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

Rep. Flynn said I am a little confused. Perhaps I have been here too long or not long enough. This is the toughest vote over five decades that I have had to take and the toughest vote that any of you will take in your lifetime. It’s like as a legislator being on top of a windy and lonely hill. You find your closest friends, your immediate family, may doubt your motives. We all have gay and lesbian friends and colleagues and family members. Maybe known or unknown. It’s not about politics. I am on the same side as the governor on this issue. This is not about religion. It’s not about a bible. It’s not about civil rights. It’s not about civil law. It’s about natural law with me, the law of nature. The Supreme Judicial Court can and does invoke the law of man. The Supreme Judicial Court cannot repeal the law of nature. I support traditional marriage and civil unions. I am sad that this is brought to a shootout, a win or lose situation. My only message it to let the people vote. To paraphrase Lincoln, I do the best I can, the best I know how and I mean to continue to do so until the end. If the end brings me out all wrong, ten angels swearing I was right will make no difference. I hope we can get to Rep. Travis’ amendment. Please let the people vote.

Rep. C. Murphy said I am struck that the senators are surprised. The House members know this as business as usual. I am cognizant that this language put before us allows for civil unions, allows this body to address the issue of same-sex rights for couples, but it does not provide for it. The Speaker says he has deferred to gay advocates in the past and to their wishes that this body not take up same-sex rights. It’s clear that consensus has not and will not be reached. For that reason, if we get to Sen. Lees’ amendment, it creates full-fledged civil unions and opportunities for same-sex couples to be recognized. It puts it on the ballot. I understand that amendment is not the best case scenario for some. The following amendment is not either and it’s the lesser of two evils. I suggest we keep our eye on the ball. Stay focused. What we are doing right now is being sandbagged to give us an opportunity to address something we have not in the past. Vote down this amendment for no other reason than process because no one saw it coming. I resent the fact that we are here on this unbeknownst to anyone, unbeknownst to the Senate President.

Rep. Travis read the further amendment and said if it is adopted, it will go on the ballot in 2006. I come to this accepting that my original language would have over 100 votes to pass it. The language offered by the Speaker accomplishes everything I wish to accomplish and brings this debate to a closure. I ask for your support.

Rep. O’Flaherty said I have a right to speak from my chair. I feel most comfortable speaking from here. Before I make some comments, I want to thank you for allowing the proper decorum and debate to take place. It is only us that have had to deal with the enormous pressure over the weeks and months. Regardless of our position, all of us have been in the same position. It’s an issue like this more than anything when you realize how important a position it is that we hold and how important the decisions we make are. I support the Speaker’s amendment. I want you to hear my consideration. It has been asserted there is no rational basis for us to go forward in a statutory form. When the assistant attorney generals defended the DPH, they had no rational basis. It was never thought that this issue would end up before the court, any court. It was not contemplated that marriage would be contemplated between same-sex couples. Some have asserted that were this Legislature given the opportunity to consider a bill that gives a rational basis for one man and one woman, that the court has refuted those arguments. The court never had a rational basis before it. The gentleman from Mattapan has put the issue back in the appropriate forum. I have been averse to amending the constitution. It is a document that is to be conservatively construed and interpreted, in terms of our construction. The gentleman from Mattapan has made a commitment to every person in this room that there will be a vote on civil unions. Some may disparage that or talk about instances where that is not allowed. I say the train has left the station in terms of any issue preventing this from coming before us. The Legislature is the proper place to make public policy, not the Supreme Court. Every one of you should be personally insulted that the court has said close your door as legislators, we are going to decide what’s public policy.

«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 Rep. Flynn said I am a little confused. Perhaps I have been here too long or not long enough. This is the toughest vote over five decades that I have had to take and the toughest vote that any of you will take in your lifetime. It’s like as a legislator being on top of a windy and lonely hill. You find your closest friends, your immediate family, may doubt your motives. We all have gay and lesbian friends and colleagues and family members. Maybe known or unknown. It’s not about politics. I am on the same side as the governor on this issue. This is not about religion. It’s not about a bible. It’s not about civil rights. It’s not about civil law. It’s about natural law with me, the law of nature. The Supreme Judicial Court can and does invoke the law of man. The Supreme Judicial Court cannot repeal the law of nature. I support traditional marriage and civil unions. I am sad that this is brought to a shootout, a win or lose situation. My only message it to let the people vote. To paraphrase Lincoln, I do the best I can, the best I know how and I mean to continue to do so until the end. If the end brings me out all wrong, ten angels swearing I was right will make no difference. I hope we can get to Rep. Travis’ amendment. Please let the people vote. Rep. C. Murphy said I am struck that the senators are surprised. The House members know this as business as usual. I am cognizant that this language put before us allows for civil unions, allows this body to address the issue of same-sex rights for couples, but it does not provide for it. The Speaker says he has deferred to gay advocates in the past and to their wishes that this body not take up same-sex rights. It’s clear that consensus has not and will not be reached. For that reason, if we get to Sen. Lees’ amendment, it creates full-fledged civil unions and opportunities for same-sex couples to be recognized. It puts it on the ballot. I understand that amendment is not the best case scenario for some. The following amendment is not either and it’s the lesser of two evils. I suggest we keep our eye on the ball. Stay focused. What we are doing right now is being sandbagged to give us an opportunity to address something we have not in the past. Vote down this amendment for no other reason than process because no one saw it coming. I resent the fact that we are here on this unbeknownst to anyone, unbeknownst to the Senate President. Rep. Travis read the further amendment and said if it is adopted, it will go on the ballot in 2006. I come to this accepting that my original language would have over 100 votes to pass it. The language offered by the Speaker accomplishes everything I wish to accomplish and brings this debate to a closure. I ask for your support. Rep. O’Flaherty said I have a right to speak from my chair. I feel most comfortable speaking from here. Before I make some comments, I want to thank you for allowing the proper decorum and debate to take place. It is only us that have had to deal with the enormous pressure over the weeks and months. Regardless of our position, all of us have been in the same position. It’s an issue like this more than anything when you realize how important a position it is that we hold and how important the decisions we make are. I support the Speaker’s amendment. I want you to hear my consideration. It has been asserted there is no rational basis for us to go forward in a statutory form. When the assistant attorney generals defended the DPH, they had no rational basis. It was never thought that this issue would end up before the court, any court. It was not contemplated that marriage would be contemplated between same-sex couples. Some have asserted that were this Legislature given the opportunity to consider a bill that gives a rational basis for one man and one woman, that the court has refuted those arguments. The court never had a rational basis before it. The gentleman from Mattapan has put the issue back in the appropriate forum. I have been averse to amending the constitution. It is a document that is to be conservatively construed and interpreted, in terms of our construction. The gentleman from Mattapan has made a commitment to every person in this room that there will be a vote on civil unions. Some may disparage that or talk about instances where that is not allowed. I say the train has left the station in terms of any issue preventing this from coming before us. The Legislature is the proper place to make public policy, not the Supreme Court. Every one of you should be personally insulted that the court has said close your door as legislators, we are going to decide what’s public policy. «Previous Page · 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 · Next Page»