Nat'l Constitutional Convention?

Last night, I was watching Bill Moyer's Journal on PBS On Demand. Of particular interest was Sanford Levinson's discussion on Constitutional issues. Basically, he was arguing that the Constitution as currently structured isn't working for America and it needs to be updated. One of his central points was that we need occasional Constitutional Conventions if we ever want to be able to enact important changes. Now, I'm not sure if I agreed with all of his specifics, but here was the general gist of what a Constitutional Convention would mean:

• ConCons could only recommend changes, not make them.
• They'd could only occur once every 20 years.
• Delegates would be given ample time and significant resources to craft any potential changes they viewed as necessary.
  

I've thought about the potential importance of Constitutional Conventions in the past - and was generally supportive. However, there was one reason I never seriously wrote on the subject: I was always rebuffed on the potential dangers - it a Pandora's Box of epic proportions. I didn't think it likely that huge sweeping changes would be made that could cripple civil rights and other important aspects of the Constitution. Yet, I couldn't be too sure on other aspects, such as citizens pushing for a clause that actually guarantees the right for people to have firearms, as opposed to a clause that only protects the right to state militias.

But after watching Bill Moyer's latest program, it's clear that a Constitutional Convention isn't ever going to become a Pandora's Box. After all, if all a Constitutional Convention could do was make suggestions, why would it be so dangerous? Even the original Constitutional Convention, which was exceptionally radical for the time, going well beyond its mandate, wasn't the final call. The Constitution still had to be ratified by a super-majority of the states, which was by no means an easy task. Several states almost defeated it. If not for the promise of the Bill of Rights being written just after the initial document was created, America would probably still be operating under the Articles of Confederation. Just like in 1787, We, the people, will have our final say in whether or not a Constitutional Convention's recommendations will ever be enacted.

All that said, a Constitutional Convention is the likeliest vehicle for any serious systematic reform. Consider the dual facts that the Legislative Branch is already too busy (and petty) to take up a cause as serious as this - as well as the fact that there'd be too many special interests to kill important reform in that body before it even came up for public debate. There just doesn't exist the political will to create serious changes on Capitol Hill. More importantly, a Constitutional Convention would be completely the opposite: delegates could create momentum for change and, given the fact that they'd only occur once every twenty years, there'd be lots of interest and drive in making sure we have the best Constitution possible. It would be an opportunity for both reflection and taking a national step into the future.

I don't agree with all of Levinson's proposals; he thought delegates should be chosen at random (like a jury) and there should be 700 of them meeting over two years. I think that's too many, for too long and comprised in a way that's anathema to American Democracy. While we agree that a Constitutional Convention should have well-compensated and dedicated delegates, solely working on analyzing the Constitution for a lengthy time, two years is too long to keep either public interest or momentum for change. A year would give ample time to research, take hearings, craft language, as well as present the conclusions to the public.

Furthermore, random selection would be entirely inappropriate - we need people on the job who would take it seriously and view the Constitution as exceptionally important. We need people who already have a working knowledge of the tome - and ideas for how it could be better. What better way to send delegates than to vote them in at the local levels? Given that a Constitutional Convention would only happen three or four times in an average lifetime, there'd be plenty of room for robust debate and lots of interest at the local level. Each congressional district should get one delegate, as well as two at-large, state-wide votes (the same number as each state's congressional delegation). I could also get behind a few delegates appointed by state delegations, governors and maybe even one for the President, but the number is quickly reaching Levinson's 700, which could make for a delegation that's too large to be effective. In any event, coming up with a specific number of delegates is far less important than agreeing that electing delegates makes far more sense than appointing 700 at random out of a hat with 300 million names.

There's little debate that the Constitution needs at least minor changes to be relevant today. Millions of people think the electoral college is not only outmoded, but offensive and elitist. Levinson brings up a more important point: the Electoral College also prevents issues that are important to the majority of Americans from ever being raised by candidates on the campaign trail. Why would a candidate for President care about gang violence, for example, when they don't have to worry about the cities where that violence is worst: few of this country's largest cities are in states traditionally competitive on election day. All that would change if Presidents were popularly elected - but how likely is that to happen without a Constitutional Convention? Whatever the constitutional concerns people have, there's no vehicle to drive important change. Be it changing the way either the Senate or Supreme Court work, or enacting more civil rights protections - the only way any of these things are likely to happen is if we have occasional Constitutional Conventions that could create a mandate for change, even without opening up any Pandora's Box. The question then becomes not "why should we have Constitutional Conventions," but "why not?"

