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»

Sens. Lees and Travgailni offered a further amendment.

Sen. Travaglini asked the court officers to clear the well. He also asked the members to give an opportunity to Sen. Lees to offer an overview of where we are presently. He said he would be happy to entertain any points of inquiry.

Sen. Lees said I appreciate the members’ indulgence. I am going to try to explain where we are and what is going to happen here. This is for everyone. I appreciate the respect from the audience. Right now the main matter before us is H 3190, amended successfully on March 11. The amendment defines marriage as between men and women and establishes civil unions. Thank you for moving this to third reading. This new amendment makes clear that this is one amendment with two purposes. It also clarifies that civil unions benefits apply to individuals, to ensure certain benefits like survivor benefits. The question now is whether to adopt the redrafted leadership amendment. If you vote yes, that replaces the Berry-Baddour amendment. The next question would be on adoption of the amendment to replace the original leadership amendment. The next question would be on making this the final amendment. If this goes to the ballot, nothing can be changed until Nov. 2006. So this will require three affirmative votes: 1. to replace the Berry-Baddour amendment. 2. to replace the original leadership amendment, and 3 to send the amendment to the next legislative session. I might add that there is no action taken today that will reverse the path we are on. The SJC has emphatically stated that same-sex couples must be married. Whether you agree or not, it is moot. There will be gay marriages in the Commonwealth in 2 months. This is a fact and cannot be changed by any legislative action today. So where does this leave the Legislature in our voting today? We must protect those lawfully married same-sex couples. Many want something on the ballot in 2006. If that does not address their rights, I can say there will be overwhelming legal and social problems for decades and the cost to taxpayers will be astronomical. We must avoid legal chaos. So if we adopt this amendment, we can do that. We have a duty to protect the rights of same-sex couples after May 17. This amendment accomplishes this. Simply put, this is the best option. If we adopt an all-or-nothing amendment, we could end up with serious problems for couples in 2006. If we adopt no amendment today, no one from the public will be heard except those in this Legislature. I know there is no single clear solution to this problem. But this amendment strikes a balance between letting citizens be heard and protecting gay couples. We must move forward and adopt this amendment. I also clarify that this amendment makes clear that this does not apply to federal benefits. Marriage or civil unions will not provide federal benefits. I have received some of the most heartfelt letters ever on this issue, on both sides. I received a letter from Scott on Columbus Ave. We understand the concerns of people like Scott and Zac from Millis. Very heartfelt letters. We understand what you are saying about rights and benefits. If by chance, a single question goes on the ballot that simply defines marriage and is approved, all the rights and benefits are being taken away. That is our concern. As leaders, we must try our hardest to come to a common ground to make sure no one loses rights and benefits, but the public can be heard. This is a difficult question. This process has not been easy. We have had fingers pointed at us. But we are good and decent men and women. I hope you will respect us.

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