Magisterial Fidelity
A Roman Catholic Mom from Boston

Send help.
Carol M. McKinley

Thursday, July 20, 2006 :::

Julie and Hillary Goodridge, lead plaintiffs in Mass. marriage lawsuit, have separated

Public confirmation of the couple’s separation comes on the heels of a two-week string of defeats for the marriage equality movement. Advocates failed to stop an anti-gay marriage amendment during last week’s Constitutional Convention. On July 6, the New York Court of Appeals found that same-sex couples do not have a right to marry. That same day, the Georgia Supreme Court found that a voter-approved constitutional amendment banning marriage and other legal relationships for same-sex couples did not violate state law. On July 12, a Connecticut State Superior Court Judge ruled that the state’s civil unions didn’t harm same-sex couples because it denies them marriage licenses. And on July 14, a federal appeals court in Nebraska and the Tennessee Supreme Court both returned unfavorable rulings on same-sex marriage.

Another article in Bay Windows "Recipe for Disaster" has some rather interesting observations about the traction in the Massachusetts Legislature

In interviews with numerous legislators and marriage equality advocates, two issues emerged. The first is whether or not an up-or-down vote should be taken on the amendment. The second is whether the vote to recess the ConCon until after the November elections has eliminated the possibility of killing the amendment via a parliamentary maneuver.

An anonymous senate source said “I think the majority … of legislators in the House and the Senate want to take the vote this year.”

This is candid and fascinating:

A second source with knowledge of the meeting confirmed that account in a not-for-attribution interview. Bay Windows chose not to publish the information at the request of pro-marriage equality advocates who believed that if Travaglini’s decision to allow lawmakers to kill the bill became public, he might change his mind and force a vote on the amendment.

In the month before the ConCon, however, the question of whether or not lawmakers should vote on the amendment was, in essence, taken from lawmakers when it became a much-debated public issue.Governor Mitt Romney and Cardinal Seàn O’Malley held a press conference demanding that the Legislature hold a vote. Romney vowed that he would seek legal recourse if the Legislature killed the amendment via a parliamentary maneuver.

The article goes onto describe the Globe, etc, who are also advocating for a vote....

All of which made the possibility of killing the amendment procedurally a difficult prospect politically.

I believe the following to be quite true:

I felt that by putting it off until two days after the election, we kind of created a controversy where there doesn’t necessarily have to be one … I think we might have almost created [a campaign issue].”

One State House source said, “We gave the other side the high ground.”

Indeed, the vote was met with angry commentary by editorial boards across the state. The decision to recess earned a mild rebuke from the Boston Globe, which editorialized that the move was justified “by no principled argument” and called for a vote in November. The Worcester Telegram and Gazette described the vote to postpone as a “mass dereliction of duty.” The Fitchburg Sentinel and Enterprise accused lawmakers of “ignor[ing] the will of the people” and asked readers to vote against supporters of the adjournment vote in the November elections. The Lowell Sun, in a particularly blistering editorial, wrote that lawmakers voting to postpone the ConCon “fear a statewide vote like the plague, because they can’t control the votes of individual citizens like they can manipulate legislative sessions with impunity.” Multiple papers, including the Boston Herald, the Sun and the Telegram and Gazette accused lawmakers of doing the “chicken-dance” to avoid taking a vote on the marriage amendment.

::: posted by prolife pundits at 7:53 PM




Powered by Blogger