By Brian Denitzio
News Editor

The Massachusetts Legislature met last Wednesday in a Constitutional Convention with 21 items on its agenda, but voted to recess before taking up the controversial 20th item on that agenda&emdash;a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman. That amendment needs only 50 votes in consecutive legislative sessions in order to be put on the ballot in 2008.

Opponents of the amendment saw the vote to recess as a victory, allowing them more time to swing votes to their side. At the same time, supporters of the amendment were critical of the legislature's decision to postpone a vote on the bill until two days after Election Day.

From speaking with the Dorchester delegation, all of whom voted in favor of recess, and those watching the debate closely, it appears that if the matter were put to a vote, it would have received the requisite 50 votes supporting it.

"It would appear that both sides recognize that if a vote was taken last week it would have passed and moved on… Our preference of course would be to have a vote and have it be defeated," said Michelle Gillen, a Dorchester resident and a member of DotOut.

Dorchester's legislators who support gay marriage echoed Gillen's sentiments.

"I would have liked to have had a vote because it would have been good to have it done with, but I'm not sure that they had the votes to not allow it on the ballot," said state Rep. Linda Dorcena Forry.

Rep. Martin Walsh likewise hoped to see a vote defeating the amendment.

"I don't want to be a part of a process that takes a right away from a group of people," said Walsh, who represents the 13th Suffolk. "In my opinion this is a civil rights issue."

Walsh went on to state that he felt that the legislature should have legalized gay marriage long before the matter was decided by the courts. But now that the matter has come to the legislature under different circumstances, he, Forry, and Rep. Marie St. Fleur all agree that decisions about the rights of a group of people who are in the minority are best left in the hands of the legislature, and not the electorate.

"I think that a very important decision that affects the lives of individuals needs to be made in a very deliberative way, eliminating prejudice and agenda," said St. Fleur.

St. Fleur stated that she sees religion as a major reason why supporters of the amendment are opposed to gay marriage, and said that religious beliefs need to be kept separate from discussions about people's constitutional rights.

"What we're trying to change here is secular law, and my religious preference should not be taken into consideration in that decision," said St. Fleur.

Forry said that she was disturbed by the fervor of religious groups and institutions in the debate, and suggested that their energy, like that of the legislature, might be better spent by focusing on other issues.

"The thing I remember from my religious classes is to treat others as you want to be treated," said Forry. "This has just taken on a whole different tone; we have families who are homeless, families who are hungry, families who are losing their homes, children who need to be adopted."

The decision by the legislature to recess the Constitutional Convention until Nov. 9, two days after Election Day, drew criticism from supporters of the amendment who argued that legislators were looking to insulate themselves from the electorate. St. Fleur, Forry, and Walsh all questioned the logic of that argument, stating the timing of their vote is in large part irrelevant. If the amendment received the required 50 votes, it would nonetheless be subject to a second vote during the next session.

"It doesn't matter whether the vote was July 13 or November 9, it has to go through another Constitutional Convention next term," said Walsh.

St. Fleur stated that the legislators are still accountable for their vote in the convention.

"I'm not sure how that works as a protection, for those who are very upset that they didn't get an up and down vote on the issue, there still was a vote, not done by a voice vote, we had to all identify how we will proceed with it," she said.

Those close to the debate believe that the postponement of a vote can only help supporters of gay marriage. In the more than two years since gay marriage was legalized by the Supreme Judicial Court, a growing number of legislators, who once opposed gay marriage have come out in support of the institution. Among that group is state Senator Jack Hart, whose First Suffolk district includes most of Dorchester.

Gillen said that there are countless people across the Commonwealth who like Hart have moved from opposition to support. For that reason, she said, more time before a vote is taken, is more time to lobby to keep gay marriage off of the ballot.

"Time is our friend in this instance," said Gillen.

"The momentum clearly favors us and I think that is reflected in shifting votes up on Beacon Hill," Gillen added.

Messages left with the office of Representative Shirley Owens-Hicks and State Senator Jack Hart seeking comment were not returned.