If, as Patrick said, it is a "dangerous precedent and an unworthy one for this Commonwealth " to use "the initiative process to give a minority fewer freedoms than the majority and to inject the state into fundamentally private affairs," why did he wait so long to inject himself into this critical debate?
The urgent need to reassure Massachusetts legislators that adjournment without a vote was a responsible course of action had been clear since last week when the state Supreme Judicial Court chastised lawmakers for recessing in November rather than voting on the merits of the constitutional amendment that would define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. In essence, the state's highest court forced lawmakers to choose between fulfilling their constitutional obligation to the petitioners and upholding the constitutional rights of same-sex couples.
For the Democratic governor-elect, who has agreed with the SJC's description of gay marriage as a "basic human right," the choice should have been immediate and unambiguous. But it was not until yesterday that Patrick finally said: "I favor ending this initiative petition promptly. If adjournment can accomplish that, so be it."
Making a few phone calls and buttonholing a couple of lawmakers in the State House in a last-minute attempt to turn some votes was not enough for Patrick to block the effort of what he rightly described as "a few individuals" determined "to insert discrimination into our Constitution."
Only 50 legislators had to approve the amendment to move it forward; on two separate votes yesterday, 61 did. If the amendment wins the support of 25 percent of the 200-member Legislature again next year, it will be on the ballot in 2008.
