Friday November 17, 2006 SGN.org |
 |
Volume 34 Issue 46 |
 |
|
Saturday, Jul 05, 2008
|
 |
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||
|
 |
Massachusetts Ballot Battle Delayed but not Forgotten |
||
.jpg) |
||
| Massachusetts Ballot Battle Delayed but not Forgotten | ||
| By Lisa Keen - SGN Contributing Writer The battle between pro and anti-gay forces in Massachusetts is fierce and, despite news reports last week suggesting it's over, it's not. But the fight is not without its humor. As picketers lined opposite sides of the street passing in front of the Massachusetts state house last Thursday, November 9, the pro-gay side hoisted up a sign aimed at the anti-gay side which read, "Go home! You look Haggard!" It was, of course, a reference to the revelation the previous week that nationally known evangelist and anti-gay marriage activist Ted Haggard, who is married and has five children, had acknowledged engaging a male prostitute for sex on numerous occasions. But the business at the special session of the Massachusetts legislature last week was serious: An initiative to end equal rights in marriage for same-sex couples in the state needed only 50 of the legislature's 200 votes to proceed toward its goal of reaching the 2008 ballot. Proponents of the initiative claimed they had more than enough votes to do that; all they needed was the opportunity for the vote to take place in a special joint session of the legislature, called the constitutional convention. Pro-gay activists had tried to line up 151 votes to defeat them, but they had come up short. The only strategy left for them was to stop the vote from happening. It was a controversial move that would enable the initiative supporters to claim that democracy was being denied and that the legislature was not getting a chance to vote. To neutralize those arguments, openly gay state senator Jarrett Barrios asked that the joint session vote on a extreme measure concerning same-sex marriage -one that proposed banning legal recognition of same-sex marriages, civil unions, and domestic partnerships and invalidating the licenses issued to more than 8,000 same-sex couples thus far. So hostile was this proposal, the joint session voted zero to 196 (with four abstentions) against it. To stop the proposed citizens' initiative vote, the strategy was then to simply adjourn the session without taking a vote on it. But there was a complication with that plan. If they stopped the vote by calling for adjournment, Republican Governor Mitt Romney had warned that he would use his power to call the joint session back into order. Romney is a strong opponent of equal marriage rights for gay couples and an unannounced candidate for president in 2008 who could benefit from an increase in conservative voters at the polls that year. However, the special session could take a recess and Romney would be powerless. It was, in fact, borrowing a page from the anti-abortionists' game plan from 1990, said Arline Isaacson, chief lobbyists for the LGBT community in Massachusetts. "It was the same thing they did in 1990 to stop the pro-choice constitutional amendment that was proposed," said Isaacson, a long-time gay legislative strategist and co-chair of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus. "Except one thing," she added. "They recessed 12 times." That's what the gay strategists sought - a recess. And with 109 votes in support of recess, they succeeded; the session recessed until January 2, 2007 -the last day of the 2006 legislative session. But, as history has shown, political slugfests in Massachusetts are seldom won with one scrape. The likelihood of getting a quorum back to Boston one day after New Year's Day is usually slim, but at deadline time this week, reports were circulating that the Massachusetts Senate President Robert Travaglini, was predicting that a vote would take place on January 2. "There very well could be a vote on January 2," said a spokesperson for Senator Barrios. "Even though it's on life support, the measure is still alive." If it does get a vote January 2, gay civil rights supporters will face the anti-gay marriage dragon once again. The proposal -to amend the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage-must get 50 votes in two consecutive legislative sessions to reach the ballot. If the proposal gets that first vote on January 2, and a second vote during 2007, it can still make it to the 2008 ballot. The fight to achieve equal marriage rights in Massachusetts scored its first major victory in November 2003, when the state supreme court ruled that the state constitution's guarantee of equal protection applies in marriage licensing and that gay couples should be treated equally with heterosexual couples. But ever since that victory, anti-gay activists have been using every tactic they can find -legal, legislative, and political-to undo that ruling. So far, all their efforts have failed. Massachusetts began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples in May 2004 and has issued licenses to more than 8,000 same-sex couples since then. A state trial court ruled in October that the state could also begin issuing licenses to same-sex couples from Rhode Island, which does not have a policy or law explicitly barring recognition of same-sex marriages. State records on marriage licensing have a lag time of about six months, but the marriage clerk's office in Boston reported this week to have issued only "one or two" to same-sex couples from Rhode Island thus