Mass. Constitutional Convention (Feb.2004)

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: MONDAY, MARCH 29, 2004

After a brief recess, Travaglini said the question before the body is shall the Travaglini-Lees amendment be accepted as a substitution for the amendment that is currently before the body.Sen. Lees said I did realize Rep. Rogers was going to bring that forward. The question now before us is the consensus amendment that I offered along with Sen. Travaglini. If a yes vote now occurs at this time, we are now amending the existing amendment in the current calendar. We would then move to one final question, which requires 101 votes, to move it to the next legislative session. I do believe that this convention with this particular amendment, gives the right to the public to vote on this. I do believe it protects the rights, privileges and benefits of those who will get married after May 17. I have always been concerned that this legislature could take a step backward. I do question if we did get a question on the ballot on the unification of one man and one woman, with nothing else, that we could face a troubling situation in May. We could also face a number of lawsuits. I do believe it is imperative on me, to keep those rights and benefits for all folks. I am sure of one thing, if we have a question on the ballot that has marriage between a man and a woman, with nothing else, we could face a number of problems on May 17. Regardless of what happens here, it will not change what happens on May 17. I ask that when a vote is taken on this matter, it is done by a call of the yeas and nays.A sufficient number rose in support of ordering the yeas and nays.Rep. DeMacedo was recognized. He said I stand before you now, knowing what the end result will be. We know that the idea of separating the question and giving the people the real opportunity to speak to the definition of marriage, aren’t going to have that opportunity. They’ll be given the opportunity to vote, but it’ll be like saying - you can vote for John Kerry, but you have to vote for George Bush at the same time. We’re giving people a false vote. If this ever makes it to the ballot, it will fail. All of you in a rush to get this to the ballot are really putting nothing on the ballot. The reality out there, when the rubber hits the road, the people are going to know what we’ve done. Right now, they think we’re giving theme the opportunity to vote, that’s the way it’s played in the press. We have about 75 people who will support Travaglini and Lees. I tell you, I’m not supporting this. I have done everything I could to get the question to the people. Frankly, I can’t support this. And I know many of my colleagues can’t either. We know many of them in here have voted for the measure just to kill it in the end. Last time, we all came on and saved it. The only reason we did that is for the opportunity to amend. Now here we are, with nothing. There is going to be a majority here to substitute this amendment. And in the end, we are going to send nothing to the voters. I hoping the substitution does not go forward. And we get the opportunity to really discuss this issue.Rep. Travis was recognized. He said this will probably be my final remarks on something I started two years ago. Today, we have an amendment before us that I will vote against. I don’t know how I can say it better than the gentleman from Plymouth who just proceeded me. Let me make a prediction. Once this amendment is passed, there will automatically be a test case on this. You’re putting two principles together in one paragraph that are both against the constitution. You’re playing your cards right into the SJC decision. The only way this vote can be carried, not only by the people of Massachusetts, if it were bifurcated, is to have a choice of separating the question. We have a couple of choices, but the only choice that you have today, to say that you stand for the definition of marriage as one man and one woman, is to vote against this amendment. Then we move forward. This is the vote you need to vote no on to protect marriage. The next vote will be the last vestige of marriage in Massachusetts as we know it, as your parents have known it, and as the gentleman from Norwood did to protect the religious freedoms. The next vote is inconsequential. The next vote does not matter. You’re selling out for voting for this further amendment, and I’m sorry to say you’re not representing the people of Massachusetts as I’d hoped you would.

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


Home > Local News > Constitutional Convention Transcripts
Pictures and Photos Local News Constitutional Convention Transcripts Username Password	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: MONDAY, MARCH 29, 2004 After a brief recess, Travaglini said the question before the body is shall the Travaglini-Lees amendment be accepted as a substitution for the amendment that is currently before the body.Sen. Lees said I did realize Rep. Rogers was going to bring that forward. The question now before us is the consensus amendment that I offered along with Sen. Travaglini. If a yes vote now occurs at this time, we are now amending the existing amendment in the current calendar. We would then move to one final question, which requires 101 votes, to move it to the next legislative session. I do believe that this convention with this particular amendment, gives the right to the public to vote on this. I do believe it protects the rights, privileges and benefits of those who will get married after May 17. I have always been concerned that this legislature could take a step backward. I do question if we did get a question on the ballot on the unification of one man and one woman, with nothing else, that we could face a troubling situation in May. We could also face a number of lawsuits. I do believe it is imperative on me, to keep those rights and benefits for all folks. I am sure of one thing, if we have a question on the ballot that has marriage between a man and a woman, with nothing else, we could face a number of problems on May 17. Regardless of what happens here, it will not change what happens on May 17. I ask that when a vote is taken on this matter, it is done by a call of the yeas and nays.A sufficient number rose in support of ordering the yeas and nays.Rep. DeMacedo was recognized. He said I stand before you now, knowing what the end result will be. We know that the idea of separating the question and giving the people the real opportunity to speak to the definition of marriage, aren’t going to have that opportunity. They’ll be given the opportunity to vote, but it’ll be like saying - you can vote for John Kerry, but you have to vote for George Bush at the same time. We’re giving people a false vote. If this ever makes it to the ballot, it will fail. All of you in a rush to get this to the ballot are really putting nothing on the ballot. The reality out there, when the rubber hits the road, the people are going to know what we’ve done. Right now, they think we’re giving theme the opportunity to vote, that’s the way it’s played in the press. We have about 75 people who will support Travaglini and Lees. I tell you, I’m not supporting this. I have done everything I could to get the question to the people. Frankly, I can’t support this. And I know many of my colleagues can’t either. We know many of them in here have voted for the measure just to kill it in the end. Last time, we all came on and saved it. The only reason we did that is for the opportunity to amend. Now here we are, with nothing. There is going to be a majority here to substitute this amendment. And in the end, we are going to send nothing to the voters. I hoping the substitution does not go forward. And we get the opportunity to really discuss this issue.Rep. Travis was recognized. He said this will probably be my final remarks on something I started two years ago. Today, we have an amendment before us that I will vote against. I don’t know how I can say it better than the gentleman from Plymouth who just proceeded me. Let me make a prediction. Once this amendment is passed, there will automatically be a test case on this. You’re putting two principles together in one paragraph that are both against the constitution. You’re playing your cards right into the SJC decision. The only way this vote can be carried, not only by the people of Massachusetts, if it were bifurcated, is to have a choice of separating the question. We have a couple of choices, but the only choice that you have today, to say that you stand for the definition of marriage as one man and one woman, is to vote against this amendment. Then we move forward. This is the vote you need to vote no on to protect marriage. The next vote will be the last vestige of marriage in Massachusetts as we know it, as your parents have known it, and as the gentleman from Norwood did to protect the religious freedoms. The next vote is inconsequential. The next vote does not matter. You’re selling out for voting for this further amendment, and I’m sorry to say you’re not representing the people of Massachusetts as I’d hoped you would. «Previous Page · 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 · Next Page»