires a 50 percent vote for a legislator-sponsored constitutional amendment, which may have the support of only that legislator. A legislator petition can be amended and this one was, by then-Speaker Tom Finneran, to include the creation of civil unions along with defining marriage as being between a man and a woman. This was voted down even by those who favored the amendment because, as Travis said, ''Nobody ever signed a petition to create civil unions.'' Next came a citizen petition; its language cannot be amended. The Constitution requires only a 25 percent vote of the Legislature for a citizen petition, which requires thousands of signatures. In this case, 170,000 signatures were collected, 147,000 were certified. Only 65,825 were needed. The Legislature has the right to vote the citizen petition down. It is required to consider it twice in consecutive sessions, so that there isn't any hasty action taken, spurred by a particular event or temporary issue. Now comes the tricky part. Article 48 of the Massachusetts Constitution is very clear that the Legislature must take ''final action'' on every constitutional amendment that comes before it. Twice the Supreme Judicial Court has held that ''final action'' means an up or down vote on the merits - not a parliamentary ruse or adjournment. The petition which needed 150 votes was voted down, but this petition only requires 50 votes, so our Legislature has decided to take the cowardly path. Since their leadership nose counting has told them they don't have the votes, they 'recess'. As Gov. Mitt Romney said, they degrade their oaths. This isn't about gay marriage, but about a rogue Legislature. We vote for a tax rollback; they give us two-thirds of it. We vote for election reform; they repeal it. A bill is submitted about drunk driving, and they feel comfortable gutting it and leaving on a junket. Polls say that 52 percent of the public would vote against the marriage amendment, but 75 percent of the people want the right to vote, like 34 other states, some of which voted it down. The Massachusetts Legislature does not trust the judgment of the people who put them into office, and is desperately trying to find a way to avoid going on record. The recess may just be a time out. There will be another petition drive if there is no vote. Organizations like ''Know Thy Neighbor'' will try their intimidation tactics again, but people will sign again, and friends on the fence, who still may not support the amendment, will sign too - because of how they were treated. The Legislature may get a longer time out than they bargained for. Democracy and same-sex marriage MATT FOREMAN, the executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, was celebrating Arizona's defeat of a proposed constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. "It is always wrong to put basic rights up for a popular vote," he said, "and it is nearly impossible for any minority to protect itself when that happens. But today in Arizona the impossible happened." Constitutional democracy is incompatible with the rights of minorities? That would have come as news to champions of American liberty from John Adams to Martin Luther King Jr. They would have been even more taken aback, to use no stronger term, by the suggestion that there is a "basic right" to homosexual marriage, something American law has never permitted. Once, Americans who considered themselves progressive had faith inthe collective wisdom of the citizenry and fought to extend the franchise to more people (e.g., women) and more decisions (e.g., the election of US senators). Their democratic confidence reflected a civic conviction as old as American independence itself -- that "governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." But advocates of same-sex marriage appear to regard democracy as a snare to be avoided. Hence their preference for securing gay marriage by judicial command, as in Massachusetts and New Jersey. And hence their aversion to letting voters decide whether the definition of marriage should be changed. "History is replete with examples of advances in civil rights that would not have been tolerated had they been put to a popular vote," wrote Kathleen O'Connor, president of the Women's Bar Association, about the petition by 170,000 Massachusetts voters for a constitutional amendment defining marriage. "If our Bill of Rights were today submitted for voter approval, it would be defeated as too radical." Even more scornful of democracy was the Berkshire Eagle. "If civil rights were a matter for the ballot box," the largest newspaper in Western Massachusetts editorialized , "blacks would undoubtedly still be drinking from separate water coolers and riding in the back of buses." When the Massachusetts Legislature corruptly avoided voting on the petitioners' amendment, ducking the vote required by the state constitution, the newspaper cheered its lawlessness. "Civil rights should never be determined by a majority of voters," it declared. "Ballot questions are blunt instruments, lacking the delicacy of legislation." It is hard to say which is sadder: the contempt for ordinary Americans that such comments reflect, or the ignorance of American history underlying them. To begin with, it wasn't through "blunt" ballot measures that Southern buses and water fountains were segregated. It took the "delicacy of legislation" to write something so abominable into law. Nor was it by means of a judicial bolt from the blue that segregation was finally crushed. It was through the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 -- a legislative milestone that would never have been reached if not for the fact that a majority of white Americans supported it. To be sure, there were court cases, such as Brown v. Board of Education, that played a role in extending civil rights to citizens of every race. But those rulings didn't conjure newfangled "rights" out of thin air. They restored rights that had been created democratically and were already supposed to be the law of the land. The 14th Amendment -- approved by Congress and ratified by three-fourths of the states in 1868 -- had guaranteed equality and due process to blacks and whites alike. The Civil Rights Act of 1875 had barred discrimination in public accommodations. But the Supreme Court had gutted those protections -- for example in 1896, when it authorized streetcar segregation in Plessy v. Ferguson. It