Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: seamole; NutCrackerBoy; Little Bill; nutmeg; 2ndMostConservativeBrdMember; afraidfortherepublic; ...
Update on the Joint Session and the marriage debate, Feb. 11, 2004
 
The joint session convened tonight after two votes, one where we failed, the other where we prevailed.  The first vote came on a surprise amendment offered by House Speaker Finneran which stated as follows:
 
"It being the public policy of this Commonwealth to protect the unique relationship of marriage, only the union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Massachusetts.
 
This Article is self-executing, but the General Court may enact laws not inconsistent with anything herein contained to carry out the purpose of this Article, including but not limited to, the enactment of laws establishing civil unions as may be defined by the General Court from time to time."
 
After reviewing this language, the Coalition for Marriage and the Massachusetts Catholic Conference indicated their support.  The amendment failed, 98 yes votes to 100 no votes.  (There are 199 legislators, because of one open Senate seat, but only 198 were present because Rep. Mariano is in the hospital).  Some legislators who voted against it, and who had indicated generally that they supported reaffirming marriage as the union between one man and one woman, indicated they did so out of displeasure with the way the amendment was brought up by surprise. 
 
The second vote came on the proposal by Sens. Travaglini and Lees combining traditional marriage with civil unions for same sex couples.  It was defeated by a vote of 94 yes votes to 104 no votes.  Enough members from both the proponents of traditional marriage and the proponents of gay marriage voted no to avoid what would have been a disastrous win for the Travaglini-Lees proposal. 
 
After the second vote, the joint session was adjourned until the next day, Thursday, Feb. 12, to begin again at noon. 
 
Everything is very fluid.  Keep praying--we all who are lobbying feel God's presence and the power of your prayers.  We were gratified by the presence of so many good citizens from across the Commonwealth who took the time to come and show solidarity with us for preserving marriage.  Pray that we don't run out of time to vote straight up or down on a marriage reaffirmation amendment.  Many legislators want to leave by Friday to start their winter break vacations.
 
We will send out who voted how as soon as we can, although the media will likely carry that information tomorrow.  Stay tuned!

Daniel Avila, Esq.
Associate Director of Policy & Research
Massachusetts Catholic Conference
West End Place, Suite 5
150 Staniford St.
Boston, Massachusetts 02114-2511
(v) 617-367-6060
(f) 617-367-2767
(e) danielavila@macathconf.org
(w) http://www.macathconf.org


2 posted on 02/12/2004 4:51:07 PM PST by Coleus (Vote for Bush and Traditional Marriage; http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4205947/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Coleus
Thanks, Coleus. I just got the bad news that the Travis amendment failed 103 - 96 (I'm in work and can't listen or see it because no radio station or internet venue is carrying it that I can find). There will definitely be an amendment that passes which will include mention of civil unions as well as a definition of marriage... the battle is in how many bennies to include for the civil union people.

Very disheartening.

3 posted on 02/12/2004 4:54:55 PM PST by american colleen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

Why are the Senate Republicans using the PC term and calling it "same-sex marriage" instead of calling it "homosexual-marriage" as it should be called?
4 posted on 02/12/2004 4:55:47 PM PST by Coleus (Vote for Bush and Traditional Marriage; http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4205947/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: Coleus
Is there a direct source? There is no reliable source of information. It is all pro-homosexual.

The media is reporting that it is going to be a "clean" amendment with no mention of homosexual unions.
10 posted on 02/12/2004 6:20:03 PM PST by longtermmemmory (Vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: Coleus
Thanks for the ping!
13 posted on 02/12/2004 10:20:56 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson