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. Fallon said I rise in support of the current amendment on the floor. I was going to wait to bring forth my thoughts on the Travis amendment. I think some of the arguments are flawed, notwithstanding the profound intellect of Rep. Travis. If we include some civil union language in this amendment, the chances that it will sustain a court review, I think, is pivotal. This is the vehicle to do it. We must reserve language in the Constitution to do civil unions. I feel frustrated by some of my colleagues who have criticized the SJC. Yes, it was a narrow vote. So are we going to start picking and choosing what judicial rulings we are go to uphold? That’s an affront to the Constitution. I find it hypocritical that some members are also arguing to put this before the voters after they gutted Clean Elections. Lastly, Mr. President, none of us came to this decision lightly. How do you define marriage by some sort of natural law? I just want to put on the record. I’ve read the New Testament. I don’t think Jesus Christ defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman. My point here: We did this to ourselves. We should have passed these domestic partnership bills and that would have rendered the Goodridge decision moot. I support this amendment. Thank you.
Rep. St. Fleur said I rise in opposition to this amendment. And I thank all of you for your thoughts. This is difficult for me on a number of levels. I have come to a place of anger for the first time since coming to this House. And I want to explain to you why I feel this way. You can’t compromise on discrimination. You can’t color it another way. Let’s start with race. You have to deal with it. We had to deal with it in the Constitution, with women and immigrants. I, my friend fit all those categories and but for the equal protections of the laws, I would not enjoy the position and freedom I enjoy today. I cannot compromise on the Constitution. I can’t compromise on discrimination. I am also Catholic. But I cannot say yes to the Travis amendment. My role as a legislator is esparto from my role in a parish. But we are seeking here of state action – not private action, not religious action. And if the state is involved in marriage, we ought to do it equally. That’s one of the fundamental protections of government. This is one of those times when we are called to rise above the personal and establish fundamental principles for which we ought to live. They believed in a democracy. That is not a new idea. It goes back to Aristotle. But what is special about this American democracy is we are willing to put aside the power of the majority to respect the power of the minority. This is not simply about gay rights. This about who we are as an American democracy. The people who founded our government ran from The Crown. So the state performs marriage. The state delegates its power to solemnize marriage. Please, there are plenty of court decisions which I would not agree with. There is one today that says people accused of terrorism cannot see their families. Our Constitution is under attack every day. We cannot be part of that. This court speaks about a population that we are not quite comfortable with. Isn’t that what this about? So we cling to history and tradition. My mother is agonizing over the SJC decision. How will history judge us? If we change our Constitution for the sole of purpose of discrimination, what else? At the beginning of the 20th century, if my rights we placed on the ballot, I would not be free. We will have to deal with euthanasia genetics, cloning. Where will we look to for those decisions? We should look to our fundamental principles. I was born under a dictatorship.
Rep.
Parente said four members here today disrespected the Speaker. They dream of
positions in leadership. This was their moment on stage. One of them wants to
be Speaker some day. What happened here was not disagreement but disrespect for
the institution. Mother nature left her blueprint behind, the DNA of a man and
a woman. After 37 states took the time to enact such legislation, we are being
accused of doing something so different. Imagine. The statute of marriage was
created to give statutory protection to the family unit, the man and woman and
the children they create. Mother nature used the pattern to populate the world.
People say how can you talk like that? We have all kinds of family units. Don’t
give me examples of bad behavior to support this argument. The Travis amendment
will still give us the opportunity to discuss civil unions. The conspiracy is
let’s kill all the amendments and that way the mandate of the court will kick
in. That’s the conspiracy here in this House. I gave Time magazine an hour. None
of us got mentioned. They had a position. There are people in the entire
country looking for direction. You heard my friend say that perhaps we should
not put this in the hands of the people. They’re the bosses. The constitution
is the oldest in the world and says the judiciary must never interfere in the
business of the Legislature. Four people are going to change what the people of
the Commonwealth want and eventually impact on the entire country. There have
been 48 amendments since the constitution was first drawn. Home rule, direct
elections, initiative petitions, the income tax, administrative reorganization
of our government survived. Voting machines came in through amendment. Election
procedures. We have heard talk today about religion. We should not be discussing
religion but I just want to say to those who say we should never discuss
religion and we should throw God out of our lives, you know the mind that goes
to church on Sunday is the same mind that comes to work on Monday. In totality,
we are all that we learned about our religion, our history, our home. That is
just part of who we are. I look to the constitution to support my right to say
that. One senator said there is no mention of religion in the constitution. They
have deleted sections, but the preamble refers to god, everybody’s god. They
refer to him as the divine legislator. Harvard was founded in 1636 and is
protected by this constitution. It’s okay to mention God in this section. When
you talk about the constitution, make sure you read it first. What’s next if we
show our disdain for religion here? Do you force the churches to go against
their belief? Don’t they have the right not to agree with us? Will we say it’s
okay to interfere in the affairs of the church? There is much to think about. I
have been up here 24 years and have heard all the arguments about initiative
petitions. When the people said they wanted capital punishment, I was told
forget the petition. The same with Proposition 2 ½. I needed a scorecard to
keep up with the people in the House leading you down this trail today. They
change. The difference between the Finneran amendment and this amendment is
that with the Speaker’s amendment we could have continued the discussion on
civil unions, to frame it and make it work for our gay and lesbian sisters and brothers.
Remember the last convention when you would not allow this to come to the floor
and we were screaming but you didn’t care? You figure out a way to shut out the
other side. I think I have covered most of the points I heard. I apologize that
my comments are not as cogent as I would like. But I love history and American history.
Go to the rotunda, the Hall of Flags, that beautiful mural, the depiction of
the Pilgrims coming on the Mayflower. It says the Lord is our defense and the
Holy one in
Sen. Travaglini recognized Rep. Khan at 6:52 pm.
