See story:http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/06/14/tight_vote_looms_on_same_sex_marriage/
Once again, the MA legislature has decided that democracy isn’t suitable for the citizens of the state. instead of ALLOWING people to actually have a democratic decision, they want the usual dictatorship of the SOH to prevail.
To all civics teachers; don’t teach that Massachusetts (cradle of the Revolution) is a democracy-it ain’t-its a one-party dictatorship!
QED 
The members of the MA legislature were voted in by its citizens, right? That is democracy, at least as we’ve defined it.
Of course, any vote on matters of this sort could be unconstitutional anyway, with equal protection guaranteed by the US Constitution.
Democracy has little to do with the American Revolution. Even a cursory reading of the Federalist Papers shows how much the Founders disdained democracy and preferred a representative republic. Saying that what Massachussets is doing is somehow against America’s founding ideals is a profound misreading of those ideals.
The founders of the American republic wanted nothing to do with “democracy”, which they (arguably correctly) associated with lawless mob rule.
Except for the slight flaw that no court has ever held that the Equal Protection Clause requires same-sex marriage.
Semantic quibbling aside, I agree with the OP. It’s disgusting that the Massachusetts government won’t let the issue come to a vote. It sounds like the pro-gay-rights people are afraid that the public at large isn’t on their side. But if 150 of 200 legislators oppose the measure, then surely it would fail at the polls. So what are they afraid of? That the Massachusetts legislature might be that badly out of step with its constituency?
Then again, the Connecticut New London case already had me wondering about New England lawmakers.
The craven legislature wanted DESPERATELy to avoid voting on this-but they didn’t want a plebiscite either! So they tried to get the Supreme Court to rule on the question (they refused to). basically MA politicians are corrupt-and they always want to be seen as doing something-this one they really tried to duck!
I personally don’t care about the gay marriage issue-its the astounding trampling of people’s rights that steams me!
Well it shows how much Alexander Hamilton disdained democracy anyway.
The state consititution demands approval (25%) of the state legistlature. If ‘proper’ democracy (as the OP puts it) would have the legislature rubber stamp any initiative put before them, then the requirement wouldn’t be there at all. So what’s wrong with the state legislature looking at the amendment and saying no? That’s how the amendment process has always been. It’s not special in any way.
I think the equal protection arguments in this matter lie in the fact that the state would be taking something away from one class. It’s not so much that equal protection requires same-sex marriage, but the idea that the amendment takes away a right that was once there, but only for a particular class. I believe the amendment as written tries to mitigate an equal protection objection by keeping current, already established same-sex marriages intact.
Basic human rights ought not to be put to a vote. That’s really all there is to it. Some things are more important than democracy (although a legitimately elected legislature refusing to accept a proposed amendment as per the state constitution is still pretty democratic IMHO).
Freedom of speech, religion, freedom from unlawful search and seizurem discrimination, the right to trial, and yes, the right to marry the consenting adult of your choice, these are more important than democracy itself. If one has to resort to anti-democratic means to protect a basic human right, than so be it! Our constitution has limited democracy since day 1 to protect people from the folly of crowds.
To put it bluntly, people who feel that same sex marriage ought to be illegal are simply wrong. They’re either blindly clinging to tradition or are outright bigots. They can go fuck themselves. Whining about how SSM became legal is a dodge, it doesn’t change the fact the SSM is the correct thing to do.
Well, at least you’re consistent. You think it shouldn’t be democratic, and you’re doing your darndest to persuade the undecided to join the opposing camp.
Corrupt or not I hope the MA legislative leaders twist arms to the point of snapping off at the elbow if it means this measure fails. It is disgusting that the married same-sex couples of MA should have to put up with this constant uncertainty about the fates of the legal marriages upon which they rely. I defy anyone who opposes same-sex marriage to point to a single mixed-sex couple in MA whose marriage ended because SSM was made legal. It’s been four years. The sky is still firmly in place over MA, not having fallen when same-sex couples starting marching down the aisle. The religious nutjob assholes need to sit the hell down and shut the hell up, and the moron politicians need to stop catering to lunatics.
The problem with marriage in this country is that from a governmental perspective it is a simple corporate arrangement. We are mixing personal beliefs with legal definitions. The idea that this corrupts the definition of the word marriage makes sense to me, particularly in a society built upon the foundation of the nuclear family.
I think it’s pat to just blow off critics as ‘religious nutjobs’.
In my opinion the government should not sanction marriage at all but should have a system for incorporating into personal partnerships in a makeup of the individual’s choosing. Remove the word ‘marriage’ from the legal status entirely, from both homosexual and heterosexual couples. Make it a domestic partnership issue regardless of who we are talking about and leave marriage, which is in and of itself a religious/cultural institution up to the individual beliefs of the people engaging in it.
Exactly whose rights, and to what, are being trampled here in your opinion, Ralph?
Oh, and look up some stuff about “Mass Resistance” and the dirty tricks they’ve pulled. I won’t do your fucking research for you – if it’s your taking the time to Pit (in MPSIMS! 
) , it’s worth your taking the time to look it up. It’s your own state; shouldn’t be too hard to find.
Worry not. The legislature voted today and defeated the measure 45-151. 50 votes were needed to pass the measure. They didn’t get it; same-sex marriage lives; democracy lives. 
Can’t make it much simpler than that.
Actually, marriage has always been a secular legal arrangement in the Western legal tradition. It’s Holy Matrimony that is the Christian religious ceremony/status, and SSM doesn’t touch this.
Nope it’s a republic and it did the right thing. I hope this issue never comes up in MA again. I really have no need to see my friends’ marriages dissolved.
In that case, what was its purpose when implemented?
Haven’t rights always been voted on? Womens right to vote, slavery, civil rights?