The Marriage Amendment: Updates & Resources

 

June 14, 2007

Massachusetts Catholic Conference

http://www.macathconf.org

 

June 14, 2007:   Bishops' Statement on June 14 Con Con Vote

 

Contact:  Edward F. Saunders, Jr., Executive Director, 617-367-6060, edsaunders@macathconf.org

Following is the statement (and a pdf copy) of the four Roman Catholic Ordinaries in Massachusetts, Cardinal Sean O'Malley, Boston, Bishop George Coleman, Fall River, Bishop Timothy McDonnell, Springfield, and Bishop Robert McManus, Worcester after the Constitutional Convention vote rejecting the Marriage Amendment:

Ignoring the will of more than 170,000 people who signed the marriage petition and blocking the people from exercising their right to vote is tragic.

In the Commonwealth, our state laws provide for the process whereby the citizens have a right to vote on a constitutional amendment. 

However, the leadership of the Democratic Party refuses to allow citizens and elected officials to vote their conscience on social issues.  Their ideological positions undermine the common good.  Today, the common good has been sacrificed by the extreme individualism that subordinates what is best for children, families and society.

It is obvious from the unprecedented amount of pressure that was put upon elected officials that opponents of the amendment believed that the voters of the Commonwealth would have voted in favor of the traditional definition of marriage.  The pressure tactics were engineered to insure that the will of the people would not prevail.

The question for those elected officials who opposed allowing the marriage amendment to be voted on by the people is:  do we live in a country where people are free to vote their conscience or are we controlled by what is viewed as politically correct and by powerful special interest groups?

We extend our sincere appreciation to those members of the legislature who stood firm in their support to allow the people an opportunity to exercise their right to vote on the marriage amendment. 

Perhaps in the future legislators will have the courage to let the people vote on an issue so important to the future of families.

June 12, 2007 Alert:  One More Push Before the June 14 Con Con

 

Flag Day is just two days away, and what could be the final time that the Marriage Amendment is debated at the State House is almost here.  We are getting reports that legislators are getting many more calls urging them to kill the Marriage Amendment, and so, again, it’s time to dial for democracy.  The other side believes it is on the brink of victory.  God is on our side but He again needs your help!

Everyone should call his or her state senator and his or her state representative again.  Contact links are below.

Legislator Contact Info:  House   Senate   VoteOnMarriage.org Grassroots Action Page

Your message is simple:  “My name is --- and I live at ----.  I am calling [again] to urge Sen./Rep. --- to let the people vote!”  Tell your friends to do the same.  Then pray!

No one knows what will happen on June 14th at the Constitutional Convention.  In preparation for the day, please listen to a special radio program to be aired live on WROL Radio in Boston.  You can hear it over the radio in the Boston area at 950 on the AM dial; you can also hear it online by going to http://www.wrolboston.com and clicking on “listen live.” 

The program starts at noon and lasts until one pm.  Special guests include Ambassador Ray Flynn, retired Worcester Bishop Daniel Reilly, and Dan Avila of the Massachusetts Catholic Conference. 

The Bishops have sent each legislator a joint letter urging them to let the people vote on the marriage amendment.  The full text is below and a pdf copy is available at Bishops’ Letter.

Bishops' June 12 Letter to Legislators

Following is the text of the letter addressed and sent individually to each legislator of the Massachusetts General Court on June 12 2007 from Cardinal O'Malley, Bishop Coleman, Bishop McDonnell, and Bishop McManus, the four ordinaries of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Boston and the Dioceses of Fall River, Springfield and Worcester.   The letter addresses the Constitutional Convention scheduled for June 14:

A member of the Massachusetts General Court on record as opposing the Marriage Amendment told the press recently that “We owe it to the people of Massachusetts that they have the opportunity to vote, especially if they take the time to come to the polls.”  Likewise, the Boston Globe, also an opponent of the amendment, editorialized that “modern democracy shouldn't put barriers in the way of those who sincerely want to cast a ballot.”

These comments addressed the issue of same-day voter registration.  Yet they apply just as well to the upcoming Constitutional Convention scheduled for June 14.  First on the agenda is the question of whether to send to the November 2008 ballot the proposed Marriage Amendment. 

We, the Roman Catholic Bishops in Massachusetts, again urge you to vote on the Marriage Amendment without further delay, thus fulfilling your constitutional duty, and to vote “yes” to place the measure on the statewide ballot.

Marriage is a fundamental social institution.  Its definition and meaning are critical concerns for all in society.  Because it involves issues of utmost social importance, extending far beyond questions strictly legal, the marriage debate should not be reserved only to lawyers and lawmakers.   Every citizen has a stake in the outcome because every citizen has a stake in the well-being of the family.

The people of Massachusetts have been asked to accept a new definition of marriage—without any input into the discussion.  Society’s determination of whether to accept the new definition will be short-circuited if the people’s right to a voice in the matter is abrogated.  True fairness involves letting the people vote on the Marriage Amendment to define exactly what constitutes marriage.

To argue that rights should not be voted on overlooks what happened in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health at the request of attorneys allied with those now making the argument.  In effect seven unelected justices of the Supreme Judicial Court were asked to “vote on rights” by hearing a claim for same-sex marriage that implicated the rights of children. 

Four of the seven justices voted to favor adult interests over children’s rights.  The one-vote majority redefined marriage as the joining of “two adults,” thus ignoring that children do best when raised by mother and father united in marriage.  By judicially redefining marriage in a way that is indifferent to the absence of mother or father, children’s rights were voted on and taken away.

Certain issues transcend the courtroom, and the meaning of marriage in relation to the well-being of children is one of them.  On June 14, at the Constitutional Convention, we respectfully request that you give the people the opportunity to exercise their constitutional right to vote.  The people should determine for themselves whether adult interests truly outweigh children’s rights as voted in Goodridge, or instead whether traditional marriage, uniting man and woman, best serves the common good because it puts the rights of children first. 

May 29, 2007 Update:  How Many Outsiders Does It Take to Shortchange the People?

