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.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
momijizukamori
no subject
Date: 2005-04-11 21:05 (UTC)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.