wasn't democracy that failed black Americans during the long decades of Jim Crow. It was a judiciary unwilling to protect the equality that the democratic process had guaranteed. The republican form of government to which all Americans are entitled makes them the source of the constitution(s) under which they live. The only valid civil rights are those that have the consent of the governed. Their legitimacy comes from the democratic process, not from judicial fiat or political correctness. "I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves," Thomas Jefferson said, "and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion." Same-sex marriage will never be a civil right until the people in their discretion make it one. Editorial: Up-or-down vote is the only answer "Final legislative action in the joint session upon any amendment shall be taken only by call of the yeas and nays, which shall be entered upon the journals of the two houses." - From article 48 of the Massachusetts constitution. Could it be any more clear? Politics makes strange bedfellows, but these words should unite both opponents of gay marriage and those who view health insurance as a constitutional right - two groups who might not otherwise be buddy-buddy. What they do share, though - what most right-thinking people share - is a belief that lawmakers have a sworn duty under our state constitution to take "final action" on initiative amendments introduced by the voters. Last week, on a proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, lawmakers instead took a procedural dive. They did essentially the same back in July on the amendment guaranteeing Massachusetts residents access to health insurance. Sadly, Gov. Mitt Romney says he doesn't have the power to withhold lawmakers' pay for their failure to act, which seems more than appropriate to us. But in the absence of a pay cut, perhaps a lawsuit will get their attention. The backers of the health care amendment have asked the Supreme Judicial Court to place their question on the 2008 ballot if lawmakers fail to take a vote by Jan. 2. Good for them. To be clear, we disagree with the health care amendment, and would like to see it voted down - as would some of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit. But frankly, the substance of either amendment is almost immaterial. In both cases, the petitioners followed the rules laid out in the constitution. Lawmakers did not. They have a duty to act, and it's as simple as that. The plaintiffs in the health care lawsuit would seem to have an uphill battle in forcing the question onto the 2008 ballot. But there is still a way around this mess if lawmakers on Jan. 2 simply take the vote on whether either amendment should advance. Yea or nay. It's as simple as that. Editorial: Same-Sex Chicanery One reason so many Americans despise politicians is because of the contempt that many politicians have for their fellow Americans. A case in point is the way the Massachusetts legislature used a procedural ruse to deny the voters even a chance to vote on the issue of same-sex marriage. Recall that in 2003 four of seven Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Justices declared gay marriage a constitutional right. In response, opponents collected 170,000 signatures to support a ballot measure to amend the state constitution to make clear that marriage is between a man and a woman. But to get on the ballot, the amendment must also be voted on by a joint session of the legislature in two consecutive legislative sessions. Under the state constitution, 25% of the legislators must agree to put an amendment on the ballot, provided the proposal has garnered at least 25,000 signatures, which this one easily did. Last week, the pols denied the voters even that much with a procedural trick that recessed the legislature until just hours before its term expires next January. By the time the lawmakers return, they won't have enough time to vote up or down on the measure, thus dodging a vote on a measure that 170,000 of their constituents decided merited space on the ballot. This leaves intact the judicial same-sex fiat. "The way I looked at it was that we would kill it with a handgun or a hand grenade," explained Democratic Representative Michael Costello. "It's never been proper to put civil rights on the ballot. So we killed it through procedure, rather than on substance." In the face of such arrogant dismissals of voter preferences, no wonder our cultural debates have become so embittered. Gay marriage and legislative politics LET'S FACE FACTS. Massachusetts citizens have no right to amend their constitution if the Legislature disapproves. Not as far as the modern Legislature is concerned, anyway. Yes, I know, the constitution itself says otherwise. Its clear intent is that if a proposed amendment can win the support of one-fourth of the Legislature in two successive sessions, the matter should go to the ballot for citizens to decide. But in reality, lawmakers have nullified Article 48, the provision that allows the state constitution to be altered that way. The immediate evidence that supports that conclusion is the fate of the same-sex marriage amendment. Gay marriage strikes me as an issue of fundamental fairness. But I don't think supporting marriage equality should mean trampling on the constitution to thwart the opposition. And that's what happened last week when the Legislature, reprising its 2002 maneuver on a similar proposal, voted to recess its joint session without taking up the amendment to ban gay marriage. The obvious goal was to kill the measure -- and absent a change of mind, it will now die when the legislative session ends at midnight on Jan. 2. Contrary to what gay marriage opponents said, the Legislature wasn't obligated to "let the people vote" by automatically sending the amendment to the ballot. But they themselves should have voted on it. If lawmakers could have denied the amendment the 50 votes it needed to proceed, they would have dealt it a perfectly legitimate defeat. Because a proposed amendment must meet the 50-vote threshold twice, such a defeat could have come either this year or in the 2007-2008 session. Even if the amendment had cleared those hurdles, it seems likely that Massachusetts voters would have defeated it at the ballot. No matter. For same-sex marriage supporters, the opportunity to kill the amendment now simply proved too tempting -- even though doing so meant abusing the constitutional process. And if you think that only amendments to ban same-sex marriage suffer process abuses, well, think again. The Health Care for Massachusetts Campaign has collected some 66,000 signatures for an amendment to guarantee affordable, comprehensive healthcare for all state residents. That amendment got 153 legislative votes in July 2004. But the legislative leadership was skeptical of the measure. And so, in July, the Legislature sent the healthcare amendment to a so-called study committee, a long-established method of scuttling something without killing it outright. That amendment, too, deserved an up-or-down vote. Had it received one, it would likely be heading for the 2008 ballot. Instead, it too is all but certain to die on Jan. 2. A similar evasion occurred in 1992 and 1993, after activists brought a term limits amendment to the Legislature. Led by then Senate President William Bulger, lawmakers buried the measure deep down on the agenda, and then adjourned without voting on it. And in 1990, Bulger used delaying tactics to defeat two other amendments, one to guarantee abortion rights, another to ensure high-quality public education. Why does it matter? Listen to Donald Stern, who served as legal counsel to Michael Dukakis and later as US attorney, and who is now representing the healthcare campaign. "The constitution provides that mechanism for voters to decide whether to amend the constitution or not," Stern says. "If the Legislature can simply not vote, and by that inaction deny the voters the right to have a matter placed on the ballot, they will have taken away an important right." Well, you may say, if legislators offend, citizens can simply vote them out of office. That's true in theory -- but not in Massachusetts. With incumbents benefiting from a short general election campaign, huge competition-inhibiting war chests, and a weak Republican Party, many legislative seats are virtual fiefdoms. (Recall that when voters passed a 1998 ballot question to level the playing field by establishing public financing for campaigns, the House leadership determinedly torpedoed the measure.) I realize it's hard for people to look beyond their own position on an issue to consider constitutional concerns. Instead, the ends will almost inevitably justify the means for partisans. But there's a broader principle at issue here: Do citizens really want a Legislature that repeatedly ignores an essential provision of the very constitution it is sworn to uphold? Further, if lawmakers can disregard the constitution with impunity, who, really, is sovereign? After last week, it's hard to argue that the real amending power lies with the citizens. Editorial: Marriage fiat in Massachusetts Only two days after voters in Arizona rejected a ballot initiative to define marriage as between a man and a woman and seven other states approved their own ballot initiative, Massachusetts lawmakers denied their constituents the opportunity to decide for themselves -- a blatant attempt to stop debate once and for all. In the process, they also trampled the state constitution. Bay State legislators recessed Thursday without considering whether to place the 170,000-signatory marriage amendment on the 2008 ballot even though the state constitution requires that they vote, and even though the liberal state supreme court, which decreed same-sex "marriage" in the first place, had also previously ordered legislators to vote one way or another. But they wouldn't even put themselves on record as to whether to allow voters a choice two years from now. To avoid intervention by Gov. Mitt Romney, lawmakers voted 109-87 to recess. Under the state's laborious constitutional-amendment rules, this all but kills the effort to let citizens have a say one way or the other. It deprives the measure of the second consecutive thumbs-up by 25 percent of lawmakers which the constitution requires for a ballot measure to go forward. That means proponents need to start over. The ballot measure must now garner tens of thousands of signatures again. That, of course, is the easy part. According to opponents of same-sex "marriage," about three-quarters of state residents would approve a ban -- which, as it happens, is why lawmakers don't want to be on record opposing it, even as they quash it procedurally. This is hardly a profile in courage. There is a fundamental conflict between what the state's political establishment wants and what state residents want. So, rather than following the will of the people, lawmakers are disobeying the constitution. Mr. Romney's reaction struck the right chords: "One-hundred-and-seventy-thousand citizens followed our Constitution's process to petition government. They followed the prescribed process to place an item of importance before the voters. They asked for democracy. "But today, by effectively avoiding the constitutionally required vote on same-sex marriage, 109 legislators disgraced their oath of office. Each of them swore to follow the Constitution. The Constitution plainly states that when a qualified petition is placed before them, they 'shall' vote. By not voting, we have witnessed the triumph of arrogance over democracy. Whether or not you favor same-sex marriage, you should be very concerned that the rule of law and the sovereignty of the people have been trampled." This is a sad day for democracy in Massachusetts, and a signal example
of left-liberalism. Editorial: OUR VIEW: Cowardly solons win another
round Put your views on gay marriage aside for a moment and focus on what happened this week at the Commonwealth's Constitutional Convention. Nothing happened, you might say. But you'd be wrong. What occurred was a very big something for tens of thousands of residents who took the time to sign petitions, work through our legal and civic requirements and file a petition for a referendum vote on an issue -- and even for those who chose not to participate in the process. The leadership of the Legislature and many of our representatives and senators who follow that leadership, ducked under cover of procedural flim flam and refused to take a stand on whether the referendum to amend the constitution should get on the ballot. Instead, they voted yeah or nay on adjourning the convention until 2 p.m. Jan. 2, the last day of the current legislative session. The process stops dead at the stroke of midnight that night. This is nothing short of a collective insult to every citizen -- and a pathetic example of what is wrong with our state government. The only bright spot in this sad civic tale is that not all of our elected representatives followed the cowardly path. To those 87 who voted against recess, we say thank you for having some strength of character. The Patriot Ledger believes the Supreme Judicial Court made the right decision on the issue of gay marriage based on the state constitution's guarantee of equal treatment under the law. However, the right of petition must also be respected. It is meant to guarantee the people a voice when they feel they have been ignored - exactly what is happening in this case.Lame duck governor Mitt Romney seems to have joined this talk-big act-small Beacon Hill coterie as well. He was quick enough in making opposition to the SJC a plank of his national roadshow, in a bid to glean support from the conservative right. Now, when he could show some mettle, he has backed off and taken an ineffectual, hand-wringing posture. The governor-elect Deval Patrick rallied thousands of citizens this week with a message of hope and empowerment. ''Yes we can'' was the cry, and it motivated a remarkable turnout of voters who wanted and needed to believe that change in government accountability, programs and operations is possible. Apparently that cry fell on the deafest of ears on Beacon Hill. Legislature makes a sham of democracy Yesterday, the Legislature voted to recess until Jan. 2 - the last day of the current session - without voting on a constitutional amendment to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. That likely kills an initiative petition signed by 170,000 Bay State residents to put a gay marriage amendment on the 2008 ballot. Legislators were not being asked to approve or disapprove of gay marriage but merely to give the people the ability to decide the controversial matter for themselves. But our legislators, through their cowardly actions, have shown they don't trust the people who elected them. A State House News poll Sunday showed 56 percent of respondents want the gay marriage amendment on the ballot even though 63 percent say they would vote against the question if it were. Clearly, that means that even some supporters of gay marriage believe the matter should be decided by voters. But for our legislators, democracy is too much of a gamble. The proposed constitutional amendment required the support of just 25 percent of the Legislature - 50 legislators - in two consecutive sessions to make it to the 2008 ballot. In 2003, Massachusetts became the first state in the nation to legalize same-sex marriage with a 4-3 ruling by the Supreme Judicial Court. The first such marriages took place in May 2004. Such a far-reaching restructuring of the social fabric should be decided by the people or their elected representatives, not a one-vote majority of a court. Currently, 44 states have laws or constitutional amendments prohibiting same-sex marriage. Since the landmark Massachusetts decision, constitutional amendments banning gay marriage have passed in 27 of 28 states where they have been proposed. On Election Day, seven of eight states considering such amendments passed them. Arizona Tuesday became the first state to defeat a gay marriage amendment at the polls. But at least Arizonans had a say in the matter. Massachusetts legislators won't even give voters that chance. Our legislators have been ducking this important issue for years, even before the SJC ruling in 2003. In 2002, citizens petitioned for a ballot question limiting marriage to a man and a woman. But legislative leaders would not let the matter come to a vote, adjourning the constitutional convention before the question could be considered.
Now, the Legislature has essentially repeated its 2002 stunt, letting the matter die without even taking a vote. The antitax group Citizens for Limited Taxation argues that the Legislature itself is violating the state constitution by refusing to vote on the proposed amendment. Legislators, led by Senate President Robert Travaglini and House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi, have made a travesty of democracy in Massachusetts. They pay lip service to the democratic process but, in the end, ignore it. The Legislature, if it favors gay marriage, has always had the ability to pass a law making same-sex unions legal. But that would have required legislators to stand up and place their names next to a vote. In the end, they found it easier to avoid that responsibility by ignoring the question. The whole affair has been a sham from the outset. Sanctimonious solons thumb noses at masses What about the civil rights of the 170,000 people who signed the petitions to put the question of gay marriage on the ballot? The Legislature was very, very concerned yesterday about the civil rights of some citizens, but the rights of others can be trampled upon, as Gov. Mitt Romney put it last evening, with impunity. It's too bad the 170,000 don't have as much money as MassEquality and the other gay-affiliated lobbying groups. Because apparently the more money you pony up, the more your rights get protected. Where is the ACLU when you really need them? The vote to thumb their noses at the state constitution was made by 109 solons - 109 legislators who disgraced their oath of office, as Romney said last night. Here's the irony, or maybe hypocrisy is the word: When the state Supreme Judicial Court, on a 4-3 vote, invented a right that has never before existed in human history - gay marriage - everyone in the sodomy lobby nodded solemnly and said, "The court has spoken." The decision must never be countermanded. Of course, that same SJC has also ruled that on any proposed constitutional amendment, the Legislature must vote. But that ruling by the SJC . . . well, that's not anything anyone needs to worry about abiding by. Laws? We don't need no stinkin' laws. The Legislature, meeting in joint session as it did yesterday, is called a Constitutional Convention - the ConCon. And that's exactly how the reps and senators were acting yesterday, like cons. There's only one reason the sodomites want to stop a statewide referendum on gay marriage. Because they know they'd lose it. They lost six more statewide votes Tuesday, in the middle of a Democratic wave. Yet they have the audacity to cite polls purporting that 60 percent of