The Democratic-dominated Massachusetts legislature today abdicated its constitutional duty to vote on an initiative brought before them by a fully constitutional process of law. They did so because they would prefer to defile the Constitution of the Commonwealth rather than perform a constitutional process whose potential outcome they find distasteful. Thus they willingly trample on the Commonwealth’s highest law to get after the intolerant Devils within it who (in today’s case) have petitioned to restrict legal marriage in the Commonwealth to opposite sex couples.
No doubt Boston Globe editorials Friday and to follow will sanctimoniously opine that this willful disregard for law represents a higher wisdom by the Legislature, and is saving us all from a far greater evil. Such transparent self-justification reminds me of this short passage from the play “A Man for All Seasons”, where Thomas More’s family urges him to arrest Richard Rich, a plainly evil man whose perjury will eventually send More to his execution. Out of respect for the rule of law, More refuses.
ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Sir Richard RICH) While you talk, he's gone!
MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law!
ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law!
MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
MORE (Roused and excited): Oh? (Advances on ROPER) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you-where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? (He leaves him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast-man's laws, not God's-and if you cut them down-and you're just the man to do it-d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.
Our Democratic legislators have today ignored the law and instead hoisted the voters of the Commonwealth onto the wobbly mainmast of their own principles. Their insouciance toward the rule of law will bring us far worse results than could the progress of any single constitutional amendment.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - pleasexcusetheinterruption
Correct me if I'm wrong.. but don't legislators delay votes all the time until the next session? You're just cranky about this one because it was important to you. And the legislators DID vote. They voted not to vote. And if the legislators represent the people (the fundamental assumption here) the people voted just like the constitution says they should.
2 - Arch Conservative
Who cares? This shithole of a state is going to sink even further into the abyss now that Deval Dukakis is at the helm. It backs up my assertion that most of the people in this state are complete assholes and you get the government you deserve.
3 - BostonGayDad
...And meanwhile in Massachusetts, all the gay men and lesbians, their children, and the extended families and friends that love them, began living happily ever after -- THE END.
4 - pleasexcusetheinterruption
Did you know that Massachusetts has one of the highest life expectencies and highest average IQ of any state. And it's one of the richest. A;; that despite it's been called socialist by certain politicians for a long time.
5 - Clavos
Ah yes, Massachusetts. Where the Sons of Liberty rebelled against ol' King George by dumping tea into Boston harbor, proclaiming the words of James Otis, "taxation without representation is tyranny!"
And now, here it is, 230 years later, Taxachusetts has some of the highest taxes in the nation, Ted Kennedy and John Kerry -- still no representation!
Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose...
6 - STM
Clavos said: "Ah yes, Massachusetts. Where the Sons of Liberty rebelled against ol' King George by dumping tea into Boston harbor, proclaiming the words of James Otis, "taxation without representation is tyranny!"
Traitorous bastards. They should have been strung up for treason at the time, thus saving America from 200-plus years of ongoing unpleasantness and a flag my 11-year-old could have designed.
As Americans, they were no better during the war of 1812, either, most of them wanting to go back to the British (showing excellent judgment on that occasion).
Evenin' Clav!
7 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Just curious Stan;
Have you ever carried forth the scenario of what might have happened to the provinces that rebelled against King George III has Washington been nabbed at the Delaware River and been hung, and had the Continental Congress been taken prisoner by an invading force at Philadelphia?
I mean going beyond what your eleven year old could do in terms of flag design.
8 - S.T.M
Hi Ruvy. Yes mate, actually I have thought about it at great length, but not for jingoistic reasons of empire and what have you. You see, as much as I fart about with this stuff, I'm also sensible enough to realise the beneficial impact that a strong America has had on both my countries. But it's very interesting that scenario, isn't it? This is long, but I hope you can spare a few minutes as it's fascinating stuff if you like history.
I believe firstly that had the British been at the height of their power, as they were between say the end of the Napoleonic Wars and the start of WWI, the outcome might have been somewhat different for the US.
In reality, at the time of the War of Independence, the British were less interested in Empire than they were about trade and the opening up of trade routes and so the loss of the American colonies, although regarded in the US - obviously - as a defining moment in world history, wasn't quite such a dramatic thing on the other side of the Atlantic at the time (although I'd imagine mad old Georgie wouldn't have been too impressed, his all-conquering armies soundly defeated and sent packing by a rag-tag band of traitorous rogues who had got into bed with the duplicitous French).
