Mass. Constitutional Convention (Feb.2004)

Constitutional Convention (Wednesday, Feb. 11, 2004)

«Previous Page · 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 · Next Page»

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION – WEDNESDAY, FEB. 11, 2004

Rep. Atkins sid I apologize for a moment of pent-up passion. We have written letter sand petitions and tried to bring the issue before this chamber many times. That is why I thank you. I am insulted by the words about the courts. The courts did not ask for this legislation or reach out to the public. It went there because of inaction of the House, not of the Senate, but of the House. The courts interpreted the constitution. That is their job. We could have had the opportunity to vote on this in various forms many times before today. It never ever had to come to this crisis.

Sen. Wilkerson said I oppose the amendment before us. One group of citizens cannot be almost equal to the others. I was born not far from Little Rock. Brown vs. Board of Education was a 5-4 ruling. My parents are from Arkansas. My grandparents all lived in segregated southern Arkansas. I was but one generation removed from an existence in slavery. And to this day I carry the name of that dark and ugly history of being almost equal. Slaves were given the names of their masters. The names end in son. It signifies ownership. It is with that knowledge and history that I typically avoid that I process the question today. Through my lenses the picture could not be more clear. My professional life has been focused in equality and equity and justice. Simply put, this is a civil rights matter. It should not be left to the public to be decided by popular vote. I represent many of those affected by this decision. They feel, they care, they love and they are deserving. This is a civil rights issue. This week I witnessed a group of persons announce a position contrary to my own. The black clergy in my darkest moment embraced me and got me through a tough time. I understand and respect the position but respectfully disagree. I have filed domestic partnerships each and every year for six terms. It was a morally correct effort to engage. It has been made moot by the rulings of the court. Domestic partnership protection would still reflect less than equal. This is why I cannot support the civil union option. We in the Senate supported domestic partnerships three times. I am not sure how anyone can advocate for a status that leaves people less than equal. I can’t and won’t turn back now. Protection of rights must include the extension of the most basic of civil rights, the right to marry. I was born in my grandmother’s house in a shotgun shack in Arkansas. The public hospital did not allow blacks to deliver children. We lived in constant fear of the Ku Klux Klan. Blacks had to pull off the road for whites to pass. I had two uncles that decided enough was enough in 1935. It cost them 30 years of their lives. It sent one uncle to Springfield, which is how I got there. Rep. Malia said she could not hear. Sen. Travaglini urged members to quiet down.

Sen. Wilkerson said I can’t send anyone to that place from where my family fled. My grandmother would never forgive me. I implore my colleagues to reject this measure so we can get on with very very important business.

Sen. Melconian said I respect everyone in this chamber on this issue. For many of us, we might wish we were not engaged in this. This is simply an issue of civil and basic human rights. We know gay men and women are our family and colleagues and friends. They are here in this chamber with us. It is not us vs. them. We are all in this together. The SJC decision has hit us all with a thunderbolt. Whether we agree or not, we can’t use the constitution to prohibit or undermine the civil rights of individuals. I supported domestic partnership bills. If we enacted them or took the Senate recommendation, we might not be taking this vote today. The amendment before us is a smokescreen. This is a simple DOMA and we cannot offer a statutory civil union that is in direct conflict with the language of DOMA. No civil union could ever be adopted. There is a difference between authorize and create. This amendment will have rights granted on May 17 taken away. This formalizes sanctions and codifies discrimination in our constitution. Amendments to the constitution should be made to protect and preserve rights.

«Previous Page · 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 · Next Page»


Home > Local News > Constitutional Convention Transcripts
Pictures and Photos Local News Constitutional Convention Transcripts Username Password	Constitutional Convention (Wednesday, Feb. 11, 2004) «Previous Page · 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 · Next Page» CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION – WEDNESDAY, FEB. 11, 2004 Rep. Atkins sid I apologize for a moment of pent-up passion. We have written letter sand petitions and tried to bring the issue before this chamber many times. That is why I thank you. I am insulted by the words about the courts. The courts did not ask for this legislation or reach out to the public. It went there because of inaction of the House, not of the Senate, but of the House. The courts interpreted the constitution. That is their job. We could have had the opportunity to vote on this in various forms many times before today. It never ever had to come to this crisis. Sen. Wilkerson said I oppose the amendment before us. One group of citizens cannot be almost equal to the others. I was born not far from Little Rock. Brown vs. Board of Education was a 5-4 ruling. My parents are from Arkansas. My grandparents all lived in segregated southern Arkansas. I was but one generation removed from an existence in slavery. And to this day I carry the name of that dark and ugly history of being almost equal. Slaves were given the names of their masters. The names end in son. It signifies ownership. It is with that knowledge and history that I typically avoid that I process the question today. Through my lenses the picture could not be more clear. My professional life has been focused in equality and equity and justice. Simply put, this is a civil rights matter. It should not be left to the public to be decided by popular vote. I represent many of those affected by this decision. They feel, they care, they love and they are deserving. This is a civil rights issue. This week I witnessed a group of persons announce a position contrary to my own. The black clergy in my darkest moment embraced me and got me through a tough time. I understand and respect the position but respectfully disagree. I have filed domestic partnerships each and every year for six terms. It was a morally correct effort to engage. It has been made moot by the rulings of the court. Domestic partnership protection would still reflect less than equal. This is why I cannot support the civil union option. We in the Senate supported domestic partnerships three times. I am not sure how anyone can advocate for a status that leaves people less than equal. I can’t and won’t turn back now. Protection of rights must include the extension of the most basic of civil rights, the right to marry. I was born in my grandmother’s house in a shotgun shack in Arkansas. The public hospital did not allow blacks to deliver children. We lived in constant fear of the Ku Klux Klan. Blacks had to pull off the road for whites to pass. I had two uncles that decided enough was enough in 1935. It cost them 30 years of their lives. It sent one uncle to Springfield, which is how I got there. Rep. Malia said she could not hear. Sen. Travaglini urged members to quiet down. Sen. Wilkerson said I can’t send anyone to that place from where my family fled. My grandmother would never forgive me. I implore my colleagues to reject this measure so we can get on with very very important business. Sen. Melconian said I respect everyone in this chamber on this issue. For many of us, we might wish we were not engaged in this. This is simply an issue of civil and basic human rights. We know gay men and women are our family and colleagues and friends. They are here in this chamber with us. It is not us vs. them. We are all in this together. The SJC decision has hit us all with a thunderbolt. Whether we agree or not, we can’t use the constitution to prohibit or undermine the civil rights of individuals. I supported domestic partnership bills. If we enacted them or took the Senate recommendation, we might not be taking this vote today. The amendment before us is a smokescreen. This is a simple DOMA and we cannot offer a statutory civil union that is in direct conflict with the language of DOMA. No civil union could ever be adopted. There is a difference between authorize and create. This amendment will have rights granted on May 17 taken away. This formalizes sanctions and codifies discrimination in our constitution. Amendments to the constitution should be made to protect and preserve rights. «Previous Page · 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 · Next Page»