|
DEMOCRATIC QUOTE OF THE
MONTH
My campaign is about replacing doubt with hope,
and replacing fear with security.
John Kerry 3/2/04
MELROSE
DEMOCRATIC CITY COMMITEE
Monthly Meeting
Wednesday, April 14th,
7:30 pm
The Beebe Estate,
235
West Foster Street
Spring is here, and it’s time to elect citywide and ward committee
officers. There are lots of
opportunities to get involved. For
more information, please contact Dan Barry at (781) 665-5163
Caucus to Elect Kerry Delegates
to the National Convention
Saturday, April 3rd,
1 PM
Malden
High
School
77
Salem Street
You
are eligible to vote at this Caucus if you registered by February 11th
as a Democrat from the 7th Congressional District (Congressman
Ed Markey’s district). The 7th
includes:
Arlington
,
Belmont
,
Everett
,
Framingham
,
Lexington
,
Lincoln
,
Malden
,
Medford
,
Melrose
,
Natick
,
Revere
,
Stoneham
,
Waltham
,
Watertown
,
Wayland, Weston,
Winchester
,
Winthrop
,
and
Woburn
.
City Committee member Jim Shaer is running to be a national delegate
to the convention in
Boston
this summer. He is running as
part of a slate that includes Representative
Bob DeLeo (Revere/ Winthrop), Representative Rachel Kaprielian (Cambridge/
Watertown), Representative
Carol Donovan (Reading/ Stoneham/ Woburn), and long-time democratic
activist Patricia Deal from Arlington.
For more information on his campaign, please contact Jim at (781)
979-0430.
Note: please arrive between 12 and 1 to register before the Caucus
starts.
Annual
Voluntary Dues Collection
Over the next couple meetings, Treasurer Sally Frank will be collecting
voluntary annual dues. Dues can also be mailed to Sally at
87
Swains Pond Avenue
.
Melrose, MA 02176 Suggested amount is $20.
Thank you.
Down
the Road:
May
8, 2004
:
Massachusetts
Democratic
Convention
Wednesday,
May 12th, 2004 Mike Festa’s 50th Birthday
Roast
Memorial
Hall,
590 Main Street
,
Melrose
Donation: $50
Celebrate
Mike's 50th Birthday and his 30th Anniversary of his
first elected office (Melrose School Committee).
Campaign
Website: www.mikefesta.com
July
26-29, 2004
:
Democratic
National Convention
July 27, 2004: Democratic National Convention
Event:
EMILY's List will host an exciting luncheon at the new Convention
Center on Tuesday, July 27. This fundraiser for the 2004 Democratic
national and statewide races is your opportunity to see and hear some of
the most influential women elected to (and running for) the United States
House and Senate. It is a once-in-our-lifetime chance to attend a
high profile, Boston Convention event. For more information and a
reservation, contact Toni Whitmore, Ward 3 Chair (781.979.0098).
July 27, 2004: Democratic National Convention
Event:
Democratic Women's Rally - World Trade Center - 2:00 PM - 4:00 PM
(more details to follow). Contact: Toni Whitmore
(781.979.0098).
2004 Presidential Campaign
APRIL
2,161 needed to nominate
My Vote on DOMA
By Rep. Mike Festa (D-Melrose)
On
November 17, 2003
, the
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
in the Goodridge decision ruled that a ban on same-sex civil
marriages violated the
Massachusetts
state Constitution, the oldest Constitution in the world, and the basis
for the United States Constitution. They
ordered that same-sex civil marriage licenses must be issued starting in
May, 2004. Their ruling has no
effect on the religious definition of marriage and can place no
restrictions on the types of marriages that a Church or other religion can
choose to recognize.
In response to that ruling, the Senate recently
passed a comprehensive civil union bill and sought an advisory opinion
from the Court on its constitutionality.
I supported that approach because I believed that defining marriage
as between a man and a woman made sense, so long as we insured that
same-sex couples were given equal treatment under the law.
