Called to order 7:02 PM.
MEMBERS ATTENDING: Steve Blesofsky, Bill Haberman, Esther Hopkins, Ruth Litter, Dave Magnani, Barbara Magovsky, Stephanie Mercandetti, Chris Ross, Joan Seariac, Norma Shulman,
ASSOCIATE MEMBERS ATTENDING: Bob Edwards, Jim Gordon, Mathew Helman, Chris Lorant, Archie Lyon, Kathie McCarthy, Terene Micciche, Kimberly Oakley, Karen Spilka.
OTHERS: Herb Chasan, Gerald Heng, Alison Lemoine, Helen Lemoine, Cheryl Tully Stoll, Edwina Weston-Dyer, Rochelle Sivan.
MINUTES (Norma Shulman): No minutes to report; list of delegates from caucus was in the paper.
TREASURER’S REPORT
Cash on hand 11/16/03 996.12
Dues received 155.00
Interest 0.00
Subtotal 1161.12
Expense (meeting room) 75.00
(web site) 89.50
Cash on hand 2/22/04 986.62
Report accepted.
There are still a few who have not paid dues for last year. The year runs from September through August, so dues are now payable for 2003-2004. There are 21 associate members.
Old Business
We have a few vacancies for delegates to the May 8 state convention – contact Steve Blesofsky if interested.
Took up tabled motion to raise dues for next year.
… At our last meeting: We are spending about $200 for rent and $250 a year for coordinated campaign office every two years. Susan A moved to raise dues to $20/$15 for 2004-2005, seconded, and then tabled to February.
… Took the motion from the table. Approved new dues for 2004-2005, 7-2-0.
Announcements
… Herb Chasen announced a meeting in Sudbury Stop Bush (and Nader) March 3 7 pm. For more information about the Stop Bush group, 508-877-9082.
… We were given a letter from independent voters reminding us of the importance of the independent voters in electing the President.
… We had information from a member, Parwez Wahid, about a resolution being proposed in the US Congress (HR 528 IH) opposing France’s banning of the wearing of religious symbols in public schools. The French bill would not allow the wearing of hijabs, crosses, yarmulkes, or turbins, etc. Parwez would like us to contact our Congressmen to support this resolution. For more information, you can contact him at [email protected].
… Bob Edwards reported that his soccer bill is being reviewed by counsel.
… Mat Helman is running for school committee. www.Helman4Schools.com
… Bob DeMoura, running for Middlesex Sheriff, attended meeting to introduce himself. www.demourasheriff.com
Program: The Differences Between Marriage and Civil Unions and Two Organizations Respective Positions on the Constitutional Amendments
DISCLAIMER: These notes of the program are snippets of what was said. The numbers and other facts are as accurate as I could get while trying to capture as many of the points as possible. This is not intended as a transcript – only as an attempt to share the general discussion for those who missed it.
The speakers made brief introductory comments:
Gary Daffin, representing the MA Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus.
His group is the lobbying strategist for this issue and part of MassEquality, working to defeat the Constitutional amendment. Since they couldn’t get civil unions passed after years of work, they went to the courts, who then ruled. Marriage is a legal status – the word is bigger than the sum of the benefits. There are about 1400 benefits offered by marriage. Civil union is a legal status only conferred in the state of VT. Civil unions omit federal benefits, conferring only about 300 of these 1400 benefits. Civil unions do not have portability; other states do not honor those benefits. If you had a car accident in another state, your partner may not be allowed in to the hospital. 1159 benefits are federal ones given to married people; the states have about 300 more. For example, if you are in the military, you don’t have the right to have a non-citizen spouse come back to the US with you. You do not have the benefits of social security, survivors’ benefits, etc. You can’t do joint taxes, have access to pension protection, insurance, means testing programs for Medicare, etc. There are many benefits that are shared between states and federal government that do not apply to civil unions. With civil unions, just for filling out forms, you can’t check off “married” if you have a civil union, and if you did, there are criminal penalties. In the big picture, civil union sets up a separate institution, and in this case, one that would be separate but unequal. So when people say that civil unions would be as good as marriage, it is simply not true.
