I am a huge fan of the ability of gays to marry. I live in Massachusetts, and I also have some married, gay, family members.

Unfortunately, I'm also a fan of the legislature acting like, well, a legislature. And in this case I think they are shirking their duty.

Sure, some folks may thing the proposition to ban gay marriage is misguided. I believe it is wrong. But I ALSO put belief in my ability to lobby the legislature to act to the will of the people. And that means voting, damn it, not avoiding some vote merely because nobody wants to go on record or because they want to make good press. I confess that while I find the views of the no-gay-marriage people to be misguided and wrong, I find the behavior of the legislature on this issue to be almost abhorrent.

It's all the more annoying because IMO there is no way in hell that the amendment to ban gay marriage would actually pass. So it's even more of an embarrassment to see them acting like this.**

It seems like "we'll act like a legislature, but only if it gets good press." And I'm not stupid enough to think that this tactic can't run both for me and against me. They should put it to a vote.

**And if it DID pass? I would grit my teeth and try to change it. After all, if I"m going to rely on the Mass constitution to support the court's decision vis a vis gay marriage, I can't very well ignore that constitution when it suite my purpose. That what Republicans do. And I am not a Republican.

Sailorman, if 170,000 Massachusetts residents signed a petition calling on a ban for interracial marriage, would you want it to come up to a vote, too? Marriage equality is a civil rights issue, and should be dealt with as such--which means that representatives have a higher responsibility than respecting public opinion.

One other factor worth considering, BTW: Incoming governor Deval Patrick (D) is a STRONG supporter of same-sex marriage, and in fact wants to repeal that infamous 1913 law that is currently restricting same.

Cheers,

TH

Exactly, Tom. Democracy should not be an excuse for the majority to trample on the rights of the minority. That's what it means to have rights.

Tom Head saiid: Sailorman, if 170,000 Massachusetts residents signed a petition calling on a ban for interracial marriage, would you want it to come up to a vote, too?

Yup.

I'd want it to be voted on, so it could be voted down.

Or if by some miracle it wasn't voted down, then I'd want the courts to impose an immediate stay (which they would), as I'd expect a prompt appeal to the USSC where it would be overturned.

That is how the system works.

Wouldn't YOU want it? Do you seriously think you can make that call?

Marriage equality is a civil rights issue, and should be dealt with as such--which means that representatives have a higher responsibility than respecting public opinion.

Oh, bull hockey. Where do you think civil rights COME from, if not public opinion? Do you think Constitutional amendments spring formed and whole from the loins of well-meaning legislatures?

That's ridiculous. Moreover, it's opportunistic and hypocritical.

Here: I'll pose an equally random hypothetical to you:
Say your representatives decided on their own volition to pass an amendment BANNING gay marriage. Would you still be upholding their "special power to ignore the public on these issues" then? I bet my ass you'd change your tune in a heartbeat.

That's opportunism.

One other factor worth considering, BTW: Incoming governor Deval Patrick (D) is a STRONG supporter of same-sex marriage, and in fact wants to repeal that infamous 1913 law that is currently restricting same.

It's been a while since I read goodridge, so I don't know the 1913 law you referred to. Though of course, it's not restricting anything now, you know, because the court has ruled it unconstitutional. So there's no non-symbolic need to overturn it, AFAIK.

Some of us have to live with the inevitable violence and harrassment that a "vote" on our rights would entail. The legislature did the right thing.

Romney shooting his mouth off worked one lunatic up sufficiently to shoot up a gay bar, what would a full scale hatemongering election do?!

Tom Head:

What if proponents of gay marriage gathered over 170,000 signatures in hopes to create legislation that would legalize gay marriage in Alabama, only to be pretty much ignored by state lawmakers?

Would you still claim that representatives have a higher responsibility than respecting public opinion?

I'd claim (though of course I am not Tom) that rights are rights regardless of how many people are for them or against them.

Exactly, EG.

I live in Mississippi, a state where just 30 years ago desegregation was a VERY unpopular idea. If we did it the way Sailorman and Raging Moderate wanted it and relied on public opinion, we would still have separate white and non-white schools. It was the imposition and enforcement of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, against the will of the majority of Mississippians, that did the job.

Civil rights should never depend on the popular vote. That's the difference between liberal democracy and mob rule.

Cheers,

TH

"Democracy should not be an excuse for the majority to trample on the rights of the minority."

Which is why we're not a democracy, but a republic with a constitution. Pure democracy often ends up being little better than a dictatorship. The most democratic decision made in the past 20 years was the genocide in Rwanda.

it makes me feel a wee better to see that at least this one is standing strong

Tom,

would you like to explain how the civil rights act got passed?

If you don't think it was related to votes, you need to do a bit more research.