The push is on in
Massachuetts as a scheduled vote on a proposed ban on
same-sex marriage looms in the state legislature. On
Wednesday Republican governor Mitt Romney and Cardinal
Sean P. O'Malley held a press conference to call on
lawmakers to allow the vote amid indications that gay
rights advocates are prepared to use procedural tactics to
kill the measure, The Boston Globe reports.
Pro-gay
lawmakers on Beacon Hill could muster the support
needed to prevent the measure from coming up for
debate. Such an outcome would abruptly end the long
campaign to place the ban before voters in 2008. "We
urge that the legislators let everyone's voice be heard,"
said O'Malley in his first appearance at a statehouse press
conference. "Let the people vote."
Advocates for
same-sex marriage say they will do whatever it takes to
make sure the amendment dies, leaving intact a 2003 state
supreme judicial court decision that made
Massachusetts the first state to allow same-sex
weddings. "Every possible option is on the table as far as
we're concerned," Marc Solomon, campaign director for the
group MassEquality, told reporters after the press
conference.
Romney and
religious leaders have joined forces before on the issue,
but O'Malley's appearance at the statehouse
underscored how crucial this ballot effort has become
for same-sex marriage opponents after years of
fighting. If the amendment fizzles, it would be a major
setback for the opponents, forcing them to decide
whether to mount a new challenge in future years.
To reach the 2008
ballot, the amendment needs the support of at least 50
legislators at the July 12 constitutional convention, a
joint session of the house and senate, and then at
least 50 votes at a similar convention during the
2007-2008 legislative session.
According to
The GÂ lobe, both sides have previously said that the
amendment has the 50 votes needed. As a result,
advocates of same-sex marriage would need another route to
block the amendment. For example, a lawmaker
could try to adjourn the convention before the ban
comes up for debate. The amendment is at the bottom of
a crowded agenda, and adjournment requires a simple majority
vote. (The Advocate)