7/17/2002 When Democracy Failed in Massachusetts and the Power Structure Was Pleased

MN Staff
November 2002 Print Edition

It became too late on that day to challenge the signatures of voters who signed petitions to send issues like taxes and bilingual education to the citizens for their decision. One issue made extreme feminists shudder. Time was running out for them. For they opposed with great vehemence the amendment known as "Protection of Marriage." They had desperately tried to kill it but had been totally unsuccessful. Now they - led by the Boston Globe - decided they had to break the law.		Sen. President Tom Birmingham is led out of the chamber after the vote to adjourn.

It started on January 4, 2002.

Some 57,100 signatures were necessary to get the Marriage Amendment on the ballot, an almost impossible task. But it got almost 20,000 more supporters than that - much too large a number to challenge. Many people had thought the strident feminists might do so, but they allowed the deadline to pass without challenge.

Now, a new plan was needed in order to stop this popular Amendment from going to the people - because everyone knew it would win there.

That's when the extremists decided to pressure politicians on Beacon Hill to break the law. If the politicians didn't break the law, the feminists would surely lose because it was clear the people wanted this Amendment.

		So, it wasn't long before a "final plan" began to emerge. The focal point became Senate President Tom Birmingham. Under the state Constitution, he would preside at any debate/vote on the measure. It was he who would call the 40 members of the Senate and the 160 members of the House to sit together as a Constitutional Convention. Almost immediately, the sponsor of the Amendment, Mass. Citizens for Marriage, felt compelled to send a letter and politely ask the Senator his intentions.
Sen. Birmingham was visibly jolted by jeers and cries of "No!" that thundered at him from the hundreds of pro-marriage spectators in the gallery after he quickly postponed the Marriage Amendment in June.

It noted all the steps that thousands of people had taken to get the Amendment certified for a vote by the citizens and then said, "As you know, 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."

MCM told Sen. Birmingham it looked forward to "a hard-fought contest in this matter with mutual respect for the rules, much like the Super Bowl and the Olympics."

It then noted that most of the supporters of the Amendment were Democrats, like him.

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

But that is exactly what happened.

During the summer afternoon of Tuesday, July 16, 2002, the Democratic legislators met in a secret, "smoke-filled" caucus at the State House and made their plans for the Convention the following day.

The next day, July 17, they violated the state Constitution with Sen. Birmingham leading the way. They voted to adjourn without taking a vote on the Amendment. By doing this, each Senator and Rep was able to go home and say he had never voted against this popular Amendment.

Their only problem? They had violated the laws of Massachusetts.

Most of them knew that Governor Swift, as a result, was required by the Constitution to call them back for a vote. But they believed she would never have the courage to do so. And they knew that their ally, the Boston Globe, would report that the measure was now dead.

But their misconduct was more serious than they thought. Many citizens were outraged by this flagrant violation of our Constitution.

After the adjournment vote, the homosexual newspaper, Bay Windows, unhappily reported there was criticism of the process from all sides. "Hardly a day has passed without reading or hearing criticism over the way Massachusetts Senate President Tom Birmingham handled the legislative process."

Even Robert Reich said he disapproved of the way it was handled, commenting, "We should have had a vote on this issue and all issues." John Kerry and Michael Dukakis all opined that a vote should have been taken.

The MetroWest Daily News, which strongly opposed the Amendment, was upset that the law was so blatantly violated: "We elect senators and representatives to debate and vote on the issues of the day. Most people who run for office expect to be called on to take a stand on tough questions. Birmingham should get out of the way and let elected legislators do what they are paid to do."

The State House News Service had this to say from its offices at the State House: "Another power play was pulled on Wednesday. The Legislature voted 137-53 to adjourn its Constitutional Convention for the year rather than debate and vote on a controversial measure put before them by a campaign that had garnered more than 130,000 signatures. Senate President Thomas Birmingham, who orchestrated the proceedings, said it was better to kill a measure defining marriage as between a man and a woman by adjourning, than risk taking it up and having it pass, which would have moved the measure one step closer to a ballot vote two years from now."

Sen. Birmingham lost the primary as a result of his actions. After he had postponed the Convention on June 19 and then adjourned it on July 17, he began to slip in the polls and his negative ratings rose, even though he had been the favorite to win the Democratic primary for Governor. He never recovered and finished a distant third.

The Senator does not disagree with this analysis. He told Bay Windows shortly before the primary, "I'm a big boy. I took a stand fully knowing what the reaction of the other side would be and would have to be completely removed from the process not to know. I got all the e-mails and everything else beforehand, so this reaction doesn't surprise me. It doesn't faze me either."

He knew he was breaking the law, but he was told he could get away with it. The newspaper which reported his quote, Bay Windows, said. "In fact, Birmingham said he never doubted his actions on the amendment proposal. 'I really didn't because of two things. One is, I, as President of the Senate, I'm presiding officer of the convention,' he explained. 'There's no point in having a position of leadership if you're not going to exercise that leadership in a way that's consistent with your values. I don't want that to sound arrogant - I don't have a monopoly on all the right ideas but I had no question about what was the right way to dispose of this mean-spirited attempt to amend our constitution. So what's the point of being in a position like mine if you can't do what you think is the right thing when the opportunity arises?

