BOSTON (ABP) — The Massachusetts legislature has overwhelmingly rejected an effort to repeal legalized gay marriage in that state.
The Sept. 14 move bucks a national trend against gay marriage and means same-sex couples may continue to marry in that state until at least 2008.
On a 157-39 vote, the Massachusetts House and Senate, meeting jointly, voted down the second reading of a proposed amendment to the state's Constitution. It would have banned gay marriage but created “civil unions,” which replicate many of the same rights and responsibilities of gay marriage.
The vote kills efforts to place the amendment before Massachusetts voters for final approval in the 2006 elections.
In March 2004, the legislature voted 105-92 to approve the same amendment. However, that vote came prior to the advent of court-ordered same-sex marriages in the commonwealth. They commenced in May of that year.
The fact that thousands of gay marriages have since taken place — and that many of the politicians who opposed the amendment in the first place won in the fall 2004 elections — has changed the political atmosphere surrounding the issue in Massachusetts.
Several legislators who supported the amendment in 2004 voted against it this time — including a Republican state senator who co-sponsored it.
“Gay marriage has begun, and life has not changed for the citizens of the commonwealth, with the exception of those who can now marry who could not before,'' said Brian Lees, the Massachusetts Senate's minority leader, in announcing his changed position. He noted that banning gay marriage now that thousands of same-sex couples are married in the state would have meant “taking action against our friends and neighbors.”
But one of the legislature's staunchest gay-marriage opponents, Democratic Rep. Philip Travis, said he would continue his opposition. “The union of two women and two men can never consummate a marriage,” he said. “It's physically impossible. We can't get around that.”
Travis and others — including Republican Gov. Mitt Romney, who is widely believed to be prepping for the 2008 presidential race — still support an amendment that would ban gay marriage outright. However, Massachusetts law requires two successive sessions of the legislature to approve any constitutional amendment before it is sent to voters for final approval. That means any gay-marriage ban would come before voters in 2008 at the earliest.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled in 2003 that the state constitution requires officials to offer marriage to same-sex couples on an equal basis with heterosexuals. The marriages began in 2004.
The ruling stirred controversy nationwide. Partially as a result, voters in more than a dozen states approved measures last year banning same-sex marriage. They joined dozens of other states that already had such laws on the books.
Legislatures in Vermont and Connecticut have approved civil unions but stopped short of same-sex marriage. Other states have created “domestic partnership” arrangements similar to civil unions.
Last month, California legislators approved a measure that would legalize same-sex marriage — less than five years after the state's voters chose to ban it. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger cited that vote in saying he would veto the measure. But gay-rights advocates have put pressure on the socially liberal actor, noting recent opinion polls that find likely California voters evenly divided on the issue.
And Sept. 13, New York's highest court heard oral arguments in a case that may pave the way for legalized gay marriage in that state.