The Massachusetts Legislature voted down two proposed constitutional amendments that would have banned gay marriage Wednesday, and two more marriage amendments will be considered when the constitutional convention reconvenes today.
As many as 3,800 activists packed the Statehouse for the historic debate, which began with a surprise proposal from House Speaker Thomas Finneran (D-Boston) to ban gay marriages but allow the Legislature to give gay couples civil union benefits.
Lawmakers voted 100-98 against Finneran’s proposal, which was in response to the original amendment written by Rep. Philip Travis (D-Rehoboth). The Travis amendment says that “only the union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Massachusetts.”
The Legislature also voted down an alternative amendment, sponsored by Senate President Robert Travaglini (D-Boston) and Sen. Brian Lees (R-East Longmeadow), which would have created civil unions instead of gay marriages.
Defeating Travaglini’s compromise amendment effectively leaves lawmakers with two extremes: the Travis amendment, which would ban gay marriage, and a proposal by Sen. Jarrett Barrios (D-Cambridge), which would legalize it.
“All marriages between two people shall be eligible for all the rights and benefits of marriage,” Barrios’ proposal says.
Finneran questioned the integrity of the Supreme Judicial Court’s Nov. 18 decision, which said the idea of criticizing homosexual marriage because it goes against history is “rooted in bigotry.”
“There was a libel within that decision,” Finneran said.
He told the legislators and citizens in the Statehouse that those words were “uttered against you and your predecessors,” and said he felt they were particularly libelous because they addressed Massachusetts residents.
“The Massachusetts Legislature, on its own initiative … has made steady, sustainable progress on gay and lesbian issues,” he said.
He added that the Legislature made efforts in prohibiting discrimination against gays in housing or employment “long before it became politically fashionable.”
“The court chose not to take notice” of the efforts of Bay State legislators, he said. “[The SJC] entered a domain they should not have entered.”
He said his proposed amendment would “end the trauma” surrounding the court decision.
But Sen. Jo Ann Sprague (R-Walpole) said the SJC decision provided an “impartial interpretation of Massachusetts law.”
“This is not a sectarian government. This is not a theological government,” she said. “All of us have equal access to civil procedures.”
Rep. Michael Festa (D-Melrose) also took issue with Finneran’s proposed amendment and said gays deserve civil marriages over civil unions as a matter of respect.
“Do not be seduced by this piece of paper,” Festa said. “It creates an illusion [of making progress] for people who have struggled … to get dignity and respect,” he said.
Rep. Lida E. Harkins (D-Needham) opposed any amendment banning gay marriage.
“It’s not reasonable to use our constitution as a vehicle to interfere with the rights of others,” she said.
The Travaglini-Lees amendment would define marriage as a heterosexual union. It gives gay couples the right to form civil unions, with benefits like those of marriage.
“This amendment is a compromise,” Lees said. “Those who marry before the article is passed will be considered to be in civil unions.”
Lees’ proposed amendment drew criticism from both sides of the debate.
“I cannot support the civil unions option … [it] would still be something less than marriage,” said Sen. Diane Wilkerson (D-Boston).
Wilkerson recalled her Arkansas childhood, when she “lived in fear of the Ku Klux Klan” and when “blacks and whites couldn’t even drive on the same road together.”
“I know what that world of being almost equal is,” she said. “I could not vote … to send people to a place of almost being equal,” she said.
Rep. Viriato Manuel deMacedo (R-Plymouth) called the proposed amendment “politically comfortable.” He said the amendment was for people who want to say, “I vote for everything.”
But Travis likened the Travaglini-Lees amendment to a “poison pill” because neither gay-marriage advocates nor those opposed to gay unions would support it.
“If you want [same-sex] marriage and not civil unions, it’s not possible” in the amendment, he said.
Those who are against legal homosexual unions of any kind will also disagree with the amendment, he added.
“You can’t compromise on discrimination,” said Rep. Marie St. Fleur (D-Boston).
Debra Borkovitz, a Jamaica Plain resident who came to the Statehouse to watch the proceedings, agreed with St. Fleur.
“I’m against [Lees’ amendment] because I do see this as a civil rights issue,” she said. “The amendment is proposing a separate-but-equal [policy].”
But those on the other side of the debate seemed equally optimistic, if not more so. Expressing her continued support for the Travis’ amendment, Massachusetts Family Institute Director of Public Policy Evelyn Reilly said her organization was “very glad that the Travaglini-Lees amendment was defeated.” The amendment, she said, would have introduced even more confusion into an already complicated debate.
“Let’s vote on marriage and then talk about civil unions,” Reilly said.
However, Reilly said civil unions are based on a “false concept” – that homosexuality is innate and unchangeable. The MFI knows of hundreds of ex-gays, she said, citing scientific studies she said prove that being gay is a choice.
“Society shouldn’t in any way be supportive of or subsidize this type of behavior,” she said.
Staff writer Deirdre Fulton contributed to this report.
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.
