« Day of Decision: Patrick and GOP win | Main | Democrats Are Back! »
November 7, 2006
Deval's Election Impact: No Gay Marriage Vote
It's been widely speculated that the Legislature won't report for duty on Thursday, Nov. 9, to reconvene the Constitutional Convention that was delayed and deferred from July. The hot topic, of course, was a citizen's petition concerning a state ballot referendum on gay marriage. If you remember correctly, a majority of the cowardly Legislature decided to put off a vote on the citizen's petition until after the election, as if anything would seriously change. Well, the only serious change is a possible change in the gubernatorial administration. A Democrat and not a Republican would occupy the corner office.
The question now is whether democracy will be served and whether the hundreds of thousands of citizens who want to vote on gay marriage will finally get the chance. Deval Patrick, the potential new governor, supposrt gay marriage and is opposed to the petition. It's likely that he will use the bully pulpit to see that Massachusetts' version of citizen democracy is derailed once again in this state, by the Legislature, and the petition is denied.
It will be interesting to see how the Democratic leadership achieves the derailment. Under state law, the constitutional convention has to be reconvened. If a quorum fails to show up, the governor, in this case Mitt Romney, can order the state police to round up legislators to meet their obligation. This would be a hoot. It would make the national news. Romney sends out the police to get paid legislators to show up on behalf of the state's citizens.
Once they do show up, Senate President Robert Travaglini can pull a "birmingham" and sink the entire convention by gaveling it to an end. In this way, no vote will be taken on the petition. You remember Birmingham, as in Tom Birmingham. He pulled the same trick four years ago, to deny a vote on gay marriage, which forced the state Supreme Judicial Court to rule on a civil case that produced Massachusetts' gay marriage law - the only one in the nation. The Legislature acted like cowards then, forcing an activist court to make the law.
I can see Trav doing the evil deed again. He is rumored to be on the way out, possibly by December, so what does he care? He'll get a big state job somewhere, probably in the education sector where so many loafers are hidden now, and all will be forgiven and forgotten.
Or will it?
I think it is only right that the Legislature votes on the gay-marriage petition. They have to make a tough vote sometime, and this will get them prepared for the Patrick years ahead.
The petition process should not be denied, whether you are for or against gay marriage. The people in favor of the petition played by the rules and won the right to present the petition to a statewide vote. It would be politically and morally wrong to reject it. Of course, that is nothing new in Massachusetts. It is what sets us apart from the remaining 49 states. Massachusetts' liberals routinely trample citizen's votes, as they did with Clean Elections, the death penalty and the state income tax rollback, So that is why the Legislature should allow the gay-marriage petition to go before the people: there is a precedent to reject a ballot-initiative outcome. So even if voters reject gay marriage at the polls, there is no reason for the Legislature to endorse the outcome. It has proven time and again that it will do what it wants, regardless of what the people in this state decide at the polls. Gay marriage is safe in Massachusetts, so why do so many gays and their supporters fear a democratic vote? Can someone explain this to me?
Posted by at November 7, 2006 6:04 PM
Comments
You are absolutely right, there will be no gay marriage vote. After all, why should the Legislature vote on this, there will be no consequences for them to pay for being cowardly. They planned the date perfectly, after the election and very far away from the next one. In the meantime they will keep support and power by spending taxpayer's money on pet projects (the Lowell delegation is the biggest offender of this) and other "feel good" legislation. And now with Patrick in the corner office, there will be no stopping anyone.
Posted by: JackC at November 8, 2006 7:49 AM
How do you answer the concern that the majority may vote to compromise the rights of a minority, and use the sacred Constitution as the means to accomplish this? Can the Constitutional convention solve the apparent dichotomy of preserving the institution of marriage, yet avoid building into our Constitution a restriction to the rights of certain individuals? How would Solomon solve this dilemma?
Posted by: JP at November 8, 2006 12:52 PM
Jimmy, I have to agree with ya here. It should be presented to the voters. Pure and simple. Anything less is not democracy.
