Developing story....
From Bay Windows:
Isaacson: advocates can kill amendment procedurally
Arline Isaacson, lead lobbyist for the MassEquality coalition, confirmed to Bay Windows that the lobby team has a plan in place to defeat the VoteOnMarriage.org constitutional amendment through a procedural maneuver.
Isaacson said that by forcing a vote on a marriage amendment filed last year by state Reps. Emile Goguen (D-Fitchburg) and Phil Travis (D-Rehoboth), she is confident they can defeat Vote On Marriage’s amendment. Goguen and Travis’s amendment was originally filed at the request of the anti-gay group Article 8 Alliance. Because it was filed by lawmakers, rather than through an initiative petition like the VoteOnMarriage.org amendment, it requires a full majority of the legislature to pass; by contrast, the VoteOnMarriage.org amendment only needs 50 votes. Isaacson said she asked state Sen. Jarrett Barrios (D-Cambridge) to add Goguen’s amendment to the calendar of the constitutional convention (ConCon) in May 2005 to make sure it would come up for a vote before the VoteOnMarriage amendment because she is certain there are enough votes to defeat it.
“We are confident that we have enough votes to defeat the Goguen amendment, absolutely, but not the initiative petition,” said Isaacson, who is co-chair of the Massachusetts Lesbian and Gay Political Caucus (MGLPC). The Goguen and VoteOnMarriage.org amendments are agenda items 19 and 20 respectively on the calendar for the ConCon scheduled for July 12. Isaacson said the only way for VoteOnMarriage.org to bump their amendment up on the agenda is with the unanimous consent of the legislature.
“In order for our opponents to move the initiative petition higher on the agenda [it] requires unanimous consent, and of course we have lined up legislators to immediately object if they try that. So we’re confident we can block moving this up on the calendar,” Isaacson explained.
Isaacson said once lawmakers vote down the Goguen amendment she believes they will not take up VoteOnMarriage.org’s amendment.
“It was possible that there could be a vote first on the Goguen piece, and even if we won it was possible to move afterward to the initiative petition,” Isaacson explained. “But we realized that was not likely to happen because legislators would be furious at having to vote twice on the same issue within one session, and they’d be right.”
Bay Windows contacted the office of Senate President Robert Travaglini, who presides over the ConCon, to ask if he would be willing to allow a vote on both marriage amendments. His spokesperson Ann Dufresne did not return a call before deadline.
Isaacson’s comments came in response to a blog posting on the MassResistance blog (massresistance.blogspot.com) written by Article 8 member Amy Contrada. She accused Barrios of hijacking her group’s amendment and wrote, “So how about this scenario: The ConCon goes right down the list, gets to #19, votes it down, then adjourns. Then no one can say they didn’t take up a marriage amendment. And no voters can say they weren’t allowed a voice (through their reps and senators).”
Although Contrada criticized the lobby team for its strategy she reiterated that both she and Article 8 oppose the VoteOnMarriage.org amendment, which they feel does not go far enough to ban same-sex marriage. The VoteOnMarriage.org amendment only outlaws future same-sex marriages but keeps existing marriages intact. By contrast the Goguen amendment bans any state recognition of same-sex marriage.
Isaacson said Contrada’s speculation about their strategy was on the mark.
“My reaction is Amy is absolutely right. MGLPC one year ago came up with this idea because we knew it would be impossible or close to impossible to garner 151 votes against the initiative petition, but we knew we could get a majority of the legislature to vote down an anti-gay marriage amendment,” she said.
Barrios, reached for comment before Isaacson confirmed the lobby team’s strategy, denied that he had placed the Goguen amendment on the calendar for strategic purposes but showed no hesitation in using the amendment to defeat the VoteOnMarriage.org amendment procedurally.
“Miss Contrada has very generously provided proponents of fairness with a wonderful strategy which, while the first time I have heard of it, I would consider entertaining if it means keeping that discriminatory amendment off the ballot,” said Barrios. “Thank you for being so Christian in helping me keep discrimination out of our state.”
Lisa Barstow, a spokesperson for VoteOnMarriage.org, declined to comment on the substance of the lobby team’s strategy.
“We’re hoping and we’re asking for the legislators to do the right thing, recognize the intent of the voters and take their desire to vote on marriage seriously. As far as predictions about what’s going to happen on the floor, we wouldn’t even try,” said Barstow.
Isaacson said the lobby team was confident that they could block any efforts by opponents to bring their own amendment up for a vote before the Goguen amendment.
“MGLPC has checked into all the rules, and if our opponents try and change the order of the calendar MGLPC is fully prepared to stop it, and we will easily thwart that. So they’re stuck,” said Isaacson.
Isaacson’s comments are the second major public discussion of a parliamentary strategy to defeat the VoteOnMarriage.org amendment. House Majority Leader John Rogers (D-Norwood) told Bay Windows he expected lawmakers to defeat the amendment by making sure that there was not a quorum of lawmakers present in the chamber during the ConCon, which would prevent it from voting on the amendment (see “John Rogers now opposes marriage ban amendment,” May 11, 2006). While Rogers himself opposes the VoteOnMarriage.org amendment he declined to say whether he himself would take part in that strategy if lawmakers chose to pursue it.