ACTION ALERT: Gay Marriage Showdown set for today (1/2/2007) in Massachusetts

[Ian David]

URGENT Action Alert

From: Mass Gay & Lesbian Political Caucus <[e-mail]>
URGENT Action Alert - Marriage Vote Tuesday

MASSACHUSETTS GAY & LESBIAN POLITICAL CAUCUS
Your Professional State House Lobbyists

The 2006 Legislature convenes its last Constitutional Convention this Tuesday, Jan 2nd.
It's the most important Con-Con ever and your voice is critical.

Tuesday's vote will either defeat the effort to ban gay marriage or it will send it into the next legislative session where we will face an even greater threat. We must stop it Tuesday.

Legislators must hear once more from every one of us, our friends and our families.

We need you to take two actions.

First, call your Senator and Representative, tell them you support marriage equality for same-sex couples and respectfully ask them to vote to adjourn the Constitutional Convention. That's the only sure way to defeat the threat to ban gay marriage

To find your Representative's phone number: House phone numbers
http://www.mass.gov/legis/memmenuh.htm

(Call Tuesday after 9am)
For your Senator's phone number: Senate phone numbers
http://www.mass.gov/legis/memmenus.htm

(Call anytime to leave a phonemail message or call Tuesday after 9am to speak to an aide.)
Not sure who your legislators are? Find my Legislators
http://www.wheredoivotema.com/bal/myelectioninfo.php

Please call - your voice is critical.

Second, use the "Forward email" link at the end of this email to ask your friends and family to make their calls too. Every call is critically important.
http://ui.constantcontact.com/sa/fwtf.jsp?m=1011338752258&a=1101498410210


Thank You!

Arline Isaacson & Gary Daffin
Co-Chairs
Massachusetts Gay & Lesbian Political Caucus

See also:


Gay Marriage Showdown set for today (1/2/2007) in Massachusetts

Deval Eve Showdown in Boston
Nothing says New Regime like a pitched battle before the new leaders arrive. Tomorrow's version at the State House will simultaneously fix and frame the outgoing administration and create one type of toxic mess or another for the incoming one.

We are, of course, talking about the ConCon's last go at the initiative amendment to ban further same-sex marriages.

Outsider's Recap:

In case you live where you don't play our Bay State pol games, be aware that tomorrow is the last day for the combined legislature in Constitutional Convention to act on this petition initiative. Other than cheating, lying, fooling the voters and relying on coercion by bishops in this heavily Roman Catholic state, the anti-marriage equality folk followed the procedures to gather enough signatures to put this amendment before the ConCon. Now, if 25% (50 of 200) legislators approve it, it moves to the 2007 ConCon. If 25% pass it again in identical form, it goes on the 2008 ballot, where if it passes, it strips homosexual couples going forward from having the marriage rights they enjoy.

Alternately, the ConCon can adjourn without voting on it. The Supreme Judicial Court says they are not supposed to do that, but there is no recourse if they do. Another option would be if the ConCon defeated the amendment this year. There are still enough anti-gay and anti-marriage equality legislators to make that unlikely -- although next year could well have fewer than 50 to vote for this. Also, the game could be called. That is if there is not a quorum of legislatures tomorrow, everyone goes home without doing any business.

What's clear is that this odious amendment has lost. The voters here are over 60% in favor of same-sex marriage and that percentage grows with every poll. As a result, most legislators want this issue to go away. If they vote against it, their DINO and most conservative constituents will be pissed. If it passes this ConCon, it will bedevil our lives and waste everyone's time and energy when we have much work to do mucking the Republican stables.

What's less clear is what will happen in the various outcomes' aftermath. Consider:

More:
http://massmarrier.blogspot.com/2007/01/deval-eve-showdown-in-boston.html


See also:



The ConCon cometh
by: The Editors
Mon Jan 01, 2007 at 21:45:45 PM EST

By now, everyone pretty much knows where they stand on what they think should happen at Tuesday's Constitutional Convention (which David is planning to live-blog starting at 2 pm). For the record, the three of us believe firmly that:

* The legislature should do what Article 48 has always required, and what the SJC recently unanimously confirmed in no uncertain terms -- it should "vote, by the yeas and nays, on the merits of all pending initiative amendments before recessing on January 2, 2007." There are precisely two initiative amendments pending: the anti-marriage amendment, and the health care amendment. They should take an up-or-down vote on both of them.

* The legislature should vote NO on the anti-marriage amendment. The SJC got it right in Goodridge: equal treatment under the law means that the right to receive a marriage license from the state cannot be restricted to couples that consist of one man and one woman. Undoing the Goodridge decision would be a terrible step backward: it would write targeted discrimination against a minority group into our Constitution; it would deny gay people a right that straight people have taken for granted for many, many years; it would strike a blow against the worthy institution of marriage by reducing the number of people who can enter into this kind of stable, loving relationship; and it would pointlessly deny Massachusetts the economic benefits it reaps as a state that welcomes everyone to marry and live here. The amendment is an awful idea, and it thoroughly deserves the stake through its cold, shriveled heart that a vote of rejection would deliver.

The mantra of "Let the People Vote," in this context, should carry no weight whatsoever. Article 48 is designed to filter out those initiative proposals that are so extreme that they can't even garner the support of one-fourth of two consecutive state legislatures. The legislature's role is not simply to rubber-stamp any initiative petition that comes along. Rather, Article 48 gives the legislature a crucial gate-keeper role to play, and they should play it. In an editorial published around the time of the last ConCon, the Herald got it exactly right: "If it can'€™t get that number on an up or down vote then surely it is not worthy of further consideration." So if a legislator votes to advance the amendment to the next session because she believes the amendment is a good idea, we can disagree on the merits, but we can understand the rationale behind the vote. But any legislator who votes to advance the amendment even though she hopes it fails at the ballot is abdicating the duty assigned to her by the Constitution.

More:
http://www.bluemassgroup.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=5756


See Also:


January 1, 2007
Associated Press decrees: "Gay marriage supporters left with choice: follow law or heart," expresses their opinion in a "news" story

As another example of the “unbiased” and “objective” reporting of the “liberal” media we submit this Associated Press “wire story” that offers an extreme interpretation of the situation in Massachusetts. We quote:

“On Wednesday, the Supreme Judicial Court stripped away that argument and left lawmakers who support gay marriage with the starkest of choices: either follow the constitution and allow a vote; or follow their heart and do everything they can to avoid a vote. …. The final arbiters, the court said, are voters who can choose to reject lawmakers who defy their constitutional duties.

Only the AP& Rev. Dobson would conclude that refusing to allow this measure to move forward means lawmakers must “defy their constitutional duties.”

See Gay marriage supporters left with choice: follow law or heart @ Boston Herald, United State

More:
http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2007/01/associated-press-decrees-gay-marriage.html