the state's voters would approve their abomination. So what's the problem with allowing a vote, if you're going to win. Sen. Ed Augustus of Worcester actually cited the figure, and then said it was time to move on. Of course, the solons claim they aren't really sidestepping the constitution. They didn't adjourn, which would have enabled Romney to order them back into session, which couldn't have hurt his 2008 presidential bid. No, they recessed until Jan. 2, at which time they'll recess until Jan. 3, at which time they'll recess until . . . oh darn, the session ran out, and 170,000 people will have had their civil rights violated. But who cares about them? They go to church, and most importantly, they don't give money to reps. It used to be, not so long ago, if a referendum question passed, the Legislature accepted the will of the people. Then the reps just started ignoring the results. Now they have apparently decided it's just too darn dangerous to allow the people to vote, period. All the usual suspects were present and accounted for. Sen. Jarrett Barrios from Cambridge, whose wife, er husband, is named Doug. He suggested that everyone vote to end this conversation. End this conversation? Whatever happened to the First Amendment? Don't you want to celebrate diversity? Then there was Sen. Brian "Multiple Choice" Joyce, who has lately been following Deval Patrick around like the lapdog that he is. He said gay couples deserve the same rights, which I guess means he's buried the hatchet with Cheryl Jacques (rhymes with Fakes), who had the temerity to run against him for Congress back in 2001. Rep. Kathi Lee Reinstein of Revere said, "We are here to advocate for acceptance of our neighbor." Unless they signed the petition, in which case, bleep 'em. So this is the new world of Massachusetts politics. Looks a lot like the old one, only even more sanctimonious. Editorial: It's time to trust voters It was no accident that legislative leaders postponed a key vote on a gay marriage ban until today - after the election, not that many incumbents faced any real opposition over that or any other issue. But today the only real pressure on lawmakers is to do the right thing. And the right thing is to vote. There is a school of thought among supporters of gay marriage that anything is preferable to an up or down vote on the issue, especially one that would advance the measure to a similar Constitutional Convention in 2007. They are wrong. There are fears that down the road this could turn into a bitter, divisive battle. Again, we think they are wrong. The measure needs a mere 25 percent of the convention - 50 votes - to advance. It is not a high standard because as a voter-initiated petition (it got some 170,000 signatures) it didn't have to be. It would need the same threshold in 2007, which might be somewhat more problematic. But a recent poll by the State House News Service is instructive. It found that 56 percent of those polled thought the measure ought to be advanced. That same poll found that should the prohibition on gay marriage make it to the ballot 63 percent would vote against it. Could there be anything more affirming? Tuesday saw history being made at the ballot box here in Massachusetts. Why would anyone be afraid of leaving this decision to those same voters? Hold pols accountable for gay marriage vote There was a wonderful line attributed to Belden Bly in an obituary that ran in yesterday's Globe, explaining why the 16-term state rep from Saugus, who died at 92, chose not to seek a 17th term back in 1979, even though his popularity would have made him a shoo-in. "I never wanted to be an old man in the State House," he said, in a quote that originally appeared in this paper. "I've seen it happen all too often and it's tragic. People stay because they have no place to go." It still happens, much too often, and the result is always the same, i.e, public service becomes subordinate to political survival. Consider Sen. Marian Walsh, the West Roxbury Democrat who no longer pretends to care how her constitutents feel. In explaining to her hometown paper, the Daily News Transcript, why she plans to deny the electorate an opportunity to vote on same-sex marriage, Walsh insisted, "My constituents don't have a right to vote on that question," brazenly displaying the arrogance of incumbency. Tomorrow's Constitutional Convention, called to address that issue, couldn't come at a more symbolic time, right on the heels of yesterday's statewide elections that reaffirmed a bedrock tenet we were all taught in civics: "Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." Those winners you saw giving victory speeches last night were jubilant because they had just received that consent from the governed. That's how it's supposed to work. And that's the way it should work tomorrow when legislators meet to determine whether Massachusetts voters, having been disenfranchised by four appointed judges, answerable to no one, should finally be given an opportunity to weigh in at the polls, as voters have all across America. But don't bet on that happening, because nothing matters more to entrenched pols like Walsh than feathering their own occupational nests, positioning themselves, whatever the cost, to keep climbing the Beacon Hill ladder. Public service? Please. She just wants to reach the next rung, which is why your view of same-sex marriage means nothing at all to her because the last thing she wants to do is incur the wrath of a militant lobby that's loud and strong. But since cowardice looks bad on the resume, she looks for a way to rationalize, which means finding a good reason for doing something she knows is wrong. And what yields better PR than championing civil rights? Talk about wrapping yourself in the flag. "I will not support a ballot question that would take away the civil rights of some of my constitutents," Walsh told a Daily News reporter. Will someone please give this woman a history book. Some of that movement's bloodiest battles were waged in registering people to vote, in opening up the electoral process to assure that everyone's voice would be heard, everyone's opinion would matter. Doesn't she know the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was the Mount Suribachi of civil rights? How bizarrely ironic that she, and others of her ilk, would now deny us our vote in the name of civil rights. Make no mistake, the proposed gay marriage