Beacon Hill Prepares to Sidestep

The voter initiative on same-sex marriage comes front and center in today’s Globe with the lead local story and the lead editorial on the topic.

Get ready for a politician-like sidestep on Beacon Hill, even if that step requires walking over the Constitution. The Senate President now says he will accept motions to adjourn the constitutional convention without taking a vote on the initiative petition. The Governor did not explicitly threaten to call back the Legislature if they fail to vote, but did say in a statement:

“failure to vote is a violation of the oath of office we all take to uphold the constitution.”

Exactly the point. Choosing its words in a Clintonian manner, the Globe Editorial page now hedges its former stand that a vote should be taken:

Legislators need not fear the wrath of their constituents if they move against advancing the gay marriage ban to the ballot.

Note that the editorial now uses the term “move against” advancing the petition rather than “vote against” it. This will give them a fig leaf to claim consistency, which is not the forte of the Globe’s editorial cloister. Earlier this year when consideration of the initiative was postponed until after the election the same editorialists wrote:

Still, delay is far better than killing the proposal by refusing to take it up, or by other legislative trickery.

I doubt they will say the same thing if “legislative trickery” prevails today. Worse still is the Globe’s whine about the social cost of this constitutional process:

Unfortunately, anyone who has followed the ballot questions to ban gay marriage in other states has a foreboding of what can be expected here: costly, manipulative TV ads; relentless talk show vitriol; a painful divide between neighbors and within families; a coarsening of the public debate. This isn't the kind of state we believe most voters want Massachusetts to be.

Horrors! Is this the kind of state we want to be, a constitutional democracy? Maybe we should just let the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court have all powers (if duly advised by the Globe editors, of course). Indeed the Globe has little taste for the democratic process, save when the results are to their liking, as they were last Tuesday. Churchill said that democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others. The Globe forgets his exception. Even worse than the Globe is the childish whine of gay lobbyist Arline Isaacson:

“In democracy, a majority is supposed to rule,” Isaacson said. “We have a majority on our side; that should suffice. But it doesn't in this circumstance.”

Her complaint is with the Constitution, then, which specifies this process? This sounds much like the whine of a middle school child, but the Globe compliantly prints it and does not ask a follow-up question.

The Massachusetts Constitution is about to take a hit, but since for a few more weeks we have a Republican governor (and because it is in his political interest to push this point) the question may yet come to a vote.