Liberalism need not be synonymous with an "ends justify the means" mentality. Sam Allis, columnist for the Boston Globe, calls himself a "process liberal"--apparently a term of derision applied by gay activists to supporters of gay marriage who nevertheless object to the authoritarian manner in which it has been instituted. Allis supports gay marriage, but supports codifying it by Constitutional means. He admits that the Massachusetts legislature's unconstitutional blockage of a traditional marriage initiative "smells bad."

Allis quotes some non-process liberals, i.e., ends-justify-the-means liberals, in his piece: Arline Isaacson, co-chair of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus, maintains: "What we stand to lose is so significant, and it's so unfair for our supporters to expect that we should just lie down and say, 'It's OK, the process is more important than our rights.' " "It's not a matter of following the constitution," says John Reinstein of the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts explains. "It's following the constitution down the drain."

Say what? An ACLU state leader demanding that elected leaders ignore the Constitution? A barker for "rights" demanding that everyone's rights be discarded for a few people's "rights"?

"Say for the sake of argument that the ballot initiative would embed in the constitution the right of gays to marry and that the Legislature dodged a vote on it," Allis writes. "Isaacson and Reinstein would, in righteous dudgeon, demand that legislators honor their oath of office to obey the state constitution." Alas, the shoe is on the other foot, and process liberals, such as Sam Allis, are few.

The ACLU person didn't really say much different than something that I've heard quite a few times from the right, "The Constitution is not a suicide pact."

I have to agree that we need more process liberals. This reminds me of a not so recent op/ed by Richard Cohen, (the editorialist from the Washington Post I would most like to see with a severe case of Writers Block) where he attacked the so-called right to privacy as the basis for Roe v. Wade. Far from advocating a pro life position, he acknowledges that the legality of abortion should be supported by legal grounds much less shaky than found in Roe. Of course, I'm not an expert on any of this stuff. I mostly pick up any supposed knowledge on these topics from my father-in-law, and the other smart folks on this blog.

But it seems to me that they're few and far between for an obvious reason: we're rooting for them. Because, we know, and they know, that the populace will make the right decision nearly every time. That's why it wasn't good enough for abortion to be a state issue (can't let them dumbass hicks stop a woman from killin' her baby if she wants to), and why now this issue will never be decided by the people.

OMG. The so-called populists don't trust the people!

"Because, we know, and they know, that the populace will make the right decision nearly every time."
-Homer J. Fong

Call me a liberal, but I can't agree with that. Ever since the masses killed Socrates...

r.c.

Sorry, what I meant to say is that generally the people will see BS and terribly stupid decisions by government for what they are.

I definitely can't agree with that. Even the most intelligent members of our society often fall for government B.S.

I guess I might fall into the category of a process progressive. Difference I don't buy all the sexologist claptrap about the skin being the largest sex organ and that sex is sex regardless of which gender takes either role.

Also I share with mainstream conservatives the idea that human nature is not endlessly malleable to the point that we can decide how we want to "innovate" on social structures.

[Plus, I always wonder how somebody can call themselves "progressives" when at an instant they are remarkably agnostic about "progress" (or even word "is") and want to argue about whose definition of progress we are talking about.]