Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Are you a process liberal? Take this quiz and find out!

By

1.  A police office observes a small group of people taunting an individual with epithets implying that he may be gay.  There is a nightspot nearby which is welcoming to people of alternate sexualities which he presumably exited.  Do you…

A — Ignore the situation, because he deserves it if he’s openly gay, or

B — Intervene, check the man’s safety, and ensure that the would-be toughs move along.

2.  You are a judge, hearing a case of an employee termination.  The employee wants to be reinstated in his position with damages.  He has offered clear evidence that he was fired by his boss because he is openly gay.  Do you…

A — Do everything within your power to tilt the trial toward the defendant, because nobody has a right to be openly gay on the job, or

B — Run a fair trial, instructing the jury that termination based on sexual orientation is illegal.

3. (Final one, but a toughie!)  You’re a town clerk, and two women have come in to apply for a marriage license.  Do you…

A — Deny them the license, because your religious beliefs do not allow for same-sex marriage, or

B — Grant them a marriage license according with Massachusetts Law.

Scoring:

  • 3 Bs.  I’m sad to say that you are a process liberal, valuing the rule of law above individual political and religious beliefs.  You apparently believe that public servants are bound to obey the law, even when decided by the courts. All of which means you may no longer be invited to many cool parties.

  • 3 As.  Congratulations!  You’re an aspiring autocrat who believes that a sincere rationalization trumps enforcing the law.  Possible travel destinations include Turkmenistan, Thailand, or Uganda.

  • Mix of As and Bs.  You are a nuanced thinker, who doesn’t think that the phrase “consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds” isn’t just a trite, overused phrase, but it’s a way of life.  Logic and politics do not mix.  You are a columnist for The New Republic, or at least should apply.

    Final bonus question:  Two events dominated Deval Patrick’s schedule on Jan. 2, 2007.  One was a rushed series of meetings and a statement urging legislators to back marriage equality.  The other was a church service with prominent African-American clerics which included many of the most prominent opponents of marriage equality in the state.  Does this confluence suggest that Deval… (Answer in poll)

    Please share widely!
    fb-share-icon
    Tweet
    0

Comments

  1. I’ve been reading about the dread “PL’s” and wondered what the deal is, so thanks…

    <

    p>
    But how am I going to cope with being both an SP and an PL?!?!?!

    • because she is the only person i know who actually memorized all the Myers-Briggs Test acronyms and abbreviations and could have an intelligent discussion with a person about it.  after  you take the test and find out what “MB types” you are, you can then ponder what the results mean for your life and for the life of those around you.  my dear old mum has fun doing this, all without charging a bunndle! đŸ™‚  perhaps i could invite her to co-facilitate some group sessions from NC with sabutai here on BMG…

      <

      p>
      i used the google and came up with these links for those of you who want to know more…
      http://personalityde…

      <

      p>
      this other site combines Jung with MyersBriggs and seems to have a lot about marriage related concerns
      http://www.humanmetr…

      <

      p>
      p.s. i must be revealing my type by talking about me mum so much…

      • INTJs are very analytical individuals. Like INTPs, they are more comfortable working alone than with other people, and are not usually very sociable, although they are prepared to take the lead if nobody else is up to the task, or they see a large weakness in the current leadership. They tend to be very practical and logical individuals with a strong individualistic streak and a low tolerance for political correctness, spin or rampant emotionalism.

        <

        p>
        I have totally refrained from this discussion based on previous chastisement from management, and this low tolerance problem I have….

  3. The problem with process liberals is not that they want to follow the process even if harm may come of that process.  The problem with them is that they are living in a fantasy world where they imagine that our opponents will also abide by the “process” no matter what the costs.

    <

    p>
    Unfortunately, as we saw yesterday that was not the case.  What the PL’s advocated was disarming in the hopes that our wonderful lofty example would force all those nasty hypocritical legislators to see the error of their ways.

    <

    p>
    Liberals have lived in the lala land for far to long, and thankfully on a national level they now seem to be getting it.  We win when we fight using all means at our disposal.  We do not win by being nice and waiting for the favor to be returned.  It won’t be returned; you’ll just end up laying on the sidewalk looking at your teeth and wondering how come they are no longer in your mouth but are now sitting in the street covered with blood.

    <

    p>
    The harm in following the PL’s is that they are not dealing with reality.  They are dealing with reality as they would like it to be.

    <

    p>
    Welcome back to the real world guys.

    • This Process Liberal stuff is a bunch of crap!  Is the concept about “Rule of Law” simply a process?  When a society fights corruption with even more corruption, then no one has any protections. 

