Support for anti-gay marriage amendment
Find a Conversation
| Sun, 09-11-2005 - 6:35pm |
collapses in MA.
By Steve LeBlanc and Theo Emery, Associated Press Writers
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2005/09/11/ap_survey_support_for_anti_gay_marriage_amendment_collapses_on_beacon_hill/
BOSTON --A fragile coalition of lawmakers cobbled together to support an anti-gay marriage amendment last year has collapsed, virtually guaranteeing same-sex marriage will remain legal in Massachusetts, at least for now.
A poll of lawmakers conducted by The Associated Press has found at least 104 who planned to vote against the amendment when it comes up for a second vote on Wednesday. That's enough to defeat the measure, which would also create civil unions.
Last year, months after the Supreme Judicial Court ruled that same-sex marriage was legal under the state constitution, the measure passed by a 105-92 margin. To get on next year's state ballot, the amendment needs the support of a majority -- at least 101 -- of the state's 200 lawmakers in the second round of voting.
Opposition to the measure is likely even deeper than the survey indicates.
Several lawmakers who voted against the proposal last year could not be reached for comment. Others who have voiced strong opposition to the amendment in the past declined to respond to the survey.
The AP attempted to reach all 200 lawmakers with at least two phone calls between Sept. 6-9. Of those reached, 104 said they would vote against the proposal, 19 said they would support it, and 3 said they were undecided.
The reasons for the collapse are many, rooted in the language of the amendment, which seeks to broker a compromise between foes of same sex marriage and supporters of gay rights by outlawing gay marriage but enshrining civil unions.
The compromise ultimately had an opposite effect, alienating foes of gay marriage by creating civil unions and offending gay rights supporters by banning gay marriage.
Perhaps the best indication that support for the amendment -- which was already eroding -- is in free fall are the number of lawmakers abandoning their support of the measure.
More than a dozen lawmakers who voted for it the first time around said they will switch their votes this week, either because they fully support gay marriage or oppose civil unions.
Others simply said that after more than a year of watching gay couples marry with no ill effect on society, they see no need to rescind the right.
Rep. Anne M. Gobi, D-Spencer, had a change of heart after seeing how the opportunity to marry has changed the lives of so many couples. She said she could not support the compromise amendment, as she did last year.
"I haven't talked to any married heterosexual couples that have felt threatened by same-sex marriages," she said. "When you look at the world situation and all the terrible things that are happening, there's a lot worse things ... than allowing two people who love each other to be together."
Rep. James Brendan Leary, D-Worcester, said he didn't want to use the state constitution to take away rights rather than create new ones.
"It's a dangerous precedent to take away rights that have been granted by the court for an identifiable group of people," he said. "It's not simply a policy issue. It's a question of how we use our constitution."
Many foes of gay marriage, who supported the amendment in the hopes of preventing gay marriages from happening, are drawn to a second, much stricter alternative amendment that would ban gay marriage without granting civil unions.
The earliest that proposal, which cleared a key hurdle last week when it was certified by Attorney General Thomas Reilly, could go before voters is 2008.
"We are going back to the beginning and defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman," said Rep. Philip Travis, D-Rehoboth, who voted for the compromise amendment last year, but now plans to vote against it.
Supporters of that amendment must still collect the signatures of 65,825 registered voters, and win approval for it in two sittings of the Legislature. But because the amendment begins with citizens, only a quarter of lawmakers -- a much lower threshold -- must vote for it.
Gay marriage opponents said they reluctantly voted for last year's compromise and welcome the chance to vote for a simple ban.
"I was not a supporter of gay marriage. The (compromise) amendment was the only amendment at that time, because all the other amendments were defeated," said Rep. Paul J. Donato of Medford, who said he would support the new proposal.
Former Boston Mayor Ray Flynn, a gay marriage opponent, said the new proposal is superior because it enshrines marriage between a man and a woman, which he said is best for children. But he added the measure would ensure rights for non-married couples, such as inheritance or hospital visitation rights. It's worth the wait to vote on it, he said.
"I'd rather get it right than discriminate or hurt anybody," he said. "I think that it strikes that fair balance."
Some lawmakers who have supported gay marriage in the past declined to respond to the survey, saying they believed the vote was still too narrow.
Rep. Byron Rushing, D-Boston, a vocal backer of same-sex marriage whose district includes Boston's heavily gay South End, declined to say if he would again vote against the gay marriage ban.
"Not on this issue," he said, when asked how he would vote. "It's too close."
The compromise amendment won initial approval last year after some of the most wrenching debates seen on Beacon Hill, with lawmakers tearfully pleading their case on both sides while the nation and the world looked on.
Wednesday's debate promises less drama.
Since Massachusetts' first-in-the-nation legal gay marriages started taking place on May 17, 2004, thousands of same-sex couples have tied the knot here.
Gloria Bailey-Davies, 65, said she's not surprised the amendment appears headed for defeat. She and her partner, Linda Bailey-Davies, 59, were one of the original seven couples who sued for the right to marry.
After 35 years together, the couple was finally able to marry and adopt each other's last names.
"We are finally able to let them see we are everyday people who need the same legal benefits and protections as everyone else," Gloria Bailey-Davies said. "We both feel ever so much more secure knowing that no matter what happens around any health care issues, we will be able to care for each other. We are now each other's legal next of kin."
Many new lawmakers are planning to vote against the measure. Most had been pressed on their stand on the issue before Election Day.
Rep. John Keenan, D-Salem, said he would vote against both last year's compromise and the proposed alternative amendment if it reaches lawmakers.
"Most of us who came in my class have declared one way or another. It's a fairly easy question for us," he said.
And not everyone is switching their vote.
Rep. James H. Fagan, D-Taunton, said he's sticking by his yes vote -- not because he opposes gay marriage, but because he wants the state's citizens to vote on it.
"I support their right to vote," Fagan said. "I would suggest that people do not vote to amend our Constitution."
oh sister contine light my wings,
glide on by through the words you're singin' ...
(well sister light,sister contine she comes
in the light she brings well is it hard to run down
in the rain yea) oh sister contine light my wings,
glide on by through the words you're singin'
well can you tell me more,
well I believe I hear you callin' and yes it's hard to run
Sister Contine

Interesting article Nelle.
Pieces of My Life
~Amy