From the literature I've read on the British side, the real issue for them, apart from loss of face, was the potential loss of trade. Which of course didn't really happen as New England remained dependent on trade with Britain in the period leading up to the outbreak of the war of 1812. Interestingly, they still regarded the Americans as their own kith and kin - naughty ones, but family anyway.
I know there are many myths propagated in the US regarding the war of 1812, but it was in fact a dreadful defeat for the United States and in truth, the only conclusion after serious study is that it was ultimately only the magnanimity of the British in victory that prevented the wholesale defeat of the fledgling nation (it was America that asked for peace, and the British who granted them most peace concessions requested at Ghent). Serious historians believe America lost the war but won the peace.
It is this period that intrigues me most in relation to this question, rather than the War of Independence. The outbreak of the war of 1812 was almost a complete reversal of the good reasons America went to war against the British 30 years earlier, so it was unpopular in America, particularly as casualties and the string of defeats mounted up.
Andrew Jackson was egged on by the War Hawks in Congress, and the pretext for the fighting was the maritime issues - mainly the blockading of trade and the press-ganging of US sailors (many of whom were deserters from the Royal Navy or British subjects). While it was arrogant, and designed to fill up Royal Navy battle crews during the fighting with France, it was a niggle in reality and Jackson is often quoted as having said that had he known the British had ended their blockades prior to the outbreak of fighting, he'd never have gone to war. The British never wanted to go to war with the US.
It was a war of aggression designed to remove British influence once and for all from North America, seize Canada - the first attempts to do so were the outbreak of hostilities - and stamp America on the world stage (which it did).
As I say, and as most historians agree, it almost resulted in total defeat for the US and the secession of New England to the Crown at the behest of its own citizenry.
So it is against that background that it should be judged: that the British, having considerable naval and land forces suddenly freed up from the Peninsular War against France, ended up at the table with America, leaving the 19th century's superpower and the 20th century's superpower sitting down discussing peace and friendship - and it DID forge the beginnings of an enduring relationship, with a few hiccups along the way - is indeed one of the miracles of modern history.
The only good thing about the War of Independence from the British perspective at the time was that the Crown sent James Cook to the South Pacific to look for new territories and trade routes, leading to the birth of Australia and New Zealand as we know them today.
(Not sure how good the Poms think that is when they're mostly getting flogged at cricket and rugby by these two countries, but that's another issue).
So Ruve, in my view it was both conflicts and the defeat of Napoleon at Trafalgar and Waterloo (leading also to a genuinely free France) that actually set the parameters defining the modern world and the many subsequent outcomes of history.
It's unlikely that any other results would have brought about such an alliance of free spirits (imagine the 20th century without Winston Churchill and Franklin D. Roosevelt) or given rise to the strong, brave, generous, fair and magnanimous America we all look to (most of the time), or the dogged Britain that had enough balls to stand up to Adolf Hitler on its own after fighting a war that literally took the flower of its youth just 20 years earlier. Would there have been an Israel? Doubt it.
Let's hope too we can all remember and learn from the lessons of history. It's fascinating stuff, and it lives right now.
9 - Clavos
Morning, STM:
Wow! I am fair dinkum impressed at the depth of your #8 --really!
I confess to never having given more than a passing, fairly superficial consideration to the ramifications of the 1812. Thanks for your analysis.
You conclude with:
Let's hope too we can all remember and learn from the lessons of history. It's fascinating stuff, and it lives right now.
Quoted for truth, mate. Quoted for truth.
10 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Stan,
Thank you for this interesting analysis. I completely agree with you about the War of 1812 - an imperialist adventure that was a complete failure (except for the Battle at New Orleans in 1815). Having grown up in New York, we learned the state's history, and many if not a majority of the battles in the War of 1812 were fought in and around upstate New York. And for the most part, the Americans got the short end of the stick in them.
