Michael Daniel

NYT, p A20 – Romney Pushes Vote on Same-Sex Marriage

11/20/2006

Governor Mitt Romney of Massachusetts will ask the Massachusetts high court to

hold a public referendum on same sex marriage. The Massachusetts legislature was

given a petition to ban same sex marriage that was signed by 170,000 citizens. The

legislature refused to vote on the bill. Governor Romney says that the legislature’s

inaction on the bill is unconstitutional and therefore the state high court needs to set it up

as a public referendum. Defenders of gay marriage said that it is unconstitutional to

threaten the rights of a minority with a, “popularity contest.”

Governor Romney said that the inaction of the legislature changed the

government of Massachusetts into a tyranny. He defined tyranny as, “the imposition of

the will of those in power on the people.” His argument is false because the inaction of

the legislature did not create a new government. People were not replaced in

government. The constitution still stands. Elected officials are still answerable to their

constituents. His definition of tyranny is also wrong. Aristotle defined tyranny as, “a

kind of monarchy which has in view the interests of the monarch only.” If he meant that

the legislature had only their own interests in mind when they decided to not vote then he

might have done better to use the term ‘oligarchy’ or ‘aristocracy’. Government

imposing their will upon their people is not unique to tyranny. All forms of government

impose their will upon their people. The definition of ‘tyranny’ is a fine point, though,

since we see that the larger argument that contains it is false.

 Same sex marriage should remain legal in Massachusetts. I agree with what

defenders of same sex marriage are trying to do, even if their wording is inaccurate.

They referred to a public democratic referendum as a, “popularity contest.” A public

referendum is a valid way to pass a bill. Granted, it is also a way to bypass the

legislature, which is somewhat problematic. Why should the people pay the legislature to

vote on bills if the people have to vote on bills themselves when divisive bills like this

come up? The legislature should have done their job and voted the bill down instead of

stalling it in committee.

Same sex marriage is a way for conservatives in America to rally their base and

generate talking points for speeches. In some circles these talking points are referred to

as ‘political capital’. It is unfortunate that conservatives are using the denial of rights to

an already disadvantaged minority in order to gain power. It’s too bad that religious

conservatives who would vote for this bill are not ethical enough to vote it down. To me

this is an example of the distinction between religiosity and ethics.

The confusing part of this for me is that we just had an election. This kind of

stunt usually happens right before an election, not right after one. Then again, Governor

Romney is considering running for president. He might be cleaning house before his

national campaign. I also don’t understand how the conservatives are so good at

campaigning. I’m a democrat. With the exception of the most recent election we aren’t

generally known for being good at campaigning. This might be a way to rally the base to

get them fired up so that they can start complaining about the new Democratic party

controlled congress and senate. Democrats don’t normally campaign like that but maybe

Republicans do.