Mass. lawmakers delay vote on gay-marriage ban

By Scott Malone

BOSTON (Reuters) – Days after the Massachusetts Supreme
Judicial Court ruled that state lawmakers could vote on a
constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, legislators on
Wednesday put off the vote until after November elections.

House and Senate lawmakers in a special legislative session
voted to postpone the gay marriage vote until November 9 — two
days after state and national elections.

“They walked away to vote themselves back to office,” said
Democratic Rep. Phil Travis, who sought to ban gay marriage.
“The majority decided to duck the issue again.”

Senate President Robert Travaglini, a Democrat, could not
be reached for comment on the decision.

Julian Zelizer, a professor at Boston University, said he
was not surprised by the move.

“I don’t think this is an issue that most legislators want
to deal with at this point,” he said. “Voters have very short
memories and politicians know that. So if you have something
very controversial, do it right after you are elected.”

Massachusetts became the first state to allow gay marriage
after a 2003 state court decision ruled that denying it was
unconstitutional. More than 8,000 gay and lesbian couples have
since wed.

Opponents of gay marriage in Massachusetts tried to
introduce an amendment to the state constitution banning gay
marriage in 2002, before the high court’s landmark ruling.

On Monday, the Supreme Judicial Court ruled the Legislature
could vote on the amendment.

If 50 of the 200 lawmakers in the Legislature approve that
amendment this year, it would face a second legislative vote in
2007. If it clears that hurdle, the measure would go before
Massachusetts voters in 2008.

Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, a Republican seen as a
likely 2008 presidential contender, said legislators have not
escaped the issue by delaying the vote. “In a democracy, the
people are sovereign,” he said in a statement. “This issue
won’t go away until the people are heard.”

Hundreds of gay marriage supporters and opponents gathered
outside Boston’s Statehouse to make their voices heard.

“I want them to allow us to have the right to vote on
this,” said Christine Cappabiancia, 39, who opposes gay
marriage. “This is up to us.”

Eighteen states have amended their constitutions to define
marriage as limited to unions between a man and a woman.
Same-sex couples have filed lawsuits in 12 states seeking the
right to marry.

“It’s a quest for justice,” said Rev. David Horst, 51, a
Unitarian Universalist minister who said he had conducted
same-sex marriages at his Malden parish. “This is the civil
rights issue of our day.”

Gay marriage opponent Roberto Miranda, 50, disagreed. “This
is not a civil rights issue,” Miranda said. “For us, civil
rights relates to characteristics that cannot be changed. I
believe that homosexuality is a choice.”

Ken Repp, 51, and Chris Johnson, 47, who said they had been
a couple for 18 years and married for two, argued otherwise.

“It’s not a choice to me,” Repp said. “Why would one choose
a lifestyle where you have less rights to your relationships?
How dumb would I be to choose that?”