|
Constitutional Convention Votes for Marriage and Civil Unions 3/29/2004 Massachusetts legislators approve Travaglini-Finneran amendment.
The Massachusetts Legislature, acting as a commonwealth constitutional convention, voted quickly today to approve the controversial Travaglini-Finneran amendment, which defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman, while creating homosexual civil unions with “identical” status.
The proposed amendment passed with a final vote of 111-86. The quick vote after the convention opened today at noon prevents any attempt to split the amendment into two separate measures or to introduce another amendment that would allow the Legislature to create civil unions at a later date.
Concerned Women for America Chief Counsel Jan LaRue, said:
“This is like asking for one answer to these two questions: ‘Do you want to protect U.S. currency?’ Second question: ‘Do you want to legalize counterfeit currency? Yes or no?’
“Gov. Romney should immediately seek a stay on the court’s marriage ruling and also issue an executive order prohibiting anyone from granting a state marriage license to same-sex couples.”
The Coalition for Marriage, of which CWA and CWA of Massachusetts are members, opposes the Travaglini-Finneran amendment.
The measure next goes to a convention next year with a new Legislature, after which it would go to the ballot box in November 2006. If the amendment does not pass next year, and another one is approved, voters could not decide until 2008.
On November 18, 2003, in Goodridge v. Department of Health, four justices of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued a ruling declaring that there is no rational basis to limit marriage to a man and a woman and thereby deny homosexuals the benefits, rights and responsibilities of marriage. They claimed it violates the state constitution and gave the Legislature until May 17 to take “appropriate” action in accord with their ruling.
Later, the Senate asked the court whether an amendment creating civil unions would satisfy their ruling. The court said it would not, and that only full-fledged “marriage” for same-sex couples would be acceptable.
“It will be interesting to see if the court will abide by the fact that the Legislature has spoken, and issue a stay,” LaRue said.
Here is the text of the amendment:
"The unified purpose of this Article is both to define the institution of civil marriage and to establish civil unions to provide same-sex persons with entirely the same benefits, protections, rights, privileges and obligations as are afforded to married persons, while recognizing that under present federal law same-sex persons in civil unions will be denied federal benefits available to married persons.
"It being the public policy of this commonwealth to protect the unique relationship of marriage, only the union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in the commonwealth. Two persons of the same sex shall have the right to form a civil union if they otherwise meet the requirements set forth by law for marriage. Civil unions for same sex persons are established by this Article and shall provide entirely the same benefits, protections, rights, privileges and obligations that are afforded to persons married under the law of the commonwealth. All laws applicable to marriage shall also apply to civil unions.
"This Article is self-executing, but the general court may enact laws not inconsistent with anything herein contained to carry out the purpose of this Article."
|
|
Concerned Women for America 1015 Fifteenth St. N.W., Suite 1100 Washington, D.C. 20005 Phone: (202) 488-7000 Fax: (202) 488-0806 |
Feedback / Questions? || Problem with this page? || Archives
