Lawmakers speak out, pro and con, on proposed amendment

"I have a fear that the language, unless it is further clarified in our zeal to create new constitutional rights for new types of relationships in the Commonwealth, that we infringe upon a long-held right, the first right that we articulated in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, that all citizens have the right to freely exercise one's religion."

Representative John H. Rogers
Norwood Democrat

"We are giving the people a false choice. We're saying you want one thing, but the only way you can do it is to create civil unions. If it makes it to the ballot, it will fail. Those of you who are rushing something to get to the voters . . . when the rubber hits the road and the dust settles, the people are going to know what we've done. They think we're going to give them a chance to vote. The reality is we're giving them nothing."

Representative Viriato Manuel deMacedo
Plymouth Republican

"Today, we have an amendment before us that I will vote against. . . . Read the language of the amendment that we're doing. Marriage, marriage, marriage in every sentence. You can't hide from it; you can't run away from it. The people will not buy into it, but they'll understand your vote. To stand up for marriage. It will be the last vestige for heterosexual marriage for Massachusetts. Your folks have known it, your grandfolks, to protect the religious freedoms of Massachusetts. We are setting a precedent with this vote only."

Representative Philip Travis
Rehoboth Democrat

"The language that was before us in that proposed amendment was language that went far beyond our constitutional understanding of freedom of religion. . . . We objected to this language because it was going to create a freedom that does not exist in our democracy; it would say someone who was elected to perform civil marriages could deny performing those marriages because of their own religious beliefs."

Representative Byron Rushing
Boston Democrat

"The issue is no longer same-sex marriage and which side we're on. The question is do the people of Massachusetts have a right to a clear-cut question. Are we going to send a convoluted issue to the ballot and go home and think we did our job?"

Representative Marie J. Parente
Milford Democrat

"This constitutional question has been a great exercise. At the end of the day, this Constitutional Convention means very little on what's going to happen on May 17. Why are we here? Why are we doing this, amending the oldest constitution in the country? The amendment was put forward in good faith, but there's a very real problem. We're creating same-sex civil unions, but we're giving them the same benefits of marriage. Why in the world do we want to set up a separate class of citizen?"

Representative Paul J. Loscocco
Holliston Republican

"This amendment stinks, but it at least gives the people a chance to vote for something. . . . I have another very dire prediction. I'm against changing the constitution. I'm going to vote for this amendment because I support the right of my people at home to vote for something."

Representative James H. Fagan
Taunton Democrat

"Most people do not want to change this constitution. And most people do not want gay marriage . . . Why do we wish, however well-intended, to take away the constitutional right to marry from some of our constituents?"

Senator Marian Walsh
West Roxbury Democrat

"I cannot let this debate conclude without considering the children. Thousands of children are being parented by gays and lesbians. How will these children benefit from a ban on same-sex marriage? . . . The gay and lesbian community will not see discrimination written into the constitution."

Representative John W. Scibak
South Hadley Democrat

"It is quite painful for me to even discuss the denial of equal protection to a group of our citizens. Some have said that this is not a civil rights issue, but it is. I have personally borne the burden of the practice of separate but equal, and it does not feel good. I do not want to be part of a process that imposes separate but equal on our citizens. . . . We should not amend this constitution to define marriage, we should not amend this constitution to take away rights or to deny equal protection to any segment of our population."

Representative Benjamin Swan
Springfield Democrat

"I hold the constitution sacred. It protects my rights and your rights. It protects the government from running your lives. It prevents the majority from changing laws to take my rights or the rights of anyone else away. In a stroke of genius, our founding fathers made this a requirement."

Representative Matthew Patrick
Falmouth Democrat

"Years from now, I am certain that my position, whether it wins or loses today, will be vindicated. My children and my grandchildren and yours will have accepted the concept of equal civil rights for all, and I will know that my participation today will be equally as important as the civil rights movement of the '60s."

Representative Lida E. Harkins
Needham Democrat

"I'd like to tell you how proud I am to be an American today. This is where we settle our differences; we settle them here in the Legislature or in the courts. We do that because we are a country that believes that protecting the rights of individuals is supreme." Representative Marie St. Fleur
Boston Democrat

"How can you file a further amendment to an amendment you haven't seen? It doesn't make sense. . . . To say that the further amendments are in order when no one was able to see the underlying amendment until the Thursday after the close of the constitutional convention, I just don't understand it. Unless we have some very good people with some very good telepathic powers."

Representative George Peterson
Grafton Republican