Massachusetts Constitutional Convention: Round 2
By Byron LaMasters
The second round of the Massachusetts Constitutional Convention begins today with a compromise in the works for an amendment that will ban gay marriage, but mandate Civil Unions. The Boston Globe reports:
A compromise constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage but also establish same-sex civil unions appears to be gaining support as Massachusetts lawmakers reconvene today four weeks after their earlier constitutional convention adjourned in chaos and deadlock.
Senate President Robert E. Travaglini, a lead sponsor of the compromise amendment, expressed confidence yesterday that the proposal will win the necessary 101 votes when the lawmakers resume their emotionally charged debate in the House chamber. The convention recessed Feb. 12 after three amendment proposals fell short of a majority by a few votes.
"I'm growing increasingly confident," Travaglini said in Washington, D.C., where he and House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran, a cosponsor of the amendment, were leading a delegation of Beacon Hill lawmakers to meet with the state congressional delegation and raise campaign cash.
"People who were noes are now maybes," he said. "People who were maybes are now yeses, and there is movement that is beneficial to reaching a consensus." A similarly worded amendment sponsored by Travaglini in February failed by seven votes.
"We are working it, and we feel as if we are making progress," Finneran said. "But it's far too early to say anything definitive."
However, lawmakers who met with Travaglini before he left Boston said the Senate leader confided to them that he has the votes to win the amendment's passage.
It will be interesting to see if this proposal really has much of a chance as gay marriage proponents want marriage, and religious conservatives want nothing. Last time, legislative leaders thought that they had a compromise, but they failed. This time.... who knows?
Posted by Byron LaMasters at March 11, 2004 10:19 AM
| TrackBack
And no one has asked why the government should support "marriage" anyway.
I understand the need for a government sanctioned property arrangement, but marriage has theological overtones.
FWIW, in France, a religious marriage is not recognized by the state, so people go to the JP and file their papers, and then go to the church for the big deal wedding.