teech
01-03-2007, 10:25 AM
BOSTON --Gov.-elect Deval Patrick conceded Wednesday he was surprised by a series of quick legislative votes that gave initial approval to a ballot question proposing to ban gay marriage in Massachusetts, but he vowed that the fight "isn't over."
The incoming governor, arriving at the Statehouse to review his inaugural ceremonies on Thursday, said he lost touch with the issue while on a recent 10-day vacation to South Africa commemorating his 50th birthday in July.
Patrick said he did not learn until his return to Boston on Monday that the Supreme Judicial Court ruled last week that lawmakers should take a vote on the issue, instead of simply recessing as they did in November.
On Tuesday, lawmakers took those votes, and passed the measure, despite a furious round of last-minute lobbying by the governor-elect.
"I learned about the SJC's decision the day before I came up here, because I had been out of the country until then," Patrick said. "There was a strategy in place when I left the country. That strategy changed while I was away, and I did what I could before I had any power to influence these outcomes. That changes tomorrow."
Patrick added: "This fight isn't over."
Both supporters and opponents of gay marriage vowed to step up their fight when the proposed amendment comes up for another critical vote in the new 2007-2008 legislative session.
The amendment needs to be approved by 50 lawmakers in two consecutive sessions. It then would go to voters on the 2008 ballot. The vote Tuesday fulfilled the first part of that process. Members of the new Legislature were being sworn in Wednesday.
"There are thousands and thousands of supporters who are committed to ensuring that the rights of a few are never put to a public popularity ballot," said Marc Solomon, campaign director for MassEquality, a gay rights group. "The calls and the work will continue."
Gov. Mitt Romney, a vocal opponent of gay marriage who was filing papers Wednesday to seek the 2008 GOP presidential nomination, called the vote an important step on the path to the ballot box.
"This is a huge victory for the people of Massachusetts," Romney said in a statement. "In a democracy, the voice of the people is sovereign. I congratulate the Legislature and its leadership for upholding the Constitution and the rule of law."
Action on the amendment, which would ban future gay marriages, came swiftly Tuesday, in contrast to past sessions marked by protests and hours of debate. The initial vote came without discussion. Gay marriage supporters failed to rally the 151 votes they needed to kill the measure but succeeded in forcing an hour delay to reconsider the initial vote.
When the joint session reconvened, Senate President Robert Travaglini, D-Boston, immediately called a second vote and, by a 62-134 vote, lawmakers sent the question to the 2007-2008 session.
House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi, D-Boston, said the amendment discriminates against gay citizens and vowed to work with Patrick to defeat it.
"Today a minority of legislators voted to advance a proposal that takes away the civil rights those couples are guaranteed to under our constitution," DiMasi said in a statement. "This initiative petition is offensive and deplorable."
Patrick added Wednesday: "I think it is important that we understand what we are fighting about. There are constitutional principles here and precedents that, if not checked, are dangerous ones. The notion of using the popular ballot initiative to insert discrimination into the constitution is not something that I think reflects well on us as a people and as a commonwealth, and I'm going to do what I can to stop that as this measure continues to move through the process."
A total of 17 lawmakers who voted Tuesday won't be returning in the new session, including some of the most vocal opponents of same-sex marriage. Gay marriage supporters say the new members will give them a net gain of seven opponents to the proposed amendment in the upcoming session, according to Solomon.
The state Supreme Judicial Court ruled last week that lawmakers' had shirked their constitutional duties in November by recessing until Tuesday, the last day of their session, instead of voting on the proposal but justices acknowledged they had no legal way to force action.
Lawmakers said the ruling could have tipped the balance by making some lawmakers leery of trying to kill the question with parliamentary tactics.
"It had a tremendous effect," said Mark C. Montigny, D-New Bedford, who voted against the question. "My sense just from listening to members after that ruling was that people who were not conflicted in the past were suddenly conflicted."
The supporters of the amendment collected certified signatures from more than 120,000 people in an effort to get the question on the ballot.
Kris Mineau of the Massachusetts Family Institute, which backs the amendment, hailed the vote.
"This is democracy in action. It's not a vengeance campaign. It's not a hate campaign. It's just an opportunity for the people to vote," he said.
