No, No, Not That Kind of Democracy–The Kind of Democracy Where You Lose

As a follow-up to this post, I missed it because I still read the Times the old-fashioned way but the death of the legislation required to inscribe discrimination into the Massachusetts constitution is apparently not merely hypothetical. Somehow, I’m sure this will fail to come up the next time we hear the routine about how litigation inevitably destroys consensus, betrays the people, destroys the very fabric of democracy itself, etc. etc. Here’s an instructive quote from Milt Romney:

Gov. Mitt Romney, a Republican who opposes same-sex marriage, said the vote was a “triumph of arrogance over democracy.” He said that he would “explore any alternatives” to try to force a vote, but that “my options are limited.”

But of course. If the courts issue a decision favorable to gay rights, then they’re arrogantly usurping the power that belongs to the legislatures. If there’s a positive outcome in the legislatures, then they’re arrogantly shoving the “gay agenda” down the throats of the people (or perhaps arrogantly usurping power that belongs to the courts.) There’s no serious democratic theory here: it’s a shell game. The sooner progressives figure this out the better.

But at least we can enjoy some good-old fashioned reactionary resentment:

The debate in the House was full of impassioned speeches.

“I’m 3,000 feet to the right of Attila the Hun, they tell me,” Representative Marie J. Parente, a Democrat from Milford who had lost her re-election bid on Tuesday, told her colleagues. “But you’re not. You’re the other side. The gracious people, the liberal people, the socially conscious people.”

Boo hoo hoo. Don’t let the door hit you etc. That’s democracy, and in the American case it happens to include not only elections but courts that assess the constitutionality of legislative enactments.