      <

      p>
      Your arguement is actually being made on the national level (do you think the new Democratic majority “gets it” so much that they’ll be voting in favor of gay marriage?).  The neocons are attacking those of us demanding “process” as you call it when we attack wire tapping and jailing of people who have never been charged.

      <

      p>
      And you attack this position?  Damn what an SJC ruling says…it’s only process.  Damn a few wire taps, it’s only process.  In the long run, it will be members of minority groups that will suffer, when “process”, i.e., the Rule of Law loses out to your doctrine of “using all means at our disposal”. 

      • We should have physically prevented the Legislature from entering the State House!  To the barricades — Down with process!

      • …had the vote not taken place. There shouldn’t have been a fucking quorum if that’s what was needed to win.

        <

        p>
        There were procedural tactics available, tactics not used so that people can continue to fantasize that they are at some polite dinner party.

        <

        p>
        No, not any means would have justified the ends.  I certainly wouldn’t have advocated anything criminal.

        <

        p>
        And I see that on a national level they are getting it.  Both in tone and substance.  You think Speaker Pelosi is going to be all nice n polite to the GOP minority?  I don’t.

        <

        p>
        Anyway, all the commenters here who warned all week that the favor would not be returned were proven right.  I must say I am a little surprised at the naievity of those who thought otherwise.  I was under the illusion that seasoned Beacon Hill observers would know better.

        • Do you honestly think that if the Legislature used some procedural tactic to kill the anti-marriage amendment, that it would disappear forever? If that had been the case, guess how this gets covered? The process that you care so little about would be on the tounges of every political reporter, and it would anger alot of people who would otherwise be on our side.

          <

          p>
          This is a twelve round fight, and if you ever thought that this would all be over forever if the Legislature killed this without a vote, then you are the one who is naĂ¯ve. Was I disappointed by todays result? Of course I was. But the truth is, we’ve been ahead for alot of this fight. So today didn’t go our way, stop crying about it, buck up and get ready for the next round.

      • I don’t think anyone is advocating the anarchist — or authoritarian — position of an absence of process.

        <

        p>
        Observe, though, that the Republicans have gotten into no trouble at all for

        • Stifling the Democratic minority in the House
        • Threatening to abolish the filibuster
        • Supporting the Administration’s signing memos
        • Supporting the Administration’s widespread use of torture
        • Supporting the Administration’s disobeying FISA

        Television coverage of all this stuff is like a sporting event: trying to figure out what helps which side “win” rather than covering the issues on their merits. Not surprisingly, TV coverage tends to say all these things favor the Rethuglicans.

        <

        p>
        While we really want the American people to understand and support our/their Constitution, they clearly are uninterested.

          • It wasn’t because the mainstream voters give a crap about Republican abuses of process. They didn’t like what the Republicans were–or weren’t–getting done with their total control.

          • There are issues that the Republicans got in trouble on and issues that gave them no trouble. To take an issue of substance, the dangerous and idiotic green light to India’s nuclear program got no Republican in trouble anywhere, but it was a deeply destabilizing move as we depend on Pakistan not to export nuclear technology and not to support a Taliban takeover of Afghanistan. As for process, there were lots of polls on the FISA stuff and it is not clear that the public even understood what the issue was — never mind hated the Republicans for it. In fact, the Republicans were constantly offering the false choice of civil rights + terrorist attacks, or abridged civil rights + security. Apparently, in 2004, there were a lot of people who thought abridged civil rights were enough.

            <

            p>
            The Administration has screwed up in a big time, especially on Iraq, but they and their Congressional Republicans were giving us bad process almost from the beginning. Lying about the fiscal effect of private accounts anyone?

            • I agree completely with HeartLand Dem. The Reps. lost the last election in part because they were seen as not respectful of the rule of law and the process, as well as the substance, of our democratic system.

              • The rule-of-law stuff, when it appeared in the media, appeared with a heavily pro-Republican slant. None of the opinion polling showed this broke through. The corruption stuff did break through, but not to the degree of Iraq.

                <

                p>
                Meta comment follows:

                <

                p>
                You seem to going around sprinkling agrees and disagrees, “you won”, “he lost”. This is playground stuff, though, not advancing our understanding. If you “agree completely” with Heartland Dem, how might you convince those who “agree completely” with Britain333 or with me?

                <

                p>
                Bob, please, say something. Don’t let your awesome Moderator Powers get to your head.

