 |
 |
Choosing not to give their last names, Jessica (left) and Kate, both from Cambridge, Mass., embrace after Massachusetts lawmakers voted to kill a proposed a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage at the Statehouse in Boston on June 14. The couple now plan to marry. (Photo by Stephan Savoia/AP)
|
|
|
| | |
| |
|
|
| | |
HOME > NEWS > NATIONAL NEWS
By: JOSHUA LYNSEN COMMENTS
 
When he ran for office in Massachusetts last year, Democratic Rep. Angelo Puppolo Jr. supported efforts to constitutionally ban same-sex marriage.
He said voters deserved a chance to accept or reject a 2003 decision by the state’s high court that granted gay and lesbian couples marriage rights.
Puppolo won the seat but soon after he took office, hundreds of constituents asked him to reconsider his take on the proposed ban.
He heard from same-sex couples living in his district. He heard from their neighbors. He heard from their friends. They implored Puppolo to reconsider his position — and he did.
“In the end,” Puppolo said, “after listening to the effects that this amendment could have on certain families forever, I felt that it would not be right to amend the state constitution to take away civil rights and to take action against friends and neighbors who are enjoying the benefits of marriage.”
Puppolo was among the 151 state legislators who voted June 14 to kill the amendment. The measure needed 50 votes to advance to the 2008 ballot. It got 45. Nine legislators switched their votes to “no” from their previous “yes” votes in January.
Some legislators who voted to kill the amendment told the Blade their decisions were spurred by the personal appeals they received from constituents.
Others, such as Rep. Frank Israel Smizik (D), said the vote reflected a commitment to equality.
“Our Constitution was created to protect the rights of minorities, not to allow the majority to pass laws to take away the civil rights of others,” he said. “It has no discriminatory language and I will not vote to allow discriminatory language to be written in.”
Sen. Karen Spilka (D) agreed. She said discrimination has no place in the document.
“While it remains the right of individual religious denominations to define marriage as they see fit, it is my responsibility to advocate against the creation of a category of second-class citizens in the commonwealth,” she said. “All Massachusetts citizens should enjoy the full complement of rights and privileges conferred upon us by our Constitution.”
None of the 45 legislators who supported the amendment responded to Blade interview requests this week, but one group that supported it expressed dismay at last week’s outcome.
“The unprecedented pressure … derailed the largest initiative petition drive by citizens in the commonwealth’s history and this is a brutal loss for citizen-centered democracy,” said Kris Mineau, president of Massachusetts Family Institute, a conservative group that supported the amendment.
Rep. Robert Rice Jr. (D), who voted to kill the amendment, said many legislators who supported the measure wanted to empower voters.
“I think my colleagues were very sincere in their beliefs that this is an issue of importance and therefore those people who gathered the signatures, or the signatories, should have the opportunity to vote on this issue,” he said. “I really did not hear any arguments that my colleagues were against gay marriage, necessarily. They felt that it was an important right to let people vote.”
But a veteran House member said the state Constitution does not guarantee voters a referendum.
“The idea that the people automatically get to vote on any proposed amendment to our state Constitution is just not in the amendment process in the Massachusetts Constitution,” said Rep. Byron Rushing (D), an assistant majority House leader and member of the House rules committee.
“If that were so, the Constitution would have permitted direct access to the ballot by petition.”
The petition that was submitted to state officials in 2005 only forced lawmakers to consider the proposed amendment. It still needed the support of 25 percent of the legislature in two successive sessions to appear on the November 2008 ballot.
Lawmakers approved the measure last session and referendum supporters sought to secure their victory this session. But the activists fell five votes short of their goal.
“‘Let the people vote’ is a good political slogan,” Smizik said, “but it is not based upon the actual law.”
Rushing said lawmakers, under no obligation to forward the issue to voters, decided the issue on their own terms. Rushing voted to kill the amendment.
“Marriage is not a civil right, it is a civil institution,” he said. “The civil right is the right to choose your partner in marriage. It is always appropriate for the government to set the rules for civil institutions. In a democracy, all civil institutions should be available to all who qualify. Civil marriage should be available to all who qualify.”
Although many legislators joined Rushing to oppose the measure, each ...
| 