amendment is as much about civics as it is about values. So watch closely, and you'll find some of the same people who pleaded for your support yesterday telling you tomorrow that your opinions no longer matter. Remember who they are, and replace them as soon as you can. Leave definition of marriage to the people One must admire the audacity of the New Jersey Supreme Court. After finding no fundamental right to same-sex marriage in their state's constitution, a majority of justices ordered the state's Legislature to create one. This court, like its counterpart in Massachusetts, is not content to interpret the law. It claims the right to author it as well. That's not how the American system of government was meant to work. And it's a further example of why Massachusetts legislators when they convene on Nov. 9 must vote to allow the public to decide what our constitution will say about marriage. The New Jersey court by a 4-3 majority ruled Wednesday that the "unequal dispensation of rights and benefits to committed same-sex partners can no longer be tolerated." The court gave the legislature 180 days to either rewrite marriage laws to allow same-sex marriages or create a "parallel structure" - that is, civil unions - that gives gay couples the same rights and benefits enjoyed by heterosexual couples. The three dissenters, by the way, were for full gay marriage rights. The basis of the court's decision was, as in Massachusetts, the state constitution's guarantee of equal protection under the law. But it is simplistic to argue that all citizens must be treated exactly the same to satisfy equal protection guarantees. The law allows adults to drive cars but 14 year olds cannot. Is this discrimination? Homeowners can deduct their mortgage interest from their taxes; other debtors cannot. Is this unequal treatment? Every citizen 18 and older can vote - except for felons. Is that fair? To be constitutional, unequal treatment must have a rational basis - that is, there must be a state interest in such treatment. It makes sense to prohibit 14-year-olds from driving. They are not mature enough to do so safely. The state wants to encourage home ownership; therefore the mortgage deduction is justified. There is a similar rational basis for limiting marriage to heterosexual couples. The state has good reason to favor the formation of families, rooted in a traditional understanding of marriage and its place in our society. Although they have endured a withering attack from the forces of dissolution in our society, traditional families are on balance more financially and emotionally stable than other relationships. They are a better environment for the raising of children. The New Jersey Supreme Court opinion noted the Legislature's long history of advancing civil rights. That's wonderful. Indeed, there was nothing stopping the New Jersey Legislature from passing a law allowing full gay marriage. It chose not to do so. Why not? Perhaps legislators feared an outraged public would oust them from their seats. Now, they have the cover of a court order. The democratic process requires legislators with backbone. It requires them to take stands and make their positions known when so dramatic a change as the redefinition of marriage is before them. Massachusetts legislators will have an opportunity to demonstrate their courage on Nov. 9 when they meet in constitutional convention. An effort to allow voters to amend the constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage requires the approval of 25 percent of legislators in this session and the next. Changing the definition of marriage should be up to the people and their elected representatives, not the courts. Legislators must allow the public to vote. Editorial: Send gay marriage issue to the voters Once again, Massachusetts lawmakers ignored the will of the people and voted to recess Wednesday's Constitutional Convention rather than have the guts to vote on a proposal to outlaw gay marriage in the only state where it is legal. The move to recess until Nov. 9 put off a decision on the politically charged issue until after the general election. Most lawmakers on Beacon Hill -- as is their practice -- would rather duck a vote on a tough issue and hide behind procedural nonsense -- then give the majority of Massachusetts residents what they want: The right to vote on the issue themselves. Why vote they figure, when you can just run. The majority of lawmakers -- just over half of the 191 voting legislators -- voted to recess the convention until Nov. 9, even though thousands of residents signed a petition to bring the issue to a vote of the people. Only three of the region's Statehouse delegation voted in favor of the recess: Sen. Robert Antonioni, D-Leominster, Rep. James Eldridge, D-Acton and Rep. Robert Rice, D-Gardner. Antonioni defended his decision with a lame excuse, "It's going to come up, just at a later date." Antonioni told the Sentinel & Enterprise recently that he would be in favor of adjourning the convention, putting a permanent end to the amendment, if others had been willing to go along. "That issue itself is going to take a whole day to debate," he added. "It just wasn't possible to do all of them in one day." Statehouse leaders -- there's an oxymoron if we ever heard one -- also tried to shift the blame for the nonvote on the number of amendments lawmakers had to vote on. Senate President Robert Travaglini had said he intended to bring all 20 proposed amendments to a vote, but had warned that lawmakers might not be able to get to every proposed amendment on Wednesday. But people are smarter than that, despite what the leadership thinks. They know a majority of lawmakers didn't have the guts to stand up and say where they stood on the issue, and they don't have the faith in the state's residents to let them vote on whether to ban gay marriage. We feel quite differently. We have long said that a decision as important as this should be made by the people of Massachusetts, not a few out-of-touch judges. By voting to recess rather than allowing the people to vote, Antonioni, Eldridge and Rice are saying they don't trust you to make that decision. "They delayed everything until the last minute and took up non-essential things all day," complained Rep. Emile Goguen, D-Fitchburg, a staunch gay marriage opponent who called the day's results a "stunt" pulled by the Senate. "I hope (people) remember this