Crap.

[edschweppe]

A proposed amendment to the Massachusetts constitution to ban gay marriage passed a key hurdle today. The proposed amendment received support from sixty-two of the two hundred representatives and senators sitting in a Constitutional Convention. Under the Massachusetts Constitution, an amendment proposed by initiative petition (such as this one) must be approved by at least one quarter of the members of a Constitutional Convention in two successive legislatures before it can make it onto a statewide ballot.

Now, back in September 2005, the Constitutional Convention shot down a similar amendment - but that one was proposed by a legislator, and thus needed majority support to pass. This one still needs to make it through a second Constitutional Convention in the 2007-2008 Legislature; if it does, then it goes on the ballot. (If I read Article 48 of the Massachusetts Constitution correctly, it could go on either the 2008 or 2010 ballot, depending on when the Constitutional Convention acts on it.)

The proposed amendment is, IMNSHO, a remarkably dumb idea. There are, however, a couple of potential upside to this process. For one thing, the Legislature can shoot this down pretty much anytime the leadership can muster the votes - and I wouldn't be terribly surprised to see a Constitutional Convention in mid-August or thereabouts.

The other possible upside is that there isn't any huge popular uproar against gay marriage here in Massachusetts. It's been legal here for over two years (the first marriages were performed May 17, 2004 - the fiftieth anniversary of Brown v Board of Education), and the world has conspicuously failed to come to an end. If this amendment does make it on the ballot, I expect an ugly fight, but I can see it losing badly. A lot of folks in this state know one or more same-gender couples (several of which attend my own church). So there's at least a decent chance that, if things come to a vote, the voters of the Commonwealth will reject this amendment. Which might be the best of all possible outcomes.

Comments

[reynaud.livejournal.com]

Ok, this always confused me. Is this the FIRST time through the Convention or the SECOND time? If it's the first, then if Travaligni (http://www.mass.gov/legis/member/ret0.htm) is smart and wants it not to pass, he'll make sure it isn't voted on by the next convention until after the '08 elections, pushing it back to '10, in which case, it will have been legal for 6 years, and, gee, marriage as an institution hasn't collapsed.

As for the Legislature shooting it down, I don't think that's going to happen, not with it needing only 50 votes. (Depending on how many of those who voted for the amendment got reelected.) Which is why I really don't expect to see a Convention until '08.

[edschweppe.livejournal.com]

This was the first time through for the initiative amendment. The one that lost in 2005 was proposed by the Legislature in the immediate aftermath of Goodridge; that one lost 157-39.

At least five of this amendment's supporters lost their 2006 elections and thus won't be in the mix next time around (no matter when the incoming Legislature runs their Constitutional Convention). So picking off six or seven more votes isn't impossible. Alternatively, like you suggest, they can stall the ConCon vote until after the 2008 elections; if it then passes the second ConCon, it'd go on the 2010 ballot.

[reynaud.livejournal.com]

Made a mistake. Apparently, Travaligni voted for the amendment, so he, as head of the Convention, will probably try to get it on the '08 ballot. It will need the finagling of the opponents to get it postponed.