Rep. Khan said I would like to place a human face on the discussion. I will read a letter from a 16-year-old tenth grader from Newton. She said her mothers have been together for years and they are planning a wedding. It will not take away from others but add to the lives of many. Many people say letting gay people marry will deteriorate family values. It will only make family values stronger. My family is as much a family as others. My parents have a more successful relationship than many heterosexual couples. My brother and I get straight A’s and do a lot of volunteer work. Marriage is an institution between two people who love one another. The title is important because if you say civil unions, even if you receive the same benefits, it is a separate institution. Having gay people have civil unions puts them on a different scale. All people should be treated equally. Help us protect family values, including my family. The courts give people an opportunity to have things brought to the forefront and to have change occur. We have the opportunity today to do the right thing.
Rep. Carron said I am a sponsor of the main amendment, the Travis amendment. My intention in opposing this is to get as close to the main amendment as possible. I oppose this further amendment. We are here to address language amending our constitution – two sentences, six lines that have been before this body for three years or so. Now we have amendments dramatically changing the languages or substituting it entirely. Many records define marriage as one man and one woman. That definition is provided in the further amendment. The definition of civil union is blatantly absent yet we are being asked to insert it into our constitution. It’s my preference to get to the base amendment or to revisit with some adaptation the first amendment that was offered to us.
Rep. Smizik said he opposes the amendment. My political and formative years took place during the civil rights struggles of the 60s. The judges in the heart of the south were at risk of impeachment, life and limb and of being ostracized. Still they upheld the equal protection law of the constitution. They challenged the separate but equal doctrine of the south. They made decisions not popular with the majority but to fulfill their role and uphold provisions in the constitution that protect the minority from the oppression of the majority. Thurgood Marshall helped champion equal protection. We face an equal protection decision. Gay couples cannot get marriage licenses. In Goodridge, 78 couples sought equal rights to marry. They argued the constitution of Massachusetts calls for equal protection under the law. Our SJC concluded the plaintiffs were correct. The court exercised its judgment as the court is required to do. If we push with one of these amendments today, we will be trying to usurp the court’s decision. I can’t go that route. Courts have a long history of providing civil rights to our citizens. I appreciate the special role decisions have made regarding constitutional rights. The courts have eliminated the doctrine of separate but equal. I have heard that God has made us all. The beauty of our constitution is it makes it easy to solve the problem. All god’s children should be equal under the eyes of the law. In 1968, I attended law school when MLK and Bobby Kennedy were assassinated. They railed against the denial of equal protection. I was inspired by their words and convinced by their conviction and courage. Dr. King said now is the time to make justice a reality for all of god’s children. Kennedy and King called on us to take action. Kennedy said each time a person stands up for an ideal, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope. These ripples build a current that can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance. Extend that ripple of hope for those who have not been given equal rights in our state.
Sen. Murray, in the chair at 7:11 pm, recognized Rep. Peterson.
Rep. Peterson said this has been a difficult issue for all of us, extremely difficult for myself. I urge the members not to adopt the further amendment. A lot has been said about the procedures on the Speaker’s first amendment but this is a procedural building. I thank the Senate president for offering such a wide latitude. For those who complain about procedures, I must remind them that in the last legislative session, when some 160,000 constituents brought forth a petition to change and offer an amendment to the constitution, it was a procedural vote that didn’t allow that to be even debated. Therefore that issue died and Rep. Travis, responding to those pleas for an amendment, some two years ago filed his amendment in this process. I disagree that this is a civil rights issue. It is proper to amend the constitution to clarify that a marriage is between one man and one woman. I come here from a variety of decisions and thought processes. It’s right that we amend the constitution here. I don’t do it out of discrimination or hate but out of a firm belief that in this world, to continue on this society and this species, that marriage should be defined as between a man and a woman.
Rep. Peterson said my father was raised by two loving aunts. They did a wonderful job. My mother came from a family where the father left and she was raised by a single parent. I truly believe the gay and lesbian couples in long-term committed relationships care deeply for their children. But I look at this amendment and fail to see how by putting in and codifying a civil marriage petition, I fail to see how that is proper. The language is more legislative language. We have talked about rights and privileges. Rights and privileges are derived by laws after much debate and over a number of years. It would be extremely improper to put that language as an amendment to the constitution. We have no right or privilege for polygamy. We ask that direct relatives not marry. We do regulate marriage, and rightfully so. It would be faulty for us to move forward on this amendment. It is not proper.
Rep. Nuciforo was recognized at 7:21 pm. He said he supports the amendment offered by Sen. Lees. It would be my preference to have the SJC rulings stand as they are. They strike the appropriate balance. The amendment in the calendar would enshrine a terrible form of discrimination and bigotry. We have now an opportunity to take that language and make it a little bit better. The amendment, while not perfect and without all the fairness and equity we should have, it is a heck of a lot better than the amendment in the calendar. In section 3 of this amendment, it talks about the benefits for same-sex couples and says they have all the same benefits, protections, rights and responsibilities under law as married families under the law. It is a huge improvement over language in the DOMA.
Rep. Swan said I intended to vote against the further amendment. I listened from the opening bell today. I heard every presentation made. I read with great care the content of each amendment. I prepared a statement in opposition against any amendment. I did not want to be a part of amending our constitution to take away any rights from any individual. Ten years ago when I entered this great chamber, I made note of the murals on the walls. I talked about how each emphasized some expansion of the rights of citizens. We denied the vote of incarcerated felons. I opposed that.
Sen. Rosenberg doubted the presence of a quorum at 7:31 pm. The clerk determined a quorum was not present.
«Previous Page · 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 · Next Page»