Left In Lowell

Local Politicians Who Signed Anti-Gay Ballot Initiative

21 Responses to “Local Politicians Who Signed Anti-Gay Ballot Initiative”

1. Mike Says:
   December 23rd, 2005 at 1:03 pm

   I hope the Sun runs something on the locals who were on this list.

   Shame on them.

2. massmarrier Says:
   December 23rd, 2005 at 1:17 pm

   Well, I must say that I was disappointed in not being able to file a fraud claim. Not only could I not find my own name, but no one I could think of to check was there. The only person is my neighborhood (damned pinkos, we are) that signed was the developmentally limited fellow at the other end of the long block. Even his mother, who cares for him, wasn’t there.

   I second the call to check for yourself, friends and family as well. We should end up with a clear count of how bad the fraud was.

   It’s time to change the way ballot initiatives work so that these can do what the old coots in wigs intended.

3. Tim Little Says:
   December 23rd, 2005 at 1:35 pm

   Lynne:

   Also equally fallacious is the “democratic” argument that the issue of same-sex marriage needs to be decided by the voters. This argument is fundamentally flawed when it comes to the issue of protecting the rights of minorities – whoever they may be. As has been pointed out many times before, the courts have been instrumental in ensuring that the rights of minorities are protected, especially when public opinion is against them. That is their job. Basic civil liberties cannot be determined by political whim.

   Then there is the argument in favor of “separate-but-equal” civil union status. It goes without saying, at least in these circles I think, that separate is never equal. My wife is on the Welcoming Congregation of her church, and she recently mentioned that there are something like 1400 rights/responsibilities granted to married couples that would not be covered by civil unions (http://www.glad.org/rights/Marriage_v_CU_chart.pdf). I think a lot of people think that the difference between marriage and civil unions is just a mater of semantics, and they don’t recognize the real-world implications of this distinction.

   I may be treading on thin ice here, but I think it is important to tactfully and non-confrontationally take up the discussion if you have neighbors and friends and elected officials who signed the petition. I think that those of us who support marriage equality have a responsibility to respectfully listen to the concerns of those who signed the petition, and to share with them why we support marriage equality.

   MassEquality, is an excellent resource for talking points, of course, including Father James Keenan’s 2003 testimony submitted to the Joint Committee on the Judiciary. This is a well-crafted alternative to the Catholic Church’s official position in support of the petition and the ban on same-sex marriage: http://www.massequality.org/supporters/legtstmy_agnst2003/2003_keenan.html

   Finally, I wanted to point out a wonderful article that appeared on the Tom Paine website the other day: http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20051221/sir_elton_gets_equality.php

   I think the author does an excellent job of explaining why the marriage equality issue is important for everyone, not just the GLBT community and their friends and family. She concludes:

   “Voters everywhere recognize that the marriage and family debates—same-sex marriage, reproductive rights and so on—are debates over life’s meaning, and over the meaning of a good society. By failing to engage, except peripherally or through the coward’s approach of terrified polling, the Democrats and the American secular punditocracy have been appallingly guilty of neglect. You may not be gay, but that doesn’t mean same-sex marriage is a marginal issue. You may not be a woman, but that doesn’t mean reproductive rights or equal pay for equal work are any less important than exit strategies in Iraq. In fact, these are inextricably linked. Rights. Dignity. Liberty. Belonging. Nationhood. These are the large ideas worth fighting for—and worth voting for. How can we take back our country, except by talking about respect for each others’ lives?”

   In peace….

4. Lynne Says:
   December 23rd, 2005 at 1:38 pm

   Thank you Tim, for pointing out the issue of “let the voters decide” and for the links.

5. waittilnextyr Says:
   December 23rd, 2005 at 5:34 pm

   “Also equally fallacious is the “democratic” argument that the issue of same-sex marriage needs to be decided by the voters. This argument is fundamentally flawed when it comes to the issue of protecting the rights of minorities – whoever they may be”

   Great point, Tim.

6. Renee Says:
   December 23rd, 2005 at 6:16 pm

   Lynne, I know I’m a guest on your blog and I do have some strong and legitamite reasons who two men or two men can not define marriage, but I also have a lot of strong arguments on why many heterosexual shouldn’t define themselves as married also. Marriage is a religious term, so I don’t think it should be a part of our civil laws at all. My husband and I define our marriage as a Sacrament.

