Deval Patrick To Legislature: Screw The State Constitution
Vote On Marriage alerts us to this shocking news:
Gov-Elect Patrick Statement on Marriage Vote Unconscionable
Tells lawmakers to violate the constitution as a matter of “conscience”Boston –Today, Governor-Elect Patrick emerged from a meeting with House Speaker DiMasi urging the legislature to violate the clear mandate of the state constitution by avoiding, by any means possible, a vote on the marriage amendment.
“The same court which gave Massachusetts same-sex marriage also requires a vote on citizen petitions; I respectfully state that Mr. Patrick is dangerously misguided in calling on the legislature to violate the constitution for any matter of ‘conscience’,” said Kris Mineau, president, Massachusetts Family Institute and spokesman, VoteOnMarriage.org.
On December 27, the State Supreme Judicial Court ruled that the legislature is constitutionally-required to vote on the marriage amendment.
“This is not a question of conscience, it is a question of abiding by the clear directive of the constitution,” said Mineau. “We are a Commonwealth of laws and our elected leaders above all must abide by the constitution.”
The Governor-Elect will take his oath of office this Thursday.
# # #
UPDATE: Watch…
UPDATE: Deval’s statement…
UPDATE: The Boston Herald quotes Valeria Barbier, 19, from Natick:
“They call people who are against gay marriage bigots, but we’re not representing hate here,” Barbier said. “If they were really talking about civil rights, they would let people vote.”
Well said.
UPDATE, 2:39 PM ET: From The Boston Globe: Lawmakers in Massachusetts, the only state where gay marriage is legal, just voted to advance a proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, a critical step toward putting the measure on the 2008 ballot. The Legislature approved the measure 132-61. The initiative, which only needed 50 votes to pass, must still be passed in the next legislative session before it will be put on the ballot in 2008. –Developing
UPDATE: Vote On Marriage responds:
“Today’s victory is about restoring the integrity and authority of the people’s constitutional right to petition their government,” said Kris Mineau, president, Massachusetts Family Institute and spokesman, VoteOnMarriage.org. “It says to the 170,000 citizens who signed the petitions for the right to vote on marriage that democracy still works in Massachusetts for those who are willing to take a stand for justice.”
UPDATE: The constitutional amendment survives the second vote… On to the next step…
Follow us on TwitterJoin us on Facebook
TAGS: Boston Globe, Boston Herald, Deval Patrick, Gay Marriage, Kris Mineau, Massachusetts Family Institute, 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.
Okay, this really does piss me off. And not just because I’ve been defending the guy on other stuff.
Hey wave maker,
Justb fall off the turnip truck? None are so blind as they who will not see. Go back to Harvard wavemaker and dream on…
Profiles in courage…every last one of them!
you’re so thoughful and eloquent, Mr. X. You really add to the discussion.
There’s a new sheriff in town wavemaker!
Don’t let anyone claim any victory. It ain’t over til they adjourn.
Fact is.. I just don’t trust them
OH MY LORD! Will wonders never cease. Congratulations to the rule of law!
It may be an exercise in futility, but the ConCon is still in session and a vote to reconsider the vote on the marriage amendment has been taken in the affirmative. Recess til 4:30. It is still in play.
…once again demonstrating you wordsmithing skills, X.
Perhaps you might think of a different expression, since a sheriff typically upholds the law rather than encouraging abandonment of it.
Oh and by the way, where in hell did you get the idea about Harvard? That’s a place for liberal pantywaists like you.
Ahhh self preservation …works every, well almost every time.
If they didn’t vote, torch’s and pitchforks were coming to Beacon Hill.
It was NOT just about gay marriage, it was also about arrogant hacks ignoring the law. I know it said “SHALL VOTE”, but there were NO consequences stipulated. Consequences would of been left to the people.
As far as Deval, haha…I think he made a boo boo at the WRONG time. His feelings were known, but he kept his distance, and THEN today, TODAY, he jumps of the bridge!! Why?
Deval isn’t going to ignore the law and will of the people, is he? Didn’t poor Deval make that statement with a little blood on his eyebrow after a meeting with KING SAL???
“On to the next step.”
Oh, the next step? You mean, getting this gay discrimination amendment passed?
The whole process thing is over with. The question now is-do you want the legislature to advance this, or vote it down with a 75.5% majority?
