Monday, November 13, 2006

What I Think of the Vote

Recently, the Con Con met. One of the pieces of legislation up for vote was legislation that would allow for the people of MA to vote on whether or not the question of ssm should be allowed. The politicians, instead of voting on whether or not a vote should be allowed, politicians instead voted to discuss the issue when they reconvene. Though touted as a victory, this is not a victory in the least. The question of whether or not human rights are something that can be voted on remains unanswered. I wholeheartedly state that human rights are something that should never and can never be voted on by the people. If it ever were, it would begin this nations fall down a steep and slippery slope.

But the politicians did not vote for or against allowing human rights to be voted on by the people. Politicians, knowing what was right and proper for them to do, did not act as such. They chose to try to please all sides by putting the quesdtion off. The neocons are happy, able to claim that it is not dead, to use this issue to stir up more political fervor at a later point. Those who support SSM are happy because their rights are not being voted on. By not voting against allowing the people to vote, and instead voting to address the issue when they reconvene politicians are sending a loud message. The politicians placed their own job and popularity over what is ethically and morally right for mankind.

They should have outright voted to not allow people to vote on the rights of any individual, and specifically the right to marry.

8 comments:

John Hosty said...

I think the reason they did not vote is that the 140 legislators that are against this amendment are trying to block the 60 the are for it from being able to drag this out any further. They need only 50 votes to perpetuate the issue, and for some that is unacceptable. However, if they kill this bill by not voting on it, the haters of equality have to start from scratch, and that may not happen with the newfound awareness of Massachusetts residents on this issue.

I know where you come from in your opinion, but we can't win a straight forward vote.

John said...

I respectfully disagree. By refusing to vote on the merits on the amendment the legislature is showing contempt for the initiative petition process. It is process that puts them at the mercy of a tiny minority of citizens. I share the legislature's contempt for what I consider a violation of republican government.

John Hosty said...

"I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law."~MLK

How much contempt does a legislaitive article have to have for justice, before having contempt for it is just?

John said...

You are too deep for me. I just think the whole damn petition thing sucks.

Anonymous said...

"They should have outright voted to not allow people to vote on the rights of any individual, and specifically the right to marry."

Absolutley...if that was possible. But that was not possible. If the 109 did not recess, the legislature would have voted to allow people to vote on the rights of any indvidual, specifically the right to marry.

I would have loved to see them vote to outright kill the amendment and say loud and clear, "NO, you do not have the right to vote on the civil rights of a minority".

But that was not possible because we don't have enought pro-equality legislators in the state house. That is why our 109 heroes did the right thing by standing up and effectively ending this amendement.

Our goal should be to elect even more fair-minded legislators next in 2008 (hint: PRIMARY ELECTIONS!!!!! are the way to do this)

John Hosty said...

t does John. I think I would normally agree with you on following procedure, but the petition should have never been allowed to be penned in the first place. We can't have a license plate that says, "God" but we can have a vote on denying inalienable rights? This is a greater wrong than the rebelion taking place at the state house in my opinion. I greatly respect your right to disagree with me though. Through listening to those who we disagree with we learn.

John said...

I don't disagree with you, John. I disagree with Mr. Roberts' view that the legislature should have followed the procedure to the letter.

I am perfectly OK with a legislature treating the process with contempt.

John Hosty said...

Hey Chris Mason's here, we have a celebrety! I didn't even see your post from before. I have had six things cooking on a four burner stove if you know what I mean.

There is still time for our opponents to rally against us come January 2. We need to find out what our legislators are going to do with this in order to best help support them. If any of them in the know would tell me not to worry I would feel a lot better.

We were able to get rid of Marie "Tootsie" Parente, Philip Travis, and his partner in crime, but there are lots more haters out there to vote out next election. This is going to require some organising, are you up for it Mr. Mason?