QueerToday pegs the finale of the ConCon in their TRAV-esty of Justice post. The hypocrites, liars, gay haters, and even libertarians hiding in the clothes of progressives get it loud and strong.
Senate President Bobby Travaglini has put himself squarely into the camp of those who are willing to sacrifice civil rights and marriage equality -- and health care for all in the mix -- for his own vanity. He lost and was humiliated following the Goodridge decision, when he pushed for civil unions.Last week, he played the vicious game joined in by so many self-identified right, left, evangelical, God fearing or whatever. The call was for democratic process, but after Trav ramrodded the ConCon into 1) passing through the anti-marriage equality without democratic debate on whether to do so, and 2) adjourning without process or the adherence to constitutional duty so important only minutes before, where were principles, or process or even outrage?
We are awaiting fellow travelers, like Blue Mass Group or hardy har, VoteOnMarriage, to scream as loudly over the suffocation of the health-care amendment as they have over the anti-marriage equality amendment. They might eventually raise a weak, "Whoa, dude, this is important too," complaint. Don't count on it.
Those who claimed they were all about process and democracy are back watching the bowl games and snickering over their slap in the collective faces of one minority -- and seemingly unmindful of what it means to those who need health care.
We always knew Bobby was for Bobby and would drive a tractor over his grandmother to get what he wanted. These other clowns who enabled him have lost any credibility they might have had about process and democracy and constitutional duty.
Tags: massmarrier, Massachusetts, amendment, same sex marriage, ConCon
9 comments:
For shame, MM...this issue was raised twice on BMG within 25 hours, once by Charlie, and once by a reader who was promoted to the front page. It prompted me to also write about it.
And you KNOW that BMG and the rest of the progressive movement didn't want the hatemongerers to win. However, even the Supreme Court of Massachusetts, once lauded for their landmark decision in Goodrich, said that constitutionally, the legislature was required to vote (even if the court had no power to force them). It's factually correct - no matter how you feel on the issue, shirking that duty (in any case)was not constitutional. (Of course, I had my own opinion, not seen many other places - I wanted the anti-gay amendment killed unconstitutionally because I believe the whole process was flawed in the first place...an amendment to the consitution should NOT have so low a bar to move forward, or else we have an arbitrary document subject to the whim of people like the anti-gay itty bitty minority.)
Sorry you got sucked in, Mizz Lynne. Mark and the folk at QueerToday seem right to me to expect and demand outrage. David and others at BMG screamed and iterated, then reiterated their process points for weeks. They claimed outrage and tried to justify it repeatedly.
Now, honor requires nothing short of the same for the health-care quashing by Trav and the other alleged process folk. It isn't there and isn't likely to come.
If they truly believe in this duty, the health-care vote was a mandate. If they voted on the anti-SSM amendment, they were more than duty bound to do the same.
Or is there is a different process for different groups as it appears for all the world to be.
Shame indeed.
Marrier - For what it's worth, here's my post too.
http://capecodporcupine.blogspot.com/2007/01/obstruction-of-justice.html
I am encouraged by Barbara Anderson's call for the bar to censure lawyer-legislators who voted to refuse to act on the Health Care Amendment, and I hope that impeachment becomes part of the discussion as well.
Mike, I have no faith whatsoever that you'll actually publish this, since you pocketed one of my earlier comments, but here goes: Did it occur to you that one of *the main reasons* we took this position was *exactly because of the health care amendment*? Have you missed the attention that we paid to that? I'm not going to spoonfeed you by posting all the links, but if you bother to look for them, they're all there, hiding from you, in plain sight.
Open your eyes, please.
Well, Charley, this is a no-whining zone; I never rejected any of your comments...not once. On rare occasion, Blogger eats them, mine as well, but that's very rare.
I stand that I find BMG posts, mostly David's, pallid and timid. Looking at the vast majority in this area, we would expect you guys to jump up and down about the health-care non-voting thingummy.
You think you were very strong on this. I'm certainly not the only one who disagrees. After all the hooha about the SSM amendment, the current comments seem tepid indeed.
There are pities here too. The unanimous approval to move the agenda around was a big one this ConCon. Travaglini's roughshod abuse of the gavel while feigning respect for duty was another.
I expect BMG to scream loudly, clearly and often on this. There's the odious anti-marriage equality amendment to defeat and there should be ongoing coverage of how to atone for and correct the faulty process that would quash the health-care one.
Many of us are awaiting outrage from BMG instead of a little hand wringing. There was plenty over the SSM amendment.
What is the deal with Trav? Do you really think he nurses feelings of "humiliation" from the CU battle? I find that hard to believe.
He didn't whip up senate votes for Trav-Lees in 2005. (Certainly not very vigorously, anyway, if he even tried.) I had the impression that he wanted it to fail--but I certainly didn't think that was because he wanted a tougher ban.
All things considered, I'm more concerned about his vote in favor of the amendment than I am about his rush to call the vote. That seemed pretty spiteful, and I, at least, was shocked. I've always believed Trav was quietly on our side because he, more than anyone else, derailed (via T-L) the early, really nasty legislative amendments that were put out right in the aftermath of Goodridge way back when.
Is he really committed now to an anti-gay position? Is he annoyed that DiMasi's been the goto guy for MassEquality and MGLPC? And that they've thus ignored him overconfidently rather than coming to plead with him? (I don't know that they have--just guessing.) Was his vote at extra jab at Patrick?
The simplist answer is of course that he genuinely wants to see the amendment on the ballot. It sure sucks if that's the case.
Did it occur to you that one of *the main reasons* we took this position was *exactly because of the health care amendment*?
Wow. Did you just admit that the stand for process was part of a political calculus all along? The costs (to others) and benefits were weighed, priorities were determined, and only then was principle declared.
It's pretty sad to hear it stated openly. No wonder you're so defensive now. How many times did I get savaged and caricatured over there as a machiavellian anarchist only because my political calculus was different?
I hope I completely misunderstood what you just said.
A little hand-wringing:
This is what I wrote about Travaglini, 1/3/07:
"No, the legislators are to blame, chief among them Senate President Travaglini, who allowed the anti-marriage amendment to come up (correct, we think); voted for it (dead wrong); and then had the health care amendment killed without a vote, which is the worst of hypocrisy. It has been rumored that Travaglini is set to retire soon; that can't come a minute too soon. Actually, he should resign immediately. Between his siding against working people in last year's health care negotiations; his lack of personal self-control and hostility for a governor who hasn't even taken office yet; his contempt for his gay and lesbian consituents; and his utter contempt for his oath of office, he is creating a dismal legacy for himself."
And so I say again, Mike: open your eyes. You imagine you're so right that you must be *that much righter* than everyone else. Come off it.
Honestly Mike...I love ya, but you're really off base here.
There's been plenty of outrage. The hoo-ha over the gay marriage amendment came very largely from the community (debating on ALL sides). If the health care amendment got a little buried, that's because there's only so much pixel space in any site. And it's largely, again, the community that decides what goes on in that space.
How many articles can one person or group devote to "Trav's a f-ing hypocrite and they all deserve to lose their seats"? I say, after the first several, your bases are covered. No one's forgetting this, but there's so very little that can be done about it this instant - this is a long term problem, and all the fronted outrage in the world changes nothing in the short term, or even the long term. What will change things is running Trav out of government, running good candidates against the hacks, and trust me, that's pretty high on all our lists.
Hey, there's a new governor who's the farthest thing from a hack. I'd say we're already starting down the long road to recovery.
Post a Comment