Question of the Evening

If Mitt Romney is the candidate who will "stop the militant gays", then why was he unable to do so as Governor of Massachusetts? This has perplexed me for a while. Romney could not stop marriage equality here in Massachusetts. Why should those for whom banning same-sex marriage is a priority think that he is the best person to do so nationally? Because he failed so often and utterly that he's due for at least one victory?

Rep. Wallace Explains His Switch

In today's Boston Herald, columnist Peter Gelzinis talks with State Rep. Brian Wallace (D-South Boston) about his vote last week to protect marriage equality in Massachusetts. Wallace was one of the nine legislators who had voted in favor of the marriage ban in January, but changed his mind and voted against it last week. Wallace explains his change of heart:

"Six out 10 people who live in Southie now have been here less than 10 years," he said. "At every community meeting and barbecue I went to, I'd have four, five, six, a dozen people approach me very quietly and politely.

" 'Representative,' they'd say, 'we'd just like you to know we live here, too.' The landscape has changed and it continues to change every day. But it's not just that. You've got thousands of people who've married in the last four years. They raise families. They pay taxes. What are we supposed to say to them? That their marriages are a lie? That the rights we gave them suddenly don't apply to other people? How can we do that?"

Wallace denied rumors that we circulated before the vote that he'd been bought off or promised a job in the administration to get him out of the legislature. He also noted that in the week since the vote, he has been getting "hate-filled e-mails" that prove to him that had the marriage ban been placed on the ballot, it would have been the "ugliest, most divisive election this state has ever seen."

Over at Take Mass Action, Chris has the message that anti-marriage activists sent out to supporters of the ban, which is the likely cause of the email barrage Rep. Wallace and others are experiencing. If you're a support of marriage equality, give those legislators a thank you email to reassure them that they did the right thing.

That Was Then, This Is Now

This morning's Boston Herald editorial on yesterday's defeat of the marriage ban reminded me of something I had been wanting to mention for a while now. Here's what the Herald wrote today:

Yesterday’s defeat of a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage represents not just a victory for gay couples, but a loss for those who cynically sought political advantage by favoring the most uncompromising version of such an amendment. The latter, like presidential contender Mitt Romney, got what they deserved.

Indeed, somewhat forgotten in yesterday's events was the fact that in 2005, opponents of marriage almost all voted against a Constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage, but at the same time create civil unions. There was no outcry when that amendment died at the Constitutional Convention that citizens of Massachusetts were being robbed of a chance to vote on marriage. Instead opponents of marriage equality helped engineer the defeat of that amendment, imagining that they could avoid a compromise and stop same-sex marriages without conceding civil unions. It's apparent now that they overreached. If they had put their energy behind the 2005 amendment, it may well have passed and gone to the voters in 2006. Imagine how different the 2006 election might have gone with a marriage ban on the ballot.

Again, if it was okay to stop the 2005 Travaglini-Lees compromise amendment from going to the voters, why is it suddenly an abuse of the democratic process to stop this year's attempt to restrict marriage rights? The answer is that it's not, and anyone who tries to frame what happened yesterday in that way is likely more upset that somewhere in Massachusetts some gay people are happy than they are concerned about the state of our democracy.

Legislature Defeats Marriage Ban

In a resounding victory for those who care equal marriage rights, the Massachusetts Legislature voted 151-45 against a Constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage. Today, 75.5% of the legislature voted in support of marriage equality. Everyone who complains about how the original decision was imposed by unelected judges should chew on that for a while. One-hundred-fifty-one legislators representing, by my count, part or all of 339 of Massachusetts' 351 cities and towns voiced their approval of same-sex marriage rights. In the face of those overwhelming numbers, how can anyone claim that marriage equality in Massachusetts is the result of the whims of just four judges? The legislature has had many attempts now to "fix" the Goodridge decision, and each time opponents of marriage could not muster the votes. There has been no backlash against marriage supporters in the legislature thus far, though there have been plenty of opportunities for the opposition to challenge them. To say that there has been no vote and that the people have had no say is pure fantasy.

