Posted on 07/12/2006 8:58:54 AM PDT by BaBaStooey
BOSTON - Dozens of people on both sides of the gay marriage debate rallied Wednesday outside the Statehouse, where a series of proposed constitutional amendments awaiting lawmakers' consideration included one that would define marriage as the union of a man and woman.
Demonstrators held signs, waved banners, sang songs and urged passing motorists to honk in support of their cause.
"I think this is an issue for the people to decide," said Jonathan Gal, 39, of Lexington, wearing a sticker that read "Support One Man, One Woman." "I don't like the way this is being imposed on us by a small minority — the courts and the Legislature."
Across the street, supporters of same-sex unions cast the issue as one of civil rights.
"When does civil rights get put on the ballot for everyone to vote on?" said Jim Singletary, 44, of Salem, who last year married his longtime partner, Jim Maynard.
"This is for fairness for my family," Maynard said.
The goal of the gay marriage amendment, which supporters hope to put on the 2008 ballot, would be to block future gay marriages in Massachusetts. More than 8,000 same-sex couples have taken vows since gay marriages began in May 2004.
The debate comes less than a week after New York's highest court rejected same-sex couples' bid to win marriage rights and Georgia's high court reinstated that state's constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.
Gay marriage opponents in Massachusetts got a boost this week from an unlikely ally — the Supreme Judicial Court, the same court that handed down the historic ruling legalizing gay marriage.
On Monday, the court ruled that the proposed amendment could go forward, provided it clear the remaining legislative hurdles. Gay marriage supporters had sued to block the question.
The only thing now standing in the way of the proposed amendment is the Democrat-controlled Legislature. The ballot question must twice win the backing of a quarter — or 50 — of Massachusetts' 200 lawmakers, during the current session and again during the session starting in January.
"There is tremendous momentum going our way," said Kris Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute, who helped collect thousands of signatures for the proposed amendment. "The court has followed the constitution, now is the time for the Legislature to follow the constitution."
Mineau said he's confident that he has more than the 50 votes needed to push the question to the next legislative session. Most gay marriage supporters concede they don't have the votes to block it now.
"At the moment they would prevail but with time we believe we can turn more and more votes," said Arline Isaacson, co-chair of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus. "With each passing week we have more votes."
Some gay activists have urged sympathetic lawmakers to use any tactic they can to block the amendment, including simply adjourning the constitutional convention without ever taking a vote.
Gov. Mitt Romney, a gay marriage opponent and possible Republican presidential candidate in 2008, has warned against the maneuver. He said lawmakers should put the amendment on the ballot.
It's also unclear if the question will even surface on Wednesday. It's near the bottom of a stack of about 20 proposed amendments and lawmakers may simply run out of time.
Lawmakers would have to vote to continue debate past 9 p.m. and again to go past midnight. It's up to Senate President Robert Travaglini to decide when the convention would reconvene. That could happen any time before the end of the year.
It's not the first time Massachusetts lawmakers have been confronted with the issue. In 2002 opponents of gay marriage tried to place a similar constitutional amendment on the ballot, but lawmakers voted to adjourn rather than vote on the issue.
Lawmakers again addressed the issue after the 2003 gay marriage court ruling. The Legislature approved an proposed amendment banning gay marriage and legalizing Vermont-style civil unions. They later reversed themselves, killing the amendment.
Gay activists say same-sex marriage is a civil right for a minority group, much like the integration battles of the 1950s and 60s, and should not be left up to the whims of the majority.
Gay marriage foes argue that in a democracy, the voters should have the last say on a question as central as the definition of marriage — not a one-judge majority on a unelected court.
"Regardless of where individual legislators stand on the issue of gay marriage, we must not deny our citizens their constitutional right to a vote by the Legislature," said House Republican leader Brad Jones, a Republican.
He knows he will lose baba.
It is impossible for people of the same sex to marry.
It is impossible for a person to marry an animal or a knothole.
Of course the people who accept the corrupted meaning of gay might also accept the corrupted meaning of marriage.
bottom of the stack?
I smell a rat manuver.
It's near the bottom of a stack of about 20 proposed amendments and lawmakers may simply run out of time.Run out of time before what? The start of a 10-month holiday?
This is how Birmingham screwed the voters the last time this was up before the ConCon. There is a law that says a ConCon must adjourn at a certain time before the next Legislative session begins.
Just got an e-mail from Mike Franco live at the state house. He believes that the ConCon will go into a second day.
I think I just heard that the Constitutional Convention in Mass is in recess until November. The Marriage Amendment didn't make it to the floor as of yet.
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.