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. Sprague continued: Look around you. Look at your husbands, wives, children and neighbors and your partners. We represent each and every one of them. We are also sworn to uphold a constitution that says all men are born free and equal before the law and our courts. I believe that today we in this chamber owe it to those we love and represent to uphold and keep inviolate our constitution, which guarantees all of us equality before the law. I urge my colleagues to vote no to amending our constitution. Vote no on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Mattapan with language that does not respect the intent of our original founders. Vote no on any amendment that seeks to exclude any of our citizens from the right to civic procedures and a civil marriage.

Sen. Nuciforo said adoption of the amendment forecloses consideration of the amendment from Sen. Lees. That is one of the problems with this. Secondly, take a good look at this amendment. It is very brief. It says the union of one man and one woman only shall be valid as marriage. It says if we get around to it, we may do something with civil unions and domestic partnerships. We know those have not managed to get out of this building. It is probably likely that it won’t get out of this building for a long time. Vote no on the further amendment.

Sen. Joyce said the SJC has said the constitution protects all and does not allow for a separate but unequal class of citizens. This has resulted in a flood of calls and emails. Many defend the ideal of traditional marriage. I was married 17 years ago in the Catholic church. Many religions and religious leaders believe in same-sex unions. If this amendment is defeated and I have the opportunity, my vote will be for civil not ecclesiastical marriage. I am sworn as you are to uphold the constitution. I will vote to allow gays and lesbians the right to share in medical decisions, health care for their partners and children. Several centuries one could marry a child or own a woman. Marriage to a person of a different race could lead to imprisonment. Polls show the argument to let the people decide has great appeal. That may influence our governor’s statements. We are charged with exercising our judgment. It is our responsibility to cast votes, even when the matter is controversial. John Adams did not expect us to rubber stamp this great document. I am unconvinced that civil rights should be decided the ballot box when emotions are so inflamed. Had the ban on interracial marriage or the decision segregating schools been put on the ballot, each may have been overturned. That does not mean those decisions were wrong. Marriage will allow same-sex couples to have the unquestioned right to hospital visitation and to leave pension and social security benefits to one another and their children. They will be expected to support one another and their children. As Justice Greaney wrote we share a common humanity and participate together in the social contract. Simple principles of decency dictate that we extend full acceptance, tolerance and respect. We should reject the Speaker’s amendment, which would deny civil marriage, civil rights and this convention even the right to vote on civil unions.

Sen. Berry, in the chair, recognized Sen. Chandler at 3:27 pm.

Sen. Chandler said our constitution has stood for equality for over 200 years. This amendment is inconsistent with these principles. It is wrong to insert discrimination in our constitution. The amendment discriminates against a segment of society. In the 1930s, discrimination began to be written into the constitution of Germany. We say where it led. Stand against discrimination today. This amendment holds the illusion of civil unions as a statute sometime in the future. Civil unions and benefits would be precluded for same-sex couples. This would deny health insurance and hospital visitation for a sick children, as well as survivor benefits. It would deny benefits to families of police officers killed in the line of duty. It would deny benefits to victims of Sept. 11, regardless of our wish to help them. Are we going to punish innocent children and deny them benefits because they are born into a family with two moms or dads and happen to live in Massachusetts? As a wife and mother and grandmother, I have always had a traditional view of marriage. I realize gay marriage makes people uncomfortable. Reasonable people can disagree. The issue before us is whether to adopt an amendment that bars a segment of society of rights afforded to others.

«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 Sen. Sprague continued: Look around you. Look at your husbands, wives, children and neighbors and your partners. We represent each and every one of them. We are also sworn to uphold a constitution that says all men are born free and equal before the law and our courts. I believe that today we in this chamber owe it to those we love and represent to uphold and keep inviolate our constitution, which guarantees all of us equality before the law. I urge my colleagues to vote no to amending our constitution. Vote no on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Mattapan with language that does not respect the intent of our original founders. Vote no on any amendment that seeks to exclude any of our citizens from the right to civic procedures and a civil marriage. Sen. Nuciforo said adoption of the amendment forecloses consideration of the amendment from Sen. Lees. That is one of the problems with this. Secondly, take a good look at this amendment. It is very brief. It says the union of one man and one woman only shall be valid as marriage. It says if we get around to it, we may do something with civil unions and domestic partnerships. We know those have not managed to get out of this building. It is probably likely that it won’t get out of this building for a long time. Vote no on the further amendment. Sen. Joyce said the SJC has said the constitution protects all and does not allow for a separate but unequal class of citizens. This has resulted in a flood of calls and emails. Many defend the ideal of traditional marriage. I was married 17 years ago in the Catholic church. Many religions and religious leaders believe in same-sex unions. If this amendment is defeated and I have the opportunity, my vote will be for civil not ecclesiastical marriage. I am sworn as you are to uphold the constitution. I will vote to allow gays and lesbians the right to share in medical decisions, health care for their partners and children. Several centuries one could marry a child or own a woman. Marriage to a person of a different race could lead to imprisonment. Polls show the argument to let the people decide has great appeal. That may influence our governor’s statements. We are charged with exercising our judgment. It is our responsibility to cast votes, even when the matter is controversial. John Adams did not expect us to rubber stamp this great document. I am unconvinced that civil rights should be decided the ballot box when emotions are so inflamed. Had the ban on interracial marriage or the decision segregating schools been put on the ballot, each may have been overturned. That does not mean those decisions were wrong. Marriage will allow same-sex couples to have the unquestioned right to hospital visitation and to leave pension and social security benefits to one another and their children. They will be expected to support one another and their children. As Justice Greaney wrote we share a common humanity and participate together in the social contract. Simple principles of decency dictate that we extend full acceptance, tolerance and respect. We should reject the Speaker’s amendment, which would deny civil marriage, civil rights and this convention even the right to vote on civil unions. Sen. Berry, in the chair, recognized Sen. Chandler at 3:27 pm. Sen. Chandler said our constitution has stood for equality for over 200 years. This amendment is inconsistent with these principles. It is wrong to insert discrimination in our constitution. The amendment discriminates against a segment of society. In the 1930s, discrimination began to be written into the constitution of Germany. We say where it led. Stand against discrimination today. This amendment holds the illusion of civil unions as a statute sometime in the future. Civil unions and benefits would be precluded for same-sex couples. This would deny health insurance and hospital visitation for a sick children, as well as survivor benefits. It would deny benefits to families of police officers killed in the line of duty. It would deny benefits to victims of Sept. 11, regardless of our wish to help them. Are we going to punish innocent children and deny them benefits because they are born into a family with two moms or dads and happen to live in Massachusetts? As a wife and mother and grandmother, I have always had a traditional view of marriage. I realize gay marriage makes people uncomfortable. Reasonable people can disagree. The issue before us is whether to adopt an amendment that bars a segment of society of rights afforded to others. «Previous Page · 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 · Next Page»