Civil rights should never be subject to the whims of the electorate, but since they were, then I'm glad equality won out over inequality--no matter how traditional that inequality was.  BTW, I still have yet to hear one single, real "harm" caused by a gay marriage.

Move on, Jeff, this was settled in Massachusetts years ago!

Harm?? Why of course, the same harm you feel when you see someone eating a Snickers Bar, when you know that the "right" candy to eat is a Milky Way!! In fact God himslef has ordained Milky Way as the right, proper, and holy candy bar to eat...why else would he have named the galaxy after it??

Sorry, Jeff. This inequality will be settled with time whether you agree or not.  Time for the old guard to die off and give the younger, more tolerant generation to prevail.  I'm buoyed by the attitudes of young people today, who accept same-sex marriage implicitly.  Of course this is a civil rights issue.  And yes, it may be settled once and for all with the Supreme Court.  May God give them the wisdom to decide on the side of tolerance.

Morality is not a legislative or an electoral issue.  Perhaps in Jeff's twisted version of "conservatism" the religious right gets to say what is moral or not moral.  Perhaps in his view it is the job of "big brother" to tell folks what to do.  But I would remind him of Barry Goldwater's words,

"The conservative movement is founded on the simple tenet that people have the right to live life as they please as long as they don't hurt anyone else in the process." (in a 1994 Washington Post essay)."

Are these folks hurting you Jeff?  Are they hurting me?  Obviously the answer is no.  Let's move on nothing to see here.

Very well said, Jeff.  Massachusetts deprived its citizens of the the right to vote on this issue, and that was shameful.  We have a political process for a reason, and that is the way issues are settled. Too often though, the left wing falls back on the courts to create laws that they were unable to pass democratically.  

Same sex "marriage" is not marriage at all, as the dictionary cannot be altered by the whims of the moment.  While gays are certainly entitled to the advantages that couples get when they marry, they do not have the right to call it marriage.  One cannot change the meaning of the word, and declare that it is a civil right.

 Could I change the meaning of the word "minority" to include white people, because I think I am entitled to minority advantages like affirmative action?  That is exactly what they are trying to do here.  It will only work in hard left states, most of America will not buy it.

Relax Jeff. When President Barack Obama appoints tolerant and wise people to the Supreme court, this will be settled in the forum where all constitutional issues get settled. 

Jeff Jacoby's attempt at a reasoned display falls flat.  It is inappropriate to have the general public write laws that are in conflict with state and national constitutions.  Reactionaries believe the concept of marriage has been a unchanged concept.  Review of this legal and social contract shows it has changed over time.  No one is questioning changing the social side of this committment by law but the legal laws of marriage must be protected.  If a particular church feels it counters their doctrine, so be it.  To change this continued human interaction outside of our laws will be necessary.  However a committed couple should not be shortchanged of legal benefits and should be held to legal responsibilities of such a union. 

It remains outrageous to put civil rights up for a vote. Maybe next we can have a referendum on separate but equal. I'm sure there are some states where citizens are still smarting from the "overreach" of the courts on that one.

Sure thing, Jeff.  Right after the vote on whether you have the right to live and work and spout nonsensical vitriol or whether we should simply incarcerate you.   A person who denies whether civil rights are due to others has no place working as a columnist.

Jeff You seem to be moving in a direction that is frightening. Following your logic Abraham Lincoln should have let each Southern State cote of whether or not to abolish slavery. Your analogy that voters approved measures this election that affirmed equal rites does not insure that voting for equality is the way to proceed. Smarten up!!

Another typical Jacoby editorial.  Yet there was not one single reason in that column offered as support for his stance against gay marriage.  No valid reason.  Just "no".  Sorry, the rest of us are moving on and accepting that two men or two women can love each other as deeply as one man/one woman, can raise children just as well, and can be recognized as equals in society.  Sorry you're so full of hate, Jeff.  It's sad.

Oh, A-OK, Jeff, and America should have voted on segregation, state-by-state, too.  Indeed.  And that, too, would have made it more "popular" -- to hell w/ the judicial branch's duty to interprete the constitution and of "individual rights" of minorities versus the majority.  Pffffft, what's that?

If you insist, Jeff. I think it would be better if everyone minded his own business about this subject, but, go ahead, put this distraction from real issues on the ballot; gay marriage will be validated by Massachusetts voters as it was in Maine, and we can finally move on to the critical fiscal concerns -- if it's not too late.