There’s no process for the antigay folks to hide behind any more. The question is: for gay discrimination or not?
kb — I noted today that Deval Patrick stated publicly last July that he favored the legislature doing what he advocated today — at least he was consistent — if not reckless.
dem, you buffoon. They passed the amendment with the rrequisite vote. It is now n to the second vote of the same sort form the next sitting legislature — sworn in tomorrow. One suspects that they’ll draaaaaaaag this process out as well until the last minute and create the same sort of media circus they did here — great way to set up Deval’s Big Day! (Query, did they do it this way on purpose?)
As for your last idiotic statement, the “antigay” people haven’t been “hiding behind” any process. They compelled the process you so arrogantly despise. They’re perfectly willing and able to speak publicly about their position and the reasons for their support of the amendment. On the contrary, it is the gay marriage advocates who have attempted to hide behind the parliamentary process and pressure their supporters to violate their constitutional duty.
Repeat after me, dem — “Are you with us or agin us?!?” It’s a simple question, and one that honest people of principle are eager to answer. Unfoirtunately, until today, a good number of legislators were not among them.
Also, addressing Vote On Marriage’s statement: ‚ÄúToday‚Äôs victory is about restoring the integrity and authority of the people‚Äôs constitutional right to petition their government‚Äù
Actually, the healthcare amendment was killed procedurally. Isn’t it actually a defeat? Why, the only way this could be construed a victory is if the actual basis for wanting the amendment to be voted on was antigay bigotry…
demredsox.. There is still another year, and one more con-con before it goes to the people for a vote.
I’m not for or against the amendment, just happy to see them take a vote.
I am quite upset by the fact that it looks like they ignored the constitution by not voting on the health care amendment.
So, it is the legislature that made this situation about gay politics, and not about constitutional process.
Where is the indignation at the killing of the healthcare amendment? Seems to me that if the law is the ultimate issue at stake people cheering the vote taken on the marriage amendment should be lambasting the decision to kill the healthcare amendment. Not a word on that here though. Interesting.
Deval isn’t going to ignore the law and will of the people, is he?
Ummm, maybe ;->
The will of the people has always been a rather tenuous notion in MA for the past several decades.
The legislature should vote on this admendment. It has been put in front of them with a valid amount of signatures. Whether they vote to put it on the ballot or not is another issue. If the legislature feels that it adds discrimination then they should vote not to put it on the ballot.
Our legislature should always follow the law no matter the subject.
anthony, you are right in your observation that the legislature has routinely ignored its obligation to vote on the merits on a whole host of proposed constitutional amendments brought under the initiative process. The health care amendment was the most recent.
In that regard, it is worth noting that many of these amendments are foolhardy and ridiculous (the health care amendment being one of them), but I agree that this in itself is no reason for the legislature to let it die without an up-or-down vote.
And the reason (I believe) in that case that they didn’t vote is that there were a lot of members who didn’t want to have to vote against a cause that was backed by their political allies. Another classic example of Profiles in Courage.
The question is, anthony, where are the proponents of the health care amendment — is it Hub’s obligation to speak for them? They can speak for themselves, can’t they?
Care to hazard a guess why they weren’t speaking up? Perhapos because those advocates significantly overlap with the same sex marriage crowd? What sort of conflict that must have caused, eh?
demredsox,
For what it’s worth, if the amendment goes to ballot, and I still live in Massachusetts, I will vote against it. I think it is discriminatory against gay people.
However, I will also fight for the the amendment to get fair hearing in the process. The disadvantage of living in a state without laws outweights the danger to gay marriage.
“The question is, anthony, where are the proponents of the health care amendment — is it Hub’s obligation to speak for them? ”
It is not Hub’s obligation to speak for the health care proponents but a large amount of rhetoric was pushed on this site insisting that the principle of the initiative amendment is the ultimate expression of popular democracy and any act by the legislature to circumvent the process would be unconscionable, regardless of the issue before them. Cleary that is not true, for if it were those here so vociferous about the principle should be up in arms about the health care amendment. They are not. They opposed maneuvers by the legislature vis a vis the marriage amendment only. This is yet another example of reasoned hypocrisy which many on this blog have been charging supporters of SSM with. That’s double hypocrisy and I fully expected it.