   Is it really about the definition of marriage, or is it about rights? I belive that all homosexual, heterosexual, and even non-sexual unions (companions) should be able to gain the right of civil unions to access each others healthcare options, retirement (401k), and rights as next of kin.

   I could write pretty lengthy regarding the unitive nature of sexual intercourse as the outward sign of marriage, but it would be very explictly detailed. I would post them, but this is a public blog. I believe many so call heterosexual acts are just as immoral as homosexual acts. I’m putting the emphasis on acts, not sexuality. I think we all have seen a married couples acting very much not married, yet they reap the awards of being recognized as one economic/legal domestic relationship.

   Yes, I did sign the petition. We have a poorly written law when it comes to the rights of “hetero”sexual unions by calling it marriage. The Supreme Judicial Court was just applying the law. What the legislature should do is repeal the term marriage and call everything civil unions.

   It a couple wants a marriage, then find the appropriate place of worship or ceremony to publicly declare that.

7. Mr. Lynne Says:
   December 23rd, 2005 at 10:28 pm

   The institution, as state law is concerned, is of course about rights.

   When it comes to term “marriage” it has lost any ability to associate itself exclusively with religion.

   Why?

   We have (and do), as common usage, referred to similar unions from other cultures as marriage even when non-Judeo-Christians were (and are) involved. Indeed we refer polygamist’s unions as marriages even though most mainstream Judeo-Christian sects regard them as sac religious. Indeed, what do you call the union of two atheists? If we have been referring to these things as marriages, we can’t raise a technical argument for revising how everyone in the country uses the term now. That is the way language works. Feel free not to use the word yourself, but it seems that no one religion can claim exclusivity to the definition of the word now. New words wind up in the dictionary because of general usage, not because of minority usage.

   I didn’t participate in a sacrament, but I’m pretty sure I’m married and would be in trouble if I acted otherwise.

   Given how the term has been used up until now there is no possibility of an exclusive claim. The word belongs to all of us that use the language, not just those who participate in sacraments. Since nobody can “take” the word back, nobody can “take their ball and go home now.” If you want to argue about rights, feel free. But I’m pretty sure there isn’t really an exclusivity argument about the word marriage. You could argue that in common usage the term doesn’t apply, but not on sacramental grounds.

8. Tim Little Says:
   December 23rd, 2005 at 11:11 pm

   Renee:

   You raise a very good point, and the proposal of doing away with “civil marriage” altogether in favor of “civil unions” is one that does have some merit, but seems unnecessary. The question would be, why replace one perfectly good system and replace it with something else that differs only in name?

   As it stands, marriage is as much a legal status as it is a religious institution — but I think that the two are often wrongly conflated. The point to remember is that civil marriage is really a different beast entirely from religious marriage. It’s just the labels that people are getting hung up on; unfortunately in the legal sphere these labels have a concrete effect on peoples’ lives.

   For the moment let’s leave the religious issue alone. No one is challenging any church’s doctrine as to whom they may marry or consider “married” in the religious sense. What is at issue is the legal meaning of “marriage” and the civil rights and responsibilities that it entails.

   Really “civil union” would probably be a better term for any marriage contract recognized by the state. Unforunately the reality is that this is not reflected in the language in which our laws are written. “Marriage” is the legal term used, which is why it is so important.

   (You also start to run into problems, for example, if your “civil union” is recognized by the state but not by the Federal government or other states, because you are not legally “married.” But this is getting off-topic….)

   Another point that I think is very important to make is that, in my opinion, gender rather than sexuality should be the main focus of this debate. This is not a question of particular bedroom behavior. The critical point is that the state cannot accord special legal privileges through marriage to one couple and not to another simply because of one’s sex. I’m not an expert on Massachusetts law, but certainly this is prohibited by the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution:

   “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

   This was affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1967 in Loving v. Viriginia, which overturned a state law prohibiting interracial marriage:

   “Marriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man,’ fundamental to our very existence and survival…. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another [or the same] race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.”

