Mass. Lawmakers Agree on Gay Marriage Ban

AP | 3/29/04 | JENNIFER PETER

[kattracks]

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 (news - web sites) has endorsed a movement to amend the U.S. Constitution to ban the practice.

[HostileTerritory]

You're right. Before marriage ever came up as an option, no one ever dreamed that something like civil unions would ever come to pass, but now it's the "compromise" we have to accept.

I don't know how the conservatives in the legislature are going to vote but frankly I hope they go for broke on this one and reject this lousy compromise.

[Old Professer]

Hasn't the Mass S.C. already said that a "civil union" wouldn't "cut-it?"

[HostileTerritory]

Yes, but only within the framework of the current decision and the current consistitution. That's why we're moving to a constitutional amendment. An amendment enacting civil unions would trump the court's decision.

We're going to have same-sex couples marrying for two and a half years before any amendment could come into effect, is the problem.

[Old Professer]

I'll count on you to keep us posted.

[azhenfud]

"The revised version adopted Monday would ask voters to simultaneously ban gay marriage and legalize civil unions — rather than taking those steps separately."

Ok Messytwoshots, from which side of the bridge will you jump?

[EdReform]

Ping

What We Can Do To Help Defeat the "Gay" Agenda

Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links (Version 1.1)

The Stamp of Normality

[longtermmemmory]

1. civil unions will be challeged as discriminatory since homosexual unions have a sex act test. Why can't two ganster's marry and take advantage of any testimonial immunity that Mass may provide?

2. Is there any chance this issues can still be seperated. The voters should be able to decide them seperatly. This was adopted as a poison pill.

[FormerLib]

"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."

But Jesus did say that punishment visited upon Sodom was right and just.

[azhenfud]

"I think my Christian brothers and sisters need to understand tolerance," Carreno said.


My understanding of tolerance:

"Tolerance is a good virtue, but virtue should never be sacrificed for the sake of tolerance."

[<1/1,000,000th%]

The Mass. Supremes will just strike it down if it does pass. The US Supremes' Texas Sodomy decision says that states can't pass laws regulating homosexuals anyway. /sarcasm (I think)

[HostileTerritory]

1. civil unions will be challeged as discriminatory since homosexual unions have a sex act test.

No, they don't. Same-sex couples will be subject to the same rules as traditional couples, namely, are they married already, are they old enough, and are they not closely related. There will be nothing to stop male friends from marrying any more than there is anything to stop male and female friends from marrying today.

2. Is there any chance this issues can still be seperated. The voters should be able to decide them seperatly. This was adopted as a poison pill.

It really isn't a poison pill; the Democrats pushing this compromise, God save them, believe this is a fair compromise that fits both sides. The first vote today made it impossible to split the amendments. The only way to protect marriage without civil unions is to vote this down NOW, this afternoon, and start over next year.

[HostileTerritory]

The Supreme Court can't find an amendment to the constitution unconstitutional.

[longtermmemmory]

It is actually VERY relevant because it keeps this a state issue and specifically has the sate of mass telling the other states their civil union is ONLY valid in their state.

It is not transportable.

This also means immigration laws are unaffected. Conversly it also may mean civil unions from out of state are NOT valid in mass.

This is an effort to de-federalize homosexual marriages. The next step of the homosexuals is to try and get civil unioned in Mass and then try and get "divorced" in another state like vermont or california. Thus backdoring into FFC. (this failed in CT, GA, and TX with vermonts civil unions.)

[little jeremiah]

Homosexual Agenda ping -

Been busy this am, haven't been able to read these articles.

But IMHO, civil unions are just another name for "gay" marriage.

Let me know if anyone wants on/off this pinglist.

[mrustow]

But IMHO, civil unions are just another name for "gay" marriage.

Exactly, and as a Trojan horse: You've given us marriage in everything but name, and we want the damned name! Now!

[little jeremiah]

Giving in to "civil unions" is nothing more and nothing less than Neville Chamberlain style appeasement. This appeasement-to-the-left mentality is the worse thing about the Republican party. This wimpy appeasement mentality has gotten us where we are today.

I am totally sick of appeasement cr*p. It's time to fight back, and be on the offensive for real conservative values or we're finished as a country.

[INSENSITIVE GUY]

I simply do not see any difference between homo marriage and civil unions!If they are recognized legally in any way at all then they will have accomplished what they wanted.They will have the taxpayers footing the bill for their sexual filth and disease.

[longtermmemmory]

Here is a question, can the citizens of mass bypass the legislature and directly put a referendum to outlaw civil unions? IOW keep the democrats out of the wording process so you could pass the DOMA amendment and simultaneously outlaw special homosexual rights.

[HostileTerritory]

Civil unions passed, 105-92. Legislature votes next year and then it's on the ballot. We're done for 2004.

[HostileTerritory]

Civil unions passed, 105-92. Legislature votes next year and then it's on the ballot. We're done for 2004.