“Where is the indignation at the killing of the healthcare amendment?” – anthony (and a few others)
I’ve never heard of this amendment. Also, it’s not mentioned in the Boston Herald write-up of events. Furthermore, I don’t know whether it was defeated by legal means or not.
So…that explains the lack of indignation.
Jeremiah,
Your response only further confirms the hypocrisy involved in this debate. As a private citizen I can understand how your priorities may not require you to be intimately informed of every amendment brought forth by petition initiative (although all things considered there are not that many), but not being aware of another one on the agenda on the same day that was given different treatment by the legislature is a pretty glaring example of selective observation. Did you even look at the agenda? If the Con Con is so important (not just because of gay marriage but because of the principle involved) how could you not care to see the agenda (available online) or were you satisfied to just know that the marriage amendment was on it? Some of the lack of info can be blamed to a great degree on the Fourth Estate (both the Herald and Globe) who missed this as well in yesterday’s coverage (although it has been covered by both during the last couple of years as it passed through the process). The health care initiative, whatever people feel about its merits, was submitted with sufficient signatures, passed by more than 25% of the legislature in the last session and in this session was sent to die in committee without ever receiving its second up and down vote. There was also a lawsuit filed with the SJC by its supporters, which got some medial attention. So the questions are: How much time did people spend talking about and steaming over the importance of the duty of office and the need to vote on all popular initiative amendments regardless of the subject matter? Рand РHow much time did people spend researching what was up for consideration in this session to make sure that duty was strictly followed (a process that I guarantee takes 3 to 5 minutes with an internet connection)? If the answer to the first question is Рlots and lots, and the answer to the next question is none at all, that equal unequivocal hypocrisy. Either the principle matters always or it is a means to a political end to be tossed aside literally minutes after the real objective is obtained. It seems to me that the latter was employed by the supporters of the marriage amendment.
anthony, your logic is stupifyingly dense. There would only be “reasoned hypocrisy” (huh?) if people here commented that they did NOT support a vote on the merits for some other constitutional amendment. You cannot draw any conclusion with regard to anyone’s failure to speak on a different amendment.
And for that matter — I did, as soon as you mentioned it.
But since your throwing around the hypocrisy claim, why don’t you answer my question regarding the disparity between the SSM advocates and the HCA advocates — clearly many common members, one group being screwed by the legislature’s failure to vote, one actively advocating failure to vote.
[By the way, I suspect that the reason why the HCA advocates aren’t screaming loudly is that, knowing that the SSM issue was on the horizon, they knew they had to do something to get off the front page, so they cut a deal on the health care legislation that accomplished (at least arguably) some of what they were after and then threw the HCA amendment under the bus.
LOL, talk about “reasoned hypocrisy.”
Wavemaker,
You weighed in on it, great, but you don’t speak for anyone else but yourself.
I define reasoned hypocrisy as giving a reason why hypocrisy is permissible, like saying that it is only hypocritical if people affirmatively state that it was okay to kill HCA by procedural maneuvers. A large degree of rhetoric has been thrown around about the principle of the up or down vote on initiative amendments, many people being very careful to point out that the merits of the amendment are irrelevant. Do you think Mitt Romney doesn’t know what happened to the HCA? Where is his lawsuit and cries of dereliction of duty? They don’t exist because the principle involved was not actually the larger issue, the specific subject of the marriage amendment was. Stating that process and duty are the most important tenets of a democracy, regardless of the issue at stake, and then not bothering to even know what issues are at stake is hypocrisy. A broad concept of principled democracy was narrowly applied to one amendment to get it passed by whatever means necessary and another amendment on the same agenda was killed in opposition to that principle and no one even knows it happened despite the great principle at stake. That sounds like ends justifying means without the call for protecting the delicacy of popular democracy to me. That is what people who advocated for procedural killing of the marriage amendment were accused of. To participate in equivalent behavior that you judge others harshly for is hypocrisy.
And to answer your question, the HCA and SSM supporters have been going at it for weeks. Many people have been very up front about their willingness to kill HCA along with SSM and others have been advocates of votes on both. All knew about everything on the agenda so when they talked about whether process was or was not important they were fully informed and not narrowly applying a broad principle to a specific goal without actually caring about the broader context that they claimed was so precious.
What utter tosh.
I followed identical research methods for both amendments: whatever seeped into my consciousness through osmosis. The news clamors day and night about the marriage amendment, and is silent as Benedictine monk on the health care whatever. I confess to one additional piece of research: I read wave maker’s very interesting and informative post on the recent SJC ruling.
bilgewater:
“ignorance = hypocracy”
manifest:
“anthony = kos kiddie”
Christ, anthony, if I cared I’d just read back through your posts, find the first factual error and start yammering about your “hypocracy”. But that would involve reading your posts again, and what would be the benefit in that?
Oh man, come on anthony — you really basing your position on the assertion that a BLOG COMMENTER ought to have examined the entire Constitutional Convention Agenda before posting? Why, we’re “just bloggers,” anthony — why don’t you ring up the editors of the Boston Globe and Boston Herald and ask them why they didn’t publish any stories about the other agenda items?
As for the “reasoned hypocrisy,” I find that explanation fascinating. The HCA folks sat around and determined that they would throw their issue under the bus to advance the gay marriage issue.
Wow, I sure am glad I wasn’t out at the dump after church last year getting signatures for that one. I might actually be pissed off that my issue was sacrificed on the altar of political correctness!!
Wavemaker,
Not just bloggers. The Governor, the Press, all the legislators who just had to vote for the marriage amendment and forgot the principles they were upholding minutes earlier when they killed the HCA. And yes, bloggers too. They should examine the entire agenda (which was not that long, really 5 minutes would have done it) if they claim that the entire process is what they are protecting. Deliberately not living up to one’s claims – yet another way to define hypocrisy.
I don’t know how you have come to determine that the HCA supporters threw their issue under the bus. Most I’ve spoken too were willing to sacrifice marriage to make sure they got voted on. They’re pissed and even more pissed that no one cares that their pissed.
Jeremiah,
There is a huge difference between making an error (which i would admit without hesitation) and deliberately ignoring a duty one defines for themselves. I don’t know what your personal position was, but if it was – the legislature must vote on all initiatives no matter what or the fabric of democracy as we know it will be torn forever (or something along those lines), and your not up in arms about what happened to the HCA (especially now that you know what happened) then you are a hypocrite.
Ah, lookit, the troll is backing down.
My position is:
The legislature must fulfill all of it’s constitutionally perscribed duties or damage our democracy. Addendum: my job is not to police every action of the legislature. WHEN I NOTICE they are doing wrong, it is my duty to object. It is my duty to stay reasonably well-informed, but I am certainly not required to know every detail. When I vote, I review their performance. Other than that, sorry, I am needed elsewhere.
From what little I gather of the HCA-whatever, it sounds like the your efforts were nobley sacrificed on the alter of progressiveness. As much as I would love to trust you, my initial, unproven hunch is that you are lying through your teeth about something that was given the correct due process. So…working myself into a lather about it would involve actually doing my own research on the subject to verify your claims. This would be (as I shown above) hypocritical* extra-work on the HCA-whatever issue that I did not put into the Marriage Amendment business.
By the principle I follow, stated in the addendum above, I can choose to not do this work and still remain true to myself (ah, the serenity of self-satisfaction).
So, you have a whole bunch of factual errors and slanderous suppositions about me printed up above.
*now with improved spelling!
One can be both self contentedly true to themselves and a hypocrite at the very same time. Life is such a rich tapestry.
And just in case there is any doubt as to the veracity of my claim vis a vis the legilature’s failure to act according to their constitutional obligation:
http://www.healthcareformass.org/press/documents/LAWMAKERSNIXPETITIONGUARANTEEINGHEALTHCAREACCESS.pdf
Ok… from the above posts it seems that Anthony is questioning NOT the fact that the (process) of acting ON an amendment is debated. Anthony is questioning the PASSION, behind the different amendments debated.
Is that hypocritical?.. maybe…. it’s sad the (PROCESS) even wastes time with such shenanigans. But I think Wavemaker touched on the differences of (passion). Overlapped backers of both amendments, also there is only so much energy to go around. People prioritize and make choices. They fight the principled war of (process), but have to choose the battles.
Oooo I like that kb — PASSION vs. process.
But I have to laugh at anthony’s eloquent statement:
“One can be both self contentedly true to themselves and a hypocrite at the very same time. Life is such a rich tapestry.”
