Opinion – A Vote
Against Minorities
The Massachusetts
Legislature
By The Harvard
Crimson Staff Online, January 9, 2007
Last Tuesday, a sufficiently large
minority of the Massachusetts Legislature voted to advance a 2008 ballot
referendum that, if approved by the Commonwealth’s electorate, will impose a
constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. In so doing, the Legislature
compromised one of the most fundamental principles of our democracy: that
the civil rights of minorities are meant to be protected by the government, not
hijacked by popular passion. Gay and lesbian couples, like all people,
have the right to marry — a right that should not be jeopardized by political
maneuvering.
The very ability to amend the Massachusetts constitution through ballot
referenda was originally intended to protect minorities, not to strip them of
their civil rights. The provision was added to the state constitution in
1918, in the words of its supporters at the time, “for the advancement and
betterment of the rank and file of the people of this Commonwealth, those who
work in our mills and our factories.” But even then, referendum supporters
foresaw a danger with their initiative: that enhanced majority rule would
leave “no safety for the few, for the single man, for the minority.”
The Legislature’s vote has turned this fear into reality. With it, the
petition to constitutionally ban gay marriage has fulfilled almost all the
prerequisites necessary for advancement to the general ballot as a referendum in
2008: the collection of signatures equivalent to three percent of votes
cast for governor during the previous statewide election and a 25 percent vote
from the Legislature in each of two consecutive sessions. All that now
remains for the question to be sent to the general ballot is a second
one-quarter vote from the Legislature.
Supporters of the marriage ban argue that, since they acquired the required
number of signatures for their petition, the Legislature has an obligation to
rubber-stamp the amendment and send it to the people. They stood outside
the Statehouse Tuesday, hearkening back to populist rhetoric with sanctimonious
shouts of “Let the people vote!” But this is anything but an issue that
should be decided by popular opinion. As the Massachusetts Supreme
Judicial Court (SJC) rightly ruled in 2004, marriage is a civil right, not a
matter of state policy. The proposed amendment is fundamentally an
exercise in anti-gay prejudice, not popular empowerment, as its supporters
constantly (and deceivingly) assert. To place the proposed constitutional
ban of gay marriage on the ballot — essentially, to appeal basic civil rights to
popular approval — would surely not be a triumph of democracy: it would be
a failure of it.
Further, the pro-referendum movement’s claims to be the defenders of populist
imperative are, given the results of recent elections, hollow. In two
consecutive statewide elections, voters overwhelmingly supported pro-same-sex
marriage candidates for seats in the Legislature. Even those who were
originally staunch opponents of same-sex marriage have come to change their
minds — notably, former State Senate Minority Leader Brian P. Lees, who said,
“Gay marriage has begun, and life has not changed for the citizens of the
Commonwealth, with the exception of those who can now marry.” A referendum
at this juncture will do nothing to clarify public opinion — its only effect
will be to generate a bitter, divisive political campaign at a time when the
Commonwealth sorely needs political cooperation.
Given the deeply personal, transformative impact marriage can have on a couple —
as well as the obvious value of hospital visitation rights, child custody, and
retirement benefits — the stakes for gay and lesbian couples are clear.
But we fail to see what the state, or for that matter those opposed to same-sex
marriage, would gain in return by such a ban — besides moral edification.
Since same-sex marriage was legalized following the SJC’s 2004 ruling, over
8,000 same-sex couples have married in the Commonwealth. We have yet to
see any evidence that the sky is falling.
Referenda have several important functions, but the dissolution of civil rights
is not one of them. We hope that the Legislature will, when it convenes to
take its second vote on this initiative, make a different choice — a choice to
protect the minorities of this Commonwealth, not those who seek to strip them of
their rights.
Posted Jan 8 by thecrimson.com
|
