A Stitch in Haste

The Massachusetts Legislature is today convening to vote, yet again, on the question of whether to overturn, by bigot amendment, the decision by the commonwealth's Supreme Judicial Court mandating same-sex marriage:

By all accounts, House Speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi, Senate President Therese Murray, and Governor Deval Patrick, all strong supporters of gay marriage, were within one or two votes of blocking the proposal from reaching the 2008 ballot.

The three have spent the last few days prodding, cajoling, and lobbying wavering lawmakers who previously supported the measure. The razor-thin margin will heighten the drama of what is expected to be an emotional and tense showdown at today's session, scheduled to begin at 1 p.m.
...
The voter-initiated constitutional amendment, which would define marriage as a union between one man and one woman, must win the support of at least 50 of the state's 200 lawmakers in two consecutive legislative sessions to win a place on the 2008 ballot.

Whichever way the vote plays out, this is a sad state (commonwealth?) of affairs. Even if gays and their non-bigot allies win, under this cockamamie process, everyone loses.

There are two reasons to be cynical:

1. Legislative leaders, and executives, should simply not wield so much power and influence that they can buy votes as casually as they do. Eight votes short? Fine — let's dredge up as many pork projects, committee appointments, staff increases, corner offices, etc., as it takes. Principles — even misguided principles such as anti-gay bigotry — simply drown in a sea of omnipresent moral defectiveness. This is of course not solely a Massachusetts phenomenon (see this post), or a state phenomenon (see this post). It's quite simple really: If government didn't do so much, and tax so much, then this kind of shameful haggling could not happen. There is nothing so dangerous as reliance on the benevolence of government generally or politicians specifically.

2. Massachusetts' system of requiring only one-quarter of legislators to vote in favor of a constitutional amendment for it to go to the voters is just plain nuts. If Article IV, Section 4's "republican form of government" clause had any potency (it does not), then surely this bizarre system would violate it. For more on this topic, see my previous post.

Finally, of course, insular minorities should never be subject to the tyranny of the majority. Period. Individual rights should never be put to a popular vote. Period. Second-class citizenship is a bigoted contradiction in terms. Period.

UPDATE: A stench-enveloped victory.