 

The circus is in town, featuring performers from all kinds of exotic places, with lots of money and political capital to spend, and with one goal in mind:  to short-change the people on Flag Day.  The State House schedule in Boston lists another session of the constitutional convention on June 14th, where the Marriage Amendment is up for a second and final vote.

Governor Deval Patrick made headlines this month when he lamented that a ballot campaign on marriage in Massachusetts would turn into an attention-distracting political circus, thus kicking off a political circus of his own as part of a new national campaign to prevent the people in Massachusetts from voting on the Marriage Amendment.

The center ring features the fabulous fifties, a group of legislators who have voted, or who promise to vote, to move the amendment to the 2008 ballot, and who now are the focus of a nationwide effort to get them to switch, stay home, or say sayonara by leaving for another job.  At least fifty legislators need to vote “yes” at the constitutional convention to put the marriage issue on the November 2008 ballot.

A delegation of anti-vote activists traveled to Washington, D.C. recently, and convinced leaders of the Democratic Party to become Democrats against democracy.  Swooping in on their high wirelesses like trapeze artists in response, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and party chair Howard Dean made calls to the State House in Boston. 

What could be their pitch?  Something like, well, please take away your people’s civil right to vote because ‘um, you know, we shouldn’t take away people’s civil rights.

Dollars are flowing in from deep pockets from throughout the United States, including a software tycoon from Atlanta, to strangle debate in the cradle of liberty.  A politician from the Midwest went before a digital camera to compare Massachusetts voters to the “mob,” an accusation that was sent by DVD to every state legislator in Boston.

Perhaps the outsiders dare to dictate the behavior of our state’s legislators not because the outsiders are constituents, and they certainly are not, but because they feel they have the money and power to override the people anywhere and at any level.

Is it working?  Local media go rumor surfing and report a shifting legislative tide that threatens to beach the amendment.  VoteOnMarriage.org disagrees, and notes that none of the fabulous fifties has announced his or her change of mind.  Leaders on both sides confirm that the votes are still there to send the amendment to the ballot, but of course, the outside pressure is extraordinary. 

No one will know for sure until the final roll call vote is closed and the votes are counted.   Constituents who support the right to vote on the Marriage Amendment must continue to speak out since, on the really difficult votes, a legislator’s final decision often obeys the last constituent voice heard.

The website at VoteOnMarriage.org has an easy-to-use email system for reaching your legislators and, just as importantly, for sending letters to the editors of your local media.  The Catholic Bishops will again ask parishes to publish bulletin announcements before June 14th.  Keep praying, especially for the legislators who want the people to vote, and who are facing the outside pressure.  Don’t let the outsiders shut us out.

May 10, 2007 Update:  Con Con Rescheduled for Flag Day, June 14

 

The Massachusetts Senate and House, meeting briefly in a constitutional convention on May 7, adopted an order to adjourn until Thursday, June 14, 2007.  When asked by reporters following the session, Senate President Therese Murray indicated that she will call for a vote on the 14th.  Thanks to all who responded to earlier MCC-Net alerts asking constituents to contact their legislators, and to those who came to the State House today, over 200 strong, to participate in a shenanigan watch.  While there is still no guarantee that a vote will be held then, due to a variety of factors that could come into play, today’s developments are positive.  Stay tuned for further updates and alerts.

 

May 7, 2007 Update: Bishops Send Letter to Legislators Before May 9th Con Con

 

Following is the text of a letter sent by the Roman Catholic Bishops in Massachusetts to the Massachusetts General Court  before the May 9th Constitutional Convention (see pdf version):

We, the Roman Catholic Bishops in Massachusetts with nearly 3 million parishioners in communities all across the Commonwealth, urge you to vote at the Constitutional Convention, scheduled to be called to order on May 9th, to move the Marriage Amendment to the November 2008 state-wide ballot.

As Bishops, we reiterate our position that we do not seek the translation of our religious convictions into public policy.  Rather we speak based on universally accessible moral reasoning in order to promote the common good.  We believe that society has a moral responsibility to foster the good of families, since the good of the family is closely linked to the institution of marriage as it has been recognized from time immemorial.

The proponents of the Marriage Amendment have followed the process afforded them by the Massachusetts Constitution.   A record number of registered voters signed petitions asking to put the amendment on the 2008 ballot.  A recent Suffolk University poll concluded that nearly two-thirds of the Commonwealth’s registered voters want to exercise their constitutional right to vote on the Marriage Amendment.

We ask you to listen to the people.  We ask you not to deny the right of our citizens to vote in this democracy.  We ask you to let the people express their views on the future of marriage in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.   Please vote to move the Marriage Amendment forward for the voter’s consideration at the 2008 ballot.         

May 2, 2007 Update:  Shenanigan Watch in Effect for May 9th Con Con

 

The state constitution requires the Massachusetts Legislature to meet in constitutional convention by next Wednesday, May 9th.  The first item on the agenda is H. 4617, a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union between one man and one woman.  The amendment needs one more vote of at least fifty legislators to place it on the statewide ballot in November of 2008.  Grassroots action is needed this week.

While promising to bring the marriage amendment to a vote this term, the new Senate President Therese Murray has announced that final action will be delayed until after the state budget process is completed, which usually occurs in July.  She aims to call the Con Con on the 9th only for the purpose of adjourning to a later date. 

Nonetheless, given the adamant desire of some opponents to kill the amendment by any means, which could include surprise tactics, a shenanigan watch is in effect for this Wednesday. 

VoteOnMarriage.org, the organization spearheading the drive to put the amendment on the ballot, is calling for citizens to contact their legislators in support of the amendment and to come to the State House on the 9th to monitor the process. 

In turn, the Catholic bishops in Massachusetts have urged pastors to include a bulletin blurb in this week’s bulletins to alert parishioners about the upcoming Con Con.  The bishops also are sending to legislators a joint statement urging a vote.