The Boston Globe has the roll call vote and a list of the nine legislators who switched their votes:

• Rep. Christine Canavan (D-Brockton)
• Rep. Paul Kujawski (D-Webster)
• Rep. Paul Loscocco (R-Holliston)
• Rep. Robert Nyman (D-Hanover)
• Rep. Richard Ross (R-Wrentham)
• Rep. James Valee (D-Franklin)
• Rep. Brian Wallace (D-South Boston)
• Sen. Gale Candaras (D-Wilbraham)
• Sen. Michael Morrissey (D-Quincy)

Sen. Candaras has released a touching statement explaining her change of heart from this January when she was in the House and voted for the amendment. Here's a sample:

I know from listening to my constituents, since I first became Senator this year that this vote, the vote I take today, is the right vote for the people I serve. I have been most impressed by the number of individuals who have called me and asked me to change my vote because they have changed their minds. One grandmother told me she had changed her mind and wanted me to change my vote in case one of her grandchildren grew up to be gay or lesbian. She did not want any of her grandchildren to be denied the right to marry the person they love. This is exactly the legacy we will leave to generations beyond us, and the example we can set for the nation and, I daresay the world, which is certainly paying attention to what we do and say here today.

A great deal of energy and passion has been focused on this issue by both sides. It is my most ardent wish that, with the settlement of this matter, and as we all leave here today, all the energy and passion we have held on this issue be redirected towards solving the crises of child abuse, child neglect, domestic violence, homelessness, hunger, criminalization of the mentally ill and so many more social problems that require our urgent and thoughtful attention.

Many thanks to Senator Candaras, the rest of the legislators who switched their votes, and everyone who worked so hard to make today happen.

Too Close To Call

Today is the day. The Constitutional Convention that could decide the fate of marriage equality in the Commonwealth is today and both the Globe and the Herald are saying that the margin may be down to as little as a single vote. If anyone knows the real whip count, they're not talking, and some legislators are being very coy with the media regarding their final decision.

If you had asked me yesterday, I would have said that I expected today's vote to be postponed, because marriage supporters wouldn't have the numbers to defeat the amendment. Something in today's Boston Herald made me have second thoughts, though:

Some lawmakers said yesterday that they want the matter decided, because they are growing tired of the constant barrage of phone calls, letters and unannounced visits to their offices.

Let's leave aside for a minute how wrong it is for a legislator to tire of hearing from his constituents. If they really want the matter decided, they'll have to vote "no" on the amendment. If they vote "yes", it's all we'll talk about for another year and a half. If opponents succeed in banning marriage, then we'll have to go through this all over again with civil unions in 2009. A "no" vote ends this here with civil rights for all protected. Of course, I still don't expect a vote to be taken unless marriage advocates have the numbers it takes to win.

By the way, Joan, don't try to pin a loss on Governor Patrick. The one who has the real power to sway votes, and who is apparently not using all the weapons in his arsenal, is House Speaker Sal DiMasi. Furthermore, legislators are not "fulfilling their constitutional obligation to petitioners" by voting yes. They may have an obligation to bring the matter to a vote -- opinions differ -- but there is no constitutional guarantee that anything submitted by petitioners go to the voters. If the amendment is voted down on its merits there will be no question that legislators have fulfilled their constitutional obligation. Your co-columnist Scot Lehigh gets that, why don't you?

Update: Heck, even the Herald editorial board gets at least that! From today's editorial page:

[L]egislators who genuinely believe same-sex couples should not have the right to marry are, of course, well within their right to vote for this proposed constitutional amendment. But no one should hide behind the dodge that somehow this is all about democracy.

If this proposal can't win the support of 50 lawmakers, it has no business seeing the light of day again. And the issue of same-sex marriage - which has been the subject of 16 previous Constitutional Conventions dating back to 2002 - should be settled once and for all.

Update 2: Wayne Woodlief wins today's Quote of the Morning:

Marriage is a great institution. I love it. Let's allow all our citizens to keep the right to enjoy it, just like me and many of you.

