Emotions High As Thousands Await Final Anti-Gay Amendment Vote
Wed. February 11, 2004 12:00 AM by 365gay.com
Boston, Massachusetts -
Wearing knit hats and bundled in parkas several thousand gays and their supporters huddled in front of the Massachusetts State House Wednesday night waiting word on the future of same-sex families.
Not far away, an equal number of people from conservative religious groups prayed.
Inside the historic legislature a joint session of the House and Senate was working its way through a series of proposals to amend the commonwealth's constitution to bar same-sex marriage.
The special Constitutional Convention began shortly after 2 pm with a proposal by House Speaker Thomas Finneran (D-Boston) and backed by Republican Gov. Mitt Romney, to define marriage as a union of a man and a woman and carry a provision to allow the legislature to establish civil unions when it feels it to be appropriate.
Despite assurances by Finneran that he would put civil unions before the House within two weeks, the measure was voted down.
A so-called compromise bipartisan amendment also defines marriage as between a man and woman but adds language establishing civil unions and says that same-sex marriages performed between May when they set by court order to begin, and 2006 the earliest the constitution could be amended would then be officially called civil unions.
That version is still being debated.
The original amendment offered by state Rep. Philip Travis (D-Rehoboth), simply defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
It is scheduled for a vote late tonight.
Going into the session it was impossible to tell which way the political winds were blowing. Polls as late as Tuesday night showed many members had not made up their mind, and others refused to say where they stood.
Democrats hold 170 of Legislature's 200 seats. There's currently one vacancy - Sen Cheryl Jacques resigned last month to head up the Human Rights Campaign in Washington.
Debate has been emotional on both sides of the issue.
Breaking down in tears several times, state Sen. Dianne Wilkerson (D-Boston) gave an emotional address. After recalling her family's past history as slaves in the South, she declared that the gay marriage issue is a civil rights matter. "Separate is never equal," she said. "I know the pain of being less than equal, and I cannot, will not, impose that state on anyone else."
Outside the gold domed State House some five thousand people demonstrated on both sides of the marriage issue. Security around the capitol and in the Boston Common was unusually tight.
Busloads of people from conservative political groups and churches began arriving at the State House early this morning. Shouting "let us vote" they quoted from the Bible and sang hymns.
Gay advocates from across the state staked out their own section of the Common and in front of the legislature. Police report several "tussles" but no serious problems. The crowds were divided by a police line and were about evenly split.
Amending the state constitution gained considerable support following the Supreme Judicial Court's ruling last November that declared the state's denial of marriage licenses to same-sex couples violates the constitution's equal protection provisions. In a second ruling Feb. 4, the same justices said a proposed civil unions law would create an "unconstitutional, inferior, and discriminatory status for same-sex couples."
The Massachusetts Constitution, adopted in 1780, is the oldest still-governing written constitution in the world. It was the model for the U.S. Constitution, which was drafted seven years later.
It has been amended 120 times, most recently in 2000, when voters endorsed making the federal census the basis for legislative redistricting and also stripped voting rights from incarcerated felons.
A proposed amendment must be passed by two consecutive sessions of the Constitutional convention in two separate sessions of the legislature and then be put to the electorate. The earliest that could be done is 2006.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that same-sex couples could begin marrying in May.
by Michael J. Meade
365Gay.com Newscenter
Boston Bureau
©365Gay.com® 2004
Not far away, an equal number of people from conservative religious groups prayed.
Inside the historic legislature a joint session of the House and Senate was working its way through a series of proposals to amend the commonwealth's constitution to bar same-sex marriage.
The special Constitutional Convention began shortly after 2 pm with a proposal by House Speaker Thomas Finneran (D-Boston) and backed by Republican Gov. Mitt Romney, to define marriage as a union of a man and a woman and carry a provision to allow the legislature to establish civil unions when it feels it to be appropriate.
Despite assurances by Finneran that he would put civil unions before the House within two weeks, the measure was voted down.
A so-called compromise bipartisan amendment also defines marriage as between a man and woman but adds language establishing civil unions and says that same-sex marriages performed between May when they set by court order to begin, and 2006 the earliest the constitution could be amended would then be officially called civil unions.
That version is still being debated.
The original amendment offered by state Rep. Philip Travis (D-Rehoboth), simply defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
It is scheduled for a vote late tonight.
Going into the session it was impossible to tell which way the political winds were blowing. Polls as late as Tuesday night showed many members had not made up their mind, and others refused to say where they stood.
Democrats hold 170 of Legislature's 200 seats. There's currently one vacancy - Sen Cheryl Jacques resigned last month to head up the Human Rights Campaign in Washington.
Debate has been emotional on both sides of the issue.
Breaking down in tears several times, state Sen. Dianne Wilkerson (D-Boston) gave an emotional address. After recalling her family's past history as slaves in the South, she declared that the gay marriage issue is a civil rights matter. "Separate is never equal," she said. "I know the pain of being less than equal, and I cannot, will not, impose that state on anyone else."
Outside the gold domed State House some five thousand people demonstrated on both sides of the marriage issue. Security around the capitol and in the Boston Common was unusually tight.
Busloads of people from conservative political groups and churches began arriving at the State House early this morning. Shouting "let us vote" they quoted from the Bible and sang hymns.
Gay advocates from across the state staked out their own section of the Common and in front of the legislature. Police report several "tussles" but no serious problems. The crowds were divided by a police line and were about evenly split.
Amending the state constitution gained considerable support following the Supreme Judicial Court's ruling last November that declared the state's denial of marriage licenses to same-sex couples violates the constitution's equal protection provisions. In a second ruling Feb. 4, the same justices said a proposed civil unions law would create an "unconstitutional, inferior, and discriminatory status for same-sex couples."
The Massachusetts Constitution, adopted in 1780, is the oldest still-governing written constitution in the world. It was the model for the U.S. Constitution, which was drafted seven years later.
It has been amended 120 times, most recently in 2000, when voters endorsed making the federal census the basis for legislative redistricting and also stripped voting rights from incarcerated felons.
A proposed amendment must be passed by two consecutive sessions of the Constitutional convention in two separate sessions of the legislature and then be put to the electorate. The earliest that could be done is 2006.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that same-sex couples could begin marrying in May.
by Michael J. Meade
365Gay.com Newscenter
Boston Bureau
©365Gay.com® 2004
This article originally appeared on 365gay.com. Republished with permission.