Posted on 04/12/2004 2:07:03 PM PDT by robcwade
Senator supports same-sex marriages
Tuesday, April 6, 2004
It's been over a month since the last time I commented on the proceedings of the Legislature's constitutional convention.
In that time frame, the Legislature met for a third and fourth time to debate the issue of same sex marriages.
As many of you know, I wrote a column following the close of the first two days of debate that explained my opinion on this issue.
Due to the important nature of this issue, I thought I would offer this updated column.
I am not going to go back over my overall thoughts on the issue at this time, as they have not changed. In this column, I will merely document what transpired in the final debate on same sex marriage in this legislative session and explain how I voted.
You are most likely aware that a majority of the Legislature voted to approve and send to the next legislative session a constitutional amendment that would both ban same sex marriages and establish as an alternative civil unions.
The proposal passed by five votes.
You are probably also aware that I voted against this proposal.
Some of you may be pleased with my vote and others may not approve of it.
I heard from thousands of constituents on both sides of the issue. My constituents were split on this issue. About a quarter wanted an amendment to define marriage in our constitution as solely between a man and women and were strongly opposed to giving any type of benefit or recognition to same sex couples. Another quarter advocated an amendment that granted the rights and benefits of marriage in the form of "civil unions" but were uncomfortable calling it marriage.
About half of the constituents I heard from supported the Supreme Court decision and/or did not want any question placed on the ballot, which would amend our constitution to restrict the rights of any group of individuals.
The amendment that was finally approved by a majority of the Legislature would, as I noted, ban same sex marriages and establish civil unions. Sen. Robert Travaglini, Speaker of the House Tom Finneran and Senate Minority Leader Brian Lees were the primary sponsors of this amendment.
I truly believe that these individuals felt that they were trying to do the best for both sides of this issue.
The so-called "leadership amendment" would, as the proponents claimed, give the people of this state the opportunity to vote to ban same sex marriage but at the same time protect the rights of same sex couples who would have been legally married for two years by the time the voters addressed this issue in 2006.
Were the leadership amendment to pass the muster of voters in 2006, all same sex marriages that took place prior to the vote would automatically become civil unions. Under civil unions same sex couples would be entitled to all of the rights and privileges afforded to married couples under Massachusetts law.
The alternative, the original Travis amendment, was far more draconian, in that all rights and benefits would have been stripped away from same sex families if approved in 2006.
While I think the leadership's heart was in the right place by trying to protect the rights of the minority with this compromise amendment, I could not support their efforts.
As I have expressed before, the establishment of civil unions would only create second-class citizenship for same sex couples.
You may remember that I began my first column on this issue with an analogy to the landmark 1948 California Supreme Court 4-3 decision that ruled that bans on interracial marriages were unconstitutional. Suppose that in response to this decision, the California Legislature had decided they were uncomfortable using the term "marriage" for interracial couples and instead instituted civil unions? Suppose the entire United States did so after the U.S. Supreme Court 1967 decision striking down the last of the interracial marriage bans.
In either situation, if civil unions were adopted for interracial couples, would we today have applauded that decision? The answer is clearly no. I viewed the current debate in the same terms.
During the final debate, three roll call votes were taken on the "leadership amendment."
I voted twice for the amendment and then voted against it on the final approval vote. Some may be confused as to my votes.
Let me explain.
The two votes I cast in favor of the amendment were votes to substitute the compromise amendment for the original constitutional amendment, which would have simply banned same sex marriages. The original amendment in my opinion was far more draconian than the compromise. I supported efforts to replace the original amendment with an amendment that would have at least provided some basic civil rights for same sex couples.
After replacing the original amendment with the compromise amendment, I voted against final approval of the amendment.
There are some groups and individuals who will say that legislators were playing games with their votes. I respectfully disagree.
This matter was a serious issue and I treated it as such.
I had said at the start of this debate that I would have preferred that no amendment be passed, but that if an amendment had to go before the voters that the amendment provide some basic protections for same sex couples.
My responsibility as an elected official is to pass the best possible legislation.
Even if I do not agree with the legislation, it is incumbent upon me to try and improve it. That's true if it is this constitutional amendment or any other piece of legislation.
My votes and the votes of other legislators who voted similarly were in accordance with this principle.
While we were opposed to the amendment, we voted to improve it by substituting the compromise language. The alternative was far worse. I hope that explains my votes.
If anyone has any questions, please feel free to contact me.
On a related matter, I am extremely disappointed that the governor decided to try and ask the Supreme Judicial Court to delay their ruling for two years while this constitutional debate plays out. On this issue, I have to agree with state Attorney General Tom Reilly. The court has ruled and it is the law of the state. There is no legal reason to delay the decision. I support the governor on many issues, but on this one he is wrong
Finally, I must take this opportunity to offer my commendations to Senate President Robert Travaglini for the way he conducted the constitutional convention. Under the rules of the Legislature, whenever the Legislature meets in a constitutional convention, the senate president presides over the convention. I feel Sen. Travaglini did a terrific job and was quite fair to both sides of the issue. Some individuals and groups in the future will criticize his leadership for their own political purposes. I do not share those criticisms.
State Sen. Richard Tisei, R-Wakefield, is a state senator in the Middlesex and Essex counties, representing the towns of Stoneham, Reading, Wakefield and Lynnfield, the city of Malden and wards 1 through 5 in Melrose. Tisei can be reached at the State House by calling 617-722-1206 or e-mailing Rtisei@senate.state.ma.us.
After years of politicians patting blacks on the back with one hand while stabbing them with other, they now equate their race with perversion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.