Constitutional Convention now likely to vote

Constitutional Convention:Legislature likely to act on gay marriage ban amendment
By Edward Mason , Staff writerEagle-Tribune
—
BOSTON - Massachusetts lawmakers today are expected to consider a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, nearly five months after they abruptly postponed consideration of the proposal until after Election Day.A vote in favor of the proposal, at what is called a Constitutional Convention, would be a crucial first step to allowing Bay State voters to decide whether same-sex marriage should remain legal.When legislators last met on the issue July 12, they voted 100-91 to recess. The North of Boston delegation was against the recess, 11-9.Senate Majority Leader Frederick E. Berry, D-Peabody, said the Senate leadership - which sets the agenda for the Constitutional Convention - is committed this time to putting the amendment to a vote."We won't play any games to get out of this," said Berry, a gay marriage supporter who was among the minority of area lawmakers who voted in July to adjourn in order to prevent the proposed amendment from becoming an election issue.Rep. Harriett L. Stanley, D-West Newbury, was one of the 11 North of Boston lawmakers against the recess. Stanley, who backs gay marriage rights, said she will push again for lawmakers to take a stand.
"I voted not to adjourn in July because I was ready to take the vote then and I'm ready (now)," Stanley said. "People need to know where their legislators stand."The leading Republican in the North of Boston delegation, House Minority Leader Bradley H. Jones Jr. of North Reading, said he favors a vote but has not decided how he will vote.Jones said constituent calls are going 59-41 in favor of putting the ban on the ballot. He said he's leaning toward voting with his constituents.A vote today in favor of the amendment doesn't put it before voters. It needs 50 votes, 25 percent of legislators, in consecutive legislative sessions. Lawmakers in the 2007-2008 session will vote on whether to put it on the 2008 ballot, when voters will decide whether same-sex marriage should be legal.Rep. Mike Costello, D-Newburyport, said the outcome of today's Constitutional Convention is far from a sure thing."The vote count is very, very close," said Costello, who opposes the ban.Costello spent much of yesterday with other referendum opponents planning strategies to keep the measure from passing.
If the question is decided substantively, referendum supporters will only need 50 votes to pass it. If a procedural motion is introduced to delay or kill the measure, however, they will need 101 votes to overcome it."Some legislators are saying they want to vote on the question itself," Costello said. "I think we should use any parliamentary tool available to us to kill it."But as previous Constitutional Conventions have shown, no amount of planning can make the convention less unpredictable, Costello said."It's an incredibly fluid process, with a lot of head-counting," he said.However it happens, Costello said he is determined to keep the right to marriage off of a state ballot - even if some of his constituents still disagree with him."If I take a hit for standing up on this, so be it," he said. "That's the kind of hit I'm glad to take."A Supreme Judicial Court ruling in November 2003 made Massachusetts the first state to recognize same-sex marriage.Gay marriage foes, led by VoteOnMarriage.org, submitted petitions with the signatures of 170,000 registered voters to get the issue before state lawmakers.
Gov.-elect Deval Patrick, a gay marriage supporter, said he had made his position known during the campaign, but didn't directly answer a question about whether he would look to influence the Legislature the day before its vote.Gov. Mitt Romney's press office released a statement reading, "The people of Massachusetts deserve the opportunity to vote on the definition of marriage. The only way that can happen is for the Legislature to first do its job and take a vote of its own. The Constitution calls for such a vote. Failure to vote is a violation of the oath of office we all take to uphold the Constitution. Whether you agree or disagree with gay marriage, democracy should have its day and a vote should occur."Reporter Nick Pinto and correspondent Ana Rivas contributed to this story.
Copyright © 1999-2006 cnhi, inc.