A Dance to Equality

Everyone here and maybe everywhere knows that Byron Rushing was right -- Massachusetts is the place where we favor marriage-equality by 75%, plus 1.

In the case of today's Constitutional Convention vote, it was 75% and then some by default. Apparently at least four of those who people expected to vote to advance the amendment to stop same-sex marriage here did not show at the State House.

Perhaps it was time for a manicure and shave instead.

Let us dance a languorous waltz to equality. Let us dance a spritely jig, just because.

There's lots of coverage on this, but right now, I'm feeling drained and relieved. I had trembled that we would even consider putting existing rights of a minority on the ballot to overturn.

On the dark side Voldemort Kris Mineau of Vote on Marriage told reporters:

I don't believe it's dead because the people have not had the opportunity to have their vote. This will not go away until the citizens have their opportunity to decide what the definition of marriage is.

This is what I and others have said and predicted numerous times. No matter how they are defeated -- courts, legislature, plebiscites -- the anti-gay/anti-SSM crowd will not honor the process, much less the rights of others. Here again, the people voted, representative democracy and all that. Even with this incredibly low bar of 25%, they could not trick, bully or cajole enough legislators to advance this toxin.

We have every reason to believe that this is their last stand in Massachusetts. I'll dance to that.

---

Tags: massmarrier, Massachusetts, amendment, same sex marriage, ConCon

Nearly Live: Mass. State House

At a quarter to 7 a.m. today, the good guys had claimed the best turf (or concrete) on the steps in front of the State House. The anti-marriage-equality amendment may come to a vote before the ConCon and the pro-equality forces are showing.

I biked on the way to work in near Southie and detoured. I guess I expected noise already. I was not surprised at the news crews, but didn't see any of the Dark Side. It was not until I got past the talking heads on wheels that I could see demonstrators.

I counted six TV trucks from different stations. A few were sound checking, but no one was with the people outside.

The pro-equality folk had their table out and there were piles of hand-made signs for those who did not bring their own.

The anti-gay, anti-SSM folk had not been bused in from the burbs yet. As befitting machine, programmed politics, they get handed professionally printed signs with identical colors and slogans. Don't think. We'll tell you what to think.

Word from the assembled pro-equality folk was that people were lining up inside to get gallery seat tickets. That's likely where the TV reporter-like-objects were.

I am not sure I can get back for action, particularly if the ConCon quickly goes into recess or votes. I advise checking at Ryan's Take and BlueMassGroup for possible live blogging where there's news and noise.

Mini-Update: BayWindows is live blogging.

---

Tags: massmarrier, Massachusetts, amendment, same sex marriage, ConCon

Endorsement — Eldridge for Congress

Last evening, during the Left Ahead! weekly podcast, the three of us formally endorsed Jamie Eldridge for U.S. Congress to replace Rep. Marty Meehan in the 5th Congressional District. I would like to iterate that here. I'm the last of the three of us to announce for him.

Actually, I never wavered. Of the candidates, he is the only one with the broad spectrum of progressive positions and policy plans to back them up. He has by far the greatest legislative experience. He also shows the leadership and courage that makes him more than adequate to carry on and surpass Meehan's crusades.

Future posts will compare and contrast candidates. You can get more than your fill of that right now at Dick Howe's excellent site.

The fact of it is that for progressives there really is no comparison or choice. Jamie Eldridge for Congress.

---

Tags: massmarrier, Massachusetts, Congress, endorsement, Eldridge, 5th CD, Meehan

The End Cannot Come Soon Enough

Woe befalls those of the small brains and tiny hearts. Surely, yesterday's Pride parade and celebration saddened and further confused them.

Grinning, embracing, loving friends, spouses, lovers, all living loud and above everything happy. How hard it must be for those who hate and fear the other to see the rest of the world advancing while they fester.

With the Massachusetts Constitutional Convention reconvening Thursday, this sad little group is in its death throes. Even if it wins, in the sense of 25% of the combined legislature to advance its anti-marriage-equality amendment, it is denying and delaying its demise.

How unfortunate that the threshold for survival of the anti-gay forces is so low. In this case, a large majority of the public and 75% of the legislature doesn't even want to give these folk a shot at continuing their quest to strip marriage rights from homosexuals. Indeed if this odious attempt at legislating personal religion had been a legislator-generated initiative, it would have required 50% plus one of the ConCon to advance. Not bloody likely.

The pity is that they are willing to push this to the very bitter end. Without the nobility of soldiers in a lost war, they are more the Blanche DuBois of politics. In this case though, there's no nice mental-institution caretaker to take their arm on the way.

We saw more of their position again this week, but not from their usual lobbying arms. Rather the local archdiocese paper, The Pilot, ran another of its specious and spurious editorials in preparation for the ConCon.

This was one of the most embarrassing ones yet. It recapped the illogical and simply wrong arguments that it and Sean Cardinal O'Malley have been offering for the past couple of years. It is worth reading to remind yourself of how unfortunate and silly these folk can be.

The VoteOnMarriage sorts love to niggle with the MassEquality slogan that "It's Wrong to Vote on Rights." That could well be expanded into the more accurate but less powerful "It's Wrong to Vote to Remove Rights from Any Minority." That's the intent, the VOM folk know that, and they are dead wrong while MassEquality is dead right.

The anti-marriage-equality folk would also have legislators as well as their own minions believe that marriage is a religious institution, authorized by churches, legalized with a cleric's blessing, and not a right at all. Here I am appalled by even the Democratic Presidential hopefuls, all but one of whom seem to agree. Even those who favor civil unions and claim to support gay rights use phrases like "marriage is between a man and a woman; that's the way I was raised."

To the issue at hand and particularly the ConCon, that is not the way it has ever been in Massachusetts, not from colonial times. The Puritans escaped from theocratic intolerance and the mingling of government and religion. Here, while claiming personal religious fervor, they set church here and state there, with tall boundaries of law, regulation and custom.