Rev. Jim Ennis, representing the MA Family Institute
He is the pastor of the Church of the Nazarene in Framingham and works part time with MFI. Ron Crews, the president of MFI, and the MFI wants to get this issue of the definition of marriage for the voters to vote on. Rev. Ennis brought their guide to internet safety, which is used in the Boston schools, and other handouts from the MFI. They have a handout called Dad’s the Man, to get fathers to take responsibility for their children (and have had 21 weddings take place as a result of this program). Rev. Ennis is the director of the Marriage Matters Initiative, a project to form marriage and family agreements, to strengthen marriage. They have 78 pastors signatures on the agreement to support that marriage is between a man and a woman. They are concerned that marriage has been devalued in recent years. They offer premarital preparation for couples. MFI is part of a broader coalition that wants a pure amendment, defining marriage as between a man and a woman, to go to the people; a question that is not entangled with civil unions. MAPA (an amendment sponsored by Representative Travis) was what they expected to be considered by the Constitutional Convention. Others amendments were added. The MAPA amendment with an addition by the Speaker was very close to passing. The MFI did not like the amendment that had 6 paragraphs defining civil unions. He agrees that they don’t want to settle for civil unions either, but for different reasons. Civil unions provide a lot of the benefits of marriage, all of the essence of being a married couple with a different name. The most important benefit of marriage is that children would have a mother and a father. They don’t want the state to normalize or sanction a relationship that would deprive many children of either a mother or a father. But most of all, they want the people to be able to vote, and the court has usurped this right. He feels that anything other than marriage as between a man and a woman robs the institution of its dignity.
Gary Daffin – We are only taking about civil marriage, not religious marriage. Nothing requires any denomination to have to do anything against its beliefs. We are talking about protecting families. There are a lot of gay and lesbian families. He can understand that some people are not comfortable with gay marriage, and people should have the right not to accept this. However, we are talking about public policy here. People should have the right to live and be happy. We can only make sure that gay and lesbian families are strong and have the right to happiness and financial security.
Discussion:
Dave Magnani – On the issue of whether the legislature has been circumvented by the court – on both sides there is confusion. The gay and lesbian community says civil rights do not belong on the ballot; the other side is asking for the amendment so that the people can have a say. The constitution was not designed for legislators to put things on the ballot, just whether they agree with the substance of the question. Had the constitutional convention been voted down, then it would be that the courts had trumped the legislature. They are going to vote on the substance of the amendment; therefore, they have not been circumvented. The legislature does not have the choice to put something on the ballot.
Gary Daffin – If we had put some of our major court decisions to popular vote they would have lost (segregation, etc.). Individual freedoms are protected by our system. The fact that a certain percent of the people want to deny a minority right is the reason that we have the system that we have. The court has said that there is no rational reason that we should discriminate against these people.
Jim Ennis – You are talking about a very small percentage that want to change a fundamental institution.
Dave Magnani – Is the question before the legislature do you agree or disagree with the substance of the amendment or whether the people can vote on this issue? The clerk of the Senate says it is on the substance of the amendment, not on placing it before the voters.
Karen Spilka – As a lawyer and one who researched constitutional law and more, her understanding is that the legislature acts like a filter – they have to agree with the amendment’s content twice. They have to say yes they agree with the substance, not to say let the people vote. If we agree with the substance, vote yes, if not, vote no. Women would not be voting now if we had left it to a popular vote.
Gerald Heng (a guest) – The issue of same sex marriage disturbs him very much. Governments have codified marriage between man and women, just like the ten commandments. Same sex unions are biologically different. The Constitution says by the court, only 4 judges have the say. Therefore, the people should vote.
Esther Hopkins – Marriage is actually a contract between a couple and the state – a civil, not necessarily religious, ceremony. A church can have its own rules. It terms of public policy, two individuals should have the right to join into a contract, not to have all the people vote on it. What about the right to have a civil contract with the state?
Jim Ennis – What about the 38 states who have passed DOMA? Are we more enlightened than they are? If the politicians of this state know so much about this, why didn’t they do this before. He is concerned about the effect of this ruling on whether they can preach their views on homosexuality. What about hiring by churches and non-profits? In most places you can’t disagree with gay marriage without being accused of discrimination. He wonders about the arrogance of this state that we know more than the other states. He is trying to talk about it from the perspective of public policy, not the religious perspective where he feels better able to discuss it.
Gary Daffin – Studies show that there is no difference between children raised by two parents or one. There is a huge coalition of religious leaders who support this position of same sex marriage. And yes (in response to the comments about other states), MA is special.
Steve Blesofsky – Using the term lifestyle about homosexuality is a disservice. That implies choice, but there is evidence that it is not a choice.
