A Point of Parliamentary Inquiry

This is the way MA lawmakers get to interrupt speakers debating the same-sex marriage issue. And my question is, why is Tom Finneran considered a leader? For years, he wouldn't let Civil Unions come up for a vote. He basically forced the hand of the SJC in the Goodridge case. He pulled a parliamentary stunt to get his amendment heard first, and it failed. Later last night, he gaveled the session over for the day despite clearly losing a voice vote on adjournment.

Now, this supposedly polite and proper debate is getting nastier and nastier. St Rep. Marie Parente (D) was droning on and on about her background as a foster kid and Italian American and how she isn't "anti-color" which a assume means racist in 1930s English. I learned one thing from her, however, appearantly the word "Nasty" comes from Thomas Nast's anti-Catholic political cartoons. Speaker Finneran tried to interrupt her to adjourn "briefly" but she talked right through him several times, stating that lawyers briefs were anything but. Then Finneran just turned off her microphone and gaveled the session adjourned to get rid of her.

Next, the members and Senators will be meeting behind closed doors to see the first glimpses of the latest "compromise" bill, which is a compromise between Finneran and Travaglini I guess, since nobody else has any clue what it in it. It is an all out effort to prevent Rep. Travis' amendment from making it to the floor.

After all, this is a guy that complained about "white slaves" in his speech today. But the best speech of today was Sen. Barrios, who told a personal tale of how his son got sick (104.5 degree fever) once and he couldn't take him to the hospital, because the papers had his partner listed as the parent and not him. He spoke eloquently and, in my view persuasively, about how a DOMA would, in fact preclude any civil marriages.

He cited California, and Pennsylvania, and Georgia and on and on. He explained that over and over again, those who pushed DOMAs, and who at the time promised that this wouldn't prevent civil unions or any rights for same-sex couples. Yet, after such DOMAs passed, they actively fought in the state courts to prevent such unions or rights and won. So either real civil unions now, or full gay marriage, or full ban on all gay unions, there are no real other options. In my view, only the first two are remotely palatable.