Voters take Rogers to task

Voters take Rogers to task

State Rep, John Rogers, who is announcing his flip-flop on the gay marriage issue, i.e. he is “personally opposed, but …”, was confronted by angry voters in a public meeting last night.

He admits that this may be political suicide, but doesn’t care. I’m left wondering why. After all, isn’t he put in office to represent the views of the majority of his constituents? Certainly, he must make his votes based on his best prudential decisions, but if you read the article he’s all muddled in his thinking. Why not let the people vote on the amendment? Why is he holding out for “rights for non-traditional families” when unmarried couples already have all these rights by formulating a legal contract, setting up power of attorney, writing a will, etc?

Rogers says he could still change his mind, but that it’s unlikely. Still, if anyone wants to contact him with respectful opinions on why he should stay the course he originally set, they can do so at:
617-722-2600 phone
617-722-2313 fax
.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
State House, Room 370, Boston, MA 02133

Written by
Domenico Bettinelli
  • Looks to me like someone may have found one or two of Rogers’ skeletons and got him to “change his mind.”

  • After all, isn’t he put in office to represent the views of the majority of his constituents?

    I don’t believe that’s correct.  I don’t elect a guy to represent the views of the majority.  I elect a guy who will do the right thing.  If he doesn’t do the right thing, I vote him out.

  • The Bay Windows article that you linked to, Dom, in your original blog entry was mild compared to this article on Rogers (the GLBTs love him now)…

    Article from Bay Windows

    Here’s one quote…

    Marriage equality proponents need 151 votes to defeat the amendment. But Rogers said he does not believe there are 151 lawmakers who would vote it down. He notes, however, that if there is no quorum of legislators when the ConCon convenes, no formal business could be conducted “and therefore the question will not be advanced through a procedural tactic,” he explained. So if 100 or more legislators don’t show up for the ConCon, the measure would die.

    What an honorable man, not.