Jim Ennis – Nobody knows what causes homosexuality. Some people will testify that they once were homosexual and now they are not. It is not immutable like race or gender, it is a choice that people make.
Gary Daffin – People are born the way they are and struggle for a long time to be free to be out. Some gay people choose to live in a heterosexual relationship. Being gay is not about sex, it is about how you are physically and emotionally attracted to people.
quest – The children concern me. In a gay family the children did not come from that union. Why didn’t those homosexual families think about these issues (like if you can you afford them, etc.) before they have children.
Gary Daffin – These families had to plan and jump through hoops to have children; they don’t a child by accident. MA has some protections for children of same sex couples (second parent adoptions, etc.). It’s not good enough, but it is good. In fact, that is the argument for why we should have civil marriage.
quest – You created the situation and then want society to solve it.
Jim Ennis – Aren’t there children born in a heterosexual relationship and then in a changed situation that is switched.
Gary Daffin – That’s not a major cause of children being in a family that is not supportive.
Jim Ennis – When you think thru it, do you think about the ramifications of a child that won’t have a mother and father?
Gary Daffin – But they have two parents that love them.
Jim Ennis – How do two men raise a young woman? How can two women raise a boy?
Gary Daffin – That is an important question. How does a single parent make sure there is a strong presence in their life of a female or male adult? It is not a determinant of whether the child will grow up happy and normal. Make sure that every kid has access to as many benefits as possible to survive. We have a very pluralistic society.
Jim Ennis – Many children from single parent homes have another parent who lives elsewhere. You are talking about society sanctioning a family unit that deprives a child of the opposite sex parent. Shouldn’t public policy support the highest ideal?
Gary Daffin – It’s not reality. We need to give every child as much opportunity as they need to survive.
Kimberly – When you bring up children and talk about the optimal way, and you have the man and woman like the couple who starved their baby, or the one who just shook his baby and it may not live, wouldn’t a stable loving family of any type be better than a abusive family? What about a child of a single parent who is provided with the influence of teachers, or other adults?
Jim Ennis – What about the child starting out at a disadvantage because they don’t have a mother and a father?
Steve Blesofsky – Sometimes allowing people to have something that is 2nd best is better than 4th best, if the ideal is not possible.
Jim Ennis – That’s different from intentionally starting a child’s life without a mother or a father.
Gary Daffin – You have every right to start a family with one man and woman, but you can’t write public policy that way. Should we ask the children who would have had no family but were adopted by a same sex couple, what would they have preferred?
Bob – If the legislature offered only civil unions, would you put something on the ballot?
Gary Daffin – His organization would never want to put anything like this on the ballot. They have been putting domestic partnership issues before the legislature since 1992 – which get nowhere in the House. We do not want to put discrimination in the Constitution.
Jim Ennis – He worries that people care more about the state’s constitution than they do about the institution of marriage, which preceeds the constitution.
Edwina – She knew gay and lesbian ministers when she was in the ministry. They married people and baptized people. She had to learn how to accept that reality. We haven’t all been in a place where we have had to think about it. She and others have not been hurt by knowing these individuals. Would you be opposed to these ministers participating in their churches?
Jim Ennis – This is against scripture.
Gary Daffin (and others commented) – Which scripture? Every church has a right to their position, but it is a fundamental American right. This is social change that is happening fast. There were a lot of people who wanted to do the right thing with integration, but felt we were going too fast. But asked that we did the right thing even though they weren’t ready for it. We can’t not allow people rights because we are uncomfortable with it.
Chris – If someone wants to marry someone of the same sex, adopt a child, this is America.
Jim Ennis – What if I wanted to marry 3 guys?
Gary Ennis – We are not interested in changing marriage. We want to participate in it.
Archie – He reviewed some of the history as the psychology profession saw homosexuality over the years. 30 years ago there was a number assigned for what was wrong with you if you were homosexual. MA is different from the rest of the country. The rest are not ready for this issue, and will this have an effect on national politics and the election. Do we as Democrats want to consider this fact?
Bill – If the court ruling goes into effect in May, what are the ramifications in respect to federal law and the response of the other states?
Jim Ennis – He thinks it will hurt MA politically; it will force the President’s hand to push a Constitutional amendment.
Gary Daffin – He doesn’t think we will change the US Constitution for this issue. It may hurt MA in some ways. The federal benefits may not be granted. It is not the issue on the top of most people’s lists. We don’t know about what the other states will do about recognizing MA law.