The colonial governors went so far as to forbid ministers from performing marriages and only later let them speak at weddings. In Massachusetts, marriage has always been a civil contract.

The only role a cleric has in weddings here, even today, is the same as a Justice of the Peace, and one-day designated solemnizer, a town clerk, a judge or the governor has. They can act as an agent of the commonwealth in signing the government-issued marriage license.

For example, the editorial cites incest restrictions on marriage. Various states have different definitions of consanguinity. Those that permit closer ties decidedly do not have more birth defects, higher divorce rates, or laws permitting the evils irrationally linked to permitting same-sex marriage. As the pathetic Pilot piece put it, "Once marriage becomes a personal right, the institution of marriage fades. It is only a matter of time before polygamy, polyandry, incestuous relations and all other manner of partnerships will be accepted as marriage."

It speaks to the poverty of their position and their diminished numbers that they contend first that marriage is not a civil right, second that it is a religious institution and not a government controlled civil one, and three that no one has a right to marry, per se. All of those are wrong and each shows a willful denial of many centuries of history and culture, of hundred of years of Massachusetts history, government and culture, of the laws of both the commonwealth and nation, and of the simple reality that the vast majority of locals and Americans wed civilly with not even the veneer of a cleric signing the state issued document that makes a marriage.

We can understand why the VOM and archdiocese leaders play those games. We are not quite over the hump on this type of civil-rights issue. They hope to be able to twist 25% of the legislature one more time to put removing civil rights from a minority on the ballot for 2008.

Yet, we hear echoes of this in such theaters as the Democratic Presidential candidates' debates.

We have seen popular votes on stripping rights before. Sometimes it was for the majority, such as in Prohibition -- the 18th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, rejected only by Rhode Island, and repealed by the 21st. In various states after reconstruction, we also saw repressive legislation such as poll taxes and literacy requirements that effectively removed voting as a right from Black Americans. To our national shame, none of these worked and all eventually were voted out by more rational and compassionate generations that followed.

Here we are again, with a 21st century version. It is difficult to believe that anyone who can function day to day could buy into that tripe. Perhaps they are not so far from Blanche DuBois as one might suppose.

If we have four or five legislators who find that reason, compassion and courage now, we won't have to endure the bitter campaign to drastically alter our commonwealth's marriage laws to conform for the first time to narrow religious doctrine. We won't for the first time in Massachusetts join the list of repressive and regressive states that try to strip small groups of citizens of existing rights.

A word to the wise...a word to the compassionate...a word to the lovers of liberty...no on this hateful amendment.

---

Tags: massmarrier, Massachusetts, amendment, same sex marriage, ConCon

Black Church Walking Equality Walk

Now in its eighth year as a reconciling church, Union United Methodist on Columbus in the South End is quietly showing the bigots -- black and white -- how to behave, how to be, well, Christian. This year, it's hosting the interfaith prayer service before the Pride parade.

We should pause for a moment to be grateful for those who stand up against easy bigotry. The stereotypical response to calls to welcome homosexual or support their efforts for equality is far too often to reject them. Far too often, even ministers in the African American communities will select some old testament verses to condemn this minority.

The article in today's Boston Globe seemed to want to use this tension to stir a bit of Boston Herald-style sensationalism. However, the Black Ministerial Alliance, home to the anti-gay clergy here, wouldn't bite. No comment. No returned calls.

This blog has cited the conflicts between those clowns and Union United's Rev. Martin D. McLee. Future generations will surely not treat the Gilbert Thompson hate faction respectfully.

In contrast to them, McLee said simply, "Gay folk have always been in the black church and the white church -- that's not new -- but we don't require folk to pretend that they're not who they are." Then in reference to the anti-gay ministers, he added, "I don't want this to be divisive, and I don't choose to be a part of side-taking. This is just one church living out its journey."

Let the people say amen.

---

Tags: massmarrier, Massachusetts, Gay Pride, Union United, McLee, Boston

Deval Call for Marriage Sanity

Defeat the amendment that would strip existing rights from a minority...this coming week and not after over a year of turmoil and waste money and energy. In his weekly podcast, Gov. Deval Patrick joins me in this call.

For those who find me a bit too abrasive on this, like here or here, you are likely to appreciate his reasoned and smooth style more.

• Listen to or download the podcast here.
• Read the transcript of his remarks here.

In case you have friends who are confused or know of a legislator (including a senate president) who needs some clarification before the June 14th ConCon session, Patrick's views will come in very handy.

He calls for defeat of the amendment drive to take away homosexual couples' rights for civil marriage:

First, the court has not granted gay and lesbian couples any right different from anyone else. The court has affirmed the principle that people come before their government as equals, that’s all, saying simply that if the government is going to give marriage licenses to anyone, it has to give them to everyone, regardless of whether the spouse you choose is of the same gender.

Second, we have never in this state used the ballot process to limit individual freedoms and personal privacy. Our constitution is designed to protect freedom and stand against discrimination. Yet with this proposal we are being asked to take freedom away from some people and to insert discrimination into our constitution. Where then does that stop? Shall we take away the freedom to worship in religions that the majority does not approve of? Of course we shouldn't.

Third, even if you don’t support marriage equality, you have to realize that if this issue is placed on the ballot for a vote in 2008, for the next two years little else we need to do will get done. If we don’t lay this question to rest at the constitutional convention on June 14, a toxic debate will eclipse all the other business that you and I care about and drive us apart, just when we most need to work together. Instead of advancing our agenda in Massachusetts, we will spend the next two years surrounded by advocates from all over the country trying to make Massachusetts a political circus.

His call for activism is something we all can and most certainly should do. (What did you do in the fight for marriage equality?, your children may well ask.)

