Johnny Stew
03-29-2004, 02:33 PM
(I'm disappointed, but I pretty much expected it. At least they're throwing us the civil union crumb... which I guess I really shouldn't look at so cynically, because that's still a huge victory in and of itself.)
Mass. Lawmakers Agree on Gay Marriage Ban
By JENNIFER PETER, Associated Press Writer
BOSTON - The Massachusetts Legislature adopted a new version of a state constitutional amendment Monday that would ban gay marriage and legalize civil unions, eliminating consideration of any other proposed changes.
The vote came at the opening of the third round of a constitutional convention on the contentious issue, as competing cries of "Jesus Christ" and "Equal Rights" shook the Statehouse outside the legislative chamber.
Lawmakers had voted earlier this month in favor of a similar amendment. The revised version adopted Monday would ask voters to simultaneously ban gay marriage and legalize civil unions — rather than taking those steps separately. It clarifies that civil unions would not grant federal benefits to gay couples.
By adopting the new language, lawmakers blocked consideration of several other amendments — including ones that would have weakened the civil union provision and one that would have split the question in two, allowing voters to weigh in separately on gay marriage and civil unions.
The Legislature must still take two more votes before the amendment is considered approved. If that happens, it will go to the 2005-2006 Legislature for further consideration before going to the voters in the fall of 2006.
Under a state high court ruling issued in November, the nation's first state-sanctioned gay marriage will take place in Massachusetts on May 17. The constitutional amendment would have no effect on this deadline, but Gov. Mitt Romney has said he might seek a way to delay the marriages if a constitutional amendment were adopted this year.
The version adopted Monday is the best possible solution, said Senate Minority Leader Brian Lees.
"There is no single clear solution to this issue," said Lees, who sponsored the measure with Senate President Robert Travaglini. "If there was such a solution, we wouldn't be here today. But 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."
Gay-rights supporters wanted lawmakers to uphold the full marriage rights accorded by the state's highest court, the Supreme Judicial Court, in November. Conservatives wanted an amendment that defines marriage as between a man and a woman but without creating civil unions.
While gay marriage supporters dominated the halls of the Statehouse on the three previous days of the constitutional convention, in mid-February and mid-March, hundreds of religious opponents of gay marriage mixed into the crowd on Monday.
Police tried to ensure that the close quarters and high emotions did not lead to physical conflicts.
"This is a very crowded situation, and it could be one in which some little thing might set something off," said State Police Lt. Paul Maloney. "It's a much more intermingled group than we've seen in the past."
After each intonation of "Jesus" by gay rights opponents, gay rights advocates tacked on "loves us." The two opposing sides then shouted "Jesus Christ" and "Equal Rights" simultaneously, blending into a single, indistinguishable chant.
"I'm just here to support Christ," said Olivia Long, 32, of Boston, a parishioner at New Covenant Christian Church. "We love all people, but we want to keep it like it was in the beginning."
Next to her, Eric Carreno, 26, of Somerville, held a sign that read: "Christ does not discriminate. Why do Christians?"
"I think my Christian brothers and sisters need to understand tolerance," Carreno said. "They need to understand that Jesus never said anything bad against a homosexual."
San Francisco officials have performed more than 3,400 same-sex marriages and some other counties and cities have challenged laws barring such unions. President Bush has endorsed a movement to amend the U.S. Constitution to ban the practice.
Mass. Lawmakers Agree on Gay Marriage Ban
By JENNIFER PETER, Associated Press Writer
BOSTON - The Massachusetts Legislature adopted a new version of a state constitutional amendment Monday that would ban gay marriage and legalize civil unions, eliminating consideration of any other proposed changes.
The vote came at the opening of the third round of a constitutional convention on the contentious issue, as competing cries of "Jesus Christ" and "Equal Rights" shook the Statehouse outside the legislative chamber.
Lawmakers had voted earlier this month in favor of a similar amendment. The revised version adopted Monday would ask voters to simultaneously ban gay marriage and legalize civil unions — rather than taking those steps separately. It clarifies that civil unions would not grant federal benefits to gay couples.
By adopting the new language, lawmakers blocked consideration of several other amendments — including ones that would have weakened the civil union provision and one that would have split the question in two, allowing voters to weigh in separately on gay marriage and civil unions.
The Legislature must still take two more votes before the amendment is considered approved. If that happens, it will go to the 2005-2006 Legislature for further consideration before going to the voters in the fall of 2006.
Under a state high court ruling issued in November, the nation's first state-sanctioned gay marriage will take place in Massachusetts on May 17. The constitutional amendment would have no effect on this deadline, but Gov. Mitt Romney has said he might seek a way to delay the marriages if a constitutional amendment were adopted this year.
The version adopted Monday is the best possible solution, said Senate Minority Leader Brian Lees.
"There is no single clear solution to this issue," said Lees, who sponsored the measure with Senate President Robert Travaglini. "If there was such a solution, we wouldn't be here today. But 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."
Gay-rights supporters wanted lawmakers to uphold the full marriage rights accorded by the state's highest court, the Supreme Judicial Court, in November. Conservatives wanted an amendment that defines marriage as between a man and a woman but without creating civil unions.
While gay marriage supporters dominated the halls of the Statehouse on the three previous days of the constitutional convention, in mid-February and mid-March, hundreds of religious opponents of gay marriage mixed into the crowd on Monday.
Police tried to ensure that the close quarters and high emotions did not lead to physical conflicts.
"This is a very crowded situation, and it could be one in which some little thing might set something off," said State Police Lt. Paul Maloney. "It's a much more intermingled group than we've seen in the past."
After each intonation of "Jesus" by gay rights opponents, gay rights advocates tacked on "loves us." The two opposing sides then shouted "Jesus Christ" and "Equal Rights" simultaneously, blending into a single, indistinguishable chant.
"I'm just here to support Christ," said Olivia Long, 32, of Boston, a parishioner at New Covenant Christian Church. "We love all people, but we want to keep it like it was in the beginning."
Next to her, Eric Carreno, 26, of Somerville, held a sign that read: "Christ does not discriminate. Why do Christians?"
"I think my Christian brothers and sisters need to understand tolerance," Carreno said. "They need to understand that Jesus never said anything bad against a homosexual."
San Francisco officials have performed more than 3,400 same-sex marriages and some other counties and cities have challenged laws barring such unions. President Bush has endorsed a movement to amend the U.S. Constitution to ban the practice.