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.
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.
… 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 pwahid@aol.com.
… 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:
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.
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.
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, shulman22@rcn.com, 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 mathew@helman4schools.com
Many thanks!
Mathew Helman
http://www.Helman4Schools.com <http://www.helman4schools.com/>
mathew@helman4schools.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
msleeper@mapc.org by Monday March 22nd