Proposal states civil union limits

A proposed constitutional amendment backed by the Senate's top Democrat and top Republican would explicitly acknowledge the limits on benefits available to gay couples under civil unions.

The amendment, offered by Senate President Robert E. Travaglini and Senate Republican leader Brian P. Lees, defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman, and establishes civil unions, "while recognizing that under present federal law, same-sex persons in civil unions will be denied federal benefits available to married persons."

The amendment, released by the Senate clerk's office yesterday, is likely to be taken up when lawmakers reconvene in their constitutional convention March 29. The Globe reported yesterday that the amendment was filed in the closing minutes of the last meeting of the convention, allowing it to be taken up first when lawmakers reconvene.

Gay marriage supporters have pointed out for months that civil unions would not provide same-sex couples with hundreds of federal benefits available to married couples. The Supreme Judicial Court has said that civil unions would not meet its November ruling legalizing gay marriage because civil unions would be a separate but unequal system.

The statement of the limitations of civil unions was welcomed by a lobbyist for gay marriage yesterday.

"I'm glad to hear that's in there," said Arline Isaacson, cochairwoman of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus. "The problem we have with civil unions is that they slam shut the door on our ability to ever access federal benefits. I appreciate the fact that [the senators are] being honest and upfront about the huge problem with civil unions. I respect the fact they're not trying to hide that."

Earlier this month, legislators took three preliminary votes to approve an amendment backed by Travaglini and House Speaker Thomas Finneran that would define marriage solely as the union of a man and a woman, and establish civil unions. It used far less explicit language on the limitations of the benefits, establishing civil unions for same-sex couples "with entirely the same benefits, protections, rights, and responsibilities that are afforded to couples married under Massachusetts law. "

The amendment approved by legislators at the last constitutional convention, in mid-March, needs final approval at the March 29 special legislative session, then another approval in the 2005-2006 legislative session. Clearing that hurdle would put the constitutional amendment before the voters at the 2006 election.

But lawmakers are jockeying to replace that amendment with others. Some were made public yesterday.

One amendment bans same-sex marriage, establishes civil unions, but, unlike the Travaglini-Finneran proposal, leaves it up to the Legislature to define civil unions. Another amendment establishes same-sex marriage but explicitly allows religious institutions to deny recognition of the union. Another splits the Travaglini-Finneran amendment into two parts, putting two separate amendments on the ballot -- one denying the right to same-sex marriage, the other establishing civil unions. Some gay marriage opponents who also oppose civil unions support that split.