Constitutional Convention (Monday, March 29, 2004)
«Previous Page · 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 · Next Page»
CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION:
Rep. Hynes said I moved that we divide the question now before us. You cited House Rule 74. Do I understand that this rule would govern the motion I made? Did you state that Rule 74 would apply to my motion?
Sen. Travaglini said because the amendment is a third degree amendment, the rule I highlighted is appropriate and the request you are making is in appropriate.
Rep. Hynes doubted the presence of a quorum and a roll was ordered.
A ROLL CALL SHOWED 195 MEMBERS PRESENTRep. Hynes said in our previous exchange, is it my understanding that you assert hat House Rule 74 governs this matter. I therefore move that House Rule 74 be suspended and that there be a roll call vote.
Sen. Travaglini said the request takes unanimous consent. [Shouts of objection].
Rep. Hynes doubted the ruling that it takes unanimous consent.
Sen. Travaglini asked the clerk to read House Rule 74.
Clerk read the rule.Rep. Hynes said I would agree with the interpretation that this rule’s suspension requires unanimous consent. I therefore request that the unanimous consent requires a roll call vote.
Sen. Travaglini said there has already been an objection and the gentleman’s motion is moot.
Sen. Walsh said I want to thank my colleagues for their earnest and thoughtful dialogue. I know most people don’t want to change the Constitution and most people don’t want gay marriage. Our Constitution’s purpose is so beautifully stated in the preamble, which speaks of natural blessings and rights. So today I inquire, which Constitutional right do you know enjoy do you want to give up? The freedom from unreasonable searches and seizure or trial by jury? Perhaps the right to free speech or right to assembly? Why do we wish however well intended to take away the Constitutional right to marry from some of our constituents? Do we wish to take it away because some established institution demands it? And why do these institutions demand it? We should read again the Massachusetts Constitution and Article 2 that protects and respects the freedom of religion and the right and duty of public worship – a separation of church and state. Constitutional rights run to individuals, not groups or institutions. So I ask what constitutional rights that we represent like to give up? We talk about the equality of natural rights and we see all people are born free and equal. Among these are the rights to defend liberties and acquire property. In 1976, we changed our Constitution and added that equality under the law shall not be changed because of sex, color, creed. For all our Constitution, there are constant references to happiness, the pursuit of happiness. It does not say except for gays and lesbians. Do we want to make that change? Do we want to say that some of us are not equal? No church will be expected or required to marry our constituents who are gay. What about the word marriage scares us when we discuss gay couples? Why would we give so many benefits but expressly place a ban on gay marriage? We realize marriage has a colorful history. Women have been property. It has been one man and many women. It has also been noted that civil marriage is healthier today than it has ever been. This is true because people marry for love and happiness. The SJC did not amend our Constitution, they interpreted it. That is their function. They did not hijack democracy.
«Previous Page · 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 · Next Page»