Democrat Supports Suppressing the Minority Vote
The issue is controversial, but I would always assume that Democrats would always champion the rights of the minority to have their voices heard and allow a playing field between both sides. Quite frequently, Democrats would always accuse Republicans of doing those things, but this time, it is a Democrat.
In Massachusetts, there was a proposed state constitutional amendment that would have let voters decide whether to ban gay marriage in the only state that allows it. Now, a constitutional amendment is quite serious and we have scenarios where the state legislature would approve its passage or allow the voters the right to support an amendment proposal. Sometimes the proposal could be quite controversial so the politicians in charge may choose to push it through the government rather than through the people. It is pretty much similar to countries in Europe that were debating on whether to approve the European constitution through the elected governing bodies or a full vote by the voters.
For Massachusetts, the authors of the state constitution made it easier for a proposed constitutional amendment to be placed on the statewide ballot by getting 50 votes in the Legislature. This would ensure that a significant minority can still get a proposal on the ballot despite majority opposition.
In this case, the vote failed. It only got 45 votes. The measure needed at least 50 votes in two consecutive legislative sessions to advance to the ballot. In the first session, it got 62 votes in January. It would seem there was a lot of pressure on the other 17 reps to change their minds.
But it is interesting to note that House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi, a Democrat from Boston, argued that the rights of a minority group should not be put to a popular vote. I am not concerned with the aim of the amendment proposal. I am concerned that in this situation, the Speaker chooses to ignore the vocal minority. If there was a proposal to legalise pot, I am sure the Speaker would approve the measure. If it was to introduce universal health care, he would gladly support the measure. A hypocrite who believes in the constitutional amendment process only if it supports his political agenda.
Perhaps pro-gay marriage advocates were worried that the overall state population was against them. Maybe they were concerned that in a full vote by the state voters, it is a secret ballot and they cannot specifically blame anyone (except for the Democratic Party). Since the state reps will be on record for the proposed amendment, it is their best chance to derail it because they know who to pile the pressure on. If they failed, all they could do was to spend a lot on media advertising, flyers, and rallies, and just hope the voters will follow their way.
Comments
Posted by: Bruce Swedal
Posted on: June 14, 2007 07:28 PM
I hear what your saying and I agree the speaker is being somewhat hypocritical. Democracy is based on every voice being heard. In every case, not just this one, every voice should have a chance to speak whether by voting or by voice.