VoteOnMarriage.org is organizing buses and carpools from different parts of the state for people wanting to get to the State House in Boston on May 9th.  For more information about travel plans in your area, call the Mass. Catholic Conference at 617-367-6060. 

Contact your legislators by phone or by email and urge them to bring the amendment to a vote as soon as possible, with no shenanigans, and to support the people’s right to vote at the ballot.  The general number to the State House is 617-722-2000.  A list of legislators’ phone and email addresses can be found online at www.macathconf.org. 

March 29, 2007 Update:  New Senate President Promises to Bring Amendment to Vote

 

The new Senate President, Therese Murray (D-Plymouth), has promised to bring the Marriage Amendment up for a second legislative vote at this year’s constitutional convention, which must be convened no later than May 9th.  Please call or email her office to register your approval of her decision to follow the constitution on this matter and let her staff know that you are praying for her.  Her office number is 617-722-1500 and her email is Therese.Murray@state.ma.us.  

She has also promised to work hard with House Speaker Sal DiMasi and Governor Deval Patrick to convince legislators already on record in favor of sending the Marriage Amendment to the voters to switch their votes.  The legislators supporting the placement of the Marriage Amendment on the ballot are under tremendous pressure to change their position.  Please keep this in your prayers, and ask others, especially any prayer groups or prayer chains that you participate in or know of, to do the same.

The senate session within which Senate Murray was elected to succeed Senator Robert Travaglini as Senate President was opened with the following prayer by Fr. Bryan K. Parrish, pastor of St. Mary’s Catholic Church serving the towns of Plymouth and Kingston:

“O God, as you have revealed to us through the Hebrew Scriptures:  “You have been our refuge through all generations.  Before the mountains were begotten and the earth and the world were brought forth, from everlasting to everlasting, you are God.”

Lord, you are the Creator of all, and have made creation in your likeness; male and female you have created us!

At this historic gathering of those entrusted with leadership and responsibility for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, pour out your blessing upon us.  Help us to appreciate the inestimable value of all human life, especially among those most vulnerable in our society:  the poor, the immigrant, the elderly, the unborn, those with physical and emotional challenges, those suffering from disease and illness, those viewed by our culture as no longer necessary.

Help us to know, in mind and in heart, the incomparable value of every human life:  created good, created in your image.   Help us to promote a culture of life and love, of respect and peace.

Bless these leaders with wisdom and courage, with prudence and right judgment, with the gifts of listening well and speaking clearly.   Guide them in the ways of truth and justice.

And, at this historic moment, O God, bless Senator Therese Murray with the knowledge and assurance of your presence.  May she follow your counsel in the Scriptures and, as did the women and men of old, “only do the right, love goodness and walk humbly with her God.”

AMEN!”

Jan. 3, 2007 Update:  Marriage Amendment Moves Forward and MCC's Response

 

On January 2nd, exercising firm leadership, Senate President Robert Travaglini avoided fatal parliamentary maneuvers and moved for a vote on the Marriage Amendment, with 62 legislators, 12 more than required, voting in the amendment’s favor, thus successfully keeping the amendment alive in 2007. 

The following legislators deserve a huge thanks for voting to move the amendment a step closer to the 2008 ballot:  Senators Brown, Robert Creedon, Hedlund, Moore, Morrissey, Panagiotakos, and Travaglini and Representatives Ayers, Binienda, Canavan, Candaras, Carron, Casey, Correia, Geraldine Creedon, Coppola, Curran, deMacedo, Donato, Evangelidis, Fagan, Flynn, Frost, Fresolo, Garry, Gifford, Goguen, Gomes, Greene, Hargraves, Humason, Hynes, Kane, Kujawski, Lantigua, Lepper, Loscocco, Miceli, James Murphy, Nangle, Nyman, Owens-Hicks, Parente, Perry, George Peterson, Petrolati, Poirier, Polito, Pope, Rogeness, Ross, Rush, Scaccia, Smola, Spiliotis, Walter Timilty, Tobin, Travis, Vallee, Verga, Wallace, Webster.

Rep. Phil Travis earns extra special thanks for leading the efforts on the amendment’s behalf.  January 2nd was his last day in office and he finished his life as a legislator defending traditional marriage to the end, and successfully.  His tremendous courage and persistence will be missed.  Other amendment supporters leaving office include Virginia Coppola, Shirley Gomes, Shirley Owens-Hicks, Marie Parente, and Susan Pope.  All the returning legislators can be reached by calling the State House switchboard at 617-722-2000.

The successful vote, or more specifically the fact that there was even a vote, surprised everyone.  Many legislators point to the influence of a ruling by the Supreme Judicial Court on December 27, asserting in terms unprecedented in their clarity and strength that by blocking a legislative vote on initiative petitions, legislators would violate their oath of office.  In addition, Catholics and other citizens sent thousands of calls and emails to legislators asking for a favorable vote, and the Catholic Bishops in Massachusetts sent individualized letters urging each legislator to honor his or her constitutional obligations, as well as a second statement reiterating this point after the SJC ruling.

The battle is not over.  At least 50 legislators must vote once again to give final approval to placing the amendment on the general election ballot in 2008.  Stay tuned!

The Massachusetts Catholic Conference issued the following statement in response to the successful vote on January 2nd:

JANUARY 2, 2007, STATEMENT OF THE MASSACHUSETTS CATHOLIC CONFERENCE ON THE VOTE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION TO ADVANCE THE MARRIAGE AMENDMENT

Today the constitutional rights of the citizens of the Commonwealth have been upheld. The democratic process and the right of the people to have their voices heard were affirmed. We applaud the members of the legislature for fulfilling their responsibilities as representatives of the people who elected them and for living up to their oath of office to support the Constitution. We thank the sixty-two legislators that voted to move the marriage amendment forward for a vote of the people in 2008.

The Massachusetts Catholic Conference is the public policy office of the Roman Catholic Bishops in Massachusetts, representing the Archdiocese of Boston, and the Dioceses of Fall River, Springfield, and Worcester.