election day." We do too. We think you deserve the right to vote on the gay-marriage issue. Antonioni, Eldridge and Rice apparently think you don't. When you go to vote in November, we hope you let these lawmakers know how you feel about their decision. Editorial: An honest debate, vote on marriage Going into Wednesday's scheduled constitutional convention, two fallacies are being wielded like clubs in the battle over an amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage. The first fallacy says that if an issue is controversial enough that 170,000 people sign a petition, then the electorate must be given the chance to vote on it. This logic, being advanced by supporters of the proposed amendment, argues that legislators should pass the buck to the voters whether or not the legislators support the amendment. The second fallacy, advanced by opponents of the amendment, argues that people shouldn't be allowed to vote on civil rights issues. Topics involving legal rights, by this logic, hover somewhere above the political system that codifies rights into law. If that's the case, Congress should never have taken up the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Massachusetts Constitution shouldn't have been amended to give women the vote. The first fallacy implies that the state is to be governed by plebiscites, that the people should get to vote on whatever issue gets them excited. But this is a government of laws, not popular whims. The most important law is the constitution, and the process for amending it is most specific: At least 50 members of the Legislature must vote for the amendment in consecutive sessions before it is sent to the electorate for final approval. That process expects legislators to vote their conscience and judgment, not just rubber-stamp a petition. The second fallacy, to the extent it is being used to justify using procedural sleight of hand to avoid voting on the proposed amendment, represents an even greater breach of responsibility to constitutional process. The law requires legislators, meeting as a constitutional convention, to vote on amendments submitted by citizen petition. They don't have to vote for it, but they do have to vote on it. Both of these fallacious excursions into constitutional philosophy are mostly smoke being used to distract from the real issue. If the situation were reversed -- if, say, the petitioners wanted to legalize same-sex marriage instead of prohibit -- we'd be hearing the same arguments from different mouths. The real issue here is same-sex marriage. Those who favor letting all Massachusetts couples be free to marry should vote against the amendment. Those who want to restrict marriage to heterosexual couples should vote for the amendment. Let's have an honest debate -- and an honorable vote. Editorial: Let the people vote on gay marriage Legislators and some business leaders have come up with a number of reasons why the people of Massachusetts, unlike those of 45 other states, should not be able to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. None of them is valid. The effort to block a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage is nothing more than an attempt by an elected - and in the case of the business leaders, unelected - elite to force a radical social agenda on the people of Massachusetts. It's an agenda that has been rejected soundly by the majority of citizens of the United States and just last week, by the highest state courts in New York and Georgia. Twenty states have passed constitutional amendments banning same-sex unions, and another 25 have laws prohibiting them. Some 170,000 Massachusetts citizens signed a petition to begin the two-year process of amending the constitution to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. This is necessary because a one-person majority on a seven-member Supreme Judicial Court found a "right" to gay marriage in the state constitution. Yet the people of Massachusetts may never get a say in this radical redefinition of marriage. Why? Because 165 prominent business leaders issued a public statement that debate on a contentious issue is bad for business. And because a few dozen legislators lack the political courage to attach their names to a vote. Getting a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage on the ballot requires a favorable vote from 50 legislators at two consecutive constitutional conventions. The first is scheduled to begin Wednesday. The earliest the measure could appear on the ballot is the fall of 2008. But Boston-area business and civic leaders - including Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino, Legal Sea Foods President Roger S. Berkowitz, former Bank of America Chairman Chad Gifford and Patriots owner Robert Kraft - are trying to persuade the Legislature never to let the question come before the people. Some of those who signed the statement argued in the Boston press that contentious debate is bad for the business climate in Massachusetts. Nonsense. Do business leaders plan to stifle any difficult political debate for fear of its effect on the economy? Behind the scenes, legislators are scrambling to find a way to avoid voting directly on the amendment. A simple majority of the convention - 101 legislators - can vote to adjourn before ever taking up the matter. That's the coward's way out. Many of our local legislators, while they favor holding a vote on the amendment, say they will oppose it. The most common reason: People should not have the ability to vote away a right granted by the courts. Our legislators do not understand the American system of government. All legitimate rights come from the people, through their elected representatives. They are not imposed from on high by unelected judges on an unwilling populace. That is the antithesis of a "right." Throughout American history, the people have expanded their conception of rights through the ballot box and their elected representatives. It began with the Bill of Rights - the first 10 amendments to the Constitution - written in a constitutional convention and ratified by the legislatures of three-quarters of the states. Consider the great advances in civil rights through our history. The 13th and 14th Amendments outlawed slavery and guaranteed equal protection under the law. The 15th Amendment granted the right to vote to members of all races. The 19th Amendment granted the vote to women; the 26th to those 18 years of age. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlawed discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. These are all the result of legislative processes, in which the people had their say through their representatives. These advances did not come from judges ruling in courts. The idea that rights emanate from the judiciary is false. Legislators should show some political courage and allow the people of Massachusetts to determine what constitutes a marriage and what does not. Editorial: Stand up and vote State legislators shouldn't pull any shenanigans at Wednesday's Constitutional Convention, where a citizens' petition proposal that would ban same-sex marriage is on the agenda. Pro-gay marriage legislators, Democrats who are in control of convention rules, have been strategizing for weeks on how to duck the issue. It's no wonder that the proposal is listed at the end of the convention's business agenda, leading to speculation that pro-gay marriage legislators will start walking out prior to debate. If that should happen, the assembly would fall short of a quorum necessary for a vote to take place. This political ploy, so demeaning to democracy, shouldn't be allowed to happen. Once a quorum is set to open the convention, legislators must abide by the rules and do ALL the people's business -- not just their own. Whether for or against same-sex marriage, legislators have a duty to vote on the petition, signed by more than 170,000 Massachusetts residents pushing for a 2008 statewide ballot referendum. Citizens behind the same-sex ban have worked legally to get a democratic hearing. It's ironic that same-sex supporters never worked through the governmental system to get a legislative measure approved. They went through the Supreme Judicial Court, which decided on a narrow, split decision that gay marriage is the law of Massachusetts. No other state in America has relied on its judges to make law regarding same-sex marriage. In fact, the elected legislatures of 38 states have established either constitutional amendments or laws banning gay marriage. Five states -- Arkansas, Arizona, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon -- did so through the citizens' initiative process. In 2000, the Vermont Supreme Court allowed the state Legislature to prohibit same-sex marriage as long as it allowed civil unions. Needless to say, all state supreme courts can challenge the constitutionality of the legislative amendments, but no approved amendments or laws have been overturned to date. The decade-long inaction of Massachusetts legislators has led to divisiveness on this issue. It is now up to them to do their part in the democratic process, rather than neglecting it through political pranks. The petition needs the votes of at least 50 legislators at Wednesday's convention and again next year at the 2007 convention to be considered for the 2008 statewide election ballot. If legislators vote to reject the petition Wednesday, the ballot issue is dead. It's as simple as that. 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. 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. Editorial: Let voters decide definition of
marriage Some lawmakers are no doubt hoping voters will be too busy enjoying their summer to notice what does or doesn't happen up on Beacon Hill next month. But you ought to make it your business to find out how your representative and senator votes - if they are allowed to vote - on the question of putting the Protection of Marriage Amendment on the ballot in 2008. Opponents of the initiative, which would reverse the 2003 Supreme Judicial Court decision legalizing gay marriage in Massachusetts and define marriage as the union of one man and one woman, don't want voters to have their say. And there are all kinds of schemes being advanced to keep the matter from coming before the House and Senate when they meet in Constitutional Convention July 12. The citizens' petition must receive at least 50 votes in two consecutive sessions of the Legislature before it can go on the ballot. Proponents are fairly certain they have at least that number of supporters within the legislative ranks; but the question is whether Senate President Robert Travaglini, who chairs the convention, will allow the matter to come up during what is likely to be a busy day. If no action is taken this month, it is likely the gay marriage question could not come before voters until 2010 at the earliest. Travaglini is under heavy pressure from opponents of the measure to keep the question of gay marriage off the agenda. So was his predecessor, Tom Birmingham, who allowed the convention to adjourn in June 2002 without taking a vote on the matter. And Attorney General Tom Reilly, though he opposes the amendment, is still feeling the sting from Democrats angry with his decision certifying the ballot question as one properly before lawmakers and the voters. Gay marriage advocates in this case are perfectly happy to have this fundamental issue decided by a one-vote majority of the SJC rather than a majority of the state's voters. They're counting on the support of a Legislature that has shown itself equally disdainful of the voters will by ignoring recent ballot initiatives on the income tax rate and campaign finance reform. Gov. Mitt Romney, Cardinal Sean P. O'Malley and others held a press conference Wednesday to demand that legislators allow the measure to come up for a vote. Romney correctly pointed out that what should take place at the Constitutional Convention "will not be a vote for or against gay marriage," but rather "a vote for or against democracy." Legislators are quick to hail the virtues of our democratic tradition when it results in their re-election or granting them an automatic pay raise, as was the case in 1998. We'll find out shortly if they believe the voters can be trusted to decide what constitutes a legal marriage. Some lawmakers are no doubt hoping voters will be too busy enjoying their summer to notice what does or doesn't happen up on Beacon Hill next month. But you ought to make it your business to find out how your representative and senator votes - if they are allowed to vote - on the question of putting the Protection of Marriage Amendment on the ballot in 2008.
|
|||||||||
| ©2005-2006 VoteOnMarriage.org. All Rights Reserved. Paid for by
VoteOnMarriage.org. Robert H. Bradley, Treasurer. |
|||||||||
