Approval was given to an amendment that would ban gay marriage but allow civil unions.
BOSTON (AP) – The Massachusetts Legislature took the first decisive step toward banning gay marriage and legalizing civil unions on Monday, giving final approval for the year to an constitutional amendment that would strip same-sex couples of court-mandated marriage rights.
Within moments of the historic vote, Gov. Mitt Romney told reporters he would ask the state’s highest court to block gay marriages, now scheduled to begin May 17 under the court’s landmark November ruling, until the amendment process has run its lengthy course. But Attorney General Tom Reilly, whose job it is to represent the state in court, said he would not seek the delay on Romney’s behalf.
The final version of the amendment, approved 105-92 Monday afternoon, must be affirmed again during the 2005-06 legislative session before going to the voters in the fall of 2006 – 21/2 years after the court-ordered legalization of gay marriages in Massachusetts.
If the measure is ultimately approved by voters, Massachusetts would become just the second state – after Vermont – to legalize civil unions.
Attention now turns to the fall elections, when lawmakers will have to defend their votes on the contentious social issue and fend off attempts to change the makeup of the Legislature.
“This amendment attempts to strike a balance between those citizens who want to be heard in defining marriage yet never taking away the rights and benefits of gay and lesbian couples,” said Senate Minority Leader Brian Lees, R-East Longmeadow, a co-sponsor.
But gay-rights advocates felt little joy in seeing a proposed amendment include civil-union rights.
They’d already witnessed the state’s highest court award full marriage rights only to see lawmakers try to water it down.
“I believe many of them are going to feel very ashamed of what they’ve just done today,” said Arline Isaacson, co-leader of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus.
Conservatives also weren’t quick to embrace the compromise, calling it blackmail to force citizens to approve civil unions as part of a marriage ban.
“We are giving the people a false choice,” said Rep. Vinny deMacedo, R-Plymouth. “We’re saying, ‘No problem, you can vote to define marriage as between a man and a woman, but the only way you can do it is if you create civil unions that are entirely the same as marriage.’ Ultimately, if this ever makes it to the ballot, it will fail.”
Romney, a Republican serving his first term as governor, said he planned to deliver his request for a stay to Reilly’s office on Tuesday in hopes of having the attorney general present it to the high court.
A spokeswoman for Romney said she hopes Reilly would reconsider after seeing the legal arguments.
“It’s highly unusual for the attorney general to make a decision before first looking at the governor’s request,” press secretary Shawn Feddeman said.
“I believe the Supreme Judicial Court has an obligation to the constitution and the people of Massachusetts to withhold this decision, to stay this decision until the people of Massachusetts can make a final determination for themselves,” Romney said.
But Reilly’s refusal to go back to court leaves Romney and other gay marriages foes with no other apparent legal options.
“It was very clear to me as attorney general that the majority of the Supreme Judicial Court have made up their minds,” said Reilly, considered a possible Democratic candidate for governor in 2006. “Do I agree with their decision? No. Absolutely not. But that is the law of the state.”
Legal experts said that without Reilly on his side, any effort by Romney to block gay marriages is legally difficult – and, in any event, unlikely to be embraced by a court that has twice declared it unconstitutional to ban gay couples from marriage.
“I think it’s extremely unlikely that the court would stay a decision for 21/2 years,” said attorney Paul Martinek, editor of Lawyers Weekly USA. “That’s just too long a period of time to expect people to wait for what the court has said is a fundamental right.”
Lawmakers ended the marathon debate with a mixed sense of resignation, pride, weariness, and amazement at the intense pitch of the dialogue. Supporters of gay rights criticized their colleagues for seeking to change the oldest constitution in the nation in a way that would deny citizens certain rights.
“Gay Americans die for our country, adopt our children and we are silent,” said Sen. Marian Walsh, D-Boston. “Yet we find our voice to take away their constitutional right to marry.”
Even supporters did not gush over the measure, but they argued that it was the only way to get some type of constitutional ban to the ballot in November 2006.
“The amendment stinks but at least it gives people a chance to vote,” said Rep. James Fagan, D-Taunton.
The final vote came after more than 35 hours of unprecedented debate spread over the course of three sessions of the constitutional convention in the past two months.
The debate in Massachusetts has unfolded in the national spotlight, continuing to move forward as mayors across the country permitted unsanctioned gay weddings in their cities.
The constitutional convention took place in front of thousands of citizens, who crowded the Statehouse each day of the constitutional convention to watch from the gallery and protest in the hallways. Countless others watched the coverage on television.
“This entire debate … has occurred in the eye of a social and cultural and even spiritual storm,” said House Speaker Thomas Finneran. “Massachusetts is hesitant about what the appropriate course of action might be. The nation seems to be similarly divided.”
On Monday, gay-rights advocates gathered outside the House chamber, singing hymns and freedom songs, asking the Legislature to treat them as equal citizens. Opponents of gay marriage intermingled with them, chanting “Jesus Christ” and “One Man, One Woman.”
Longtime lawmakers and political observers said the marathon was a spectacle unlike anything they have experienced in this politically tumultuous state.
“It has really truly been the experience of a lifetime and an incredible privilege,” said Rep. Liz Malia, D-Boston, an openly gay lawmaker. “I have learned firsthand the dedication of all the members of this body. We have seen unbelievable honesty. No matter the outcome, I appreciate the time and the attention and the incredible amount of energy everyone in this body has brought to this issue.”
—
On the Net:
http://www.state.ma.us/legis
AP-ES-03-29-04 2054EST
Send questions/comments to the editors.
