E-Mail This Article to a Friend Here are excerpts from three of the speeches made on the House floor at last week’s Constitutional Convention:

Representative Carl Sciortino (D-Somerville, Medford):

In my own family, I came out to them when I was seventeen years old. I first told my mother. And my mother cried, she hugged me, she told me she loved me, she said you’re still my son, this doesn’t change anything. We went to the movies and watched Caspar the Friendly Ghost in the theater. And life went on for my mother and I.

  And a few months later, I had a little more courage, and I told my father. And after he gripped the steering wheel a little tighter – by the way, I don’t recommend coming out when your father is driving – after he gripped the steering wheel a little tighter, tears came to his eyes as well, and he turned to me and said that he loved me, we still went to dinner at Denny’s, he gave me a hug. He told me you’re still my son, I still love you. And life went on for my father and I.

This is just one story. This is my story. And it makes me wonder. My family will be there the day that I get married. They will be there to love and support me and the partner that I choose, my life partner. My family will be there the day that I wed, and I hope that I still have the legal right to do so when that day comes. But regardless I will still get married, whether this institution recognizes that right or not. And my family will still be there.

And it makes me wonder, does the Commonwealth of Massachusetts really know better than myself and my family, on who I should choose to love, and who I should be allowed to marry? Does the Commonwealth really know better who should be allowed to love or marry than any of the thousands of couples we have seen married since May 17, 2004? Can we really deny that all we have seen since May 17, 2004 has been nothing but love, and joy, among our constituents, friends, and family members?

And I ask you today, if you plan to vote for this amendment, and to put discrimination into the Constitution, I ask you, if it was your daughter or son, your brother or sister, your mother or father that came to you and said "I plan to marry someone of the same gender," would you not attend their wedding? Would you not still tell them that you loved them and respected them, and wanted be there on their day of joy and love? I hope that you would be there. And I hope that you would be there on a day that was still legally recognized by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Representative Paul Loscocco (R-Holiston, Hopkinton):

Regardless of one’s position on gay marriage, there should be universal outrage that the Court’s majority...attempted to legislate from the bench. Despite the carefully-worded opinion that makes broad pronouncements (seemingly clear to all but lawyers), the decision is actually quite limited in scope. Unless the Supreme Judicial Court adopts a "strict scrutiny" legal standard --- that used in civil rights, equal protection cases involving issues such as race and religion --- the Legislature (WE here today) could overturn Goodridge simply by repealing the statute governing marriage in Massachusetts. ...

Mr. President, if the "compromise" ballot question before us today is passed, REAL HARM will be done to the oldest constitution in the nation: same-sex couples will permanently be segregated into a distinct class, allegedly separate but equal.

This is simply WRONG and permanently denies same-sex couples the right to seek advancement of their cause at the federal level: for example, the Defense of Marriage Act cannot be challenged until same-sex couples have the same legal status as heterosexual couples.

If passed into law, the amendment before us will permanently write inequality into our Constitution --- and leave the Supreme Judicial Court with little other alternative than to decide in some future case that our cherished Massachusetts Constitution actually VIOLATES the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution. HOW SAD that it could actually come to this. ...

I have literally heard from thousands on this issue and spoken with hundreds...My observation is that much of the current debate arises from the use of the word "marriage" which, for historical reasons, means both a civil, secular institution providing a specific set of rights and benefits and a non-secular, sacramental tradition fundamental to the religious beliefs of most. Before now, most have not separated the two concepts in their own minds --- usually considering themselves married when their religious leader pronounces them so, and not when they go to town hall. Perhaps now is the time to consider changing the terminology; to separate the civil from the religious --- to use one term (perhaps "civil union") to describe the secular institution (without changing it at all) and continue using the other term ("marriage") for the religious institution (confirming no religious institution will have to recognize any civil union not also recognized as marriage). The legislature can do this, with appropriate statutory changes ensuring the continued protection of federal and out of state benefits relating to marriage. This is similar to some European countries (such as France and Italy), and notable academics in the United States have also advocated this approach.

Senate Minority Leader Brian Lees (R-East Longmeadow):

At the time of our last constitutional convention, same sex marriage was not yet legal. Taking action to deny gay marriage would not have affected any existing couples.

We were also uncertain about the viability of several legal steps and maneuvers that could have and were being taken by the Governor and the Attorney General. The state of affairs in March of 2004 was much different from September 2005.

In the time between last year’s constitutional convention and today, there have been developments that have made a reevaluation of this issue a prudent and necessary action.

Today, in accordance with the ruling made by the Supreme Judicial Court, gay marriage is the law of the land. We must take into account the fact that to outlaw the currently sanctified marriages of gay and lesbian spouses is more than legislating the status of hypothetical couples in the future, but taking action against our friends and neighbors who today are currently enjoying the benefits of marriage.

I have received over seven thousand letters, emails and telephone calls from people in my district, across the state and across the nation. The majority of these asked me to vote against this proposal. These were heartfelt pleas from people on both sides of the issue.

Gay marriage has begun, and life has not changed for the citizens of the Commonwealth with exception of those who now can marry who couldn’t before. This amendment, which was an appropriate measure of compromise a year ago, is no longer a compromise today. That is why I will vote no today on this amendment.