Strategic Error, even though it worked

Today the Massachusetts legislature rejected a second vote on putting the issue of gay marriage on the ballot in 2008. Under the thankfully difficult procedure for putting constitutional amendments on the ballot in Mass., at least one quarter of the legislature must vote in support of the measure at two separate "constitutional convention" votes. (Because it is so difficult and takes several years to complete the process of getting a ballot measure approved, there are rarely dumb or politically manipulative constitutional questions on Massachusetts ballots.) The measure passed the first time around with 62 of 200 votes, and this second time after intense lobbying from Governor Deval Patrick and the Senate President and House Speaker, it failed with just 45 out of 200 votes.

I think this was a mistake, even though I support gay marriage and oppose efforts to outlaw it in my former home state. It smacks of being afraid to let the people have a say on an issue of clear importance to them. It says to the public "we think you might make a mistake if you have the right to vote on this, so we're not going to let you. We're going to decide for you because we know best." That is not a message that Massachusetts voters will easily swallow. You see all those green signs in that picture up there of today's protests outside the State House? They don't say "Ban gay marriage," or "it's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve." They say "LET THE PEOPLE VOTE."

I had faith in my old state to get it right and reject a push to constitutionally ban same sex marriage. Gays have been able to marry in the state for over three years now, and for all but the rabid few, it had practically become a non-issue. The world didn't end, and in fact short of occasionally seeing announcements featuring two men or two women in the paper, or seeing a gay couple taking wedding photos in the Public Garden, I doubt it even entered the daily conscience of most Massachusetts residents at all. I think if Arizona is smart enough to reject a constitutional ban on same sex marriage, surely deep blue Massachusetts would have too.

Perhaps those who spearheaded this procedural maneuver wanted to spare the state's gays and lesbians the torment that would accompany being under public relations attack for the next year until the vote would be held. I can understand that way of thinking. But at the same time, I think of the tremendous sense of acceptance, not just tolerance, that those same people would have felt if their state had rejected small-minded bigotry forever with a decisive defeat of the measure. And now, instead, the comeback of every single person opposed to gay marriage in the state will be that they weren't even given a chance to make their voice heard.

If the state's Democratic leadership isn't careful, this could come back to bite them. Massachusetts voters are headstrong and may very well reject their current legislators at the next opportunity due solely to this vote. They may have given the dwindling Republican minority in the state a wedge issue to get a foot back in the door. If so, it will have been a costly strategic error that only delayed the inevitable in this vote. There are ways of resurrecting the measure, and with a more moderate or even conservative legislature it will almost certainly pass considering how close it came on this try.

Sometimes, not always but sometimes, democracy works if you let it. I think it would have here, but now we may never know.