Massachusetts lawmakers reject effort to reach compromise on gay marriage
Massachusetts lawmakers shot down an attempted compromise amendment Wednesday night that sought to legalize civil unions but ban gay marriage -- leaving open the possibility of either an outright ban without any benefits for same-sex couples or letting the state's constitution remain intact.
The Legislature's inability to reach a compromise after more than six hours of debate left the outcome of the constitutional convention in flux.
The constitutional convention adjourned for the evening about 8:30 p.m. EST but was to reconvene Thursday to pick up where lawmakers left off: debating an issue that has put Massachusetts at the forefront of a contentious social, political, religious and legal issue.
Massachusetts was thrust into the epicenter of the national gay marriage debate in November when the state's highest court ruled it was unconstitutional to ban gay couples from marriage, a decision that was reaffirmed last week. Under the decision, the nation's first government-sanctioned gay marriages will take place in mid-May.
Left with few alternatives, lawmakers who opposed gay marriage turned to the constitutional amendment process as a way to preserve the institution as a heterosexual union.
More than 3,700 citizens and 300 members of the international media descended on the Statehouse to witness a debate that have could repercussions across the country, particularly in an election year featuring a Democratic candidate for president from Massachusetts.
Crowds chanted "Let the people vote!" and "Equality now!" outside the House chamber at the start of the session.
The bipartisan proposal, which was rejected by a 104-94 margin, was crafted by a bipartisan group of Senate leaders who wished to ban gay marriage while still extending equal benefits to gay couples.
The amendment was condemned by gay-rights advocates and their conservative opponents. It would have automatically legalized civil unions in Massachusetts in November 2006, the earliest an amendment could be placed on a ballot for voter approval.
If the amendment was approved at that time, gay couples married in the interim period would have been stripped of their licenses and considered part of a civil union.
Earlier in the day, lawmakers narrowly defeated a surprise amendment by House Speaker Thomas Finneran, an ardent opponent of gay marriage, that included only the possibility of civil unions, rather than making them automatic in 2006.
The votes came during an impassioned debate about the meaning of the constitution, the lessons of slavery, and the importance of preserving an institution that has existed as a heterosexual union for 3,000 years.
Senate Minority Leader Brian Lees, R-East Longmeadow, who co-sponsored the Senate leadership's compromise amendment, called the change "a fair compromise at this point."
"This is in no way stops what the Supreme Court has ruled," Lees said.
Rep. Philip Travis, D-Rehoboth, who sponsored the original constitutional ban defining marriage as a heterosexual union, said the Lees amendment would ask citizens to decide on two potentially conflicting initiatives -- a ban on gay marriage and the legalization of civil unions -- with one vote.
"It goes beyond what the people wish to vote on," Travis said. "It is almost like offering a true-false question. How do you respond by voting yes or no at the ballot box?"
The competing amendments and shifting alliances injected an unusual level of frenzy into a Democrat-dominated Legislature known for its carefully orchestrated debates. Democrats control 169 of the 200 seats. (One seat is vacant.)
Originally proposed in early 2003, the constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage gained more immediate significance after the Supreme Judicial Court ruled November that it was unconstitutional to bar gay couples from marriage.
Opponents rooted their arguments in the constitution's guarantee of every citizen's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Sen. Dianne Wilkerson, D-Boston, drew upon her experience as a black woman growing up in Arkansas, where the public hospital did not allow her mother to deliver her children.
"I know the pain of being less than equal and I cannot and will not impose that status on anyone else," a teary-eyed Wilkerson said. "I was but one generation removed from an existence in slavery. I could not in good conscience ever vote to send anyone to that place from which my family fled."
Supporters of a ban called for the Legislature to allow voters the opportunity to weigh in on this fundamental cultural issue.
"Mother Nature left her blueprint behind and she left it in DNA, a man and a woman," said Rep. Marie Parente, D-Milford. "I didn't create that combination, Mother Nature did.".
If gay marriage takes place in Massachusetts, federal lawsuits would likely ensue as gay couples seek recognition in other states and by the federal government. While state marriages are normally respected in other jurisdictions, 38 states and the federal government have approved laws or amendments barring the recognition of gay marriage.
Massachusetts civil unions would convey many of the benefits and responsibilities of marriage but would only be recognized -- conceivably -- in Vermont, which enacted civil union legislation in 2000.
Adopted in 1780, the Massachusetts Constitution is the oldest still-governing written constitution in the world. It has been amended 120 times, most recently in 2000 when voters endorsed making the federal census the basis for legislative redistricting and stripping voting rights from incarcerated felons.