CONTACT:  

Edward F. Saunders, Jr.,             (617) 367-6060     edsaunders@macathconf.org

Dec. 29, 2006 Update:  Bishops Issue Statement Following SJC Ruling in Doyle v. Galvin

 

The Bishops issued a statement applauding the SJC ruling in Doyle v. Galvin finding that legislators have a constitutional duty to allow a legislative vote to be taken on the Marriage Amendment, and would violate their oath of office by blocking a vote.  For a copy of the statement, see Bishops' Statement on Doyle Ruling

 

Dec. 21, 2006 Update:  Bishops Send Letters to Legislators Before Jan. 2nd Con.Con

 

The four Roman Catholic Ordinaries of the Archdiocese of Boston, and the Dioceses of Fall River, Springfield and Worcester have sent individual letters to each Massachusetts state legislator in advance of the Constitutional Convention scheduled for January 2nd, the last day of the 2005-2006 legislative session.  The bishops urge the legislators to bring the Marriage Amendment to a vote, allowing it to be moved forward to the next term.  To see a generic version of the letter, see Bishops' Con.Con. Letter.

 

Nov. 14 2006 Update:  Bishops Respond to Nov. 9th Vote to Recess

 

The Roman Catholic Ordinaries of the Archdiocese of Boston, and the Dioceses of Fall River, Springfield and Worcester, while attending the meeting of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops in Baltimore, have issued the following statement in response to the November 9th recess vote of the Massachusetts General Court, delaying action on the proposed Marriage Amendment. 

The statement is as follows (PDF copy here): 

MASSACHUSETTS CATHOLIC BISHOPS’ STATEMENT ON NOV. 9TH VOTE TO RECESS

DATE:   November 14th, 2006

We are deeply disturbed by the failure of the State Legislature to take up the Marriage Amendment that 170,000 citizens petitioned to put on the 2008 ballot.  The effort to silence the people through inaction and delay has no place in a democracy.  While recognizing that individuals have differing opinions on the marriage issue, we have always asked the Legislature to let the people exercise their right to vote.

The eighty-seven legislators who opposed the motion to recess in the latest Constitutional Convention deserve our thanks.  They sought to fulfill their constitutional duty to vote on whether to move the Marriage Amendment forward. 

Citizens of this Commonwealth have exercised their right to initiate the petition process afforded to them by our state constitution, and they have complied with the law at every step.   They also deserve our thanks for participating in the arduous task of democracy by collecting signatures and contacting their legislators. 

Our public servants have no less of an obligation to follow the law by bringing the Marriage Amendment to a legislative vote.  Thus, we are profoundly disappointed with the conduct of those elected officials who, by voting to recess until the last day of the session, are obstructing the constitutional right of the people to be heard.

Cardinal Seán P. O’Malley                                Most Rev. George W. Coleman
Archbishop                                                       Bishop
Archdiocese of Boston                                      Diocese of Fall River

 

Most Rev. Timothy A. McDonnell                     Most Rev. Robert J. McManus
Bishop                                                              Bishop
Diocese of Springfield                                       Diocese of Worcester

Nov. 9 Update:  Con Con Recess Vote Tally (PDF copy here)

Oct. 30 2006 Update:  Bishops Issue Bulletin Insert Urging Catholics To Contact Legislators On Marriage Amendment

 

To download a generic copy of the Bishops' Bulletin Insert on Nov. 9th Marriage Vote in PDF, click English version, Spanish version or Portuguese version.

 

The Dioceses of Boston, Fall River, Springfield, and Worcester are urging Catholics in parishes across the Commonwealth to contact their state legislators in advance of the Nov. 9th session of the Constitutional Convention urging legislators to vote to "let the people vote" on the inititiative petition on marriage. 

In support of this effort, Cardinal Seán O'Malley (Boston), and Bishops George Coleman (Fall River), Timothy McDonnell (Springfield) and Robert McManus (Worcester) requested the printing of bulletin inserts, to be delivered to all the Catholic parishes in Massachusetts this week.  The initiative was made possible through the support of a generous donor.

The inserts, also translated into Spanish and Portuguese and made available on the website of the Massachusetts Catholic Conference (http://www.macathconf.org), include a message from the Bishops and an action alert.  The alert is individualized according to the legislative districts within which each parish is located.  The Bishops ask that the inserts be included in all parish bulletins distributed over the next two weekends before the Constitutional Convention. 

In a joint statement, the Ordinaries of the Archdiocese of Boston and the Dioceses of Fall River, Springfield, and Worcester "renew our call for legislative approval allowing the people to vote on the Marriage Amendment" and "ask Catholics and other concerned citizens to contact their legislators, urging their state senator and state representative to show up and vote to move the amendment forward" towards the 2008 ballot.  The bishops describe the need for grassroots action as "imperative" in the face of reports of a possible Constitutional Convention boycott to deny the needed vote.  They write that "the issue is not whether legislators support or oppose same-sex marriage, but whether the people have a say."  Besides calling on Catholics to contact their legislators, the Bishops ask that they come to the State House in Boston on the day of the Constitutional Convention to "show your support for traditional marriage and the people's right to vote at the 2008 ballot."

To download a generic copy of the bulletin insert in PDF, click English version, Spanish version or Portuguese version.

The Massachusetts Catholic Conference is the public policy office of the Roman Catholic Bishops of the Archdiocese of Boston, and the Dioceses of Fall River, Springfield, and Worcester.

Oct. 20 2006 Update:  After We Remember You on Election Tuesday, Will You Forget Us On Thursday?

 

Democracy is churning.  Energetic candidates at every level are hiking the trails looking for the people’s support.  Political appeals stream into our homes through a multitude of media byways, urging us to get out and vote on Election Day, Tuesday, November 7th.  Circle the date.  Log in the electronic reminder.  “And remember me at the polls,” our political suitors plead.

