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: MONDAY, MARCH 29, 2004

Sen. Walsh continued: They did not diminish this Legislature. They did not dismiss my constituents. They heard a case before them and they applied the law. The decision is stunning. It’s ahead of my own sensibilities. I cannot say I am comfortable. But our compact is working and it is alive and well. My level of comfort is not the appropriate monitor for my constituents. Seven couples sued, the case was heard and the decision came down. Perhaps what is really going on is not about the process but the outcome. We just don’t like the decision. We are just not comfortable with the marriage word. We have established that religions are not obligated to marry anyone. Before the Legislature gave the authority to marry, it had no right to do so. Today, I am sure as is so often true, gay Americans die for our country, adopt our children and we are silent. Yet we find our voice to take away their Constitutional right to marry. The level of comfort with civil unions seems to be growing rapidly not marriage, even though marriage is a civil union. We know how important a word can be. We have heard people have a right to vote. I say this is not true, respectfully. I return to our compact. As a matter of history, the people decided at the ballot on Nov. 5, 185, this process we are exercising today. On that day, American women did not have a Constitutional right to vote. This process in my view to take away my constituents’ Constitutional rights takes two votes in the legislative session. We are not required to vote yes. We can make a judgment. A legislator who feels it is best to protect this right would vote no. We have traveled this road before. In 1918, the governor at the time told the Constitutional Convention that justice cannot rest upon the will of the strongest. They have no right to trample upon the few. The public has supported the process to avoid mob rule and foolish outcomes. The threats to marriage and natural law have been raised with women, minorities, the poor, interracial marriage and an integrated military. But this is where we work this out. Here in the Bay Colony is where we advance the human condition. We advance human happiness. Our compact is not abstract or remote. It is contemporary. There are some among us for whom that compact has not been fully realized. We are growing in our understanding of humanity. We are moving like a moral glacier. At one time, we say diabetes as evidence of Satan. We are learning more about our brains, chromosomes and genetics. This knowledge that we are all created equal – this is the American dream. We here in Massachusetts have always moved humanity forward because we recognize the truth of our dignity. The truth is now shining more brightly. I believe we are good enough and strong enough to assist in our growth and progress. I want to thank my constituents for the honor and privileged to represent them and participate in this convention. This is one of the most important instances in my life. I recognize the criticism that my decision has made. I am sensitive of the difficulty this has presented to my family and supporters. An open mind and conscience of what is right and true is my concern. We as legislators in the next vote have the right to take these rights away. We can allow rights to stand or we can take them away. A gay individual is owed the promise of hope in America equally and fully because that is our compact. We must reach beyond our moral and emotional grasp. Then we become the nation that we want to be. It is not always easy and quick, but I will try. All people are born free and equal and have certain natural and inalienable rights. Eqaulity under the law shall not be denied or abridged. Thank you, Mr. President.

[Applause and standing ovation]

Sen. Travaglini said out of respect, I would like to allow our next speaker to speak.Rep. LoScocco said we are finally here. This is the vote we are going to take. I applaud the previous speaker. But at the end of the day, this question is already decided. So why are we here amending the Constitution? There was a reason to address the fact the Legislature failed to take action. We have now an amendment that makes the question meaningless. We have done this for political reasons. This is a fig leaf. They are not being offered an amendment that does not offer a real choice. So why do we have this civil unions question? Why? Are we so afraid of that group of people that we can’t have an honest debate? Why set up a separate class of citizens? We are confused in my view. We have taken one word marriage and seen it as a civil and religious institution.

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