Massachusetts OKs marriage amendment

Massachusetts lawmakers yesterday passed a constitutional amendment to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman and to make their state the second in U.S. history to create civil unions for homosexuals.

Lawmakers hope the amendments passage, the first step in a process that could succeed no earlier than November 2006, would increase pressure on the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court to delay its order that the state begin performing homosexual “marriages” on May 17.

Within moments of the 105-92 vote, Gov. Mitt Romney, a Republican, said he would seek a formal stay, asking the states high court to delay implementation of its November ruling until after the constitutional amendment process is complete.

“I believe the Supreme Judicial Court has an obligation to the constitution and the people of Massachusetts to withhold this decision, to stay this decision until the people of Massachusetts can make a final determination for themselves,” Mr. Romney told reporters.

The high court has already rejected one attempt by Massachusetts lawmakers to create civil unions, which Vermont did in 2000, as an adequate response to its finding that state marriage law discriminated against homosexuals.

In February, they issued a ruling, at lawmakers request, that said that only legal “marriage” for homosexuals was a sufficient remedy under the state constitution.

Civil unions would create an “unconstitutional, inferior and discriminatory status for same-sex couples,” a 4-3 majority of the high court said in the February decision.

“The history of our nation has demonstrated that separate is seldom, if ever, equal.”

Attorney General Tom Reilly, whose job it is to represent the state in court, said he would not seek the delay on Mr. Romneys behalf.

“It was very clear to me as attorney general that the majority of the Supreme Judicial Court have made up their minds,” he said. “Do I agree with their decision? No. Absolutely not. But that is the law of the state.”

Mr. Romneys press secretary said Mr. Reilly should see the legal arguments first before making any declarations.

“Its highly unusual for the attorney general to make a decision before first looking at the governors request,” spokesman Shawn Feddeman said.

Yesterdays amendment was promoted by Senate President Robert Travaglini and House Speaker Thomas Finneran, both Democrats.

It defines civil marriage as “only the union of one man and one woman,” but creates civil unions to provide same-sex couples “with entirely the same benefits, protections, rights, privileges and obligations as are afforded to married persons” under state law. The amendment would not affect the status of homosexual couples under federal law and its marriage benefits.

The amendments approval brought a disapproving roar from activists on both sides of the debate, who packed the Statehouse to watch the proceedings.

Story Continues →