Op-Ed: Speaking Out Against A Constitutional Convention
by Rebecca Saxon | September 23, 2008 1:40 PM
Posted to Opinion
Editor’s note: The views expressed in this editorial are those of the author.
In November vote NO to question one on the Connecticut ballot asking if there should be a constitutional convention. This convention would take away rights, not add them, and give lobbyists and special interest groups a direct way to alter Connecticut’s constitution.
State legislators appoint delegates to the convention and these delegates can propose anything they want to be added or taken out of the constitution.
Not only does this put our rights up for grabs, but it would take a year of the state legislature’s time to plan and carry out the convention.
Instead of having a productive session in the Connecticut General Assembly, they would spend time and taxpayers’ money letting people we did not elect play with our rights.
No matter what you believe in, nobody but the delegates at the convention have a say over what is proposed and passed.
The biggest proponents of the convention are the Family Institute of Connecticut, which opposes, for example, marriage equality for same sex couples and reproductive choice.Having the convention would allow a special interest group like this one to directly impact our rights. While progressive campaigns like Barack Obama’s Campaign for Change are trying to take special interest groups out of the government, a Constitutional Convention would invite these groups right into our government to alter the constitution as they want.
Vote NO to the Constitutional Convention and allow our elected officials and the people of Connecticut to remain in control of our rights.
Rebecca Saxon
Connecticut College ‘09
Planned Parenthood of Connecticut Campus Action Intern
The author of this editorial is a member of Planned Parenthood of CT’s Campus Action Internship program. The goal of the program is to train the state’s next generation of leaders for the reproductive justice movement. For more information about the program or Campus Action events on your campus and in your community, please contact organizing at ppct.org
Comments (13)
Posted by: cedarhillresident | September 23, 2008 2:52 PM
Ok thanx now I am confused...to vote yes or not to....hmmmm that is the question. On each side of this vote are 2 different groups that I agree with sooooo which is the right way. Need more info now! Hmmm but if our legislator pick the people hmmm and then if our Gov keeps saying no to thing the legislator vote in....hmmm it should be easier and more honest than this!
Posted by: Jennifer | September 23, 2008 3:29 PM
Illinois is also voting to have a ConCon.
Posted by: Bob Manners | September 23, 2008 8:33 PM
I agree completely with this article. Special interests should be kept out of government law-making at all costs.
Posted by: frank o'gorman | September 23, 2008 10:39 PM
Well said, Rebecca!
Just want to echo your thoughts and expand the list of minority groups and civil rights that would likely be affected by ballot initiatives:
African-Americans, Latinos, Immigrants, People Living in Poverty, Public Employees, Ex-Offenders, Transgender people.
A Partial List of What's At Stake Under Ballot Initiatives:
Emergency Contraception for Rape Victims
Affirmative Action
Anti-Poverty Programs
Judicial Discretion in Sentencing
Public Education Funding
Comprehensive Sex Education
Human Rights to Housing & Employment for Transgender & Gender Non-conforming People
Healthcare, Social Services, & College Assistance for Immigrants
Collective Bargaining
Binding Arbitration
Healthcare & Retirement Benefits of Public Servants
Euthanasia
Posted by: Walt![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.ctnewsjunkie.com/nav-commenters.gif)
| September 25, 2008 8:49 AM
Certainly agree that special interest groups like Planned Parenthood and the weirdo varied- gender groups should be kept out of involvement with our Constitution.
Thanks for the warning.
Posted by: lothar | September 28, 2008 7:08 PM
bigoted comment, thanks Walt
Posted by: Walt![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.ctnewsjunkie.com/nav-commenters.gif)
| September 29, 2008 10:23 AM
You are welcome Lothar.
Thought it was right to point out, as Ms Saxon obviously did not, that Planned Parenthood and the gender groups and the many O'Gorman-favored issues, are among the bigoted special interest groups trying to influence governance as well as are the groups against which she and he work and with whom I would probably agree.
Free speech was not really meant to apply only to liberals like O'Gorman et ux, but to all of us.
Too bad that you folks object to the rest of us citizens also having the right to protest.
Posted by: Dan | September 30, 2008 8:56 AM
What is wrong with democracy in action? The ridiculous hysteria cause me concern as to your motives. There will be no gloom and doom.
Posted by: lothar | September 30, 2008 12:59 PM
"Weirdo" Walt? Yikes.
That's kind of like me calling you a "cracker," which I would not out of simple respect for another person's ideas. If you think gays and lesbians and transgender folks are weird, then maybe you're the one whose view is skewed.
These folks may be in the minority, but they are not going away because you're uncomfortable with the idea that they're part of society.
That's what this whole debate is about. No one is going to force open the door of a church and make your pastor marry two dudes or two women. It's about the government's power to issue a marriage license, that's it. Church and state are separate here, and for good reason.
Basically what we've got here is a large group of Bible-toting zealots who feel like they've been victimized because people who are different from them want to be happy. They want to pay the government for a license to marry. It doesn't matter whether they get married in a church, a hotel, city hall, a courthouse, or in Vegas. It's a declaration of commitment between two people.
These Family Institute folks want to ban same-sex marriage because they don't like the idea that people who are different from them want to be included in society. They think we should all live by their rules and their values, their definition of marriage.
Go ahead and try to pigeon-hole the gay community any way you want, but banning same-sex marriage is like banning marriage between blacks and whites or simply banning marriage among a single racial group. It's crap, plain and simple.
A marriage is what you make of it. There are same sex couples all over the place and they don't have any impact on heterosexual marriages anywhere.
Just because some people go to their church and believe the Bible word-for-word doesn't mean they should have any level of control over anyone else, whatsoever.
Live and let live. Mind your own business. Keep your fear, your definition of morality, family values and God to yourself and out of the government's purview. That's what America is all about. It's pretty hypocritical that these are, in general, the same folks who are willing to wage war in other countries for "freedom," but they don't really believe in freedom for people who are different from them.
It's really kind of pathetic.
Posted by: lothar | September 30, 2008 1:17 PM
And make no mistake about it, Walt, no one objects to people protesting. Lefties love to protest. But it's the people who want to change the constitution to the exclusionary detriment of others that drag moderates like me into the argument...
Posted by: Emma | September 30, 2008 6:04 PM
Yikes is right. Walt you need to get out more. You are talking out both sides of your mouth on this issue. Free speech but only for people who share your beliefs?
Posted by: Walt![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.ctnewsjunkie.com/nav-commenters.gif)
| September 30, 2008 7:20 PM
Emma
The point, maybe not clearly stated is that those on both sides of the questions should have the right to speak and both are "special interests"
Please read again and I believe you will see that Ms Saxon was protesting against only the more conservative folks being given the opportunity to speak, and terming only those opposing her position as "special interests".
Not true.
Posted by: lothar | September 30, 2008 10:44 PM
fair enough. it's a complicated issue because of... well ... centuries of persecution by religious interests for just about everyone who doesn't agree. you can't expect people to feel comfortable with it.