Then I would say that you fail to understand the notion of actual democracy; the idea that the people set the rules for governing themselves. I grant you that it is a tough notion to accept; many countries reject it in favour of, say, "God tells us the rules" or "This small group over here tells us the rules" or "This unchanging document tells us the rules" (to name a few other methods).
Right now, the Commonweal of Massachusetts has a document that sets the basic rules by which all (state) laws should be judged. If the two are in conflict, the document always wins. :-) Under the latest court interpretation of that document, same-sex marriage is legal for residents (the matter of that pesky 1917 (?) law forbidding non-residents from marrying here under certain circumstances isn't relevant) and so it is. But the document isn't "unchanging" and this is exactly how tough social questions should be decided; if it is controversial or important enough, it comes before the people who "speak" their will.
To say that the people shouldn't be consulted about something like this is rather arrogant in my opinion. If you really believe you know "better" than the (2/3?) majority of the citizens of Massachusetts and therefore there is no need to see how they think, I'd say that goes beyond arrogant.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
momijizukamori
no subject
Date: 2007-06-15 06:07 pm (UTC)Right now, the Commonweal of Massachusetts has a document that sets the basic rules by which all (state) laws should be judged. If the two are in conflict, the document always wins. :-) Under the latest court interpretation of that document, same-sex marriage is legal for residents (the matter of that pesky 1917 (?) law forbidding non-residents from marrying here under certain circumstances isn't relevant) and so it is. But the document isn't "unchanging" and this is exactly how tough social questions should be decided; if it is controversial or important enough, it comes before the people who "speak" their will.
To say that the people shouldn't be consulted about something like this is rather arrogant in my opinion. If you really believe you know "better" than the (2/3?) majority of the citizens of Massachusetts and therefore there is no need to see how they think, I'd say that goes beyond arrogant.