Yes, it’s good to vote, our civic duty.  We’ll make the sacrifice, leave a little earlier from home or work to reach our local polling place before it closes, taking time to mark our choices for various offices.  But will the favor be returned two days later when this year’s Constitutional Convention is reopened?  Will those state legislators we remember on Election Tuesday then turn around and forget us the following Thursday?  Read the following for a new action item regarding the marriage vote at the State House and a referral to new materials on the issue of marriage and civil rights.

Take A Vote to Let Us Vote

On Thursday, November 9th, just two days after we vote in the election, our legislators are supposed to return to the State House in Boston for a vote of their own.  After campaigning for our vote, will we get their vote?  The issue is letting the people vote on marriage.  An initiative petition backed by 170,000 citizens, asking the Legislature to vote once this year and once again in the next two years to send to the people a proposed constitutional amendment reaffirming traditional marriage, should be on every state legislator’s to-do list for November.   Up for a State House vote on the 9th is the question—should the people vote on marriage at the ballot in 2008?

There is nothing in the law that commands the people to vote in elections.  We do it because it’s right.  There is, however, a law that commands the legislature to vote on initiative petitions.  It’s in the Massachusetts Constitution under Article 48, making access to the referendum ballot the people’s civil right if at least 50 legislators are prepared to approve a petition.   By all reports, we have the 50 legislators.

Yet some incumbents, after asking the people to vote them back into power on Election Tuesday, want to misuse that power on the following Thursday to stop the people from voting for themselves.  There is talk of a Con-Con boycott.   The directions might read:  Stay home.  Don’t show up.  Without a quorum, the Con-Con will die, and the initiative petition will die.  After months of ubiquitous campaigning to get a vote from the people, take the rest of the year off to prevent a vote by the people.  That’s the plan, according to some reports.   It’s a two part strategy—first run for office and then run from the office—or put another way, let the people check my ballot on the 7th and I’ll chuck their ballot on the 9th.

The Roman Catholic Bishops in Massachusetts will issue another statement in the coming days, asking for renewed grassroots action by parishioners.   It is critical that Catholics and other concerned citizens again place phone calls and write emails to their state senator and state representative.  Even if you made contact in the past, send a reminder message.  Go to www.VoteOnMarriage.org on the web and click on “communicate” to deliver an email to both.  Or call the State House switchboard at 617-722-2000 and ask to be forwarded to your legislators’ Senate and House offices.  The message is simple—don’t forget us on the 9th—take a vote to let the people vote on the Marriage Amendment in 2008.

For information purposes, consult the July 12 roll call tally to see how your legislators voted in July on a motion to adjourn an earlier session of the Con-Con without taking up the Marriage Amendment.  The adjournment did not kill the amendment but delayed further action until November 9th.

New Resource Paper Available

Supporters of same-sex marriage oppose the Marriage Amendment by arguing that it would “take away civil rights” and permit a majority to tyrannize a minority.  A new paper by VoteOnMarriage.org responding to these arguments is entitled “How Civil Rights Are Born—By Democracy, Not Lawsuits.”   The paper, a one-page summary, a brochure and a PowerPoint overview are available online at www.macathconf.org/06marriageascivilright.htm.   Extensively footnoted, the paper relies almost exclusively on same-sex marriage advocates or neutral authorities as sources.

The paper argues that democracy—that is, the people—and not the courts, establish civil rights.  Bringing the Marriage Amendment to a vote at the ballot is the essence of democracy.  The paper examines history and the law to demonstrate how civil rights are created through the democratic enactment of constitutional amendments or civil rights statutes. 

The paper notes that same-sex marriage was never elevated to the level of a civil right by the people of Massachusetts, but was instituted by a court.   Moreover, the court ruling that legalized same-sex marriage in the Commonwealth equated supporters of traditional marriage to racists. 

As a consequence, the paper explains, without democracy’s backing people will be punished as bigots for disagreeing with same-sex marriage and charged with violating civil rights if they refuse to recognize the validity of same-sex marriage licenses.  This threat of persecution calls for a review by the people.  

Putting marriage on the ballot thus gives the people, the sovereign rulers in a democracy, a fundamental choice:  either continue to treat supporters of traditional marriage as bigots or reaffirm marriage as the union of man and woman as a matter of common sense.  The paper concludes that this is how democracy must function or it will cease to be a democracy. 

July 20, 2006 Update: Though Amendment Delayed, Marriage Campaign Frames Debate

 

On July 12th, the Massachusetts Legislature recessed the Constitutional Convention without taking up H. 4617, a proposed constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union between one man and one woman.  The Senate and House met in joint session for four hours, getting through half the bills on the agenda before Senator Dianne Wilkerson (D-Boston) moved to recess until November 9th, two days after the general election.  Her motion carried 100-91 (see vote tally at http://www.macathconf.org).  Though the delay is disappointing and worrisome, several positives command attention.  The marriage amendment is still alive, its supporters have framed the debate, we continue to have at least 50 legislators willing to move the amendment forward if given the chance, the other side is on the defensive, and we have the opportunity to expand already strong grassroots efforts.  Here are the details on what supporters of the amendment have gained and where we go from here.  Supporters should start by writing their legislators in response to their votes on July 12th and ask that a vote be taken on November 9th of this year.

What we have gained

It is easy to see all the hurdles we face.  The legislative leadership and a majority of the members oppose sending the marriage amendment to the voters.  Legislators on our side lack control of the parliamentary process.  There is precedent for using parliamentary maneuvers to kill citizen petitions contrary to constitutional requirements.  The opposing lobby is strong.  The task of keeping the grassroots energized is gargantuan.  We are tempted to think that no matter what we do, the odds of success in such a political environment are just too low.  Seen in this light, the vote to delay might appear as just another precursor of a legislative ditching.

Here are the counterbalancing signals.  The leadership could have “pulled a Birmingham” by orchestrating a motion to close down the convention for good on the 12th without taking a vote like then-Senate President Tom Birmingham accomplished a few years ago, but did not.   The amendment is still alive.

