“Let the People Vote!” is the slogan used to great effect by the forces who want to end marriage equality in Massachusetts.

On Jan. 2, the leaders of the Massachusetts Legislature capitulated to this demagoguery and allowed a minority of legislators — less than one-third, in fact — to advance a constitutional amendment to outlaw marriage. One more similar vote in 2007 and the ugly amendment will be on the Bay State ballot in November 2008.

Even some people who support marriage equality think it’s a good thing to have a popular vote. They’re convinced that we’ll win (provided the entire national community rallies to the cause) and that such a victory would shut up our opponents once and for all. Andrew Sullivan said, “We should be relishing [the fight].” Some also subscribe to the position that the use of procedural tactics to prevent the measure from moving to the ballot is undemocratic.

I disagree for three reasons. First, putting the rights of a minority up for a popular vote is always wrong; indeed, it’s immoral. Our nation’s founders understood this and that’s why we are blessed with the Bill of Rights. Even though more than two centuries have passed since the U.S. Constitution was ratified, it would still be extremely difficult to win our basic freedoms if they were put to a popular vote.

The fact that the Massachusetts amendment is even being considered (and that similar amendments have already been voted on in 28 states) is conclusive evidence that our lives and love are still seen as less — yes, less human — than those of the heterosexual people. This is the “gay exception” at its worst — meaning it’s still OK in this country to say things about us and do things to us that no one would dare say about or do to any other minority. That doesn’t mean we have to buy into it or abandon the moral high ground by saying it’s just fine to have others vote on whether we should have a fundamental human right.

Second, using every political lever possible — including procedural roadblocks — to keep bad things from happening is not only time-honored, it’s real politics. This is the way the game is played and we shouldn’t be the least bit ashamed of playing it here. In this case, it’s particularly galling because it’s not a majority of the legislature clamoring to put the amendment on the ballot that’s being held up by a minority. Rather, two-thirds of the members of the legislators are on our side. It seems to me the leaders of the legislature should be following the will of the majority of their peers (who are presumably elected to represent their constituents), not surrendering to the minority.

And finally, if the amendment gets on the ballot the campaign to kill it will be extraordinarily expensive, divisive and wrenching. Yes, with sufficient resources, we can defeat it. But that will involve literally millions of dollars that are sorely needed elsewhere to advance and defend basic rights. It’s a myth that national organizations are awash in resources. It’s a reality that LGBT people in 33 states still lack basic nondiscrimination protections. It’s a reality that resources going into Massachusetts through 2008 mean resources not going into other states. None of us can or should “relish” making these kinds of decisions.

Want to share your thoughts about Matt Foreman's blog entry?

Send your comments to OutSpoken@theTaskForce.org [0].

Please let us know how your name should appear and, optionally, your city and state. Comments may be posted on our Web site and used in other Task Force materials.