MW editorial slams Patrick on amendment statement

If the Legislature had followed those procedures, allowing the anti-gay- marriage amendment to be brought to a vote “of the ayes and nays,” that vote would have been about whether a prohibition against same-sex marriage should be put to the people for a vote. In that debate, all the points made by amendment opponents would be legitimate: We should use the constitution to deny freedoms, the people have spoken through the candidates they have elected and it’s time to move on.

But none of those good reasons release the Legislature from its obligation, reinforced through a unanimous opinion last week by the Supreme Judicial Court, to vote on the merits of the petition. In a government of laws, the ends cannot justify extra-constitutional means, a distinction elected officials, especially lawyers, should understand.

It is especially disappointing to see our new governor, Deval Patrick, side with those who would short-circuit the citizen initiative process. Patrick campaigned on a promise to help people “check back in” to the politics. What does he say to those who “checked-in” by signing a petition the Legislature refuses to bring to a vote?

Patrick’s reasoning is particularly disturbing: “Whatever one’s views of marriage equality, all can agree that we have far more pressing issues before the Legislature and the Commonwealth,” he said in a statement released yesterday. “It serves no public interest to focus more time and attention on this issue when there are under-served and under-performing schools, an infrastructure showing signs of sustained neglect, gun and gang violence on the rise, jobs and people leaving the state, a growing homeless population, soaring health care costs, a looming deficit and a score of other serious challenges crying out for the attention and the creativity of the government and the people.”

This is hogwash. Are we to suspend all future elections until all the state’s schools are up to snuff? Should we postpone Thursday’s inauguration until we’ve taken care of the “growing homeless population”? Which other constitutional provisions should be suspended so the government won’t be distracted from “more pressing issues”?

Article 48 states that a constitutional amendment proposed by citizen initiative must be voted on by the Constitutional Convention, advancing if 25 percent of the legislators vote “aye.” Following the constitution is not optional for elected officials of the Commonwealth. It is exactly what they take an oath to do on inauguration day.

Thanks largely to the SJC’s unequivocal opinion, legislators apparently took the recess and adjournment options off the table and brought the amendments to a vote. While we’re disappointed the anti-gay marriage amendment is going forward, we’re pleased to see legislators following the law.

Too bad Deval Patrick wasn’t able to see that respect for the constitution transcends fealty to any particular issue.

Please share widely!

0

0