Spineless: Legislature Delays Vote On Gay Marriage
The legislature voted to recess the constitutional convention until after the elections in November, delaying the vote on gay marriage… VoteOnMarriage.org was not pleased:
In a second move in as many months, Senate President Robert Travaglini recessed the Constitutional Convention without taking up the Protection of Marriage Amendment. The Convention is now set to resume on November 9, after state elections, a clear political attempt to insulate incumbent legislators at the polls this November from recording their vote on marriage and for all practicality kill the people’s amendment on marriage.If no action is taken on the amendment by December 31 of this year, the legislature will be in violation of Article 48 of the state constitution, which requires a vote by the joint session of the House and Senate on qualified initiative petitions. It also violates the citizens’ right to be heard, thousands of whom came to rally at the State House today, on the marriage issue.
The Boston Globe has posted the roll call vote.
UPDATE: Karen Reddy was there and sent us her thoughts:
It’s more of the same here in Massachusetts. Lawmakers blatantly ignored the will of the people and chose to recess from the joint session of the constitutional convention before voting on the Marriage Amendment banning gay marriage. “Conveniently” they are set to reconvene on November 9th — two days after the elections. It’s apparent that the legislators do not want to be on record and held accountable during election season.At the beginning of the convention it was requested that the amendment be moved from item #20 of 21 to the beginning of the agenda but was quickly shot down with a round of loud objections. After the health care initiative was sent to special committee a request to recess until Monday was rejected by nearly a three quarter vote. Eventually the request to recess until after the election was brought to a vote causing a stir. Under normal protocol the vote would take a few minutes, but when Speaker of the House Salvatore Dimasi saw that it was a close vote he waited for a few minds to change. Representative Phil Travis called to close the vote before legislators were pressured to change their vote. A voice from the back of the room yelled a few times, “Sit down Travis.” At least one vote was changed from a nay to a yay. From what I could tell it appeared to be a case of political pressure.
UPDATE: Here are some photos courtesy of Ryan Boehm of the Massachusetts Family Institute:
Follow us on Twitter
Join us on Facebook
TAGS: Boston Globe, Gay Marriage, Massachusetts Family Institute, Polls, Salvatore DiMasi, Vote On Marriage.
Matt Margolis is co-author (with Mark Noonan) of Caucus of Corruption: The Truth About The New Democratic Majority. He also blogs at The Buffalo Bean. Follow Matt on Twitter.
So what are we going to do about this? Do we roll over? We were promised a vote and they did not deliver. Do we insist that they come back from their vacations just as Governor Romney did when one of us died as a result of their politics and incompetence? It would appear the viable option is to Never Forget this insult with daily reminders right up to Election Day, and then hold them accountable with our red, white and blue fingers.
Unfortunately, they won’t be held to account for this. Political maneuverings of this sort have been par for the course in Massachusetts for decades, and the voters have never seemed to care. Personally, I’d like work towards forcibly removing from office any legislator or public official who violates their oath of office or the rules and regulations in the Commonwealth. There must be some legal recourse for Massachusetts citizens as they MUST be held accountable for their transgressions.
Why do people insist on tying every bad thing that happens to gay marriage? The tragedy in the tunnel has nothing to do with gay marriage. Histrionics do not make a very sophisticated political argument.
No one was promised a vote. The State Constitution requires there to be an intervening legislative process between the petition and any subsequent vote. You may never get to vote on this, there are no guarantees no matter how badly you think you deserve the right to deny people equal protection. The Constitution is clear, there is no mandate to allow the people to vote no matter how large or narrow the majority that seeks it.
Was a political strategy employed to delay the legislative process to favor the majority in the legislature who do not support the Amendment? Yes, absolutely. This happens all the time and sometime it angers conservatives (like now) and sometimes it makes conservatives happy (slicing up the voting districts in Texas to favor Republicans, Shelving an Amendment in MA in the 90’s that would have explicitly legalized abortion and using the federal congressional majority to vote on toothless proclamations during an election year to pander to supporters are but a few examples). No ones rights were trampled. Politics is political and that reality is exploited whenever possible by all parties. I’m sure those of us who support gay marriage will use this time to our advantage. I encourage all those who disagree to do the same.
What angers me about the whole thing is that the group that should have been forced into using the amendment process to change the law are the pro-gay-marriage folks. They are the ones that wanted a change to the marriage law in this state. I do feel my rights have been violated as a citizen of the commonwealth. It’s the same as with the Stamp Act so long ago. Where the hell was my representation in all this? The least the legislature can do is move out of the way. That they won’t do that is the height of arrogance.
As from Anthony’s post above, “No one was promised a vote.”………………………..
Incorrect. Senate President Travaglini promised all twenty issues would be addressed before they left the convention yesterday.
WE voted these asshats in, only WE can vote them out.
It doesn’t matter about ANY issue or ANY amendments, the source of all mASSachusetts political travesties are the clowns who make the decisions. The NANNY state politicians in this state think they know better than the general population about how to run our lives.
When are WE going to get angry, motivated and organized enough, not just about a specific issue such as gay marriage, to organized and work ALL over the state day and night to REMOVE these clowns!!
If WE are the majority, then WE better start ruling, if not we better start moving.
Helen,
You are incorrect. Senate President Travaglini promised that he would personally, in his capacity as Senate President, not fail to call the discussion on the Amendment onto the floor when it came up in the roster. The rules of order do not give him the power to alter the order of the agenda (that can only happen by unanimous decision of all present), or to prevent an adjournment which can be accomplished by a simple majority.
Obi Juan,
There is nothing arrogant about using the courts for the purpose for which they were intended. Any credible legal scholar, whether he agrees with the SJC decision or not, will concede that the process that led to it is far from unprecedented. What is arrogant is deciding that since you don’t like the decision that this time the process has failed you. I don’t like the idea of this amendment either but even if it passes I will never fault the process.
Yes, we voted these asshats in and several of them have opponents in November, including Dimasi. Let’s send a signal and ‘unelect’ some…