Well, actually, I don't wonder. Because time after time, he's proven himself to be a progressive in sheep's clothing. He just loved Bush's immigration position, all 4-5 sentences of it, and thinks Massachusetts should bankrupt itself because voters, years and years ago, wanted to reduce state income tax (apparently, hindsight isn't 20-20). He's no progressive at all, merely a product of Massachusetts's outmoded machine democratic party. Left of center, maybe, but couldn't give a crap about the real people that are effected by matters of government policy.
I'm sorry if I'm being a little on the strong side, but he essentially skips all the inconvienant facts of this Phoenix editorial and proceeds to call them disgraceful.
Disgraceful? Really? Not just wrong, but disgraceful? Wow, those whackos at the Phoenix must have done something really bad to be called disgraceful... so what was it? Endorsed Mitt Romney for President in 2008? Suggested we establish permanent bases over in Iraq? Tell everyone to go watch a Tom Cruise movie? Eat children?
Oh, yea, they stuck up for the GLBT community. That earns them the label "disgraceful" from someone who pretends to represent an entire progressive community. Don't make me laugh.
Apparently, David was mad that the Phoenix thinks we should use parliamentary procedures to avoid voting on the Same-Sex Marriage ban. He says it's unconstitutional, but avoids mentioning the fact that the Same-Sex Marriage ban is unconstitional anyway: it was an amendment strictly created to overturn a court case, which in this state isn't allowed (but Tom Reilly, the so-called supporter of marriage equality, decided to skip matters of principle then... and here as well).
(Update: The SJC ruled on what I mentioned above and found it to be legal. I disagree with the opinion, but I'm not going to be too harsh on them, other than say that I think it was a little sheepish as the language in the state constitution seems quite clear to me.)
Would I be remiss to point out that a lawyer who served as clerk to not one, but two (TWO!!) SCOTUS Justices should have figured that out? Oh, wait, that's right... they weren't exactly the liberal ones on the court, were they? Fitting for BMG's Dino Flintstone of left-wing politics.
David not only calls the Phoenix d i s g r a c e f u l, but he propogates right-wing talking points Mitt Romney and Karl Rove just love to spout (like 'we just need to put it up to a vote!' 'let the people decide' 'up or down' blah blah blah... Isn't that what Lieberman said when he let Scalito get on the bench of the SCOTUS?) Parliamentary procedures be damned, let's put everything to a vote. Illegal wiretapping? Public opinion polls say yes! Free speech? Public opinion polls say no! No matter that democratic values brought forth parliamentary procedures to begin with (those pesky checks and balances), let's leave our civil rights to the whims of the masses.
Want the bottom line? Readers, we have a new Democracy in America - the rabid kind. And meet David de Toqueville over at BMG, I hear he has a bridge to sell ya.
David, you're wrong. So was the Boston Globe when it wrote the same invalid points you and Mitt Romney tried to make, but at least they didn't call people disgraceful for trying to defend Civil Rights. In all honesty, that's the only disgraceful thing that happened on your blog - vociferously attacking defenders of Civil Rights is never a good thing. I wouldn't be writing this if you merely said the Phoenix was wrong - but no, you had to go all hyperbole on your readers.
But this isn't about you, David. It's about me! Civil Rights should never be placed on any ballot, where demogogues charge the masses and strip the rights of people left and right. When you put Civil Rights on the ballot, they lose. State after state has banned marriage equality and let me just say I'm glad to call the Bay State home.
My advice to David at BMG? Stick to doing the Weekly Traffic Reports, leave the rest of the blogging to the real
Update: I added additional content in this blog because of today's SJC ruling; wherever that content was added, I put it in parenthesis with an "Update" in italics.
I'm not going to pretend to be disappointed in today's SJC ruling, especially since they ruled in favor of it 6-0.
The Court's decision:
The plaintiff's claim is that the proposed amendment, which seeks to overrule the rule of constitutional law announced in Goodridge v. Department of Pub. Health, 440 Mass. 309 (2003) (due process and equal protection clauses of Massachusetts Constitution bar limiting marriage to heterosexual couples) constitutes the "reversal of a judicial decision" and therefore is excluded from the initiative process by art.
Well, saying there can be no "reversal of a judicial decision," seems pretty clear to me. But then the court goes on to essentially explain that what the Constitution really means is that the Legislature can't reverse a specific court case... but I guess reversing that case's decision is just fine and dandy. Whatever.
Like I blogged about in the blog just above this one - urging candidates who want to be elected to lobby to kill this amendment the old fashioned way, voting it down - is a way for them to really show they support marriage equality (and something I expect if they want my vote).
If Tom Reilly, Chris Gabrieli, the Lt. Gov candidates and any of the others say they really support marriage equality, then they should spend 5-10 hours over Tuesday and Wednesday seriously lobbying legislators who are known to favor this blatantly bigoted amendment. It's time for all the candidates to put their most important asset where their mouth is: time they'd normally use to campaign. Deval Patrick went to the Gay Pride parade, which I applaud, and I expect him to be calling on the State House to convince our elected representatives to truly support everyone and not be controlled by either our Catholic Prince, Cardinal O'Malley, or our Chief
Everyone should call their state Reps and Senators and tell them to vote against this new Constitutional Amendment. Why? It isn't anyone's business if either two guys or two girls want to get married, so long as they're both consenting adults. But certain people find it morally reprehenisble that gay people even exist - and will keep them down at all costs. State after state has even banned partner benifits. Gay couples can't even be allowed to get health insurance together! It's rediculous and must be put at a stop here and now. If the amendment gets less than 50 votes on Wednesday, it will be.