Fear, determination led to plan for filibuster
The filibuster that halted the Legislature's constitutional convention late Thursday night was born in an anteroom off the House chamber, shortly after lawmakers rolled through a 9 p.m. deadline. The gay-marriage supporters huddled there knew the convention would have to adjourn at midnight, barring a unanimous vote to push on. After two days of emotional, often rancorous debate, they decided the safest strategy was to run out the clock.
To the purest gay-marriage proponents, a filibuster's appeal was obvious: Blocking a vote would keep any barrier to same-sex marriages out of the state constitution. But the filibuster also was backed by lawmakers with more nuanced positions -- and spurred by a healthy fear of House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran's political skill.
The filibuster began at 10:33 p.m. with what was billed as a "consensus" amendment. The measure, authored by Finneran, Senate President Robert E. Travaglini, and key members of the House and Senate leadership, would define marriage as the union of a man and a woman while establishing civil unions for same-sex couples with "entirely the same benefits, protections, rights, and responsibilities" of marriage. The amendment was virtually identical to the one offered by Travaglini and Senate minority leader Brian P. Lees on Wednesday -- and yet many lawmakers who voted for that amendment helped block a vote on Thursday's consensus proposal.
The primary reason for the shift was timing.
When the Travaglini-Lees amendment came up, legislators had not yet defeated what gay-rights groups viewed as the most noxious proposal and one they knew was coming: an amendment authored by Representative Philip Travis, a Rehoboth Democrat. Travis's amendment, which lost 103-94 on Thursday night, would have defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman while stating that "nothing in this article requires or prohibits civil unions." With that in mind, some legislators voted for the Travaglini-Lees amendment, which lost 104-94 on Wednesday, as the lesser of two evils.
"Our thinking changed overnight. If you had asked me on Wednesday morning whether I thought sufficient support existed in the constitutional convention to support Travis or something like it, I would have said yes," said Senator Andrea F. Nuciforo Jr., a Pittsfield Democrat who helped plan the filibuster. The demise of the Travis amendment emboldened gay-marriage supporters, Nuciforo said.
"Those of us who oppose a constitutional amendment figured out pretty quick that we were in charge," he said. "At that point, we felt, `Why should we cooperate with the speaker?' "
But while gay-marriage supporters were heartened by the demise of the Travis amendment, they did not believe they had the votes to approve Thursday's consensus amendment, largely because they did not trust Finneran and his lieutenants.
Though Finneran and the House leadership had signed their names to the consensus amendment, the talk in the chamber was that many House members planned to bolt once it came up for a vote. Its defeat would set the stage for the return of a slightly modified version of Finneran's own preferred proposal, which he sprang on the convention when it began Wednesday. That amendment, defeated 100-98, would have reserved marriage for heterosexuals with only a vague assurance that the Legislature could establish civil unions with undetermined benefits "from time to time."
Gay-marriage supporters feared that Finneran had altered his original plan just enough to garner the two votes he needed.
Representative Peter J. Larkin, a Pittsfield Democrat and one of Finneran's key lieutenants, dismissed talk of "conspiracies and subterfuges," insisting that legislators voted their consciences over the two-day debate. Still, Larkin pointed out that a vote on the consenus amendment would have been preliminary, and legislators might have tried to substitute the modified Finneran amendment for it before a final vote.
Shortly after 10:30 p.m., Senator Brian A. Joyce, a Milton Democrat, launched into a reading of a lengthy Globe editorial and the filibuster was on. "The speaker told me that he was going to support the compromise, and I'll take him at his word," Joyce said yesterday. "But it was clear to me that there were many who were not."