ConCon Pictures

So, yesterday's first liveblog was going to be "the early bird catches the worm," until I realized that I wasn't going to find any signal nearby. The following pictures, as I walked in to the rally in front of the State House at about 8:30, make it pretty easy to guess why I would have picked such a title.




Of course, there were a few people yesterday who deserve a lot of praise. Marc Solomon is one of them. This campaign was hard fought and, even if I've disagreed with them from time to time, the people at MassEquality were at the forefront.



And, of course, we all owe a great debt of gratitude to our Governor, Deval Patrick. I wonder what Joan Vennochi's next column will look like?

There were so many great signs I took photos of, I'll try to post more later. Needless to say, though, it was a fun day.

Today's Heros

Clearly, I can't list every hero we've had today - who knows what Representatives or citizen lobbyist pulled in those last two or three key votes - but we have to start with Deval Patrick, Sal DiMasi and even Therese Murray. Luckily, we never had to test out to what extent she'd be willing to go to in order to protect equality... because the three worked hard enough to beat it on the merits. Very cool.

However, I want to make special mention of these legislators, the people who changed their votes. It just goes to show, it's never too late to do the right thing. Marriage equality is protected - and it couldn't have been done without those nine votes. Thanks to the legislators who had the courage to do the right thing... and everyone else who helped them get there.

We Won!

Not that it's any big news by now, but we won.

First, let me apologize by saying that technology wasn't being my friend today - that's why I didn't get to live blog. I was having internet withdrawal, wanting to know what was going on - who was blogging - what everyone was writing... but, not $10 an hour's worth with bad connection and a 10 minute walk (the sprint loc down the street).

However, I have tons of pictures, comments and praise to give - the highlight of the day, aside from WINNING, has to be the homeless guy scolding Tom Lang for talking too much. It was hilarious.

We outworked them, had the just cause and won. All was as it should have been.

What a great day.

More to come, including lots of pictures.

Liveblogging the ConCon

I'm going to be out in the trenches today, liveblogging the amendment at the State House. How I'll do it is every few hours, I'm going to blog any big news I hear. Complete with my stinky digital camera, old fashioned (read: analogue) recorder and almost no sleep last night - I'm going to remember the days when I was a suedo-journalist working for my college paper - and comeback with a good story. If I get good quotes, look for them on LeftAhead.

For now, read my big post for the day. Let's hope our state legislature can do us proud and make sure honor and hope remain in the Commonwealth's Constitution.

As for the big news of the day, the Boston Globe had a few articles. I'm skipping to page 2 of Frank Phillips's big piece for the fun quotes (read: crazy).

Reilly, of the Massachusetts Family Institute, acknowledged that her group is up against a formidable array of Beacon Hill power brokers seeking to kill the proposal, but said that the optimism of gay marriage advocates may be unfounded.

"Rumors are spreading all over the place. I don't think anybody knows for sure, but we are feeling confident," Reilly said when asked if the votes opposing same-sex marriage were holding in face of the pressure. "Remember, Goliath was slain."

Suddenly the very small minority (glbt people) have become "Goliath," while Team Homophobia - which has passed marriage amendments in most states throughout the country - are laughably the Davids. Only, this David has a 25% threshold to defeat... which is kind of like gloating after beating a 5'8" Goliath. Notice how Reilly wants to figuratively "slay" us. Interesting use of vocabulary and metaphor.

Alright, it's 7am. People are already gathering there. I best be going. Let's all hope today is a very good day. More posts to come.

We Fight for our Rights

"Injustice anywhere is a a threat to justice everywhere."
~Martin Luther King, Jr.

If he were still alive, I don't know what side Martin Luther King Jr. would have come down on in the gay marriage debate, but his equally heroic wife supported marriage equality. I'd like to think he would have too.