    • We win when we fight using all means at our disposal.  We do not win by being nice and waiting for the favor to be returned.  It won’t be returned; you’ll just end up laying on the sidewalk looking at your teeth and wondering how come they are no longer in your mouth but are now sitting in the street covered with blood.

      <

      p>
      What page of the Carl Rove/Dick Cheney play book is that?

      <

      p>
      Get a grip, man!  No one wins by becoming the problem.  We have work to do and that job is to make sure the vote in 2008 or 2010 freakin’ wins.  Plan A, swing as many legislators as possible, Plan B, grow support for equal marriage so that if/when it is on the ballot, the Commonwealth proudly votes to support equal marriage. The polls are showing support growing.  “Oh, but behind the curtain people will vote bigotry” and all that rot.  Same was said for Deval. 

      <

      p>
      Patrick’s campaign shook me out of the cynicism (see above in italics) that had not only tainted me but toxically brainwashed much of the American public.  One year and 9 months ago when I met Deval I didn’t think he had an icecubes chance in hell.  My wrong.

      <

      p>
      When he did not get in the gutter with Healey and rammed the election down their throats, I witnessed victory with the force of dignity.  That is the force that is needed on marriage equality. Let’s get on board and row in the same direction.

      • I remain deeply moved and amazed that Patrick and his campaign won in the manner they/we did.

        <

        p>
        I think it depended on Patrick’s connection with voters and the organization that was behind him. Healey was a very weak candidate. Patrick also sank a huge amount of time into his race for governor. The country is not so full of gifted Liberals with so much time on their hands — unless you come from a much nicer Heartland than I could imagine.

        <

        p>
        *

        <

        p>
        The converse has been the problem. Kerry attempted to “rise above” the Swift Boat attacks. A disasterous response. It led too many to conclude, “If he can’t defend himself, he won’t defend us.” He responded too late. On the other hand, Clinton’s 1992 campaign distinguished itself by its quick-footed counterattacks.

        <

        p>
        I really wish we lived in a country where the sweet success Deval Patrick represented could be replicated everywhere.

        <

        p>
        We don’t.

    • This is a very important debate and I notice many of the responses potroast has gotten oversimplify it in unhelpful ways. As Liberals, we love means but we all too easily forget the grave importance of ends. To my mind, getting absolutist about ends and means is blinkered.

      <

      p>
      Could I remind everyone of global warming for just a moment? If Greenland’s ice sinks into the sea, we lose a big chunk of Eastern Massachusetts. With the loss of those coastal towns, we may realize that fretting about process was maybe less important than winning. Even if Antacrtica’s and Greenland’s ice stay out of the sea and the Arctic sea doesn’t lose its icy top, we risk having enough climate change to endanger a number of ecological systems. I beg you to think about this seriously.

      <

      p>
      Or consider please the current Administration’s misguided efforts at enraging Muslims — friendly and otherwise — in every possible manner from greenlighting India’s nuclear ambitions to not caring about prison abuses in Iraq or Cuba. These are extremely dangerous policies.

      <

      p>
      Or think of the huge amount of money Scaife et al. sank into undermining Clinton’s character and the millions spent by Ken Starr. Think of the relentless exaggeration and manufacture of Al Gore’s faults. National Republicans have proved relentless, with a willingness to disregard truth in order to win.

      <

      p>
      Politics has, in short, become a much more hostile environment than the halcyon days of 1990. Simultaneously the stakes have risen considerably. It is hard for me to say that we shouldn’t fight fair. That runs against my temperment and values. But for everyone’s sake, we Liberals are not winning enough. We should not be flip about potroast’s point.

      • With respect, the point is that relying on the whims of a small group of legislators to keep this issue off the ballot year after year, while simultaneously becoming identified as a group that disdains the Constitution and the rule of law, is a sure route to political suicide, backlash, and an eventual thrashing at the polls. It is the  essence of short-term as opposed to long-term strategy. The point is to roll up one’s sleeves and win within the law. That is what Deval Patrick did. That is what Democrats did in 2006. That is the only way to ensure marriage equality in Massachusetts.

        • Bob you are making two assertions:

          1. Relying on legislative shennanigans will backfire
          2. Democrats can win by playing fair.

          I just don’t see the first point at all. I don’t think most voters track these process problems. They’ll remember the substance, possibly. Moreover, it is very difficult for voters to change the Legislature on this stuff. Think of hard it was to wrest the gavel from Finneran. I doubt we’d ever see a campaign to unseat legislators based on ConCon maneuvers. There would only be a backlash if there was a big change of heart on equal marriage.

          <

          p>
          I don’t know about you, but I thought the 2006 election happened while the President was finally caught in his lies about Iraq after the Katrina disaster proved he was prone to lying about how well things are going and how competent he and his Administration were. One might almost say that the Democrats did not so much win this election as not lose it.

          <

          p>
          By the way, remind me why Texas is gerrymandered Republican but Illinois is not gerrymandered Democratic.  Remind me too why almost every voting problem favors Republicans.

          <

          p>
          Your second point, therefore, is not a given.

          • …except to get rid of GOP Carol Cleven?  Especially now that the Chief Redistricter has pled guilty to Obstruction of Justice?  BTW – Mistah Speakah NEVER relinquished the gavel – he quit, due in no small part to the 131 GOP candidates which had been fielded, and who were delivering a concerted message that Finneran must go.  Left in October, asying, Hey! My buddy Sal DiMasi, he’s a NICE guy, NOW you can reelect those Democrat hacks in the November election!  I’m gone, mission accomplished!  Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!

            <

            p>
            KB – It fascinates me that as you stand knee deep in the Manure of a 90% Democrat majority, with no GOP oversight now in the agencies and executive, reelected in 2006, you plead that our MASSACHUSETTS problems, which have no Federal dimension (other than violation of 14th amendment rights, but who’s counting) are the fault of George Bush and Katrina.

            <

            p>
            We have State – We have Federal.  Stop impugning one to defend the other.

            • Carol Cleven was targeted by Finneran, but so were Democrats in Newton, and Marty Meehan’s district was carved up in Finneran’s first plan. You can’t even pretend his interest was partisan. He was equal opportunity in whom he opposed.

            • By the way, Mr. Porcupine, I never, as a matter of principle, downrate a comment I reply to. I suppose if you wanted to be more emphatic you could have held the caps lock down even longer.

              <

              p>
              As for manure: I’m much happier in the sweet manure of a 90% Democratic majority in Massachuesetts than any kind of Republican majority in Texas, Kansas, or South Carolina. Do you prefer the stinky swamp of privitization and campaign contributions the Florida Republicans have brewed up? That con game dwarfs anything our hackocrats have accomplished.

              <

              p>
              Moreover, in terms of proportion, the difference between swinging an election in 2000 (FL) and attempting to do so in 2004 (OH) and whether we have one fewer Republican in an overwhelmingly Democratic legislature is certainly to compare Saturn to a satin pillow. I am not so stupid as to believe that only Republicans cheat.

              <

              p>
              But on one level, I agree with you. Finneran was a bad deal and many Democrats in our legislature are no good and up to no good. I’d be happy to see them go and make them go. Your strategy is to revive the GOP on lovely old Ripon Society principles.  Good luck to you. I’m not helping. I’m not even convinced that it’s possible. Even following the links on your own site, I quickly land at pro-Confederacy sites. We may have Democrats that are no good; you guys have Republicans that are worse than no good.  I don’t understand your hopefulness.

              <

              p>
              Instead of playing Don Quixote and the Republicans, I would prefer to see stronger progressive organizations across the state so we no longer have any Finnerans, Finneran-wanna-bes, or quasi-Finnerans. Transparency in government is a first and important step. Citizen activity another.

              • …please tell me again that FL dwarfs the Mass. Lege in schemes to extract money from the electorate.  Or pay your excise tax.  Or your income tax.  Or your inheritance tax (ever wonder WHY Mass. seniors take up legal residence in Florida?)

                <

                p>
                You are simply refusing our mantle of Supremacy in Corruption.  Like, say, a legislature which votes down a budget amendment to give the Executive legal oversight of the Big Dig, or a Senator who amends the budgt to pack the Turnpike Board to protect a fellow former collegue.. Of course, the first words out of Deval’s mouth when the existing board voted to take down the tolls was to proceed with said-board packing scheme.  Such a CLEAN outsider.

        • the whims of a small group of legislators to keep this issue off the ballot year after year

          <

          p>
          actually a 2/3 majority voted for the pro-Jim Crow amendment.  That’s not a small group.  Or am I misinterpreting your comment?

            • The required standard, as we know, is 50 votes, thus those who didn’t want to follow the law (as defined by the SJC) pinned all of their hopes on the leadership i.e. that illegal (again, as defined by the SJC) procedural shenanigans would keep the matter away from a vote.

        • The point is to roll up one’s sleeves and win within the law. That is what Deval Patrick did.

