Vote Was Delayed on Marriage Last Month because Birmingham Thought It Was Going to Pass, Says Bay Windows

Situation is Still Fluid and Volatile

The following report on the Protection of Marriage Amendment was provided by Massachusetts Citizens for Marriage.

Sen. Cheryl Jacques Fights to Stop the Vote

"I'm fighting…to see that [the Marriage Amendment] never comes up for a vote. I'm happy to throw my body in front of the train to block this question," Sen. Cheryl Jacques has told Bay Windows.

She said that the action of Sen. Birmingham in delaying the vote again in June was heroic: "Tom Birmingham is a hero for the gay community."

The article continued, "More importantly, Birmingham, who opposes the measure, has not committed to bringing it up for a vote at the upcoming Constitutional Convention [on July 17], leaving open the possibility that the amendment could be dead and buried by the end of this legislative session."

Jacques said it is not undemocratic to defy the state Constitution and break the law. "To put blinders on and not look at the merits of a question is not something I'm willing to do," she said. But it is she who is proposing that the legislators do exactly that, and not look at the merits. She wants the measure thrown into the trash without a vote.

All that MCM is asking for is a fair and honest vote. But Jacques made it clear in her statement that she is "fighting" to see that this never happens.

Other Interesting Items from Bay Windows article . . . Sen. Birmingham's delay couldn't have come "at a better time," the article said. Legislators were being persuaded by a memo from the Catholic Conference which favors the Amendment. . . . Sen. Harriet Chandler (D-Worcester) was cited by Jacques as a hero who is fighting hard to "block" the Amendment. . . . The intent of the "framers" of the Amendment here at MCM was intentionally misstated. Although we wrote when we filed a brief with Atty. Gen. Reilly back in August 2001 that the legislature would be able to "unbundle" any benefit it wished but not in a wholesale manner, that is not what Bay Windows reported. (See the reference to a "4-Page Pamphlet" at the end of this article.)

Law Professors Lie to Legislature

A Memorandum has been circulated to the entire Legislature by a group of 23 law professors which garnered a lot of interest at the State House. It was cited in the above article in Bay Windows.

This type of misinformation is being rushed out to stop the people from voting on this measure. But it is quickly apparent that this memo was not from an impartial, disinterested group. It is fiercely partisan.

Every one of the professors would be proud to be called a very liberal person. The Chair, Jane L. Scarborough, although not identified as such anywhere, is a member of the Massachusetts Lesbian Gay Bar Association and hardly a disinterested person. The law schools from which the 23 professors come are: Suffolk 7, Northeastern 6, New England 3, Harvard 3, B.U. 2, B.C.1, Southern New England 1.

Their memo dramatically, but falsely, states, "In a decision just issued on June 3, the Supreme Judicial Court held that the common purpose of the Amendment is to restrict the benefits and incidents of marriage to opposite-sex couples. … The Court acknowledged that, if adopted the Amendment may affect 'one's ability to inherit, to file taxes, to make medical decisions about a spouse, and to file wrongful death claims.'"

That is totally false. The court did not "acknowledge" anything. The court said that it was the plaintiffs who made that argument.

The full text from the SJC is, "The plaintiffs argue that the petition contains subjects that are neither related nor mutually dependent because it affects same-sex couples in many different contexts. In support of this position, the plaintiffs list various statutes that relate to the rights and responsibilities of marriage, including those laws that affect one's ability to inherit, to file taxes, to make medical decisions about a spouse, and to file wrongful death claims." [emphasis added]

It is difficult to see how 23 law professors can make such an egregious error but they did.
It is impossible to answer all of the erroneous charges that will be swirling about this issue in the next few weeks. That is exactly what the opponents are hoping. This is why the issue should be calmly discussed by the voters for the next two years before their vote is taken at the ballot box in 2004.

Sen. Antonioni Is Typical of Senators
Who Don't Get It

Sen. Robert A. Antonioni (D-Northern Worcester) is telling those constituents who write him that the Amendment would prohibit any relationship other than marriage from "receiving present or future benefits."

This shows a total lack of understanding. In any event, it is not his right to vote for or against the Amendment. That's the right of the voters, as the SJC tried to explain to him only last month.

SJC Says It's the People's Right
to Vote on this Issue

We cannot go through every individual question in detail here. That debate will occur many times during the next two years before the people decide in 2004.

The SJC said in 1992, "[T]he purpose of art. 48 [the Amendment process] is to allow the people 'to enact laws directly without being thwarted by an unresponsive Legislature…'" It wrote unanimously in June 2002 that this Amendment is a proper issue to be decided by the voters.

The people indicated last fall they wish to decide this question about the core structure of our society. Over 60% of them favor the Amendment. The SJC says it is their right. How can we deny them?

4-Page Pamphlet Answers Most Questions

A 4-page pamphlet that was distributed to every legislator on Beacon Hill is available free-of-charge from MCM. The following section from the pamphlet tells about its impact on society.

Mass. Amendment Is a Compromise Which Allows 'Benefits'

Although there is much talk from opponents that the proposed Amendment is "draconian" and an extreme measure, it is actually a compromise.

It allows the Legislature to make many accommodations to help non-traditional citizens of all kinds, but it does not allow a sudden, violent change.

It says that no relationship other than one man and one woman shall be recognized as "marriage." It also says that "benefits" which are "exclusive" to marriage shall not be given by the state (or its various entities) to anyone who is not married.

Therefore, any company or other private institution may provide any benefits to anyone it wishes. There is absolutely no question about that. The following quote from the Majority Report of Sen. Harriet Chandler's Public Service Committee (15-0 with two abstaining) shows how hysterical she has made this matter and why she is a "hero" to Sen. Jacques.

"The effects of this amendment would be far reaching. It would be bad for business and bad for labor. Massachusetts would not only allow discrimination, but require it, forbidding employers from granting key benefits to their employees, hampering employers' efforts to recruit and retain workers by offering fair, competitive benefits, and making it unconstitutional to bargain collectively for important employee rights and benefits."

A simple reading of the Amendment shows that the truth is there is no effect - none, zero, zilch - on private companies.

As for government employees, the Legislature is forbidden only in enacting an across-the-board benefit package which is "marriage" by another name as has happened in Vermont. The Legislators are the ones who will decide in the first instance which benefits are "exclusive" to marriage. They will remain free to skillfully craft benefits for those non-traditional citizens that they wish to help. But they cannot enact "marriage" by another name.

For the entire 4-page pamphlet see www.marriagematters.com or call MCM

CALL YOUR STATE SENATOR & REP TODAY!
CALL SEN. BIRMINGHAM AT 617-722-1500!
Even if you know how your Rep or Senator will vote, please call anyhow.
They are counting every vote.

Don't Miss 'Citizens Rally' at State House,
Wednesday, July 17, at 1 p.m.

Most radio ads cost us about $500. Please help today as much as you can.

Massachusetts Citizens for Marriage
Every Child Deserves a Mother and a Father
1277 Main St., Waltham 02451
781-647-1942
www.marriagematters.com