Constitutional Convention (Monday, March 29, 2004)
CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION: MONDAY, MARCH 29, 2004
Rep. Frost was recognized. He said I would like to remind
them of the remarks that the gentleman from Norwood
brought up. He made a very passionate plea. He discussed the problems of the
amendment currently before us. The constitutional crisis it very well may
create. I believe what he said is correct. The language that is before us
doesn’t protect the religious institutions we have. We’ll give the voters a
very clouded choice in 2006. If we vote this down, right now, we can still
change what we put forward. There is one amendment that does protect the
churches, and that is what is proposed by deMacedo to split the amendment. One
would protect the churches. We’re willing to have the civil union question
first and the marriage question second. We want to give everyone a chance to
vote for what they think is right.Rep. Lepper was recognized. He said my
constituents want a fair choice. They’ve asked for that choice and there is a
fair choice. But we need to defeat this amendment to get to that choice. The
court has divided us. We need to offer the people an alternative to that. This
amendment does not do that. Some say this is a poison pill. That may be true. I
think many people think they are putting together a compromise that will
prevail. I feel it is a failed attempt. It is a mottled attempt. The amendment
says marriage is a unique institution, but goes on to say all the benefits are
provided to those couples. But most importantly, there are no exemptions added
to this amendment to protect religious institutions. I implore you to defeat
it.Sen. Nuciforo was recognized. He said I rise to urge members to resist any efforts
to defeat this language. This is an issue about protecting religious freedoms
and the SJC opinion directly addresses that. (Sen. Nuciforo read from the
Goodridge decision). The arguments you just heard are not accurate. The SJC has
said that what we will do here will not interfere with a person’s religious
freedoms and abilities.Rep. Rushing was recognized. He said I rise on a
particular, brief argument. We in this chamber know what we did when we
objected to allowing the further amendment that had to do with so-called
exercise of free religion. There are many people listening to us that might not
have understood, or understand what the objection of so many of the members
was. We objected to the language that we had before us in the propose
amendment. That language went far beyond our constitutional understanding of
freedom of religion in this commonwealth, or this nation. You just heard the language
of the SJC when it defined freedom of religion. That language is language we
all agree with. When we are talking about religious marriage, the state will
not interfere with the rules of any religious figure to marry people. There is
right now, no law to set standards for religious marriage in the state. Any
religious ordained figure can decide not to marry any couple right now. In May
of this year, that same couple, same sex or different sex, will have no right
to appeal the decision of a religious marriage or the opinion of a religious
institution. What this amendment would have done that in relation to civil
marriage, a person who is elected to appoint aRep. Parente was recognized. She
asked for the gentleman to yield. He would not.Rep. Rushing said therefore, we
objected to this language because it was going to create a freedom that does
not exist in this society.Rep. Parente said these last few weeks have been very
educational. There’s nothing we can do if we let this question go forward with
no real choice. The issue is no longer what side of same sex marriage are you
on. The issue now is whether the people have a right to a clear-cut question.
Only the non-religious can come to this microphone today, is that what we’re
saying? My question is very simple to the gentlemen from Boston.
He voted against this amendment the last time. And now he’s asking you all to
vote for it. Do you think we are all stupid? We know what’s going on here. When
I tried to give a petition to one constituent, they said to me – are you
stupid?