Loving Day

For those who were unaware, today was Loving Day, the fortieth anniversary of the Supreme Court decision Loving v. Virginia that guaranteed the rights of interracial couples to marry in the United States. It's too late to do justice to that important event, so I'll just point out Laurel's wonderful post yesterday on BMG on the subject. Laurel quotes then Chief Justice Earl Warren:

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

In addition, I encourage everyone to check out this profile of the case from NPR. The story has some quotes from Bernard Cohen, an ACLU attorney who took the case. Here's what he said in front of the Supreme Court forty years ago:

"The Lovings have the right to go to sleep at night knowing that if should they not wake in the morning, their children would have the right to inherit from them. They have the right to be secure in knowing that, if they go to sleep and do not wake in the morning, that one of them, a survivor of them, has the right to Social Security benefits. All of these are denied to them, and they will not be denied to them if the whole anti-miscegenistic scheme of Virginia... [is] found unconstitutional."

I also believe that same-sex couples also deserve those same rights and that those rights are not something that should be in danger of being taken away by a majority vote. I hope that a 3/4 majority of legislators feel the same way at Thursday's Constitutional Convention, or failing that, their vote can be postponed until they can be convinced that marriage equality should be protected in Massachusetts.

Is DiMasi Playing Hardball?

Two articles now have suggested that this week's possible vote on the marriage ban amendment are test of House Speaker Sal DiMasi's political power, first David Bernstein's in the Boston Phoenix and this morning, Frank Phillips' in the Boston Globe. Neither of them gives any indication of what sort of pressure DiMasi is applying. Is this because DiMasi doesn't want it to be known that he's threatening members' chairmanships and committee assignments, or because he's not applying those sorts of hardball tactics his predecessor was known for? Are those options even within his power at this point? Anyone have an answer?

Sunday Night Links

We had a house full of company this weekend, and so this is the first chance I've gotten to post anything since Friday, and I apologize for the light content this week. Of course, every time I go a few days without posting, I have to clear off my desktop with another link dump.

• State Senator Jarrett Barrios (D-Cambridge) has submitted his resignation letter and the dates for the special election have been set. The primary will be on Sept. 11th and the general election will be Oct. 9th. So no one has officially announced their candidacy, but many people have expressed interest. Look for more on this race as the summer progresses.
• If you still think that opponents of marriage equality have nothing in common with those that were against interracial marriage last century, please read this and see if it changes your mind.
• Last week Boston Mayor Tom Menino delivered a letter signed by 260 restauranteurs in support of the proposal to allow cities and towns to raise their own meals tax. The mayor has been getting unlikely support from the Boston restaurant owners, telling them that the money the city gets from the meals tax would go toward helping reduce the property tax.
• Governor Deval Patrick told a tourism group this past week that, if they want to encourage tourism, they should make sure the state promotes a welcoming attitude. With a house full of vistors this weekend, I say the easiest way to do this is to put up street signs at intersections that show the names of both streets. I've always thought that our failure to do this in Massachusetts was our way of saying, "if you don't know where you are, you don't belong here."
• David Bernstein has an interesting article in this week's Boston Phoenix on the fight to keep the anti-marriage ballot question off the ballot. What does it say, he asks, if the most powerful people on Beacon Hill -- the Governor, the Senate President, the Speaker of the House, and the Attorney General -- all want something, but can't get it accomplished? Why don't they "have the juice?" The article also gives as much detail as anyone outside Beacon Hill has on the efforts to sway legislators into voting against the ban, and concludes wondering where former Governor Mitt Romney has been.
• In Mississippi, almost every 4th grader can read, but in Massachusetts only half can. Why? Because some states are gaming the No Child Left Behind tests, a study found last week. Massachusetts, it turns out, is not one of them. We have one of the smallest gaps between state assessments and national tests.
• Last week, lawmakers held a hearing to have the state bail the MBTA out of $2.9 billion of it's $5.1 billion debt. That of course, led to cries that we shouldn't be giving state money to the T until it gets its own fiscal house in order and we can be sure that that money wouldn't be wasted. The problem is that even if you eliminated all of the T's mismanagement and waste, of which there is apparently no shortage, the T would still be in debt -- the T pays as much in debt service as it actually collects in fares. You could shut down all the trains completely, but the T would still have to find some way to pay off its obligations. Is the best way to handle the situation to let the state give the agency a fresh start? I'm not sure, but it's clear that the way we fund the T is broken, and that's one big reason why we're stuck with the system that seemingly keeps getting worse and more expensive every year.

