 |
 |
|
|
| Gay marriage supporters celebrate together during a victory rally at the Statehouse after the Mass. Legislature overwhelmingly rejected a proposed constitutional amendment that sought to ban gay marriage. (AP Photo/Chitose Suzuki) | |
|
By LOU CHIBBARO JR.
Sep 14 2005, 7:30 PM |
|  | 
A joint session of the Massachusetts Legislature voted 157-39 on Wednesday to defeat a proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage while calling for legalizing civil unions.
-IMG-The vote came one year after Massachusetts became the nation’s first state to legalize gay marriages through a court edict, and after more than 6,100 same-sex couples in the state had married.
Gay activists and their supporters called today’s development a stunning victory and a clear signal that a majority of legislators — and most likely a majority of state residents — support gay marriage.
“We now have a solid and growing pro-marriage majority in the legislature,” said Marty Rouse, campaign director for Mass Equality, a state wide gay rights group.
Opponents of gay marriage, anticipating they would lose this week’s vote, have filed a newly worded statewide ballot initiative with the state attorney general’s office that would ban both same-sex marriage and civil unions. The measure, which takes the form of a constitutional amendment, cannot come before the voters until 2008.
Had the legislature — which convened in the form of a constitutional convention — approved the originally worded marriage amendment this week, the measure would have been placed before the voters in 2006.
One year ago, a similar joint session of the legislature — also convening as a state constitutional convention — voted 105 to 92 to approve the proposed constitutional ban on gay marriage.
The earlier vote was the first step in a process that requires the legislature to approve a constitutional amendment in two successive legislative sessions one year apart.
Political observers said sentiment for same-sex marriage increased dramatically over the past year as voters and legislators appeared to become more comfortable with the idea of marriage between people of the same sex.
“Gay marriage has begun, and life has not changed for the citizens of the commonwealth, with the exception of those who can now marry,” state Senator Brian Lees, a Republican sponsor of the anti-marriage amendment, told the Associated Press.
Lees was among those who voted against the amendment today, startling many of its backers.
In a last-minute effort to line up more support for their position, some backers of the marriage ban amendment announced earlier this week that they would introduce a bill to provide domestic partner type benefits to non-married couples, including same-sex couples.
State Rep. Philip Travis, a Democrat and leading supporter of the amendment to ban gay marriage, said the domestic partner bill would provide rights and benefits similar to what gay couples in the state now have through marriage.
Gay rights groups immediately rejected Travis’s proposal, calling it’s a “sham” aimed at luring away lawmakers who planned to vote against the constitutional amendment.
“The union of two women and two men can never consummate a marriage,” the AP quoted Travis as saying. “It’s physically impossible. We can’t get around that … The other 49 states are right and we are wrong.”
Rouse said more than 1,000 gays and their supporters assembled in the Great Hall of the State Capital building in Boston to celebrate the defeat the proposal constitutional amendment.
According to Rouse, gay marriage supporters knew they would benefit from gay rights opponents who opposed the proposed constitutional amendment because it called for legalizing civil unions. Conservative religious activists could not accept civil unions, which they viewed as gay marriage in disguise and urged lawmakers to vote against the amendment, Rouse said.
But Rouse said gay marriage supporters were pleasantly surprised when large numbers of legislators who were not hostile to gay civil rights but who were uncomfortable with gay marriage changed sides.
“We now have well over 115 votes in favor of same-sex marriage,” said Rouse. “It could be as many as 150 votes. It’s incredible.”
“Today’s vote proves that dogged grassroots organizing can change legislative votes,” said Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. “The reality of thousands of our marriages in Massachusetts showed the utter fallacy of our opponents’ arguments and dire predictions,” Foreman said.
Added Foreman, “Not only did the crops not wither, the Red Sox won the World Series and the Patriots took the Super Bowl.”
Gay rights supporters have pointed out that every state legislature that backed gay marriage in the first vote in the legislature one year ago won their re-election bids in the November 2004 elections. Several of those who voted against gay marriage lost in the election.
Political observers in the state said this week’s victory for gay rights advocates would not put the matter to rest. Opponents are expected to obtain the 65,000 petition signatures required to set in motion the process to place the gay marriage question on the ballot in 2008.
Before the measure can be placed on the ballot, a joint session of the legislature must approve it once again in two constitutional conventions. But under the petition signature route, the marriage ban amendment only needs 25 percent of the votes — just 50 lawmakers — to clear the legislative hurdle and advance to the ballot.
Although support for same-sex marriage has increased in the state, gay rights advocates were uncertain whether they could line up such a “super majority” to prevent the measure from going to the polls. Should it reach the ballot in 2008, both sides are predicting a grueling and costly campaign.
“More time, energy and money will be drained from the state because of yet another cynical attempt by extremist groups to put discrimination in the Massachusetts constitution,” said Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, which claims to be the nation’s largest gay political group. “Our focus now shifts to working closely with our allies to defeat the ballot measure in 2008,” Solmonese said.
|
