Marriage Equality: No Big Deal

Watching Keith Olbermann last night, I was excited to hear what he had to say about the move toward equality in California. It's the nation's largest state, with a full 10% of the entire US population. Surely, it's a harbinger of what's to come, right? Countdown's story ticker kept counting down and down, without a single mention of California's big story. Finally, halfway through the show, I got bored and moved on. It's clear that California's decision to become the second state across the country to welcome marriage equality isn't huge news.

The news wasn't much different across the networks. CNN's Anderson Cooper led off with the story, but it was a quick 10 minutes. PBS's Judy Woodruff tackled the subject as the second lead on the NewsHour, smooched in between China's 20,000 and Myanmar's 100,000-300,000 toll disasters. Perhaps in this day and age marriage equality's story was too prominent, even if it wasn't the lead - clearly, the media gets it: this is no big deal.

The Governor of California, Mr. Terminator, gets it too. He quickly issued a statement saying he'll oppose any attempt to write marriage equality off the books in California - which means suddenly the legislature and the Republican Governor is opposed to marriage bigotry, while the state's Supreme Court just ruled in favor of ending it. It would have been nice to have a Governor there who wasn't afraid to make the decision himself, by signing the marriage equality bill he was sent twice during his tenure - but that's all sour grapes now.

What's more important, and quite clear, is that same-sex marriage is just as insignificant to the majority of citizens in California as it was the citizens of Massachusetts, after all was said and done. The only before and after difference is the photos of happy couples, now legally wed, sharing in the same benefits and responsibilities that everyone else has access to across America. For the vast majority of the citizens across the both states, nothing has changed or will change - including for Team Homophobia. Those who are opposed to same-sex marriage will have the same right as ever, not to enter in one. Those who want to enter into one, glbt couples, will finally be given the equal right to do so, making the world a better place. It's a win/win, even if it's not a particularly loud one.

Of course, California's bigots are attempting to repeal the freedom to marry by creating a constitutional amendment question, which will almost certainly appear on November's ballot. It's not going to pass, just like it didn't pass in Massachusetts. The move from fear of the unknown to No Big Deal is rapid. Many states will follow California's lead, but as each state begins to welcome real equality, it won't even make Anderson Cooper's lead.

Hooray!!! GO CALIFORNIA!!

Seriously, this is awesome!!! Massachusetts is not alone anymore!

Casinos, Speaker DiMasi and the Future

It's clear that the casino bill, while initially defeated, is not going away. This story is far from over - and, quite sadly, will only be getting more interesting as time moves on. Of course, there's the more noticeable ways in which this story refuses to die. Republicans in the Senate want to add casinos to the budget, as a budget amendment, even if all such a measure would do is waste time, since it would be defeated in conference committee.

Slightly more interesting - and disturbing - is the fight sure to come this summer on a Racino bill, which would allow the state's race tracks to have slot machines. Racinos present all of the same problems as casinos, without any of the "benefits," as casino lobbyists would call them. While such a measure has never passed in the House, it's been a very close vote. This year, it'll probably be closer. Furthermore, there's been some speculation that the administration will try to tie casinos to the Racino bill - a bill Governor Patrick once promised to veto.

All of this back room maneuvering is petty tame compared to the story between the lines - DiMasi's death threats and journalistic hit pieces. The death threats were so real that police were stationed at DiMasi's home - conversations were overheard about the Speaker's dog-walking schedule. All of this is pretty scary stuff - and could very well be tied to the Speaker's position on casinos, as Frank Phillips suggested in the Boston Globe. Even if that's not the case, it's likely most of the Globe's hit pieces on DiMasi are motivated by people wanting revenge on DiMasi for his efforts in blocking casinos. At least that's what DiMasi thinks. According to one of my sources, who had a chance to personally thank the Speaker for his leadership on casinos, he was quoted as saying "now I am paying for it." And he is.

So, if people are baffled by my support for the current Speaker, hopefully this blog will answer those questions. If they wonder why I'm not a bit more worried about his apparent transgressions, there's your answer. He's been about as good as we could expect any person in his position to be on the issues - far more progressive than Speakers in the past. He's also just as clean as any of the people next in line for his job, maybe cleaner - I'm just not buying these bogus stories coming out about him. I'm certainly not going to convict him in the court of public opinion, I'll let the AG's office handle it, if they think there's anything amiss. Meanwhile, we've seen advances in health care, equality, transportation and renewable energy. He's shown a new-found willingness to compromise with the administration. If a few anonymous sources in the Globe are trying to convict the Speaker before a case can even be made, I'm quite content to let other people pile on. It won't happen on this blog; Massachusetts has far larger problems - like blocking casinos again.

What Would We Do Without Republicans?

They really know how to work on the important issues. That Arlen Specter - making America better every day by wasting his time and your's.

