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.

Jeff - I would like to know just one...just one conservative wedge issue you think has been wrong.  Just one, and did you agree withit until it became expedient to change?  You need to show folks you are more than a more refined version of Limbaugh, or are you just a more refined version of Limbaugh?  I read you all the time even though you never answer these type of queries.

the perils of court mandates is shown with Roe v. Wade

incrementalism in the expansion of rights might feel comfortable to small C conservatives, but explain that relatively inconsequential need to four generations of African Americans living under Jim Crow or women's suffragettes of the 19th Century. Why they must live with severely abridged rights as the prejudices of the entitled voters in a democracy are very slowly and painfully dissolved or overcome? Executive and judicial courage in the face of public criticism has more often protected the rights of minorities and the disenfranchised.

The significance of the American experiment is not just the broadening of democratic rights but also the formalized constitutional protection of individual rights from the volatile whim of the majority.

Under Mr. Jacoby's model, I would suggest holding Massachsetts ballot initiatives to vote on his right to express his opinion and a second on the Globe's right to publish it.

"In nearly all of America, of course, marriage still means what it has always meant." Idiotic statement. Always is a long time, and what constitutes a 'marriage' can only be defined by the individuals involved. Human Rights are not subject to majority vote. If they were, few, if any of us, would be free to enjoy "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Jeff, as a member of an often oppressed minority group should recognize this better than many, but clearly is concerned only when he feels his personal interests are affected, a more than selfish world view. BTW - does anyone feel that having married gay couples in MA has in any way negatively impacted their marriage? I didn't think so...

"In nearly all of America, of course, marriage still means what it has always meant." Would this be before or after 1862?

I'm all for gay marriage. Why should misery be exclusive to heterosexuals?

Opposing gay marriage is hate. It doesn't get much simpler than that. As history shows us, civil rights and human rights are not things to be voted on. It is a Global embarrassment that this nation has not made gay marriage legal everywhere. If it were Jewish people, African Americans, or any other group being deprived such a right, it simply wouldn't be tolerated. But because of ignorance and hate, we remain woefully behind, and as a result, gay people remain second-class citizens. Does anyone at the Globe staff read Jacoby's words before publishing them? I don't subscribe to read hate, however eloquent or rationalized.

Wrong again, Jeff. The issue IS settled, by law, under our Constitution, decided by the highest court in the Commonwealth. There is nothing undemocratic about that -- the judiciary is the third branch of a democratic government.

Now, Jeff, seriously, would you have supported putting slavery and the holocost to a vote? And exactly who would have voted since there is no right to vote?

Interesting that you compare legalizing pot to gay couples being allowed a marriage license. Would you put voting rights to a popular vote? Why should the people get to decide what legal rights a percentage of the population have or don't? Please, Jeff, tell us EXACTLY how gay marriage in this state has caused you harm??

Jacoby is the son of a Holocaust survivor, and yet he still cannot find room in his heart and mind for respect and equality. It is a miracle that Jacoby was ever born, and he squanders that miracle by spreading the same sort of hateful ideas that nearly killed his father. I'll never understand it.

Jacoby says, "In a democratic republic, we vote on rights all the time. On Nov. 6,citizens in 38 states voted on ballot questions inviting them to legalize marijuana, end the death penalty, ban affirmative action, permit assisted suicide, bar public funding of abortion, reject an individual health-insurance mandate, or eliminate teacher tenure, to mention just a few."

Few of these are examples of rights.  For example, Teacher tenure is not a right. It's an issue of contract terms for employees. There has never been a question of whether some teachers in a school district would be enrolled in the tenure system and others not enrolled.  Marijuana was not "legalized."  Marijuana has never been illegal nor legal. The various votes around the country were to determine penalties or lack thereof for owning and using marijuana.  People were not voting on either the rights of the marijuana or the human rights of the user.  Everyone has the right to use marijuana. The question is how and under what circumstances the state might penalize people for doing this.  

I strongly disagree with Jacoby, as usual. The implication here is that a referendum is the only legitimate way for people to govern themselves. In reality, the referendum is a messy process and should always be the last resort. Look at California. It's a governmental basket case because of multiple questions at every election cycle.

Representative democracy is the principal method by which we govern ourselves, for a passel of good reasons. It should remain the principal method in my opinion, but I guess not in jacoby's.

Mr Jacoby's "journalistic" record is becoming increasingly shrill, extremist, and hateful. If he was an articulate and thoughtful voice for the conservative point of view would be one thing, but he is a slightly less neanderthal Howie Carr (with apologies to to Neanderthals). BG readers deserve better. He does not spark meaningful discussion, he elicits contempt and nearly universal condemnation. His contract should not be extended if he himself doesn't recognize that he is in the wrong job. 

It wasn't that long ago that Jacoby was ranting about a referendum in San Francisco that would prevent circumcision. Kind of inconsistent, don't you think?

Jacoby epitomizes the knee jerk religious conservatives who are holding the country hostage with their demands that the country do what THEY say.  He thinks gay marriage is a bad idea.  Fine.  It's his right to believe whatever he wants.  It is NOT his right, however, to impose those beliefs on others.  Nor is it the right of any majority to hold a sham vote on who should and should not be accorded certain rights, the right to marry being no exception.

I'm tired of his stale rants about things that are, frankly, none of his damned business.  As another writer put it, how would he feel about putting the holocaust or slavery to a vote?  Sure, he'll argue that they are not the same thing as the 'definition' of marriage.  Every time these yahoos rant about gay marriage, they cast it in terms of changing the 'definition' of marriage, certain in their own minds that there is one and only ONE definition, the evolution of society notwithstanding. 

Gay people exist, Mr Jacoby.  Too bad you don't like that fact.  It never ceases to surprise me how rabid you are on the subject.  Why?  Who are you trying to protect?  Against what?  Go to therapy.

I thought Jeff would be thrilled. When gay marriage and marijuana became legal on the same day, to brought fruition

to Leviticus 20:13 : When man lies with man he shall be stoned.