It looks like Massachusetts is going to live up to its constitutional provision for initiative and referendum.
Lawmakers in Massachusetts, the only state where gay marriage is legal, voted Tuesday to allow a proposed constitutional amendment that would effectively ban the practice to move forward.
Pam Spaulding is furious and compares, not for the first time, gay marriage with civil rights for black people.
As I said in the comments at my pad, with the character of people like Tucker, would it have been fine with her to let “the people” vote on whether I must sit at the back of the bus or drink from a separate fountain?
As I said in this post on the subject, comparing gay marriage with the civil rights movement is wrong on several counts, not the least of which being that the civil rights movement wasn't merely a movement of judicial decisions but of legislative enactments. This seems to be a point missed entirely by many gay marriage proponents.
It bears repeating that the same court system that gave us Plessy v. Ferguson could invalidate gay marriage just as easily as endorse it. If you want guaranteed rights, you have to legislate them.
The problem for gay marriage proponents is that a majority of Americans still do not favor it. It's much easier to persuade five justices than a majority of a legislator or the citizenry. This is the lesson that Pam and others chagrinned at the events in Massachusetts haven't learned: you have to persuade people of the rightness of your position because that's how democracy works.
I'm not entirely sure that a pro-traditional marriage amendment will pass in Massachusetts. There will certainly be enough time for gay marriage supporters to gin up their base before the election.
In any event, this is exactly the sort of thing the Massachusetts constitution requires popular support for. When you start redefining terms that have generally meant one thing for a couple of hundred years or so, it's most logical that those governed by the new definition get to decide if they want it.
|