One of the things studying Dr. King will teach anyone is that the fact that the fight for Civil Rights isn't easy - and the people who lead that fight are amongst the most courageous people that exist. It isn't easy to be told you're going to hell for being the way you were born. Because of that hate, many gay people never admit to their homosexuality at all, or do so only after years of mistakes and misfortune. They live half-lives and never reach their full potential as American citizens. Freedom - the very equality under the law we each enjoy today - is ingrained in all of us; without it, no one can ever be truly happy.

Yet, hundreds of millions of out and proud Americans, be they gay or allies who are truly 'pro-freedom,' already know that. Our collective chorus will be heard at the Hub of the Universe tomorrow, at the very steps of the State House on Beacon Hill. What will we be chanting? Hopefully, "Enough is enough." The threat that justice faces today must be met with a righteous fury; it's time that the people who want to take away the rights of others be gone. We've gone this far, Constitutional Convention - Part 17, no further.

Sadly, we may have a way to go. I'd like to think there are enough decent human beings on Beacon Hill to kill this at present - over 150 of them - but one can never quite tell. The only way legislators will learn better is by hearing from us that enough is enough. They need to know that Massachusetts has woken up to reality: anyone who doesn't support the full equality and civil rights of every citizen in this state has no claim to decency at all. We, as citizens who think equality is something to cherish, must do everything in our power to protect those rights - protect them from the cowards who are too afraid of their own inner demons to allow equality to exist.

That's what all of this is about: inner demons and personal discomfort. Same-sex marriage hurts no one, but the idea of gay sex is discomforting to some. The idea that people are different makes people boil over. 'How could you be different?!' They think. Apparently, they didn't get the memo: all of us have different brains and thus think differently. Yet, in most states in this country - and quite possibly in Massachusetts - stripping away some people's rights to preserve the piece of mind for others has become a normalized trend. Until the day that quoting people from Focus on the Family becomes akin to quoting members of the KKK, that won't change.

Despite the fact that same-sex marriage doesn't effect heterosexual families, we're here today. Despite the fact that it doesn't effect children (except to enhance the lives of children who are or will be living with same-sex parents), we're here today. Despite the fact that there is no legitimate reason to be against marriage equality at all, we are here today - once again - defending marriage equality for all.

We are here today, for the 17th time, because some people are uncomfortable with the lives millions of Americans live. We are here today because some not only want to force people to live differently, they're actually willing to change the constitution in order to enforce it. They'd strip away rights against people merely because of the way they were born - not unlike American policy toward African Americans for most of this nation's history.

Like generations of people who have stood up for the rights of the people in the past, today we are going to make sure that justice, hope and honor remain a part of this Commonwealth's Constitution. Today, we're going to say "enough is enough." Best of all, no matter what happens at the Constitutional Convention, our voices will be heard. We will ultimately win because our cause is just.

---

As the day goes by, I'll be liveblogging from Beacon Hill to let everyone know what's going on. For starters, read Wayne Woodlief's piece about the tough lobbying opponents of freedom are facing for their cowardly positions. If these soon-to-be candidates can't support marriage equality out of their sense of morality, perhaps they'll do so out of an equally strong sense of self-preservation: 7-1 letters sent to our legislators are pro-equality. The writing is, quite literally, on the wall.

Not So Fast, Joan Vennochi: You're Wrong on Marriage Equality

Joan Vennochi seems to go on the attack against Patrick today, instead of - I don't know - speaking in favor of equal rights.

It's good politics for Patrick. The gay community supported his candidacy and he needs continued support from his base, especially after a politically rocky start. But rhetoric and symbolism only go so far. Now Patrick needs something tangible in return for his efforts: enough votes to block the amendment. Postponement of a vote will be viewed as weakness and a setback for those who support same-sex marriage.

Maybe MassEquality wants a vote, but I've given up on Mass Equality as an effective organization to argue on behalf of my rights. If there aren't the votes to kill this thing now, then postponing it is obviously a better option than allowing it on the ballot. If Patrick can help swing people to postpone, kudos to him. It isn't weak or a loss, it's fighting for what's right.

