Constitutional Convention (Monday, March 29, 2004)
«Previous Page · 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 · Next Page»
CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION:
Rep. Fagan was recognized. He said I along with several of my colleagues were unable to speak on the last question. I know it was through inadvertence. I want to compliment you and I certainly want to compliment many of my colleagues. I’m going to take this opportunity to explain to you what is going on. I believe what we’re really talking about is whether the people of our districts have the right to vote on this issue. I don’t believe we should change the constitution. But I do believe the people should have the chance to vote on this question. A number of people who got up and voted for the last amendment are going to get up now and vote against putting anything on the ballot. And I respect that. But let’s not be misled about what their point was. The whole question was about putting something on the ballot that was so screwed up that no one would have known what they were voting for. You mark how many people who stood up and voted for the last amendment, and then voted against it this time. If you want to see what game was played, that will be the surest mark. This amendment stinks, but at least it allows the people some opportunity to vote. But I suggest you look and see who changed their vote. It’s beautiful, it’s the Lenten season. I want to see who changes their position now as we go forward in the Lenten season. The people who want to change this constitution - they’re not going to be stopped by this action today. They’re going to be moved by it. And they’re going to come back here next year with sufficient signatures to put their question on the ballot. And when that comes back here it will be punitive, it will be well funded and it will come through here like a hurricane. I believe strongly that question should have been put on the ballot. They will be back here next year with a question requiring only 25 percent support. I call once again on all you. Watch for this last vote. Watch for the Judaists who change their vote.Rep. Bosley said I’m not voting for this next amendment. The reason I’m not doing that is because every vote is a choice. You have different choices to make. The first choice was to go for other amendments, some of which I felt were worse than this one. Every vote is a different choice. Now for a gentleman to get up her and talk about Judaists and the Lenten season is just not where this direction should be going. I don’t think it’s a Judas’ choice. All we can do is vote on this matter right now. I am going to not put anything in the Constitution.Sen. Pacheco said I urge your support for this amendment. I urge you to put this on the ballot. We never had an opportunity to vote on any of these questions because of parliamentary procedures. I have voted for every opportunity in the convention to allow citizens to vote on this question. The question this time is very similar – marriage one man and one woman, and civil unions, yes. And we will ask the citizens if they agree. By sending this to the next convention, we are not taking final action. We can send this on, listen to our constituents and if we are fortunate to be here when the final vote comes up, we can vote for or against the question that time. If I am here, I will vote yes then as I will now. It may not be the exact up or down question that the far left or the far right wants, but it is far from confusing. This creates civil unions to deal with the all the issues we have heard about: insurance, health care, estates. So I urge that we at least be consistent. I agree with Rep. Fagan, that if we have brought this question to this point in time, we all know a yes vote send this along to the next convention and then to the people. A no vote guarantees that the people will not have a say on this question. The framers of the Constitution set this process up to amend the Constitution. I hope this convention will say yes this question.
Rep. Jones called for a Republican caucus until
RECESSES: Convention recessed at
Sen. Travaglini said we have already begun debating this question and that request is not timely.
«Previous Page · 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 · Next Page»