Constitutional Convention (Thursday, Feb. 12, 2004)
«Previous Page · 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 · Next Page»
Sen. Rosenberg requested a roll call on the vote to meet beyond 9 pm.
Rep. Hynes said House Rule 1A states that when 9 pm arrives, the presiding officer will place before the body a motion to go beyond 9 pm. If that is the motion, there is no need to require a vote. It goes before the body and the vote takes place.
Sen. Travaglini said the clerk is saying a roll call is necessary and that is what’s before the body.
Before the House roll call was opened, Speaker Finneran said it required unanimous consent to meet beyond midnight.
BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 135-62, 9 PM RULE SUSPENDED
Question came again on the leadership amendment.
At 9:13 pm, Sen. Lees requested a Republican caucus under the rules.
RECESSES: The convention recessed at 9:13 pm, over the protests of many members.
Sens. Lees, Travaglini, Baddour and Murray entered the chamber at about 10:15 pm.
RETURNS: The convention resumed at 10:17 pm, Sen. Travaglini presiding.
NO QUORUM: Sen. Travaglini recognized Sen. Baddour, who doubted the presence of a quorum.
A review of the floor divisions determined a quorum was not present. Sen. Travaglini said lock the doors and summon the members.
Sen. Travaglini said a quorum present at 10:22 pm.
Sen. Travaglini recognized Rep. Demakis.
Rep. Demakis said thank you. Mr. President, I hope the further amendment is not adopted. When the Senate minority leader spoke at the beginning of the debate on this further amendment, he expressed a view that we needed to do something, to put something on the ballot. He said this is what the people wanted. I disagree. We have seen in these last two days a legislature that is deeply, deeply divided. We had a two-vote margin, a ten-vote margin and I believe an 11-vote margin. We are a reflection of the people who sent us here. If we are so evenly divided, we can be sure that they are too. If you look at the numbers in the polls, it shows a deeply divided electorate. Half may want to vote on this. There’s half that wants to accept the SJC decision. When we have such a deeply divided electorate on a question of this magnitude, we ought not to take the risk that on a very very narrow majority we enshrine an amendment in the constitution that has nearly half the people against it. It is very clear that there is absolutely no consensus in the Commonwealth on this question. We have seen a sea change occurring in the attitudes of the people of the Commonwealth towards gay men and lesbians over the last few years. Public opinion is shifting each day, more in favor of extending rights to gay men and lesbians. If you had this debate ten years ago, we would have seen a much wider margin against extending these rights. The split in public opinion on these issues is generational.