JackC, you are VERY correct about how good the Lowell delegation is at getting MASSIVE amounts of pork to Lowell. But don't look to Jimmy C. to complain. He's always boasting about the pork that comes to Lowell. So he's that weird sort of type the complains about pork UNLESS it is in his district...
JP, dude, get a grip. The Mass. Constitution specifically allows for amendments. It also purposefully makes it really, really hard to amend so that it truly reflects the vast majority of the voters. It is an allowed but difficult thing.
Posted by: Dr. No at November 9, 2006 12:20 AM
What is "vast" in this instance, Dr?
Posted by: JP at November 9, 2006 8:48 PM
JP, that's why they won't let it get to the people for a vote. If they did, they'd find out just how "vast" the majority is.
What a shame that the Democratic party takes its name from the word Democracy, of which they want no part of.
Posted by: Donkeys Rule at November 10, 2006 1:32 PM
Wow, the legislature has essentially become a tyrant. I wonder if they would have recessed if Healy had won instead of Patrick?
Just like the Reps controlling all branches on the federal level, we see the hazards of one-party rule at the state level.
The doo-doo is already hitting the fan.
Posted by: Dr. No at November 10, 2006 1:55 PM
"It also purposefully makes it really, really hard to amend so that it truly reflects the vast majority of the voters."
I have to repeat my question, how "vast" is it that makes it very hard to amend? Is it 75% of those voting? 2/3rds? Or a mere majority? Certainly, only 25% of the legislature has to approve to move it forward, so what is the criterion that makes the threshhold so high that only a "vast" majority can amend?
Posted by: JP at November 10, 2006 3:25 PM
I guess the answer to my question is: "vast" is a majority of those voting on the amendment. So, 50%+1 could have the ability to restrict the rights of any smaller group.
From the MA Constitution:
"Such amendment shall become part of the constitution if approved, in the case of a legislative amendment, by a majority of the voters voting thereon, or if approved, in the case of an initiative amendment or a legislative substitute, by voters equal in number to at least thirty per cent of the total number of ballots cast at such state election and also by a majority of the voters voting on such amendment."
Posted by: JP at November 10, 2006 7:44 PM
This is outrageous. The people of this
commonwealth should stand up and yell
at the top of their lungs, We will
determine at the voting booth, if
gay marriage should be legalized or
not.
And then, let the games begin....
bill deignan
Posted by: Bill Deignan at November 11, 2006 5:38 PM
JP..
It sure looks like its a pretty tough process.
In almost 90 years, only 3 questions (1938, 1974 and 1994) have been put up to amend the consitution by the people. Of those only 2 passed.
When put in, this process was intended as a method for the people to propose consitutional amendments using a method that would be harder for the legislature itself to block. That was intentional. It was felt that there were some cases where the legislature would be too self-serving or a topic would be too controversial for them to deal with.
So, if the legislature wanted to stop it, they would have to almost all (75%+1) vote against the proposed amendment... and they are given two chances to do so.
This was meant to give the people a way to force an issue through dispite the legislature. It has not been abused, and is not a simple process (as the moonbats are trying to put up as a strawman argument).
Posted by: Shawn at November 20, 2006 2:54 PM
Well, the 75% rule makes it tough for the legislature to stop an initiative (unless of course they pull something like the recent recess), but the majority rule doesn't make it all that difficult for the people to change the Constitution. I would think there should be a higher threshold on that.
But the issue is really whether the amendments being considered are discriminatory or not. Surely the minority feels they are, and being the minority makes it difficult for them to stop the change. If they are discriminatory, then what protections are there to keep them from being enacted? It appears that is limited to 75% of the legislature and 50% of the voters.
Instead of "marriage" being the issue, maybe all those rights currently associated with marriage should be divorced from "marriage" and made to apply to all of the citizens of the State.
Posted by: JP at November 21, 2006 9:33 AM