This suggests that those opposing the amendment could not convince the leadership and enough legislators to engage in parliamentary trickery to kill the amendment by adjourning the convention now.  In fact, 33 of the 91 legislators voting against the recess motion are either non-committal about or on record as opposing the amendment itself.  Many legislators on both sides of the recess vote told the press that ultimately they wanted the direct opportunity to vote on the amendment.  In addition, according to several media reports, Senate President Robert Travaglini has advised legislators that the amendment will be brought to a vote this year.  For those hoping to kill the amendment by permanently avoiding such a vote, a delay was all they could muster.  This signals that all your phone calls, letters and emails are having an impact.

Ed Saunders, Executive Director of the Massachusetts Catholic Conference, told the Boston Globe after the recess, “The people need to turn their attention to their reps and senators to make sure the vote gets taken in November.  It was a lengthy agenda [for the con-con], and they got through half of the items.  I was encouraged by the Senate president's statement that there will be a vote. We have to wait for that opportunity."

Those supporting the amendment have succeeded in framing the debate, making it more difficult for legislators to avoid taking a stand.  The calls of the marriage coalition to “let the people vote” and for “no trickery” have been echoed in the editorial pages of the Boston Globe, Boston Herald, Worcester Telegram, Springfield Republican, and several other daily newspapers, all of which have editorialized against ducking a vote.  As the Globe editors put it, the state constitution requires legislators to vote on proposed amendments, and “scuttl[ing] the [marriage] amendment by ignoring the constitution's own mandate and ducking a vote altogether . . . would be a mistake, and short-sighted.  Legislators should not violate the constitution in order to protect it.” 

This has put the opponents on the defensive.  In an interview with the Los Angeles Times, Carisa Cunningham, spokesperson for Boston-based Gays & Lesbians Advocates & Defenders, said that “Politically, it is very difficult to fight this very simple idea of ‘Let the people vote,’ which is the slogan the other side is marketing.”  She complained that by characterizing the con-con debate as one for or against democracy, the amendment’s backers had staged a “strategic coup.”

Where we go from here—what you need to do

According to reports in Bay Windows, the Boston-based gay and lesbian newspaper, the opponents to H. 4617 could not get the leadership to agree to killing the amendment, and failed to secure a longer delay into December.  The same reports indicated that the leadership told the opponents that they have until November to try to pry away some of the 50 supporters of the amendment.  The possibility of erosion is worrisome, but the four-month delay gives supporters of the amendment the same opportunity to increase already strong grassroots efforts. 

We need to continue to encourage those legislators who support sending the amendment to the people.  Let them know how much you appreciate their courage.  And we need to remind those who support same-sex marriage that the people are sovereign in a democracy, and deserve a vote.  Do not assume that legislators who voted to recess are locked into denying a vote altogether.   Thank the legislators who voted not to recess, even if they are on record as opposing the amendment. 

The Massachusetts Catholic Conference (macathconf.org), working with VoteOnMarriage.org, the marriage amendment’s sponsor, along with Catholic Citizenship (Catholicvote.org), will keep everyone apprised of grassroots plans to be implemented during this period.  If you have not already signed up for email alerts from these groups, please do so in order to stay abreast of developments.  The delay is agonizing, but the amendment is still alive, and we must take advantage of the support in the press and in the community for democracy and against trickery.  If you have any questions, contact the staff at the Massachusetts Catholic Conference at 617-367-6060 or staff@macathconf.org.

June 30, 2006   Bishops Issue Joint Letter Urging Vote on Marriage Amendment

 

June 30th Joint Statement

 

June 28, 2006   Bishops Join Governor at Press Conference to Support Amendment

 

Remarks of Cardinal O'Malley

 

May 6, 2006   Bishops' Letters Issued to Parishes:

 

Boston:       Cardinal O'Malley

Fall River:    Bishop Coleman & Spanish

Springfield:  Bishop McDonnell

Worcester:   Bishop McManus

 

May 5, 2006  Will There Be a Con-Con Boycott, Thus Opening the Way to Persecution?

The Massachusetts Legislature will meet in constitutional convention on July 12 and calls and emails to legislators are needed in favor of a vote on marriage.  If no legislative vote is taken, or the marriage amendment, H. 4617, is defeated, then experts on both sides of the issue agree that the persecution of religious organizations and people of faith opposed to same-sex marriage will be certain to follow.

Con-Con Outlook

The question is whether a debate on H. 4617, proposing a new marriage amendment, will take place on July 12, later or at all.  Procedurally, the legislature has until the end of the year to act, but the later a vote is delayed, the less likely a vote will be held.

Opponents are talking out loud, that is, in their own newspapers and blogs, about how to kill the amendment through parliamentary maneuvers.  Bandied about are such tactics as orchestrating a con-con boycott, where legislators would prevent a quorum by walking out and refusing to return, thus forcing the con-con to shut down.

Article 6 of the state constitution requires all officeholders to take the following oath:  “I, [name], do solemnly swear, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and will support the constitution thereof.  So help me God.”  Article 48 of the same constitution requires the legislature to take “final action” on any citizen initiatives brought before it.  That means each legislator, by virtue of his or her constitutional oath of office, should have, and should take, the opportunity to register a yes or no vote, directly approving or defeating the marriage amendment.

In 2002, legislators voted to adjourn and then-Senate President Thomas Birmingham gaveled the con-con to a close without taking up any amendments, including an earlier version of the marriage amendment.  The Supreme Judicial Court ruled later that year that such a procedural vote was not the required “final action.” 

That ruling clarified an issue that was unclear in 1990, when legislative leaders orchestrated a walk-out to avoid a vote on an initiative petition that would have constitutionalized an unlimited right to abortion.

Unfortunately, there is no legal remedy when legislators fail to vote.  The oath of office and the duty to take final action are moral in nature.  Legislators can’t be sued for failing to comply.  The only way to get their compliance is by appealing to their conscience and activating their constituents.  But even before that, supporters of the amendment must convince at least 50 legislators to agree, if given the chance, to vote for the amendment.  Without the votes in hand, the moral case for a legislative vote becomes moot.