Since the marriages began in 2004, more than 8,000 same-sex couples have wed in Massachusetts, the only state to allow gay marriage.
The incoming governor, arriving at the Statehouse to review his inaugural ceremonies on Thursday, said he lost touch with the issue while on a recent 10-day vacation to South Africa commemorating his 50th birthday in July.
Patrick said he did not learn until his return to Boston on Monday that the Supreme Judicial Court ruled last week that lawmakers should take a vote on the issue, instead of simply recessing as they did in November.
On Tuesday, lawmakers took those votes, and passed the measure, despite a furious round of last-minute lobbying by the governor-elect.
"I learned about the SJC's decision the day before I came up here, because I had been out of the country until then," Patrick said. "There was a strategy in place when I left the country. That strategy changed while I was away, and I did what I could before I had any power to influence these outcomes. That changes tomorrow."
Patrick added: "This fight isn't over."
Both supporters and opponents of gay marriage vowed to step up their fight when the proposed amendment comes up for another critical vote in the new 2007-2008 legislative session.
The amendment needs to be approved by 50 lawmakers in two consecutive sessions. It then would go to voters on the 2008 ballot. The vote Tuesday fulfilled the first part of that process. Members of the new Legislature were being sworn in Wednesday.
"There are thousands and thousands of supporters who are committed to ensuring that the rights of a few are never put to a public popularity ballot," said Marc Solomon, campaign director for MassEquality, a gay rights group. "The calls and the work will continue."
Gov. Mitt Romney, a vocal opponent of gay marriage who was filing papers Wednesday to seek the 2008 GOP presidential nomination, called the vote an important step on the path to the ballot box.
"This is a huge victory for the people of Massachusetts," Romney said in a statement. "In a democracy, the voice of the people is sovereign. I congratulate the Legislature and its leadership for upholding the Constitution and the rule of law."
Action on the amendment, which would ban future gay marriages, came swiftly Tuesday, in contrast to past sessions marked by protests and hours of debate. The initial vote came without discussion. Gay marriage supporters failed to rally the 151 votes they needed to kill the measure but succeeded in forcing an hour delay to reconsider the initial vote.
When the joint session reconvened, Senate President Robert Travaglini, D-Boston, immediately called a second vote and, by a 62-134 vote, lawmakers sent the question to the 2007-2008 session.
House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi, D-Boston, said the amendment discriminates against gay citizens and vowed to work with Patrick to defeat it.
"Today a minority of legislators voted to advance a proposal that takes away the civil rights those couples are guaranteed to under our constitution," DiMasi said in a statement. "This initiative petition is offensive and deplorable."
Patrick added Wednesday: "I think it is important that we understand what we are fighting about. There are constitutional principles here and precedents that, if not checked, are dangerous ones. The notion of using the popular ballot initiative to insert discrimination into the constitution is not something that I think reflects well on us as a people and as a commonwealth, and I'm going to do what I can to stop that as this measure continues to move through the process."
A total of 17 lawmakers who voted Tuesday won't be returning in the new session, including some of the most vocal opponents of same-sex marriage. Gay marriage supporters say the new members will give them a net gain of seven opponents to the proposed amendment in the upcoming session, according to Solomon.
The state Supreme Judicial Court ruled last week that lawmakers' had shirked their constitutional duties in November by recessing until Tuesday, the last day of their session, instead of voting on the proposal but justices acknowledged they had no legal way to force action.
Lawmakers said the ruling could have tipped the balance by making some lawmakers leery of trying to kill the question with parliamentary tactics.
"It had a tremendous effect," said Mark C. Montigny, D-New Bedford, who voted against the question. "My sense just from listening to members after that ruling was that people who were not conflicted in the past were suddenly conflicted."
The supporters of the amendment collected certified signatures from more than 120,000 people in an effort to get the question on the ballot.
Kris Mineau of the Massachusetts Family Institute, which backs the amendment, hailed the vote.
"This is democracy in action. It's not a vengeance campaign. It's not a hate campaign. It's just an opportunity for the people to vote," he said.
Since the marriages began in 2004, more than 8,000 same-sex couples have wed in Massachusetts, the only state to allow gay marriage.