Letter to Our State Rep

Earlier today, my wife and I sent the following letter to our state representative:

Representative Rachel Kaprielian
Room 479
State House
Boston, MA 02133

Dear Rachel,

During last month's Democratic Convention, several people asked Steve to sign his name to a post card asking you to support marriage equality and vote against the marriage ban at the upcoming Constitutional Convention. We figured that we know you well enough to be uncomfortable sending you words someone else had written.

We are writing to both thank you for your previous support of marriage equality and to encourage you to continue and redouble your efforts to change the votes needed to keep the marriage ban off of the 2008 ballot. If there are not enough votes to defeat the ban, we ask you to work to stop it in any other way available to you.

This is an issue that is particularly important to us, as a couple in an interracial marriage. There was a time not too long ago when in many states it would have been illegal for the two of us to marry. Opponents of interracial marriage then made many of the same arguments that opponents of marriage equality make today. They claimed that these unions were "unnatural" and violated God’s laws, and that children in such families would have psychological problems. Then, as now, these arguments were mostly justifications for prejudice.

Massachusetts was at the forefront of the movement to allow couples like us to marry, repealing our anti-miscegenation laws in 1843, more than a century ahead of the rest of the country. Yet these laws were not repealed by popular vote, but by a group of abolitionists who pressured the legislature to do the right thing. Once again, members of the legislature should act to keep marriage protected for all couples who want it.

On June 12th, forty years will have passed since the Supreme Court, in Loving v. Virginia, guaranteed the rights of interracial couples to marry. Please do not allow Massachusetts to celebrate that anniversary by taking steps toward limiting marriage rights.

Again, thank you for your unwavering support on this issue,


[sco & Mrs. sco]

Donato Defends Anti-Marriage Stance

Representative Paul Donato (D-Medford) has a dozen reasons justifying his vote in favor of the anti-marriage amendment at this and last year's Constitutional Convention. He displayed all of them in a meeting with Medford High School students last week. He has surveys, he said, proving to him that people in his district don't want it. He supports of various other equal rights laws including civil unions. Besides, he says, if it passes, the students will always have a chance to overturn it sometime in the future. The biggest reason, though, was that he had to vote yes in order to protect democracy. From the Medford Transcript:

"First of all, I’m not a homophobe, I’ve had the opportunity to be friends with many gay individuals," Donato said. "But this is a government issue and the question isn’t gay marriage, but do people have the right to change the constitution."

Of course, in saying this, Donato seems to be abdicating his own role in the process to change the Constitution, as if he's a rubber stamp, powerless to block amendments regardless of what he thinks of them. That, of course, ignores the fact that Donato seemed to have absolutely no problem denying the people the "right" to vote on the Health Care amendment, by voting to adjourn before that vote was taken at the last ConCon. If he believes so strongly that people have "the right to change the constitution" why did he vote down that amendment? The end of the article tells us exactly why:

"At this point in my life, I just believe that marriage exists between a man and a woman," Donato said.

Fine. If that's why you're voting against the amendment, then just say that. Don't try to hide your rationale by inventing elaborate justifications for your position, and don't pretend that you're not voting based on your personal beliefs rather than some imagined defense of the democratic process -- particularly when your previous actions show otherwise.

His most hilarious comment, in my opinion, was when he claimed that if the SJC had ruled the opposite way, marriage equality advocates would have the opposite opinion -- they'd be asking for a vote on a marriage amendment. Never mind that marriage advocates would not have needed a Constitutional amendment; had the opposite happened, they'd only need the legislature to pass a law allowing same-sex unions. Donato expects us to believe, despite what he says above, that he would not also have the opposite opinion in his imaginary scenario.

(Via Bay Windows)

New Yorkers Get Taste of Marriage Equality

Yesterday, on the eve of the third anniversary of marriage equality here in Massachusetts, the New York Times reported that those rights had been extended to a small group of New York couples. Anyone from New York who was married in a small window of time between when same-sex marriage was legalized in Massachusetts and a New York court ruling forbidding those marriages is legally married as far as Massachusetts is concerned. After that New York ruling banned same-sex marriage, our infamous "1913 law" here in Massachusetts -- which prevents the state from recognizing marriages that would not be legal in the home state of the couple to be wed -- kicked in and Empire State couples were legally excluded. Here's how the Times described the process:

The New York decision [against marriage equality] had been issued on July 6, 2006, more than two years after same-sex marriage became legal in Massachusetts. What about those New York couples who had married in Massachusetts before July 2006?

