It’s going to be gay marriage again today, because it’s a topic that fascinates me.
Dan Kennedy of the Boston Phoenix writes today on the Massachusetts gay marriage debate:
State Senator Michael Morrissey put it this way in a Globe interview: “The question is, what’s more democratic than putting a question on the ballot? Isn’t that democratic?”
Well, of course, nothing could be more democratic than putting gay marriage to a vote. But we don’t live in a pure democracy; we live in a republic, with constitutional rights for the minority counterbalancing the will of the majority. Among other things, that’s why we don’t see proposals on the ballot to bring back slavery.
…
The legislature is there to protect the rights of the minority. The drafters of the state constitution – headed by John Adams – gave an explicit role to the legislature so that our elected officials could exercise their considered judgment as to whether a proposed amendment might do so much damage that it should not even be considered by the voters. Only after legislators have had a chance to reflect – twice – is an amendment to go before the public.
I agree. Except that legislators want to be re-elected, so the barrier between a legislator and his or her constituents is not very big. That’s why judges are more effective guardians of minority rights; they’re not subject to the popular will. Unfortunately, as Kennedy points out, it’s comparatively easy to amend the Massachusetts Constitution: all you need are a few wins by a simple majority, not by 2/3 or 3/4 of the voters. That’s hardly a way to achieve consensus. It should be more difficult to amend a constitution.
I don’t see why opponents of gay marriage should get to vote on something that doesn’t affect them.
The Boston Phoenix has a SLEW of gay marriage links here.