Powered by Google
Home
Listings
Editors' Picks
News
Music
Movies
Food
Life
Arts + Books
Rec Room
Moonsigns
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Personals
Adult Personals
Classifieds
Adult Classifieds
- - - - - - - - - - - -
stuff@night
FNX Radio
Band Guide
MassWeb Printing
- - - - - - - - - - - -
About Us
Contact Us
Advertise With Us
Work For Us
Newsletter
RSS Feeds
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Webmaster
Archives



sponsored links
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
PassionShop.com
Sex Toys - Adult  DVDs - Sexy  Lingerie

sextoY.com
adult toys, movies  & more

   
  E-Mail This Article to a Friend

Safe for now
A surprise filibuster defeats an anti-gay-marriage amendment — and sets off a wild celebration
BY DAN KENNEDY

FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2004 — It took less than two hours on Thursday night for apprehension and fear to be transformed into a wild celebration. By filibustering a constitutional amendment that would have restricted marriage to one man and one woman, Massachusetts Senate president Robert Travaglini and his allies managed to hold off the anti-gay-marriage forces until March 11, when the constitutional convention will resume.

The late-night machinations included a temporary walkout by about 20 anti-marriage legislators, as well as post-midnight cheers and patriotic songs by more than 100 gay activists who’d gathered outside the House chamber for most of the day. "God Bless America" and "This Land Is Your Land" they sang, swaying back and forth while holding a gigantic American flag and waving small rainbow banners.

How complicated was it? Travaglini was essentially filibustering his own amendment, which would have banned same-sex marriage but also created a right of civil unions. Even more complicated, the measure was written by both Travaglini and House Speaker Tom Finneran. (The day before, Finneran had dissed Travaglini and offered a surprise amendment that would have banned same-sex marriage but allowed the legislature to create a civil unions law at some undefined point in the future. The move brought support from Governor Mitt Romney, who then lobbied Republicans to support Finneran.) Observers said Travaglini knew he didn’t have enough votes (an earlier version was voted down on Wednesday), and he feared his amendment would be defeated. According to this theory, anti-marriage forces would then press for quick action before the midnight deadline on an alternative amendment proposed by Representative Paul Loscocco, a Holliston Republican. That amendment — similar to the one put forth by Finneran on Wednesday, and which was defeated by just two votes — would also ban same-sex marriage, but provide only vague assurances that the legislature would consider civil unions.

Over two days of debate, the legislature has now narrowly defeated three separate amendments aimed at overturning the Supreme Judicial Court’s Goodridge decision of last November, which found that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry. What’s increasingly evident is that three groups are struggling for supremacy: pro-gay-rights legislators such as Senator Jarrett Barrios (D-Cambridge) and Representative Liz Malia (D–Jamaica Plain), who hope to defeat any amendment; moderates who oppose marriage but support civil unions, led by Travaglini and Senate minority leader Brian Lees; and conservatives who oppose marriage and who aren’t all that keen on civil unions, either, led by Finneran and Representative Philip Travis (D-Rehoboth).

With the moderates shifting back and forth, each amendment has fallen just short. But though Arline Isaacson, co-chair of the Massachusetts Lesbian and Gay Political Caucus, expressed relief on Thursday night, she remains deeply pessimistic about what will happen when March 11 rolls around.

"I think we have a very hard road ahead of us," Isaacson told reporters shortly after midnight. "Unfortunately, it’s likely we won’t prevail." With the conservatives and the moderates both seeking to put an amendment before voters that would ban gay marriage, Isaacson believes it is inevitable that they will eventually come up with language that both sides can agree on. "We’ll fight it as long as we can," she said. "If they take our rights away, they’ll have to look us in the eyes to do it."

If an anti-gay-marriage amendment is ultimately approved, and passes muster with the next session of the legislature as well, it will go before the voters in November 2006. Thus there is the possibility that gay and lesbian couples who marry starting on May 17, when the Goodridge decision takes effect, will be cast into legal limbo if voters amend the constitution.

TRAVIS WAS FEELING pretty good when I talked with him at about 9:30 p.m. His own amendment had lost on a vote of 103 to 96 two hours earlier, but he liked the way things were breaking. He told me that when the legislators reconvened, they would push for a quick vote on the Travaglini amendment, which he was sure would lose. Then, with the clock running out, the Loscocco amendment would be put forth for a quick vote. And with a majority of legislators not wanting to face their constituents without having put something on the ballot, the amendment was certain to win.

I got my first inkling that things weren’t going to go the way Travis wanted about a half-hour later. Representative Byron Rushing (D–South End), who had delivered an emotional, powerful speech against passing any amendment earlier in the day, suddenly appeared, and was mobbed like a rock star. The crowd cheered: "Thank you, Byron! Thank you, Byron!" I asked him what the strategy would be. "I think we want to talk," he replied. Did he anticipate a vote? Well, no; he thought the issue was too important not to let each member have his or her say.

The legislature reconvened at about 10:15, and it soon became apparent what kind of "talk" Rushing meant. Representative Paul Demakis (D–Back Bay), a staunch gay-marriage supporter, rambled on at great length. When he finished, Travaglini refused to recognize a legislator who was bellowing "Mr. President!" with great gusto, calling on Senator Brian Joyce (D-Milton) instead. It was then that the filibuster strategy became obvious. Joyce pulled out a page from last Sunday’s Boston Globe and proceeded to read a long op-ed piece in favor of gay marriage by the Reverend Peter Gomes, of Harvard University.

