c. 2006 Religion News Service

BOSTON _ A divided Massachusetts Legislature voted Wednesday to recess a constitutional convention without taking up a proposed ban on gay marriage.

After a four-hour debate on other issues, the Legislature voted 100-91 to recess and meet again on Nov. 9, two days after the general election. Legislators never debated a proposed constitutional amendment to limit marriage to one man and one woman.

In 2004, Massachusetts became the first state to legalize same-sex marriage. But since then, a host of religious leaders, including Roman Catholic Cardinal Sean P. O’Malley, head of the Archdiocese of Boston, have pushed lawmakers to overturn the measure and amend the state Constitution to ban gay marriage.

Advocates for gay rights said they succeeded, at least for now, in their effort to prevent approval of any measure aimed at denying rights to gays. They said a recess would give them more time to defeat the proposed amendment.

“I’m thrilled,” said Jennifer S. White, 41, of Holyoke, Mass., a public school teacher who is in a same-sex marriage. “I don’t think the issue will go away, but it buys us some time,” she said after the vote.

In order to appear on the statewide ballot in November 2008, the proposed amendment to ban gay marriage needs the votes of at least 50 legislators this year and then again in 2007-08. If a majority of voters approve the amendment, it would go into the state Constitution.

Supporters first collected the signatures of about 170,000 registered voters to place the proposed amendment on the ballot.

If the amendment is approved, it wouldn’t affect some 8,100 gay unions that have occurred since same-sex marriages began in May 2004. The amendment would bar gay marriages after the vote in 2008.

Kristian M. Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute, said the Legislature’s vote to recess was a travesty.

“How long do we the people of Massachusetts put up with our voices not being heard?” Mineau said. “We were denied the opportunity to have this amendment voted on.”

Mineau said he was concerned that a quorum might not exist on Nov. 9 when legislators are scheduled to convene again.

Inside the Statehouse, opponents of gay unions, including Deborah A. Powell, a mother of 12 from Granby, Mass., and Marna G. Velard, a hair stylist in Amherst, Mass., said voters should have a ballot question to define marriage.

“To me, marriage is sacred,” Powell said. “It always has been.”

Opponents of gay marriage rallied outside the Statehouse and waited hours for Wednesday’s vote. They said legislators wanted to avoid a difficult vote before the election.

“I think it’s a shame,” said a backer of the proposed amendment, Frances T. Lynch, 76, of Harwich, Mass., as she left the Statehouse. “They failed in their duty.”

Marc Solomon, campaign director for MassEquality, said he and others would continue to work hard to preserve marriage rights for gays.

“We are fighting for our integrity, our dignity and our equality,” Solomon said. “We will fight every step of the way.”

(Dan Ring writes for The Republican in Springfield, Mass.)

DSB/RB END RING