Mitt on marriage: trust the masses

Published Jun 28 2006, 06:08 PM by Adam Reilly

Here, courtesy of the National Review Online, is our governor's explanation of why gay people's right to civil marriage here in Massachusetts should be subjected to a popular vote.

The irony here is that--as a member of the LDS Church--Romney should be keenly attuned to the tyrranical tendencies of the majority. After all, popular hostility (partly due to polygamy, but that's another story) forced the Mormons to flee New York, Ohio, Missouri and Illinois before they found a lasting home in Utah. Wonder how the Mormons' civil rights would have held up if they'd been voted on back in the 19th Century?

But I digress. Here's what Mitt said at the State House earlier today:

Our elected representatives in the Legislature will soon hold a historic vote. It regards the institution of marriage.

But it will not be a vote for or against same sex marriage.

No, it will be a vote for or against democracy.

The people here today have followed the law, followed the process established in the Constitution, and gathered an astounding 170,000 signatures. Their effort means that the people, the citizens, will be free to choose how marriage is defined in Massachusetts.

This is democracy pure and simple.

Of course, democracy can be squashed. Only one fourth of the legislators must vote for democracy, for this question, this choice, to be given to the people. But it is conceivable that some will try to block a vote by the people by blocking a vote of the legislature.

We here are speaking for democracy and the rule of the law. Whether you agree that marriage should be reserved for a man and a woman or not, surely you can agree that the course of democracy, established by the Constitution, must be followed. Is there anything more fundamental to this Commonwealth and this country than the principle that power is reserved to the people, that government is the servant, not the master?

We ask for one thing: the constitutionally prescribed vote of the Legislature. Let the people speak.

Yoon, unhinged

Barros to City Hall

6 Comments

QM said:

Since I'd never expect anyone at the Phoenix to not misrepresent or omit facts when attacking a Republican or championing the pet liberal cause of the day, I will point out what you have conveniently omitted: The MA SJC has ruled [back in the Billy Bulger early 1990s] that (a) the MA constitution requires that the legislature vote on an amendment-by-petition, (b) that its failure to do so is unconstitutional, but sadly (c) that the court will not impose a remedy. So it is in fact your Democrat heroes who are behaving badly and not the governor. Trav and his minions should obey the state constitution and bring the thing up for a vote. I hope it fails to get the 25%, and should it get the 25%, I hope it fails when it gets to the ballot. But it damn well should be voted on in the Legislature and people like you who cheer the Legislature's unconstitutional action are the ones who should be ashamed.

June 28, 2006 6:32 PM
Adam said:

QM, informative and eloquent post. I guess I'd have an easier time taking Romney's let's-vote-for-democracy argument seriously if he hadn't been milking gay marriage so greedily during his pre-presidential campaign. Remember, this is the same guy who equated gay marriage to Islamist terrorism at the RNC. That said, thanks for weighing in and making a strong case.

June 28, 2006 7:47 PM
patrick said:

As Mitt completes the final half-lap of his single term in the governor's office, what can he possibly point to that qualifies him for the oval office? The MBTA still operates about 25 years behind the times. The Turnpike Authority remains laden with patronage. All the biggest companies have left the state. There's no housing available. Residents are fleeing. Crime is up. BUT, Mitt stands strongly against gay marriage (if not successfully). Tomorrow, I imagine he will introduce legislation to protect the flag from hostile incineration. Perhaps Mitt is ready for the big leagues of the Republican Party. Now that I think about it, he'll fit in just fine.

June 29, 2006 12:45 AM
D. R. Tucker said:

I think supporters of same-sex marriage still have to find a way around the perception that the only reason they oppose a vote is because they fear a loss. Back in 2004, WRKO brought back Marjorie Clapprood for a short time to do a liberal-slanted Saturday Night talk show (I believe she was one of a rotating series of progressive hosts). Her first show was a discussion of the gay-marriage issue with Rev. Eugene Rivers (she supported gay marriage and he opposed it). Clapprood noted at the time that she did not fear, in any way, shape or form, the prospect of a gay-marriage ban being put to a vote, because she felt that the Commonwealth was enlightened and tolerant enough not to democratically nullify the Goodridge ruling. I thought this was shrewd position for Clapprood to take, and I'm surprised that more supporters of same-sex marriage haven't argued that, if it's put to a vote, the anti-gay-marriage forces will suffer a resounding, humiliating defeat at the hands of a tolerant electorate. Will other supporters of same-sex marriage begin to adopt this argument?

June 29, 2006 9:32 AM
Marriage Counseling said:

I would recommend trusting you and your partner... nothng more period.

December 7, 2007 1:37 PM
MagicCleanerU said:

Good Site! <a href=http://magiccleanera.info>Magic Cleaner 4 You</a>

June 24, 2009 10:51 PM