far. The battle between pro and anti-gay forces in Massachusetts is fierce and, despite news reports last week suggesting it's over, it's not. But the fight is not without its humor. As picketers lined opposite sides of the street passing in front of the Massachusetts state house last Thursday, November 9, the pro-gay side hoisted up a sign aimed at the anti-gay side which read, "Go home! You look Haggard!" It was, of course, a reference to the revelation the previous week that nationally known evangelist and anti-gay marriage activist Ted Haggard, who is married and has five children, had acknowledged engaging a male prostitute for sex on numerous occasions. But the business at the special session of the Massachusetts legislature last week was serious: An initiative to end equal rights in marriage for same-sex couples in the state needed only 50 of the legislature's 200 votes to proceed toward its goal of reaching the 2008 ballot. Proponents of the initiative claimed they had more than enough votes to do that; all they needed was the opportunity for the vote to take place in a special joint session of the legislature, called the constitutional convention. Pro-gay activists had tried to line up 151 votes to defeat them, but they had come up short. The only strategy left for them was to stop the vote from happening. It was a controversial move that would enable the initiative supporters to claim that democracy was being denied and that the legislature was not getting a chance to vote. To neutralize those arguments, openly gay state senator Jarrett Barrios asked that the joint session vote on a extreme measure concerning same-sex marriage -one that proposed banning legal recognition of same-sex marriages, civil unions, and domestic partnerships and invalidating the licenses issued to more than 8,000 same-sex couples thus far. So hostile was this proposal, the joint session voted zero to 196 (with four abstentions) against it. To stop the proposed citizens' initiative vote, the strategy was then to simply adjourn the session without taking a vote on it. But there was a complication with that plan. If they stopped the vote by calling for adjournment, Republican Governor Mitt Romney had warned that he would use his power to call the joint session back into order. Romney is a strong opponent of equal marriage rights for gay couples and an unannounced candidate for president in 2008 who could benefit from an increase in conservative voters at the polls that year. However, the special session could take a recess and Romney would be powerless. It was, in fact, borrowing a page from the anti-abortionists' game plan from 1990, said Arline Isaacson, chief lobbyists for the LGBT community in Massachusetts. "It was the same thing they did in 1990 to stop the pro-choice constitutional amendment that was proposed," said Isaacson, a long-time gay legislative strategist and co-chair of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus. "Except one thing," she added. "They recessed 12 times." That's what the gay strategists sought - a recess. And with 109 votes in support of recess, they succeeded; the session recessed until January 2, 2007 -the last day of the 2006 legislative session. But, as history has shown, political slugfests in Massachusetts are seldom won with one scrape. The likelihood of getting a quorum back to Boston one day after New Year's Day is usually slim, but at deadline time this week, reports were circulating that the Massachusetts Senate President Robert Travaglini, was predicting that a vote would take place on January 2. "There very well could be a vote on January 2," said a spokesperson for Senator Barrios. "Even though it's on life support, the measure is still alive." If it does get a vote January 2, gay civil rights supporters will face the anti-gay marriage dragon once again. The proposal -to amend the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage-must get 50 votes in two consecutive legislative sessions to reach the ballot. If the proposal gets that first vote on January 2, and a second vote during 2007, it can still make it to the 2008 ballot. The fight to achieve equal marriage rights in Massachusetts scored its first major victory in November 2003, when the state supreme court ruled that the state constitution's guarantee of equal protection applies in marriage licensing and that gay couples should be treated equally with heterosexual couples. But ever since that victory, anti-gay activists have been using every tactic they can find -legal, legislative, and political-to undo that ruling. So far, all their efforts have failed. Massachusetts began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples in May 2004 and has issued licenses to more than 8,000 same-sex couples since then. A state trial court ruled in October that the state could also begin issuing licenses to same-sex couples from Rhode Island, which does not have a policy or law explicitly barring recognition of same-sex marriages. State records on marriage licensing have a lag time of about six months, but the marriage clerk's office in Boston reported this week to have issued only "one or two" to same-sex couples from Rhode Island thus far. |
||
 |
||
|
|
||
International Readers read the SGN in Arabic, Chinese, French, German, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Portuguese, Spanish |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 post your own information on Seattle Gay Blog |
copyright Seattle Gay News - DigitalTeamWorks 2006