But the
Supreme Judicial Court
has found that “separate but equal” treatment of marriage and civil
unions was unconstitutional.
Now pending in the Massachusetts Legislature is a proposed
constitutional amendment that would limit civil marriage “or its legal
equivalent” to one man and one woman, the so-called “DOMA” and
effectively ban same-sex civil marriages and civil unions.In order for the
proposed amendment to take effect, it must be approved by a majority of
two successive joint sessions of the state Legislature, and then by a
majority vote of the electorate. The
first of the legislative deliberations is scheduled to take place on
February 11, 2004
. Under the Constitution, the earliest the popular vote could take place
is in November, 2006.
I have received more telephone calls, letters, e-mails and comments on the
issue of same-sex marriage than on any other issue in my three terms as a
State Representative. I have
read every letter and I have listened to every opinion.
I truly appreciate all of the input that I have received on this
difficult issue. My mail on this issue is divided virtually equally.
For every letter I get in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage, I
get one on the other side of the issue.
During this process, I have tried to be a good listener and to
respectfully consider the opinions of all of my constituents.
I am honored that so many fine constituents have shared their own,
often highly personal, reasons for taking one side or another in this
debate. Like many members of the public, many members of the Legislature
are struggling with this extremely complex and difficult issue.
So why not just let the people decide on this issue at the ballot
box? That question deserves an
answer.
The authors of the Massachusetts Constitution outlined a very
specific procedure for amending the Constitution:
The proposed constitutional amendment must be agreed
to by a majority of a joint session of the Legislature, voting in
two successive sessions of the Legislature, and then submitted to the
electorate for a vote. A
majority of the legislature must “agree to” the proposed amendment; we
do not merely pass it on to the voters for their consideration.
I therefore have a sworn constitutional duty to either agree to the
proposed amendment or disagree with the proposed amendment.
I also have a grave concern about submitting questions dealing with the
civil rights of a minority group (in this case, homosexuals) to a majority
vote of the people. It is the
duty of all people to protect the civil rights of everyone - whether we
agree with them, whether we like them, or whatever our feelings may be.
If the question of equal rights for African-Americans were put to a
popular vote in the last century, I am not sure that it would have passed
by a majority - but no thinking person today would deny basic civil rights
to African-Americans. Similarly,
equal rights for women might not have passed at the ballot box at certain
times in our history. It is
the responsibility of the majority to protect the civil rights of the
minority.
Discrimination against minority groups by the
majority can take many forms. At
the turn of the Twentieth Century, discrimination against Catholics,
Irish, Italians, Jews and other immigrant groups was rampant.
The struggle by African-Americans for equal rights has been long
and tortured. In every case it was the Court system that gave the impetus
to protect the civil rights of the affected groups.
And so today we have the Court system prodding a reluctant society
to grant equal marriage rights for gays and lesbians.
But, is this truly a civil rights issue? Isn’t this
really about protecting the traditional definition of marriage?
It is in fact a civil rights issue when one group of
American citizens is denied certain rights available to all other
citizens. Today, gays and
lesbians are denied health insurance, retirement and pension benefits, tax
considerations, hospital visitation rights and 1,400 other rights,
benefits and privileges simply because they can’t be married.
This is simply wrong. We
should not tolerate a society where some citizens are second-class
citizens.
But doesn’t the legalization of same-sex marriage cheapen the marriage
of traditional married couples? I
have yet to see how anyone’s marriage is threatened by the legalization
of the union of a same-sex couple who probably love each other, respect
each other, and cherish their relationship as much as anyone else does.
These couples exist everywhere today; they are our neighbors, our
co-workers and our friends. Letting
others celebrate marriage should in fact strengthen the institution of
marriage, not threaten it. I
recognize the threats to marriage in today’s
America
, but the threats are from forces totally unconnected to whether or not
same-sex couples should be allowed to marry.
