A Look at the Proposed Massachusetts Marriage Amendment

The people behind the proposed amendment argue that same-sex marriage is wrong and was forced upon them by biased judges. They see the issue as deeply threatening to the family model and civilization as a whole, which is why they think the public should be directly involved in the decision. Their arguments:

• Same-sex marriage destroys the traditional family model.
• Same-sex marriage will lead to legalization of polygamy, polyamory, and more disturbing scenarios.
• Same-sex marriage is immoral and goes against biblical law.
• Children should have one father and one mother.
• Marriage has always meant a union of one man and one woman, who are we to change that?

The people opposing a constitutional amendment argue that barring same-sex couples from marrying is discrimination of the worst sort and violates civil and human rights. They also point to the fact that thus far, the existence of marriage equality has not appeared to weaken the institution of marriage. Their arguments:

• Same-sex couples deserve the same rights as heterosexual couples.
• Elections should not be used to take away a person’s rights.
• Human rights should not be put to a vote.
• A vote for the amendment is a vote for discrimination.
• Other human rights issues, such as those dealing with religious rights, are barred from ballot votes in Massachusetts.
• Amendment backers are playing politics with the Constitution, using it to score points with conservative voters.

In order to appear on a ballot, the referendum must be approved by 50 legislators at consecutive sessions of the Massachusetts General Court in 2006 and 2007. The first vote was scheduled for July 12, 2006, but was postponed until November 9, 2006, just after the state elections. However, on November 9, legislators voted to adjourn the session until January 2, again postponing a vote and making it unlikely that the measure will be acted on in time to be on the 2008 ballot. If approved, the amendment will appear on the November 2008 ballot at which point it will be up to the people of Massachusetts to decide who should have the right to marry.

12/27/06 UPDATE: The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court announced December 27, 2006, that it does not have the authority to force lawmakers to vote on a proposed constitutional amendment to ban all future same-sex marriages. After legislators failed to vote on the proposed amendment on November 9, Gov. Mitt Romney and 10 gay-marriage opponents sued, asking the SJC to clarify if the state's constitution required lawmakers to vote.

1/2/07 UPDATE: The measure survived two votes on January 2, 2007, advancing to the next legislative session. The initiative, which needed just 50 votes, first passed with the support of 61 lawmakers. Opponents moved to reconsider the vote in an effort to kill the measure, but when a second vote was taken two hours later the amendment advanced with 62 votes in support and 134 opposed. Legislators will face the issue again next legislative session. If it again gets at least 50 votes, it will go to voters as a referendum on the 2008 ballot.

6/14/07 UPDATE: The proposed marriage amendment was defeated in a joint session of the Legislature by a vote of 45 to 151. The measure required at least 50 legislator votes in order to advance. Its failure to pass eliminated any chance of it going on the November 2008 ballot.

Poll: Should the public vote on the proposed amendment?

• No, same-sex marriage is a civil right.
• Yes, the people should be allowed to decide.
• I'm undecided.

View Results