It’s not “facile in the extreme” to note that the people of Mass are being denied a direct vote on the issue. It’s not “facile in the extreme” to note that the issue is on the plate ONLY because the court made the law, instead of the legislature doing so. Had the legislature passed a statute incorporating gay marriage, THAT would be a victory for democracy. THIS is a victory for desired result via process.

DGO, the issue is only there in law to be addressed because the court forced it on the state. Call me old-fashioned, but I think that state laws should be made by state legislatures. That being the democratic process provided for in the Mass Constitution. But nice diversionary rant there.

I like the result too. But I don’t like the way it was reached.

- Gay rights groups had for years tried to get the legislature to consider domestic partnership and civil unions but they refused
- As David pointed out, the process by which the amendment was defeated was exactly according to the state consitution
- The people of MA have already spoken on the issue as many same sex marriage opponents lost their seats over the past three years and NONE of the supporters lost theirs
- Are you suggesting that the state get rid of the legislature and vote directly on every issue? Perhaps the country should have a national referendum on the Iraq war?

The issue is that the outcome isn’t what you wanted. And I do feel badly for those that totally oppose this outcome. But I think you need to spend some time understanding the implications of what you are saying

That’s not to say that it should have gone to referendum. There are plenty of issues that the public at large doesn’t need to be voting on; why bother having a representative democracy otherwise? This goes even more so for issues that might be called minority rights. When the vast majority of the population is not affected either way, it’s unlikely that people will even be bothered to show up and vote, even if they would be in favor of the measure in principle.

It’s facile to the extreme to argue that, in a process with two democratic steps, respect for democracy requires me to support leaping the first hurdle so it has a chance to reach the second.

Don’t get me wrong; I fought for years in my home state to keep the gay marriage issue off of the ballot, because I knew what the result would be–and eventually was, despite our best efforts. (I think consenting adults should be able to make their own private arrangements without state interference, thank you very much.)

But that the Massachussets legislature killed a properly qualified and legally submitted public referendum to prevent the public from being able to vote on it isn’t exactly a victory for democracy, just because you like the end result. Quite the opposite.

What you call “mixed feelings.” Can one cheer and hiss at the same time?

undeniable democratic stamp of approval

Anybody else find it funny using that statment over not allowing the citizens of the state to vote on the issue. That’s not real democratic to me, but then I’m not a Democrat so maybe that expains it.