However, since I like to be constructive in my treatment of the media, here's where I can agree:

Patrick and other same-sex marriage backers are running up against a strong argument from those who support the ban on same-sex marriage -- that the people have the right to vote on this controversial issue.

Obviously, citizens have to be able to vote for change on the constitution. You can't create a system of laws that can never be changed. What you can do is create a system of laws that are difficult to change - unlike Massachusetts's constitution. MassEquality's big mistake in their line of reasoning was to argue "no one should be able to vote," even if it's on "civil rights." What they should have said is "the bar is set far too low." In what world is 25% of the legislators enough to push an amendment forward? If MassEquality picked that line of argument, we wouldn't be here today: even conservative constituents can get behind that.

If MassEquality took that position, we'd have the cover to bury this whole thing procedurally. Then, we'd have to political will to do the right thing and revamp the constitutional process so it works. If we had a process that worked, there would have been no need to have decades of using procedure to block amendments.

Get rid of the 25% provision and turn it into the standard 50% + 1 to advance the amendment. Then, because we're talking about the Constitution here - Higher Law - it should take a 2/3rds majority to make change on the final ballot, whatever that ballot looks like (hopefully not in the form of a plebescite). Constitutions aren't supposed to be easy to change, the vast majority of people understand why. If MassEquality fought to change the constitution, not challenged the ability of the people to vote, then these "let the people vote" chants would have fallen on deaf ears... and this amendment would have been dead - procedurally - a long time ago. If Joan Vennochi, as a columnist, wants someone to blame (nothing gets readership like a juicy attack piece) - look no further than Marc Solomon.

Consider This a Warning for ConCon Voters

In the past year or so, we've had homophobic attacks in Lowell, New Bedford, UMASS Amherst and Worcester (just off the top of my head). Luckily, no one has died at any of those locations (though, the guy from New Bedford went on a national, murderous rampage while fleeing).

Could this happen in Massachusetts?

Two young men in Jackson County Indiana said they were so freaked out when 'propositioned' by Aaron Hall on April 12th, that they proceeded to beat the 100 pound, 5'4 man for hours, using their fists, boots, dragging him down a staircase while his head slammed into each step, and then throwing him in a ditch and leaving. Aaron managed to crawl out of the ditch and out into a nearby field, where he died, alone and naked.

Sadly, yes.

If we vote this amendment forward and put it on the ballot, with months of negative TV ads directed at glbt people, we will see more - not less - violence.

Will it take a murderous hate crime against a gay person to convince enough of the few, remaining anti-gay votes in the State House to vote the right way?

I'm not asking any legislator to suddenly like the idea of two men or two women sharing a bed together and getting married. I'm just asking that you protect one's right to do that. If we don't - if we continue to condone hatred toward gay people (and that's exactly what this kind of homophobic amendment does, whether supporters like it or not) we will see even more violence in the coming months. It's inevitable.

My Fifth Congressional Endorsement

I just finished this week's LeftAhead podcast with Mike and Lynne, where we officially endorsed Jamie Eldridge for the Fifth Congressional Race. I pre-wrote my own reasons, which I'll post below, but I do want to say ahead of time that I will still report all facets of this race. Since the MSM isn't going to be covering this as it should, someone needs to.

Anyway, here's what I wrote.

Just like at the start of the Lt. Governor's primary race, I came out in initial favor of the 'anti-progressive' candidate. I liked Deb Goldberg for a long time then - and I liked Niki Tsongas for a long time now, too. Yet, I've never met a flirt I've ever been compatible with - and Niki Tsongas isn't going to be the first. I really like her, as a person. She certainly has a bit of a charm about her, but "charm" isn't what this race is about. It's about what's best for the Fifth Congressional District and the entire United States of America.

Barry Finegold, Donoghue and Meceli aren't the right choices either. All of them lack the clear and cohesive vision, backed by powerful, fearless - and progressive - leadership on the most important issues facing America. Will the country ever, for example, enact a true Universal Health System if candidates like Donoghue were elected throughout the country? She's already conceded defeat on a universal system, Republicans and DINOs have no reason to make a compromise look anything like reasonable if we've conceded everything from the start.

