25% vote to propose state constitution change?

[Carol]

Tomorrow, a Constitutional Convention will be convened at the Massachusetts state house to determine whether a same-sex marriage ban should be put to a ballot measure in 2008.

Same-sex marriage has been legal here in Massachusetts for 2.5 years. If the ban were voted on and approved today, the rights of same-sex couples to be married would be revoked, and about 6200 marriages would become invalid. This would affect about 2% of our population.

There has been talk about bringing the gay marriage issue to the Constitutional Convention ever since the SJC made the decision legalizing gay marriage.

I'm not surprised that the issue is going to the Constitutional Convention.

However, I was shocked to learn that only 25% of the legislature (50 lawmakers) need to vote Aye to put a constitutional ban on the ballot.

Does that bother anyone else or is it just me?

 

[Touch Of Death]

I am quite the lefty but I am against Gay Marriage. There are plenty of options available to legaly bind yourself to another human being without bringing down the whole institution of marriage.
Sean

 

[FearlessFreep]

However, I was shocked to learn that only 25% of the legislature (50 lawmakers) need to vote Aye to put a constitutional ban on the ballot.

Nah, it just means that there is enough interest in a subject to be worth voting on.

 

[crushing]

Being a conservative, I think consenting adults should be able to enter into a legally recognized relationship and I don't care if it is called marriage. I was very disapointed when the people of my state voted to ban same sex marriage in 2004. But that wasn't the question.

I agree with FearlessFreep on this that it shows an interest in the subject.

Out of curiosity, do you think it should require a majority of the legislature to put the question to the voters? They may be to prohibitive for some of the good ideas to get to the voters. It would be tought to set different standards depending on whether it's a good idea or a bad idea.

 

[FearlessFreep]

Out of curiosity, do you think it should require a majority of the legislature to put the question to the voters? They may be to prohibitive for some of the good ideas to get to the voters. It would be tought to set different standards depending on whether it's a good idea or a bad idea

I'll admit that I was against every ballot initiative and amendement and whatnot this time around. Simply because I think they basically become a way for the people to express their will on issues that politicians are to afraiid to touch, even though that's why we elected them. We live in a representative republic; we elect people to make political decisons. If they don't have the guts to take a stand an the issues of importance to the people who sent them their to make those decisions, they shuoldn't be there.

Nobody promised the job would be easy

 

[Carol]

Out of curiosity, do you think it should require a majority of the legislature to put the question to the voters? They may be to prohibitive for some of the good ideas to get to the voters. It would be tought to set different standards depending on whether it's a good idea or a bad idea.

Personally I have no issue with getting good ideas out to the voters. The referendum issue we just voted on...whether or not to sell wine in grocery/convenience stores...that's a good idea, we voted on it, and I'm glad we did.

However, we were not voting on a permanent modification to our constitution to define whether or not wine was to be sold in grocery/convenience stores.

I'm left with wondering if a permanent modification to the constitution should be done by something stronger than a 'good idea'.

 

[Kreth]

There are plenty of options available to legaly bind yourself to another human being without bringing down the whole institution of marriage.

Yeah, because gay marriage is so much worse than Vegas drive-through weddings and a Britney Spears marriage that was over faster than a UPN sitcom.

 

[Ping898]

I am quite the lefty but I am against Gay Marriage. There are plenty of options available to legaly bind yourself to another human being without bringing down the whole institution of marriage.
Sean

Many of which can be contested by families and overturned in court more easily than if you were just giving everything to you spouse and you loose out on many benefits as well like pension benefits, social security and others....somehow I don't see how two people of whatever sex wanting to bind themselves is going to bring down the institution of marriage...heck...it might even lower our divorce rate from 50%.....

 

[michaeledward]

However, I was shocked to learn that only 25% of the legislature (50 lawmakers) need to vote Aye to put a constitutional ban on the ballot.

An important premise in a democratic society is that the rights of the minority will be respected. Perhaps the legislators, more than other citizens, understand a referendum against a minorty position will almost always succeed.

It is very easy to pass a 'sin tax'; need extra revenue, pass a cigarette tax. Smokers are a minority, so even if you piss them off with a law or tax, they are not going to be able to unify and remove you from office. Try and add to the gas tax, and you are probably going to get tarred and feathered, because everyone (or damn near everyone) buys gasoline.

For more than two years the Commonwealth has not self-destructed, and that may be sufficient reason for the legistlators to decide jeapordizing the right to marriage by same sex couples is not a fair exchange.

Leglistation by referrendum, I believe is the antithesis of the Constitutional Republic ideals upon which this country is built.

Your geographic entity describes itself a "Common Wealth" - maybe the legislators realize that same sex couples are supposed to share in the 'common' part of that idea.

Jus' sayin'.

 

[Touch Of Death]

An important premise in a democratic society is that the rights of the minority will be respected. Perhaps the legislators, more than other citizens, understand a referendum against a minorty position will almost always succeed.

It is very easy to pass a 'sin tax'; need extra revenue, pass a cigarette tax. Smokers are a minority, so even if you piss them off with a law or tax, they are not going to be able to unify and remove you from office. Try and add to the gas tax, and you are probably going to get tarred and feathered, because everyone (or damn near everyone) buys gasoline.

For more than two years the Commonwealth has not self-destructed, and that may be sufficient reason for the legistlators to decide jeapordizing the right to marriage by same sex couples is not a fair exchange.

Leglistation by referrendum, I believe is the antithesis of the Constitutional Republic ideals upon which this country is built.

Your geographic entity describes itself a "Common Wealth" - maybe the legislators realize that same sex couples are supposed to share in the 'common' part of that idea.

Jus' sayin'.

Gays Have not yet been labled a minority.

 

[Touch Of Death]

Many of which can be contested by families and overturned in court more easily than if you were just giving everything to you spouse and you loose out on many benefits as well like pension benefits, social security and others....somehow I don't see how two people of whatever sex wanting to bind themselves is going to bring down the institution of marriage...heck...it might even lower our divorce rate from 50%.....

Then make the legal bindings stronger in the courts.
Sean

 

[michaeledward]

Gays Have not yet been labled a minority.

Is it your position that homosexuals are a majority?

When I learned basic arithmatic, any subset of the whole whose sum was not equal to fifty percent of the whole, were a minority.

 

[Ping898]

Then make the legal bindings stronger in the courts.
Sean

Courts aren't going to help people like this much - only laws will

Former Massachusetts Rep. Gerry Studds, the first openly gay member of Congress, died Saturday at 69 after developing two blood clots, doctors said. Studds' husband, Dean Hara, has since been informed that -- unlike heterosexual spouses of former members -- he can't collect on his deceased husband's pension.
...
The couple married in 2004 after Massachusetts legalized gay marriage, but the federal government does not consider Hara a legitimate "spouse."
When a former member of Congress dies, his or her spouse is eligible to collect the member's pension. But the Defense of Marriage Act forbids the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages or civil unions, and pension administrators say they cannot release the funds to any relative other than a federally recognized spouse.

 

[Touch Of Death]

Courts aren't going to help people like this much - only laws will

I mean the supreem court.

 

[Touch Of Death]

Is it your position that homosexuals are a majority?

When I learned basic arithmatic, any subset of the whole whose sum was not equal to fifty percent of the whole, were a minority.

No it is my position that it is a behavior amoung the majority. Just like some people have tattoos, some people are drug users, some people are pet owners. ect.
sean

 

[Touch Of Death]

No it is my position that it is a behavior amoung the majority. Just like some people have tattoos, some people are drug users, some people are pet owners. ect.
sean

And while Martial Artist are in the minority we are not a minority. Do you follow?
sean

 

[michaeledward]

And while Martial Artist are in the minority we are not a minority. Do you follow?
sean

No.

 

[Carol]

An important premise in a democratic society is that the rights of the minority will be respected. Perhaps the legislators, more than other citizens, understand a referendum against a minorty position will almost always succeed.

It is very easy to pass a 'sin tax'; need extra revenue, pass a cigarette tax. Smokers are a minority, so even if you piss them off with a law or tax, they are not going to be able to unify and remove you from office. Try and add to the gas tax, and you are probably going to get tarred and feathered, because everyone (or damn near everyone) buys gasoline.

For more than two years the Commonwealth has not self-destructed, and that may be sufficient reason for the legistlators to decide jeapordizing the right to marriage by same sex couples is not a fair exchange.

Leglistation by referrendum, I believe is the antithesis of the Constitutional Republic ideals upon which this country is built.

Your geographic entity describes itself a "Common Wealth" - maybe the legislators realize that same sex couples are supposed to share in the 'common' part of that idea.

Jus' sayin'.

Ayup.



The Commonwealth has not self-destructed, and...at least from friends of mine that are devout Christians, there hasn't been any threat to traditional values or traditional marriage.

However there has been an intersting side effect to the process. I belong to a couple of business-related web communities. A question that comes up from time to time is whether or not one's business should offer domestic-partner benefits, and whether those benefits should be offered only to same-sex couples (as they cannot marry) or if the benefits should also go to male-female couples that haven't gotten married.

Some companies have chosen to offer benefits to same-sex couples only. This tends to bring out the ire in straight couples nonmarried couples that think they have the same rights as straight married couples. Some straight nonmarried couples go as far as saying that such a benefit is discriminatory...but such a process is only discriminatory in a state that classifies sexual orientation as a protected attribute under civil rights law. A few states do, many don't.

According to what I've been reading, after gay marriage became legalized in the Commonwealth, , the issuance of Domestic Partner benefits by private companies has been dropping. Interestingly enough, the corporate demographic that was the early adopter of domestic partnerships - the tech-focused startups - are now the companies that are rejecting the concept...chosing to offer benefits only to the partners of married employees only.

Not saying that to change anyone's mind about gay marriage, I just found it interesting.

But I digress...

I'm learning more about the constitutional process.

Now that the Constitutional Convention has convened, the 25% vote (in our case, 50 lawmakers) is required to send the issue to a general session of the legislature, which then needs to vote on whether this will be a referendum.

On the other hand, a simple majority vote (in our case, 101 lawmakers) is needed to delay or kill the issue.

It's more complicated than I thought.

 

[Ping898]

As much as I despise efforts like this one, my mother always told me "It is better to be asked to dance and say no then to never be asked at all", so I guess even if only 25% of the lawmarkers feel something it worth bringing to the people, better it be brought to them and they say no then to never have the opportunity to be heard...

 

[Carol]

As much as I despise efforts like this one, my mother always told me "It is better to be asked to dance and say no then to never be asked at all", so I guess even if only 25% of the lawmarkers feel something it worth bringing to the people, better it be brought to them and they say no then to never have the opportunity to be heard...

That's a good point...and a good way of putting it.

The paradigm of actions has been bizarre though. In the past, there have been judges that have overruled decisions made by voters. In this case, framework is being laid to have the reverse...a judicial decision overriden by voters.

Unfortunately, Massachusetts is very much a one-party state. The participants in the minority party seem to shrink with each election cycle. While the country observed a "vote for change" as Michael put it...in this state, such a vote has become impossible.

But...on the other hand...it means there is plenty of material to debate about. Ya just can't get bored living up here.