Thursday, 4:30 PM
Legislators again delay gay marriage vote
By Scott Helman and Andrea Estes, Globe Staff
State lawmakers today again delayed a contentious vote on a proposed gay-marriage ban geared for the 2008 ballot, a move that could kill its chances of ever going to the voters.
The House and Senate, meeting in a special joint session, recessed before taking up a proposed amendment to the state constitution that would have limited the legal definition of marriage to the union between one man and one woman. Lawmakers voted to adjourn the session until Jan. 2, the last official day of the legislative session.
The 109-87 vote to recess could deal a crushing blow to opponents of same-sex marriage looking to override the landmark court decision three years ago that put Massachusetts on the vanguard of gay rights.
Before voting to recess, lawmakers debated another proposed constitutional amendment that would have banned gay marriage, but would have also required the state not to recognize existing same-sex marriages. Lawmakers rejected the amendment by a 196-0 vote.
"This is over. It's over," said Arline Isaacson of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus.
"Legislators wanted a chance to show that they really support same sex marriage or that they really opposed this anti-gay constitutional amendment," Isaacson said. "They've had a chance to do it today."
Kris Mineau of the Massachusetts Family Institute, which supports the measure, said the Legislature was "thumbing its nose" at the constitution.
Mineau called on Governor Mitt Romney, an outspoken opponent of gay marriage, to step in.
"We might be able to take it into a federal court, who knows? Certainly this denies due process of the people," Mineau said, holding up a copy of the state constitution. "The people's right to free speech is being throttled. The people's right to vote is being throttled."
Because lawmakers didn't formally adjourn the so-called Constitutional Convention, legislative sources said, it could prevent Romney from ordering the Legislature back into session over the next two months, which he has the power to do.
The proposed ban needed the backing of at least one-quarter of state legislators in this year's legislative session to advance to next year's legislative session, and, ultimately, to the 2008 ballot.
But lawmakers decided to put a vote on the amendment off once again following more than two and a half hours of emotional debate.
"You don't have to live next to us. You don't have to like us," state Senator Jarrett T. Barrios, an openly gay Cambridge Democrat, said in an emotional speech. "We are only asking you today to end the debate so that we can sleep easily knowing ... that we will at least have the right to enjoy the same rights the rest of you have enjoyed for time immemorial."
Proponents of the ban argued that regardless of how legislators felt about same-sex marriage, they ought to respect the wishes of the roughly 170,000 people who they said signed a petition to put it before voters in 2008.
"You don't represent their vote. You represent their interest in allowing them to vote," said Philip Travis, a Rehoboth Democrat retiring from the Legislature this year who has been one of the leading legislative opponents of gay marriage.
Scenarios for the Legislature on Jan. 2 include: an up-or-down vote on the proposed ban; adjournment without taking the measure up; and gay-marriage supporters could filibuster until the session ends at midnight, or deny the session the quorum necessary to proceed.
More than 8,000 gay couples have wed in Massachusetts since gay marriage became legal. In November 2003, the Supreme Judicial Court, by a 4-to-3 vote, declared that any laws denying same-sex marriages would violate the state's Constitution and its equal-rights clause.
Romney called a press conference shortly after the vote and blasted the 109 lawmakers who backed the delay, saying ``we have witnessed the triumph of arrogance over democracy.''
``Today, by effectively avoiding the constitutionally required vote on same-sex marriage, 109 legislators disgraced their oath of office,'' Romney said, adding that it was clear the intent was to kill the measure altogether.
But the governor acknowledged that, because the Legislature had recessed instead of adjourning, he was probably powerless to do anything about it.
``My options are limited,'' he said. ``But we will explore any other alternatives that may exist to protect the constitutional rights of our citizens.''
Romney said he believed that Travaglini, who led the Constitutional Convention but voted against the recess, had acted in ``good faith'' and truly wants an up-or-down vote.
Material from the Associated Press was used in this report.
