(no subject)

Here's an article about Kerry-the-man and his nomination turnaround that makes me feel somewhat better about him. He opposes gay marriage and supported the war, but at least he's got reason and empathy.

[found on nikkinewsnet]

Aha.

A Yahoo employee's take on Orkut: Google Needs Users.

google's advertising model has emerged to be the least offensive to me of any that I can think of. I've even clicked on paid links simply because I was actually searching for that product or service at the time, and felt well-served by google as a result.

So if google helps keep itself afloat by data-mining orkut and using what it knows about me to pick more personally-tailored paid links, more power to'em.

MA Constitutional Convention 2/11/04

Aha, I've just gotten clarification on something that was puzzling me: what does it take to pass an amendment to the constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts?

The 2002 amendment banning gay marriage needed merely 50 votes out of 200 to move forward at that year's Constitutional Convention. Then Senate President Birmingham called a motion to adjourn before a vote was taken, which motion would have required 101 votes to defeat. Only 53 voted against adjourning, and that part of the story ended quietly. (NB: The SJC subsequently ruled that the legislature did not violate the state constitution by adjourning without a vote.)

The 2003 Constitutional Convention was delayed to 2/04 to await the SJC's response to the legislature's question of whether civil unions would pass constitutional muster. As I'm sure you've heard, this week the SJC answered: only marriage will suffice. Yay.

Now the MA Constitutional Convention will meet on 2/11 to address an amendment banning gay marriage again. However this time the amendment needs 100 votes out of 200 to move forward. The difference? This year's amendment originated in the Legislature itself, whereas the 2002 amendment originated with a 130,000 signature petition, and different rules apply. (Source: "Beacon Hill Roll Call", search for "gay marriage ruling" in this page.)

Finneran has vowed to block gay marriage in MA and seems to favor asking the SJC to stay its decision again, this time until voters have a chance to vote on the above amendment. Even if the Legislature passes it by 100+ votes next week, the 2005 legislature would have to pass it again in order for it to appear on a ballot for voters in 2006. I very highly doubt the SJC would stay its decision for the results of a ballot that may never be brought.

Travaglini is on the fence:

Senate President Robert Travaglini, who will preside over the Constitutional Convention, said he needed time to talk with fellow senators before deciding what to do next.

"There is a lot of anxiety out there obviously surrounding the issue but I don't want to have it cloud or distort the discussion," Travaglini said.

So this would indeed be an excellent time to write your Legislator. If the amendment fails again, then that pretty much completely clears the decks for gay marriage in MA. If it passes this legislature, then gay marriage will be legal for at least two years but under a cloud of uncertainty with the expected 2006 ballot. I'm really hoping for the former.