Someone complained: did Joyce intend to "read the entire Globe?" "Mr. President! Mr. President! Mr. President!" yelled several members. An attempt was made to force a vote on whether to close debate and bring the Travaglini amendment to an immediate roll call. But Travaglini ruled that such a motion could not be introduced while a member was speaking.

And so it went. At about 10:40, around 20 legislators walked out, chanting, "We want a vote!" They returned in 10 minutes, but then Finneran called for a 15-minute recess so that he could caucus with his members. By 11:20, Joyce was back at the podium, this time explaining quite explicitly that he supported the Travaglini compromise, but was prepared to do whatever it took to stop the Loscocco amendment.

Representative Alice Wolf (D-Cambridge) was next, expounding at great length on her childhood as a refugee from Nazi Austria. "Mr. President! Mr. President!" Representative Paul Casey (D-Winchester) complained that Travaglini was only calling on legislators from one side of the issue. When Travaglini explained he was working from a list of speakers, Casey asked him to release the list. "No," Travaglini replied puckishly; a wave of laughter rippled through the chamber. "Mr. President!"

Representative Deborah Blumer (D-Framingham) talked about bringing her 11-year-old granddaughter to the State of the State address, and then just started reading stuff. Finally, with midnight only minutes away, Representative Kathleen Teahan (D-Whitman) took the podium, and announced that it was — yes! — her 33rd wedding anniversary. "I’d like to tell you a little bit about my husband," she said. And she did, until the clock ran out. Several members immediately objected to continuing past midnight. And it was over.

Outside, Massachusetts Family Institute president Ron Crews was pissed. He called Travaglini’s gambit "Birmingham II," a reference to a parliamentary maneuver used by Travaglini’s predecessor as Senate president, Tom Birmingham, to kill an anti-gay-marriage constitutional amendment in 2002. And he said that he and his allies intend to mobilize voters in the districts of recalcitrant legislators before March 11.

Finneran’s spokesman, Charlie Rasmussen, passed out copies of a statement from the Speaker that read in its entirety: "The members have been engaged in an intense effort to respond to the full range of issues raised by the Supreme Judicial Court opinions. It has been a struggle for the members as it is for every citizen. Every proposal has serious social, cultural, and legal implications and the members are approaching this task in a very thoughtful way. No one should expect that decisions of this magnitude would be made casually or quickly. Our efforts will continue."

NOT ALL OF the speeches were designed to kill time. Some were eloquent. Some may have even changed a few minds. Representative Shaun Kelly (R-Dalton), near the beginning of the day, urged legislators to adjourn, asking how they could seek to take any rights away from their colleague, Liz Malia, who is openly lesbian. Jarrett Barrios talked about the two sons he and his partner, Doug Hattaway, have adopted. "In the gallery it was really emotional. I was in the front row with five other guys who were crying. I was crying," said Christopher Mason, a gay man from Westminster who had traveled to Boston to watch the proceedings.

Byron Rushing, who is African-American, talked about gay marriage as a civil-rights issue, and noted that a lone justice of the state’s Supreme Judicial Court ruled that slavery violated the Massachusetts constitution some seven decades before it was abolished nationally. "Our understanding of liberty changes. It has always changed," said Rushing. The framers of the state constitution, he added, "had no idea this debate would ever happen. But remember, the signers of the United States Constitution had no idea that I would be here talking to you."

Then there was Representative Marie Parente (D-Milford), a virulent gay-marriage opponent who, for the second day in a row, delivered a long, rambling speech that one observer likened to "free-association therapy in public." Parente and her four brothers were placed in foster care after their father died, and she told a story about her brothers getting slapped across the face if they tried to grab a piece of dessert intended for "real" family members. "I was a foster kid. You want to talk about discrimination," she said. It was a horrifying tale; but if there was any connection to the matter at hand, it eluded me.

There was something of a hush of anticipation when Liz Malia herself took the podium. It was about 8:30. The Travis amendment had been defeated. And Malia rose to speak against the Travaglini amendment — and all other amendments that would seek to limit the right of marriage granted by the Goodridge decision. "I am not an eloquent speaker, I am not one of the great minds of this House, but I am a member of this House and of this body," she began. She then proceeded to talk about the ways in which marriage has changed over the centuries, noting that women were once considered the property of their husbands, and that 10- and 12-year-olds were given away in arranged marriages. "The institution of marriage is not and has never been a rigid and inflexible institution," she said. She noted that, for 12 years, advocates have been unable to get even basic protections such as domestic-partner benefits through the legislature, leading gay and lesbian couples to seek redress through the courts. And she got personal, with an endearing touch of embarrassment.

"There is no way for those of us in the gay and lesbian community to convey the reality of our lives unless we tell you about them," Malia said, telling the members that her partner of 30 years, Rita, cannot count on hospital visitation rights, and might even lose the house that they paid for together should Malia die first. "I ask you, please, to look into your hearts," she said. And then, with a perfect deadpan delivery, she added, "I understand that that’s not a possibility for everyone."

Dan Kennedy can be reached at dkennedy[a]phx.com . Read his daily Media Log at BostonPhoenix.com.


Issue Date: February 13, 2004
Back to the News & Features table of contents
  E-Mail This Article to a Friend
 









about the phoenix |  advertising info |  Webmaster |  work for us
Copyright © 2005 Phoenix Media/Communications Group