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
Sen. Nuciforo said point of parliamentary inquiry. Could you refresh my memory? Is it true that Speaker Finneran has offered a further amendment?
Sen. Travaglini said yes.
Sen. Nuciforo said if this is adopted, will it foreclose consideration of further amendments?
Sen.Travaglini said yes, that is correct.
Sen. Lees said I appreciate this opportunity to address the convention. What happened a few months ago absolutely shocked me. As a common courtesy to the Speaker, after I was recognized to offer an amendment, the Speaker stood up to make opening remarks. He used that moment to do something I believed was wrong since I was recognized. Let me tell you what I was going to offer. I had put forward an amendment that reflects a compromise on the two issues discussed over the last several weeks. It maintains the language of a union of one man and one woman and establishes civil unions for same-sex couples under the constitution. This is a compromise that will adequately address the issue of same-sex partners. This legislature is no stranger to the art of compromise. I have heard that the SJC usurped the people’s power. I agree the people should be heard. I ask that they give their opinion on both of these issues.
Rep. O’Flaherty said point of parliamentary inquiry. Is the gentleman speaking on the amendment or an amendment he is proposing at some point later?
Sen. Travaglini said both.
Sen. Lees said I am speaking on both. It is important to vote no and bring to the voters the issue of same-sex marriage and traditional marriage. After May 17, the rights of same-sex couples must be addressed. In light of the federal DOMA, the states are empowered to address same-sex marriage. The Commonwealth can lead and ensure same-sex couples are not denied rights and privileges. How do we know that when the Speaker indicates he will bring something forward that it will actually happen? The Senate has sent domestic partnership and civil union legislation with no action by this House. The only thing this says is you may do something. That means you may not do something as well. It is important to hear the amendment I will propose in opposition to the amendment before you. Sen. Lees began reading his amendment.
Sen. Travis said point of order, the gentleman is reading an amendment that is not before this session. He is now reciting the language of an amendment that has not come before us. Will you ask him to stick to the amendment?
Sen. Travaglini said the chair will grant great latitude.
Sen.
Lees said I did not jump up and interrupt the Speaker even though I felt he was
out of order and abused the kindness that the Speaker offered him. Sen. Lees
continued to read his amendment. What is before this body will not allow people
of the same sex to enter into civil unions. We know that under the rules of the
House and Senate, a piece of legislation that comes forward can be held up for
myriad reasons by any individual. Amendments can be offered for days. All we
are asking, I believe the people in the hall and those that have written
letters, we give the people a chance to vote and be heard. We also make sure
that discrimination does not occur in this Commonwealth should the public vote that
change in of a marriage between a man and a woman. Talk to any legal scholar.
«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 (Thursday, Feb. 12, 2004)
«Previous Page · 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 · Next Page»
Sen. Barrios continued: His fever grew worse and worse. I am a new parent. I did what my mom used to do. Sweat the fever out. Put a blanket on him. It kept getting higher. It was 104.5 when I called the hospital. I was very upset. My seven-year-old was screaming. I reached a nurse and started going into the symptoms. She said are you the parent. The parent they had listed was Doug. She said you are not listed. Are you married? What ensued seemed like an eternity when my child with a 104.5 fever, I though he could die on my watch while I was fighting with a nurse over whether I was his parent or not. The human aspect to this debate is very important to understand. I will never be able to go on as the married partner if any DOMA passes. None of your gay friends and loves ones will. There are real harms which are incurred by this. Is my family so different than any of yours? My son got sick. I called the hospital. Children do get sick. We need to have health coverage and services for them. Their parents need to be treated as equals. Marriage makes this possible. If I were to die tomorrow, before May 17, my partner would be ineligible for Social Security survivor benefits. I am currently barred from designating my partner as my pension beneficiary. How am I to make sure my children are taken care of? Javier asked me about a poster with an epithet. It was God hates . . . He asked me if god hated. I am the Latino senator, the gay guy, the liberal senator. I am also a practicing Catholic, a proud proud Catholic. He does not hate people. That is the question on the table. They were watching the debates last night. Despite the intimidation they may see, death threats as a senator saw or a House member spit upon, I want you to know you are profiles in courage. It would be easy to demonize the other side. It would be easy to teach my son to hate. Jesus instructs us I say to you love your enemies and pray to those who persecute you and I am teaching Javier to pray.
Rep. Flynn said what everyone saw here yesterday was sausage making, not pretty but it works and it’s working towards something I do not know. Whether it will go on the ballot or not I do not know. I heard about nothing being accomplished. I thought it was quite an amazing day. In deference to the Senate president, he put out a proposal and it was rejected. The same for the Speaker of the House. It’s the members who make the decisions here. That is good. It was cumbersome and inconvenient but good. I couldn’t sleep last night when I came home. On the way in with my wife, we had a deep personal conversation. I have a large family. I lost a member of my family last night because of my vote. Sometimes you have to do what you believe regardless of the consequences. I say to that member of the family, I love you and want you back in my family. You must understand that I took the oath of office and swore to do what you and I think is right regardless of party, politics and religion and family. In this case the people have a right to vote. Thank you Mr. President.
Sen. Creem said Justice Holmes said constitutions are
intended to preserve practical and substantial rights, not to maintain
theories. It is amazing that we are here today to strip away the rights of a
group of people rather than to preserve their rights. I waited to speak because
I almost couldn’t believe that this was the amendment, that this amendment
would come to the floor. The Supreme Court voted. Are we going to take every
action of the court and come here and change our constitution? We can’t do that
and continue to strip away rights of people because folks, they have the rights.
The Supreme Court gave it to them. The issue is there already is a law. The
Supreme Court voted to give them all the rights, benefits and protections of
married couples. In 1935 the law in
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»
CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION:
Rep. Bosley said same as it ever was. This is another way of coming to the same point. They don’t like that their amendment wasn’t first. Rep. Peterson is right that in many cases, we don’t take a further amendment. For example, we could amend a transportation bill with a health amendment. But this follows the same grounds. Taking a further amendment here actually makes eminent sense.Rep. Travis said I hope the ruling is upheld. But if anyone is wondering why this is happening - by having the further amendment, and having this moved up to the second degree, no further amendments can be offered. So we would have to defeat the further amendment. The clerk is correct in his ruling.Rep. Jones said not to belabor the point, but the ruling of the chair was not to entertain amendments sent to third reading. That was the procedure. But somehow we did away with that rule when it came to further amendments. Understand why that creates consternation. But there are two further amendments. Which amendments were they assigned to? Were they further amendments to the original? We don’t really know. We are not asking for sleight of hand. I hope the ruling does not stand.
The ruling was sustained on voice vote.
Question came on adoption of Travaglini-Lees further amendments. The amendment was adopted on voice vote. Rep. Peterson doubted the vote and a roll call was ordered.
The Senate roll call was taken; there was a long delay – perhaps 20 minutes - before the House roll call was opened. Members crowded around the rostrum.Rep. Finneran said thank you for the procedural discussion on which members needed guidance.
THE HOUSE VOTE WAS 86 - 72THE SENATE VOTE WAS 30 – 9BY ROLL
CALL VOTE OF 118 - 81 THE TRAVAGLINI – LEES AMENDMENT IS ADOPTED.Sen. Lees
ordered for a Republican caucus for one hour.Sen. Lees moved for unanimous
consent to withdraw his motion. He further moved for reconsideration of the
prior vote. It was seconded.REPUBLICAN CAUCUS: Sen. Lees then moved for a
Republican caucus for one hour under House rule 19.RECESS: Sen. Travaglini said
I will grant you that request and the convention will now recess until
«Previous Page · 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 · Next Page»