E-Mail This Article to a Friend Grading the legislative debate (continued)

Representative Michael Costello (D-Newburyport): A

"It’s been almost an oppressive few weeks," Costello said, giving a hint as to the pressure he must have been getting from his fellow Irish Catholics. Their pressure pushed him to express his beliefs in the most effective speech of the day. "The constitution is the only document to protect the minority from the majority," he said. "It is the only document that has protected the Catholics over the years, the only document that has protected the Irish." The Catholic Church does not recognize a second marriage, Costello pointed out, and yet nobody is trying to write that into secular law – why then do so with the church’s opinion about gay marriage?

Costello finished with the wish that his two sons grow up in a tolerant society, and that they be proud of their father. His speech may have helped both causes.

Representative James Miceli (D-Wilmington): C-

After a string of emotional and reasoned speeches against amending the consitution, Miceli rose to support the amendment, with the sole argument that he had received 700 phone calls in support of it.

Representative Paul Loscocco (R-Holliston): C+

"This in no way is an anti-gay or homophobic piece of legislation," Loscocco began. "The issue before us today is no less than our representative form of government versus judicial tyranny." He seemed to make an honest effort to explain why he took such issue with their decision, but it came out as anger at the four concurring judges, and not an actual refutation of their argument.

Senator Therese Murray (D-Plymouth): B

In a short oration, she made one outstanding point. "In 1994, when the Supreme Court gave the right to adopt to gays and lesbians, we created a new kind of family. We encouraged that," Murray said. "The families we created are here." Murray does not favor gay marriage, but she made clear that the legislature is obligated to deal with, not disparage, gay families.

Senator Marc Pacheco (D-Taunton): D

After voting for the Finneran extremist amendment, Pacheco took to the floor to argue for the Lees/Travaglini compromise amendment -- over the original Travis version which is similar to Finneran’s. "This amendment provides even greater equity and fairness," than the one he just voted for, he said. Not his finest hour.

Representative John Lepper (R-Attleboro): B

Lepper sees the question in very clear-cut terms: "whether marriage is a union between two people, or a union between a man and a woman." He personally opts for the former, he says. But he came down hard against civil unions, and effectively so, calling it "Two classes of citizens," "separate but equal," and anything else he could think of. "In reality, there can be no compromise on the fundamental issue of marriage," he concluded.

Representative Ruth Balser (D-Newton): A

"Separate but equal is not a part of civil rights, it is a violation of civil rights," Balser said near the beginning of one of the most thoughtfully constructed and argumentative speeches of the day. She pierced the argument that marriage has been hetero for millenia with the magnificent observation that "we have a historic opportunity to expand our definition of love and marriage." She read from an American Psychological Association report to refute arguments that same-sex marriage is bad for children. She spoke of other movements for equality that had faced opposition. In scope, language, and passionate delivery, Balser’s speech may have been the best of the day.

Representative Christopher Fallon (D-Malden): B+

Fallon, speaking in support of the Lees/Travaglini compromise amendment, finally gave voice to its rationale. It is a pragmatic and realistic one, facing up to the realities of support for a DoMA-type amendment and the probabilities of court challenges to other solutions. "I think it is pivotal that if we are going to vote, and we want to provide the benefits of marriage to gay couples, that this is the vehicle to do it and do it soon," Fallon said. Otherwise, he warned, some form of DoMA will pass that may not allow any room for civil unions at all.

Fallon also took a moment to berate his "hypocritical" colleagues who claim to place such importance on the popular vote. "They are the same people who stood in this parliament and gutted the Clean Elections law that the people had voted for."

Representative Marie St. Fleur (D-Boston): A-

"I think I have come to a place of anger for the first time in this chamber," St. Fleur said. "You can’t compromise on discrimination."

An emotional St. Fleur proceeded to give an impassioned defense of equal protection of the law, using her own gender, race, and immigrant status as examples. "What’s so special about this American democracy is that we are willing to put aside the voice of the majority, the power of the majority, in order to preserve the right of the minority," she said. She also spoke strongly against religious definitions of marriage: "It is a state action, and if we are going to take it, we out to take it fairly."

Representative Marie Parente (D-Milford): F

She said she was not originally intending to speak; she should have stuck with that instinct instead of giving this rambling, incoherent, homophobic oration. (At one point she complained that Time Magazine had spent an hour interviewing her and then didn’t even use her name.) "We have been told not to amend the constitution for ‘discrimination’," Parente said. "I prefer the word ‘preservation’." Heterosexual marriage, she said, is mother nature’s work. Men and women have unique qualities to offer in a child’s upbringing; without both, the child inherently suffers. (But rest assured, "it is not discrimination.") What of children of divorce and other situations beyond the traditional nuclear family? "Don’t give me examples of bad behavior to support this argument."

And she was just warming up. She railed against separation of church and state, claimed there were conspiracies afoot, and suggested – in apparent ignorance of the concept of civil marriage – that same-sex marriage would mean that the state would force churches to perform marriages they oppose.

Representative Kay Khan (D-Newton): B+

Khan read a letter from a 16-year-old daughter of a lesbian couple planning to wed in September. "The marriage will not take away from others, it will only add to the lives of many," the girl wrote. A cheap ploy? Perhaps, but effective.

Representative Frank Smizik (D-Brookline): B

Although he got a little carried away with ripples and currents and mighty walls, Smizik nicely painted the parallels between the racial civil rights battles of the 1960s and the sexual orientation ones of today. His defense of the court’s proper role in deciding civil rights issues was a good one.

Representative George Peterson (R-Grafton): B+

"We do regulate marriage, and rightfully so," Peterson said in one of the few genuine attempts of the day to explain the pro-amendment position. He spoke highly of gay and lesbian couples, and of their ability to raise children. But he believes that the state has a right, and even a duty to promote heterosexual marriage against alternatives. "I don’t do it out of discrimination or hate, but out of a firm belief that in this world, to continue on this society and this species, that marriage should be defined as between a man and a woman."

Senator Andrea Nuciforo (D-Pittsfield): B

Another pragmatist, Nuciforo took to the podium to plead for support of the compromise amendment, for fear of the Travis amendment. The Travis bill, he said, would preclude civil unions and even make some existing partner benefits unconstitutional. "It’s discriminatory, it’s hateful, it’s awful," he said.

Representative Benjamin Swan (D-Springfield): A-

The pragmatists persuaded Swan, who had intended to vote against all forms of amendment but rose, at 7:30 p.m., to express his pained decision to vote for the compromise. "I have listened from the opening bell," he said. "And I think that the [Lees/Travaglini] amendment is probably the best that we’re going to get today."

A dignified Swan then spoke of his Alabama roots, his education in "separate but equal" schools, and the "newly painted-over whites-only and colored-only signs" at his military base in 1953. But he was at his finest when he invoked article seven of the state constitution: "Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity and happiness of the people." "Whether one can choose who he or she marries, has a lot to do with the pursuit of happiness," Swan said.

Representative Paul Frost (R-Auburn): D

"Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but maybe 10 years from now, somebody is going to say we need to expand the definition of marriage even further," Frost warned. He left those horrors to the imagination, as well as the explanation of relevance to the questions at hand.

Representative Thomas Kennedy (D-Brockton): B-

Kennedy followed Swan in reluctantly going along with the compromise. He was heartfelt and emotional; he expressed hope that the compromise could be "a first step in what I hope is complete acceptance." It was more an explanation of his actions than an argument of merit, but it rang true.

David S. Bernstein can be reached at dbernstein@phx.com