Slainte
02-12-2004, 08:34 AM
Gay-Marriage Debate Continues in Mass.
By JENNIFER PETER, Associated Press Writer
BOSTON - Under the watchful eyes of the nation, Massachusetts leaders scrambled to find the right mix of words to persuade enough lawmakers to back a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage but promising civil unions.
Legislators were to reconvene Thursday to take up what would be a third compromise proposal, continuing the debate on an issue that has put the state at the forefront of a contentious social, political, religious and legal issue. Any amendment would ultimately need the approval of voters in a ballot two years from now.
Gay-rights advocates conceded it appeared support was mounting for a constitutional amendment to define marriage as a union of a man and woman, effectively banning same-sex marriages.
"It's increasingly clear that the Legislature is positioning itself to take back the marriage rights we currently have, to take back over 1,000 protections we currently have, to enshrine discrimination into our constitution, and to create a system of separate but unequal," said Arline Isaacson, co-leader of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus.
Lawmakers shot down two previous compromise proposals Wednesday that would have allowed for civil unions — under two slightly different scenarios — rather than the full-fledged marriages the state's highest court ruled should begin mid-May.
Moments after the constitutional convention adjourned for the night, House and Senate leaders met behind closed doors to craft a third compromise that they hoped would be able to sway the few votes necessary to cobble together a majority against gay marriage.
The convention's frenzied first day unfolded before more than 4,000 spectators in the Statehouse and reflected a Legislature deeply divided about how to respond to the court's November decision that it was unconstitutional to ban gay couples from marrying.
"We're as divided as the nation on this," said House Speaker Thomas Finneran, an opponent of gay marriage. "We're doing the best we can. We're human beings. Sometimes we come up short."
An amendment would require the backing of a simple majority of the Legislature this year, then again in the 2005-06 legislative session before it could wind up on the November 2006 ballot for voters to consider.
A key issue is what to do after May 17, when gay couples presumably could exchange vows. Would they have their marriage licenses revoked if voters ultimately approve a constitutional ban two years later?
"I don't think we can do that. I think if someone enters into a marriage on May 17, it's a marriage and there's no constitutional provision that can undo that," Rep. John Rogers said.
Wednesday was a day of impassioned debate about the meaning of the constitution, the lessons of slavery, and the importance of preserving an institution that has existed as a heterosexual union for millennia.
Sen. Dianne Wilkerson, who is against the amendment proposal, drew upon her experience as a black woman growing up in Arkansas, where the public hospital did not allow her mother to deliver her children. She used the analogy to argue that offering gays the option of civil unions was fundamentally unequal.
"I know the pain of being less than equal and I cannot and will not impose that status on anyone else," a teary-eyed Wilkerson said. "I was but one generation removed from an existence in slavery. I could not in good conscience ever vote to send anyone to that place from which my family fled."
But supporters of a ban called on the Legislature to allow voters in the heavily Roman Catholic state to have the opportunity to weigh in on a crucial cultural issue.
"Mother Nature left her blueprint behind and she left it in DNA, a man and a woman," said Rep. Marie Parente. "I didn't create that combination, Mother Nature did."
If gay marriage takes place in Massachusetts, federal lawsuits would likely ensue as gay couples seek recognition in other states. Thirty-eight states and the federal government have approved laws or amendments barring the recognition of gay marriage.
The issue also is certain to have political repercussions for state legislators facing re-election in November and in the presidential race. Both President Bush and U.S. Sen. John Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat, oppose gay marriage, though they support gay civil rights.
___
On the Net: http://www.state.ma.us/legis
By JENNIFER PETER, Associated Press Writer
BOSTON - Under the watchful eyes of the nation, Massachusetts leaders scrambled to find the right mix of words to persuade enough lawmakers to back a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage but promising civil unions.
Legislators were to reconvene Thursday to take up what would be a third compromise proposal, continuing the debate on an issue that has put the state at the forefront of a contentious social, political, religious and legal issue. Any amendment would ultimately need the approval of voters in a ballot two years from now.
Gay-rights advocates conceded it appeared support was mounting for a constitutional amendment to define marriage as a union of a man and woman, effectively banning same-sex marriages.
"It's increasingly clear that the Legislature is positioning itself to take back the marriage rights we currently have, to take back over 1,000 protections we currently have, to enshrine discrimination into our constitution, and to create a system of separate but unequal," said Arline Isaacson, co-leader of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus.
Lawmakers shot down two previous compromise proposals Wednesday that would have allowed for civil unions — under two slightly different scenarios — rather than the full-fledged marriages the state's highest court ruled should begin mid-May.
Moments after the constitutional convention adjourned for the night, House and Senate leaders met behind closed doors to craft a third compromise that they hoped would be able to sway the few votes necessary to cobble together a majority against gay marriage.
The convention's frenzied first day unfolded before more than 4,000 spectators in the Statehouse and reflected a Legislature deeply divided about how to respond to the court's November decision that it was unconstitutional to ban gay couples from marrying.
"We're as divided as the nation on this," said House Speaker Thomas Finneran, an opponent of gay marriage. "We're doing the best we can. We're human beings. Sometimes we come up short."
An amendment would require the backing of a simple majority of the Legislature this year, then again in the 2005-06 legislative session before it could wind up on the November 2006 ballot for voters to consider.
A key issue is what to do after May 17, when gay couples presumably could exchange vows. Would they have their marriage licenses revoked if voters ultimately approve a constitutional ban two years later?
"I don't think we can do that. I think if someone enters into a marriage on May 17, it's a marriage and there's no constitutional provision that can undo that," Rep. John Rogers said.
Wednesday was a day of impassioned debate about the meaning of the constitution, the lessons of slavery, and the importance of preserving an institution that has existed as a heterosexual union for millennia.
Sen. Dianne Wilkerson, who is against the amendment proposal, drew upon her experience as a black woman growing up in Arkansas, where the public hospital did not allow her mother to deliver her children. She used the analogy to argue that offering gays the option of civil unions was fundamentally unequal.
"I know the pain of being less than equal and I cannot and will not impose that status on anyone else," a teary-eyed Wilkerson said. "I was but one generation removed from an existence in slavery. I could not in good conscience ever vote to send anyone to that place from which my family fled."
But supporters of a ban called on the Legislature to allow voters in the heavily Roman Catholic state to have the opportunity to weigh in on a crucial cultural issue.
"Mother Nature left her blueprint behind and she left it in DNA, a man and a woman," said Rep. Marie Parente. "I didn't create that combination, Mother Nature did."
If gay marriage takes place in Massachusetts, federal lawsuits would likely ensue as gay couples seek recognition in other states. Thirty-eight states and the federal government have approved laws or amendments barring the recognition of gay marriage.
The issue also is certain to have political repercussions for state legislators facing re-election in November and in the presidential race. Both President Bush and U.S. Sen. John Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat, oppose gay marriage, though they support gay civil rights.
___
On the Net: http://www.state.ma.us/legis