Reading that Hurts the Eyes

Seriously, no. No!

A group of antitax activists launched a campaign over the weekend to abolish the state income tax, setting the stage for a contentious public battle if the measure is added to the ballot this fall.

The ugliest part?

How would the state cut $12 billion?

That's three times the sum the state sends cities and towns for public schools. Laying off every state employee would only save about $5 billion, said Cam Huff, a private policy consultant who studies the state budget.

Of course, if the income tax were complete gutted, all it would mean is not only massive cuts to everything, but also a much-increased sales tax, among others. Such taxes are far less progressive and far more painful to working and middle class citizens. Yet, as patently idiotic as the measure is, that doesn't mean it can be taken lightly; a lot of people will vote for it. Hopefully, the progressive community and those who care about the services they receive from the state every day will take this cause up. It's literally the most important cause we'll see in a long, long time.

Town Meeting, Part Two

Here's to those gluttons for punishment who like to call themselves political junkies.

Swampscott's Town Meeting is worth reading about because it illustrates that good government, transparency and efficiency is on the rise. Last night's session saw Town Meeting approve, for the first time ever, a tax "Debt Exclusion," which is putting a question on the ballot to pay for certain projects on a one-year basis. It's not an override, because the town isn't paying debt - it's deciding to fix that roof, or build that new park in one year's time. It's a decision to avoid making our children pay for today's expenses. Best yet, it avoids paying for certain projects by creating capital expenditures - which is taking on a 10 year bonded loan that increases expenses, because of interest, and decreases transparency, because voters don't get to approve the debt.

So, here's to the voters of Swampscott - who will this year be given the chance to vote for a new fire truck, to replace the 1988 gem, by increasing taxes for one year only to pay for it, instead of paying for it with interest over the next ten. After the truck is paid for, taxes go back to normal and things move on. People like to know where their money is going and, thankfully, at the local level there's the ultimate potential for this kind of transparency and small d democracy. Let's hope more and more towns start to do this, because it's exactly the kind of creative thinking that could avoid some overrides to begin with.

I'm a Citizen Journalist? And Other Peculiar New England Conventions

Whoa, Town Meeting does the weirdest things, like inspiring me to write a journalistic blog (of course, readers must click the link to read more on that).

Seriously, though, they're a good time - especially for people who have a sophomoric, political sense of humor (although, avoiding fits of laughter when speakers make silly straw-man points is a must - like when one speaker compared Jamaica Plain to Swampscott last night, as if they were the same). Also, it helps to try to be interested and to think of it like a giant game of clue - figuring out what frack is actually going on behind the scenes and what all those amendments are really about (it helps to have a partner to gossip with bounce ideas off of).

In the meantime, Town Meeting members can actually do some good - like being part of the budget process, creating important bylaws, or voting to move forward an override to build a new school. Town Meeting is a peculiar New England trait, so hopefully readers are taking part in their community as I am in mine. It makes a difference.

Orozco Flying High?

One of Sara Orozco's first campaign newsletters came out today and clearly the campaign has momentum.

A major campaign milestone was reached after months of hard work and so many questions leading up to April 29 such as:

1. Would Sara and her volunteers collect the required 300 certified signatures from voters in the district to put her name on the ballot?

2. Would Sara be the only Democrat in the district to submit nomination papers?

3. Would 5:00 PM on April 29, 2008 ever arrive?

Perhaps you heard Team Orozco members exhale in unison when all three questions were answered with a resounding: Yes! Yes! Yes!

Good news - and keep it up!! People should pay attention to this race, because Sara is courageously running against Senator Brown, a Republican in the true Bushiest sense. He takes a liking to swearing off at children and doing all in his power to keep equality from being a reality in Massachusetts. If people are interested in Sara's campaign, please go to www.SaraOrozco.com and volunteer. This is going to be a tough campaign and she'll need all the help she can get.

You Don't Want a New Speaker

I'm with Charley. Speaker DiMasi has proven crucial in marriage equality, health care and in defeating casinos. In recent months, he's shown a great willingness to work with the administration - closing loopholes, securing money for roads and bridges and passing a fantastic renewable energy bill. Is he perfect? No. But he's proven to be the most progressive Speaker of the House in my memory - by a wide margin.

As Charley says, the three guys trying to line up to get next in line aren't going to be as good on the issues. Most of them are pro-casino and none of them have done as much on the critical issues Massachusetts is advancing. More worrisome is the lengths to which they're going to secure next-in-line status: the favors they're doling out doesn't exactly inspire confidence in these tough economic times.

The Good News? The Globe loves pushing the angle that DiMasi will be gone. It sells newspapers. However, like many media-driven stories, often times if the media says it enough, it can become true. There's blood in the water and none of it helps Speaker DiMasi get passed the sharks. If DiMasi does get ousted, expect Massachusetts to take one step back before we can go three steps forward.