To vote, or not to vote: The People's Republic of Massachusetts

Yesterday, January 2, 2007, lawmakers in Massachusetts voted to allow a proposed amendment to the state constitiution to move forward. It will be on the ballot in 2008. This amendment would ban any further gay marriages in the state, but leave the existing ones alone.

Gay marriage has been legal in Massachusetts since 2003, after the Supreme Judicial Court ruled that it was unconstitutional not to allow it. Opponents of the decision have so far been foiled in their attempts to put the matter to a vote. Even this most recent decision was almost derailed, after the state legislature recessed last fall without voting, then again with a vote to push this vote back to the 2nd, the final day of the session, and again on Tuesday, with Democratic Gov.-elect Deval Patrick urging lawmakers to skip the vote, and again with some back and forth voting on whether or not to reconsider. It finally went through with a vote of 62-134, giving it 12 more votes than the required 50. Supporters and opponents of gay marriage were both gathered outside the Statehouse, waving signs and such.

In addition to the blatant attempts to stiffle the democratic process by the left, I am also intrigued by what some of the gay rights activists outside the Statehouse told reporters. They said that the civil rights of a minority should not be put to a popular vote. What, so democracy is only a good thing if it doesn't conflict with your agenda? The reason activist judges are so popular with the left is because that's the only way they can get anything done. The people of this country don't want liberalism to rule their nation, which is why they almost always vote against it. Liberals know there aren't enough people in this country willing to vote for their warped ideals, so they use activist judges to force feed them to the people. Then, when the people finally demand a vote, the liberals do everything in their power to squash it before it ever gets to the ballots. It has happened here in California with a number of things, from illegal immigration laws to gay marriage.

Liberals don't believe in "majority rules", because they know that the majority isn't liberal. Liberals are elitist. They think that they know better, so it doesn't matter what the rest of the world wants because we're too stupid to know what's good for us. The peons shouldn't get to vote against the liberal garbage because they just simply aren't worthy enough to argue with their betters. That's the only explanation I can come up with, and their behavior to date seems to support it. Liberal politicians seem to think they can do whatever they want, and their money and status will rescue them if they get in trouble. They think they are above the law. When conservative politicians get in trouble their colleagues are often the first to turn them in. All their money and clout suddenly doesn't mean anything, and their base is no longer willing to support them. These are of course generalities, but they have been demonstrated on both sides time and time again.

This elitist mentality can be seen in their attitudes and policies toward the very minorities they claim to be protecting. They believe in things like affirmitive action, amnesty for illegal immigrants, and preferential treatment of "alternate gender lifestyles" because they honestly believe that minorities shouldn't be held to the same standards as the majority. They believe that if they were held to the same standards, they would fail to meet them. They believe that minorities aren't good enough.

Socialism is rule by the elite. Communism is rule by the elite. They placate the people while stripping them of their power. These are the two political models that modern liberalism venerates and tries to emulate. They don't care what the people want, they just want a free pass to do whatever THEY want. The democratic process be damned. And they are more than willing to step on the majority if it gets in their way.