Don't get me wrong, this endorsement isn't a deduction: I haven't looked at each candidate and found them incompatible. Eldridge has come to be the clear choice of his own volition, proving to me in person just why voters in the fifth district ought to have him as their Representative. In fact, you can just look at his contrast with Donoghue to understand why. While Donoghue is talking about how we'll never get a Universal System and how we need to give in to the special interests to bring more coverage, Jamie Eldridge fought for a better system already. The resulting Mass Health Care bill isn't something that has come close to meeting his approval, but leadership like his helped bring us one giant leap forward to actual Universal coverage. He didn't go in there with a glass-half-full attitude and was able to bring about some sort of compromise that no one - at the time - thought possible. It's progress, something Eldridge has consistently strived for.

Matt Stoller of mydd.com had a post asking people who they thought was the best, most progressive, candidate in the Fifth Congressional District. Stoller is right in saying that this seems to be a golden opportunity to elect one of the few actual progressives in Congress. Jamie Eldridge is that person. He was first elected under the Massachusetts Clean Elections law, the only candidate to take advantage of that bill before Tom Finneran destroyed it. He's been a clear and strong leader on gay rights - including saying he'll be the man to replace Marty Meehan as a national voice for ending the horrible, discriminatory Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Most importantly, he believes in the progressive movement - as the vast majority of my readers do, as evident by his policies and actions. He'll never be the Democrat to toe the DLC line. He'll never be a DINO. He'll never be weak and back down, like so many Democrats across the country just did by re-authorizing Bush's blurnder in Iraq, without any time lines. If Jamie Eldridge can stand up to Tom Finneran, he can stand up to any member of the DLC. If Fifth Congressional voters are smart - and I suspect they are, as evident by the excitement generated by Eldridge's grassroots campaign - they'll vote for for the best choice, Jamie Eldridge.

Senator Murray: Do the Right Thing!

It may be preposterous to say the Massachusetts State House is the center of the universe, but it’s something a great many people do all the time. When people call Boston the “Hub,” that’s exactly what they’re doing - whether they know it or not. Oliver Wendell Homes coined the term and Bostonians, ever so humble, have embraced it ever since. Fanning our ego, history has had a way of making Beacon Hill integral to revolutionary movements in America over and over again - such as now, when Senate President Therese Murray presides over a Constitutional Convention, on Thursday, June 14th, that will help decide if marriage equality ought to exist.

Unfortunately, according to several sources of mine on Beacon Hill, equality does not have the support it should: enough to make sure we win this upcoming Constitutional Convention. Whether she likes it or not, as Senate President, Therese Murray is now the Hub of the Universe: her actions on June 14th will decide if she is to become the heroine we all hoped for when she became Senate President - or MassResistance’s favorite new senator, one who will allow equality to go on the ballot unobstructed. Her fate is in her hands.

The reason I say this is simple: it’s true. The vast majority of state legislators support equality. There’s enough support to kill this amendment like they killed a similar one last year, on health care. Tens of thousands of supporters signed a bill to make health care a constitutional right in Massachusetts. A majority of state legislators supported the amendment, but not the leadership. The leadership, especially Senator Travaglini, was willing to kill it at all costs - the very same year the same people said a ban on marriage equality deserved an up-or-down vote. Hypocrisy, it appears, is often a politician’s favorite hobby.

This year, state legislators are a few votes shy from having a full 75% of the legislature supporting marriage equality. Senator Murray claims to support equality, yet has declared there will be a vote on it. She will even vote against a marriage ban, but that doesn’t change the fact that by allowing a vote her place in history will forever be sealed. She’ll become the Senate President who was known for allowing the rights of a minority to be decided by the majority - a vote that the editor-in-chief of Bay Windows, New England's largest GLBT newspaper, thinks is likely the glbt community could lose. Former Senate President Travaglini fled the State House before he had to suffer that fate; Murray ought to think twice before she puts basic human rights at risk.

Unfortunately for her, Senator Murray owns this marriage amendment. When she accepted the position as leader of the Senate, she accepted all the responsibility that comes with it. With a simple motion, she could make this all go away. Yet, Murray has refused to use her position to defend the rights of gay people. She’s allowing a vote even though she, as with almost 75% of the legislature, claims to support marriage equality. It doesn’t have to be this way.

