Public Service Committee Opposes Marriage Amendment

Committee Report Has No Practical Effect

By MassNews Staff
May 2002

The Public Service Committee opposed the Marriage Amendment by a vote of 15-2 yesterday, but this has little real effect on the measure.

"We knew that the Committee was stacked against the Amendment," said Sarah McVay Pawlick, President of the Massachussetts Citizens for Marriage (MCM). "That was evident by the 'circus' they conducted in place of a hearing."

She said the majority report "deliberately and maliciously distorts the effects of the amendment. But that is no surprise."

Now the measure goes to Sen. President Tom Birmingham who has until May 8, under the state Constitution, to call a Constitutional Convention. But the Convention does not need to be held that day. It could be postponed to any future day before the Legislature adjourns at the end of July.

"However, Sen. Birmingham could bottle the measure in Committee if he chooses to violate the requirements of the Constitution. We do not expect he would do that, particularly when he is running for Governor and knows that 60% of the electorate favor the Amendment.

"But we must begin to send as much mail and make as many phone calls as possible to all our Representatives and Senators so that they know we are watching.

"The anti-marriage forces are terrorized by the thought of a public vote on this issue because they know the people of Massachusetts overwhelmingly want to preserve traditional one-man/one-woman marriage."

Fifteen members of the Committee signed the Majority Report while two Republicans, Reps. Reed V. Hillman (Brimfield) and Paul K. Frost (Auburn) abstained.

Sidebar #1:
Timetable for Marriage Amendment

The Joint Public Service Committee has now fulfilled its Constitutional duty to forward the Marriage Amendment to Senate President Tom Birmingham.

May 8. Sen. Birmingham is required to call a Constitutional Convention on or before May 8. But there is no penalty if he violates that duty - other than the wrath of voters whose concern and interest must be expressed to every legislator before May 8. Sen. Birmingham will be seeking their advice. Telephone calls and other messages are crucial to getting their attention.

End of July. Sen. Birmingham must bring the Amendment to a vote before the end of July. At that time, 50 of the 200 members of the House and Senate must approve sending the measure to the people for their decision.


Sidebar #2:
Many Statements By Majority Are Clearly False

Sarah McVay Pawlick released the following statement concerning the majority report.

Protection of Marriage Amendment Will Not Stop Benefits for Unmarried Adults or Children

The Majority Report says the Marriage Amendment will make it illegal for "thousands of Massachusetts citizens to receive health insurance, bereavement leave, medical leave, hospital visitation, survivor benefits, and other basic legal protections that families and children need."

That blanket statement is simply not true. The concern that is expressed therein is mainly a misunderstanding of the following language in the Amendment.

Any other relationship shall not be recognized as a marriage or its legal equivalent, nor shall it receive the benefits or incidents exclusive to marriage from the Commonwealth, its agencies, departments, authorities, commissions, offices, officials and political subdivisions. [emphasis added]

No Effect on Private Companies

The above paragraph explicitly refers only to benefits given by the Commonwealth or its agencies, etc. By its very terms, it has no relation at all to the private sector. It would not affect any corporation or other private entity that wishes to give benefits to anyone it chooses. A corporation could continue to provide any benefits it wishes.

Children Continue to Receive Benefits

As for the State and its agencies, etc., all children of married and single employees would be unaffected in their receipt of benefits. All children would continue to receive health and other benefits the same as they do now.

Unmarried Adults

As for unmarried adults, the Amendment would change nothing. It would provide benefits only for married persons as has always been true - and is still true today. It will not change what has been true ever since the founding of the state. If we do decide to change that in the future, however, the Amendment would not prohibit us from doing so. (The initial costs for implementing the Domestic Partner bill that has been passed in the state Senate have been estimated at $15 million just for the first year.)

The key word to all of this is "exclusive." If the State gives benefits to someone who is not a spouse, then obviously that benefit is not "exclusive to marriage." When unmarried adults or children receive benefits from the State, those benefits are non-exclusive. The State may distribute these types of benefits to anyone it sees fit.

Thus, the Amendment will not deny anyone their access to current health care services, insurance coverage, financial aid or any other social or material assistance. Countless State programs extend these types of benefits to unmarried adults and children every day. They are not exclusively marital. Those who claim that the Amendment will threaten these types of benefits ignore the Amendment's plain language.

The exclusive benefits that the State does provide are seen to flow directly from the fact that marriage has always been understood as a union between a man and a woman. Only a man and a woman, uniting in marriage, can, for example, 1) obtain a marriage license; 2) be identified as legally married; 3) qualify as a legal spouse, husband or wife; and 4) enjoy the law's protection of marital sexual relations.

We cannot go through every individual problem here. That debate will occur many times during the next two-years before the people decide in 2004. The SJC said in 1992, "[T]he purpose of art. 48 is to allow the people 'to enact laws directly without being thwarted by an unresponsive Legislature…"

The people indicated last fall they wish to decide this question about the core structure of our society. Over 60% of them favor the Amendment. The SJC says it is their right. How can we deny them?

Sidebar #3:
Full Text of Committee Report

Full text of the Majority Report is as follows:

It is the opinion of the Legislature's Joint Committee on Public Service to oppose this initiative petition.

The supporters of House 4840 claim that they intend to harm no one, only to protect marriage. In reality, this measure will make it illegal - in fact, unconstitutional - for thousands of Massachusetts citizens to receive health insurance, bereavement leave, medical leave, hospital visitation, survivor benefits, and other basic legal protections that families and children need. Because this amendment is inconsistent with the principles on which our Constitution is based, a majority of the members of the Joint Committee on Public Service agree that this initiative should not pass and we urge you to vote no.

This amendment included language that would deny present and potential benefits and protections to thousands of citizens. The prohibition would apply under any circumstances, no matter how compelling the needs for those protections, or how detrimental the consequence to the families and children who lack them. The amendment would make it unconstitutional for some of our citizens to leave work to care for a sick child or to have the right to visit that sick child or a loved one in the hospital, to make medical decisions for them if they are incapacitated, or to include them in their health insurance.

The amendment would make it illegal for some police officers or rescue workers killed in the line of duty to leave survivor benefits to a longtime partner - or even for the survivor to have the unquestioned right to make funeral arrangements. These problems would be as insurmountable for senior citizens as for younger people. This would be constitutionally required and permanent.

A constitutional amendment that bars a segment of society from enjoying the rights and privileges afforded to others is discrimination. Discrimination sanctioned under law is wrong and unacceptable. In addition, it raised issues under the United States Constitution.

The effects of this amendment would be far reaching. It would be bad for business and bad for labor. Massachusetts would not only allow discrimination, but require it, forbidding employers from granting key benefits to their employees, hampering employers' efforts to recruit and retain workers by offering fair, competitive benefits, and making it unconstitutional to bargain collectively for important employee rights and benefits. Furthermore, concerns about the manner in which signatures were gathered for this ballot initiative call into question the fairness and legitimacy of the process itself.

Ours is a distinguished history and we believe that the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Mass. should be a document of which all our citizens can be proud. We urge you to vote no on House 4840.