Is Sen. Birmingham Planning to Bury ‘Marriage’ Amendment?

Is Sen. Birmingham Planning to Bury ‘Marriage’ Amendment?

Constitution Requires an Open Vote
How Did Billy Bulger Defy the Constitution in 1992?
New Orwellian Tactics
Letter to Birmingham

February 19, 2002

Is Sen. Birmingham planning to stop the voters of Massachusetts from deciding the “Protection of Marriage” Amendment?

Many observers believe he wants to bury the measure so deep that its fate will be decided by him and a few others -- even though that is specifically forbidden by the state Constitution.

They believe the Senator would like to proceed without any recorded vote by the Senators and Reps. If that happens, the voters will never even know where the legislators stood on the issue.

A letter was sent to Birmingham by Mass. Citizens for Marriage last week in which they politely asked his intentions.

It noted that the Amendment was first approved last summer by Atty. General Tom Reilly for a vote by the citizens at the election of 2004. After that hurdle was passed, more than 100,000 raw signatures were obtained last fall with 76,607 of them being certified to Sen. Birmingham by Secretary of State Bill Galvin. It was over-the-top by almost 20,000 signatures.

Bryan Rudnick Going to Law School

Bryan Rudnick has resigned from Mass Citizens in order to go to law school.

”We are sorry that you will be leaving,” said President Sarah McVay Pawlick.

“You have done an excellent job in helping to bring the organization to such success. However, this is a good time to make a transition now that the petition has been approved by the Attorney General and we have gone way over the top with more than 100,000 signatures. Everyone can be proud. We wish you the very best in your future career and look forward to your continued help.”

Start Contacting Your Legislators

Anyone who is interested in seeing that the voters decide the issue of marriage should start contacting their state Senator and Rep so that the legislators are aware they are being watched, said Sarah McVay Pawlick.

“This must not be allowed to happen in a dark corner. There must be constant light upon them so that they act responsibly and the voters will know how each Senator and Rep voted.”

“As you know,” the letter to Sen. Birmingham from Sarah McVay Pawlick stated, “the next hurdle is that the measure must get 50 votes from the 200 members of the House and Senate sitting together as a Constitutional Convention.”

She did not challenge Birmingham’s opinion on the issue. “We certainly respect your opinion in this matter and we also respect your desire to vote as you see fit,” she said.

However, we, and the entire state, will be greatly disturbed if the measure is decided in a smoke-filled room, she wrote.

“If it continues to appear as though the Senate is not going to allow a vote on the issue, we are prepared to unleash the largest advertising and lobbying campaign that this state has seen.”

Birmingham Would Like to Bury It

The letter was prompted by a flurry of rumors and a story by the State House News Service. It quoted from the news story which said:

“The House wants to send the proposal to the Judiciary Committee, but the Senate disagreed Thursday, referring it instead to the Public Service Committee. The plan now hangs in limbo until the procedural standoff is resolved.”

The letter to Birmingham continued, “Many people are saying that this Amendment will ‘never see the light of day and will be buried in the Senate.’

“I should also note that the majority of the supporters of this measure are Democrats [as is Birmingham].

“We look forward to a hard-fought contest in this matter with mutual respect for the rules, much like the Super Bowl and the Olympics.”

Amendment Has Broad Support

The letter noted that the Amendment has broad support.

“As you know,” it stated, “we have worked very hard to get the ‘Protection of Marriage’ Amendment on the ballot for 2004, although many predicted from the start that our mission was ‘impossible.’

“The Amendment was approved by Atty. Gen. Tom Reilly in September for a vote by the citizens in the election of 2004.

“After the Attorney General’s approval, more than 100,000 raw signatures were gathered during the fall with 76,607 of them being certified by Secretary of State Bill Galvin in December. That was not a surprise because everyone’s polling, including our opponents, shows that 60% of the citizens favor the Amendment. That is why the opponents don’t want the voters to decide.

“The opponents of the measure were not happy with their defeat, but they allowed the deadline for a challenge of the signatures to pass in January without appeal.”

Much of what was reported in this story came from the archives of the Boston Globe. The Globe was against term limits, obviously because it would reduce the newspaper’s power if the legislature became more volatile and difficult to control as a result of having a bunch of citizen legislators. But the Globe did pretend to be angry when Billy Bulger ignored the Constitution. A total of fourteen other states passed Term Limits that year.