|
|
|
Effort to Bar Gay Marriage Gains in Massachusetts Debate By IAN URBINA, NYTimes on the Web, March 29, 2004 Boston, MA -- A proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages in Massachusetts cleared its final legislative hurdle for this year today, raising the possibility that the state's voters would eventually pass judgment on the issue. In the Legislature's final vote on the issue today, the amendment was approved by a margin of 105 to 92. But the amendment is far from becoming law. For it to become a part of the state Constitution, it must survive — unchanged — another round of legislative voting during the 2005-2006 session and the endorsement of the public in a 2006 referendum. The proposal approved today defines marriage as "only the union of one man and one woman," although it also provides for "civil unions for same-sex persons" that would receive "the same benefits, protections, rights, privileges and obligations that are afforded to persons married under the law of the commonwealth." The effect of this compromise language is that a vote for the amendment by an opponent of gay marriage also constitutes a vote to create civil unions for same-sex couples. Likewise, a vote against the amendment because it limits marriage to heterosexuals also constitutes a vote against civil unions for same-sex couples. The push for a constitutional amendment began after Massachusetts's highest court decided last November that gay couples had the right to marry under the state constitution and that the state had to begin recognizing same-sex marriages as of May 17. Shortly after the final vote today, Gov. Mitt Romney said he would ask the court to set aside its May 17 deadline, The Associate Press reported. The proposed amendment, which has no direct bearing on the court-ordered May 17 deadline, passed three rounds of debate today, emerging with just one revision to the version passed earlier this month. New language added today specified that gay couples would not receive the same benefits provided under federal law to married couples. Estimating the amount of legislative support behind the amendment had been difficult because of complicated jockeying that occurred throughout the process. Some proponents of gay marriage viewed the morning's revisions to the amendment as a step in the right direction. Joshua Friedes, advocacy director for the Freedom to Marry Coalition in Massachusetts, said that even though his organization opposed the amendment, the new language increased the chances of its failure if it makes onto the ballot in fall 2006. "We've seen that even people who are uncomfortable with marriage for gays and lesbians think that same-sex couples should be allowed equal rights," he said. "Today's language makes it utterly clear that equal rights are the last thing that they will receive under this amendment." Today's votes came after two months of fierce legislative wrangling. In February, lawmakers deadlocked after two days of argument. On March 11, they inched a little closer to amending the state Constitution, granting preliminary approval of a proposed amendment to ban same-sex marriages while allowing civil unions for gay couples. Today was the last chance to discuss the amendment, and the votes eliminated the possibility of future amendments on the topic. Even with passage today, the amendment must withstand further legal and political tests. The earliest the amendment could take effect is November 2006. Two additional steps remain: First, lawmakers must cast a final yes vote on the measure during the 2005-2006 legislative session. The measure must then be put to the voters for a referendum in the fall of 2006. The constitutional amendment makes no mention of the May 17 starting date set by the Massachusetts court for gay marriages. The amendment also makes no mention of what will happen to same-sex couples who marry after May 17 but before the amendment takes effect.
|
Send mail to
email@gaypasg.org with questions or comments about this web site.
|