          <

          p>
          “I favor ending this petition initiative promptly. If adjournment can accomplish that, so be it.”

          <

          p>
          — Deval Patrick

  4. I took the quiz, got three B’s.  I generally am a process person, but I am beginning to see how that can cause tragedies, because the oppostion also has to be process oriented or you just get screwed. 

    <

    p>
    Yesterday was not a demonstration for support of process.  If it had been, the HCA would have been voted on as well.  What happened yesterday was an exercise in power and I told you so and I showed you so politics.  Trvaglini said he knew who the legislature would go with, and he was right as both the votes on gay marriage and HCA demonstrate.  This was not a victory for process by any stretch of the imagination.

    <

    p>
    Anyone want to plan a retirment for Robbie Boy?

    1. It is 1859. You have come home from the fields to discover that your wife has offered safe harbor to a runaway female slave in your New England barn.

    <

    p>
    Do you:

    <

    p>
    a. Turn her in, so she can be returned to her master as required by law and mandated by the Supreme Court’s Dred Scott decision. Shake your head sadly at her certain future of endless rape, forced impregnation and daily whippings, but resolve to handle things properly by writing a sternly worded letter of protest in support of abolition.

    <

    p>
    b. Do all of the above, but also insist she thank you for your concern and sympathize with your difficulty.

    <

    p>
    2. You are a Dutch shopkeeper during the war. Rumors suggest a family of Jews has taken refuge in a hidden upstairs room in the next building.

    <

    p>
    Do you:

    <

    p>
    a. Report Anne Frank to the occupation authorities, as required by duly-passed law, while quietly deploring genocide and making a few strong remarks against those who make people into lampshades.

    <

    p>
    b. Also report the scofflaws who sheltered her and brought her food.

    <

    p>
    3. You are sitting in your car waiting for a friend in front of her house in Wellesley. As she is running late, you have plenty of time to observe a traffic cop parked across the road as he flags down each and every black motorist who passes for minor violations, while allowing every white motorist to pass freely, even if their tail lights are broken or their license plates are missing.

    <

    p>
    Do you:

    <

    p>
    a. Go up and congratulate the officer on his rigorous enforcement of the law for each of the motorists he stopped.

    <

    p>
    b. Congratulate the office, and also warn the black motorists not to play the race card, since they did indeed have a Kleenex box in their rear window.

    <

    p>
    Answer key:

    <

    p>
    You are a process liberal. Congratulate yourself.

    <

    p>
    Bonus question:

    <

    p>
    Measure your head. If it’s bigger than a pumpkin, you are definitely a process liberal. Write a letter to the Globe congratulating yourself.

    • Having just argued against being a process liberal (Velveeta liberal?), I take a small exception to your comment, steverino. In a democracy, we do have a contract that we will obey laws rather than men (i.e., monarchs). We also have unenforced laws (e.g., immigration laws) and we used to have a lot of very bad laws (Jim Crow laws). There is not one obvious principle, true for all eternity that tells us what to do under such circumstances.

      <

      p>
      It seems whenever I’m on Mass Ave in North Cambridge, a road with as many no U-Turn signs as street lights, I always seem to see someone making a U-Turn. It’s become a standing joke with my partner that we say, “The no U-Turn sign is only for people who don’t need to make U-Turns.” This, in fact, is the problem with all regulations whether worker safety, environmental, or financial: they make the agent being regulated act as he or she would prefer not to act. We really do not want the well-placed cheating the IRS or not bothering to replace the fire extinguishers in their workplaces.

      • But two of the examples I gave came from American democracy. Just because you live in a democracy, it doesn’t mean every law is just or must be obeyed. If that were true, we wouldn’t have or need a bill of rights, for one thing.

        <

        p>
        Process liberals seem to think that if you’re not one of them, you’re completely lawless. There’s more straw in that argument than the Wizard of Oz.

    • Looking at your comment, and others elsewhere, the most common comparisons to what happened the other day seem to be the Holocuast, slavery, and Jim Crow laws.

      <

      p>
      Note that we are addressing that the Legislature follow the state constitution (not just some random law) and voted on the petition.  We’re not talking about the outcome of the vote, just the vote itself.

      <

      p>
      I honestly ask, do you believe, Steverino, that voting on a citizens’ petition on marriage equality is the moral equivalent to exterminating 11 million, or forcing labor from 4 million?  Are those legislators who voted one way or the eithe rthe equivalent to the perpetrators of these crimes against humanity? You brought up the comparison, I’m just trying to find your context.

