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

Sen. Lees continued: This defines marriage as only the union of one man and one woman and establishes civil unions for same-sex couples under the constitution. I do believe this is an historic day. We have an opportunity to do something no other state has done. People can enter into a civil union with all the benefits of those who enter marriage. Should the public in November of 2006 say a marriage is between a man and woman, we want to be sure the public can say they want benefits to extend to couples of the same sex. There has been a lot of lobbying. If you vote yes on this amendment, what will be left is Mr. Travis’ proposal and there will be a vote to replace his language with this language. This is in the second degree. We will then go to third reading. Join me in choosing our alternative which we feel is a fair compromise at this point. This in no way stops what the Supreme Court has ruled in allowing gay marriage to proceed on May 17. It simply puts a ballot question, if we vote on it next year in the same form, on the ballot in 2006. The voters can leave the status quo or change the definition of marriage. If they do change it, they will ensure that benefits for same-sex couples will be maintained at that moment. It is a good compromise. I have spoken twice.

With Sen. Menard in the chair, Rep. Tobin was recognized asked if we might be precluded from offering same-sex benefits in the future? Can you explain that?

Sen. Lees said it is not the main reason why we are doing what we are doing. It has been expressed. It was brought to our attention. The main reason we do this is to make sure everyone realizes everyone ought to have rights and benefits. Should we pass DOMA, folks who enter into a civil union or marriage within Massachusetts still get the benefits without going to court.

Rep. Peterson said if this amendment were to pass, would any other amendments pending be off the table?

Sen. Menard said it would make all other amendments moot.

Rep. Peterson said are we at second or third reading?

Sen. Menard said the question after this will be on ordering it to third reading.

Sen. Lees said at third reading it is open again to amendments and for things to be filed. We still have a ways to go here.

«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 Sen. Lees continued: This defines marriage as only the union of one man and one woman and establishes civil unions for same-sex couples under the constitution. I do believe this is an historic day. We have an opportunity to do something no other state has done. People can enter into a civil union with all the benefits of those who enter marriage. Should the public in November of 2006 say a marriage is between a man and woman, we want to be sure the public can say they want benefits to extend to couples of the same sex. There has been a lot of lobbying. If you vote yes on this amendment, what will be left is Mr. Travis’ proposal and there will be a vote to replace his language with this language. This is in the second degree. We will then go to third reading. Join me in choosing our alternative which we feel is a fair compromise at this point. This in no way stops what the Supreme Court has ruled in allowing gay marriage to proceed on May 17. It simply puts a ballot question, if we vote on it next year in the same form, on the ballot in 2006. The voters can leave the status quo or change the definition of marriage. If they do change it, they will ensure that benefits for same-sex couples will be maintained at that moment. It is a good compromise. I have spoken twice. With Sen. Menard in the chair, Rep. Tobin was recognized asked if we might be precluded from offering same-sex benefits in the future? Can you explain that? Sen. Lees said it is not the main reason why we are doing what we are doing. It has been expressed. It was brought to our attention. The main reason we do this is to make sure everyone realizes everyone ought to have rights and benefits. Should we pass DOMA, folks who enter into a civil union or marriage within Massachusetts still get the benefits without going to court. Rep. Peterson said if this amendment were to pass, would any other amendments pending be off the table? Sen. Menard said it would make all other amendments moot. Rep. Peterson said are we at second or third reading? Sen. Menard said the question after this will be on ordering it to third reading. Sen. Lees said at third reading it is open again to amendments and for things to be filed. We still have a ways to go here. «Previous Page · 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 · Next Page»