There is another issue that deserves consideration.
Under the Goodridge court order, in May of this year
same-sex couples will be married in
Massachusetts
. There is nothing, under our
constitution, that any legislator or any Judge can do about it.
The earliest that the proposed constitutional amendment could be
ratified by the voters would be November of 2006.
For two years, same-sex couples will be getting married, starting
families and living amongst us. What
are we to do in November 2006, divorce them against their will and nullify
their families? This is
America
, we cannot do that.
One aspect that must be made clear about the
Supreme Judicial Court
’s decisions on same-sex marriage is that the decisions only apply to civil
marriage; any Church or other religious organization is still free to
apply whatever standards or restrictions they choose on who they will
marry and under what conditions. The
Courts have not, and should not, impose their will on the religious
aspects of marriage. As I am
today defending the civil rights of same-sex couples to marry, I will
fight equally hard on behalf of the rights of religious organizations to
choose whom they will marry and the conditions of those marriages and
ceremonies. If any Church or other religious organizations choose to deny
religious marriage rights to certain individuals, I will defend their
right to do so.
In the final analysis, I will vote against the proposed constitutional
amendment. I cannot codify
discrimination in the world’s oldest Constitution.
Our Constitution is a sacred document that should serve as an
expression of rights and not a limitation on rights.
I cannot, in good conscience, vote to make discrimination in any
form lawful. I did not run for
office to hurt anyone or to deny equal protection.
I ran for office to help people and to promote the equal protection
under the law and the Constitution. The
proposed constitutional amendment is deeply flawed and would serve to deny
basic civil rights to many
Massachusetts
citizens and I will vote against it.
VICTORY CARD FOR DEMOCRATS IN
MASSACHUSETTS
--Toni Whitmore
Don't miss the boat to help our candidates, yourself, your City
Committee, and the Massachusetts Democratic Party. How? By
applying for the Victory credit card, a new initiative of the MDP.
If you have not signed up yet, do it today. The Victory Master Card
is issued by Juniper Bank, a partner with the MDP in this initiative.
Applications are available from your Ward or City Chair. All you have to
do is fill out the application (no application fee), submit the
application, and within 4-6 weeks you will receive your Victory Card
(Platinum Master Card).
Why another credit card? This one is unique. Following your
application and one purchase with the Victory Card, the Party receives $40
from Juniper Bank. If the application is coded with the Melrose
Democratic City code, the State Committee will reimburse the City
Committee $10 for every application. The Party also receives money
every time you use it (.45% of each purchase is reimbursed to the MDP
coffers). This is an important initiative that could potentially
earn enough money to fund the Party's operations each year and provide
resources for the Party to assist local committees and candidates.
We all have too many cards now; so just cut up those other ones and onto
Victory in 2004 with your Mass Dems credit card. Questions,
comments, or applications, call Toni Whitmore, Ward 3 Chair, (781)
979-0098.
Sign up friends and family members over 18. Each application means
more support for our candidates. Remember - each card plus one purchase
with the card equals $30 for the State + $10 for Melrose Democratic City
Committee!
Website
Project Underway
Check
out preliminary designs at http://www.melrosedems.org
(THANKS DON!) or http://home.comcast.net/~melrosedems/.
Have ideas for improving the design or content of the site?
Send an e-mail to Nyal Fuentes, Webmaster, at melrosedems@comcast.net.
We want your input!
Save a
little paper, Save a little postage…
…
sign up for the Melrose Dems e-mail list.
You will receive the monthly newsletter and other late-breaking
news by e-mail from our new address: melrosedems@comcast.net.
Just send an e-mail to that address if you are interested.
For those who don’t have access to e-mail, or don’t check
regularly, US Mail will always remain an option.
Please
submit all announcements to Rebecca Fuentes at (781) 620-1150, or melrosedems@comcast.net,
for inclusion in the next newsletter.
|
