Same-Sex Standoff After Ban Vote

The Massachusetts Legislature took a decisive step toward a state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage and legalizing civil unions, the first in a series of votes required over the next 2 1/2 years.

But the state's governor and attorney general were split over whether to ask a court to delay a previous ruling calling for same-sex marriages to start.

Within moments of the 105-92 vote Monday, Gov. Mitt Romney said he would ask the state's highest court to delay implementation of its November ruling that ordered same-sex marriages to begin taking place as of May 17. That ruling sparked an impassioned national debate on the issue. He said he will seek a formal stay until the process of amending the state constitution is complete.

But Attorney General Tom Reilly, who represents the state in court, said he would not seek to delay the May 17 deadline on Romney's behalf. Without court action, Monday's activity will not affect the deadline.

The legislature's vote must be affirmed again during the next two-year session following this fall's elections, when all 200 seats of the Legislature are open. Voters must then approve the proposed amendment in the fall of 2006.

If the amendment is approved by voters, Massachusetts would join Vermont in offering same-sex couples the chance to join in civil unions.

"I believe the Supreme Judicial Court has an obligation to the constitution and the people of Massachusetts to withhold this decision, to stay this decision until the people of Massachusetts can make a final determination for themselves," Romney said.

But Reilly, who is elected, said he would not interfere with the ruling.

"It was very clear to me as attorney general that the majority of the Supreme Judicial Court have made up their minds," said Reilly, a Democrat. "Do I agree with their decision? No. Absolutely not. But that is the law of the state."

Massachusetts is set to become the first state to sanction same-sex marriage in May, although some mayors across the nation have permitted unsanctioned same-sex weddings in their cities and towns. Thousands have married in San Francisco and other municipalities, but the marriage licenses issued are being challenged in court.

Monday's vote in Massachusetts came in the third round of a constitutional convention on the contentious issue and completes the Legislature's action on gay marriage for the year. Competing cries of "Jesus Christ" and "Equal Rights" shook the Statehouse as backers and opponents of same-sex marriage filled the hallways.

The amendment's approval brought a roar from activists on both sides of the debate, who packed the Statehouse to watch the proceedings. Neither side was happy with the outcome.

"I believe many of them are going to feel very ashamed of what they've just done today," said Arline Isaacson of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus.

Many conservatives also opposed the solution, arguing that it requires citizens to vote on two very different questions — a gay marriage ban and legalization of civil unions — with one vote.

"We are giving the people a false choice," said state Rep. Vinny deMacedo, a Republican. "We're saying, 'No problem, you can vote to define marriage as between a man and a woman, but the only way you can do it is if you create civil unions that are entirely the same as marriage.' Ultimately, if this ever makes it to the ballot, it will fail."

The proposal specifies that civil unions would not grant federal benefits to gay couples.

Supporters of the measure argued that it was the best possible solution.

"There is no single clear solution to this issue," said Senate Minority Leader Brian Lees. "If there was such a solution, we wouldn't be here today. But this amendment attempts to strike a balance between those citizens who want to be heard in defining marriage yet never taking away the rights and benefits of gay and lesbian couples."

In Kentucky, lawmakers failed to pass a proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages Monday, the last day that the General Assembly would ordinarily pass bills. Speaker Jody Richards said the bill might still get revived when lawmakers return in two weeks for a wrap-up session.

In New Mexico, a judge who issued a court order barring a county clerk from issuing same-sex marriage licenses withdrew from the case Monday, possibly clearing the way for more permits to be granted.

Judge Kenneth Brown offered no reason for recusing himself. On March 23, he had issued a temporary restraining order against Sandoval County Clerk Victoria Dunlap, who in February issued 66 marriage licenses to gay couples before the state attorney general decided they were not valid.

A hearing on the restraining order had been set for Friday — the day the order expires. The hearing will now be postponed until a new judge is chosen.

Dunlap said she would resume issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples "if we're not barred by the court."

Massachusetts lawmakers took up the ban when the state's highest court first ruled last year that the existing ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional, and then delivered a second ruling that only allowing full same-sex marriage would solve the problem.