His call is:

I ask you please to stand with us. Whether you support the right of adults to make private choices about whom to marry or just feel that we have bigger challenges to face together, call your State Reps and Senators and tell them it’s time for us all to move on. Ask them to vote to defeat the ballot initiative once and for all in the constitutional convention on June 14. Ask your friends, your family and your neighbors to reach out as well.

As the expression goes, what could be fairer than that?

---

Tags: massmarrier, Massachusetts, amendment, same sex marriage, ConCon, Deval Patrick

Two for the SSM Road Show

Ooo, the slugs are crawling around the Boston Phoenix today. They haven't slimed their way to the website to load up today's issue.

When they do (or before if you are near a Phoenix street box), go to David Bernstein's Power Hungry? feature. He provides the background and conventional wisdom on next week's Constitutional Convention.

Note: The Phoenix critters woke up, Power Hungry? has a link now.

The short of it is as so many of us been whining. With only 50 of 200 votes needed to advance the amendment to strip the right to marry from our homosexual couples, it looks like it would take some real courage by the leaders to stop it.

This piece provides commentary on the pro-marriage-equality efforts, including what the governor, attorney general, speaker of the house and senate president are doing, what they aren't doing and why.

Bernstein can't find out any better than the rest of us which pro- and anti-equality sides think they have in terms of votes.

Bernstein doesn't have the answers either, but he lays out all the info you need to become a pundit yourself.

Armed with the facts and opinions, you should head over to Bay Windows, where boss lady Susan Ryan-Vollmar's lead editorial makes the salient issue plain for all elected officials. Not only because she agrees with me (but more gently), I like the candor and insight here. This is the vote that will determine the legacy of legislators.

---

Tags: massmarrier, Massachusetts, amendment, same sex marriage, ConCon, Boston Phoenix, Bay Windows

A Thousand Times No!

Which century do you suppose our Senate President will embrace?

The majority of baby boomers merely watched the protests that helped extract us from Vietnam. They didn't inhale or even hold a joint. There were likely aware others marched for civil rights. After the fact, they are happy to associate themselves with the fun and victories of the generation, though. While less racist and a little more liberal than their parents, they still vote mid- to late-20th Century values.

Not too much or too fast for those homosexuals, there! Let's be real cautious about immigrants, ya know! English was good enough for my grandparents! Maybe a bit of religion in legislation is okay, isn't it?

It's kind of embarrassing to see such addle-pated muttering and voting, both by ordinary citizens and legislators. It seems like that the boomers' kids will remain much more open minded and freedom-loving. Until then, we have to deal with whom we have.

Now we have a pivot right here that epitomizes this inertia and DINO-style confusion. Our own Therese Murray has to decide whether she's regressive or progressive, 20th or 21st Century. Her actions at the pending ConCon this month will define her forever.

Murray can single-handedly assure or prevent a vote:

• To write personal religious beliefs into our commonwealth's constitution
• To strip existing rights from a minority for the first time in our history

For her spot in history, it will make no difference whether the initiative to remove marriage rights from homosexuals here passes at the ballot in 2008 or fails. No, it would be an irredeemable disgrace for us to permit a vote on any minority's existing rights. We would have soiled our nest in a way that we could never fumigate or clean.

Undoing AG Errors

It is too disgraceful already that then Attorney General Tom Reilly used his basest sophistry to claim that this initiative was legit, that it was not trying to overturn a high-court ruling. He even claimed that as it only stopped same-sex marriages going forward, it wasn't really, not truly, reversing a court decision.

That then put the Supreme Judicial Court in an untenable position. It subsequently ruled that this was Reilly's call and they would not force him to adhere to the obvious constitutional amendment that prevented just such executive-branch tricks.

Those are one large stain and one foul smell that Tom will carry forever. Murray is at a similar crossroad. Does she take the cowardly way and shift the responsibility to voters, after subjecting us to a year and one-half of expensive and divisive turmoil? Instead, does she stand tall and say we cannot abide the majority voting on whether to take rights away from a minority?

As Patrick Henry said on another matter, "Forbid it, Almighty God!"

I write that chewing on no small morsel of irony. The greatest orator of the Revolutionary War period was in the heavenly-lord-evoking culture. Yet, there and then he called on his deity to ensure the liberty of citizens, not to take rights from them. We should recall that this was what the Revolution was about, even in Massachusetts.

Using Procedures

Unfortunately for Murray, the last ConCon removed any foliage for her to hide behind on this. Enough legislators and then Senate President Bobby Travaglini voted to advance this amendment, claiming that the SJC's aside about doing so was proof they must vote. Then minutes later, they chose not to vote on the health-care initiative. As well as showing their hypocrisy and lack of honor, it put the lie to anyone who would say that they could never use procedure to kill an initiative.

There are two roads here. Murray is in the amazingly powerful position of mandating where we all go. The gavel in hand and microphone at mouth are near absolute power at a ConCon.

One road is ignominious, hateful, and anti-liberty. It would set an entirely new course for Massachusetts in treating their citizens' rights as temporary and expendable. To allow such an undemocratic vote is definitely not advancing the electorate's privileges to determine their laws. Instead, it would turn us into an us-versus-them, tyrannical-majority state.

The other road takes courage and respect and honor to walk. If Murray acts to kill this odious initiative, the anti-gay forces will doubtless vilify her forever. However, she will have made the statement as our primary legislative leader that we can never allow any interest group to misuse our political process to strip rights from any other group.

We can and should make it plain that the vast majority of voters and legislators who favor keeping same-sex marriage will support traveling down the proper path. Let the haters howl. That's what they're good at and there are fewer of them all the time.

More will follow in future posts on how the initiative definitions in Article XLVIII need refining to prevent a group with the complicity of the AG from attacking minority rights. It is a pity that Reilly did not stand up for our citizens and rights when he had the chance. It is a bit shocking that such abuses in this process even require specifications and amplification of the excluded items to the initiative process.

