The Monday, March 29th action of the legislature was heartrending. Legislators approved a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as the union between one man and one woman, but added a civil union mandate that would guarantee same-sex couples everything that spouses get but not a marriage license.
What happened to the idea of splitting the question into two amendments, one dealing with marriage, the other with civil unions? On a critical vote Monday, 111 legislators voted in such a way as to preclude any attempt to split, when a difference of 12 votes would have altered the outcome and opened up the possibility for a split. (For those interested in the math, that particular vote required a majority of those 197 legislators then present, which is 99).
Of those legislators in the majority, the following 21, based on various factors, were key potential swing votes who refused appeals to vote in such a way as to allow for a subsequent vote on splitting: Senators Hart, Pacheco, and Tarr, and Representatives Atsalis, Binienda, Buoniconti, Callahan,, Canavan, Candaras, Casey, Coughlin, DeLeo, Finneran, Gobi, Howland, LeDuc, Mariano, Naughton, Verga, Wagner, and Walrath.
March 11th Joint Session Account
Notes from the Hill, Massachusetts Catholic Conference
March 17, 2004Switching metaphors from the culinary (making sausage and jello) to
the athletic, two sports topics come to mind when describing the March 11th votes in
the legislature on the marriage issue.
The joint session of state senators and state representatives spent
from
The final vote was to move the leadership proposal to
"third reading" (a term taken from the parliamentary process, where the clerk
reads a bill for a third time). This vote was especially critical, because
had the proposal not received a majority vote, the process would have stopped then and
there. A majority of the legislators (121 yes to 77 no) voted to send the
proposal to third reading, then adjourned until March 29th at
Advocates for same-sex marriage lost big on the third vote, however.
They failed to derail the process. This vote showed that almost two-thirds of
the legislators oppose the Goodridge ruling that mandates same-sex
marriage. Thus, legislators overwhelmingly approve of letting the people
vote to overturn Goodridge.
A look at the numbers
In third reading beginning on March 29th, the goal is to amend the
leadership civil union proposal in such a way as to provide the voters with a clean, up or
down vote on marriage. Paying attention to the numbers, that is, who voted which way
and why, provides some insight about our chances of success.
If the Democratic leadership balks, the Republicans would vote no on
the current proposal in third reading, killing the whole process, even though they do not
support same-sex marriage.
February 11th Joint Session Account
February 24, 2004 As the old saying goes, it's never pretty to watch sausage, jello, and laws being made. The two days of debate during the constitutional convention in our state legislature was, for many, especially those who don't make it a habit to follow the legislative process, a disappointing and confusing experience. When the joint session was gavelled to a close at midnight Feb. 12, to be resumed at 2 pm on March 11, the question loomed large: after all the hullabaloo, where do we stand with MA & PA?First, here's what happened procedurally, the bottom line of which is that MA & PA is still alive. Before the joint session even started, Rep. Phil Travis had placed on the calendar, the worksheet, if you will, for the convention, his proposed constitutional amendment, H. 3190, the Marriage Affirmation & Protection Amendment, or MA & PA. Senator Jarrett Barrios then inserted onto the calendar a proposed amendment to Rep. Travis's constitutional Amendment. Sen. Barrios's amendment would gut MA & PA by turning it into a mandate for same-sex marriage. So, when the joint session opened, the first order of business was to deal with Sen. Barrios's proposed amendment substituting his language for Travis's language. Over the two days of debate, three further amendments to be substituted for and to eliminate Sen. Barrios's proposed language were offered, voted on, and defeated, meaning that the issue during the two days was whether to accept an amendment to an amendment to the Amendment! There has not yet been a vote on Barrios's proposal or for that matter on MA & PA itself. Sausage, anyone?
To make matters even more confusing, one of the proposals offered and voted on was submitted by Rep. Travis himself. His proposal was a streamlined version of MA & PA that reaffirmed marriage as only the union between one man and one woman and added a sentence declaring that civil unions were neither required nor prohibited. We'll get to civil unions in a moment. Since Travis's separate proposal was among those defeated, does that mean MA & PA is dead? No. MA & PA is still alive. All of the votes were preliminary skirmishes not dealing with the main question of MA & PA itself. Ultimately, if a constitutional Amendment is approved by the joint session, MA & PA will have to be dealt with. So our message to legislators still remains: vote yes on MA & PA, let the people decide!
Second, let's look at what happened substantively, which revolves around the whole issue of civil unions. Some legislators express concern that MA & PA as presently worded would prevent benefits of any sort, such as health care or housing, from being extended to unmarried persons. This concern is absolutely unfounded.
Other legislators want civil unions to be established as equal to but not identified as marriage, whereby opposite-sex couples would continue to be identified as married while same-sex couples would be treated as married spouses but not given the name of marriage. The Catholic Church cannot support this approach. Marriage is unique and same-sex relationships do not have a moral or biological parity with the opposite-sex union, and thus should not be given a legal parity. Thus we oppose any change to MA & PA that constitutionally mandates that same-sex relationships must be treated as equal to marriage with all the same benefits, no matter what the relationship is called. We have been advised, however, by Rep. Travis that to have any chance at getting a majority of legislators to support Ma & PA, he needs to take out language that legislators fear will prohibit the passage of civil union legislation. Although not desireable, this change to MA & PA is acceptable.
There are other approaches being bandied about that do not constitutionally mandate treating same-sex relationships as equal to marriage. However, these approaches would expressly authorize or require the legislature to establish civil unions. One variation is to define in the Constitution what a civil union would be, and some argue that the Constitution should require that civil unions be constitutionally reserved for same-sex couples. We oppose this variation entirely.
Others argue that it should be left up only to the legislature to define what the term civil union means and what relationships it would include, so no definition would be added to the Constitution. This is the approach being proposed by Rep. Paul Loscocco. It doesn't mandate that civil unions must include or be limited to same-sex couples and delays the civil union debate to another day. If approval for MA & PA or any similar "marriage only" amendment is not achievable, such as creating two separate amendments to address the issue of marriage separately from civil unions however defined, then the Loscocco approach would be acceptable as well, and certainly far more desireable than no amendment at all. See also Clarification.
The hunt for a majority vote on MA & PA continues. Legislators have to hear loud and clear that doing nothing at all is to ratify same-sex marriage since the Goodridge decision would then be left unchallenged and might then remain unchallengeable through other means for the near future as a practical matter. Legislators also must continue to hear that it's MA & PA that we want sent to the people. If it becomes absolutely clear that not enough legislators would vote for MA & PA, then the consequences of closing the joint session with no amendment at all would have to be weighed against the dangers posed by the Loscocco approach. By no means are we at that bridge yet, and so MA & PA must remain the focus of our efforts.
Go online to our website at www.macathconf.org for more information or call us at 617-367-6060.
From time to time the Massachusetts Catholic Conference staff will report by email on public policy events of concern to Catholics in Massachusetts. "The Hill" refers to the federal Capital in Washington D.C. and also to the State House in Boston, both of which are located on high ground. The Massachusetts Catholic Conference is the public policy office for the Roman Catholic Church in the Commonwealth, governed directly by the four Bishops serving as episcopal ordinaries of the Archdiocese of Boston, and the Dioceses of Fall River, Springfield, and Worcester. "Notes from the Hill" is not an official statement of the Bishops or MCC. Catholics in the Commonwealth interested in signing up as members of MCC-Net, the legislative alert network for Catholics in Massachusetts may do so online at www.macathconf.org, or by calling the toll-free phone sign-up number of 1-866-367-0558.