Though I am in the process of interviewing each of the Democratic candidates for the open state rep seat, the weekly questions still give the four hopefuls a chance to air their views in detail on specific policy areas. It also gives the constituents, me included, a way to highlight our concerns and offer our points of view on issues. This weeks topics:With the Supreme Court firmly in the hands of conservatives, it's not unrealistic to imagine that Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that legalized abortion is the US, could be overturned soon. That would not make abortion illegal, but rather it would leave the decision to individual states. Are you pro-choice or anti-abortion? How would you cast your vote in the legislature on this delicate and divisive issue?
Another polarizing issue nationally is same-sex marriage. Massachusetts is the only state that allows same-sex couples to marry. Do you believe that this is sound policy or not? Would you vote to repeal same-sex marriage or keep it as is? Would you be in favor of letting the voters decide the issue via ballot question? Would you allow out-of-state gay couples to marry in Massachusetts?
12 comments:
I am a pro-choice candidate. As a woman, I would never have an abortion, but I don't feel it is my right to tell another woman what to do about her own pregnancy.
My own obstetrician asked me what I would do if testing showed that a child I was carrying would be born with severe physical or mental challenges. In a shared decision, my husband and I felt that the knowledge would give us time to prepare to put in place services to help the child and our family, but that we would never elect to abort. God was good to us and we have three beautiful, healthy children, but we would have welcomed any child of ours into the world and given that child love and nurturing, even if presented with a difficult set of developmental challenges.
Each woman and couple has the right to make this weighty decision for themselves. If Roe v Wade was overturned, I would continue to advocate a pro-choice stance.
Regarding same-sex marriage, the following is the text of my response to The Hubster on this issue:
"On a personal level it makes me uncomfortable, and I told Mass Alliance this in my three telephone interviews with them. It does make me uncomfortable, but it’s the law of the land. I may not like the process by which it arrived at the point that it is now, but it’s the law of the land and we have to respect that. That being said, it’s my honest feeling that it should have gone on the ballot because I am a firm believer in a process. The process was that so many individuals went out and gathered signatures, went through the correct channels for the voters and it didn’t happen that way. And that’s not the first time that happened. Look at the rollback at the percentage of the taxes, and that’s disturbing to me. We have these instruments at our disposal to try to impact the legislative process, and that’s our right to do that, yet when a small group of individuals says, “We’re not going to let that happen,” that’s when there is tension between the legislature and the citizenry. But it’s over, it’s done, it’s the law, and by all accounts it hasn’t affected my life at all, and I don’t think it’s affected my friends lives. I hope in situations where citizens undertake the process in the future, they won’t be ignored."
Jim, thank you for allowing me the opportunity to speak to the voters through your forum.
Sincerely,
Mary Berninger
Candidate for State Representative
I am pro-choice. I support comprehensive sexual education programs in our schools that discuss abstinence and contraception. It is proven that comprehensive sexual education classes reduces the onset of sexual activity and increases the use of condoms and contraceptives among young people.
I support equal marriage rights for same-sex couples. I do not think that peoples' rights should be put to a popular vote. I would allow out-of-state gay couples to marry in Massachusetts.
Thank you. I hope that I can count on your vote this September 25th.
Gloribell Mota,
Candidate for State Representative
Its interesting that only the two women candidates chose to answer these questions. Like the East Boston times said, its about personality,not about issues.
That's not a good reflection on Eastie that this election is being decided on personality.
Gloribell, you don't think people's rights should be put to a vote even if the law says it should? As a Catholic, I am against gay marriage. I as going to vote for you, not now. Mary is by far the best candidate.
Mary, I don't agree with all your stances but I do agree with most of them.
To the comments at 3:32:
The law says that an issue -- such as same-sex marriage -- goes before the voters if the legislature approves it in consecutive Constitutional Conventions. They didn't, and so the rules were followed.
What would have happened if the rights of black citizens were put to a referendum in Mississippi, Georgia, Alabama and other Southern states in the early to mid-1960s? They would have been rejected. It took action by the courts and the Congress to address those egregious violations of civil rights.
When it comes to such rights, it is unfortunate, but people don't always think in the most rationale terms. For example, you said that you are against gay marriage because you are Catholic, rather than provide a logical argument to support your view.
You have a right to your beliefs, but church dogma needs to be kept out of public policy.
Jimbo, I am not by any means attacking you but what hppens next year when a man wants to marry his dog. What happens when a man wants to marry his uncle? (Right now Jimbo believe it or not, a man can marry his uncle) Check the law yourself. It says a man can not marry his aunt but says nothing bout his uncle.
I think that it's easy to construct a hyperbole that makes any statement seem ridiculous. I think that we'd all agree that no court or law is sanctioning a person being married to a dog (though some primatologists are making a case that chimpanzees deserve human rights, so I am not saying that your point is totally without merit).
With regards to the uniting of relatives in matrimony, Massachusetts law says:
"Chapter 207: Section 1. Marriage of man to certain relatives.
Section 1. No man shall marry his mother, grandmother, daughter, granddaughter, sister, stepmother, grandfather's wife, grandson's wife, wife's mother, wife's grandmother, wife's daughter, wife's granddaughter, brother's daughter, sister's daughter, father's sister or mother's sister.
Chapter 207: Section 2. Marriage of woman to certain relatives.
Section 2. No woman shall marry her father, grandfather, son, grandson, brother, stepfather, grandmother's husband, daughter's husband, granddaughter's husband, husband's grandfather, husband's son, husband's grandson, brother's son, sister's son, father's brother or mother's brother.
Why do you care if someone marries their uncle? If they are both adults, they pay their taxes and put their trash out in a barrel, I couldn't care less how they were related or whether they were legally allowed to file their taxes jointly.
And I know quite a few people who have a more meaningful relationship with their dog than their spouse. However, given that marriage is a legally binding contract and you have to be legally competent to sign a contract, the potential for marriage between a man and his dog is probably not an issue.
It is comments like those made by Anonymous at 4:27 that make me wonder about our public education system. Did you pass high school? Did they not teach you any form of logic and reason?
To anonymous who wrote at 5:31.
Who cares if a man marries his uncle? Any reasonable person would care. For your info, I did graduate. Do you have any common sense? I was trying to m ake a point and Jimbo looked up athe law and confirmed what I said. A man can marry his uncle. Now that I think of it he can even marry his brother. But I bet you don't have a problem with that either.
I wonder if Mary believes that "choice" should be voted upon also. Even tho abortion makes some people uncomfortable, and countless petitions have been signed - should this go to a popular vote?
Gay people pay the same taxes and breath the air, amoung other things. We are all created equal.
Some things should not be left to the masses - thankfully both a woman's right to choice and gay marriage were not.
Do people really think that 50 years from now gay people will still be viewed in the same light? Hello people things change - and fortunately the world, even the same world of East Boston is expanding it's view.
Anonymous who wote at 12:24:
I agree with you that in 50 years things won't be viewed in the same light.
Things will be much much worse. America is losing its moral values!
I back Mary 100%.
Post a Comment