And, looking at the general provisions of the Treaty of Ghent, the British could have easily made permanent their presence in what is now Chicago and northwestern Indiana (not to mention Wisconsin and Minnesota), annexed what is now Maine (and what was then the Maine Country in the State of Massachusetts), and generally shrunk the United States to the point of weakness, retarding its growth westwards by many years if not permanently. Had they been insistent at Ghent, British North America would probsably stretch south to California and throughout the states of Montana and the Dakotas.
They didn't, and then they suffered a nasty defeat at New Orleans after the treaty had been signed.
One has to wonder if there was not a reason for all this, one that goes beyond our own understanding as humans...
11 - zingzing
god is on our side.
12 - S.T.M
Zing zing said: "god is on our side."
And ours too, obviously
13 - zingzing
he can't be on both our sides, can he?
double-crossin bastard! two-faced cretin!
he's just up there playing risk, isn't he?
drunk on his creation's blood!
playing with our lives like he was god!
(mumble, fucker, mumble...)
14 - S.T.M
Zingzing: Whatever you believe about higher powers, there's no doubt that the outcomes of those two British-American wars and the British defeats of France at Trafalgar and Waterloo set the stage for two free peoples to stand up to tyranny a century later. While America played the greater role in WWII (but not that much greater if you include the old Empire countries on the British side), it is a fact neither could have achieved what they did without the other.
The beginning of that ongoing symbiotic relationship from a conflict fought between the two is the true miracle of the whole thing.
15 - zingzing
i never said a word about that. i was just making fun of ruvy's preoccupations.
16 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Stan, Zingzing, may I suggest a different thought?
The fact that the British didn't press the Americans at Ghent for concessions in 1814, and were defeated at New Orleans a few weeks later, was a sign of a blessing of the Almighty on the United States. This blessing created a very powerful and prosperous nation that for a long time was a very positive influence in world events.
By the same token, the hurricane that destroyed New Orleans in 2005 was a sign of the cancellation of this blessing. The United States had ceased to play a positive role in the world, in this scenario, in the Eyes of the Almighty.
Just a thought, gentlemen.
17 - zingzing
i don't have any faith in such a vengeful god.
is every suicide bomber in jerusalem a little jab from god?
and what about every other good and bad thing that has happened in united states history? is god saying, "you have my blessing! i curse you! you have my blessing! i curse you! you have my blessing! i curse you! you have my blessing! i curse you! you have my blessing! i curse you! you have my blessing! i curse you! you have my blessing! i curse you! you have my blessing! i curse you! you have my blessing! i curse you!"
just a thought.
18 - pleasexcusetheinterruption
Isn't it odd that a state with such high taxes should be so damned RICH, Clavos?
19 - pleasexcusetheinterruption
I don't think you get the difference. The people of MA rebelled against taxation w/o representation. Since they have elected these state reps to tax them, they are not being taxed w/o representation. You see, some people recognize the benefit of having pooled resources for equality of education, healtcare etc...
20 - Clavos
peti,
You have an obvious (and unwarranted) attitude that everyone else isn't as smart as you are; as for example here:
I don't think you get the difference.
When, in fact, it's actually you who didn't get my point; that having Kennedy and Kerry as your senators is tantamount to having no representation; instead, you assume I've reasoned stupidly.
21 - zingzing
see, peti, it was a joke! hahahar. clavos... you're getting testy...
what about the representatives from the house in massachusetts? actually, the girl goes to school in mass... and even if i don't think that politics invades private life too often (at least in my straight-white life), i have to say i am impressed with the bus system in the small town where she attends college. it's free, it's reliable, and it's paid for with state taxes.
22 - Clavos
You see, some people recognize the benefit of having pooled resources for equality of education, healtcare etc...
While I recognize the benefit of keeping my money and making my own decisions about what to spend it on...
23 - Clavos
..and you're right, zing; I am getting testy...:>)
24 - Nancy
STM #8 - Good info; always nice to learn something new from another pt of view. Thanks.
25 - zingzing
peti: "You see, some people recognize the benefit of having pooled resources for equality of education, healtcare etc..."
clavos: "While I recognize the benefit of keeping my money and making my own decisions about what to spend it on..."
wait, wait... you mean you two have a different opinion about the usefulness, or lack thereof, of taxation? is one of you more of a conservative and one of you more of a liberal? hmm?
peti, you know that's socialism. clavos, you know that's greed.