Years from now, when all is said and done, Senator Murray will be remembered for being the first female President of the Massachusetts State Senate. However, that memory will pale in comparison to how people will view her on gay rights. In her grand moment at the center of the universe on marriage equality, she’ll be remembered either as a hero, who stood up for the minority, or the villain who allowed basic human rights to potentially be stripped away forever. Nearly omnipotent on this one issue, the decision of how she will be remembered is in her hands - because that’s how it works when you’re the hub of the universe.

The ConCon, Healthy MA-05 and All Sorts of Good Stuff

All sorts of good stuff on yesterday's LeftAhead. Lynne Lupien, of LeftinLowell, makes an endorsement. We all talk ConCon, Pride Week, health care forum, etc. Mike and I think it's high time for Senate President Therese Murray to do the noble thing, and courageously defend marriage equality and we do it all in under an hour!

Listen in now!

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.

The Day I Met Peter Porcupine

The day I met Peter Porcupine, I had no idea who (s)he was. Not only did I not know who Peter was in person, but I didn't really read Peter's blogs or know that (s)he paid that much attention to my own. Sure, Peter left a few comments, but as far as I was concerned, Peter was the homophobic, Republican talking-head everyone kept saying (s)he was - and why shouldn't I believe it?

*****

It was about 8pm and I was going to one of Deval Patrick's civil engagement meetings he held across the state, just after being elected. This one was at UMASS Dartmouth, in the Foster Administration Building. Picture unwelcoming, cold concrete with a small room and about fifty people packed in it. All of a sudden, a stranger went to shake my hand and said hello. "You know me as Peter Porcupine," the person said.

Peter was very friendly for someone I was told was so, well, not.

I've never been the type to be hoodwinked by people who are fakely nice. It's something I can usually spot from a mile away. I'm sure there are people who are more skilled in asshat detection than I am, but there's been nothing Peter Porcupine has ever done to indicate (s)he was as closed-minded and homophobic as is often portrayed in the blogosphere. (S)he didn't have to introduce herself to me; (s)he did that of her own volition.

I'll readily admit there are a whole host of issues where (s)he sees night and I see day, but that doesn't mean I'm going to join in the circus of outing Peter. It's one thing to out the real homophobic people - a la Mark Foley - but (s)he's not Mark Foley. While (s)he does support an up-or-down vote, (s)he would vote against a ban. Furthermore, (s)he's exactly the kind of person who could actually convince others of that ilk to vote against any ban if we can't bridge the current four-vote gap - something I'll publicly call for her to do if it gets to that point.

Don't get me wrong. I don't have tea with this person. I don't support blanket anonymity. There may even be legitimate conflicts of interest in Peter having a pseudonym. However, I don't see these recent posts about the real identity of Peter being about any of those potential conflicts. Indeed, QueerToday went so far as to suggest she may be getting ready to stalk queer youth - a serious assertion with absolutely no basis in fact. We're being just as bitter towards her as so many right-wingers are toward us - and that bitterness seems just as utterly pointless as Pat Robertson's drivel or Ann Coulter's existence. It seems to me that some people are revealing Peter's identity for merely for the sake of revealing Peter's identity, as if it were the best weapon to use against Peter.

However, this weapon being wielded against Peter Porcupine seems to me like a double-edged sword. Peter Porcupine should come out of the alias closet - when QueerToday's FireCrotch, Pryncess Shaniqua, Becca D'Bus, Madam V, Queer Jay and everyone from Mass Left blogs who don't use their whole names start the trend. Otherwise, Team Equality is being awfully hypocritical - and that's coming from one of its charter members.

Happy Marriage Equality Day!

From a press release I just got,

BOSTON—Thursday, May 17, 2007—In honor of the third anniversary of marriage equality in Massachusetts, Governor Deval Patrick today proclaimed May 17, 2007 Marriage Equality Day.

More from our Governor, who's pledged to do all that he can to protect marriage equality.

