The Legislature has approved the same-sex-marriage ban without even doing it on principle: It voted to advance the anti-gay-marriage amendment to the next session while killing a health-care amendment on procedural grounds, in open defiance of the Supreme Judicial Court.
David Kravitz of Blue Mass Group, who’s pro-gay marriage but who favored a vote on good-government grounds, sounds like he might have learned something today. We’ll see.
7 thoughts on “And so it ends”
It’s amazing what can happen when you sue the 109 lawmakers who previously voted to adjourn in federal court. This is the only judicial relief that the people have now. The MA Family Institute people heeded my suggestion to file suit in federal court, and they got the legislature to vote. The MA Healthcare folks didn’t (or maybe couldn’t afford it).So it’s clear now: Not only do you need the required signatures to introduce an amendment to the constitution, you also need to be ready to take the legislature to federal court to make them vote.
Dan, do you think that the Greens might use today’s actions as a springboard to contesting even one seat held by a same-sex marriage opponent? I didn’t think so, either.(In 2006, they contested one open seat, vacated by Daniel Keenan, who had supported gay marriage.)
“Over? Did you say “over”? Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!” – Bluto, “Animal House”Don’t we have to go through yet another constitutional convention vote before this amendment is put on the ballot in 2008?
EB3 HEREScotto, no one voted either way because of the lawsuit. And what is sillier is you posting on here that u r responsible for it. Is this your idea of marketing? Is this a weak attempt to make your show relevant and lift those abysmal ratings?Note to Jason Wolfe: Jason, when will this lame animal (scotto) be put out of his (and our) misery?Scotto, you can be a sucessful local radio host w/o being ‘one of us’.You insist on being ‘one of us’. Yet you can’t. You have not been here long enough to understand the subtleties. I wouldn’t move to kanasa and start saying ‘we in kansas..Because you read some local history books and looked atg some local maps does not make you ‘one of us’.Credibility doesn’t mean much to you i guess.PS White trash is a state of mind. Not one of economics. It is not a good thing yet yyou are proud of it.strange
EB3: “one of us”? Did I sit down at the wrong table in the high school cafeteria?Kris Mineau filed the lawsuit after he was on my show and I suggested it to him. He said it was a good idea and the lawsuit he filed was on the same grounds that I had suggested to him as well as the guest I had on the show in support of the healthcare amendment. Mineau heeded the suggestion and went the next step by naming the 109 legislators who voted to adjourn as defendants in the lawsuit. He reiterated his threat to move forward with the lawsuit in the Herald yesterday morning. He got a vote. Maybe it’s a coincidence.Now I’ll pick up my tray and go sit with the orchestra and band kids.
Perhaps Prof. Miller can enlighten us as to what federal issues are involved in Massachusetts amending its own constitution, and the level of scrutiny that the federal courts ought to apply.From the rose colored glasses department: There seems acceptance that the legislative role is on the merits of the proposed amendment, rather as mere procedural functionaries charged with putting a proposed amendment on the ballot. The Herald editorializes that sufficient lawmakers “voted in favor of a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage”. A month ago we were hearing of the need for lawmakers not to deny the people’s right to vote. So there seems acceptance of the idea that the people’s right to vote comes only after sufficient lawmakers concur with the merits of the initative amendment. The Supreme Judicial Court specifically noted a constitutional requirement for a legislative vote on the “merits”.Marriage rights supporters should seize on this and make sure that the next legislature’s vote on the initative amendment is framed as a vote “on the merits” and not “to let the people decide.” It is easier for a legislator to deflect criticism of one unpopular vote than to deflect criticism that he or she is “undemocratic” by refusing the right of The People to Decide. Marriage rights supporters cannot allow the public perception of the issue to be again co-opted by the right into a vote on democracy.And incidentally the barrier to getting an initiative amendment onto the ballot was tougher back in 1918 when Article 48 was ratified. Back then, there were 240 members of the house, so 70 votes in favor would have been required to advance an amendment to the ballot.
EB3 hereHuh? My point Scotto is that this did not come to a vote because of the law suit. Nor did it come to a vote because of the other one which resulted in an SJC Opinion.”Coincidence?” you ask.Relevancy is the proper question. Juvenile for you to think you and your guest mattered in this affair.They adjourned w/o taking up other amendments.Scotto, obtuse reasoning like this that sputters from your show on a daily basis does not attract enough stupid people to give you a ratings base.It’s business Scotto, not personal. What is the opposite of ‘dumb it down’ Scotto?BTW who are you to speak for the orchestra and band kids, you schmuck. You don’t speak for people who weren’t cool in high school. (Man, there is some complex working in there) This is Boston, orchestra and band kids, with a city edge, rule. What do u think the Latin School is? Tom Finneran, Larry DiCara.How about Bill Bulger?(BC High I know)There weren’t star football players.Even MeninoBottom Line Scotto. Your shtick does not work here. You cannot develop a listener base. You have failed to reach the minimum requirement of intellectual discussion needed to capture an audience. This is a very low bench mark Scotto.And you have failed.Not your fault though. The person that brought you did you no favors. You were doomed to fail.
Comments are closed.