MA Senator Barrios Shifts Tactics Reports the BosGlobe re "gay marriage"

[TaleWgnDg]

Gay-rights supporter shifts tactics
By Raphael Lewis, (Boston) Globe Staff | May 12, 2005

(snip)

"(Massachusetts) State Senator Jarrett T. Barrios, a gay-marriage supporter, offered a measure that would ban both gay marriage and civil unions, giving conservative lawmakers an alternative when the Legislature convenes in a constitutional convention later this year. The compromise amendment banning gay marriage but allowing civil unions passed by four votes last year.

"Gay-marriage opponent Kristian M. Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute, said he was uncertain what Barrios intended but suspected he was attempting to pull conservatives from the compromise. Asked whether Barrios's move yesterday made him worry that conservatives could abandon the measure, Mineau said, 'It definitely does.'

"'We're sure there are other intentions in mind,' Mineau said.

"Barrios insisted, however, that his actions were an effort to let lawmakers show their support for same-sex marriage by rejecting a ban.

"'My sponsoring this bill is to allow the elected legislators of the Commonwealth to once again review and I hope reject this effort to write discrimination into the Constitution,' Barrios said, declining to comment further."

. . . more at http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/05/12/gay_rights_supporter_shifts_tactics?mode=PF

_____________________________________________________________________


1.) State Senator Jarrett T. Barrios is openly gay. As such Barrios is vehemently AGAINST any amendment to the Massachusetts constitution which would over-turn the Goodridge (allowing same-sex marriage) decision of the highest court in Massachusetts.

2.) However, Barrios is introducing an amendment that would ban both same-sex marriage and same-sex civil unions. Why?

3.) Because Barrios is taking a risky move. Barrios wants to draw votes away from the once-allowed-in-last-year's-constitutional-convention amendment that would ban same-sex marriage but ALLOW same-sex civil unions. Think about it.

4.) Those who don't want gays to have same-sex marriage and don't want gays to have civil unions won't vote for the once-passed amendment and vote for Barrios' amendment to ban everything. For example, the Alliance 8 idiots, Ron Crews (and Kristian M. Mineau) Massachusetts Family Institute, Inc., the Roman Catholic Church, the Christian (e.g., Greek) Orthodox Church, Southern Baptist Convention, other extremist Evangelicals, etc.

5.) Will it work? Barrios must believe (a) that the vote is so damn close that he's willing to risk this. Barrios must also believe (b) that there's not enough votes to carry his ban on both same-sex marriage and same-sex civil unions to it's first required constitutional convention.

6.) Therefore, Barrios believes that the Goodridge decision would be upheld because there would not be enough votes for the second year in a row required of the no-same-sex-marriage-but-yes-civil-unions amendment due to his deflection away from it with his no-same-sex-marriage-and-no-same-sex-civil-unions amendment.

7.) Ah-ha, Barrios believes both amendments would fail. Risky stuff this politics!

_____________________________________________________________________



Know who is working AGAINST same-sex marriage in the halls of our statehouse and elsewhere:

L to R, conferring inside the MA Statehouse during the 2004 Massachusetts Constitutional Convention whether to amend the MA state constitution against same-sex marriage and removing other benefits and privileges from homosexuals in Massachusetts:

(1) MA Representative Philip Travis (.pdf format, Adobe Reader necessary), Democrat, of Rehoboth, MA, (religious affiliation: "Christian") chief sponsor of the 2004 anti-gay MA amendment, and who has opposed same-sex marriage as a party to many MA and federal lawsuits, and who has co-sponsored a bill to remove the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court justices who authored (or concurred in) the Goodridge opinion allowing same-sex marriage in Massachusetts;

(2) MA Representative Mark J. Carron, Democrat, of Southbridge, MA, (a Roman Catholic and Third Degree, Knights of Columbus) who votes anti-gay (anything), co-sponsor of Travis' 2004 anti-gay MA amendment, and who has worked with Brian Camenker of Article 8 Alliance to remove the MA Supreme Judicial Court justices who authored (or concurred in) the Goodridge opinion allowing same-sex marriage in MA, and who has been a party (.pdf format, Adobe Reader necessary) to litigation AGAINST same-sex marriage in both state and federal courts including the U.S. Supreme Court;

(3) Attorney Daniel Avila who is a paid lobbyist (client #950462) at the statehouse and elsewhere for the Massachusetts Catholic Conference, Inc., (which is a Massachusetts corporation of the Roman Catholic Church headed by the Bishops of the Dioceses of Fall River, Springfield, Worcester, and Archdiocese of Boston/Archbishop of Boston, Most Rev. Seán Patrick O'Malley, OFM Cap). As such, Attorney Avila lobbies for the Massachusetts Catholic Conference, Inc. (Massachusetts corporation ID #666002658) regarding such matters as anti-gay issues, anti-abortion issues, anti-in vitro fertilization issues, anti-right-to-die-with-dignity (Terri Schiavo-like) issues, anti-stem cell research issues, anti-contraception (including no condoms for AIDS/HIV) issues, abstinence-only sex education in public schools, and propagation of other Roman Catholic Church related religious issues in Massachusetts; and

(4) Reverend Ron Crews, Republican, of Ashland, MA, a fundamentalist preacher, a carpet-bagger from Georgia who is a paid lobbyist (#1367) for the "Massachusetts Family Institute, Inc." (MA corporate ID #043113783) a hate-mongering and gay-bashing religion-into-law fundamentalist organization and as former president of "Massachusetts Family Institute, Inc." filed an amicus brief against same-sex marriage and against same-sex civil unions with the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in the Goodridge case, who as a Georgia state representative opposed abortion, sought to create "covenant marriages," to have Creationism taught in Georgia public schools and abstinence-only "sex education" taught in Georgia public schools and a statutory redefinition of marriage as only for one man and one woman, and who recently ran unsuccessfully against incumbent U.S. Representative James McGovern, Democrat, Worcester.

