Constitutional Convention (Monday, March 29, 2004)
CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION:
MONDAY,
MARCH 29, 2004
RETURNS: The Convention returned at 1:19pm with Travaglini in the chair.RECONSIDERATION:
Question came on reconsideration of the Travaglini-Lees amendment. By voice
vote, reconsideration REJECTED.Sen. Lees said I appreciate the opportunity to
speak once again today. Just so everybody knows, a few moments ago, we moved to
not reconsider the last amendment, which amended the Baddour amendment, which
was on the table. We now have in front of us, which we voted yes on, to become
the new amendment, is new language for what was being known as the “leadership amendment.”
If a yes is voted, all other amendments are moot at this point and the only
other question we will have is another roll call vote to move this to the next
legislative session. There is some discussion now about amending the current
amendment, and you can do that if you wish. I know there is someone who is
going to come up here and move for a minor change in a few moments. Once again,
just so we are all clear, if we vote yes, all other amendments are moot and we
move on to take another vote. If this amendment is defeated, then all the other
amendments can be brought before us - whether they be from Republicans or
Democrats. Again, I thank the people in the gallery and the members for
listening to me today. I hope people will vote yes to this amendment, but I
understand there is going to be a slight change brought forward and I respect
him for that.Rep. Rogers doubted
the presence of a quorum.Sen. Travaglini said it is obvious there is not a
quorum in the chamber and ordered a roll call.A QUORUM ROLL CALL SHOWED 197
MEMBERS PRESENTSen. Travaglini asked for all members to take their seats.Rep. Rogers
was recognized. Travaglini asked all members to take their seats and for
members to give their attention to the speaker at the microphone.ROGERS
AMENDMENT: Rep. Rogers said it has always been a founding principle as part of
our American heritage and of this commonwealth, as we are the home and the land
of the pilgrim, that the free exercise of one’s religion is a founding
principle. I have a feeling that the language is perilous in that it may
impinge upon the free exercise of one’s religion. I have a fear that
individuals and religious institutions may be forced to solemnize or recognize
gay marriage or civil unions contrary to religious tenets of their respective
faiths. I have a fear that we impose hat great risk on the faithful in Massachusetts
or the organizations with which they are related. In our effort to create new
rights for new couples, we impinge upon a long held right. The first right, in
the first amendment to the constitution, that all citizens have the freedom to
exercise their religion. We have to make certain that no person, acting within
their religion, or any religious organization cannot be forced, contrary to the
doctrine of one’s religious beliefs and must not be forced to recognize such
relationships. If we do not clarify, we run the risk of those citizens in those
individuals freely exercising those beliefs, that they will be punished by the
government. So my fear is not something I hope divided this convention. I have
heard from a great many of you, that if we try to create new constitutional
rights, we must be certain that we not undue long held and sacrosanct rights,
rights that have been around since the founding of this country. I ask for unanimous
consent for this amendment to be adopted.There was immediate objection from
several members rising from their seats.
