Private citizens and public officials debated the merits of a definition of marriage in a bill that would exclude homosexual marriages at a public hearing at the State House Monday.
House Bill 3190 is a ‘protection of marriage’ resolution that defines a marriage as ‘only a union between one man and one woman,’ and limits marriage benefits, such as hospital visitation, financial benefits, and legal recognition of the relationship, to monogamous, heterosexual married couples.
Rep. Philip Travis (D4-Bristol), the bill’s main sponsor, said the bill is a reincarnation of a similar bill proposed last year, which was debated heavily at last year’s constitutional convention. Under the leadership of Senate president Tom Birmingham, the convention voted to conclude before voting on the bill.
That failure to vote was ‘a violation of the state constitution,’ Travis said.
‘The people’s voice was not heard,’ he told the committee.
After Travis spoke, the judiciary committee opened the floor to anyone who wanted to comment on the bill. A long line of both politicians and private citizens formed to speak. Sen. Eugene L. O’Flaherty, the co-chairman of the committee, implored attendees to keep their remarks brief as he opened the hearing.
‘We want to listen to you. This is your day,’ he told the crowd. Since so many were interested in speaking, O’Flaherty asked individuals to limit their comments to three minutes each, and panels to limit theirs to five minutes.
O’Flaherty and his fellow committee members failed to hold speakers to the time limits. O’Flaherty’s only attempt to control the proceedings was to rap his gavel gently when the crowd of at least 75 became boisterous in the small hearing room.
The result was a string of lengthy, impassioned and sometimes hostile statements from countless citizens and public officials on both sides of the issue that still raged strong three hours into the hearing.
The first panel, a group of nearly a dozen state senators and representatives opposing the amendment, spoke for nearly an hour. Many called the measure ‘mean-spirited,’ a sentiment later echoed in a statement from Mayor Thomas Menino.
Audience members supporting the bill sighed as activists for homosexual rights testified that it threatened gay and lesbian couples’ civil rights. Those opposing the bill laughed in disbelief as ‘reoriented’ former homosexuals testified that they believe the bill should be signed into law because they believed homosexuality was a deviant behavior that could be changed.
When a panel of priests supporting the bill contradicted testimony that a panel of priests opposing the bill had given earlier, Rep. Chris Fallon, a member of the judiciary committee stood up and asked how he, as a Catholic legislator, could ‘reconcile’ two different viewpoints coming from church leadership. The priest in question responded that he was sure his was correct.
Committee members occasionally questioned the speakers. They were particularly interested in the legality of the last part of the proposed amendment, which limits the rights of couples that would be declared non-unions by the bill.
Senator Robert S. Creedon, Jr., the co-chair of the Joint Judiciary Committee, asked several lawyers for briefs concerning this final clause in the amendment.
The public debate over the issue is strong, however, with no clear way to decide its outcome except for a vote. That is fine with Travis, the bill’s co-founder.
He said that while he supported the bill on its merits, he also was sponsoring it because he felt people should have a chance to vote on it and ‘record their voices.’
Rep. Scott Brown, a member of the Judiciary committee, agreed with Travis.
‘My biggest concern is that the voters aren’t being heard one way or another,’ he said.
One of the biggest arguments proponents of the bill offer is that a marriage between a man and a woman offers the most stable environment for children. The supporters say that gay and lesbian couples shouldn’t receive the same financial benefits as heterosexual, married couples because they aren’t as suited to raise children. Opponents of the bill disagree, saying that any home with a loving parent or parents is a good place to raise a child.
About two and a half hours into the proceedings, many of the children in attendance, brought by parents and guardians arguing about the best way to care for them, became restless, and their murmurs could be heard throughout the proceeding. Some of the adults in attendance noticed, but many were too engrossed in the debate.
This is an account occasionally used by the Daily Free Press editors to post archived posts from previous iterations of the site or otherwise for special circumstance publications. See authorship info on the byline at the top of the page.
