Thank you for taking the time to comment. My primary concern in this post is that I was disappointed that the people in Massachusetts were not given the opportunity to vote on such an important issue.

Of course I have an opinion on this particular piece of legislation. I believe marriage should be between a man and a woman and am opposed to re-defining marriage in other ways (whether man-man, woman-woman, multiple partners, etc). I believe this is an important issue, and I would like the opportunity to express my view in a vote. I didn’t think I was trying to hide that. I was just addressing my disappointment in the way the petition was turned down.

You raise some of the same issues that Mike/Shug and I dialogued on in the comments above, particularly, how would I feel if the situation were reversed?

As I wrote to Mike/Shug in the comments, it is hard to be objective in politics and so it is hard to say. But I would like to think that if the highest number of petitioners in Massachusetts state history followed due process in asking something to be put on the ballot, that I would favor giving the people an opportunity to vote. Especially if that something was a long-standing law of the state that had been overturned by a handful of judges. And even if it was something I disagreed with. But you’re right, it is hard to be completely objective when you care deeply about an issue.

You should know that some people see right through your post. Your post is not about how democracy has been thwarted. Though well disguised, your post is about your personal judgments. It is about your desire to cherry-pick the mechanisms of democracy that serve your purpose. And that purpose is to permanently write into the lawbooks your religious views about gay people.

But the problem is that there will come a day, sooner than you’d like, when the majority of people will support gay rights. And then I wonder what part of the democratic system you might be protesting?

If you are to be seen as having any consistent principles, you must at least be honest with your readers as to what you are really protesting. I’ll give you a hint….its not democracy you have the problem with, dear friend.

The Massachusetts Legislature has been notorious for bypassing the will of the people. This is another example of how power brokers force their will on the population. My sincerest condolances for the 170,000 persons that signed that petition. Now if they are really upset by this, they need to vote those who voted for the ban out of office. Democracy works for the people also.

All great points once again. I am glad for the checks and balances in the constitution and would agree that the due process of the law was followed here.

I am still bothered that a law was basically put on the books by four judges and then after an overwhelming number of citizens petitioned for the opportunity to vote on the law that the legislature turned them down.

If the situation were reversed, and four judges had enforced the marriage amendment and 170,000 people petitioned for the opportunity to vote on a law making gay marriage legal, would I view it the same way? I would like to think so, but it is hard to be objective in politics, and I will admit that I certainly have a horse in the race.

Thanks for a respectful conversation on what is definitely a hot-button issue.

If the framers of the state constitution wanted the people to vote on every petition then they would not have the legislature vote on it and just bypassed the consideration by the legislature. They put some checks in there to keep certain matters from being voted on by the people, and to make sure that a small number of petitioners could not get something on the ballot that *not even one-fourth* of the legislature thought should be considered.

with respect
Mike

Point well taken – I guess it is all a matter of perspective. I do feel that if the legislature really wanted to represent the people as a whole on this issue, they should have let the people vote.

Thanks for stopping by and commenting!
Ray