"Those couples should be able to be legally married," said Michele Granda, a lawyer for Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, who represented the plaintiffs.

It turned out that the Massachusetts attorney general's office, the defendant in the lawsuit, did not object to that interpretation. In an interview Tuesday, Attorney General Martha Coakley said, "We agreed that for the period between May 17, 2004, when same-sex marriage was legalized, to July 6, 2006, marriages of couples from New York are fully valid and did not and do not violate our general laws."

Coakley was also quoted in today's Boston Globe as saying "It's an appropriate resolution, and I think it affects a relatively small and discrete number of people." I can't help but wonder whether the former Attorney General, Tom Reilly, would have felt the same way given his vigorous defense of the 1913 law. While he eventually came around and supported marriage equality in Massachusetts, he was against exporting it. Since New York has said it will not challenge the status of the couples, I'd like to think that Reilly would have done the same as his successor.

Speaking of Martha Coakley, the Boston Phoenix's David Bernstein has a long profile of her in this week's issue.

Fire Trucks vs Marriage Equality

Yesterday was the first session of the Constitutional Convention, and while all that happened was to recess, we now know that the next date will be June 14th. There's no guarantee that there will be a vote on the proposed marriage ban on that date, but supporters and opponents are gearing up just in case. Today's Boston Globe had a short article on this, and I found something I'd been waiting to see:

Supporters of same-sex marriage said privately that they believe that legislative leaders will have an easier time persuading some lawmakers to switch their votes during the give-and-take of June budget negotiations, when lawmakers traditionally seek money for pet projects.

There are enough supporters of marriage equality in the legislature to kill every pet project of the fifty-plus members who would advance the ban to the ballot. I am all for them doing so. Make them choose between bringing home that new library or skating rink or fire truck and voting to put an end to something that really hasn't changed life in the Commonwealth for most people one bit. Legislators are forgiven a variety of sins if they bring money to their district, or if they can point to something and say "without me, that wouldn't exist." While the marriage vote may be the most visible and controversial one of many of their careers, I have to imagine that there are at least eight legislators who would change their votes if it meant that they could ensure support for local projects.

Update: Meanwhile, the Boston Herald has its own article, which notes that Governor Deval Patrick may be trading jobs in the administration for votes against the marriage ban. Patrick's people deny this, and frankly I think it's a little silly. He should be offering marriage opponents jobs anyway, if only to get them out of the legislature. His administration has already triggered two special elections. If he can get these legislators to resign, it's just as good as switching their vote.

Pro-Marriage Forces Broaden Strategy

Today's Boston Globe has an article describing how proponents of marriage equality are seeking help from the Democratic National Committee to prevent a marriage ban from reaching the ballot in 2008. Their argument is that a 2008 fight in Massachusetts for marriage rights will drain resources from the presidential election. Since Massachusetts is a big Democratic donor state -- both in terms of money and activists -- it makes sense that the national party might not want us distracted by a local fight. The DNC, for its part, has not decided whether to get involved at this point. They have to know that should they offer any assistance, it will wind up on pamphlets and mailings sent to voters in states where gay marriage is an attractive wedge issue for Republicans.

Now, I'm not sure myself what sort of incentives the DNC could offer that might cause a legislator to switch their vote. Most legislators regularly run unopposed, so it's unlikely that they need campaign funds so badly they'd trade them for cash. Not only that, but most national-level Democratic candidates are against marriage equality, and rather favor civil unions if anything, so it seems to me that they can't even leverage their big names. Personally, I'd like to see the 142 members in favor of equal marriage rights band together and strip all of the budget earmarks from the others. I wonder what those legislators would pick if they had to choose between bringing the marriage fight to the ballot or bringing home the bacon to their district. Anyway, it certainly does not hurt to ask the national party for some consideration, and as Mass. Liberal points out it's an encouraging sign that marriage proponents are broadening their strategy.

