We are approaching it wrong

A friend of mine, after having been a very successful member of the Board of Selectmen in a town in which I had lived by putting the best interests of the towns people over any personal gain, was encouraged not only by friends and party to run for the state legislature, but by people in the other political party as well. He agreed to run, but made it clear that he would serve for only ten years or until not being reelected, whichever came first, so that he would not become a career politician.

During his ten years of service he began each session by proposing a bill that would establish that any student who graduated from a Massachusetts high school and attended an in state college or university would pay the instate tuition so long as he or she maintained the required grade point average that would be established. There were no qualifiers applied to the students other than they lived in the state and graduated from high school.

In spite of the expressed support he received from the other members of the legislature, this bill either never made it out of committee or was killed on the floor.

On my friend’s last day of his final session of the legislature, another representative rose and, although my friend had proposed his bill at the beginning of the session as he had done each previous one,  proposed his bill. One representative spoke in opposition and declared that he was sick and tired of this bill coming up each session and was really annoyed that it did.

My friend was recognized to speak and brought up the obvious. If the members of the legislature had put the students over their desire to please their base and get reelected, but, rather, had voted for this bill in the past, then his respected fellow legislator would not have had to hear it brought up each session.

In spite of it being continually supported in principle, not wanting to lose a possible reelection  for supporting a bill that might reduce their support of their base, the legislators put their own desire to get reelected above what would be best for students and a bill they in principle supported.

This desire for reelection by favoring self interest over the people could be used in another situation, one that would actually benefit the people.

There is a Massachusetts law which was passed in 1843 and is still on the books. It states:

 

“(a) All persons within the commonwealth, regardless of sex, race, color, creed or national origin, shall have, except as is otherwise provided or permitted by law, the same rights enjoyed by white male citizens, to make and enforce contracts, to inherit, purchase, to lease, sell, hold and convey real and personal property, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other. General laws: Part 1:Title XV: Section 102.

It is important to note two things.

First, the law refers to “All persons within the commonwealth”. It does not say citizens, nor does it even say “legal residents”. It does say all with no qualifiers.

Second, it specifically states how this equal treatment can be removed, “except as is otherwise provided or permitted by law”.

 This second part would seem to say that if any person or group within the commonwealth were to not have equality, a law needs to be passed stating who that person or group is.

In proposing Sanctuary City and Safe Communities ordinances, it is my personal opinion, the wrong approach is being used.
You may also opt for online driver ed as they are cost viagra online have a peek at these guys cheaper and time friendly. cialis without prescription The lobes that are situated either side of the windpipe are joined by a tissue called the isthmus. The accompanying conditions were satisfied in the clinical investigations of PE: An intravaginal ejaculatory dormancy time (IELT) of <2 min; tireless or repetitive discharge with negligible sexual incitement other order generic viagra in the recent past, on, or not long after sexual penetration. 5mg cialis price The most ideal route for you to figure out whether you are taking this prescription) Other drugs or medicines for erectile brokenness (ED).
By proposing laws that add people to the protected class list, it allows those who oppose such actions the opportunity to voice their bigotry toward groups, whether based on fact or simple assumption, and gives the opportunity to spread this bigotry in the light of day with the possibility of bringing others to it or encouraging those who have been quiet to come forward.

The actual issue can be high jacked by those who will do what it takes to prevent passage.

In the last presidential election we saw that unsupported bigotry is a powerful tool albeit exercised by a minority, but done in the proper places can override the majority and give us a president with the minority of votes because of the existence of the electoral college.

In preventing an inclusive law, all manner of falsehoods can be promoted by people with authority, and this could kill such a bill

Not all people who voted for Trump were bigots, but their numbers were added to those who are.

Fighting to add people to equality laws is an uphill battle, and in this case totally unnecessary.

The burden needs to be placed on the bigots to express their opinions for the judgment of the majority population.

In my opinion rather than assume that people have to be added to the list of people endowed with equality by our creator and our state law, according to this 1843 law, a law must be passed that lists those whose equality we now choose to negate.

Either by vote of the legislature or the people, a law must be written that states that as of a certain date the “following people” will no longer be considered equal in the commonwealth, and their inclusion and any acceptance will require future approval.

If legislators are concerned about reelection, it would seem a very difficult proposition to pass a law removing people’s equality and listing who they are when many in the state are descendants of those minorities who were treated as less than the ruling population in the past in violation of that law that has too often been conveniently ignored.

Anyone who has recently, or whose families have a historic link to those who were not allowed entry into certain places, were denied their rights to make and enforce contracts, to inherit, purchase, to lease, sell, hold and convey real and personal property, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property, or when employment should have been available were told they need not apply may have difficulty being the people who decide who will receive the treatment that in their present or historical treatment they find abhorrent.

Transgender people should never have had to fight to have laws enacted to bestow upon them equality, a situation that allowed people to fixate on restrooms, because they are “persons within the commonwealth”, but those who have a prejudice against them should have been forced to lay bare all their prejudices in proposing and then passing a law that named them and the rights they should lose.

When it comes to passing ordinances or legislation declaring parts or all of the state as Sanctuary Cities or Safe Communities, there is no need as that was done in 1843.

The burden should be placed where it belongs, on those who have traditionally broken that law and now desire to make their illegality retroactively legal, and their prejudice needs to be laid bare if things are to change.

We have been approaching this ass backward.

Leave a Reply