Deval Patrick: SJC Smarter Than Massachusetts Voters
by Matt Margolis, July 6th, 2006 at 08:27am
This morning I caught the beginning of Deval Patrick’s interview on WRKO with Scott Allen Miller. I didn’t get to hear much, but what I did hear was very illuminating.
When Scott Allen Miller asked Patrick about gay marriage and why the people shouldn’t vote on it, his answer was pretty typical, and also quite insulting. In a nutshell, he says that he felt that the SJC “got it right,” and that the “sky hasn’t fallen” and it’s time to “move on” to more important issues.
It is certainly easy to say that when a court makes a ruling to your liking that you’d say they “got it right.” Democrats treat Roe v. Wade like divine rule, but the Bush v. Gore decision is by no means treated equally. Of course, this kind of thing happens on both sides, but if Deval Patrick thinks the SJC ruling on gay marriage accurately reflects the values of Massachusetts he should welcome a vote by the people on it.
Deval Patrick may agree with the SJC’s ruling on gay marriage, but that does not change the fact that it was not their place to do anything about it. The people have the right to vote on marriage and declare what our values are.
Patrick’s position keeps him in good standing with the gay interest groups he will rely on for support in the primaries, it has little to do with the SJC “getting it right.” Go ahead Deval, court those gay interest groups, but the rest of Massachusetts would like to have a say on the issue of gay marriage.
Entry Filed under: Gay Marriage
6 Comments
1. Silence Dogood | July 6th, 2006 at 6:27 pm
The SJC getting it right has nothing to do with the values of Massachusetts. Our state Constitution permitted an interpretation that equal rights mean exactly that and the state cannot discrinimate against a group based on sexual orientation.
Nor do the people of Massachusetts have a right to do anything at all. There is no right in the State Constitution that requires the definition of marriage to be a public referendum. The people have done all they are allowed to do by right. They petitioned the government for redress of their greviences, the petition was certified regardless of its fraudulent procurment, and now it is in the provence of the legislature.
That is the guidelines created by our Constitution. If people want to vote their “values” get out anti-equality candidates in November and get them elected but until then you have no other rights…
2. John Jeffries | July 6th, 2006 at 11:17 pm
Silence Dogood is absolutely wrong. Period.
3. EaBo Clipper | July 7th, 2006 at 9:18 am
The state constitution is pretty clear.
A) The General Court passes the laws
B) The Governor signs and enforces the laws (or vetoes)
C) The Supreme Judicial Court Applies the law to specific cases. It does not make law.
Pretty simple.
4. Knightbrigade | July 7th, 2006 at 2:14 pm
One thing dogood is VERY correct about,
“If people want to vote their “values” get out anti-equality candidates in November and get them elected but until then you have no other rights…”
We are a reflection of the asshats we have elected. If majority does rule, then lets show it with removing the clowns in office, and we won’t have to worry about getting things on ballots as much. Unless we can remove them at all levels, Mass. is doomed to be the laughing stock of the country.
Sadly, I think its a done deal, and we can only contain it in this shining blue state.
5. Soom Primal | July 10th, 2006 at 10:33 am
It Doesn’t Matter What the Values of the State Are: The actual point of the SJC is to rule in favor of the Constitution of this Commonwealth, and that sometimes means that they must rule against bigoted and unequal policies, whether or not that is compatable with the “values” or not. The SJC was right, and the majority should never be allowed to vote on the rights of a minority group.
6. JML | July 11th, 2006 at 8:14 pm
“The people have the right to vote on marriage and declare what our values are.” By this reasoning, a white majority has the right to vote that a non-white minority can be legally discriminated against. That idea died 40 years ago; why is this different?