While one should never count on any vote until a roll call is recorded, both sides agree that, currently, the amendment has at least 50 votes.  The pressure is intense to peal away supporters, so that could change.  Grassroots efforts must prevent such change.  But as long as that number is preserved, then the constitutional requirement for a roll call has meaning.

In 1982, the Supreme Judicial Court advised the Legislature that the 50 vote minimum was intended to ensure that initiative petitions had at least a “reasonable amount of public support, as reflected by the favorable votes of at least one fourth of the [200] legislators elected.”  Moreover, in 1976, the high court referred to the initiative procedure as “the people’s process” that the legislature should not thwart.  So far the legislative support is there.  And in record numbers, the people have petitioned for a vote.  Thus the law is on our side.  The question is, are defenders of traditional marriage willing to do the work needed to take advantage?

The campaign for a vote on the amendment is directed through VoteOnMarriage.org, (click on “communicate” link) which has a sophisticated online, but easy-to-use, system for contacting legislators, and their website includes sample bulletin announcements and other materials.  All grassroots efforts are being coordinated by VoteOnMarriage.org (617-795-2677) and Catholic Citizenship (617-755-7668). 

Harsh Persecution Certain

Legal experts warn or admit, depending on whether they oppose or support same-sex marriage, that the legalization of same-sex marriage ultimately will require non-complying churches and people of faith to be punished harshly.  Associated Press writer Richard Ostling reported on the findings of a December 2005 legal conference reaching that consensus in an article published the last weekend of May by the Boston Globe.  The AP report, along with a May 2006 cover story on the conference in the Weekly Standard by Maggie Gallagher, and several of the conference papers can be accessed online at http://www.becketfund.org/index.php/article/501.html. 

The conference presenters, including ACLU and other gay rights advocates, agreed that the refusal to accept same-sex marriage will be treated as harshly as racial bigotry.  The first warnings of things to come in Massachusetts, according to several presenters, have arisen already. 

Catholic Charities agencies are being forced to choose between getting out of adoptions altogether or losing all their state funding and facing stiff fines, along with being branded as bigots and haters in the media, for upholding church teaching.  Parents who do not want their children indoctrinated in the public schools through lessons that promote same-sex marriage are being denied their right to be notified in advance, and are ostracized by school administrators and teachers.  Moreover, people are losing their jobs, and businesses are being sued because they oppose same-sex marriage. 

In all, the presenters identified an extraordinary range of situations where compliance with same-sex marriage will be enforced and religious liberty eliminated.  The persecution will permeate almost every level of human interaction.

The stakes are clear.  If legislators deny a vote on marriage, then those in Massachusetts who want to abide by church teaching must expect to be persecuted and demonized, all without a say in the matter (persecution without representation?).  In view of these circumstances, denying a vote on H. 4617, by whatever means, will be harshly unjust.

April 28, 2006 Update:  Fifty Ways to Leave Out the Voter?

Thinking about the recent hearing on marriage at the State House in Boston, one might recall the words of Paul Simon in his 1976 hit “Fifty Ways to Leave Your Lover.”  

The refrain repeats:  “Just slip out the back, Jack; Make a new plan, Stan; You don’t need to be coy, Roy; Just get yourself free; Hop on the bus, Gus; You don’t have to discuss much; Just drop off the key, Lee; And get yourself free.”

Several witnesses testified during a hearing before the Joint Committee on the Judiciary on April 11 against H. 4617, a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union between one man and one woman.  They sang a tune one could entitle: “Here’s Fifty Ways to Leave Out the Voter.”

 

To be sure, supporters of the amendment acquitted themselves well at the hearing.  They stressed the theme of letting the people vote.  If successfully navigated through the legislature, the marriage amendment would reach the ballot in 2008.

 

The analysis here, however, responds to what the opponents had to say.   The amendment’s enemies told the committee, in so many words: “here’s how you can slip out the back, Jack, and get yourself free,” that is, free from the obligation to let the people decide.

 

One argument amounted to this—we don’t need the people’s vote because they already had a vote.  A search of election records in the Commonwealth fails to uncover any previous ballot question decided by the voters regarding marriage.  To what “vote” could the opponents be referring?

 

Rep. Byron Rushing (D-Boston) told the committee that in his opinion the “vote” took place at the 2004 elections.  The people had their chance then, he asserted, to vote out of office any legislator who opposed an earlier marriage amendment.  

 

That argument fails to persuade because legislators vote on lots of issues, and provide lots of services, and they get or lose support from their constituents based on a whole range of concerns.  In other words, the election or re-election of candidates in 2004 was not a one-issue vote, with only marriage in the balance.  

 

In fact, most campaigns were marked by a resounding silence.  Very few candidates talked about the marriage issue or about their views on this matter.  Most races turned on the question of which candidate best can deliver constituent services.  In the races where marriage was debated, incumbents on both sides of the issue, with one exception, kept their seats.  

 

The election theme that year, as Simon’s hit song puts it, was that “you don’t have to discuss much.”  Because the candidates wouldn’t talk, the people couldn’t speak, and thus the 2004 election results cannot be read as a referendum on marriage.

 

In sum, the typical campaign strategy in 2004 was not to engage the voters in the marriage debate, but to dodge the debate altogether.  

 

Rep. Rushing and others claimed also that same-sex marriage is a civil right, and that civil rights should not be put to a majority vote.  Yet civil rights are precisely those rights that a majority of people or their elected representatives recognize or create.  Behind every authentic civil right is a popular vote, that is, the expressed will of the majority.  

 

In Massachusetts, same-sex marriage was imposed by judges, not the people.   A court dictate, without a popular mandate, is incapable of creating a civil right.  In our democratic republic, in fact, letting the people debate a constitutional amendment on marriage epitomizes how civil rights are made.  

 

Finally, some argued at the hearing that the legislature has the duty to examine proposed amendments carefully and to prevent any from reaching the people that it finds disagreeable.  