   Race and gender are equally protected per the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment:

   “The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits states from denying any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. See U.S. Const. amend. XIV. In other words, the laws of a state must treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances. A violation would occur, for example, if a state prohibited an individual from entering into an employment contract because he or she was a member of a particular race. The equal protection clause is not intended to provide ‘equality’ among individuals or classes but only ‘equal application’ of the laws. The result, therefore, of a law is not relevant so long as there is no discrimination in its application. By denying states the ability to discriminate, the equal protection clause of the Constitution is crucial to the protection of civil rights.” (From Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute)

   If one substitutes “gender” for “race” in the Loving decision, it becomes clear that it is just as unconstitutional to prohibit a man from marrying a man or a woman from marrying a woman as it is to to prohibit marriage between blacks and whites.

   Again, we need to remember that the legal issue of marriage equality must be considered separately from the religious issues. No one is saying that the Catholic Church must be forced to recognize same-sex marriages, but the state is not and cannot be allowed to discriminate.

9. Tim Little Says:
   December 23rd, 2005 at 11:22 pm

   Sorry; one other thing Renee:

   I was just wondering if the aforementioned testimony by Father Keegan has been dicussed at all among the parishoners in your church? I recognize that it is not the official church position, but I wonder what sort of responses it and similar positiions have received within the Catholic community.

   Thanks!

   - Tim

10. Tim Little Says:
    December 24th, 2005 at 8:36 am

    Thought of the day:
    Unless the rights of the few are steadfastly protected, the liberty of no one is guaranteed.

11. Mike Says:
    December 24th, 2005 at 8:44 am

    After reading Renee’s views on other subjects, it’s of no surprise that she signed this petition. She’s also the one person in Lowell who believes you should be able to build 10 unit condo buildings sideways on postage stamp lots, something that’s ruined Lowell’s neighborhoods. Way to stay on the bad side of every issue!

12. Mike Says:
    December 24th, 2005 at 8:45 am

    By the way, go see Brokeback Mountain. It’s playing in Harvard Square right now.

13. Tim Little Says:
    December 24th, 2005 at 9:11 am

    Mike: Just my two cents, but I’m thinking ad hominum attacks really aren’t helpful here; they tend to have the effect of closing off discussion.

14. Mr. Lynne Says:
    December 24th, 2005 at 11:04 am

    Here here Tim

    Ad Hominum is a classification of fallacy. Ad Hominum arguments don not actually say anything about the proposition. It is an easy trap to fall into as is demonstrated by the ubiquity with which it is used by people (politicians and pundits). I’d really hate to see it promulgated among the blogs.

15. Mike Says:
    December 24th, 2005 at 12:25 pm

    Yeah sure, I’ve never suffered from an ad hominum attack here. Heck, I’ve been attacked in the MEDIA from the author of the site, portraying me as someone negative because I have a different opinion. You wanna talk ad hominum, read that story.

    I think I’m well within my bounds to question and make statements about Renee. This is the same person that called me a troll for having a different opinion than the group. Look it up.

16. Tim Little Says:
    December 24th, 2005 at 12:33 pm

    Ok, I don’t want to get too far from the actual point of this paticular thread, nor is it my place to play referee on Lynne’s blog, but I do have a vested interest in keeping the discussion here civil. As do we all, I hope.

    C’mon Mike…. Take the high ground, man. Just because someone else does it, doesn’t make it right. You don’t need to stoop to that level, and I hope that your own positions will be all the more respected because of it. If we all can stick to debating the position rather than the person, everyone is better off — maybe we can even learn something.

    Now, was there a particular point in Renee’s post you’d like to address?

17. Tim Little Says:
    December 24th, 2005 at 3:47 pm

    Concerning equal protection under the Massachusetts Constitution, instrumental in the Goodridge case:

    “All people are born free and equal and have certain natural, essential and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness. Equality under the law shall not be denied or abridged because of sex, race, color, creed or national origin.” ( http://www.mass.gov/legis/const.htm#cart106.htm )

18. Tim Little Says:
    December 24th, 2005 at 4:06 pm

    … And the text of the Goodridge decision itself, essentially debunking the position of the Massachusetts Family Institute, et al: http://www.masslaw.com/signup/opinion.cfm?page=ma/opin/sup/1017603.htm

    Enjoy!

19. Mike Says:
    December 24th, 2005 at 4:44 pm

    Merry Christmas.

