Gay Marriage Votes In The Next Session

Thanks for the analysis! (0.00 / 0)

Are there any other legislators who are persuadable?  Have any switched votes or anything like that?

---

by: JillK @ Tue Jan 02, 2007 at 18:31:03 PM CST

Good point! (0.00 / 0)

I wouldn't assume more couldn't be swayed by good old-fashioned pressure from their constituents. Or (any port in a storm) good old-fashioned arm-twisting from the leadership.

Or, in the final analysis, assemble a majority to apply the study group precedent set earlier today and do to the anti-marriage amendment what they did to health care.

---

by: Trickle up @ Tue Jan 02, 2007 at 18:46:57 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Is Canderas actually an increase? (0.00 / 0)

She moved up from the House to the Senate, but unless she was replaced by an anti-gay-marriage type in the House, there's no actual gain, since a pro-marriage House seat would negate losing Lees (in the ConCon, the only number that counts is the total).

WF

I love second fiddle. I love fourth and fifth fiddle. I'll party with any fiddle you give me. The funniest parts are usually the fifth and sixth trombones, not even fiddles. - Jack Black

---

by: Wes F @ Tue Jan 02, 2007 at 18:44:51 PM CST

Yes (0.00 / 0)

She was replaced by Angelo Puppolo, who IIRC is in favor of putting it to a vote.

.08 Acres
.0000016% of Massachusetts Political Commentary

---

by: sco @ Tue Jan 02, 2007 at 19:28:22 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Note from the near future: (0.00 / 0)

Both Candaras and Puppolo switched sides! WE WON!!!!

---

by: cambridge_kid @ Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 14:43:13 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

6th Middlesex (0.00 / 0)

Just FYI, as far as I know, the 6th Middlesex wasn't represented on the House side because of Deborah Blumer's death. We will be once Pam Richardson takes office. From all I've read, Pam supports same-sex marriage.

---

by: sharonmg @ Tue Jan 02, 2007 at 19:06:46 PM CST

what if trav leaves? (0.00 / 0)

there's been steady rumbling at the state house over the past few months that trav is considering stepping down before his next term is over. murray seems to be the odds-on favorite to replace him.

---

by: lola @ Tue Jan 02, 2007 at 19:07:34 PM CST

The Greens (5.00 / 1)

A rational left-leaning third party would use this vote to campaign against whichever of the 62 aye votes is running in 2008, particularly the Democrats (because the Republican votes might well have Democratic challengers anyway).

But no one ever accused the Green-Rainbow party of being particularly rational about how it fields candidates.

---

by: kmarx @ Tue Jan 02, 2007 at 19:29:40 PM CST

Looks as though (0.00 / 0)

Green-Rainbow is at least speaking out consistent with your prescription on this!

---

by: Trickle up @ Tue Jan 02, 2007 at 19:43:13 PM CST

[ Parent ]

And when will KMarx run for office? (0.00 / 0)

Less blogging, more candidates, please. All the way around.

The GRP has fielded more candidates for statewide office than the Republicans and more candidates for the legsilature will come. 

For all the blogging action, such as BMG, there's a huge difference between posting rants and raves and actually being a candidate. I know, I've done it before. 

When the GRP candidates come, and they will, NONE of them will  be anti-marriage equality or anti-universal health care. None of them will pull the shell games on the people you've seen this week and have seen from the MA legislature in the past.  They won't be perfect, as human beings are not perfect, but this type of imperfection will not be among their flaws.

Saint Kermit

---

by: saintkermit @ Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 06:45:58 AM CST

[ Parent ]

None of them... (0.00 / 0)

And none of them will be elected to office either.  Sorry for that.  I don't like the system either (big fan of IRV) but it is the system.

It's swell to have great candidates, but the goal is to have great legislators.

---

by: FactCheck @ Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 11:47:08 AM CST

[ Parent ]

sadly for the purposes of defeating the amendment on a vote (0.00 / 0)

that won't help, because there isn;t an election before the next concon. nice idea tho.

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

---

by: Laurel @ Tue Jan 02, 2007 at 19:44:18 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Can someone please answer my question.. (0.00 / 0)

Isn't the NEXT legislative session that has to call a 2nd ConCon - the one that starts tomorrow? And doesn't that session end the day before the next swearing in of victors in the 2008 general election, roughly two years from now January 2009?

If THAT is the case - what would stop the current lege from postponing their final 2nd vote until AFTER the 2008 election - effectively putting this on the ballot in 2010 (along with Deval) should it pass?

Wayne

---

by: Since1792 @ Tue Jan 02, 2007 at 21:53:04 PM CST

[ Parent ]

You're right - (0.00 / 0)

they can do that.

---

by: David @ Tue Jan 02, 2007 at 22:12:36 PM CST

[ Parent ]

And I think they will. (0.00 / 0)

Yr. Obedient Servant, Peter Porcupine, Republican

---

by: Peter Porcupine @ Tue Jan 02, 2007 at 22:15:40 PM CST

[ Parent ]

If Travaglini retires (0.00 / 0)

as is rumored (but I have no idea the veracity of the rumor), who will be senate prez?  Is that post elected by the Senate?

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

---

by: Laurel @ Tue Jan 02, 2007 at 19:47:17 PM CST

I did a 2007 prediction post on my blog... (0.00 / 0)

..and I predicted that Trav would leave, and Therese Murray would become the first female President of the Senate.

But that's just me.

Yr. Obedient Servant, Peter Porcupine, Republican

---

by: Peter Porcupine @ Tue Jan 02, 2007 at 20:42:06 PM CST

[ Parent ]

That's been floating around since the convention last June.... (0.00 / 0)

and all along it was going to happen at some point after the election..... but when?


Wayne

---

by: Since1792 @ Tue Jan 02, 2007 at 21:54:54 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Gee, Wayne - I sure wasn't at your convention! (0.00 / 0)

Yr. Obedient Servant, Peter Porcupine, Republican

---

by: Peter Porcupine @ Tue Jan 02, 2007 at 22:58:51 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I saw you... (0.00 / 0)

in the shadows in the upper bleaches... :)

Wayne

---

by: Since1792 @ Wed Jan 03, 2007 at 07:16:13 AM CST

[ Parent ]

A Brief Thought on Long-Term Strategy (5.00 / 1)

One of the best weapons those of us who support same-sex marriage have is time.  The longer SSM is in place, more and more people will (presumably) see the inequality of changing the status quo.

Much of the discussion the media is focused on the assumption that the anti-SSM question would be on the ballot in 2008, but that assumes that a ConCon approves the question sufficiently in advance of the 2008 elections.  But as today's vote shows, the next ConCon vote could theoretically happen on January 2, 2009.  Even if the vote goes against us again, the question would not reach the ballot until November 2010, almost 4 years away.

So, along with all of the other lobbying that should and will go on, one thing we should ask the legislative supporters of SSM to do is move to adjourn the next ConCon until it is too late to put the question on the 2008 ballot.  There are more than enough of them to do this.  While I would much prefer that the rights of a group of people not be subject to a popular vote, if we are forced to do so, it should be delayed as long as possible.

---

by: SK-Jim @ Tue Jan 02, 2007 at 19:52:53 PM CST

to make that extra time work for us (5.80 / 5)

We all need to start conversations immediately with people around us about marriage equality.  Many people have not even thought about it, don;t actually know marriage isnt' available to gays nationwide.  Hard as that is to believe, it's true.  So the education of the electorate needs to start now, and we all need to do it personally.  No just assuming truth will take care of itself if enought time passes. [not saying you're saying that, i'm just saying].

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

---

by: Laurel @ Tue Jan 02, 2007 at 19:58:15 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Not sure about your dates (0.00 / 0)

I may be mistaken, but it is my understanding that the second vote must come before 2008, and then, if it passes, the question would be placed on the ballot for the next statewide general election, which is November 2008.  I don't believe they can push it off beyond that without failing to take a vote.

---

by: Wookie @ Tue Jan 02, 2007 at 20:03:44 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I'm pretty sure... (0.00 / 0)

the vote simply has to occur in the next legislative session, not at (or before) any particular point in the session.

---

by: SK-Jim @ Tue Jan 02, 2007 at 20:14:34 PM CST

[ Parent ]

2010 scenario quite possible (0.00 / 0)

The next Joint Session must convene by May of 2007, but it need not complete its work until the end of 2008 (well, actually, until the very begining of 2009).

If the vote takes place in December 2008 and gets 50 votes (but lets hope not), it would not appear in the ballot until November of 2010.

---

by: Trickle up @ Tue Jan 02, 2007 at 20:16:08 PM CST

[ Parent ]

just next legislative session (0.00 / 0)

so January 2009

---

by: alexwill @ Tue Jan 02, 2007 at 20:33:53 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I pointed out a couple of days ago that in the next Session... (0.00 / 0)

...you could go all the way to Jan. 6, 2009!

The other school of thought is that the ConCon will take this up next May, to put maximum distance between a controversal vote and the next election.

Yr. Obedient Servant, Peter Porcupine, Republican

---

by: Peter Porcupine @ Tue Jan 02, 2007 at 20:45:29 PM CST

[ Parent ]

The 62nd vote is ... (0.00 / 0)

Shirley Owens-Hicks, she didn't vote on the first roll call.  So no switch over.

Listening to Charlie Baker talk about fiscal responsibility is like getting lectured on abstinence from Paris Hilton - Tim Murray

---

by: johnk @ Tue Jan 02, 2007 at 20:37:09 PM CST

Is there the same legal requirement to vote again? (0.00 / 0)

Here's what the constitution says about a constitutional amendment submitted by initiative petition, that I found on the Commonwealth Web site:

"If a proposal for a specific amendment of the constitution is introduced into the general court by initiative petition ... consideration thereof in joint session is called for by vote of either house, such proposal shall, not later than the second Wednesday in May, be laid before a joint session of the two houses, at which the president of the senate shall preside; and if the two houses fail to agree upon a time for holding any joint session hereby required, or fail to continue the same from time to time until final action has been taken upon all amendments pending, the governor shall call such joint session or continuance thereof."

And then "A proposal for an amendment to the constitution introduced by initiative petition shall be voted upon in the form in which it was introduced, unless such amendment is amended by vote of three-fourths of the members voting thereon in joint session, which vote shall be taken by call of the yeas and nays if called for by any member."

There's very specific language about the need for a first vote.

But what about the second vote? Here, the Constitution says in the "submission to the people" portion:

"If in the next general court a legislative amendment shall again be agreed to in joint session by a majority of all the members elected, or if an initiative amendment or a legislative substitute shall again receive the affirmative votes of a least one-fourth of all the members elected, such fact shall be certified by the clerk of such joint session to the secretary of the commonwealth, who shall submit the amendment to the people at the next state election."

I'm not an attorney, and definitely no constitutional scholar. But I'm wondering if it looks like the language is different surrounding the requirement for a second vote, since it seems much less definite than the "shalls" and "wills" attached to the need for a first vote; and more like, if the amendment happens again to get approval of 1/4 of all members in joint session, then the people get to vote on it.

Is it assumed that the other language around the need for a first vote also applies to the need for a second vote? The SJC ruling seems to imply that both votes are needed so the constitutionally protected will of the people isn't circumvented, but it doesn't look quite as clear in the language that there's the same mandate for a second vote.

---

by: sharonmg @ Tue Jan 02, 2007 at 21:40:38 PM CST

based on the legislative non-vote on the health care amendment (5.00 / 1)

today, absolutely no votes are needed, SJC decisions be damned.

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

---

by: Laurel @ Tue Jan 02, 2007 at 21:45:50 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I think the most important new vote in the next session is Patrick's... (0.00 / 0)

The dynamics of this ConCon were unusual because of Romney's threat to call the ConCon back into session should it adjourn without voting on the anti-gay-marriage amendment. Patrick, as we know, is quite happy to let the amendment die procedurally, so should the ConCon adjourn without a vote in the next session, the amendement can die that way.

---

by: ravi_n @ Tue Jan 02, 2007 at 21:41:33 PM CST

Actually, Trav is the most important in the new session (5.00 / 1)

Trav proved today that Deval is powerless in the Con-Con.

Trav holds the gavel and he alone determines what will come up, when it will come up, and whether it will get a vote or not.

Strategies are meaningless if Trav is determined to have a vote.

---

by: JustObserving @ Tue Jan 02, 2007 at 22:52:47 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Geraldo Alicea (0.00 / 0)

Alicea is opposed to gay marriage.  I actually ran against him in the primary for the seat.  He is in favor of civil unions but opposes gay marriage, so calculate that as you will.

---

by: IrishHC @ Tue Jan 02, 2007 at 22:05:04 PM CST

Linda Dean Campbell does NOT favor gay marriage (0.00 / 0)

Linda Dean Campbell is another one that does not favor civil rights.

---

by: chrissmason @ Tue Jan 02, 2007 at 22:21:27 PM CST

OK (0.00 / 0)

Unfortuntely, that means that this is a net loss, because Broadhurst (who I believe was originally against gay marriage) switched and voted "no" on this amendment.

---

by: Hoyapaul @ Wed Jan 03, 2007 at 00:16:46 AM CST

[ Parent ]

List of YES votes (0.00 / 0)

You have 62 YES votes.  We need to lower that number to no more than 49.  It doesn't matter if they turn into NO votes or just don't vote.  Thirteen names need to leave this list, and nobody can be added.  Hoyapaul noted five seats flipped in the 2006 election, but didn't include Allen (replacing Owens-Hicks) in the tally.  Seven more to go.

Here's the list we need to work.

HOUSE:
Bruce J. Ayers, D-Quincy - Y
John J. Binienda, D-Worcester - Y
Christine E. Canavan, D-Brockton - Y
Gale D. Candaras, D-Wilbraham - Y
Mark J. Carron, D-Southbridge - Y
Paul C. Casey, D-Winchester - Y
Virginia Coppola, R-Foxborough - Y
Robert Correia, D-Fall River - Y
Geraldine Creedon, D-Brockton - Y
Sean Curran, D-Springfield - Y
Viriato Manuel deMacedo, R-Plymouth - Y
Paul J. Donato, D-Medford - Y
Lewis G. Evangelidis, R-Holden - Y
James H. Fagan, D-Taunton - Y
David L. Flynn, D-Bridgewater - Y
John P. Fresolo, D-Worcester - Y
Paul K. Frost, R-Auburn - Y
Colleen M. Garry, D-Dracut - Y
Susan W. Gifford, R-Wareham - Y
Emile J. Goguen, D-Fitchburg - Y  (Replaced in '07 by DiNatale)
Shirley Gomes, R-South Harwich - Y  (Replaced in '07 by Peake)
William G. Greene Jr., D-Billerica - Y
Robert S. Hargraves, R-Groton - Y
Donald F. Humason Jr., R-Westfield - Y
Frank M. Hynes, D-Marshfield - Y
Michael F. Kane, D-Holyoke - Y
Paul Kujawski, D-Webster - Y
William Lantigua, D-Lawrence - Y
John A. Lepper, R-Attleboro - Y
Paul J. Loscocco, R-Holliston - Y
James R. Miceli, D-Wilmington - Y
James M. Murphy, D-Weymouth - Y
David M. Nangle, D-Lowell - Y
Robert J. Nyman, D-Hanover - Y
Shirley Owens-Hicks, D-Boston - Y  (Replaced in '07 by Allen)
Marie J. Parente, D-Milford - Y  (Replaced in '07 by Fernandes)
Jeffrey D. Perry, R-Sandwich - Y
George N. Peterson Jr., R-Grafton - Y
Thomas M. Petrolati, D-Ludlow - Y
Elizabeth A. Poirier, R-North Attleboro - Y
Karyn E. Polito, R-Shrewsbury - Y
Susan W. Pope, R-Wayland - Y  (Replaced in '07 by Conroy)
Mary S. Rogeness, R-Longmeadow - Y
Richard Ross, R-Wrentham - Y
Michael F. Rush, D-Boston - Y
Angelo M. Scaccia, D-Boston - Y
Todd Smola, R-Palmer - Y
Joyce A. Spiliotis, D-Peabody - Y
Walter F. Timilty, D-Milton - Y
A. Stephen Tobin, D-Quincy - Y
Philip Travis, D-Rehoboth - Y  (Replaced in '07 by D'Amico)
James E. Vallee, D-Franklin - Y
Anthony J. Verga, D-Gloucester - Y
Brian P. Wallace, D-Boston - Y
Daniel K. Webster, R-Hanson - Y
SENATE
Scott P. Brown, R-Wrentham - Y
Robert S. Creedon, D-Brockton - Y
Robert L. Hedlund, R-Weymouth - Y
Richard T. Moore, D-Uxbridge - Y
Michael W. Morrissey, D-Quincy - Y
Steven C. Panagiotakos, D-Lowell - Y
Robert E. Travaglini, D-Boston - Y

 Only the cod is sacred.

---

by: pablo @ Tue Jan 02, 2007 at 22:31:41 PM CST

Why did the vote yes? (5.50 / 2)

The next thing to figure out is why they voted yes. A certain number of them voted because they genuinely oppose gay marriage (for example, my own Rep. Vinny deMacedo), but others voted yes based on the notion that it should go to the ballot.

So, how many of the 62 fall under the second category? Those are the people to work on.

---

by: Argyle @ Wed Jan 03, 2007 at 07:51:52 AM CST

[ Parent ]

In my humble opinion (0.00 / 0)

Those who voted yes based on the notion that it should go to ballot genuinely oppose gay marriage as well.

Left-handed, left-leaning, right-minded.

---

by: Mike in Medford @ Wed Jan 03, 2007 at 12:38:20 PM CST

[ Parent ]

A good observation but (6.00 / 1)

We need to know more about ALL of these folks. We have indeed flipped people from anti- to pro- in the past (Brian Lees, for example), and can do the same now--but only with enough constituent support.

---

by: steverino @ Wed Jan 03, 2007 at 12:40:32 PM CST

[ Parent ]