For perusing summarized anti-same-sex marriage amici briefs, e.g., Massachusetts Catholic Conference, Inc., Massachusetts Family Institute, Inc., and others, filed in Goodridge, go to: http://www.mlgba.org/briefs/AmicusIssue.PDF (.pdf format, Adobe Reader necessary).

See also: http://www.boston.com/news/specials/gay_marriage/articles/2004/03/29/how_lawmakers_cast_their_final_vote_on_the_gay_marriage_amendment/ (BosGlobe, 3/29/04, How Lawmakers Cast Their Final Vote on the Gay Marriage Amendment, Massachusetts Constitutional Convention 2004) (as last visited Monday, April 25, 2005).

_____________________________________________________________________


.

[sniffa]

1. i Love jarret

he's a fighter.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

2. He's my State Senator

a good guy!

[Ian David]

3. Jarrett is awesome, but my god! That's one hell of a ballsy gamble!

If I'm not mistaken, this is a serious game of brinkmanship, and I am not entirely sure it is a good idea.

Anyone have any thoughts on this?

[sniffa]

4. i Love it

i think it may just crush the opposition. good move - remains to be seen, but i think it is.

[Ian David]

5. If I were him, I wouldn't be able to sleep at night from the anxiety. n/t

[sniffa]

6. i dunno

he doesn't seem to get rattLed.

i think he wouLd be great in higher office, but i'd be worried Losing him.

[Ian David]

7. He'd be a great presidential nominee, wouldn't he?

Did you see the speech he gave on the floor of the house during the massachusetts marriage debate?

Absolutely incredible.

[TaleWgnDg]

9. IanDB1, I thought you'd be interested in this . . .

.
IanDB1, I thought you'd be interested in this . . . Here's a new Barrios website and his "maybe" stance on running for Massachusetts Attorney General . . . http://www.barrios.org/

And, this too, since Barrios' spouse (Doug Hattaway) is the ex-national spokesman for Al Gore when Gore was running for president. With such knowledge w/i his own household as held by Hattaway, it will be helpful to Barrios as Barrios climbs the political ladder: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec00/debates_9-4.html (9/4/00)

[TaleWgnDg]

8. This brings the anti-Kerry bashings to an all time high . . . irony

.
This brings the anti-Kerry bashings to an all time high: Yes! One can be AGAINST something and FOR something at the same time!

Irony of ironies. As if we didn't already know it. And so goes politics.


http://www.baywindows.com/media/paper328/news/2004/11/25/LocalNews/State.Sen.Jarrett.Barrios.Ties.The.Knot-814857.shtml
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2004/11/23/wedding_toast_poses_question_for_travaglini/

[TayTay]

10. Hmm, I saw Barrios at the Con this weekend

Nice guy! He spoke at a forum about values and he had no problem with Kerry. It think this issue is a non-starter. Hay Marriage is here to stay in MA.

[TaleWgnDg]

11. Great. Great. Great. and Great!

.
Great. Great. Great. and Great!

However, on that last "Great!" I would not want Massachusetts to fall asleep on the same-sex marriage issue. Why? Because it's not a done-deal. Nope. Through all the speculation. Through it all. The vote is really too damn close to call. The Boston Globe today reported that it speculates that 100 votes remain FOR placing last year's con-con amendment onto the ballot. Yup.

And it only takes 101 votes to push through this amendment. 101 votes!

This is why Barrios is thinking about pushing that new con-con amendment banning everything. In order to split and break up that damn log jam.

[TayTay]

12. I agree

It is actually quite confusing. The Lowell Sun had a story about this tonight that was really interesting. They had been back and forth on whether or not the votes are there. (It's one of those, if it's Monday, maybe, if it's Tuesday, no and so forth.) The vote won't be held, if there is a vote, until the fall. I still think that there will NOT be a vote. Then again, I have Geary fro a Rep and she is against GM. (Sigh! I'm working on it.)

Anyway, Travaglini(sp) doesn't want this to go through. We shall see if he can hold back the mod/conservative wing of the party.

[TaleWgnDg]

13. Yes, the 2005 constitutional convention and the same-sex marriage issue

.
Yes, the 2005 constitutional convention and the same-sex marriage issue is being bounced around. It's really a close call.

If Massachusetts Senate President Travaglini can pull it off -- having no con-con -- then all the better, I agree.

Travaglini's predecessor, Tom Birmingham (not to be confused w/ ex-House Speaker Tom Finneran) did not convene a 2002 Massachusetts Constitutional Convention, much to the the chagrin of socially conservative Tom Finneran and others. Let's see if Travaglini can do the same in light of the present Massachusetts House Speaker Sal DiMasi who is pro-same sex marriage!




.