November 14, 2006

I understand that not all will agree with the votes I cast during the recent Constitutional Convention.

We faced a very difficult choice. My conscience and judgment both called me to say "no" to attempts to amend the Constitution to ban same-gender marriage. I could not have been clearer, more outspoken, or more consistent in my opposition to a Constitutional amendment that would, for the first time since our Constitution was ratified in 1780, build discrimination against a minority into our state’s most sacred text. I was and am committed to preventing this from happening on my watch, and my votes on the proposed amendments on gay marriage that were before us this year reflect this commitment.

Some argued that it was my duty to simply "let the people vote." I believe this line of reasoning misrepresents my responsibilities in this process. The Constitution obligates legislators to exercise judgment on which proposed Constitutional matters are placed before the electorate for a vote. The two-step legislative review prescribed by the Constitution would be meaningless if John Adam’s intent had been for the Constitutional Convention to serve simply as a pass-through agency for voter initiatives.

Given that judgment was called for, there were two options, neither one of which was perfect. It only took 50 votes to advance one of the proposed amendments to a second legislative review in the next session. We knew there were somewhere between 55 and 60 votes to do so, well below a majority of the 200 House and Senate members who make up the Constitutional Convention, but above the 50-vote threshold. Keeping the proposed amendment alive would have guaranteed ongoing, often ugly, and certainly divisive attacks on a minority in our state. It would have guaranteed more of what we have already seen, a nationally-financed campaign attacking same-sex marriage and our homosexual neighbors and relatives in general. It would have advanced the notion that it is okay to create two distinct classes of citizens, those married after 2004 and those who could no longer marry after 2008 if the amendment was adopted. And it would have perpetuated the idea that putting the rights of a minority to the test of a majority vote by the public made any sense. Almost all of the most important minority rights throughout this country’s history have been won, first, in the courts or on the street, and only later written into legislation and embraced by the majority.

In the end, the only way to say "no" was to vote to recess to end the debate without acting on the proposed initiative. I did not take this vote lightly. Standing up to a citizen initiative is serious business and should be reserved for serious occasions. Given all that was at stake, I believe this was one such occasion.

I did not like having to vote to recess, but the alternative was far worse. As I saw it, my choices were a parliamentary procedure to avert a horrific outcome or the suspension of my judgment about the consequences of that outcome. More than two-thirds of us in the legislature and approximately the same proportion in the public at large have moved beyond earlier reservations or uncertainty about gay marriage. Within a very short period of time, there will not be the 50 votes in a Constitutional Convention to enshrine discrimination against gays and lesbians in the Constitution. Until then, if the choice is between using or surrendering the power and authority vested in me, it is my honor and my duty to use it to protect the civil marriage rights of all of our state’s residents. To do otherwise would be irresponsible and unethical.