“Marriage equality has been a part of life in Massachusetts for three years now. We can see clearly that the sky hasn’t fallen,” Governor Patrick said. “People, I think, have moved past this debate. And I want very much to avoid the divisive, circus-like atmosphere that will accompany this referendum.

It's time to take a second away from studying to THANK the Governor. He seems to be working his ass off on this cause, in preparation for the upcoming ConCon - so here's a big time thank you. It's great to finally have a Governor who cares about everyone in Massachusetts - he's proven that politics really isn't "just words." No, his actions are speaking far louder.

We Need Four Votes!

If you want marriage equality, double your efforts.

At least four lawmakers who had initially voted for the gay marriage ban in January have signaled that they may switch their votes, the sources said, giving same-sex marriage supporters growing confidence they can kill the measure and spare Massachusetts from becoming the epicenter once again in the country's cultural wars during a presidential election.

PS: Hey, Globe, it's not "slim" support. Nearly three-quarters of the entire state legislature supports marriage equality! Team Homophobia is the one trying to bloc the will of the majority by an ever-so-slim 25% - and they may not even be able to do that.

While we're all trying to secure marriage equality, let's take a moment to remember the fact that we do have such strong support on Beacon Hill.

Martha Coakley: Marriage Banning Amendment Illegal

NECN was on for a bit tonight and they did a very short segment on how Martha Coakley was speaking in front of some group and said that the amendment to ban marriage could have been illegal, or something to that effect. She urged legislators to stop it, but from what the news anchors were saying, made it sound as if she may be pursuing it as well. Needless to say, this is a positive development and we need to learn more about it. Unfortunately, I don't have much information on it (and I've looked!), but if anyone knows more, luckily we have this interactive feature called comments in the blogosphere - so have at it. Thanks!

Tom Lang of KnowThyNeighbor on the ConCon and Movement

There were lots of reasons to have a little chat with the leader of Knowthyneighbor. For starters, tomorrow is the first Constitutional Convention - and he has a lot of important info regarding the atrocity some people are trying to see unfold in the Bay State. Furthermore, my paper is certainly examining his organization as part of the netroots movement. Lastly, who wouldn't want to talk to a guy who had the brilliant idea to list every single name and address of those who had the audacity to try to write discrimination into the constitution? Some people don't like that kind of aggressiveness, but temerity will never get anyone anywhere.

Besides, people have to be accountable for their actions - they shouldn't be able to sign a petition as if they were an Internet alias. They're not doing some online Harris Poll. This isn't a DailyKos open thread. There are no booths or curtains protecting signature collections, just like there's nothing protecting his efforts. Everyone is open to the criticism of their actions. And actions just so happen to be Lang's specialty.

One interesting thing about Lang is that he really knows his stuff. He's been on the battle ground for years now and spends most of his free time talking to congresspeople, talking to fellow supporters, talking to the media... He's organizing a real grassroots/netroots effort. He's helped sway representatives our way - and had a little advice for people that want to do the same. It's not about the stories - Congresspeople just don't really care. To the surprise of hopefully no one, many of them just care about winning the next election. Sure, they want to do good - but they'll do anything to seek that precise vote that will manage to hopefully piss off the least amount of people in doing so. It's not a bad philosophy, really, except when the "least offensive" vote manages to curtail equality. Then, it becomes unacceptable.

Lang and I talked about the state's more 'conventional' gay-rights organization and its lack of action. According to the director of KnowThyNeighbor, one of the key reasons we haven't seen a repeal of 1913 or a host of other important issues is none other than MassEquality and its allies. Certain people in that organization think that legislators would vote for its repeal and essentially say 'see, I support gay rights,' then not vote against a marriage ban. Does it sound ludicrous to you? It sure did to Lang, who was disappointed in MassEquality's inaction there. I'd say Susan Ryan-Vollmar of Bay Windows would agree, but I'll have to ask her tonight during our LeftAhead podcast. 1913 should have been long gone - something that could have happened by now if instead of being afraid of it, MassEquality pushed it.