P.S. It will be too late. Social conservatives will have caused enough distraction to prevent fiscal conservatives from saving the country from fiscal meltdown.

that this political hack has gainful employment has to be encouragement to the incompetent, the unskilled as well as the unemployable.  this column is one large clusterf___ of logic.  cut and paste, cut and paste.  nothing original here just an inability to confront the tension between popular will and judicial review honestly and with insight.  

the Supreme Judicial Court exercised moral courage years ago.  Jacoby is as unable to deal with that as with how he would have dealt with post-Civil War Reconstruction ... Congress and Grant decided to have a temporary military occupation and judicial activism in favor of individual citizens with federally enforceable rights.  always will be conflict between democracy and republicanism.  never should be a citizen who is treated differently by her or his government because of who they are on the basis of race, sex, ethnic origin, religion or sexual preference ... Jacoby's column shows his lack of a moral center which as suggested below by another commenter may be from his own religious beliefs.  or not.  I suggest before he expounds on democracy he first understand that we live in a republic defined by constitutions, state and federal, whose individual rights ARE protected by judicial review.  what? didnt take Poli Sci 1??

Perhaps we should put Jacoby's continued employment up to a vote and see what happens.

I think the Globe prints Jeff's colums just to get page 'hits' for their advertisers. It's like looking at a car wreck - you know it's going to be bad but sometimes it's hard not to check it out. I also know it's hard to find a rational 'conservative' writer now-a-days, but I'd rather have the Globe print Frum's analysis on issues than Jeff's. Even if I disagree with Frum most of the time, at least there's some honesty in his attempt to present a conservative analysis - whereas Jeff is just a total hack.

Talk about beating a dead horse.

Another awful,regressive,and unpersuasive column.

Putting the rights of minorities to a popular vote is the very definition of a tyranny of the majority.

Oh, God, Jeff. Please come into the 21st century. If anything, allowing our gay brothers and sisters to marry does nothing more than validate marriage. It creates a bond between two people who love each other. What does keeping them from marrying do for you or anyone else? Same sex marriage does NOTHING to hurt your marriage. Are you and your wife considering divorce becase Massachusetts made it legal many years ago? Are their cracks in your devotion? I would guess no. You see, it had NO impact on you, your wife or your marriage.

The argument by folks like you years ago about gays was that they were promiscuous, that they didn't settle down and weren't as good as straight married people. And yet, all they ever asked for was equal rights uner law. Slowly that has changed, despite neanderthal attitudes like yours. And no one has been hurt by it. NO ONE. Gay marriage has done nothing more than affirm the love that couples have for each other, and given them rights that YOU enjoy - the right to share property, visitation rights in hospitals, etc. There is no place in this country, or on the planet, where gay marriage has had a negative effect. All it's done ismake people happier and given a lot of business to wedding planners.

Times are changing, Jeff. As you point out, people in a few more states have given gays the right to marry. if you got your wish, you'd probably see more states do so - at least in the states with sentient human beings residing there instead of the racist, sexist, homophobes in the red states.

Human beings are evolving. We are realizing what is important in life - equality and love. People like you are either dying off or being marginalixed as the backward knuckle-draggers you are. The good people of the US has fought for rights for minorities, workers, women and gays for decades. And the fight is always against people like you who fear everything and do not really understand the message of God's love.

We will continue to evolve. You probably won't. Amazingly enough, as we evolve, the world will get better despite your whining. You can acknowlege it or continue to whine. It's your choice.

Is there any subject that gets more disproportional coverage than homosexuality? It's incessant! But I do agree with Jeff that gay marriage should be decided by the citizens, not the courts.

Perhaps it is time for the public to vote on Marriage. Let's start by crafting referenda for these: 1) The Commonwealth of Massachusetts only recognizes legal Civil Unions performed by a Commonwealth-designated agent, such as a Justice of the Peace, Judge, etc. Churches can bestow the Sacrament/Ceremony of Marriage on its members; however, a church-based Marriage has no legal standing in the Commonwealth without an associated document of Civil Union. 2) The voters of the Commonwealth should be allowed to vote whether to recognize all Civil Unions, whether traditional or same-sex. If same-sex marriage or Civil Union is not a right, then the heterosexual version must not be a right (since a 'right' can't be granted to a subset of society). As such, any such institution/designation should be subject to referendum.