ConCon lite sets next session for July 12
BOTH SIDES HAPPY WITH DELAYING VOTE ON ANTI-GAY MARRIAGE AMENDMENT; THE STAKES REMAIN HIGH, UNCERTAIN AND IN A STATE OF FLUX
By Chuck Colbert, In Newsweekly | May 17, 2006
It took just two minutes on Wed., May 10, for state Senate president Robert E. Travaglini to gavel in and out a joint session of the Legislature, schedule to meet in Constitutional Convention (ConCon).
The adjournment, which delays until Wed. July 12 a roll call vote on banning same-sex wedlock, gives both gay marriage supporters and its detractors two months to continue field work across the Commonwealth and lobbying on Beacon Hill.
Still, the stakes remain high, uncertain and in a state of flux. The issue in play is the proposed amendment to the Constitution, a citizen's initiative to ban gay marriage.
In a rare moment of agreement, both gay marriage ban proponents and detractors agreed with the delay, a new window of opportunity made possible by ConCon lite.
Arline Isaacson, chairwoman of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus, the leading lobbying group at the State House, told supporters, "It's helpful to have more time to talk to legislators to explain the issues as we see them," she said. "It's about protecting our families and kids and to be treated equally under the law."
For his part, Marc Solomon, campaign director for MassEquality.org, the umbrella organization to defend gay marriage, said, "The momentum is on our side," adding, "now with more time to lobby, organize and mobilize," especially "friends and family and non gay people."
Tom Lang, director of the grassroots watchdog organization, KnowThyNeighbor.org, said his supporters showed up to "become more familiar with the State House and to get personal activism going", encouraging "people not to be afraid to talk to legislators, being specific about names and street addresses."
Despite the presence of marriage equality supporters, gay marriage ban opponents outnumbered them, but not by much.
Kris Mineau, spokesperson for VoteOnMarriage.org, the campaign to allow Mass. voters to decide on the definition of marriage, told his supporters that his side "looked forward to the date [July 12] when we will have a full debate on the amendment and the opportunity for legislators to vote."
Mineau, who serves as president of the Massachusetts Family Institute, a pro-traditional family and marriage organization, also said he was "encouraged by Sen. Travaglini's good faith toward the constitutional process."
To amend the state's Constitution to ban gay marriage, lawmakers must first approve the ballot measure in joint sessions of two consecutive Legislatures, meeting in convention, both this year and next. To be approved, only 50 votes or 25 percent of lawmakers are required. To convene any session a quorum of 101 senators and representatives must be reached. The earliest voters could decide is Election Day, Nov. 2008.
The citizens petition reads: "When recognizing marriages entered into after the adoption of this amendment by the people, the Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall define marriage only as the union of one man and one woman."
About 75 VoteOnMarriage.org supporters of the ban converged on Beacon Hill with their every-present "Let the people vote" signs and mantra. Anti-gay group leaders handed out guidelines to supporters urging them to "Pray! Above all for the legislators, our opponents, and the hearts and minds of the people" and to "be kind and loving to our opponents." The guidelines also said: "Join in singing the songs using the lyric sheets that are available." Number one on the song sheet was "The Battle Hymn of the Republican" - not Republic.
Rob Jagnow, a Somerville resident, offered his perspective on the signs and mantra. "What if the people had voted on Loving v. Virginia [US Supreme Court ruling overturning interracial marriage bans] or Brown v. Board of Education [school desegregation], enormously unpopular at the time," he said, adding "In historic retrospective, equality won out."
To the point, Jagnow explained, "If people had voted then, we'd still have segregated schools and blacks and whites not able to intermarry. So people don't have an understanding of the legislature or respect for the legitimacy of that role in American government anymore."
Before the Senate president adjourned the joint session, any number of lawmakers mingled with the crowd outside the House of Representative chambers. Freshman state Rep. Christopher N. Speranzo (D-Pittsfield), said he was a "flip vote," referring to his vote last Sept. when lawmakers defeated a gay marriage ban with civil unions provision.
It was a special election victory in April of 2005 that enabled marriage equality proponents to pick up additional legislative supporters, including Speranzo. Also elected then were representatives Linda Dorcena Forry (D-Dorchester) and Michael J. Moran (D-Brighton).
For her part, state Rep. Martha M. Walz (D-Boston) said she was glad not to be voting now "so that the court [Supreme Judicial Court] can consider arguments on both sides and make a decision" regarding the constitutionality of the citizen's initiative petition.
On May 4, the SJC heard oral arguments in a complaint filed by Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, or GLAD, the regions leading gay rights legal organization. GLAD argued that in plain language and effect the proposed gay marriage ban is prohibited from the citizen's initiative process under Article 48 because it is "a reversal of a judicial decision."
A ruling from the court is expected within four to six weeks.
Find out how to contact us for more information. |