20. Narey Says:
    December 27th, 2005 at 10:29 am

    Lynne;

    Thanks for the information. I was disappointed to see names of acquaintances on that list. It is interesting to note that the Lowell residents who signed that petition make up less than 1% of our (0.78%)city’s population. Compare that to our suburban neighbors: Billerica, 2.2%; Chelmsford, 2.56%; Dracut, 2.87%; Tewksbury, 3.13% and “educated” Westford, 4.31%.

    This probably reflects the diminishing authority and influence of the Catholic Church in Lowell but I like to think it is also an indication of tolerance for others’ lifestyle and views; a by-product of a diverse population.

21. Owen R. Broadhurst Says:
    December 31st, 2005 at 4:05 pm

    Renee could not be more wrong. I shall explain why:

    “Marriage is a religious term, so I don’t think it should be a part of our civil laws at all.”

    Yet, it is a part of our civil laws. By signing the petition, you’re stating that you wish for marriage to remain a part of our civil laws while excluding same sex couples from it. By signing that petition, you’re advocating for same sex couples to be denied that set of legal and economic rights and privileges you take for granted.

    “My husband and I define our marriage as a Sacrament.”

    So, too, do many same sex couples. Their religions define it as such as well.

    “I belive that all homosexual, heterosexual, and even non-sexual unions (companions) should be able to gain the right of civil unions to access each others healthcare options, retirement (401k), and rights as next of kin.”

    Then, why did you sign a petition that would explicitly deny same sex couples those rights that you now claim to support? In case you didn’t realize it, only civil marriage - per state law - permits the set of rights and privileges that not even civil union or domestic partnership ordinances allow: Homestead Act protection, for instance.
    Civil unions also would not prevent same sex partners who transfer land and exchange gifts with one another from being taxed for that exchange, whereas married couples aren’t. Civil unions do not allow for same sex partners of workers injured on the job to have dependency benefits, although dependent spouses of the heterosexually married take this for granted. Civil unions do not allow for same sex partners to have that set of protections for families of crime victims, including confidentiality of address, the right to information, and the right to make a victim impact statement. Partners of police officers, firefighters and prosecutors who are killed on the job ought not have access to line of duty benefits. Same sex partners would not be entitled to have standing to bring claims of wrongful death or loss of consortium when a loved one’s death results from wrongdoing. Civil unions, furthermore, disallow the federal benefits that you have, differ from state to state in terms of benefits and protections, and would not even be recognized in most states.

    “I think we all have seen a married couples acting very much not married, yet they reap the awards of being recognized as one economic/legal domestic relationship.”

    Then why discriminate against us only?

    The fact is that there is no state-wide civil union law - nor would any such have any chance of protecting us in other states, nor does any such allow for federal recognition. By signing the petition, you’re stating that you believe as follows:

    You believe that people should be bankrupted if compelled to care for sick and injured partners of the same sex.

    You believe that same sex partners of the sick and injured should be denied hospital or nursing home visitation rights.

    You believe that same sex partners of homeowners should be denied Homestead Act protection.

    You believe that same sex partners of sick and injured folks deemed incompetent should have no voice in their medical care.

    You believe that same sex partners who transfer land and exchange gifts with one another should be taxed for that exchange, whereas married couples aren’t.

    You believe same sex partners should lack automatic inheritance rights that heterosexually married spouses take for granted.

    You believe same sex partners should not be the least bit obligated to the children of their partners - presumably because you really love children and are looking out for their welfare.

    You believe same sex partners of workers injured on the job should be denied dependency benefits, although dependent spouses of the heterosexually married take this for granted.

    You believe same sex partners should be denied rotections for families of crime victims, including confidentiality of address, the right to information, and the right to make a victim impact statement.

    You believe same-sex partners are not entitled to family medical and bereavement leaves from employers; and you believe they should lack access to family health and auto insurance policies.

    You believe partners of police officers, firefighters and prosecutors who are killed on the job ought not have access to line of duty benefits.

    You believe same sex partners are not entitled to have standing to bring claims of wrongful death or loss of consortium when a loved one’s death results from wrongdoing.

    You believe those who have the nerve to love someone of what you construe to be the wrong sex should be made to pay for that, hopefully through the destruction of their very lives and the lives of their family members.

Leave a Reply