There may be political hope for Massachusetts yet (although it’s a pathetic sort of hope that laps up such scraps as these.) The previous state Senate president, Robert Travaglini, has resigned his office to take up a job running a group of hospitals and his successor is the first woman Senate president, blah, blah, blah, Democrat Sen. Therese Murray.
Murray is a conventional liberal a supporter of same-sex marriage. But she says she won’t kowtow to those calling for a violation of the state Constitution. While she will still vote against a constitutional amendment to protect marriage as being between one man and one woman, she will not use parliamentary trickery to subvert her constitutional duty.
“My vote is going to be just what it was the last time, but I am not going to move to adjourn,” Murray said, speaking with reporters on her way into a Senate session a day after she was elected to succeed Robert E. Travaglini as Senate leader. “I will call for a vote, and I will try to help the advocates get the votes that they need. … I think it’s important that we vote.”
The amendment process
Technorati Tags: Massachusetts | same-sex marriage | politics | liberal | constitution |
Yup. That this is good news means you ARE in bad shape. Pities, Dom.
Btw, just for historical clarification, this maneuver was first used not by liberals but by Senate President Bulger at the beginning of the last decade to prevent a vote on a petition to propose a state constitutional amendment protect the freedom to choose/kill unborn babies.
And, IIRC, the most recent ConCon similarly managed to evade a vote on a petition to enact universal healthcare. But the proponents of that didn’t have the money to file suit after the fact (unlike the marriage amendment, they weren’t sure in advance that their amendment might get evaded).
So, aside from this particular context, there is still an active procedural issue here that has a longer history.
Just thought some folks might want to know that.
For those of you in the rest of the country, don’t think this isn’t coming your way.
Dom, I believe the ConCon can last for the ENTIRE legislative session. IN the past, didn’t they adjorn, only to reconvene at the end of the session.
I don’t recall, but did they ever “pass over” it for an entire session?
I think the timeline went like this:
Nov 23, 2005: Submitted to town clerks for verification (legislative year 05-06)
Jan 2, 2007: Passed first ConCon (legislative year 06-07)
TBD: Second ConCon takes up issue (legislative year 07-08)
So, legally, they can pass it over until the last day of the legislative session, and vote on it then, and still be upholding the Constitution.
My guess is the next time we see this voted on will be Jan 08.
Yeah, Liam, you tried that one before. Bulger was no conservative. He was a corrupt politician used to using whatever means at his disposal to get his way.
No conservative worthy of the name wants to use illegal means to accomplish his goal. The ends do not justify the means.
Dom: I would challenge that both liberals and conservatives alike, will use what ever means they have at their disposal to accomplish their ends.
The only barometer the check is the likelines of a lawsuit or it failing to survive a challenge.
It is truly amazing what you can do when in the majority.
Bulger a conservative?!
What the heck are you smoking?!
You could argue that Finneran was a social conservative, but Bulger?
I have to send that to Howie Carr.
That’s the funniest thing I’ve read all week.