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

Clerk Welch read the Finneran amendment that read: “It being the public policy of this Commonwealth to protect the unique relationship of marriage, only the union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Massachusetts. This article is self-executing, but the general court may enact laws not inconsistent with anything herein contained to carry out the purpose of this article, including but not limited to, the enactment of laws establishing civil unions as may be defined by the general court from time to time.”

Sen. Rosenberg said point of parliamentary inquiry. I was watching the proceedings and thought the chair recognized the gentleman from Hampden and Hampshire. That was interrupted. Should he have been allowed to continue with his business after the gentleman from Mattapan made his statement?

Sen. Travaglini said as a courtesy to the speaker I granted an opportunity to make an opening statement. That is a valid point of parliamentary inquiry as to the amendment. It was offered while he was speaking.

Rep. Marzilli said point of order, the further amendment is not properly before the membership due to its subject matter and is beyond the scope and should be ruled out of order.

Sen. Travaglini said the chair would rule the amendment is relevant and is modifying the language as it exists in the amendment. The original amendment seeks to change the entire text.

Rep. Travis said point of order, would the clerk re-read the further amendment. He did.

Sen. Travaglini began to call the amendment and no one rose to speak on it.

Speaker Finneran said do it on a voice vote if you want. There was laughter.

Speaker Finneran said there will be abundant debate. I will try to keep my remarks as brief as possible. It is appropriate to give context and history with regard to the situation we find ourselves in. Everyone is familiar with the SJC decision of November. There has been ample commentary. It was a 4-3 decision. Eight judges have offered their view of Goodridge. The case initially went to Superior court. The judge ruled the plaintiffs had no valid claim and any remedy they sought could and should come from the Legislature. Everyone is familiar with the aftermath that this was the appropriate setting and you are the ones to decide. The SJC took it to themselves on appeal quite appropriately. That 4-3 decision has caused extraordinary division and controversy. Everybody I have spoken to has commented on the vituperative language of the decision. I have read and re-read the decision. In the majority opinion was a statement that I would describe as libelous and defamatory of this institution. The libel spoke to the definition of marriage that has come to us from custom, tradition, every society, every culture, every nation in all of recorded history as one man and one woman. The defamatory statement stated this: in light of that extraordinary history, the SJC said this about you and the citizens of Massachusetts. They said that definition was rooted in animus and bigotry. That libel has not only been uttered against you and your predecessor. It was also by definition aimed at the three judges in the minority. I would leave it to the three judges to answer the taunt that has been given to them. I would try to rebut with facts the libel and slur uttered against us. The court may have, when reviewing papers, they may have wanted to avail themselves to the history of this place, going back to the early 1980s. Some of you passed bills prohibiting discrimination against gay and lesbian neighbors and friends in housing, employment, credit and a whole host of things long before it became politically fashionable. That was a statutory prohibition and there has been no attempt to repeal or modify them. The court may have studied our support for adoption of children by gay and lesbian couples. The court may have availed themselves to your support for programs for gay and lesbian youth.

«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 Clerk Welch read the Finneran amendment that read: “It being the public policy of this Commonwealth to protect the unique relationship of marriage, only the union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Massachusetts. This article is self-executing, but the general court may enact laws not inconsistent with anything herein contained to carry out the purpose of this article, including but not limited to, the enactment of laws establishing civil unions as may be defined by the general court from time to time.” Sen. Rosenberg said point of parliamentary inquiry. I was watching the proceedings and thought the chair recognized the gentleman from Hampden and Hampshire. That was interrupted. Should he have been allowed to continue with his business after the gentleman from Mattapan made his statement? Sen. Travaglini said as a courtesy to the speaker I granted an opportunity to make an opening statement. That is a valid point of parliamentary inquiry as to the amendment. It was offered while he was speaking. Rep. Marzilli said point of order, the further amendment is not properly before the membership due to its subject matter and is beyond the scope and should be ruled out of order. Sen. Travaglini said the chair would rule the amendment is relevant and is modifying the language as it exists in the amendment. The original amendment seeks to change the entire text. Rep. Travis said point of order, would the clerk re-read the further amendment. He did. Sen. Travaglini began to call the amendment and no one rose to speak on it. Speaker Finneran said do it on a voice vote if you want. There was laughter. Speaker Finneran said there will be abundant debate. I will try to keep my remarks as brief as possible. It is appropriate to give context and history with regard to the situation we find ourselves in. Everyone is familiar with the SJC decision of November. There has been ample commentary. It was a 4-3 decision. Eight judges have offered their view of Goodridge. The case initially went to Superior court. The judge ruled the plaintiffs had no valid claim and any remedy they sought could and should come from the Legislature. Everyone is familiar with the aftermath that this was the appropriate setting and you are the ones to decide. The SJC took it to themselves on appeal quite appropriately. That 4-3 decision has caused extraordinary division and controversy. Everybody I have spoken to has commented on the vituperative language of the decision. I have read and re-read the decision. In the majority opinion was a statement that I would describe as libelous and defamatory of this institution. The libel spoke to the definition of marriage that has come to us from custom, tradition, every society, every culture, every nation in all of recorded history as one man and one woman. The defamatory statement stated this: in light of that extraordinary history, the SJC said this about you and the citizens of Massachusetts. They said that definition was rooted in animus and bigotry. That libel has not only been uttered against you and your predecessor. It was also by definition aimed at the three judges in the minority. I would leave it to the three judges to answer the taunt that has been given to them. I would try to rebut with facts the libel and slur uttered against us. The court may have, when reviewing papers, they may have wanted to avail themselves to the history of this place, going back to the early 1980s. Some of you passed bills prohibiting discrimination against gay and lesbian neighbors and friends in housing, employment, credit and a whole host of things long before it became politically fashionable. That was a statutory prohibition and there has been no attempt to repeal or modify them. The court may have studied our support for adoption of children by gay and lesbian couples. The court may have availed themselves to your support for programs for gay and lesbian youth. «Previous Page · 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 · Next Page»