Constitutional Convention (Thursday, Feb. 12, 2004)
«Previous Page · 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 · Next Page»
Sen. Lees was recognized. He said this amendment brought forward by the speaker, the president, by Mr. O’Flaherty, Mr. Rogers, Ms. Murray and myself allows this issue to move forward and put something on the ballot. It also contains a mechanism to prevent a step backward for gay couples who are going to be wed on May 17 and will face uncertainty. I want all of you to know that Republicans and Democrats have worked very hard over the last few days to ensure the voices are heard and we have something on the ballot. But we make sure that we do not take a step backward and we protect the rights of gay and lesbian couples. It would be a sad day to leave here without having something on the ballot. We have heard from the people that they want to be herd on this issue. However, I believe, we cannot turn our backs on some of the citizens of Massachusetts. I am not sure what the voters will do. But should they approve an amendment that does not provide rights to gay and lesbian coupes, it would be sad. Is it a compromise? Yes it is. Is it an extension of the Travis amendment? Yes it is. Many of you have said to me today that you do not want to leave today, go on vacation next week, and not have the people know that we want them to be heard. This is just the first step in the lengthy process. At this time, I hope you will join us in moving the process forward. We are first voting on a substitute amendment. Then you have to vote to move it to third reading. Then you will have the chance to amend it, and change things that you may not like. I would ask you to not shut the door to any people in the commonwealth. I do believe it is imperative that we leave here today not deadlocked, not arguing. But that we do believe on the concept that the people will be heard. And that should an amendment pass in 2006, I believe that we are a caring Legislature, and we do not want to send the message that we do not care about the people of this state. I don’t believe it is all or nothing. I do believe we run the risk of having a vote at some point, and voting to exclude any population. It can’t be all or nothing. There are enough votes in this chamber to put something on the ballot. There are. Trust the people you have elected to lead this body. Join with us and send a signal to the public - we understand. We want to be very sure that we don’t leave anybody behind. Somehow we are going to get a ballot question. It is going to happen. And I would hope this compromise between Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives, prevails. We need to be realistic here. We’ve seen how close these votes are. Let’s send a message to the public tonight. We have lots of time to go here, this is not the end to this. If you have some problem with this, you can amend this and make some speeches down the road. I hope the convention will join with me and vote yes on this amendment. Sen. Magnani said regardless of how this vote turns out I want to thank you Mr. President. No one can argue that their voice has not been heard or has been swept under the carpet. It has been an extraordinary process. I hope this amendment is not adopted. First, I would ask respectfully that our colleagues in the press would help us clarify that the constitution does not allow us to vote on whether it should go to the ballot. The only question we are allowed to vote on is whether we agree or disagree with the substance of the amendment, not on whether it should be on the ballot. In fact, the drafters of our constitution did create a process for a question to go on the ballot. So therefore, Mr. President let’s talk about the matter of substance. Many of you know the substance of my debate has been with the members of my own church. Let me be clear, I am a Catholic. And I have faith in my church. I am also a legislator with faith in my constitution. I am however an elected senator, and my role is to seek the greatest good for the greatest number of people, while preserving the social order prescribed in the constitution. While I make no pretense for being a Theologian I have to make this decision within the context of my conscience, from the enormous amount of information I have learned from the people in my district. It is within this spirit and this understanding that I cannot vote to reduce or deny someone else’s equality under the law. I also respect my church’s right to speak out on issues such as these. And I hope it would continue to do so. Throughout this process, there have been many good and faithful people that have said the Goodridge decision will weaken the institution of marriage. But I honestly believe the forum for the discussion on the sanctity of marriage is within those religious institutions. My right to practice my religion as I see fit is only protected within my constitution. In the end, the question comes down to this - whether or not I would be willing to reduce the rights of others.