Massachusetts: gay marriage alert!

[cos]

There are a bunch of scary anti-gay marriage bills being considered, including one that would cancel all the marriages of same-sex couples already performed, and another that would remove the judges who voted for it. There are also a few good bills, like one that would repeal the 1913 law that makes it harder for out of state couples to get married in MA. The public hearing on all of these bills is tomorrow afternoon!

I posted the details here. If you're near Boston and care about this, please read that post and go to the hearing if you can. (I will unfortunately have to miss it, I'm in western MA and have a meetup to run in Amherst tomorrow evening)

Comments

[hermesbrain.livejournal.com]

It seems to me that it would be most prudent to direct efforts against the consitutional amendment, primarily.

The other bills, while objectionable, probably lack the teeth of constitutionality (Or at least provide a much greyer area).

I'd think that a blanket impeachment of judges who supported the initial ruling would cause some serious constitutional concerns, as would canceling gay marriages already performed -- on the other hand, a constitutional amendment would be a serious problem.

The other bills look like a smokescreen -- and provide a useful way to draw the attention of opposing activists away from what really matters -- the amendment (which is the only thing that appears to me to be a potentially big deal).

I'd hate to see the amendment become law because of a divided opposition fighting all of the battles, instead of focusing resources on the most critical, and spilling over what's optional...

[cos]

That's not a consideration here. There's one hearing on all of these bills. If you go to the hearing, wear a MassEquality sticker, and show support for equal marriage, you're letting the committee know you oppose all of the anti-gay bills. If you sign up and get to testify, you can testify in general, or specifically, on as many bills as you want. Overall, the hearing will probably be an almost clean split between the pro-gay and anti-gay supporters and testimony. There's no need to decide which bills to concentrate on.

I agree with you that the impeachment bill is very unlikely to pass. And that the new amendment is the most serious threat.

I think the fate of the 1913 law is uncertain and I'd like some people to testify and make some good arguments about why we should get rid of it.

[kirin]

*blink*
I can't even being to imagine how *anyone* could imagine that a law to remove certain judges would be remotely constitutional.

But I suppose that's probably not the point, is it?

[cos]

That bill will not pass, but it is constitutional. Massachusetts does have a process for impeaching judges, though it's not called "impeachment". I forget what the name for it is, but whatever it's called, that's what this bill is doing. If it passes, it would authorize the governor to remove those judges.

[kirin]

Oh. Weird.

I'm not surprised that there's a method for "impeaching" judges, but I'm surprised that the way it gets done is to pass a specific law.

Or is it not that the law would directly remove the judges, but that it would add to what is "impeachable", on the expectation that the governor would then go ahead and remove them?

Even then, it seems utterly bizarre that you could make a particular *ruling* into an "impeachable" offense.

But I obviously don't know much of anything about the rules involved here.

[cos]

Impeachment is always a political process, whatever the rules say are "valid" reasons for doing it. Just compare Clinton and Bush :/

I remembered the name: it's a "Bill of Address". The process is that the bill of address has to be passed by both houses, then IIRC the governor can send it to the governor's council (the body that approved judicial nominations in MA), and if they pass it too, the judges are removed. So, it requires that the house, senate, governor, and council, all approve it. Definitely a long shot even in much more favorable circumstances. This one won't get to Romney.

[hermesbrain.livejournal.com]

Sorry, I should've read closer -- I assumed they had already passed comittee. Unfortunately distance and prior comitments will keep me from being at the hearing, but I'm presuming that with a population as split as it is over this issue, some or all of the bills will likely get past the comittee and on to the assemblies at large.

I used to pop into the comittee hearings from time to time when I lived closer to the boston area, and would gladly be there if I lived closer -- I was assuming that for at least some of the bills, and especially the amendment, passing through the comittee hearing was almost a sure thing.

Still, it would be worthwhile for whoever is reading this and attending the hearing to provide a constitutionally based objection to the more egregious bills to augment the solely ideological argument against refusing 100% of the bills -- I could see the comittee balking outright at such a blatant overreach of legislative power as is represented by some of the bills, and narrowing the field will make the overall battle easier to fight, assuming that some of the bills probably will pass comittee (likely the amendment, I'd figure -- though I havent' analyzed the makeup of the relevant comittee... you'd likely know better than I).

So while my comments are less applicable now that I've read the whole thing, rather than skimming the lead-in -- they're still applicable when applied to how to form arguments at the hearing. "Because I believe in equality for all sexual orientations, and the state constitution and legislative heritage provide for it -- I am opposed to 652, 653, and 654 -- However, regardless of my ideological leanings and my interpetation of our jurispridential heritage, bills 652 and 654 should be opposed by any citizen who values checks and balances on powers..... (etc)"

While apparently obvious -- It's still important to point it out, so that even if the comittee is strongly anti marriage equality, the odds are still raised that at least some bills will go down before they reach the floor.

[epilady.livejournal.com]

Please crosspost to postqueer if you can.

*sigh* Don't tell me they're gonna annul us AGAIN!?!?!?

[cos]

I'm very confident that the "cancel all the marriages" bill won't get too far.
I'm less confident about the constitutional amendment, but we're clearly gaining in the legislature. In fact, today is also the day of the special elections for three house seats where anti-gay reps resigned, and it's almost certain that all three winners today will be openly, boldly pro-gay rights.

[epilady.livejournal.com]

I'm sure that Massachusetts has noted that
A. the Commonwealth is making $$ off this new market, and
B. the very gates of Hell have not, in fact, opened wide and swallowed the sinners or swept away the sacred institution of heterosexual marriages.

So surely, only the most diehard fundies/conservatives have any reason to get behind these bills - are many of the proponents national Xtian orgs as I suspect?

[cos]

You're basically right about A and B, but if you count legislators based on last year's constitutional convention, there's still a majority in our legislature who oppose legal same sex marriage. Hopefully some of them have changed their minds, but it's hard to tell until the next ConCon.

[tshuma]

Your icon is so beautiful!

He's right, this one won't pass. But they'll keep on trying.