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»

I remind my colleagues this is the first vote on the subject, not the last. We are under national scrutiny. The speaker showed great political courage here today. He tried to address our concerns. He tried to allow for civil unions. If we amend the state Constitution, we think we know what we are talking about when we say civil unions. Who decides? Do we cede that right to the court? The amendment just rejected would have allowed us in the General Court to decide. This is a representative form of government. Why should the people be denied a seat at the table? What if we want to expand the definition of civil unions? Shouldn’t we be allowed to decide? This is not government by four people. Rep. Travis said everyone keeps referring to the original amendment, my amendment. We haven’t gotten there. But if we adopt a substitute, the amendment you have heard about in religious institutions and coffee shops will not be considered. What is wrong with what Sen. Lees substituted? He told me that Rep. Travis’ wording is protected – the union of one man and one woman. He then has six paragraphs and hopes the public can decipher them on civil unions. I defy any person of common sense to go to the ballot in 2006 and try to vote on two principles that are different. It’s like a true-false question with the first part true and the second part false. I wanted to rule this beyond the scope. But they have given wide latitude. I thank the President for that. The people of Massachusetts over 18 will have a chance to vote. What they vote on is another matter. I am talking to members of the House and Senate now: We must by majority vote to defeat this amendment. It does an injustice to the people. They will not be able to figure out what they are voting for. We want to protect marriage – an institution of 4,000 years. I ask my colleagues who support me, as a courtesy, I need 101 votes to defeat this. It is a travesty. It goes beyond what the people I think wish to vote on. I hope this is defeated.

Rep. Tobin said I intend to support Rep. Travis’ line. I note that the vote was only 2 votes last time. Let me tell you about this amendment: it’s a poison pill. You are voting against gay marriage but at the same time putting into the Constitution some measures for gay unions. When it gets to the ballot, it will fail. It will. And you will be left with same-sex marriage, by default. This is a subterfuge. It’s a poison pill. Do not be fooled. We had the opportunity to address this with the last amendment offered by Rep. Finneran. We will bring it up again, I hope. The people who rejected the amendment faulted it on personality. They didn’t believe the leaders would do it. Don’t vote for this amendment thinking you are going to achieve a Constitutional prohibition on same-sex marriage.

«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» I remind my colleagues this is the first vote on the subject, not the last. We are under national scrutiny. The speaker showed great political courage here today. He tried to address our concerns. He tried to allow for civil unions. If we amend the state Constitution, we think we know what we are talking about when we say civil unions. Who decides? Do we cede that right to the court? The amendment just rejected would have allowed us in the General Court to decide. This is a representative form of government. Why should the people be denied a seat at the table? What if we want to expand the definition of civil unions? Shouldn’t we be allowed to decide? This is not government by four people. Rep. Travis said everyone keeps referring to the original amendment, my amendment. We haven’t gotten there. But if we adopt a substitute, the amendment you have heard about in religious institutions and coffee shops will not be considered. What is wrong with what Sen. Lees substituted? He told me that Rep. Travis’ wording is protected – the union of one man and one woman. He then has six paragraphs and hopes the public can decipher them on civil unions. I defy any person of common sense to go to the ballot in 2006 and try to vote on two principles that are different. It’s like a true-false question with the first part true and the second part false. I wanted to rule this beyond the scope. But they have given wide latitude. I thank the President for that. The people of Massachusetts over 18 will have a chance to vote. What they vote on is another matter. I am talking to members of the House and Senate now: We must by majority vote to defeat this amendment. It does an injustice to the people. They will not be able to figure out what they are voting for. We want to protect marriage – an institution of 4,000 years. I ask my colleagues who support me, as a courtesy, I need 101 votes to defeat this. It is a travesty. It goes beyond what the people I think wish to vote on. I hope this is defeated. Rep. Tobin said I intend to support Rep. Travis’ line. I note that the vote was only 2 votes last time. Let me tell you about this amendment: it’s a poison pill. You are voting against gay marriage but at the same time putting into the Constitution some measures for gay unions. When it gets to the ballot, it will fail. It will. And you will be left with same-sex marriage, by default. This is a subterfuge. It’s a poison pill. Do not be fooled. We had the opportunity to address this with the last amendment offered by Rep. Finneran. We will bring it up again, I hope. The people who rejected the amendment faulted it on personality. They didn’t believe the leaders would do it. Don’t vote for this amendment thinking you are going to achieve a Constitutional prohibition on same-sex marriage. «Previous Page · 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 · Next Page»