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 (BLOCK TWO)

Rep. Lepper said I support the current definition of marriage. But this amendment categorically treats gays as unequal citizens. In reality, there can be no compromise on the fundamental issue of marriage.

Rep. Balser said the Senate Minority Leader characterized it as a compromise. With all due respect, I know compromise and this is not a compromise. This is a matter of civil rights, some say. Others differ. We have settled this question 40 years ago: separate but unequal is a violation of civil rights, it’s not a part of civil rights. I would never limit in our Constitution a definition of marriage that excludes loving couples. I have heard that for millennia marriage has been the union of one man and one woman. For millennia, the Jewish people have been persecuted for thousands of years. I doubt that anyone here would say we should continue that millennial practice. It is not hard to think of other examples. For millennia, have been forced to be subjugated to men for many eras in many areas of the globe. But we do not support that. But the fact that something has been so for many years does not mean we are not free to alter it. We should expand our understanding of love and marriage. I am often told that it is in the best interests of children that it’s best to be raised by men and women. What are they basing that on? As a psychologist, let me tell you about the research. The truth is there is considerable research. I direct you to the website of the American Psychological Association. A summary says there is no evidence that lesbians and gays are unfit to be parents. Not a single study has found children to be disadvantaged in any significant respect. Indeed, the evidence suggests that gay and lesbians are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to allow children’s psychosocial growth. There is no rational basis to inscribe DOMA in the Constitution. Why are so many people trying to write discrimination into our Constitution? Although I am saddened, I am not surprised. When women and blacks and Irish Americans and workers fought for their rights, many fought them back. It does not surprise me that when homosexual people fight for their rights, many heterosexual people fight back. The SJC has done us proud. My constituents support the decision.

Sen. Murray doubted the presence of a quorum. A standing vote showed 101 members present to create a quorum. Sen. Lees said point of parliamentary inquiry. The amendment we are voting on is my amendment that substitutes for Barrios’ amendment. We have three successive votes coming up then, all three are getting this bill to a third reading. We could then amend his bill?

Sen. Travaglini said that is right.

Rep. Rogeness said according to the Constitution, a majority is needed to create a quorum. Sen. Travaglini said a majority was present, the clerk tells me.

Rep. Travis said at the moment this amendment passes, the Travis amendment disappears and would have to be brought up later.

Sen. Travaglini said yes.

«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 (BLOCK TWO) Rep. Lepper said I support the current definition of marriage. But this amendment categorically treats gays as unequal citizens. In reality, there can be no compromise on the fundamental issue of marriage. Rep. Balser said the Senate Minority Leader characterized it as a compromise. With all due respect, I know compromise and this is not a compromise. This is a matter of civil rights, some say. Others differ. We have settled this question 40 years ago: separate but unequal is a violation of civil rights, it’s not a part of civil rights. I would never limit in our Constitution a definition of marriage that excludes loving couples. I have heard that for millennia marriage has been the union of one man and one woman. For millennia, the Jewish people have been persecuted for thousands of years. I doubt that anyone here would say we should continue that millennial practice. It is not hard to think of other examples. For millennia, have been forced to be subjugated to men for many eras in many areas of the globe. But we do not support that. But the fact that something has been so for many years does not mean we are not free to alter it. We should expand our understanding of love and marriage. I am often told that it is in the best interests of children that it’s best to be raised by men and women. What are they basing that on? As a psychologist, let me tell you about the research. The truth is there is considerable research. I direct you to the website of the American Psychological Association. A summary says there is no evidence that lesbians and gays are unfit to be parents. Not a single study has found children to be disadvantaged in any significant respect. Indeed, the evidence suggests that gay and lesbians are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to allow children’s psychosocial growth. There is no rational basis to inscribe DOMA in the Constitution. Why are so many people trying to write discrimination into our Constitution? Although I am saddened, I am not surprised. When women and blacks and Irish Americans and workers fought for their rights, many fought them back. It does not surprise me that when homosexual people fight for their rights, many heterosexual people fight back. The SJC has done us proud. My constituents support the decision. Sen. Murray doubted the presence of a quorum. A standing vote showed 101 members present to create a quorum. Sen. Lees said point of parliamentary inquiry. The amendment we are voting on is my amendment that substitutes for Barrios’ amendment. We have three successive votes coming up then, all three are getting this bill to a third reading. We could then amend his bill? Sen. Travaglini said that is right. Rep. Rogeness said according to the Constitution, a majority is needed to create a quorum. Sen. Travaglini said a majority was present, the clerk tells me. Rep. Travis said at the moment this amendment passes, the Travis amendment disappears and would have to be brought up later. Sen. Travaglini said yes. «Previous Page · 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 · Next Page»