BOSTON (AP) – Kris Mineau could barely contain his anger after state lawmakers opted to break off debate rather than vote on a proposed anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment Thursday.
Swinging a copy of the state constitution as lawmakers streamed out of the House chambers, Mineau, whose organization helped collect more than 170,000 signatures in support of the amendment, vowed to seek help from Gov. Mitt Romney or the courts to force a vote.
But there may be little recourse for Mineau and supporters of the amendment as the clock ticks down to the end of the legislative year.
“We’re exploring our options right now,” said Lisa Barstow, spokeswoman for the group VoteOnMarriage.org, which supports the question. “The main option is that they somehow come to their senses and vote, but that’s not something we’re betting on.”
Lawmakers on Thursday avoided taking up the ballot question that would define marriage in Massachusetts as the union of a man and woman by voting to recess a joint session of the 200-member Legislature until 2 p.m. on Jan. 2, the last day of the legislative year.
The ballot question needed the support of just 50 lawmakers in the current sitting of the Legislature, and 50 in the new Legislature, to make it onto the 2008 ballot.
Activists on both sides agreed more than 50 lawmakers likely support the question, and the vote to recess until the last day of the session probably means lawmakers intend to again avoid a vote, killing the question. Lawmakers also refused to vote on a similar citizens’ initiative in 2002.
Rep. Philip Travis, D-Rehoboth, a supporter of the question, says he’s “hoping against hope” lawmakers let the question go to a vote on the Jan. 2, but he’s not counting on it. “Technically, they are in violation of the constitution,” he said. “I don’t know how to do it, truthfully, because my colleagues are not upholding their oath of office.”
The decision to recess rather than adjourn the joint session, known as a constitutional convention, limited the options of gay marriage opponents because if they’d adjourned, Romney could have called them back into session well before Jan. 2, although he couldn’t have forced a vote.
On Friday, Romney, who opposes gay marriage, said he asked his legal counsel to look at options.
“I do think that it’s interesting and ironic that the same people that were arguing in favor of protecting a newly found constitutional right for same-sex marriage were quick to jettison an ancient constitutional right to vote,” Romney said.
Anti-gay marriage activists may consider the route taken Friday by the Committee for Health Care for Massachusetts, which is pushing a constitutional amendment that would require Massachusetts to guarantee every resident access to affordable health care.
The group filed a lawsuit with the Supreme Judicial Court, asking the justices to require Secretary of State William Galvin to put the question on the 2008 ballot, circumventing the Legislature.
In 2003, supporters gathered over 71,000 signatures in support of the question. The next year the Legislature approved the amendment by a 153-41 vote. But in July, the lawmakers opted to send the amendment to a study committee instead of taking a needed final vote.
The lawsuit points to article 48 of the state constitution that says proposed amendments to the constitution “shall be voted upon” if supporters have gathered the required signatures.
“Article 48 holds people to fairly high standards to get an amendment before the Legislature and holds the Legislature to a requirement that they vote,” said Barbara Roop, a co-chair of the Health Care for Massachusetts Campaign. “We’ve done our part. They should do their part.”
Supporters of gay marriage defended the decision to take the recess vote, saying lawmakers often use similar parliamentary moves during debate.
“A majority of legislators courageously stood up and said this amendment should not proceed,” said Lee Swislow, executive director of Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders.
Thursday’s vote to recess came after a similar vote in July, when lawmakers opted to delay any action until two days after this week’s elections.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled in November 2003 that the state’s constitution guarantees gays and lesbians the right to marry in Massachusetts. Those weddings began in May 2004, and since then, more than 8,000 couples have married.
Send questions/comments to the editors.
