Sunday, June 03, 2007

Profile in Cowardice: Senate President Therese Murray

Senator Murray became the first Senate President to much fanfare: she was the first female Senate President ever and she is a so-called equality supporter, replacing someone who voted against marriage equality just a few months ago.

When someone accepts a position of leadership, they accept all the rights, privileges - and responsibilities - that come with it. Senator Murray claims to support marriage equality. She has the support of almost 75% the entire legislature on that one issue. However, she isn't willing to do what the House and Senate did last Constitutional Convention and kill an amendment at all cost. Of course, last time around, they weren't willing to do that for minorities - they were only willing to do that for the health care amendment; the one that would have guaranteed health care for the tens of thousands who are being left behind from this "universal" law in Massachusetts. But that's another issue.

Murray has a duty to kill this mean-spirited, hateful, homophobic amendment that would quite possibly destroy marriage equality. Almost 75% of the legislature would back her on it. History would applaud her courage. Instead, she's being a coward. She's too afraid to follow her peers and stand up for the right thing. She's too afraid of doing what people have done during Constitutional Conventions since as long as I'm aware of: killing amendments procedurally to just make them go away. It's a little too late to cry foul on procedural deaths and if people were to do that, they should have been crying foul about the health care amendment long ago.

They weren't. MassResistance types don't care about that stuff. They just care about their own goals. They cry about procedure because, guess what, it helps their cause. If things were reversed, they'd have no problem with the legislature using procedure to kill this thing. They will do whatever it takes to win, something our side - sadly - doesn't get. Isn't it cheaters who are never supposed to prosper?

So, I say this to Senator Murray: You own this amendment. It became yours when you became Senate President. Word on the street is we don't have the votes to kill this with a yes-or-no vote(coming from a number of sources, including high-ranking Representatives on Beacon Hill) . They also say the only thing blocking us from winning is Senator Murray, the so-called equality supporter. She's such an equality supporter, she's willing to let it be absolutely destroyed because she'd have to stick her neck out and make a courageous call.

Senator Murray: you have a duty to both your constituents and the people of Massachusetts. That duty is to do whatever you can to protect the equality of everyone in this state. That duty is to protect marriage equality. If you want to be remembered fondly by the homophobic people at MassResistance, keep your current course. Mind you, there aren't even enough of those people to keep a radio program going one hour a week - so you may just want to think carefully here.

If you want to do the right thing - and be remembered as a hero for all time - don't let this amendment pass. The ball is in your hands, though you don't have much time: June 14th is the day you can make a difference. You have all the power here. If you were wise, you wouldn't turn yourself into a Profile in Cowardice. If you were wise, you would protect the equality of marriage for all in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.


Anonymous said...

Super post, Ryan. The only thing I might suggest is change the title to "Profile in Cowardice?" with the question mark. You are right on target challenging Murray to do the right thing. But let's not give the verdict unless the cowardly deed is done. I have every hope that Senator Murray will do what is right and just.

I especially loved your point about if she held a vote knowing we didn't have enough to kill the amendment, her only remaining friends would be Brain & Ami. Heh. If that isn't enough to do what I'm sure she already wants to do (kill the bastard amendment), I dunno what is!


Ryan Adams said...

I can't really change titles, because of the way blogger works (well, I can, but it's treated like a new post).

That said, if Murray heeds the words of people like us, *no one* will be more celebratory than I. She'll get the treatment I want to give her - a true profile of courage - and a lot of my words of praise will be given to her, because she has her hand on the lever here. She is the one who can, with the wave of a magic wand, make this whole thing go away.

constitution fan said...

Yeah, if only killing it procedurally were legal and that pesky constitution thing didn't get in the way. Come on, Murray, ignore the constitution! Break the law! Coward!

Ryan Adams said...

Umm... just last constitutional convention, the same thing happened to the health care amendment.

So don't give me that crap.

Mass Marrier said...

That red herring about it being illegal to kill the initiative procedurally has the life of a cockroach. Anyone who stops with that needs to look at the SJC decision.

The SJC never ruled that the ConCon must vote an initiative up or down. It a note to a ruling, they included that they interpreted the constitution to require a vote, that there is no way to force it, and there is no punishment. They carefully avoided making it part of their ruling and opinion.

That said, the last ConCon played we-have-to with the anti-SSM one and within minutes killed the health-care one by procedure. Let's get real, particularly T. Murray.

A leader should never hide or claim to be following the wishes of this or that subgroup of voters. What is right and what is possible here? Protecting existing civil rights from theocratic hate-mongers is both highly good and highly possible.

Get real.

Anonymous said...

That red herring about it being illegal to kill the initiative procedurally has the life of a cockroach. Anyone who stops with that needs to look at the SJC decision.

Tell that to Ryan's BFFs David "let the people vote" Kravitz and Peter
"I'm not anti-sodomite, I'm pro-constitution" Porcupine. Or any of the host of 'phobes (EaBo, MCRD, John Howard) Laurel is gamely battling over at the Blue Cess Pool.

Ryan, you've sacrificed some of your own credibility standing up for these creeps, especially PP. Maybe it's time to call in some favors...

Ryan Adams said...

Someone needs to re-read my critique on Blue Mass Group.

NO ONE in the blogosphere has been such a harsh critic of BMG as I have been. Furthermore, as early as last summer, I called out David Kravitz for his support of the voting up or down on this amendment in a very public post. It wasn't at all popular then. While my more recent critic on BMG was far more popular, no one else in the blogosphere was willing to do it: other lefty bloggers even admitted as much just days after the big post that I linked when I met them at Boston Latin for a big Deval event.

So don't give me that crap.

Did I defend PP? Yes. I defended her right to remain ANONYMOUS. Just as I would defend ANYONE's right to remain anonymous - including YOU.

So don't give me that crap.

Laurel AND I have been battling those homophobes at BMG for a very long time, we've chatted in emails discussing how best to tackle them - and I told her we should be harsher, harder and stronger, not less.

So again, don't give me that crap.

I write one post you don't agree with, defending PP's right to remain anonymous, and suddenly I'm pro-David Kravitz, pro-BMG's current incarnation? Bull shit.

The world isn't so black and white.

Anonymous said...

Anon 9:26, you should actually read BMG. Yes, they allow bigots free reign over there, which I find really noxious and incomprehensible. But it is clear to me that at least one editor has learned their lesson from the last concon and are penning and front-paging really good pro-equality stuff. I give a lot of credit to people who actually learn from their mistakes. There are a few shining examples of that at BMG.

bostonph said...

I'm not anon9:26, but I did recently venture back to BMG after a long absence. I was shocked at much worse it's gotten. You (Laurel) and a few others still seem to be fighting the good fight, but the trolls now outnumber the progressives. Raj appears to be trying to set a record for most posts or something, but is still swallowed by the amazing volume of swill.

I just peeked over there again. Points to Charley for promoting diaries on SB321 and Marriage Equality, but the actual discussions are beyond puerile.

You do make an interesting point on the trolls over there posting in shifts. I've long suspected that PP is multiple people since the posting style and tone varies so wildly, for example.

To bring it back to marriage equality, several of us are convinced John Haskins from MassResistance/PRC is entirely fictitious.

About Ryan's Take