"'Secondly,' he continued, 'and as corny as this sounds, I think the best way to advance yourself politically is to do the best you can in the position you're in. I did what I thought was right in the position I'm in.'"

Birmingham's conduct was especially troublesome because it wasn't his values that were driving him - but the desire to keep his union bosses happy. Everyone knows that Birmingham did what he did because he was being pressured by the unions and other extreme feminist and liberal groups, which have both money and power.

But observers say it doesn't faze him because he knows the unions will continue to take care of him. One wondered what kind of message that sends to law-abiding citizens who try to follow the rules.

		He got a small part of his reward when some gay groups gave him $13,000 at a ceremony in August. The large homosexual group, Human Rights Campaign, obtained $275,000 in Boston last fall towards its $8 million budget after a banquet here. How much of that goes back to Massachusetts politicians is unknown, but most agree it is considerable. Bay Windows said, "Birmingham, who has consistently polled third behind O'Brien and Reich [after 7/17/2002], acknowledged that he has 'taken
Joseph R. Nolan, retired Supreme Court Justice, testified in favor of the Marriage Amendment.

		some hits' because of his stance against the ballot initiative - negative e-mails, hate mail, jeers along the campaign trail - but he's long since given up on pleasing everyone. 'This is one of those issues that if people choose to reject my candidacy over it, I'll sleep at night knowing I did what I thought was right in my heart. What I couldn't bear to do would be to take a poll or to put my finger to the wind and behave accordingly and then find out I had the wrong pollster or the wind changed. If you do what you believe is right - and I want to win this election - but this is what I thought was right, if people want to reject
A few of the more than 500 supporters of the Amendment stood outside the State House on their way inside on July 17.

me because of that, I can live with that. I'll sleep at night.'"

Senator Birmingham did not attempt to hide what he was doing. His spokesperson, Alison Franklin, openly told the Globe that he might never allow the measure to come to a vote. When he followed through on that threat, this allowed one man to nullify the efforts that had been made by thousands of voters for two years to put the Amendment on the ballot for a decision at the elections in 2004.

In a story in the Boston Globe the day before the July 17 vote, the Globe said that "... Birmingham said he is seeking ways to defeat the measure ...Birmingham said he is strategizing with other opponents on ways to block the question from advancing tomorrow, but he would not detail their plans." He told the paper, "I'm going to do what I can to defeat it. Our options are open."

He told the press on July 17 after the Amendment was not allowed to come to a vote: "Today we saw democracy in action. They may not like it but they lost two to one."

		He also admitted that a vote on the Amendment was not allowed and a Motion to Adjourn was allowed so that the legislators could deny that they voted against the Amendment. Birmingham told the press, "Everybody [i.e., the legislators] recognizes a vote to adjourn was a vote up or down [on the Amendment]." The Globe reported that the measure appeared to have the necessary support "and more," and that is the reason that Birmingham did not allow the legislators to vote on it.
When surprised by demonstrators in the summer of 2001. Sen.Birmingham said he was not convinced of the need for the Marriage Amendment. He told them, "I always have an open mind. I think you have an uphill fight."

Sen. Birmingham was afraid the Amendment would pass, according to an article in Bay Windows. Sen. Cheryl Jacques told Bay Windows that she was fighting to stop a vote from ever taking place in the Legislature: "I'm fighting...to see that [the Marriage Amendment] never comes up for a vote. I'm happy to throw my body in front of the train to block this question."

She said Sen. Birmingham's delay of the vote was heroic: "Tom Birmingham is a hero for the gay community." The Bay Windows article said he might never allow a vote. "Birmingham, who opposes the measure, has not committed to bringing it up for a vote at the upcoming Constitutional Convention [on July 17], leaving open the possibility that the amendment could be dead and buried by the end of this legislative session."

Jacques said it is not undemocratic to defy the state Constitution and break the law. But the public disagrees.

According to Pawlick, most people are outraged at what they see as this breakdown in our government.

It Was Birmingham and the Democrats Who Led The Way

The Democrats appeared to be desirous of the title, "Law Breakers." For some reason, 127 Democrats joined with Sen. Birmingham and voted to violate the state Constitution and not allow any debate - much less a vote - on the Amendment even though that is clearly mandated by the state Constitution. Only 36 Democrats voted against breaking the law. This contrasted with 10 Republicans who joined in the law breaking while 17 opposed it.     Senator Birmingham.   This was definitely a Democratic maneuver, although one prominent Republican, Brian Lees (R-Springfield), the Republican leader in the Senate, seconded the motion to adjourn without a vote on the Amendment. The Democratic Senators voted 28-5 in favor of adjourning while their Reps voted 99 to 31. The strong arm of Sen. Birmingham giving favors and threatening people is clearly evident in the Senate vote. The Republican Senators voted 4-2 in favor of adjourning, and apparently Birmingham even had an influence there. It shows how much importance the Democrats placed on this vote if he promised that much to them. The Republican Reps voted six in favor of breaking the law and 15 against it.