Filibuster halts lawmakers’ attempt to limit or undo gay marriage ruling_22304

Posted: 2/19/04

Filibuster halts lawmakers' attempt
to limit or undo gay marriage ruling

By Greg Warner

Associated Baptist Press

BOSTON (ABP)–The Massachusetts legislature adjourned its historic constitutional convention Feb. 12 without reversing the state supreme court's recent legalization of gay marriage.

With thousands of protesters gathered outside Feb. 11, legislators began debating legal measures that would limit marriage to heterosexual couples, while perhaps creating a category of civil unions for gays.

But during two tumultuous days of legislative wrangling and emotional debate, legislators were unable to pass any of four proposed amendments.

Lawmakers defeated a constitutional amendment that would have banned gay marriage. Another proposal to ban gay marriage but create legally binding civil unions for gays also was defeated.

In the end, gay-marriage supporters closed the session down with a filibuster at midnight of the second day, sending lawmakers home without resolving the legislative crisis that has divided the state and thrust it into the national spotlight.

Any constitutional amendment will require approval by voters. Angry gay-marriage opponents complained the deadlocked legislative session deprived Massachusetts voters of voicing their opinion on the divisive issue.

Another constitutional session is scheduled for March 11.

Legal experts say the constitutional showdown in Massachusetts will have an impact on the nationwide debate over gay rights and the legal definition of marriage.

In November, Massachusetts became the epicenter of that growing debate when a closely divided Supreme Judicial Court ruled a state agency could not deny same-sex couples the right to marry.

The same court ruled Feb. 4 a civil-union law under consideration would create an “unconstitutional, inferior and discriminatory status for same-sex couples,” forcing the constitutional convention.

The November supreme court decision gave the state's legislature 180 days to enact statutes creating same-sex marriage.

Instead, armed with widespread criticism of the high-court ruling from within the state and beyond, legislators proposed amending the constitution to circumvent the court's ruling and limit marriage to heterosexuals.

If the constitution is left unchanged, Massachusetts will become the first legal jurisdiction in the United States to sanction same-sex marriage.

Neighboring Vermont has a civil-union law that offers same-sex couples most of the legal rights of marriage while reserving the term “marriage” for opposite-sex couples.

Gay marriage is viewed by political analysts as a “wedge issue” in the 2004 presidential campaign.

“This is the cultural issue of our lifetime,” Ronald Crews, spokesman for the Coalition for Marriage, told the Boston Globe. “This has the same import of the Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion, in terms of potential divide.”

Republicans are expected to use the constitutional showdown in Massachusetts to attack local Sen. John Kerry, the Democratic presidential frontrunner.

The Democratic National Convention will take place in Boston in July, only weeks after gay couples will be able to secure civil marriage licenses beginning May 17.

Opponents of gay marriage, including a coalition of Religious Right and other conservative groups, is pushing the Federal Marriage Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which would ban gay marriage in all 50 states.

Its supporters claim it would leave it up to individual state legislatures or voters to create civil unions to provide marriage-like benefits to gay couples. But some legal scholars and gay-rights activists dispute that interpretation.

Others want the amendment to include language explicitly banning civil unions for same-sex couples.

The amendment's supporters say it is necessary to prevent states from being forced to recognize same-sex marriages performed in Massachusetts or other states.

But many legal scholars say the Constitution would prevent states with a clearly stated policy opposing gay marriage–such as the 38 that have passed state versions of the Defense of Marriage Act–from being forced to recognize same-sex marriages from elsewhere.

Legal experts say the constitutional showdown in Massachusetts will have an impact on the nationwide debate over gay rights and the legal definition of marriage.