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

Reps. Rushing and Atkins rose and asked if Rep. O’Flaherty would yield, but he did not.

Rep. O’Flaherty said many of you have watched me stand repeatedly to speak. A reference was asked for. It was in the majority decision in the Goodridge ruling. Sentiments that I do not agree with. The SJC chief Justice Marshall made reference in her ruling to rooted in animus or bigotry. What some want you to believe is if you define marriage as between a man and a woman then you are discriminating. I do not accept intellectually or in any other fashion that the institution of marriage is inherently discriminatory. What the SJC decided in the Goodridge case and in the opinion never allowed us an opportunity to create a rational basis. Read the dissenting opinion of Justice Cordy. You will see that he literally was stunned that this Legislature had no opportunity to participate in one of the most monumental public policy debates we will see. Allow us an opportunity to create a rational basis for our statute of civil unions. Let it go in front of the Senate.

Sen. Havern took the chair at 3:56 pm. Rep. O’Flaherty declined to yield to Rep. Finegold.

Rep. O’Flaherty said in conclusion, if you vote for this amendment, what it allows most importantly is for us to participate in the role we are sworn to do and that is for us to enact public policy.

Rep. Fallon asked if Rep. O’Flaherty would yield. He did not.

Rep. O’Flaherty said the people we represent have been shut out of this process. This is an opportunity for us to put this vote, should it survive another constitutional convention, before the people. We can debate a comprehensive civil union bill which the Speaker of the House has guaranteed and I respect that guarantee.

Sen. Havern, in the chair, determined a quorum was present.

Sen. Travaglini said I convey my strong opposition to the amendment offered by my good friend. I urge each and every one of you to vote no on this amendment. It has been my intention from the outset that this body take up an amendment that Sen. Lees and others have worked so hard on. The intention was to develop consensus and offer a bipartisan alternative. You will not allow an opportunity for that debate to occur if you adopt this and will leave the people by the wayside, so many that we sought to include and recognize, they may never get it. We are aware of the daunting challenge. By supporting this, you will not allow for the full and thorough debate that I believe this issue calls for. To dispel the notion that I am not sincere about legislation with my name on it, I let you know the discussion of my amendment is something that means a great deal to me and so many others. It would be unfair if we do not present an opportunity for that discussion.

Rep. Atkins said thank you for providing the type of leadership we have yearned for for years. The train has left the session. The Senate has called on us to debate this issue. They say what are you doing in the House?

Rep. Tobin said point of personal privilege, as a member of this chamber and having participated in a caucus today and under the glare of a national spotlight, I have been insulted by a colleague who has chosen to make a political statement totally outside the realm of the debate before us to insult very clearly a member of this chamber. I must ask the chair to rule the lady has spoken out of order against the decorum of this chamber and has insulted me and every member.

Sen. Travaglini said he cautions those who come to the microphone to be careful of their diction and be respectful.

«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 Reps. Rushing and Atkins rose and asked if Rep. O’Flaherty would yield, but he did not. Rep. O’Flaherty said many of you have watched me stand repeatedly to speak. A reference was asked for. It was in the majority decision in the Goodridge ruling. Sentiments that I do not agree with. The SJC chief Justice Marshall made reference in her ruling to rooted in animus or bigotry. What some want you to believe is if you define marriage as between a man and a woman then you are discriminating. I do not accept intellectually or in any other fashion that the institution of marriage is inherently discriminatory. What the SJC decided in the Goodridge case and in the opinion never allowed us an opportunity to create a rational basis. Read the dissenting opinion of Justice Cordy. You will see that he literally was stunned that this Legislature had no opportunity to participate in one of the most monumental public policy debates we will see. Allow us an opportunity to create a rational basis for our statute of civil unions. Let it go in front of the Senate. Sen. Havern took the chair at 3:56 pm. Rep. O’Flaherty declined to yield to Rep. Finegold. Rep. O’Flaherty said in conclusion, if you vote for this amendment, what it allows most importantly is for us to participate in the role we are sworn to do and that is for us to enact public policy. Rep. Fallon asked if Rep. O’Flaherty would yield. He did not. Rep. O’Flaherty said the people we represent have been shut out of this process. This is an opportunity for us to put this vote, should it survive another constitutional convention, before the people. We can debate a comprehensive civil union bill which the Speaker of the House has guaranteed and I respect that guarantee. Sen. Havern, in the chair, determined a quorum was present. Sen. Travaglini said I convey my strong opposition to the amendment offered by my good friend. I urge each and every one of you to vote no on this amendment. It has been my intention from the outset that this body take up an amendment that Sen. Lees and others have worked so hard on. The intention was to develop consensus and offer a bipartisan alternative. You will not allow an opportunity for that debate to occur if you adopt this and will leave the people by the wayside, so many that we sought to include and recognize, they may never get it. We are aware of the daunting challenge. By supporting this, you will not allow for the full and thorough debate that I believe this issue calls for. To dispel the notion that I am not sincere about legislation with my name on it, I let you know the discussion of my amendment is something that means a great deal to me and so many others. It would be unfair if we do not present an opportunity for that discussion. Rep. Atkins said thank you for providing the type of leadership we have yearned for for years. The train has left the session. The Senate has called on us to debate this issue. They say what are you doing in the House? Rep. Tobin said point of personal privilege, as a member of this chamber and having participated in a caucus today and under the glare of a national spotlight, I have been insulted by a colleague who has chosen to make a political statement totally outside the realm of the debate before us to insult very clearly a member of this chamber. I must ask the chair to rule the lady has spoken out of order against the decorum of this chamber and has insulted me and every member. Sen. Travaglini said he cautions those who come to the microphone to be careful of their diction and be respectful. «Previous Page · 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 · Next Page»