|NOTICE: - While reasonable efforts have been made to assure the accuracy of the data herein, this is NOT the official version of Senate Journal. It is published to provide information in a timely manner, but has not been proofread against the events of the session for this day. All information obtained from this source should be checked against a proofed copy of the Senate Journal.|
Pledge of allegiance.
Representative Connolly of
Constitution,- Affirmation of marriage.
Representative Kennedy of
JOURNAL OF THE SENATE
IN JOINT SESSION.
Joint Session of the Two Houses to Consider
Specific Amendments to the Constitution.
At four minutes past , the two Houses met in
and were called to order by the Honorable Robert E. Travaglini, President of the Senate.
The President, members, guests and employees then recited the pledge of allegiance to the flag.
At six minutes past , Mr. Lees doubted the presence of a quorum and asked
for a call of the yeas and nays to ascertain if a quorum was present. The
President, having determined that a quorum was not in attendance, then
directed the Sergeant-at-Arms to secure the presence of a quorum.
The President in the Chair, the yeas and nays having been completed at seventeen minutes past , a quorum was declared present.
Statement of Representative Connolly of
A statement of Representative Connolly of
MR. PRESIDENT: I would like to call to the attention of the Joint Session that I will be unable to be present in the House Chamber for today’s Joint Session due to medical concerns that keep me confined to my office. Any quorum roll calls that I may miss today is due entirely to the reason stated.
The Proposal for a Legislative Amendment to the Constitution relative to the affirmation of marriage (Senate, No. 5) [see Senate, No. 3190, amended of 2004] was read, the question being on again agreeing to the amendment.
The Proposal was as follows:--
ARTICLE OF AMENDMENT
The unified purpose of this Article is both to define the institution of civil marriage and to establish civil unions to provide same-sex persons with entirely the same benefits, protections, rights, privileges and obligations as are afforded to married persons, while recognizing that under present federal law same-sex persons in civil unions will be denied federal benefits available to married persons.
It being the public policy of this commonwealth to protect the unique relationship of marriage, only the union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in the commonwealth. Two persons of the same sex shall have the right to form a civil union if they otherwise meet the requirements set forth by law for marriage. Civil unions for same sex persons are established by this Article and shall provide entirely the same benefits, protections, rights, privileges and obligations that are afforded to persons married under the law of the commonwealth. All laws applicable to marriage shall also apply to civil unions.
debate, Mr. Barrios moved that the remarks of Representative Kennedy of
Remarks of Representative Kennedy of
Dear Members and Colleagues of the Great and General Court:
Thank you for allowing Representative Teahan to read this statement on my behalf.
changed since we last met to discuss this historic matter in this hallowed
chamber. In February 2004, as we endlessly debated procedural motions
and compromise amendments, I felt that we scarcely scratched the surface of
the matter at hand. Many of us thought that legal wrangling
by the Governor and others would postpone the effective date of the
Of course, we know that this was not the case. The legal roadblocks that many attempted to establish in order to prevent same-sex marriage failed, and these couples have had this freedom for 16 months. Having keenly observed these events over the past year and a half; having seen the joy on the faces of those who have married their long-time partners; having heard the stories of families made whole; and having witnessed the power of our nation’s oldest Constitution in action, I cannot again vote to support this measure.
To support the Compromise Amendment now, after same-sex couples have had the right to marry for over a year, would be wrong. How can one justify taking away a constitutionally protected liberty? How can we not treat these couples, and the children they are raising, as fully equal?
members, it should not be our place to take rights and freedoms away from the
Although I am still confined to the hospital and awaiting additional surgery, I am following very closely the legislative issues and matters that are before the General Court. Thank you again for your kind attention and for allowing me to make my thoughts known to the Convention.
Good luck and God bless you all.
Thomas P. Kennedy
9th Plymouth District
After further consideration, Ms. Murray moved that a vote be taken forthwith on the main question on again agreeing to the amendment; and, there being no objection, the question on again agreeing to the amendment was taken by a call of the yeas and nays, as required by Article XLVIII of the Amendments to the Constitution, at a quarter before three o'clock P.M., as follows, to wit (yeas 39 - nays 157) [Senate Yeas and Nays No. 139] [House Yeas and Nays No. 174]:
The yeas and nays having been completed at , the amendment was rejected.
Without further action on the matters duly and
constitutionally assigned for consideration, on motion of Mr. Lees, at one
minute past , the
Joint Session was recessed until