      • But obviously there is a point when however much of a process Liberal one might have been, the Liberal part overrules the process part. That point lies somewhere between limits to characterizing an opponent negatively and Jim Crow laws. Where that point lies is open to question.

        <

        p>
        And no, one doesn’t have to write for Lieberman Weekly The New Republic to understand that.

      • Not to get into a fight, but I don’t understand why you feel civil rights movement are off-target. Could you elaborate on why you think that?

        <

        p>
        To me, they’re still examples of laws and processes thwarting equality. It’s possible the comparisons differ because those laws weren’t intended to do any other good. But, I think there were plenty of rationalizations for those laws at the time, even some moderately compelling ones. Most of those reasons were eventually rejected as being less important than equality. But even if they hadn’t been rejected, the laws were capriciously applied and didn’t even work on the terms of their own rationalizations. I can see why people on these boards today feel that comparison is apt.

        <

        p>
        But maybe you have a point about the moral relativity. Maybe it is because it is “just marriage” that lots of people don’t feel there is a warrant for breaking the rule in question. Again, I would give that position more credit if the rule actually worked and wasn’t capriciously applied.

        • I think in some ways you answered your own questions there.  The law requiring that legislators vote on citizen petitions is not inherently prejudicial.  That is what myself and others  advocate — following a law that is not inherently prejudicial even if you dislike the outcome.  Meanwhile, the Nuremberg Laws, Jim Crow laws, and others were inherently prejudicial — there was no way to follow those laws as their framers intended without engaging in bigotry.

          <

          p>
          This is untrue in the ConCon.  It would have been quite possible to follow the laws/Constitution without engaging in prejudice had 12 legislators voted for equality.  It is important to separate out disgust for those legislators voted from feelings that the vote took place at all.  This is why I don’t think these comparisons are that apt — there is a difference in the intent of the law during its writing, and Mass. law does not here have the intent of bigotry.  The intent is that of many of its citizens and their representatives, and that is where the change needs to happen. 

          • Fair enough. I still disagree a bit, as I think the implementation matters a great deal, but I appreciate having a better understanding of your POV. Thanks for answering.

      • Have you ever heard of reductio ad absurdum? The process people are the ones making ridiculous absolutist claims about “process”–that “proper” process must always be followed no matter the outcome. The comparisons with other forms of discrimination reveal how absurd those claims are. If you really meant what you say, and really applied it equally in all situations, you’d be the first to turn in the runaway slave or rat out Anne Frank.

        <

        p>
        Second, discrimination is discrimination. It’s a very short step from saying some people are more equal than others to saying the people who are less equal aren’t people. Indentured servitude preceded slavery. Restrictions on intermarriage and financial transactions preceded the Holocaust. And the antigay marriage amendments preceded the recent decapitation of a gay Alabama teenager. The only thing preventing any of these things is the recognition by the majority that it has no authority, legal or moral, to limit the rights of a minority to begin with, not arguing how far the limitations can go.

        <

        p>
        Third, your question implies that the discrimination faced by gays is really not so bad after all. By way of historical context, gays died in massive numbers in the Holocaust, too. In the camps, Jews about to die spit on them. After Liberation, Jews and Gypsies were freed, but those with a pink triangle were simply transferred back to civil prison. Today, I’d like you to talk to someone shut out of his husband’s deathbed, or dying of cancer without insurance coverage because her marriage isn’t recognized, and tell them they’re overdoing it a little.

        <

        p>
        Finally (for now), you process people really seem to lack an understanding of where rights come from. You seem to imagine they are granted by government, or conceded by “the people.” Rights aren’t granted, they are endowed, by God if you’re a believer or by simple virtue of being human if you’re not. Rights precede government, and government’s role is simply to protect them. You are vainly arguing that we must use proper process to do something that government has no power or authority to do anyway. It’s rather like arguing your local Knights of Columbus needs to follow proper procedure in ratifying a mutual defense pact with China. I don’t care how many points of personal privilege are observed in the meeting, the K of C still isn’t sending any tanks to Beijing.

        • Steve, if you fight against your opponents in future battles as fiercely as you fight your allies over past ones, we’re assured of winning the 2008 referendum.

          <

          p>
          And no, your passions do not accuse you of labelling me a Nazi sympathizer, which you did in so many words to open your post.

          <

          p>
          (A brief historical lesson for you, regardless.  The Nazis took over the Reichstag after illegally banning the Communists after the fire they set.  Hence, all Nazi laws did not follow process, so even if I followed the caricature of a philosophy you are projecting on to me, I would have hidden Anne Frank.  You, it seems, would instead have spent your time telling everyone at the top of your lungs that I wasn’t doing a good enough job hiding her, leading the Nazis to arrive much sooner than they did.)

