While State legislators started debating a Constitutional amendment to overturn the SJC decision, same-sex couples started getting married in acts of civil disobedience across the country including in San Francisco, California, Portland, Oregon, New Paltz, New York, and Sandoval County, New Mexico. George W. Bush has called for a federal constitutional amendment, and John Kerry has called for civil unions for same-sex couples.

But on May 17th, same-sex couples began receiving state-recognized and legally valid marriage licenses in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Massachusetts is different from these other communities in that our courts have already ruled that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry. Any move now to amend the constitution would be a step backward, taking away rights that have already been recognized by the courts. Even if the legislature enacts civil unions, the SJC has already ruled that nothing short of full and equal marriage will suffice. Civil unions, the SJC ruled, are unjust and unequal.

Even with same-sex couples marrying across the country, Beacon Hill’s Constitutional Convention (Con Con) has been ground zero for the same-sex marriage debate. The Con Con has been at times confusing, was often highly charged, and was nothing short of being a great historic event.

Thousands of demonstrators from both sides of the debate descended on Beacon Hill. Many local supporters of the SJC decision from the Cambridge/Somerville area were on Beacon Hill throughout the Con Con. Many people arrived at the State House as early as 8am to get a seat inside the House gallery to view the proceedings. Many thousands were in attendance, holding signs, chanting, and singing songs, both inside and outside the statehouse.

The crowds were generally peaceful, but with protestors of opposing viewpoints within arms length of one another, there was a definite tension. Disparaging comments and arguments were not uncommon. Walking down the street to go inside the State House, one supporter of same-sex marriage was followed by a woman screaming “sodomite!” Susan Liao, massage therapist in Central Square, said “I found it hypocritical for right-wing Christians to be out there handing out free lunches saying God loves everybody, but yet their own children were out there pointing fingers at us, calling us sinners, and saying we were going to hell.”

There were also a number of very creative signs in the crowd. “I was amused to learn that homosexuals are apparently possessed by demons,” said Thomas Jerde of Cambridge, referring to a sign held by an opponent of same-sex marriage. Among the many signs held by opponents of same-sex marriage were slogans such as “No to Gay Marriage – Yes to Jesus – No to Civil Unions” and “It’s Not About Civil Rights – It’s About Right and Wrong.” Supporters of same-sex marriage held signs with slogans such as, “Civil Marriage Is a Civil Right” and “Another Straight Couple for Gay Marriage.”

Inside the State House, legislators debated the issue with no less passion. The legislators can be broken down roughly into three groups.

First, there are those that support the SJC decision and oppose amending the constitution. Second, there are those who want to amend the constitution, but support what they view as a compromise amendment that includes civil unions. And third, there are those who oppose same-sex marriage and civil unions, and want to overturn the SJC decision.

There were a number of votes cast during the Con Con. Most were strategic votes cast as legislators debated the exact wording of the proposed constitutional amendment. The different proposals varied from Travis’s version that would define marriage as one man and one woman, to Barrios’s language defining marriage as two people regardless of their gender.

The Travaglini-Finneran language was pushed as the “compromise amendment,” defining marriage as one man and one woman, but also creating civil unions. There was also a failed effort to split the language into two separate amendments – one would have banned same-sex marriage, the other would have required the legislature to enact some unknown form of civil union.

The final amendment was Travaglini’s version, approved on a 105-92 vote, which reads: "The unified purpose of this Article is both to define the institution of civil marriage and to establish civil unions to provide same-sex persons with entirely the same benefits, protections, rights, privileges and obligations as are afforded to married persons, while recognizing that under present federal law same-sex persons in civil unions will be denied federal benefits available to married persons.

"It being the public policy of this Commonwealth to protect the unique relationship of marriage, only the union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in the Commonwealth. Two persons of the same sex shall have the right to form a civil union if they otherwise meet the requirements set forth by law for marriage. Civil unions for same sex persons are established by this Article and shall provide entirely the same benefits, protections, rights, privileges and obligations that are afforded to persons married under the law of the Commonwealth. All laws applicable to marriage shall also apply to civil unions.

"This Article is self-executing, but the general court may enact laws not inconsistent with anything herein contained to carry out the purpose of this Article."

Except for Rep. Vincent Ciampa, Travaglini found no support for his amendment from Cambridge and Somerville legislators. Somerville and Cambridge Representatives Pat Jehlen, Tim Toomey, Alice Wolf, Anne Paulsen, Rachel Kaprielian, Paul Demakis, Byron Rushing, and Senators Charlie Shannon, Jarrett Barrios, and Steven Tolman all voted all voted in support of the civil rights of same-sex couples. Rep. Ciampa has expressed his opposition to same-sex marriage, choosing instead to support some form of civil union.

There clearly is nothing equal about civil unions - the amendment itself recognizes that fact. During the final day of the Constitutional Convention, the language was amended to add the phrase, “under federal law same-sex persons in civil unions will be denied federal benefits available to married persons.” This is exactly why supporters of civil unions are deceiving themselves and the public when they claim support for civil unions is the same as support for “equal rights.”

Allowing same-sex couples to marry does not weaken marriage. Rather, it reaffirms the value of marriage in our society. The SJC has already ruled that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to legal marriage, arguing it will strengthen families and protect children of same-sex couples. Watching couples passionately fight the government to get a marriage license has shown that marriage is still an important cultural and societal institution.

As our legislators struggle whether to vote to take away same-sex couples’ access to the institution of marriage, they might do well to consider the words of Thomas Jefferson: “Laws and constitutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered… institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times.”

The amendment will now go to the 2005 Constitutional Convention, which does not have the option of amending the language passed this year. If the amendment passes again next year, it will go before voters on the ballot in 2006.

In the meantime, thousands of same-sex couples are expected to legally marry, and Massachusetts legislators are up for reëlection. Images of happy couples marrying, and the memory of how individual legislators voted, will surely be on the minds of voters from both sides of the issue this fall.

Carl Sciortino is challenging incumbent 34th Middlesex State Representative Vincent Ciampa in the Democratic party primary.