Proposed Ban On Gay Rites Moves Ahead

This article is from the archive of The New York Sun before the launch of its new website in 2022. The Sun has neither altered nor updated such articles but will seek to correct any errors, mis-categorizations or other problems introduced during transfer.

The New York Sun
The New York Sun
NEW YORK SUN CONTRIBUTOR

BOSTON — In a suspense-filled final day of the legislative session, Massachusetts lawmakers kept alive a proposed constitutional amendment yesterday that would put a stop to gay marriage in the only state that allows same-sex couples to wed.

The vote came after weeks of mounting legal and political pressure on legislators from both sides in the debate.

With a combination of parliamentary maneuvering, flip-flopping, and brinksmanship, lawmakers gave the first round of approval necessary for the amendment to appear on the ballot in 2008. The measure still needs the endorsement of the next legislative session.

If the amendment makes it onto the ballot and residents approve it, it will leave Massachusetts’s 8,000 existing gay marriages intact but ban any new ones.

“This is democracy in action. It’s not a vengeance campaign. It’s not a hate campaign. It’s just an opportunity for the people to vote,” Kris Mineau of the Massachusetts Family Institute, a conservative group that opposes gay marriage, said. If lawmakers had failed to act on the amendment yesterday, the measure would have died, and opponents of gay marriage who collected 170,000 signatures to try to put the issue on the ballot would have had to start over again.

The pressure on lawmakers came from all sides: Gay-rights activists and the Democratic governor-elect, Deval Patrick, called on the legislature to let the measure die without a vote. Gay-rights opponents — and Massachusetts’s highest court — demanded an up-or-down vote.

The state Supreme Judicial Court — the same court that ruled in 2003 that gays have a constitutional right to marry — declared last week that lawmakers had shirked their constitutional duties by refusing to vote on an amendment submitted by the people.

The New York Sun
NEW YORK SUN CONTRIBUTOR

This article is from the archive of The New York Sun before the launch of its new website in 2022. The Sun has neither altered nor updated such articles but will seek to correct any errors, mis-categorizations or other problems introduced during transfer.


The New York Sun

© 2025 The New York Sun Company, LLC. All rights reserved.

Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. The material on this site is protected by copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used.

The New York Sun

Sign in or  Create a free account

or
By continuing you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use