However, we know the depths that the enemies of equality will sink to and we must act. We voters and the legislators can do the longer-term refinement necessary. Murray can show us what she's made of right away.

---

Tags: massmarrier, Massachusetts, amendment, same sex marriage, ConCon, Therese Murray

Dems Show Little Guts on Gay Rights

For whatever motivation, the Human Rights Campaign did manage to release its gay-related Where the Democratic Candidates Stand survey for maximum press interest, immediately before the New Hampshire debate. HRC's conclusion is that the announced Dems are almost unanimous ('ceptin' for same-sex marriage, of course) behind its goals.

Gaynewswatch has a recap, with links to the candidates' responses (and non-responses).

Cynics may say that the questions were heavy handed and lent themselves to this conclusion. Also, columnist Andrew Sullivan thinks that HRC may have rigged the questionnaire for Hillary. It broke down the DOMA her husband rammed through and she supported into discrete components. She almost certainly would have opposed its repeal, but could cherry pick aspects like fair tax treatment to claim she's one fair politician.

My take is that we can expect a lot of states-rights talk in this campaign. The historical and political humor cannot be stressed too much. While the issues around federalism and states rights were crucial in defining and framing our government, the latter was often usurped by the worst of us in this nation. Slave owners, segregationists and others claimed such rights when it helped them keep others under their control and maintain their power, influence and wealth.

In the HRC responses, the seven candidates invoked states rights repeatedly. I can only assume they think they are more electable if they don't say they intend to have states be fair or come under federal strictures. Perhaps that's savvy politics with so many states having passed anti-marriage-equality legislation or amendments or both in the past five years.

On the other hand, it speaks poorly of the seven. Only the perceived crazy guy, Dennis Kucinich, had the morality and guts to say he was for same-sex marriage.

Otherwise, this questionnaire was like a needlepoint sampler. There were 15 rows of questions with seven columns of plus or minus signs. There were 99 pluses and six minuses. The "Supports allowing civil marriage rights for same-sex couples" had one brazen plus and six tuck the bill under the wing minuses.

Both-Ways Obama. Sen. Barack Obama, as is his wont, tried it two ways. Civil unions should have "the same legal rights that accompany a marriage license. I support the notion that all people -- gay or straight -- deserve the same rights and responsibilities to assist their loved ones in times of emergency, deserve equal health insurance and other employment benefits currently extended to traditional married couples, and deserve the same property rights as anyone else." In the next lawyerly breath, he added, "However, I do not support gay marriage. Marriage has religious and social connotations, and I consider marriage to be between a man and a woman."

Yes-But Edwards. John Edwards was even spongier. He wrote, "I support civil unions to guarantee gay and lesbian couples the same rights as straight couples...Gay marriage is an issue I feel internal conflict about and I continue to struggle with it." Amusingly enough with that milquetoast view he concluded "the right president could lead the country toward consensus around equal rights and benefits for all couples in committed, long-term relationships." That seems like he is saying he isn't that president-to-be.

Uber-Attorney Richardson. Gov. Bill Richardson chose to B.S. his way and not answer these plain questions. In what clearly was a hack aide's wording he noted that he supported the failed domestic partnerships act in his New Mexico. In response to the angle about whether the feds should recognize SSM and civil unions from states that have them, he kind of said yes -- "...states have generally recognized other states' family laws and the federal government should do so as well." No promises implied, mind you.

Out-There Dennis. Kucinich was the only one with, as they say in Southie, 'nads. In their entirety, his answers to these were, "I believe that equality of opportunity should be afforded to all Americans regardless of race, color, creed, sexual orientation or gender identity or expression. For that reason, I support the right of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered persons to have the full protections and rights afforded under civil law including the right to marry the person of their choice." "The decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial court to recognize and uphold this civil right is a victory not just for gay and lesbian citizens who have been denied their civil rights and relegated to second-class status. It is a victory for all Americans who believe, as I do, that the promise of the U.S. Constitution and the bill of Rights should be upheld for everyone."

DINO Dodd. Sen. Chris Dodd lumped his answers together in a flag-waving mumble fest. "Above all, I believe in fairness as a fundamental American value. While I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, I believe with all of my heart that same-sex couples must be afforded all the rights and obligations of heterosexual couples...that's is why I strongly support civil unions..."

Meaning-of-Is Hillary. Sen. Hillary Clinton obfuscated with the best of them. She did states rights with, "The question of marriage is one that has been left to the states." She bragged about her opposition to the recent Family Marriage Amendment, while neglecting to mention her strong support of the Defense of Marriage Act. She favors separate but equal here too, writing, "I believe gay and lesbian couples should have the same rights and responsibilities as all Americans and that civil unions are the best way to achieve this goal." When she got around to mentioning DOMA it was to say that it was time to let the feds stop holding benefits from gay couples who have married or gotten civil unions. Uh huh.

Blind-Eye Biden. Sen. Joe Biden didn't even have a veneer of ownership of his clearly staff-written statement. "Senator Biden supports letting state determined how to recognize civil unions and how to define marriage. He believes that legal recognition should not be denied to same-sex couples." His minion didn't seem to get the federal recognition of SSM/unions, writing that "Senator Biden believes that we need to re-examine federal laws, including the federal tax code, to ensure that our national laws do not impose unfair burdens or obstacles to the provision of employee and other benefits."

This is no league of superheroes. Only Kucinich showed vision and courage and well, American ideals.