Self-contentedly indeed. It’s so convenient, it doesn’t require any rigor of intellect, and it allows one to say one thing and do another freely and without remorse.
The problem is, life being “such a rich tapestry,” the threads of such a tapestry require equal strength and tightness to each other, lest the weaker threads give way and render the product worthless.
At the risk of beating what is by now a mostly dead horse, at least somone in the press has finally thought this was worth a mention:
http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/opinion/8999026738272927743
Hey! I agree with you that the Health Care Whatever got the shaft, and that’s wrong. But I don’t know what to do about it now except tell my representative that I’m going to consider it when he’s up for re-election.
Goes to show: never trust the Democrats. They’re a buncha weasels who couldn’t care less about their oath of office. Good thing I didn’t vote for anyone on that list.
anthony, for the sake of crystalizing an issue, let me ask you an open ended question:
How ridiculous does a proposed constitutional amendment have to be before the legislature is justified in concluding that it is a waste of time and money to put it to a vote? Ever?
I’m going to try to find some research on the last ten concons and what the calendars for them were. Stay tuned.
(p.s. I agree with you because I read the article you linked to and confirmed that the wrong you described did occur. Didn’t make that clear…)
I got this research from someone else and I haven’t yet verified the information but it appears that since article 48 was added to the State Constitution in 1918 twelve initiative amendments have made it to the legislature and more than half of them (seven to be exact) have been killed by procedure.
1934 – Biennial budgets and legislative sessions – failed to get enough votes in the 1st ConCon
1938 – Biennial budgets and legislative sessions – two ConCon Approvals; ratified by the people
1972 – Highway tax use for Mass Transit – two ConCon approvals; ratified by the people
1980 – Limiting state and local taxation (not Prop 2 1/2) – killed in the second ConCon when the clock ran out on the session.
1982 – Adopting a state budget – killed in the second ConCon when it adjourned
1990 – Equal right to quality education – killed in first ConCon; lack of quorum
1990 – Reproductive rights – killed in the first ConCon; lack of quorum
1992 – Term limits – killed in the first ConCon; adjourned without taking action
1992 – Graduated income tax – two ConCon approvals but defeated at the ballot.
2002 – Gay marriage ban – killed in the first ConCon; adjourned without taking action
2004 – Health Care Amendment – approved 153-41 by the first ConCon; sent to a phantom study committee, not removed from committee for final vote, killed in second ConCon, adjourned without taking action
2006 РGay marriage ban – approved in 1st ConCon 62-134
Wavemaker, to answer your question, I don’t think it has anything to do with how ridiculous an initiative amendment is. I think the issue is article 48 itself. When it was drafted one of two things happened. Either the drafters failed to consider that the legislature may try impede the initiative process procedurally and failed to build in a failsafe, or they knew that procedural maneuvers were possible and purposefully omitted a failsafe. Ultimately the limits of the document itself dictates what is permissible. The SJC can do nothing. They have issued some very persuasive unanimous dicta on more than one occasion that there is an obligation to vote but have issued no binding rulings based on this opinion because they have no power to do so. It is unlikely that the federal courts will choose to intervene in a state issue of constitutional procedure. The legislature for good or bad has the final word. At this point I think the discussion as to whether or not the Legislature has an unequivocal responsibility to vote is moot. Barring some unlikely federal intervention at some future date, the developmental history of this article reveals that the legislature can kill an initiative amendment with virtual impunity save the vagaries of the next election cycle. If this is an unattractive concept to people, then article 48 needs to be amended, but I think we all know that isn’t likely.
And Jeremiah,
You are correct. All the votes to kill the HCA came from Democrats except one, Scott Brown (R-Wrentham).
I have not studied the MA constitution, so I am basing this on my general knowledge of the US Constitution:
It would be nice if the Governor could post police at the doors of the ConCon until all ammendments are given a vote. I suspect he does not have the power (as the Judicial branch does not have the power) to force a vote.*
Until that, or a similar solution is enacted, it seems that we will have to hope for the wrath of the voters to frighten legislators, rather than any direct pressure. But as MA has shown time and again, voters seem willing to forgive all sorts of transgressions as long as the candidate as a (D) next to his name.
*I would be willing to ammend the constitution to grant someone power over the legislature for this one particular instance.