          • Hey, Sabutai, your sense of humor (usually a good thing) has gone a bit overboard into provocation here. Let us hope that Steverino’s cafeteria tray doesn’t include anything he can throw — or you are in for a food fight.

  7. Yeah, right.

    <

    p>
    Hey, is everyone forgetting that if all we had around were PLs back in the 18th century, we’d still belong to England?

    <

    p>
    The problem with labels is that one size does not fit all. It is not all black and white. I don’t believe that the ends always justify the means; I believe that the ends sometimes justify the means. Remember what Dylan said: To live outside the law you must be honest.

    <

    p>
    Granted, deciding when the ends justify the means does require ethical (some might read “subjective”) thinking. And in order to decide that the ends justify the means, you’ve got to take a lot of elements into account and a lot of events need to go wrong.

    <

    p>
    Like taxation without representation, taxes on necessaries that force undue hardship, etc. etc. etc. Like a situation where a Constitutionally approved right would be put in danger of being taken away by mob rule.

    <

    p>
    In this case, the SJC said they couldn’t force the legislature to vote. Could the legislature have taken that as implicit approval to kill the initiative? How do we know it wasn’t a hint?

    <

    p>
    Even the military can mutiny under specific terms.

    <

    p>
    This particular time I felt the ends justified the means. I still do. Every time we’ve postponed this kind of hate, more and more people stop hating. Even Mike Barnicle today said that though he can’t say he loves the idea of gay marriage, he realizes it isn’t hurting anyone and what people do in their own houses is their own business. (I can’t find a link, but my husband heard him say it this afternoon.) If we could have postponed it, we could have proved that other issues are more important. We could have kept marginalizing it until it was the size of Gachnar, the Fear Demon.

    • Nicely stated.

      <

      p>
      I think we all yearn for the nice security of universal principles. This discussion has gotten somewhat distorted as a consequence. When we challenge the Velveeta crowd with “sometimes the ends do justify the means” they think we’re advocating a return to the Hobbesian chaos of bellum omnium contra omnes.

      <

      p>
      But we’re not. Process is extremely important. All Liberals want to live in a law-based society. Unfortunately, on occasion, Ends outweigh Means. And no, there is no nice universal principle to protect us. We actually have to think about this carefully.

  8. I know the post was intended humorously, but it actually moved my thinking ahead, where I’d been ambivalent before. So here’s an overly serious reply.

    <

    p>
    “Rule of Law” is pretty poor as a principle, because laws can be unjust.

    <

    p>
    “Personal opinion of homosexuality is more important than the rule of law,” here presented as the opposite of “Rule of Law,” is a silly straw man. Though I did laugh at the New Republic reference.

    <

    p>
    The real dilemma is between these two principles: “Protection of minority rights from the tyranny of the majority” and “protection of the power of the people over the legislators.”

    <

    p>
    It’s perverted that a process designed to protect the latter has been used to thwart the former.

    <

    p>
    The fact that the process was summarily shown to be useless for its original intent anyway is insult added to injury (or salt in the wound, or a tax increase on top of a benefit cut, or a fare increase on top of crappy new turnstile technology).

    <

    p>
    So don’t forget the first part of this quotation: “a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.” Even though, as Bartleby points out, “Emerson does not explain the difference between foolish and wise consistency.”

    • That’s exactly what both SJC decisions were about: the second “protection of the power of the people” is about protecting minority voices against a simple majority. The vote on whether to vote was a no-win situation: a vote to delay is a vote against oppose democratic checks and balances, while a vote to not is to risk a serious infringement of human rights if a series of further votes go that way. It most definitely is “perverted that a process designed to protect the latter has been used to thwart the former”. Personally, I thought we should try in the first session to defeat the amendment as legitimately as possible, and if that was unsuccessful, it becomes necessary to kill it in the session despite furthering  the anti-democratic precedent. I think its basically justified at this point given Trav disgusting hypocritical leadership on selectively following the Constitution only to support legislative gay bashing.

      <

      p>
      “Ends justify the means” should never be the immediate course of action, but when it gets to the point of no good choices  (such as in Iraq right now) then the “least bad” route is justified by what produces the best result.

  9. If you know the police officer is a raging homophobe who extorts money from gays and doesn’t care what happens to them, and you still go to him to point out the verbal assault because it’s what the rules say is the right thing to do, you are a process liberal.

