Anti-democratic Leftism

Ever since the 1950 book "The authoritarian personality", Leftist psychologists have been saying that it is conservatives who are anti-democratic -- ignoring great democrats like Joe Stalin and Mao Tse Tung. So the events decribed below by Taranto are another little dose of reality for them -- not that reality has ever mattered much to them, of course.

Massachusetts voters may get to decide on the future of same-sex marriage after all. Yesterday the state Legislature voted 62-134 (only one-fourth of votes are required) to advance a constitutional amendment that would reverse a Supreme Judicial Court ruling imposing such marriages on the state. The measure needs the same approval from the Legislature's next session to get to the 2008 ballot.

Proponents of same-sex marriage had urged the Legislature not to vote on the measure, notwithstanding a ruling by the Supreme Judicial Court that it was obliged to do so. Although the court held that it did not have the authority to enforce its own ruling, "But the court's criticism of the legislature appeared to be enough to make some lawmakers decide to allow a vote . . ., even legislators who support same-sex marriage and hope the amendment will ultimately be defeated":

"Certainly, the court ruling changed the atmosphere this week, in that legislators took a second look at their job description, at their oath of office, at a higher obligation actually, to uphold the constitution," said Kris Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute, which sponsored the amendment.

[Gay-rights activist Arline] Isaacson said the court's decision "really tipped the scales against us."

An editorial in yesterday's Boston Globe urged the Legislature not to vote:

There has been much gnashing of teeth over whether the voters will be heard if the Legislature declines to vote on the amendment today. By now, legislators have debated the question in multiple constitutional conventions in 2004, 2005, and 2006. It is hard to say that the matter has not been aired. Last September, legislators took a final vote on a more lenient amendment--which denied marriage but explicitly established civil unions as an alternative--and defeated it, 157 to 39. That cleared the way for today's harsher version of the ban, which needs only 25 percent of the convention to advance.

The voters also have been heard at the polls in two separate statewide elections, where not one of the proponents of gay marriage was defeated and their margin in the Legislature increased. Governor-elect Deval Patrick was the only major-party candidate to steadfastly support gay marriage in the November election, and he won in a landslide.

Patrick also lobbied the Legislature not to vote on the measure.

Now, there is something very odd about this whole episode. The Globe and others seem to be against democracy rather than just for same-sex marriage. Why not urge the Legislature to do its duty and vote, and to vote the amendment down? Or why not welcome the opportunity to persuade voters to approve same-sex marriage by rejecting the amendment?

We wondered if the Globe had ever urged the Legislature to legalize same-sex marriage before the Supreme Judicial Court mandated it. The answer appears to be no, and in fact the Globe's view seems to be that this actually is the purview of the courts rather than the Legislature. In a July 8, 2003, editorial titled "For Gay Marriage," the paper argued that that wasn't the place:

Opponents say the Legislature should decide all issues dealing with marriage licenses. But the court is being asked for its opinion on a constitutional matter of fundamental rights--its proper purview--and it should deliver such an opinion.

Gay-rights activists are fond of likening their cause to the civil rights movement. But although civil-rights activists won many of their victories through litigation, perhaps the most important one was a legislative action, the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Voters in dozens of states have passed ballot initiatives designed to prevent same-sex marriage, and antigay bigotry is not the only motivating force. The resistance in Massachusetts to putting same-sex marriage to any sort of democratic test only reinforces the perception that its proponents have contempt for the consent of the governed.

Source

(For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, DISSECTING LEFTISM and EYE ON BRITAIN. My Home Page. Email me (John Ray) here.)