 

The Massachusetts Catholic Conference testified in response that while the legislature is not a rubber stamp, the state constitution is clear—unless a proposal is so far outside the mainstream or unconstitutional (and the amendment is neither, see VOM’s 14th Amendment analysis and MA A.G.’s Article 48 analysis), the policy debate is for the people, not the legislature, to resolve.  

 

Article 48 of the state constitution governs the initiative process.   Its aims were articulated by the Supreme Judicial Court in Buckley v. Secretary of State, 371 Mass. 195, 199 (1976):

 

“[Article 48] created a people’s process.  It presented to the people the direct opportunity to enact statutes [and constitutional amendments] regardless of legislative opposition.   It projected a means by which the people could move forward on measures which they deemed necessary and desirable without the danger of their will being thwarted by legislative action.  As Mr. Joseph Walker of Brookline stated in the Constitutional Convention [approving Article 48], ‘The principle of the initiative and referendum in its purity means that the people of this Commonwealth may have such laws and may have such a Constitution as they see fit themselves to adopt.’”

 

It all comes down to who decides, and in this case, the state constitution says that it must be the people.  Sending the marriage amendment to the ballot does not qualify as a rubber stamp.  Rather, it fulfils the Legislature’s constitutional duty.  For the voters, “don’t need to discuss much” just doesn’t cut it.

VoteOnMarriage.org and Catholic Citizenship are organizing meetings with legislators and putting together a statewide campaign of emails and phone calls.   Please join this initiative by contacting VoteOnMarriage.org online or by phone at (617) 795-2667.

March 3, 2006 Update:  "Working Outside the Boxes" for the Marriage Amendment

More than twenty boxes line a wall in the conference room of VoteOnMarriage.org.  They are filled with petitions, containing the signatures of over 170,000 registered voters in Massachusetts, a history-making total.

 

The campaign to put marriage on the 2008 ballot enjoyed an unprecedented launch.  No other issue, such as rolling back state taxes, guaranteeing affordable healthcare, or calling for clean elections, was shot with such force from any previous ballot cannon.

 

Petitions came from every corner of the state.  City and town clerks were inundated.  Staff for the Secretary of the Commonwealth stopped counting at 123,000, adding another record-breaker for the amount of signatures certified.

 

In 2005, volunteers gathering signatures worked through numerous cold and rainy days of an unusually inclement fall to make history happen.  Now the products of their commitment, the paper-filled boxes, sit like bulky insulation in an office, waiting to be moved to someone’s barn or someone else’s garage.

 

To all who stood at the back of church or outside the local mall to collect signatures, and all who signed a petition, with God’s help you gained the bronze medal.  This enabled the marriage campaign to clear the first hurdle by filling all those boxes. 

 

Now get ready again.  It’s time to gain the silver, God willing.  We have to clear an even more difficult hurdle, and do it twice—the state legislature.  Once this year, and once more in 2007 or early 2008, at least 51 legislators out of the total of 200 have to vote to allow the marriage amendment to go on the ballot.

 

Yes, the race is not over for the gold—enacting on Election Day 2008 a new amendment defining marriage as the union between one man and one woman. 

 

So it’s time to work outside the boxes.

 

Every name in those boxes at VoteOnMarriage.org must grow arms and legs, acquire a voice, and become a reality in the life of his or her state senator and state representative.  That is, each individual signing the petition must become more than just a name on paper. 

 

We need to organize at the district level to transform the greatest signature campaign ever into the greatest lobbying campaign ever.  The task is daunting but the signature drive, run on a thin nickel, proved the power of volunteer efforts.  We’ll need all the free, dedicated help we can find to reach our legislators.

 

Opponents of the marriage amendment plan to spend millions of dollars to kill the amendment at this stage.  They are telling legislators, wrongly, that the signature campaign was all smoke and mirrors, using fraud to get names added.  They are also trying to convince enough legislators who oppose the amendment to boycott the constitutional convention, known for short as the Con-Con. 

 

This “walk-out” strategy seeks to deny a quorum at the Con-Con, scheduled to open on May 10th.  Without a quorum, that is, without 101 legislators present, the Con-Con could not continue, and thus no vote could be taken.  The amendment would die.

 

Yes, our legislators have heard that 170,000 signatures were gathered.  But that won’t mean anything to them unless by the first of May the signers themselves and other constituents contact them by phone, email and in person.  This second stage cannot be a campaign on paper, but must become a living, breathing enterprise of concerned constituents appealing to their elected officials at the State House to let the people vote.

 

Let the people vote.  That’s the core message.  We know that getting 51 legislators will be difficult enough, and that persuading at least 50 more to show up for a quorum will pose a monumental challenge.  But if the people are alert and active, and by God’s grace, we can win! 

 

We must appeal to every legislator, no matter what he or she thinks about same-sex marriage.  For all the reasons discussed in these communications in the past, marriage should not have been redefined by four justices on a divided state supreme court.  The institution is God’s creation, and for the sake of children and for society, it must be understood as the union between a man and a woman. 

 

Yet, even though a legislator might disagree with these convictions, if enough of his or her constituents appeal for the right to be heard at the ballot, then that legislator can be persuaded to heed that call.

 

Recognizing same-sex marriage is now, we are being told, a constitutional duty for both public and private entities.  As a result, our public schools must teach children that same sex marriage is a civil right, even though civil rights come from the people, not the courts.  In addition, religious institutions are being forced to participate in same sex adoptions and must treat same-sex partners as spouses under their insurance plans.

 

Yet, the people were not consulted.  Regardless of whether our elected officials favor or oppose this court-made dictate, our message is this—don’t prevent the voters from weighing in. 

 

In other words, don’t become a Democrat against democracy or a Republican against the public.

 

Now that the signatures are collected, some people might think that the job is done.  As just explained, the job is just beginning. 

 

The Roman Catholic Bishops back the plans of VoteOnMarriage.org for the second round.  The Massachusetts Catholic Conference soon will send important information to pastors, and will work again with Catholic Citizenship to help at the grassroots.