What's civil about taking away people's right?
Joe Fitzgerald
Boston Herald
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
So this is what it's come down to, with your public servants saying your opinions do not matter, and what's more, if you persist in demanding to exercise your democracy, you'll be dismissed as a bigot who opposes civil rights or a religious nut consumed by toxic faith.
Do not be misled by demagogues who'd have you believe tomorrow's showdown over the gay marriage amendment is about love, respect or fairness, even if all those elements can be found in anecdotal examples of same-sex relationships.
Then is it about tolerance?
Please. This crowd that once pleaded for tolerance now denies it to everyone else, employing every imaginable form of vilification to discredit and intimidate anyone resisting its agenda or daring to cling to values that have defined us down through the ages.
Americans know what marriage means; it has never been ambiguous to them, which is why they have unequivocally reaffirmed its meaning whenever social anarchists have attempted to contort it into an amorphous concept embracing their own unorthodox desires.
Here in Massachusetts, however, the politically astute gay community has come up with a very effective way of getting the voters out of its hair; it seeks to disenfranchise them, giving them no say whatsoever on an issue many regard as fundamental to our mores.
They concluded the best way to get around those voters was to muzzle them, a smart move, because killing the messenger has always been an effective way of controlling communications and achieving desired outcomes.
What's more outrageous is that their principal allies in suppressing democracy have been those elected leaders who owe their political existence to our endorsement of them.
Talk about biting the hand that feeds you. To safeguard their incumbency, they now shamelessly do the bidding of a militant minority, terrified of incurring its wrath.
When House Speaker Sal DiMasi flagrantly conspires to deny the electorate an opportunity to be heard on such an epic issue, he not only abdicates his representation of those who put him in office, but also demonstrates how easy it is to manipulate the average pol by holding his feet to the fire.
Do you suppose, back when he was trying to keep his job, he told voters in the North End, "Elect me, then shut your mouth because I really don't care what you think?"
No, not likely. But that's exactly what he's telling them now, and because he's ascended the legislative ranks to a position of influence over other lily-livered representatives, he is also now coercing those colleagues to turn their backs on their constituents, too.
A treasured ideal declared by our founding fathers can't be invoked enough: "Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
That's what tomorrow's vote on Beacon Hill is truly all about: Do we still believe this is the way America is supposed to work?
It's not about revisiting the civil rights movement, as if establishing a homosexual partnership is somehow akin to marching from Selma to Montgomery, an analogy that's indecent in its trivialization of a truly tragic chapter of American history.
Tomorrow's decision on allowing Massachusetts citizens a voice in defining marriage has nothing whatsoever to do with civil rights, and everything to do with basic civics.
Anyone who would take away your vote on this issue has no business asking for it when re-election rolls around.
It's as simple as that.