Vote To Be Held on Marriage Amendment

MassNews Staff
December 6, 2002

It appears certain that a vote will be held on the "Protection of Marriage Amendment" now that Senate President Tom Birmingham has followed the lead of Gov. Jane Swift and asked the Supreme Judicial Court for guidance in his role during an expected vote in the next few weeks.

"This is great news," says Sarah McVay Pawlick, President of Mass. Citizens for Marriage, upon learning about yesterday's action by Birmingham. "It's exactly what we've been predicting for months."

But it's not over yet, Pawlick cautioned.

"Now we must make sure that we win the vote when it comes.

"Everyone who supports this Amendment to protect the family as the basic unit of our society should contact their Senator and Rep immediately."

Pawlick reiterated that every legislator meticulously counts the number of communications received by his or her office.

"It is vital that if you favor this Amendment, you contact your own legislators immediately by telephone, email, fax or letter. They will be counting the number received from each side. We are told all the time to vote at 'elections.' This is an important 'election.' Whether each of us responds will affect our society for years to come.

"We should also thank Sen. Birmingham and Gov. Swift for agreeing to follow the Constitution, even though they are late in doing so. As long as we finally get our vote, that is what is important. We will not hold any grudges. But we will continue to monitor very closely who does what."

Gov. Swift asked the SJC on Tuesday morning what her duties are under the state Constitution and Birmingham followed suit yesterday.

Chiefly, Birmingham wants to know whether he would be considered in violation of the Constitution if he recognizes a Motion to Adjourn should the convention reconvene.

"We are facing a dilemma. I'm just trying to play it straight," Birmingham said yesterday. "If we are called back, what am I supposed to do?"

Birmingham claimed that lawmakers believe that adoption of an adjournment motion to be "final action," but are mindful of court rulings that conclude adjournment does not constitute final disposition.

His order seeking an advisory opinion was adopted by voice vote and without debate during Thursday's informal session. In four questions, the order asks the SJC whether, if lawmakers finally decide to follow the Constitution, any of the following actions would be illegal: moving to adjourn before taking action on all three of the Amendments which are before them, recognizing a motion to adjourn before action is taken on the Amendments, and voting to adjourn before taking action on them.

Lastly, the order asks the court to indicate whether Sen. Birmingham, as presiding officer during the convention, is required to take any further action if the joint session votes to adjourn without voting on the three Amendments before it...

Questions Asked

The specific questions asked by the Senate are:

1. Would a member of the joint session violate Article 48 by moving to adjourn before the joint session otherwise takes action on any of the proposed amendments?

2. Would the President of the Senate, as presiding officer of the joint session, violate Article 48 by recognizing a motion to adjourn before the joint session otherwise takes action on any of the proposed amendments?

3. Would the joint session violate Article 48 by voting to adjourn before otherwise taking action on any of the proposed amendments?

4. If the joint session votes to adjourn before otherwise taking action on any of the proposed amendments, does Article 48 require any further action by the President of the Senate?