making a difference

[totient]

A week and change ago, I spent three hours in MassEquality's headquarters calling residents of Angelo Puppolo's district in Springfield to ask them to call up his office and leave him voicemail saying they support equal marriage and asking him to vote no in constitutional convention. Eighteen people told me that they would, and I left messages on dozens of answering machines. I'd like to thank those eighteen people: Puppolo changed his vote and joined 150 other legislators in voting down the anti-gay-marriage amendment today. And I'd also like to thank the random guy on the street who found me outside the Diesel and convinced me to go make phone calls, and the eight or ten other people making phone calls that night, and the dozens of volunteers on other nights, and all the Mass Equality donors who paid for the calls. I don't have any of your names, and that's just fine, but I appreciate you all anyway.

Comments

[etherial.livejournal.com]

I understand the desire to only bother "the people as a whole" for amendments that are important.

If that were the criterion, I would have voted "Yes". But more important are whether or not it has a chance of passing and whether or not it enhances our freedoms or protects or rights. This meets none of these criteria.

[dda.livejournal.com]

But more important are whether or not it has a chance of passing and whether or not it enhances our freedoms or protects o[u]r rights. This meets none of these criteria.

I don't think those are criteria that should be considered by the legislature; it's not up to them to "protect" me from things like this. If, to use an absurd example, 95% of the Commonweal felt same-sex marriage should be banned, it is not their reps' job to say, "No, sorry, we know better and won't give you a chance to vote on this one."; in fact, it is explicitly not their job. If that is what's going on, if the legislature doesn't trust the people to vote the "correct" way, I hope said legislature gets the boot the next election.

If you feel it has no chance of passing and, thus, would be a waste of people's time, I go back to my statement about it being important. To have the a referendum vote say, "We, the people of Massachusetts, overwhelmingly say that same-sex marriage should be legal here" is much more powerful than, "We got our legislature to block attempts to get this on the ballot."

[etherial.livejournal.com]

And if we object to the very notion that it be on the ballot in the first place?

[dda.livejournal.com]

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.

[etherial.livejournal.com]

Fortunately, we don't live in a Democracy, we live in a Republic. This means that the Tyranny of the Majority is thwarted by checks and balances, notably the representational system of electing legislators. The existence of a constitution at all is a check against democracy.

If you really believe you know "better" than the (2/3?) majority of the citizens

Which 2/3 are you referring to?

[dda.livejournal.com]

Fortunately, we don't live in a Democracy, we live in a Republic.

I seem to recall a Republic is a "representative democracy"; it is still a democracy but the people no longer vote directly; the "checks and balances" built into our system have little to do with elected legislators (witness the Republican Congress, House and President) as they have to do with the distribution of power between the branches of government. That is why it is necessary to change the State Constitution to change the status of same-sex marriage here; the Legislative branch cannot directly overrule the Judicial.

The so-called "Tyranny of the Majority" isn't prevented here; neither is the Tyranny of the Minority; the balance between those comes from the specific Constitution in place. Prohibition was clearly the Majority inflicting its belief on everyone; nothing prevented it.

Which 2/3 are you referring to?

I was under the impression that to amend the state Constitution required a 2/3 majority vote on a referendum but I could be wrong (hence the question mark). The idea is that changing the Constitution is important enough that it requires more than a majority, it requires an overwhelming one (for some definition of overwhelming).

re: 2/3

[etherial.livejournal.com]

No, that's a Federal Constitutional Amendment. Massachusetts requires Simple Majority.

http://www.mass.gov/legis/const.htm
Article XLVIII, Section 4.

Re: 2/3

[etherial.livejournal.com]

Part IV, Section 5.

re: Prohibition

[etherial.livejournal.com]

Funny that you'd cite the one Constitutional Amendment that was wholly and bodily repealed as evidence for how the Majority can still be Tyrannical.

Re: Prohibition

[dda.livejournal.com]

That's the point; the Majority was pretty Tyrannical and inflicted Prohibition onto everyone until a later Majority got Tyrannical and repealed it. The majority is still being tyrannical as far as Presidential term limits; there were plenty of people who felt that Bill Clinton should have been able to run again just as there are plenty of people who feel George W. Bush should be able to run again; both are subject to the Tyranny of the Majority.

And thanks for the info on amending the State Constitution; I get confused because, let's face it, how often are either one changed?

Re: term limits

[etherial.livejournal.com]

I'm ambivalent about them myself, but I think there are legitimate non-tyrannical reasons for term limits.

Re: term limits

[dda.livejournal.com]

I think there are also Unintended Consequences to them, as there are with most things; I haven't thought about term limits enough to decide my opinion.

I would also say that whether or not one thinks something is Tyrannical has a lot to do with whether or not one agrees with it; one person's "Tyranny of the Majority" is another's "The Way Things Ought To Be."