BY DAN
KENNEDY
Serving the reality-based community since 2002.
Notes and observations on
the press, politics, culture, technology, and more. To sign up for
e-mail delivery, click
here. To send
an e-mail to Dan Kennedy, click
here.
For bio, published work, and links to other blogs, visit
www.dankennedy.net.
Tuesday, February 10, 2004
The seductive appeal of mob
rule. There is no more seductive or pernicious argument in the
gay-marriage debate than that "the people" should get to decide the
fate of an amendment to the state constitution that would ban
same-sex marriage.
Today's Boston Globe
reports
that a state rep has come under attack from something called the
"Committee to Let the People Vote." On the op-ed page, a
hateful
little screed by Catholic
activist William Hobbib concludes: "The final decision and its
far-reaching implications should be decided by a democratic vote of
the people of the state, with the appropriate level of study and
public debate that a constitutional amendment vote would
require."
Thus in the Hobbibsean view of the
world, the legislature's role in amending the constitution should be
limited to that of a debating society, with all power resting in the
hands of the people.
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 Massachusetts Constitution can
be amended with stunning ease - far more than is the case with the US
Constitution, which requires a two-thirds majority of both branches
of Congress and three-fourths of the state legislatures. By contrast,
an amendment here requires just a majority vote in two consecutive
sessions of the legislature (or only one-fourth if the amendment is
submitted by a petition of the voters), followed by a majority of
voters on the state ballot.
The point is that the amendment
process, though extremely easy, requires the involvement of
the legislature. If, as Hobbib and Morrissey assert, the
legislature's role is merely to wave the amendment through and let
the voters decide, then they are arguing against any role at all. In
the Hobbib-Morrissey model, the fact that the legislature has to vote
twice is nothing more than impediment, an anachronism, something to
be set aside for the greater good of pure democracy.
That has it exactly backwards. 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.
The amendment to ban gay marriage
may be voted on as soon as tomorrow. Legislators owe us their wisdom,
such as it may be, as well as the courage to act on that wisdom.
Simply letting "the people" decide is an invitation to mob rule. It
would send an ugly message that our elected officials see nothing
wrong with oppression as long as it is "the people" who are doing the
oppressing.
posted at 9:19 AM |
|
link
MEDIA LOG ARCHIVES
Dan Kennedy is senior writer and media critic for the Boston Phoenix.
