« Wizbang Weekend Caption Contest™ | Main | Barney Frank Accuses the Bush Administration of "ethnic cleansing by inaction" »

If you'd just quit while we're ahead...

Recently, it finally gelled to me why I resent the Boston Globe -- and its ideological compeers -- so much: it's that they have no real sense of "fair play."

Two editorials in the last couple of days brought that to me.

First up, they had another of those "Saddam was hanged too quickly" pieces. Apparently, to the Glob, being convicted of about 150 murders wasn't enough; he should have stood trial for every single death he ordered throughout his reign of terror, spending years -- if not decades -- in the docks until he had been held accountable for each and every single innocent life he caused to be snuffed out, and then -- and only then -- should sentence have been passed.

This should not be taken as an expression of concern that justice be served, however. Rather, this was an exercise in onanistic jurisprudence, where we slog through endless trial after trial until Saddam finally does the world a favor and cheats the hangman like Slobodan Milosevic did, thus keeping our collective hands clean of his demise.

And in the end, if many of his victims or their loved ones feel cheated because Saddam did not die as a result of a legal execution, but allowed to pass peacefully of natural causes, that's too bad. They shouldn't be so bloodthirsty in the first place.

Next up, they decried the Massachusetts legislature's shameful and disgraceful decision to obey their Constitutional duties and vote on the Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

Let's sum up the matter: gay marriage became legal in Massachusetts because of two factors: the utterly craven and cowardly legislature refusing to take any action, and advocates doing everything they can to avoid any sort of public plebiscite, rather choosing their tactics to bypass elected officals and ballots and referendums, hoping to appeal to unelected officials.

They took their measure not to the legislature or the people, but to the courts, and eventually managed to persuade 4 of 7 of the commonwealth's highest justices that yeah, even though no one had really noticed before, the state Constitution did actually allow gay marriage. The court dawdled for a bit, warning the legislature that if they didn't do something to resolve the matter, the justices would. The lawmakers did as is their wont (nothing), and thus by a single person's action did gay marriage come about.

Opponents of gay marriage who had seen their adversaries take the low road -- and win -- chose to take the high road and fight back. Since the Supreme Judicial Court had said that gay marriage was implicitly protected by the Constitution, by golly they'd fix that by amending the Constitution so there would be no question. They looked up the rules on how to amend the Constitution and got to work.

The process is a complicated one, if you're starting from the grass roots. You have to garner a LOT of signatures on petitions, and then submit them to the Legislature. At that point, the lawmakers have to meet in joint session and vote on it. If only one-quarter of the lawmakers vote in favor of it, it passes. And then next session it has to pass again, with at least one-quarter in favor. Opponents have to muster more then 3/4 of the combined body to kill the measure. Once it passes twice, it goes on a statewide ballot for approval.

Well, supporters of gay marriage found a way to spike the wheels. While the Constitution explicitly says that they have to vote on it, there was no way that order could be enforced. Instead of needing to muster 150 votes to kill the petition, they could get by with only 101 votes if they simply refused to bring the petition up for a vote before they ended their session. The other two branches of government protested, but neither the Governor nor the Court could find any way they could compel the lawmakers to obey the Constitution.

Somehow, though, the petition did come up for a vote. (Kind of a belated Christmas miracle -- justice prevailing in Massachusetts.) And opponents mustered 136 votes to kill the petition, while only 62 voted in favor. But that was more than enough to keep the petition alive.

According to the Globe's editorial, the opponents of gay marriage should have just quit once they lost the fight before the Supreme Judicial Court. All their efforts since then, in following established legal and Constitutional procedures to change it, were wrongheaded and mean-spirited and just plain bad. And those lawmakers who put the Constitution -- and their oaths to obey it -- over catering to the Globe's pet cause are disgraceful and wrong.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I support gay marriage. (And sooner or later I'll write another piece arguing why I believe it.) But I believe more in the rule of law and of following established legal principles and policies and procedures. I don't think that gay marriage is so important as to trash whole systems of checks and balances, of the people's right to affect the law.

Pity the Globe doesn't feel the same respect.

Comments (15)

Maybe this was a false repo... (Below threshold)

Maybe this was a false report, but I picked up from some source that in Iraq law they can't execute someone that turns 70. If Saddam had hung around (no pun intended... much) a few more months they wouldn't have been able execute him.

Do they complain as much wh... (Below threshold)

Do they complain as much when a gay is hung in Iran?

I agree with the Globe. He... (Below threshold)

I agree with the Globe. He should have been hanged slowly.