---

Tags: massmarrier, Massachusetts, president, same sex marriage, candidates, Human Rights Campaign

Guts and the Gavel and Gays

Let us turn our eyes to Senate President Therese Murray. Today, tomorrow and at least until Thursday, June 14th, she needs:

• To know that we are watching
• To read that existing civil rights are not toys
• To hear that we each and all want the anti-marriage-equality amendment killed by any means necessary

As those in her position have shown here repeatedly, the Senate President can make or break any initiative, whether it originates from an interest group or another legislator. As we saw all too brutally in January, the General Court assembled in Constitutional Convention (ConCon) was quick and shameless in killing the health-care initiative, as it let the anti-marriage amendment advance to this ConCon.

In January, then Senate President Robert (Don't Call Me Bobby Anymore) Travaglini, shown here with Murray, gaveled the amendment forward and murdered universal health care rights for our citizens. Murray has the chance and duty to do much better for us.

She has the power, for good or evil. The vast majority of both our citizens and legislators know what the evil would be, stripping existing civil rights from homosexuals.

This is the time to contact her, repeatedly and in several forms. You can let her know at:

Senate President Therese Murray
State House
Room 330
Boston, MA 02133

Tel: (617) 722-1500
FAX: (617) 248-3840

District Office
Building Three, Room 319
Cordage Park
Plymouth, MA 02360

Tel: (508) 746-9332

Therese.Murray@state.ma.us

As a reminder, this amendment needs only 50 of 200 legislators to advance to a general election. It looks like slightly over 50 would vote for it.

You can tell her that we should never even consider, much less condone, voting to remove existing rights from any minority group. That is undemocratic, unAmerican, and immoral. It is an absolute disgrace that the hateful anti-gay interests have gamed the system to get it this far.

It must end...in the State House...in the ConCon...in June.

Therese Murray is the head of the Senate here for all Massachusetts citizens. She needs to hear from you.

---

Tags: massmarrier, Massachusetts, amendment, same sex marriage, ConCon, Therese Murray

Forest Hills Erector Set

There's an off-topic piece on the Boston Redevelopment Agency plans for Forest Hills. I put that up at Harrumph!

Tags: massmarrier, harrumpher, Forest Hills, Jamaica Plain<, redevelopment/p>

New New Hampshire Unions

The hardy plant of equality continues to grow in New England. Gov. John Lynch did in fact sign the civil unions bill.

Unions can start on January 1, 2008.

Before 100 supporters in the state house's Executive Council chambers, he iterated his approval and support. His signing remarks were:

Dating back to the Abolitionist movement, we in New Hampshire have a long, proud history of taking the lead in opposing discrimination. Today, that tradition continues. Today, we are taking an important step against discrimination. Today, we are acting to protect New Hampshire families.

Over the last several months, I have spoken with hundreds of people about this issue, and most of those people support civil unions. Some support civil unions, but feel it may be happening too fast, or too soon. Others oppose civil unions altogether and see it as a threat to marriage.

I've listened and heard all the arguments. I do not believe this bill threatens marriage. I believe this is a matter of conscience and fairness. And my view is that, it's never too soon to act to prevent discrimination.

People in committed relationships should not have to worry about visiting a loved one in a hospital, or whether their loved ones will inherit their estate, or the many other legal protections so many of us take for granted. How could any one of us look into the eyes of our neighbors, our friends, or our loved ones if we continued to deny them these basic legal protections?

That is why I am pleased to be here today as we further the interest of fairness, dignity and the strengthening of families.

That is truly the New Hampshire way

So, it's Massachusetts for marriage, Vermont, Connecticut, New Jersey, and now New Hampshire for civil unions. New York is weighing marriage, as is Rhode Island. Maine has civil partnerships and passed and upheld its gay-rights bill. All in all, this is a good region for marriage equality, living and growing.

---

Tags: massmarrier, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, same-sex marriage, civil unions

Itchy and Scratchy on Beacon Hill

Okay, sports fans, I must start by saying that I am uncomfortable flinging electrons for the Article 8/MassResistance folk. That's the Globe's job and they're very good it at over there.

However, there's an important follow-up to Ryan's peek under the freakish skirt of the opt-out folk in testimony yesterday. Tom Lang over at KnowThyNeighbor wallowed in the muck and the mire and the murk, as well as providing his own testimony on the education bills.

Just when you think these raised-by-wolverine fools can't be any more crazed, they surprise. Yesterday, half of the not-yet-institutionalized MR duo, Brian Camenker, testified in favor of S321. He repeatedly claimed historical revisionism that homosexuals were never targeted or murdered by Nazis before and during WWII. Holocaust denial from a Jew is only the latest lunacy from this pair.

The bill they're pushing attempts to legislate their private religious beliefs into public school. You'll recognize the intent if you followed the David Parker et alii case, particularly its U.S. District Court failure. There, Chief Judge Mark L. Wolf told them that if they wanted to control the curriculum and keep their kids from being exposed to facts and opinions, they could home school or go to some private religious version. Instead, the MR people are back with another try to force schools to teach only what parents approve of in advance.

Do read Tom Lang's reportage. Note that in its present form, if you want to see his testimony, left click on the link there, save the file as HTML and open it in a browser. To save a bit of work, I'll note that he says:

• Kids could read Gertrude Stein's poetry, but not hear that she wrote love poems to a woman, unless parents provided permission in writing first.
• They could see images of Michelangelo and da Vinci's work, but not hear about their sexual nature that influenced it.
• They could read about Alan Turing's computer work and breaking of the German code system, but not how he was driven mad by forced drugs.
• Holocaust teaching could include mentions of Jews, Catholics, the Romany people and others, but not homosexuals.

And so the theme is obvious. Parents afraid of information, thought, discussion and learning would set the curriculum for all. As Tom said:

Parents Rights Bill S321 does not just set to limit free discussion of past history but it also restricts discussion of current events such as the current Equal Rights struggle for LGBT in this state and throughout this nation and the world. And it would set apart children, LGBT or straight, being raised by same-sex couples.

But the true intent of Bill S321 is to take away the identity of LGBT children and to prevent them from reaching their full potential and achieving their greatest self-worth. LGBT—is not what someone does in the privacy of their bedroom but constitutes our very existence, past, present and future. LGBT youth need to have free access to their identity and to be allowed (without restrictions) to know that they share this identity with some of the world’s greatest leaders, inventors, athletes, poets, musicians, politicians, thinkers, parents, activists and fellow human beings.

We can feel some compassion for the befuddled and wrong-headed who would sacrifice the minds and spirits of future generations on the altar of their own insecurities and hatred of others. Yet, that cannot determine educational policy or legislation for the rest of us and our children.

---

Tags: massmarrier, Massachusetts, same sex marriage, public schools, parental notification

Can Rizzo Rise?

With damned slim turnout, State Rep. Anthony Petruccelli did a number on Revere City Councilor Dan Rizzo. The race to replace State Sen. Robert (don't call me Bobby) Travaglini went exactly as scripted. The guy with the established politicians behind him won handily (about 59%).

Technically, there's a June 26 general election, but the elephants aren't sacrificing one of their own. So, the winner of the Democratic primary yesterday is the de facto Senator.

The pity is that they were both pretty progressive and both on the right side of marriage equality. Ideally to an outsider, Petruccelli could have continued his good work in the House and we would have added another lefty vote to the Senate.

Yet in this one, it was may the best man win and it seems he did. The almost-as-good may now rot on the vine. Here's hoping he has the ambition for another struggle. I don't know if he can grab Petruccelli's spot in the House.

Petruccelli charmed both the power brokers (Mayor Menino and the don't-call-me-Bobby himself) and the papers and position pushers (Globe and even MassEquality) backing him. The Globe's tepid praise (he's in the legislature and by the way, likes charter schools more than the other guy) was not rousing. However, if nothing else, it shows he's wired into the power grid. Zzzzt.

Indeed, that was Rizzo's campaign. Do you want to play musical chairs...get more of exactly the same when the tune stops? The answer apparently was yes.

This was not a bad answer, but less than optimal. On the glass-half-full side, it's great to live somewhere with a choice between two good guys. Here's hoping Rizzo finds a slot where he can do his do well.

Note apropos of nothing: Someone needs to take Tony to a shirt tailor. Having once interviewed Custom Shirt Shop founder Mortimer Levitt, I learned what a big difference well fitting collars can make. Avoid the turtle look!

---

Tags: massmarrier, Massachusetts, Senate, primary, ConCon, Travaglini, Petruccelli, Rizzo

Same Sex? That's Different!

In Minneapolis last week, I made a passing mention to a former Newton couple I was visiting about a woman I worked with and her wife. They were briefly amused and noted how odd it was that I could say that, being from Massachusetts instead of Minnesota.

My yellow Reebok's were plenty unusual for the heartland. One of their favorite, but gentle, derisions came out repeatedly. When the locals are shocked by the odd, in lieu of saying you're tasteless or creepy, they tend to say, "That's different."

Grunt. Different is bad there.

Down in the Ocean State, a different-thinking columnist, Bob Kerr, does a very funny take on the my-marriage-is-threatened ruse. In the Providence Journal, he writes that he has been watching carefully for the damage done to Rhode Island or Massachusetts different-sex marriages by three years of SSM here.

In fact, he solicits tales of woe, fear and harm from those whose fragile marriages have suffered. His criteria are simple:

• Have long-standing marriages between men and women lost some of their vitality in the last three years?
• Have husbands and wives found they talk to each other less than they did before gay marriage was made legal?
• Have small pleasures in heterosexual marriage been lost because gays can talk openly in a family way?
• ...a new snappishness perhaps or unsettling incidents of one spouse saying to another, “You were more fun before gay marriage.”

He notes that his Bay State neighbors seem to be as happy and huggy as ever. However:

Maybe it’s more subtle. Maybe the toll gay marriage has taken on Massachusetts is something difficult to point at and define. Maybe it’s just a nagging sense that once “they” got to exchange the vows, what “we” had wasn’t quite so special.

Or maybe it’s something that will forever be in the future, a cumulative cultural body blow that will take years, then more years, to completely understand.

By the bye, the odd thing about my coworker is not that she has a wife. Rather, both are named Jennifer.

---

Tags: massmarrier, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, same sex marriage, Bob Kerr, Providence Journal

5th CD Wrestling Match June 2nd

Bem-vindo! Come grill and revel in the candidates to replace U.S. Rep. Marty Meehan. We'll gather them for you Saturday, June 2nd, from 10 a.m. to noon. We'll be in Hudson, MA, at the Portuguese Club, 13 Port Street.

The starting point is the red-hot and hard-to-navigate health care complex of issues. Questions will come from the audience. Blog readers can get a leg up by posting questions for the candidates here.

The event is in the spirit of our previous one with the lieutenant governor's in the last election. Our motley crew of BlogLeft bloggers will co-sponsor this one with M&W Dems.

There'll be free WiFi for sure with live blogging. We hope to get a video feed working, but make no promises. This is a chance to see the candidates strut and sweat. It's worth attending.

---

Tags: massmarrier, Massachusetts, 5th CD, health care, Hudson, BlogLeft

Protecting Minorities Here and There

Progressives should feel free to guffaw when hearing "activist judges" in reference to same-sex marriage here. Our Supreme Judicial Courts and a couple layers of lower benches are pretty damned slow and timid.

In this case (Goodridge), the SJC only acted to our constitution and laws as Canada's high court did in relationship to its Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In both cases, an obvious and kind of milquetoast ruling held for same-sex marriage. The justices in both places made it plain that government can't say they are for equality and then cherry pick which minority groups get freedoms. Wackos whose activities are illegal don't get to share in rights, but for the rest of us, the catchphrase is live it or live with it.

The retiring chief justice of Ontario, Roy McMurtry leaves as a stalwart defender of the Charter. He is also proudest of his role in establishing SSM in Canada. As he put it in an interview with the Toronto Star:

"The same-sex marriage case. I was pleased to be part of it. It stressed the importance of individual rights and, particularly, individual dignity ...

"There's a segment in our society that believes that being gay or lesbian is immoral. Gays and lesbians have faced unfair discrimination over many years, but to me that's so obviously wrong.

"That's why it was important that the court judgment not only recognize the legitimacy of same-sex unions but describe it as a marriage.

"Massachusetts, the only state in the United States to have recognized same-sex union as marriage, did so referring to our case.

"The United Kingdom recognizes a civil union between same-sex couples with all the rights and obligations of regular marriage but doesn't use the term `marriage.'

"But the term `marriage' is important to send a message to society that the commitment of these couples should be just as respected as the commitment of a heterosexual couple, though any marriage can fall apart. That's why I stress the importance of individual dignity.

"I remember a young lawyer saying to me, `You know, the day after the decision, my partner and I were lining up to go to a movie, and we felt better about our relationship and, therefore, felt better about ourselves.'

"The court decision had obviously sent an important message."

What of the argument that such decisions go against the traditional and established views of a society?

"I don't think the traditional view or the majoritarian view is the correct view. The Charter is really a document to protect minority rights."

---

Tags: massmarrier, Canada, United States, same sex marriage, McMurtry

Winning the Backyard Fight

Inspiration came in many sizes and styles at the Courting Equality release party/rally. Likely the awful, shameful effort to strip existing civil rights from homosexuals here will resolve for good or evil in June, perhaps as early as the 14th.

Speakers at the event on Wednesday at the Cambridge YMCA figuratively pointed across the street to the city hall. There three years ago to the day, the city of peace opened at one minute after midnight to issue the first several hundred marriage licenses to same-sex couples, the first in the nation.

Since then, the joy has turned to trepidation. On one hand, we have had three years of SSM, three years in which, as Sen. Byron Rushing puts it the sun continued to rise and the milk didn't curdle. The nothing-but-positive effects of SSM is a major factor in polls showing voter support for keeping it 60% and as high as 70%.

Yet politicians can lag polls. Even so, our General Court is at 70% or more wanting to stop this amendment. That is not enough. Our peculiar ballot initiative law lets a 25% of the combined legislature in Constitutional Convention advance a citizen initiative to the ballot.

That made sense in its original purpose of trying to reverse a bad law that the legislature implemented, but not in a case where a group wants to overturn a court decision and take away another group's civil rights. For certain, we need to refine the existing procedure to return it to its intent, but we have an infinitely more pressing need.

As Sen. Jarrett Barrios told the crowd in Cambridge, "We have one final effort. We have a few more votes
We have to push across the finish line."

He and Rushing made it plain that the next four weeks are huge for Massachusetts and the nation. This will take personal lobbying as well as supporting the prime groups — including MassEquality, GLAD, and the local ACLU — starting with going to their websites and finding your tasks.

The promise is there and only a few voted out of reach, even with the low bar for the anti-marriage-equality people. As GLAD's attorney who successfully argued Goodridge, Mary Bonauto, told the crowd, "The rest of the country is going to catch up with Massachusetts, as long as there is the same sense of engagement," noting that here we have large elements of the majority in favor. In the past 10 years, 20% of the states have SS marriage, civil unions or domestic partnerships.

Yet, as Barrios added, before going national, "we gotta start with Massachusetts. Until we kill this thing once and for all, we have to continue this fight in our backyard."

Rep. Alice Wolf started with an upbeat message too. She traced related issues in Cambridge and the state house since 1974. She said that by 2004, there were 70 house members and 30 senators voting for marriage equality. By this past January's ConCon, that had become 102 representative and 32 senators. "It was a very short time to have made enormous, enormous gains."

Yet the orator and plain speaker of the evening, as usual, was Rushing.

He was not above first flattering the audience, telling them, "You are some of the most radical people in the world. You and I are trying to make sure this experiment of democracy works."

He compared this fight to make SSM permanent here to such previous struggles as civil rights for African Americans and for women. It is important to speak the radical idea, and more important for those oppressed or threatened to hear it and identify with the possibilities. "The radical idea is that every person has human rights."

People need to realize that "We are in those words. We will be free."

He said none of us should be surprised by those who nevertheless oppose marriage equality. The reaction should be to do everything to make the final push to defeat the amendment.

"We do know what fantastic responsibility this places on us," said Rushing. "Our struggle now is to make this permanent, not for ourselves but for everyone."

He predicted a victory, if everyone acts now. "The only response we can have is to do more."

The goal is to have the supermajority the law requires. "When we win, we will have won with 75% of the vote plus one," he said of the June 14th ConCon.

I have no doubt that if that happens, the anti-SSM folk will not accept defeat. Rather they'll yell, turn to the courts yet another time, and maybe even mount another certainly doomed initiative. It will be too late. They can hate, they can discriminate, but in the privacy of their parlors, leaving the rest of the world alone.

The reward Rushing promises those who call, write, visit, lobby and donate time and energy would be sweet and a point of pride to last a lifetime. "We in Massachusetts will be able to say in this state we have 75% plus one."

---

Tags: massmarrier, Massachusetts, amendment, same sex marriage, ConCon, Courting Equality

Ramblings and Snatches from Courting Equality Party

Dragging my sorry, tired butt around after a five-day professional-society conference in Minneapolis, I didn't want to go. I was tired. There was a sky that would have made Noah hammer faster. It was an hour or more by foot and subway. Whine. Moan. Sigh.

God bless my shiny head. I went.

Rally? Signing?

