"It's not men who limit women, it's not
straights who limit gays, it's not whites who limit blacks. What
limits people is lack of character. What limits people is that they
don't have the nerve or imagination to star in their own movie, let
alone direct it." -- Tom Robbins
This week I renew my traditional activist resolution:
to passionately support the initiative petition process, regardless of
whether I agree with a particular petition or not. My first chance to
keep this resolution arrives immediately in the New Year, when once
again the state Constitutional Convention meets for its required vote on
two initiative constitutional amendments.
Citizens opposed to gay marriage and others in favor of universal health
care collected thousands of required signatures on their respective
amendments, which are still awaiting action in the ConCon before the end
of the 2005-2006 session on Jan. 2. Both groups have filed briefs with
the state Supreme Judicial Court, which ruled yesterday that the
Legislature must take an up or down roll call vote on the actual issue
and will be violating the state Constitution if it does not.
Opposition to obeying the Constitution is coming primarily from gay
activists who don't want the gay marriage issue on the ballot because
they lack the nerve and imagination to star in their own ballot campaign
movie. Instead they whine that the initiative petition process shouldn't
apply to their issue, that voters are stupid and/or bigoted, that the
Constitution should protect gay rights but not the rights of petitioners
who have followed the long-standing rules to amend that Constitution.
They insist that gay marriage has, in just a few years, become a sacred
"civil rights" issue that can never be debated again. They argue that
the initiative petition process is undemocratic because only 50
legislators, not a majority, are required to advance an initiative
constitutional amendment onto the ballot.
The reason for this, by the way, is that if a majority of legislators
was required, there'd be no point in having an initiative amendment
process at all, since that legislative majority could put an amendment
on the ballot without anyone having to collect signatures. Petitions are
given an advantage because of all the work required to even get the
Legislature's attention. However, it does of course take a majority of
voters to amend the Constitution once the issue gets to them.
Gay activists imagine this:
Instead of ruling in favor of gay marriage on Nov. 18, 2003, the SJC
ruled that gay marriage is not supported by the Massachusetts
constitution. This is not hard to imagine, since the controversial vote
You decide to amend the constitution to allow gay marriage. You draft
your petition, get it vetted by the attorney general as being
appropriate for a ballot question, spend eight weeks collecting your
required signatures, and finally earn your place on the ConCon agenda.
You lobby legislators and find at least 50 who support you, so you
prepare for your required vote. However, key legislative leaders, and a
majority of legislators, are opposed to gay marriage. So they just don't
bring it up for a vote.
When you complain you are told that since some element of the populace
thinks that gay marriage is a sin, the initiative petition process does
not apply to you. So it's over; you don't get a chance to make your case
to the voters, you remain unmarried.
If that had happened to you, I would have been right out there with you,
insisting that you were entitled to that vote; if asked, I would sign on
to your lawsuit as I have the health care lawsuit. We would argue
together that if legislators continue to ignore you, in violation of
their oath of office to uphold the Constitution, the SJC should move
your petition forward, over and around them.
Then there would be a ballot campaign, a chance for you to make your
case -- as there may be anyhow if anti-gay marriage petitioners
For the sake of my own gay friends and family, who have made such
progress, I'll give you some free advice. Gays are winning this debate
with the population. You can all act like grown-ups now and make your
case, and win by getting support not only from social liberals but from
many divorced heterosexuals like me who feel a tad hypocritical arguing
for "family values."
Instead, many of you remain in pathetic loser mode, clinging to old
pain, refusing to trust your ability to convince voters because, well,
I'm no psychiatrist, but you certainly give the impression that you
don't have much self-confidence in the rightness of your position. Too
bad. Makes some people who have begun leaning your way wonder what is
wrong with you that maybe society shouldn't encourage by calling your
civil union "marriage."
Gay activists: it's not too late to develop some character, some nerve
and imagination, some respect for the Constitution and state's voters.
If you do, maybe those voters will also respect you.
Barbara Anderson is executive director of Citizens
for Limited Taxation. Her column appears weekly in the Salem News and
Eagle Tribune, and often in the Newburyport Times, Gloucester Times, and
Lowell Sun; bi-weekly in the Tinytown Gazette; and occasionally in the
Providence (RI) Journal and other newspapers.