Massachusetts lawmakers Monday narrowly approved an amendment to ban gay marriage and establish civil unions for same-sex couples, granting gay couples the same rights within the commonwealth as heterosexual married couples if the amendment is passed again in the next legislative session and approved by voters in a November 2006 ballot question.
Meeting in constitutional convention, legislators approved a compromise amendment written by House Speaker Thomas Finneran (D-Boston) and Senate President Robert Travaglini (D-Boston) in a 105-92 vote, leaving hard-line pro- and anti-gay marriage advocates vowing to lobby against civil unions.
But Sen. Brian Lees (R-East Longmeadow) stressed that the compromise was necessary to protect couples who may wed in the window between when a ruling legalizing gay marriage by the state’s highest court takes effect May 17 and the time the amendment could be put before the voters.
“If we agree that some amendment should be adopted, we must adopt an amendment that protects the rights of lawfully married same-sex couples,” Lees said.
Others, pushing for the definition of marriage to be separate from the civil unions provision, said the compromise was designed to fail.
“You’re putting two principles that are not the same in the same paragraph that together violate the principles of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts,” said Rep. Vinny deMacedo (R-Plymouth), the main sponsor of the split proposal. “If you tie the two together, you ultimately have no one supporting this.”
The decision came less than three weeks after the March 11 convention, during which an 11:30 p.m. vote revealed the Legislature’s deep division on same-sex marriages, requiring the convention to reconvene Monday for the third session in two months.
Lawmakers deliberated on the amendment through late morning, completing the first round of voting by midday to clarify the proposal’s wording. A second vote put the amendment up for a final review just after 2 p.m., sparking a last push by pro-marriage lawmakers to try to sway undecided colleagues to vote down civil unions. The second vote prevented the amendment that would separate the ballot questions from being considered this session – a move that dismayed opponents of gay unions.
The final vote came minutes before 6 p.m., exciting hard-line conservatives and sending a wave of disappointment through Statehouse halls filled with gay marriage supporters – both groups flooded the building as early as 8 a.m. and rallied through the final vote.
Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney reacted only minutes after the convention ended, applauding the Legislature’s decision to define marriage as the union between one man and one woman. The governor also said he will as early as today try to prevent gay couples from taking advantage of a nearly two-year window between when the Supreme Judicial Court’s ruling takes effect May 17 and when the ban could pass in referendum.
“I believe the Supreme Judicial Court has an obligation, to the constitution and to the people of Massachusetts, to withhold their decision until the people can consider the issue themselves,” Romney said in a statement. “I believe the Supreme Judicial Court should delay the imposition of its decision until the people have a chance to be heard.”
But marriage proponents are hoping the upcoming months will play out in their favor – movement leaders emphasized the strides they had made, even in recent months, to receive equal rights during a rally after the final vote.
“Today we came very close, remarkably close to defeating this ballot question,” Arline Isaacson, lobbyist for the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Caucus, told a crowd of hundreds of gay couples. “If you had told anyone even a year or a month ago that we would ever come this close, they would have said, ‘You’re crazy.’ … Today was a loss, but it was only the beginning; it is not the end.”
Romney will also face staunch opposition from various senators, who said they will not allow the public to vote on the Travaglini-Finneran amendment.
Rep. James Fagan (D-Taunton) and others who supported a split amendment called the compromise unclear and confusing to voters, and added that opponents of gay marriage could try to pass a harsher ban by petitioning for an amendment.
“What they will put on the ballot will be hateful, it will be well-funded and it will come through here like a hurricane,” he said.
DeMacedo opposed holding a public vote on the compromise plan, saying that Massachusetts citizens are not informed enough to make the final decision on marriage rights.
Gay rights supporters who voted against the compromise defended their votes.
“I do not want to be a part of the process for imposing separate but equal on another group of our citizens,” said Rep. Benjamin Swan (D-Springfield).
Hard-line conservatives said they would continue to fight civil unions through petitions, promising to make heterosexual marriage the only legally recognized unions.
Rep. Philip Travis (R-Rehoboth), who sponsored the original marriage ban, reaffirmed his support for “traditional marriage” during the last 15 minutes of the convention, saying that he would “not stand back and apologize to anyone.”
Catholic and conservative groups also said they will continue to reject same sex unions.
“We do not support civil unions or this amendment,” said Ron Crews of the Massachusetts Family Institute. “The battle is not over yet.”
Staff writer John Tozzi contributed to this report.