Barbara – Other states and local officials are starting to question this.
Jim Ennis – And there’ll be more court battles. It may not be the issue, but it will be the social issue.
Ali – In the VT version or in civil unions in MA, could a heterosexial couple take part in a civil union (the amendment says it is for same sex couples)?
Dave – There is a request for an advisory opinion on this question pending before the court.
Karen – The MA amendment defines civil union as for same sex couples.
Gary Daffin – 1998 in Boston they wanted to offer domestic partnership, and what is a domestic partnership was raised as a question. It could be defined without specifying same sex couples. It has not been defined.
Mat – MA was the first state to outlaw slavery, so we have been enlightened on civil rights issues before. The leading cause of death of gay teenagers is suicide. Normalizing marriage would make a difference to help gay children to feel more accepted and more normal. History will look favorably upon augmenting the definition of marriage as it has on every decision when one group said this is the way it has always been and keep it that way, and another said let’s change it.
Gary Daffin – We are not talking about re-defining marriage – we are talking about access to civil marriage rights. No church has to change its ways.
Jim Ennis – He disagrees. And the church did have a leadership role in opposing slavery. He would love to debate another minister on this subject. The issue of gay teens suicide is tragic, but we can do something to help them without redefining marriage. He recounted an instance of how his daughter was taunted when she was in a minority (opposed) in a discussion on gay marriage at FHS. The attitudes toward gays in the high schools are not what they used to be.
Gary Daffin – This is what we are talking about – protecting the rights of a minority.
Dave – He got 3,000 calls on this topic in his Senate office (got 300 on a controversial tax vote). That’s the level of interest and intensity on this topic. This debate could have degenerated into a war, but has seen a level of respect for the process. He has worked with MFI on a variety of issues. What about children being raised in poverty? MA is one of 12 states that oppose the death penalty. The church commends us for that stand. It is not a matter of how many other states have what. The ministry can raise issues of moral import. But the legislative responsibility is to the Constitution.
Peggy – Rev. Jim is focused on intentionality. She was raised by a single parent, not by choice. She is thinking about the saying that it takes of village to raise a child.
Jim Ennis – He has given his whole adult life to helping the family unit. The Britney Spears incident devalues the family. He promotes the preservation of the strongest family unit.
Gary – He agrees to supporting families, but also that all families need to be supported.
Karen – We should celebrate the fact that we are dealing with issue, with debate in the house and senate, even though it is a very difficult debate. It has afforded the house and the senate the opportunity to work together, and the people are partici8pating with thousands of calls and emails.
Adjourned at 8:55 PM.
Norma Shulman, [email protected], 508-877-5377
———————————————————————————-
Announcements:
Framingham Town Election, March 30!
———————————————————————————
LWV Candidates Night
Monday, March 22, 2004, 7:00 PM
At the Civic League
———————————————————————————-
Dear Fellow Framingham Democrats,
My name is Mathew Helman, and I am the Framingham Democratic Town Committee’s Webmaster, as well as the Founder of the MetroWest Young Democrats. As many of you know, and for those of you who don’t, I am a candidate for Framingham School Committee. I wanted to direct you all to my brand new campaign website:
http://www.Helman4Schools.com <http://www.helman4schools.com/>
The Framingham town election is going to be on March 30 (with a primary on March 2, which will not affect the School Committee race, but will include the Massachusetts Presidential primary). Between now and then, we will be doing direct mailings to Framingham voters, literature drops, and other forms of outreach to Framingham’s residents; and, I would love to count on your support.
So, check out my website, spread the word to everyone you know in Framingham, and please let me know if you’ll be able to help us with the campaign. Feel free to e-mail me at [email protected]
Many thanks!
Mathew Helman
http://www.Helman4Schools.com <http://www.helman4schools.com/>
[email protected]
———————————————————————————-
How Do We Grow from Here?
Sponsored by:
MetroWest Growth Management Committee
Framingham League of Women Voters
MetroWest Daily News
MetroWest Housing Coalition
Join your neighbors and a panel of experts for a conversation about growth and development in the MetroWest area. How do we maintain our quality of life? Is “smart growth” right for us?
Wednesday, March 24, 2004
7:00 p.m. – 9:00 p.m.
Plymouth Church
87 Edgell Road
Framingham, MA 01701
To register, please call Margaret Sleeper at 508-907-6740 or email [email protected] by Monday March 22nd