Press for clarity on gay marriage
State Senate President Robert E. Travaglini began drumming up support yesterday for a more "clear and precise" constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage and create civil unions, amid signs that House Democrats loyal to Speaker Thomas M. Finneran will abandon the measure.
In a letter to lawmakers, Travaglini and Senate minority leader Brian P. Lees, an East Longmeadow Republican, wrote that the latest proposal represents "an effort to broaden this emerging consensus," primarily by ensuring that the state would not be have to pay for federal benefits to same-sex couples once civil unions are established.
"Same-sex couples should not . . . expect that the Commonwealth will pay for federal benefits that are unavailable under federal law," the letter says, noting that the federal Defense of Marriage Act prevents the US government from making payments such as Social Security survivor's benefits to gay couples.
In addition, the new text would make sure that benefits of those civil unions go to "persons," and not "couples," as the original says. "Many rights and protections belong to the individual, not the couple," the letter says.
"We continue to believe that this approach is the most fair way to give the people an opportunity to decide the definition of marriage while guaranteeing full rights and benefits to same-sex couples," the letter adds.
Travaglini and Lees are proposing to reword an earlier amendment that was sponsored by Finneran, but Finneran did not sign yesterday's letter and did not sign on with Travaglini and Lees as a sponsor to the latest changes. That is fueling suspicion that the speaker no longer backs the amendment bearing his name.
Finneran, who coauthored an earlier letter with Travaglini urging support from his colleagues, declined to comment yesterday.
But a top lieutenant, Representative Peter J. Larkin, a Pittsfield Democrat, said that many members are expressing concern that the Finneran-Travaglini amendment would confuse voters if placed on the ballot in November 2006, because the measure both bans gay marriage and enacts civil unions for gay couples.
He added that many House members are also fuming over the way Travaglini and his backers "stacked the deck" at the end of debate March 11, so that other competing proposals would only come up if Travaglini's measure fails first.
Lawmakers are set to reconvene the Constitutional Convention on Monday, their third try in little more than six weeks to enact a ballot initiative that could ban gay marriage and overturn the Supreme Judicial Court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage. The SJC said that gay marriages are legal in Massachusetts on May 17.
Larkin, vice chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, met with roughly six colleagues yesterday to seek support for a Republican-sponsored initiative that would send voters two separate ballot questions: one that would define marriage as between a man and a woman, and one that would create civil unions with all the rights and benefits of marriage.
But he insisted that he was not acting as Finneran's surrogate and was not speaking for him.
Larkin said Finneran, Ways and Means Committee chairman John Rogers, and Judiciary Committee chairman Eugene O'Flaherty stand by the original amendment.
"They have not put us out as stalking horses for their positions," Larkin said. "It's just the sentiment of members, a spontaneous combustion of rank-and-file members who want clarity on this question."
One top legislative official who asked not to be identified said that Finneran was offered the chance to cosponsor the initiative by Travaglini and Lees, but has thus far declined.
The official also said that Finneran was shown yesterday's letter in advance and that Rogers helped work out the wording, but that Finneran declined to add his signature to it.
Arline Isaacson, cochairwoman of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus, said it now appears that Finneran and a few of his top lieutenants will remain faithful to the Travaglini measure out of deference to the Senate president, but that most lawmakers loyal to Finneran would get a tacit green light to abandon the measure.
The lack of Finneran's signature on the letter or the amendment "indicates a lessening of Finneran's support for the amendment," Isaacson speculated.
Meanwhile, Finneran told WBZ-AM radio personality David Brudnoy last night that the advances made by gay and lesbians have been "put at risk" by reaction to the SJC decision around the country. Other states are considering enacting statutes to ensure that only heterosexual couples can marry. Noting that gays and lesbian may be able to marry May 17 in Massachusetts under the SJC decision, Finneran added: "I think it is very obvious that the pendulum is swinging back aggressively against their interests, their concerns, and their goals in many, many other states. That's one of the rich ironies."
