![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Apparently, they voted first thing this morning to put the proposed Constitutional amendment to the voter. The vote was 61 in favor and 132 opposed. That's enough to take it to the next step, which is to be voted on by the new legislature. (They only needed 50 votes.)
I totally understand the argument that the amendment, having gone through the process to get to the legislature, must be voted on. Is adjourning the Convention before the legislature gets a chance to vote sleazy? I think that depends on how you feel about the pocket veto. This is the one case where an executive branch can kill a bill and the legislature has no recourse (because they are out of session). Sidestepping the vote is not exactly analogous to a pocket veto, but this is a case to terminate something with no chance of recourse. (Yes, I know that the MA SJC said both that they were unable to order the legislature to vote and that they felt it was the legislature's duty to vote.)
What bugs me about the process of getting this amendment on the ballot though is the hypocrisy. You have Mit Romney arguing that the legislature has been extra-Constitutional by not voting on this amendment. But one of his proposed remedies is, itself, blatantly extra-Constitutional. That is, letting it go on the ballot without a vote. I'm tired of people talking about how getting this amendment on the ballot is "democracy in action." This is as much about democracy as the Civil War was really about states' rights. In both cases, they were convenient fig leaves. This is like when Jesse Helms would file bills preventing the federal publication of AIDS information in the name of paperwork reduction.
If this really is about the democratic process and making sure that the public have a say, why do we have a push for a referendum only on this one issue? I find it bizarre that out of all the issues, the one people push is the one which does not affect their lives in any meaningful way. (i.e., people are not pushing to ban their own marriages. They are pushing to ban other people's marriages.) I mean, you could take any issue and make the argument that we ought to have a referendum because it really is about the democratic process and that the people ought to have a say. This is not an argument explains why we should have this specific referendum. I'm not against the referendum process. I just highly doubt that they collected signatures by saying that by virtue of wanting a referendum, in the name of democracy, we ought to have one.
I would never support an amendment banning same sex marriage so my respect is hardly something that an anti-same sex marriage supporter wants. However, I have to ask what does it say about an issue when the supporters of a referendum on an issue have to hide their actual position on the issue? Isn't it a bit bizarre to argue that a movement to disenfranchise MA citizens is part of the process of democracy?
I'm listening NPR right now. Apparently, a motion to reconsider the vote they took is now active. It's no secret that I hope they kill the amendment. The track record on amemdments which ban same-sex marriage and civil unions is pretty bleak. My rebuttal to anyone who starts to blather on about abiding by the public will is based on the one Rick Mercer (then of This Hour Has 22 Minutes) gave to the whole idea of referendum. How would you like it if I pushed for a referendum forcing you to change your name to "Doris Day"? Referendums pushed by people not materially affected by the results are dangerous things.
(D'oh, they've voted to uphold the vote they took earlier today. So now we'll see what happens with the next legislature.)
I totally understand the argument that the amendment, having gone through the process to get to the legislature, must be voted on. Is adjourning the Convention before the legislature gets a chance to vote sleazy? I think that depends on how you feel about the pocket veto. This is the one case where an executive branch can kill a bill and the legislature has no recourse (because they are out of session). Sidestepping the vote is not exactly analogous to a pocket veto, but this is a case to terminate something with no chance of recourse. (Yes, I know that the MA SJC said both that they were unable to order the legislature to vote and that they felt it was the legislature's duty to vote.)
What bugs me about the process of getting this amendment on the ballot though is the hypocrisy. You have Mit Romney arguing that the legislature has been extra-Constitutional by not voting on this amendment. But one of his proposed remedies is, itself, blatantly extra-Constitutional. That is, letting it go on the ballot without a vote. I'm tired of people talking about how getting this amendment on the ballot is "democracy in action." This is as much about democracy as the Civil War was really about states' rights. In both cases, they were convenient fig leaves. This is like when Jesse Helms would file bills preventing the federal publication of AIDS information in the name of paperwork reduction.
If this really is about the democratic process and making sure that the public have a say, why do we have a push for a referendum only on this one issue? I find it bizarre that out of all the issues, the one people push is the one which does not affect their lives in any meaningful way. (i.e., people are not pushing to ban their own marriages. They are pushing to ban other people's marriages.) I mean, you could take any issue and make the argument that we ought to have a referendum because it really is about the democratic process and that the people ought to have a say. This is not an argument explains why we should have this specific referendum. I'm not against the referendum process. I just highly doubt that they collected signatures by saying that by virtue of wanting a referendum, in the name of democracy, we ought to have one.
I would never support an amendment banning same sex marriage so my respect is hardly something that an anti-same sex marriage supporter wants. However, I have to ask what does it say about an issue when the supporters of a referendum on an issue have to hide their actual position on the issue? Isn't it a bit bizarre to argue that a movement to disenfranchise MA citizens is part of the process of democracy?
I'm listening NPR right now. Apparently, a motion to reconsider the vote they took is now active. It's no secret that I hope they kill the amendment. The track record on amemdments which ban same-sex marriage and civil unions is pretty bleak. My rebuttal to anyone who starts to blather on about abiding by the public will is based on the one Rick Mercer (then of This Hour Has 22 Minutes) gave to the whole idea of referendum. How would you like it if I pushed for a referendum forcing you to change your name to "Doris Day"? Referendums pushed by people not materially affected by the results are dangerous things.
(D'oh, they've voted to uphold the vote they took earlier today. So now we'll see what happens with the next legislature.)
