Left In Lowell

No Fair Health Care For All

8 Responses to “No Fair Health Care For All”

1. mark Says:
   July 12th, 2006 at 10:21 pm

   Every maneuver to put off a vote on an amendment that would write discrimination into the constitution is a moral one. First of all the true will of the people is rarely expressed when things are put up to a vote. Secondly the rights and protections of a nation’s people should never, ever be voted on if the issue at hand is stripping them of those rights.

2. massmarrier Says:
   July 13th, 2006 at 10:33 am

   I’m with Mark on this. Of course, putting the votes off on both SSM amendments was political, as was every aspect of this from the conception of the petition drive. Hell, if the General Court hadn’t been so gutless years ago, the SJC never would have gotten the case that legalized SSM.

   Meanwhile, too many, even lefties, are picking up Ray Flynn’s let-the-people-vote cry. In the very worst case, a lynch mob is voice-vote democracy. 100% of those in the mob are voting to murder someone. The difference is that their aim clearly violates law and morality; here as Greaney and Ireland pointed out, the violations are likely but not as clear and they pertain to the constitution, not criminal code.

   This amendment drive is a milder form, but it avoids that key issue Mark raises. Should we even consider a plebiscite on fundamental rights. Absolutely not!

   Deval has been the only gubernatorial candidate who has come out saying we shouldn’t vote on a minorities rights. We need to keep the important issues in sight in all this mess.

3. Lynne Says:
   July 13th, 2006 at 11:20 am

   But it wasn’t taken off the agenda, it was put off for another month. This is, basically, so that people will not be held accountable for those votes.

   Now that might cause some people who would have voted to further the amendment to vote against it (it also means we have time to talk to Panagiotakos and Nangle out of their anti-SSM position) but it also might mean some people who might have felt pressured to vote against the amendment to vote for it (because they really would like discrimination against gays, but they look at the MA polls and know their constituants won’t stand for it).

   Which one has more vote switches is up in the air. But the legislature didn’t postpone it because they want to help gay rights. They just don’t like controversy that could cost them later on. Though some of them claim that it’s because they don’t have time to get into it now, they have other work to do, I’m not so sure.

4. Lynne Says:
   July 13th, 2006 at 11:21 am

   I should say, held accountable in November for their votes if they were to have voted on it this week.

5. massmarrier Says:
   July 13th, 2006 at 11:47 am

   The whole General Court is up this year. Mineau knows it and is not afraid to use coercion from his side to threaten them. The legislature was chicken in 2002 and 2003 in not dealing, as they have been since after the SJC told them they’d better pass enabling SSM laws.

   This pales in contrast to those inaction periods.

   The anti-gay/anti-SSM folk know that their window for threats in closing all the time. It appears that simply knowing self-outed gays, particularly those raising kids and working next to you is huge — that and the fact that all the post-SSM horrors that were supposed to befall us haven’t, not a one.

   Mineau, Goguen, Travis and their ilk need to use their cudgel of fear while it still has any sting. This is much more likely to hurt them. They have to prove such impossibilities as damage to religious marriage and societal calamities, which somehow never happen. The MassEquality folk can show up with snazzy gay parents and show page after page of stats that support the health of SSM.

   Mark’s point of the fairness of delaying the vote is not lost on me. Sure, they don’t want this to be an issue in the fall election. For God’s sakes, they are politicians.

   It’s only a few months until November 9th. That’s not much time to change legislators’ minds, assuming that they would have voted for the amendment progress on principle and not on fear of retribution by the Dark Side. If Marc Solomon and a couple of others don’t change enough wafflers and bring the yea total to 49 or fewer, then our representatives have made themselves known, for this year anyway.

   Afterward, both sides have until the next ConCon to lobby more. Except for the petition folk, I think everyone in and out of the legislature would like to get to more pressing business and away from this mess.

   Expecting the General Court to make nice and stand straight while facing VoteonMarriage’s assault is like wanting the Redcoats to form nice lines for the Colonials to snipe.

   Yesterday saw a parliamentary diversion. That was more akin to both sides playing by the same rules, except without the fraud, scare tactics and lying that characterized the petition drive.

6. Lynne Says:
   July 13th, 2006 at 12:03 pm

   Well, like I said, it gives us here more time with Nangle and Panagiotakos…I’m still hoping to convince them away from the Dark Side of the Force.

   I still think I’d prefer knowing who would vote for it, so we can hammer at them in the election. On some level, we have some records of how people voted, and Mass Equality has been diligent on knowing who voted for what and why. However, it’s still nervewracking, not knowing.

   All the Lowell delegation voted against closing the ConCon, by the way.

7. massmarrier Says:
   July 13th, 2006 at 12:59 pm

   Well, with a bit of luck, Mineau’s call to unseat all 100 legislators who voted to postpone the other 16 issues on the ConCon agenda, will have the same affect as last time — lefties will pick up more seats.

   Also with Goguen and Travis leaving office, this November would be their last blusters. They can huff and puff, and the others can plug their ears and go na-na-na-na I can’t hear you!

8. AnnEM Says:
   July 14th, 2006 at 7:30 pm

   Every time I called my legi’s and the “leadership” about the ConCon, I left messages to vote YES on Helath Care and NO on DOMA.

   I appreciate this post, Lynne. It is interesting to see that all the comments are about SSM though. On July 12 when I was at the State House for the ConCon, wearing a “Make Helaht Care Our Right” t-shirt with “Marriage Equality” stickers placed on my front and back, a group of us were stopped by a man who said he was there to support SSM but he was really grateful to see people there working for the Health Care Amendment, saying it was something that would actually impact the daily lives, [and for some in life and death ways–my comment, being a nurse], of EVERYONE in the Commonwealth.

   I was really moved by this man’s stopping us and saying that. I know the HC Amendment Campaign co-chairs and staff (the great sum of 3 people, total, and only one of them getting paid anything at all) as well as the 2 contracted lobbyests Deb Thomsopna nd Chris Gregory, have repeatedly asked Mass Equality folks if we might find even some small ways to be in alignment and support each others’ efforts to secure both of these fundamental human rights r/t the pending ConCon’s. From what I’ve heard it’s been a no-go every time. I find that very sad and discouraging.

   What say you all?

Leave a Reply