Steve Quayle News Alerts

February 11, 2004

BOSTON — All eyes will be on Massachusetts Wednesday as state lawmakers debate whether to ban gay marriage via a constitutional amendment.

Christian conservatives armed with petitions, children of gay couples and hordes of media crews descended upon the Massachusetts Statehouse to be part of a meeting that's making news after the Bay State's Supreme Judicial Court ruled 4-3 in November that gay couples should be guaranteed the benefits of marriage.

"I've never seen anything like this," said Charles Rasmussen, a spokesman for House Speaker Thomas Finneran. "And I'm told this building has never seen this kind of scrutiny from the national media that anyone can remember."

State lawmakers thought that Vermont-style civil unions might suffice — and would give gay couples more benefits but still wouldn't legally recognize their "marriage" — but the court issued an advisory opinion last week that more clearly stated that only full-fledged gay marriage would be legal under the current constitution, nothing less.

That cleared the way for the nation's first legally sanctioned same-sex weddings by May, a prospect that some lawmakers hope to short-circuit either through laws or by amending the state constitution.

President Bush has already made clear that if Massachusetts legalizes gay marriage, he will seek out a constitutional amendment to quash the order.

The Washington Post reported Wednesday that Bush plans to endorse a constitutional amendment sponsored by Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, R-Colo., that would define marriage as the union of a man and a woman in response to the court decision.

Backers of the measure argue it would ban gay marriage but not prevent state legislatures from allowing civil unions and same-sex partnerships.

"We'd like to see Congress take it up, and the president will be supportive," a top Republican official told the Post. "We would like to see both chambers act sooner rather than later."

White House spokesman Scott McClellan would not confirm the Post story to reporters on Wednesday but pointed to Bush's State of the Union speech, where the president indicated he was, in fact, leaning in that direction. McClellan did say, however, that Musgrove's bill "reflects the principles that he [Bush] has talked about when it comes to protecting the sanctity of marriage." Bush also voiced this sentiment to Republicans at their recent retreat in Pennsylvania.

"The president is very firm in his beliefs. Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman," McClellan said, calling the Massachusetts ruling "troubling."

Saying Bush is committed to doing what is legally necessary to protect that sanctity, McClellan added that marriage "is an enduring institution in America. It's something that we should protect and defend."

Less than 24 hours before the convention was to begin, a bipartisan group of Senate leaders proposed a compromise that would ban same-sex marriage but establish civil unions in Massachusetts.

The compromise prompted almost immediate criticism, including from Finneran, who called it "highly inappropriate" to use an amendment to craft legislation or pass new law — like one establishing civil unions.

The gay-marriage issue has created an unprecedented spectacle at the Statehouse: As many as 4,000 spectators and 300 media members are expected to attend the start of the constitutional convention, and a furious lobbying effort was already under way.

Christian conservatives used a dolly to haul in more than 18,000 petitions signed by citizens from across the country urging lawmakers to pass the amendment. Meanwhile, children of gay couples traveled to the Statehouse to plead with the Senate president "not to write discrimination into our constitution."

At the convention, the House and Senate will meet together to consider 10 proposed constitutional amendments. The gay-marriage issue is near the bottom of the agenda and might not get to a final vote for days.

If approved by the Legislature during this session, the gay-marriage amendment would have to again be ratified by lawmakers during the 2005-06 session before it could wind up on the November 2006 ballot.

As the hours ticked down to the convention's opening, lawmakers circulated proposed changes to the amendment, hoping to secure the necessary 101 votes among the 199 sitting lawmakers to get it passed.

The last time Massachusetts lawmakers in the heavily Roman Catholic state had a chance to weigh in on the issue of gay marriage was in 2002, when the constitutional convention was gaveled to a close before any vote took place. Near-brawls erupted among citizens who attended and raised voices were heard in the normally sedate chamber.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,111094,00.html