Is there any right you guys are willing to wiggle out of until next legislative session?

I think she should veto a line that was set to come active at a later date and then direct the legislature to add it back next session. Quite a few were listed with an active date of 2010. Eh? Eh? You guys thinkin' what I'm thinkin'?

With all major papers and most news outlets against this referendum and most religious groups opposed to doing it now, this really should be nipped.

So let me get this straight...the Governor is subverting the democratic process of her opponents delaying the signing of the bill. Political corruption at it's finest.

i don't care how it's done, progress is progress. i live in MA and i'm always glad to see other states catching on and realizing that god hasn't caused any earthquakes to drop lovely ptown and the rest of us into the ocean. all our massholes are doing just fine, even the homophobes. so end the bs and join our merry bandwagon already!

When religious groups can pump millions of dollars into a state to support their views (Mormon on Prop 8), having every little advantage we can get helps.

3 Bingo, Dingo. I don't support this referendum but the Governor's conduct is appalling.

I'm not a big fan of the tactic on its face, but I also don't care for holding the moral high ground while our opponents lie, cheat, and steal their way to advancing their causes. I'd rather take advantage of technicalities than lose.
And a referendum would be subverting the democratic process. 200,000 paid-for signatures would delay a measure that has broad public support.

@3 @9. But it is the *responsibility* of any elected official to know what the rules of procedure are and to use them to their benefit; that's been a cornerstone of Anglo-Saxon-style politicking for 600 years. It's no different than how presidential campaigns are run to maximize electoral votes (sometimes winning without a majority of the popular vote) or Republicans *or* Democrats in control of a house of any legislature using the cloture rule to stall or prevent a measure from coming up for a vote, or creationists/intelligent-designists carefully picking certain cases over other cases to appeal and appeal to the Supreme Court in an attempt to get a ruling in their favor.

Politics is not kindergarten. Gregoire's tack represents exactly the savvy and expertise and knowledge of the system that any senior official should demonstrate, and I'm glad it's a Democrat exhibiting this talent for once instead of a Republican.

Let the first Republican who hasn't applauded or used a delay tactic to his/her advantage cast the first stone.

Are we seriously arguing about this?

I love to hear wingers complain that a politician is somehow subverting the law by following it.

What was the saying? Those who like sausages and law should never watch either being made? Something like that.

Seriously, I love it when smart politicians use the rules to fuck with the opposition. Even when they're evil geniuses like Rove or just evil bureaucrats like Trent Lott, it's kind of fun to watch the process happening, even though it's frustrating when your side can't come up with an effective counterplay. So #3 and #9, I feel your pain... and I laugh at it.

Ha.

I'd like to see it go to a vote because I think the gay side would win. Check out Nate Silver's model, which uses full marriage as the standard, not 'domestic partnerships'.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/04/w…

I would have loved to see the fundies go even more backrupt over this one. Now we'll just have to listen to them whine about tyranny and persecution.

What she's doing isn't illegal, but is it ethical? It seems like she's obstructing democracy. But then, I agree with her ends... Hooray?

Welcome to the political process, children. This is how it works, and politicians from both sides have used tactics like this going back to the days of John Adams if not George Washington. Sorry if this comes as a surprise.

It's not an act of G-d that would allow the referendum to be qualified. It would be large donors who finance paid signature gathering. The most important thing we can be doing is asking our friends and family to pledge to decline to sign refererendum 71 petitions. Spread the link below!

http://eqfed.org/campaign/DeclineToSignP…

And if you or your family belong to a Church that you think might allow signature gathering, let the Priest or Minister know that this is not acceptable to you because it hurts families and goes against you understanding of your faiths traditions of social justice.

I can't wait untill the petition people are out in the streets trying to gather signatures! Sitting ducks for me to come tell them how I really feel about their referendum 71. I like knowing what bigotry looks like so I can avoid it in the future.

@17 it's nt a suprise, it's misuse of your office. I seem to recall lots of sloggers complaining about the unethical tactics of the Bush Admin, but when one of their own does the same thing (regardless of what side you are on) one should cry foul.

Remember then-Sen. Obama promised us the end of politics as usual? This clearly is politics as usual and it's highly undemocratic. Most everyone here is for gay marriage why don't we encourage putting it up to a democratic vote on the subject instead of stifling it?

21, Basic human rights should not be up for public approval. The majority cannot vote to make a minority lesser citizens. I.E, It would illegal for a Christian majority to make illegal, marriage between Jews.

Maybe if the Governor were holding off on signing this one bill then it would be questionable, but there are many, many bills that the Governor has not yet signed. It really does take a long time to review all the legislation that has passed. The Governor is under no requirement (moral, legal, ethical) to give referendum proponents as much time as possible to gather signatures. If they don't like the referendum process, then they should file an initiative. However, an initiative takes twice as many signatures. Are the opponents of this legislation being "unethical" by taking the easy way out (filing a referendum instead of an initiative)?

@ 21, Gregoire isn't breaking any rules or laws. And it's only in the broadest sense of the word that she's being unethical. Bush's transgressions were much graver; this is no transgression at all.

That's how politics is played. Gregoire is being pragmatic. She deserves credit for that. Rossi would do the same if he had to.