Also in the article, Kris Mineau of the anti-marriage Massachusetts Family Institute scoffed at the effort by his opponents to bring in help fromthe national committee saying, "we consider this to be a Commonwealth issue that percolates up from the grass roots." That struck me as extremely disingenuous given how much money and manpower the forces opposed to marriage equality have already accepted from out-of-state. Since the Mass. Family Institute is a non-profit, they do not have to disclose their donors, but VoteOnMarriage.org which is working in concert with MFI and heavily supported by them, is a ballot question committee, and they are subject to campaign finance disclosure rules. According to campaign finance records, VoteOnMarriage.org has accepted nearly $75,000 from James Dobson's Colorado-based Focus on the Family and $50,000 from Ohio-based Citizens for Community Values, which is affiliated with Dobson's group. Now, it's fine if they want to take Dobson's money, but don't lecture us about how local you are when you're taking six figures from one out-of-state source.

De-Romnefying Massachusetts

Today's quote of the day comes from former Governor Mitt Romney's communications director, Eric Fehrnstrom on the news that current Governor Deval Patrick is going to allow 26 out-of-state same-sex marriages to be entered into the state's vital records.

"Now that Governor Romney is out of office, we are seeing an erosion of the previously strong defense of traditional marriage coming out of the executive branch."

And thank goodness for that.

This move comes after Governor Patrick reversed two other Romney era policies, first reversing Romney's restrictions on stem cell research, and then giving the go-ahead to Cape Wind. Part of me wonders whether Patrick would have kept more of the goodwill he earned shortly after the election if these decisions had been made in January. Massachusetts voters wanted a change of course and the media wanted something to talk about. Perhaps if the media narrative would have been about undoing Romney's legacy and not about drapes and cars and helicopters.

Notes From the MassEquality Meeting in Arlington

On Tuesday, I attended a MassEquality organizing forum in Arlington. The purpose of the meeting was to give us an idea of where things stood in the legislature regarding the anti-marriage Constitutional amendment and how we could help fight it. Bay Windows was also there, and they have a write-up about the meeting. The Bay Windows article focuses mainly on an awkward exchange between new state Rep. Will Brownsberger (D-Belmont) and an audience member about the constitutionality of killing the gay marriage ban procedurally. Reps Carl Sciortino (D-Somerville) and Mike Festa (D-Melrose) explained that thanks to the SJC ruling, they did not have the votes to kill the amendment by adjourning, and they knew it. Festa in particular defended the decision to not take the vote to adjourn since he didn't want to risk alienating any allies by forcing a tough vote that was sure to lose.

Along those lines, though, one thing that was mentioned was that there was too much focus lately on tactics and the procedural. The conversation statewide had turned away from the rights at stake. As such, a lot of people stayed home. They thought, particularly after the Con Con adjourned in November, that it was "in the bag" -- in the words of Rep. Sciortino. Now, of course, there's just one last chance to keep this from getting on the ballot. The folks from MassEquality gave some steps that supporters should take. The first, of course, was to call your legislators, no matter how they voted. Not only that, but encourage your friends and family to do the same, particularly if they live in the district of someone who voted in favor of the ban. They also suggested that people share their stories either as letters to the editor in the local paper or through their website. They also are always looking for volunteers.

Please check out the report from a similar meeting in Hingham from Below Boston.

Could Hedlund Switch on Marriage?

I really dropped the ball on this one. Several of the local papers in state Senator Bob Hedlund's (R-Weymouth) district including Hingham, Norwell, Cohasset, and Scituate carried an interview with the Senator last Friday. For some reason, this meant that the article appeared no less than 100 times in my news reader. I neglected to read it until today, however, and was surprised to find this passage buried at the end. (emphasis added)

[Hedlund] says he is 'tormented' about the gay marriage issue. Hedlund voted to put the question of amending the state Constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman before the voters. However, he is undecided on how he will vote in the second Constitutional Convention which is required to put the question on the ballot in 2008.

"I've met a lot of good people on both sides of the issue, who have weighed in quite strongly," he says.

Now, it may be that Hedlund has, in fact, already made up his mind and is just trying to put off the consequence of that decision (one way or another) until the next ConCon. Taking him at his word, however, it might be helpful for supporters of marriage equality who live in his district to write or call his office (617-722-1646) and let him know that they'd appreciate his support.

Who Has Money?