    <

    p>
    One extreme example deserves another. We don’t disagree with the process, but believe that putting your faith in the legislature’s good conscience to carry out that process is naive and does more harm than good. And so it was proven.

    • But our system has remedies for a legislature working in bad faith — elections and candidacies.  I don’t remember primary opponents for many of these Democrats.  Instead, we have many people who lost by those rules, so now feel that they don’t have to play by the rules.

      <

      p>
      And for that matter, comparisons to the Civil Rights movement are completely off base.  Civil Rights demonstrators did not seek to keep Legislatures and governments from meeting — they went out and demonstrated their case, rather than trying to bully it into reality.

      • I guess, once you’ve lost every argument, and all moral credibility, gibberish is all that’s left.

      • …throw “elections and candidacies” at anyone while accusing them of “feeling that they don’t have to play by the rules.”

        <

        p>
        MassEquality has a great record in electoral politics.  SSM was a major issue in the 2004 elections–and we switched a solid handful of seats in our direction, and lost none.  2006 gave us another net gain.  This is exactly why gay rights now have support in the lege at all.

        <

        p>
        People have been working their asses off, and we now have two thirds of the lege on record voting in favor of our right to marry, ffs.  Unfortunately, in this great Commonwealth of ours, an unpopular minority apparently needs to win 75.5 percent simply to secure their right to equal protection under the law.

        <

        p>
        Or, said unpopular minority needs to take Bob’s approach and stop being an unpopular minority.  Become a popular one, instead!

        • Which is what we need, you can’t indulge in stating that allies have “lost every argument, and all moral credibility” (Stevie) and telling people “not to dare” (you) to do stuff because they don’t agree with every patricular.  We need more allies, not fewer.  You’re hurting our cause.

          <

          p>
          Second, you’re right about the need to spread the message, to win at the ballot box by getting our view into the majority.  Until we win at the ballot box, this will remain an issue up for play in every election.  The rights to marriage equality will never be secure.

          <

          p>
          Finally, marriage equality is obviously a ballot winner.  Given that about 60% of the Legislature is pro-equality while about 50% of the population is, MassEq has obviously done a good job.  And I’ve tromped on my share of pavement (my first day ever in Malden — an hour away — was spent dropping lit for Marian Walsh, as was my second and third).  But switching a handful isn’t enough, but those are the rules.

          <

          p>
          Try to change the rules.  Change the Legislature.  But playing outside the rules — despite off-target comparisons to the Civil Rights movement — does not lead anywhere.

          • Will you PLEASE stop lecturing people about “the need for allies” and telling them that they “hurt the cause” just because they disagree with you?  I am not out canvassing strangers about marriage equality.  I am on a political site discussing political strategy with people who claim to believe in equal rights.  We have a difference of opinion about how to achieve those rights in practice.

            <

            p>
            If there are conditions on your support, spell out the quid pro quo explicitly.  If not, who is it exactly that I am alienating?  Who has conditions and what are they?  As near as I can tell, someone, somewhere will only support my right to legally care for the person I love if I concede that their position vis-a-vis the concon filibuster is the only morally acceptable one.  And not only that, but also–to top it off–that that position is in my best interests in the present circumstance.

            <

            p>
            Speaking for myself alone, and not “the gays”: I don’t concede either of those points.  Emphatically not.  Sorry.

            <

            p>
            Or is the condition milder?  I just need to shut up and stop “attacking” people about the issue any longer?  While those same people publish entire diaries dedicated to nothing other than the proposition that I am a lawless anarchist because I disagree with them on the aforementioned points.

            <

            p>
            That one I choose not to agree to as a matter of principle.  Anyone going to step up and say they no longer support marriage equality because I’m being an asshole?  Let the chips fall.

            • How about this — I will say that I support marriage equality despite your being an asshole.  Given that this vote will quite possibly balance on a neddle’s point, I guess I just don’t want to lose by a couple thousand votes in 2008 and try to figure out why.

      • First of all, a-friggin’-men to Global Citizen.

        <

        p>
        Secondly, I sure don’t remember getting to vote in the leadership elections in the House or Senate. Our government is not set up to be completely responsive to citizens, even a majority, even those acting in good faith. You can pretend that “primaries and elections” make it all better or you can work with the system as it already works while making incremental change to make it better.

        <

        p>
        We’ve elected a lot of good legislators to replace a lot of craptastic Finneran coat-holders over the last few years. And there’s more to do. But that’s no excuse for naive behavior in other aspects of our legislative goals.

Archives