Despite their disagreements, Lang agrees with Marc Solomon on one thing. The vote on marriage will be happening far sooner than many wanted or expected, though that's not necessarily a bad thing. It just means we've got to work that much harder now to convince our elected representatives to kill this thing once and for all - and hope the wind is on our side. With any luck, MassEquality and everyone in the glbt movement in Massachusetts will be more organized this time around. We can't afford any confusion - every state rep and senator on our side needs to know exactly what to do and a plan has to be made well in advance.

Speaking of which - there's something everyone is counting on, from Tom Lang and Knowthyneighbor to MassEquality: you. Nothing is going to be defeated if thousands of people aren't calling their elected leaders. So, have readers called their state legislator or senator yet? According to Lang, today is one of the best days to do so - the before day or day of a big vote. Heck, call them today and then tomorrow, just so they know you mean business!

MassEquality: Marriage Vote In Weeks, Not Months

It won't happen Wednesday, since the budget is the big issue in town, but Marc Solomon just sent an email saying to expect it in the next few weeks.

But just because the vote on the anti-marriage amendment is going to be postponed DOES NOT mean it is time to relax! The final vote will happen sometime in the next few weeks, and now more than ever we need you to take action to protect marriage equality.

The bad news: this appears to be happening way sooner than I wanted. Maybe June?

The good news: it looks like MassEquality at least has an idea of what's going on, something they were recently criticized for not doing last December.

Folks, this is happening. Be prepared. Call your state legislators; here are the ones that still need to be convinced, but call the ones on our side anyway. They need to know how important this is to us. Time is running out. We need to do what we can. Now.

All Gay All Day This Tuesday

Substitute Herb for Ted Haggard and I think this cartoon still works, no?

Wednesday kicks off the opening season session to attack gays everywhere - their ability to raise kids, their bedroom habits, whether or not we should allow most this country to fire them or kick them out of their homes simply for being gay... fun stuff like that. It's the first Constitutional Convention of 2007 and as such, just the beginning to hear the hate on the radio, in the newspapers and everywhere else we go.

Of course, Teh Gays are being attacked everywhere - not just in Massachusetts. President Bush has promised his third veto of his presidential career, following funding for the troops and cures for little kids with diabetes. Now he's set to protect the rights of employers to fire their workers for thinking they like teh cock (and assumingly have one, as well). Perhaps it's been open season all along?

But I digress. Tuesday is a very important day for two reasons: first, it's the day before the Constitutional Convention and as thus is a good day to actually talk about it. Second, it's also the day LeftAhead airs live - the Bay State progressive podcast I participate in. Naturally, those two things go hand in hand. Best yet, the editor-in-chief of New England's largest GLBT newspaper (and expert of all things Boston Politics) will be our special guest.

So, listen up on Tuesday for all the best info on what's actually going to happen Wednesday. That info surely won't come from me, but I'll do my best to not muck it all up. Pull up a pair of air phones, turn your computer speakers up and listen in!

All I Can Say is Wow... Bay Windows on Gay Rights

Just read this. It's one of the most amazing thing I've ever read, Pulitzer worthy as far as I'm concerned. I'm not even going to quote from it, because I want to quote the entire thing... but would have to limit it to 3 paragraphs (because more violates copyright laws) and there's no way to fairly do that. The Editor of Bay Windows, Susan Ryan-Vollmar, basically describes everything that's gone on in terms of the last few ConCons and what needs to happen to defeat the upcoming one. She also apologizes on behalf of Bay Windows for getting it wrong last year, saying the ban amendment was defeated... and offers a stunner, that the SJC case saying the legislature should vote on marriage wasn't the real reason why marriage advocates lost last year. Furthermore, she made the critical point that I've been trying to push for months now: with all this good-will and support on marriage equality, why hasn't 1913 been defeated?

The best news is Susan Ryan-Vollmar is the tentative guest on next week's LeftAhead - which THRILLS me. Now, I have a lot to digest and prepare for that very exciting engagement. Remember, LeftAhead episodes (Tuesday nights at 7:30) are live - and we can take callers, so if anyone is interested in dropping questions or calling in, send me an email and we can probably figure it out. We have a tough fight ahead to protect the most basic of human rights in Massachusetts and there are few people more equipped to discuss everything and attuned to what's going on than Susan Ryan-Vollmar.