Yesterday, I asked who of the 62 legislators that voted in favor of banning same-sex marriage might be persuaded to switch their vote in the next Constitutional Convention. I'm not sure that anyone can answer that question now, so I sought out the answer to a different one. Who has the cash on hand to fend off a serious challenge and who would need to catch up on their fund raising? I checked the latest numbers from the Office of Campaign and Political Finance, which had the cash-on-hand for all the legislators as of about October 20th, 2006. This is before the last election, but I figure that this is a reasonable number to use until the year-end numbers come out (I believe they are due later this month). Since most of the legislators who voted against marriage equality were unopposed, it's reasonable to assume that they did not spend very much or raise very much between October and the November election.

This list differs from yesterday's in that it includes only members of the 2007-2008 General Court who voted yesterday for the amendment or are new and have indicated that they would vote for the amendment. Also, to figure out who might be vulnerable, I checked the year they were first elected to the body they currently serve in. In cases where the legislator had a gap in their service, I used the most recent election where they were not an incumbent. In addition, I added the margin of victory in both the 2006 primary and general elections, with "U" for unopposed.

Here's the new table:

Legislator	Elected	'06 Pri	'06 Gen	Oct. $$
Rep. Geraldo Alicea (D-Charlton)	2006	31%	55%	$941.32
Rep. William G. Greene Jr. (D-Billerica)	1992	U	U	$1,164.48
Rep. Brian P. Wallace (D-South Boston)	2002	U	U	$1,533.20
Rep. Anthony J. Verga (D-Gloucester)	1994	U	U	$2,723.79
Rep. Paul C. Casey (D-Winchester)	1988	U	U	$3,696.17
Rep. Fred "Jay" Barrows (R-Mansfield)	2006	U	51%	$4,278.21
Rep. Robert Correia (D-Fall River)	1976	69%	87%	$4,396.98
Rep. Paul K. Frost (R-Auburn)	1996	U	U	$5,583.03
Rep. William Lantigua (D-Lawrence)	2002	U	80%	$5,975.41
Sen. Richard T. Moore (D-Uxbridge)	1996	U	U	$6,112.28
Rep. Robert J. Nyman (D-Hanover)	1998	U	63%	$6,387.70
Rep. Elizabeth A. Poirier (R-North Attleboro)	1998	U	U	$6,395.47
Rep. Michael F. Rush (D-West Roxbury)	2002	U	U	$6,561.22
Rep. Walter F. Timilty (D-Milton)	1998	U	U	$6,572.05
Rep. Colleen M. Garry (D-Dracut)	1994	U	U	$7,041.13
Sen. Gale D. Candaras (D-Wilbraham)	2006	46%	60%	$7,586.19
Rep. Sean Curran (D-Springfield)	2004	U	77%	$7,874.21
Rep. David L. Flynn (D-Bridgewater)	1998	U	U	$8,310.83
Rep. Geraldine Creedon (D-Brockton)	1994	U	U	$9,547.62
Rep. Linda Campbell (D-Methuen)	2006	32%	61%	$10,263.79
Rep. Viriato Manuel deMacedo (R-Plymouth)	1998	U	U	$12,979.15
Rep. Paul Kujawski (D-Webster)	1994	62%	U	$12,989.25
Rep. Christine E. Canavan (D-Brockton)	1992	U	U	$13,395.37
Rep. Daniel K. Webster (R-Hanson)	2002	U	52%	$14,486.22
Rep. George N. Peterson Jr. (R-Grafton)	1994	U	U	$14,565.76
Rep. Michael F. Kane (D-Holyoke)	2000	U	U	$16,076.96
Rep. Joyce A. Spiliotis (D-Peabody)	2002	53%	69%	$16,415.46
Rep. Donald F. Humason Jr. (R-Westfield)	2002	U	U	$18,102.14
Rep. Todd Smola (R-Palmer)	2004	U	U	$18,878.60
Rep. Richard Ross (R-Wrentham)	2004	U	U	$21,683.43
Rep. John A. Lepper (R-Attleboro)	1994	U	54%	$22,679.75
Rep. Jeffrey D. Perry (R-Sandwich)	2002	U	U	$23,915.91
Rep. David M. Nangle (D-Lowell)	1998	U	U	$27,448.52
Rep. Susan W. Gifford (R-Wareham)	2002	U	57%	$27,783.67
Rep.