Moreover, I think that gay marriage should be allowed because it will enable a return of polygamy.


Disregard the flip comment ... (Below threshold)

Disregard the flip comment on polygamy, as SDNWOTW. However, I always ask gay acquaintances who bring up the marriage subject why they would ever want to be subject to NY's divorce laws.


I love the fact that it was... (Below threshold)

I love the fact that it was a "circus". That MF-er didn't deserve a stately demise. I also heard that if you look closely you'll see an "XM 202, Spread the Virus" sign in the background...

I really don't understand w... (Below threshold)

I really don't understand why this is such a big deal to all the bible-thumping Jesus freaks. Gays and gay marriage do not affect their life or their marriage one bit. These loons should focus on more important issues.

Good to know that majoritie... (Below threshold)

Good to know that majorities in many states in the US are "Jesus freaks" and "loons". You're really Ted Turner, right?

No-one will ever f... (Below threshold)
No-one will ever forget the way in which Saddam was executed - they turned him into a martyr, and the problems in Iraq remained.

This quote is from Hosni Mubarak who is the secular, pro-Western President of Egypt and one of our most important allies in the region. You can pretend that the manner in which Saddam was executed is completely irrelevant but if it stokes the Sunni insurgency in Iraq and gets more of our troops killed unnecessarily then it CERTAINLY DOES MATTER.

They executed Saddam on a Sunni religious holiday to the chants of "Moqtada, Moqtada". The way the execution was conducted and the taping of it must have been by design in my opinion. It was meant to send a clear message to the Sunnis that the days of Shia ascendancy are here and that Moqtada al Sadr is in charge of Iraq.

It's just another in a long list of blunders by the incompetent neoconservative clowns who are running this war. The insurgency that has claimed the lives of over 3,000 of our heroes was THEIR CREATION. They disbanded the Iraqi military and police and launched a sweeping de-Baathification that threw half a million Iraqis out of work and onto the streets. They didn't send enough troops thereby creating the power vacuum into which the Shiite militias have stepped. Then, they allowed a Constitution to be adopted despite the near unanimous opposition of the Sunni population.

The Sunnis are in rebellion against the Shiite-dominated government of Iraq because they are boxed into a corner and if they don't fight they will be slaughtered. And now we've given them a martyr and a new cause to rally around.

I think that the government... (Below threshold)

I think that the government should get out of the marriage business altogether. But, as long as there are taxpayer funded survivor benefits and rights, I am against adding any eligibility classes be it homosexuals, polygamists, or your jihadist and his goat.

The overwhelming majority o... (Below threshold)

The overwhelming majority of blacks don't want gay marriage. It's interesting to see a liberal calling them freaks.

One of the most cons... (Below threshold)

One of the most conservative columnists in the country , today writes a piece which essentially agrees with the Globe's position. Charles Krautheimer, no bleeding heart liberal he, had this to say about it:

"For the Iraqi government to have botched both his trial and execution, therefore, and turned monster into victim, is not just a tragedy but a crime -- against the new Iraq that Americans are dying for and against justice itself."

Here's the link. Interesting that Jay's despised "liberal" Globe and a conservative commentator agree.


If the judicial branch did ... (Below threshold)

If the judicial branch did its job, there would be no anti-gay marriage amendments necessary.

Instead, the gays who wish to marry should have to put forth an amendment to change the definition of marriage from what it has been for thousands of years. They would fail, which is why they're trying to destroy marriage through the courts.

I remember Rosie O'Donnell describing how her adopted child sadly asked her if he could have a Daddy, and she told him that her life was such that a Daddy wasn't possible. Thus she denies her son a father because of her own selfishness. This is what you want for our culture?

Not me. Gay marriage is a front for the leftists who want to destroy our culture -- and traditional marriage is a foundation block.

Wouldn't have come up for a... (Below threshold)
Uncle Pinky:

Wouldn't have come up for a vote if the legislature's pay raise hadn't been threatened. Government by special interest judicial fiat.

Hey Bonnie,We're i... (Below threshold)

Hey Bonnie,

We're in your country, destroying your culturez!

And you don't have a chance.

The court was correct in sa... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

The court was correct in saying that it had no authority to order the legislature to vote on the amendment. Likewise, the court had no authority to order the legislature to change the marriage laws. The Court can rule that a law is unconstitutional, but it can't rule that a law must be passed. Had the legislature any balls they would have told the court that it was out of bounds and to immediately withdraw it's illegal order or face swift impeachment. It's a lesson for other states.

Beyond that issue, there are valid reasons to oppose homosexual marriage.






Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile


Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links


Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login

Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy