http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... Feb11.htmlMass. Lawmakers Defeat Moves to Define Marriage
Two Attempts to Amend State Constitution Fail
By Jonathan Finer
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, February 12, 2004; Page A03
BOSTON, Feb. 11 -- Massachusetts legislators knocked down two attempts Wednesday at adding to the state's constitution a strict definition of marriage, in a heated debate replete with procedural wranglings that will resume Thursday.
By 8:30 p.m. when the proceedings were concluded for the night, a constitutional amendment that would have defined marriage as exclusively a union between one man and one woman had been defeated, as had another with similar language about marriage that would also have established civil unions for gay couples.
The amendments were sparked by the state Supreme Judicial Court's recent November ruling that deemed barring marriages for same-sex couples unconstitutional and its clarification of that ruling last week that said civil unions would not satisfy its dictates.
Since then, local and national religious groups and activists on both sides of the debate have lobbied feverishly and held a series of protests on Boston Common, across the street from the legislature.
House Speaker Thomas Finneran (D), who proposed the first amendment considered and who other lawmakers said is helping craft a similar amendment that will be submitted Thursday, said the close votes on the proposals showed the legislature was "as divided as the country" on the same-sex marriage question.
"We're starting tomorrow morning like we're starting the second half of a football game," said state Rep. Philip Travis (D), whose amendment defining marriage and including language that could preclude civil unions has not yet been considered. "We're going to kick off and the score is nothing, nothing."
The Constitutional Convention convened at 2 p.m., as the walls at Beacon Hill statehouse resounded with the chants of people who packed the building's halls and staircases, some calling on legislators to "let the people decide" by passing an amendment that could later be tested in a referendum, while others asked for "equality now" now for gay couples."
"This exercise is truly the essence of democracy," said Senate President Robert E. Travaglini (D), chair of the Constitutional Convention chair, reminding lawmakers to conduct themselves in a "respectful, dignified and orderly manner" as he opened the proceedings.
Regardless of the success of any amendments considered when the convention reconvenes, the state is to begin issuing marriage licenses to gay couples May 17, as mandated by the court. The justices 4 to 3 decision caused a rift in this state, where progressive social values have proven difficult to reconcile with a deep-seeded Catholic and Puritan heritage.
Probing for a statutory compromise, lawmakers quickly asked the court to declare whether a law granting civil unions for gay couples would satisfy its initial ruling. Last week the court responded that no law short of full marriage would be in compliance.
The earliest any amendment could take effect would be in November 2006, because under state law, amendments to what is the nation's oldest constitution must be passed in two consecutive legislative sessions before they are placed on the ballot for a referendum.
Wednesday's agenda began with Travis's amendment. State Sen. Jarrett Barrios (D), the legislature's only openly gay lawmaker, quickly offered a substitute amendment that would have secured equal benefits for same-sex couples married under state law. But before that amendment could be debated, a series of further substitute amendments were taken in turn.
First Finneran (D) -- one of a slew of political powerbrokers in this state who are opposed to gay marriage -- failed in an attempt to gain passage of a substitute to the Barrios amendment that would restrict the definition of marriage while offering vague support for the possibility of establishing civil unions for same-sex couples.
Several colleagues spoke out against what some perceived as a subterfuge by the powerful speaker, designed to both undermine the court's decision and avoid committing firmly to the establishment of civil unions.
"This is an extraordinary misuse of the parliamentary process, a shameless illusion," said state Rep. Michael Festa (D) who also said that despite the text of the amendment, Finneran was unlikely to allow civil union legislation to see the House floor, and urged his colleagues "to reject this ploy."
They did, just before 5 p.m., narrowly defeating Finneran's attempt, 100 to 98.
The convention then moved to an amendment offered by Travaglini and Senate Minority Leader Brian Lees (R) -- also a substitute for the Barrios amendment -- that contained a strict definition of marriage but would also enshrine civil unions in the state constitution.
The amendment would also mandate that marriage licenses issued between May of this year and November 2006 be converted into civil unions, a process that some legislators have denounced as both demeaning to those marriages and as administratively burdensome.
Debate produced vocal opposition from an unusual coalition of some of the legislature's most liberal members, who objected to the definition of marriage, and its most conservative members, who could not accept the civil unions provision.
"The people on the left side of this issue don't want it, the people on the right side of this issue don't want it," said state Rep. Viriato deMacedo (R), adding "this is not what the voters asked to vote on."
"With all due respect, I know compromises and this is no compromise," said state Rep. Ruth Balser (D). "This is not a compromise it's a civil rights violation."
Proponents of gay marriage called the debate a civil rights issue, invoking the words of President Abraham Lincoln and civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. Opponents, meanwhile said that an amendment would give voters the chance to weigh in and tried to paint it as a struggle to preserve the traditional notion of an institution considered one of the pillars of society, and stressed that prejudice played no role in their views.
The disagreement echoed themes of a broader national debate that political analysts feel could become a divisive issue in November's presidential election.
"How will history judge us, if we for the first time change our constitution for the sole purpose of discrimination," said state Rep. Marie St. Fleur, one of Massachusetts's few black legislators.
© 2004 The Washington Post Company
Too fucking close for comfort. Love how their site is obviously unbiased with their poll when it doesn't offer the option of not supporting any amendments...