The promo on the Courting Equality site read that it was book release event that, by the way, had guests such as lead Goodridge attorney Mary Bonauto and some legislators. I envisioned a snaking line of other middle-aged types waiting for signatures.

I have bought several copies of the book (as you all should). The one I took to the event was particularly meaningful. I wanted the authors and photographer to inscribe it to Jasper and Jay, the men whose marriage I solemnized. Jasper and I have been buddies since college and have know each other over 40 years. Giving them the autographed book will be just another way of celebrating their love and marriage.

So, with the begrudging endorsement of my wife (tired of handling our kids, cooking and other domestic duties solo in my absence), off into the wetness and wind went I.

The wedding cakes never entered my mind. Nor did not having to wait for signatures. I figured that even in fatigue, I could stand in a line for an hour. I didn't know I'd end up at an inspiring rally instead, get my book signed before it started, and find myself swept into the vortex of leftist rhetoric, challenge and bonhomie.

Charming Principals

Surely I shouldn't write it, but Marilyn Humphries reminds me in demeanor and appearance of another photographer, Marnie Crawford Samuelson. It goes far beyond their being very slender with angular faces and cropped hair. There's an elegant political link, at least in my mind as well. Marnie is a lesbian mom and the former long-term partner of Arlington Street Church minister Kim Crawford Harvie. Kim, of course, is famous for among other traits as giving great marriage.

Marnie is a superb photographer and also one of the deepest thinkers I have ever met. I have a great respect for her intellect as well as for her art. So, meeting Marilyn, I had immediate positive associations beyond admiring her politics and work. I didn't ask if they knew each other. She and Marnie might be pals or might consider each other competitors.

Instead, I introduced myself to Marilyn, who eagerly signed, as did nearby author Patricia A. Gozemba, who even tracked down co-author Karen Kahn -- a labor in all that milling traffic of happy couples and families.

I had never met Pat, as everyone calls her. Yet, she offered an amusing moment that may say much of her candor and humor. She had just signed a book and while the woman she was with waited, Pat watched Marilyn 15 feet away speaking to a small group. Pat snorted and remarked, "She's so upperclass. She'll talk forever. She acts like she's working poor, but she's not."

As an egalitarian sort myself I had to laugh. I now wonder whether I say such things myself. I may. From their long-term association and friendship, they likely have had that exchange a few times and have already gotten over it.

The 250 or so gathering for the event were pretty much a bigot's nightmare. Many had devoted their passions and lives to each other for decades. The brought their kids. Their own parents and siblings came too. Those who like to think of gay people in general and married ones in particular as sad or demented would have been out of luck. They'd have to sit with others who think the same way and delude each other.

There were a few other bloggers, like John Hosty. There were also several people I knew in Courting Equality. I work with Jennifer Hess, who is there (page 131, I think) with her wife and son, and of course, my long-term association with Arlington Street means that Kim and I have known each other for a lot of years. She was in it performing SS marriages, not for her own marriage to Kem.

I had Jenn sign her page, but didn't think about it when Kim and I brushed and bussed. Later Jenn said I should carry it around like a yearbook, picking up more signatures for Jasper and Jay. She considers it like her own yearbook.

Cake Attack

I successfully avoided the two gigantic sheets of wedding cake. Those are all fat and sugar and for some inexplicable reason, I love white iced wedding cake. I'm a bittersweet chocolate guy. I want spice, heat and intense flavors. I despise vanilla ice cream and anything marshmallow. Yet, wedding cake is that every-few-years treat. Whether it's because it accompanies a fun party or just because of leave to eat sweet, buttery treats, who knows.

As soon as the last remarks ended, the event photog turned hostess and greeted me with a white paper plate of white cake with white icing, one in each hand. My heart said take both slices. Instead I thanked her and strode to the door before I indulged.

So, walking in the wet nastiness to the Red Line and then from Forest Hills home at the other end, I had my autographed treasure inside a plastic bag inside my waterproof New Grounds messenger bag.

I'll try to read my notes and cover some of the remarks in the next post. There were comments relevant to the ConCon and a little voyeurism and eavesdropping.

---

Tags: massmarrier, Massachusetts, amendment, same sex marriage, ConCon, Courting Equality

Before ConCon, Do More

If Therese Murray ever twisted an arm or not, this is the time to start. Hell, twist a nose or pull an ear, whatever. Four weeks remain to the ConCon that will allow the demon child that is the anti-marriage-equality amendment to live until the 2008 election or will send it back to the netherworld of hate where it came from and belongs.

Today's Boston Globe lead reports that the margin supporting advancing the amendment has gone from insurmountable to wee -- perhaps three or four legislators. The ground rules have not changed; only 25% of the 200 member combined General Court need approve a voter ballot initiative to put it on the ballot. That's 50 lawmakers.

Last night in Cambridge at the Courting Equality 3-years-of-SSM/book signing/celebration thingummy, three legislators gave the call to continue the fight with the June 14th ConCon looming. Rep. Alice Wolf, Sen. Jarrett Barrios, and Sen. Byron Rushing — friends all to civil rights in general and to GLBT rights in particular — exhorted the audience to finish this fight.

The three seemed to have been arranged in order of intensity. Wolf is very sincere and hopeful. She focused on the advances in the past two decades, from hard fought debates on basic gay rights to full marriage. Barrios, as always, was raw emotion. He said, "I wish this were a code, but this is just an intermission." Finally, Rushing was the orator and elegant in his rallying cry that "you and I are trying to make this experiment of democracy work."

He added that the bitter opposition to SSM is not surprising. Also, "we do know what fantastic responsibility this places on us."

He and Barrios called for active support for the major pro-SSM lobbying organizations as well as personal contact with legislators. Rushing said, "The only response we can have is to do more."

More on the Courting Equality function later.

---

Tags: massmarrier, Massachusetts, amendment, same sex marriage, ConCon, Courting Equality