Was Gay Marriage not on principle in Massachusetts?

In the final days in Massachusetts to bring the issue of marriage to the ballot, despite having the signatures and the Supreme Judicial Courts decision that the ballot may go to voters, somehow the Gov. Patrick and Frm. House Speaker State Rep Dimasi (later indited on corruption charges on a separate issue) were able to change the votes in the State House to stop the ballot. It was a procedural vote, in which I honestly assume at the State House sweet deals were made for those who stopped the ballot measure, because the year before the legislature was OK to place it on the ballot.

Now that gay marriage advocates in California want to put the issue back on the ballot in 2012, as voters feel marriage fatigued unable to gather enough signatures for 2010, I respect the ballot initiative process being a part of 'been there, done that' in which my legislators stopped a marriage vote from happening. No one should stop any ballot initiative, because 'they already won'.

Back to the Massachusetts legislature today, two years ago the legislatures voted against casinos. Here in Massachusetts, both progressives and social conservatives agree how casinos affect the poor, drive income away from family, and steers away revenue from the cultural economy (local arts/music/businesses). Guess what happen in a year's time with the new house speaker? When push came to shove, the legislature voted to have casino gambling.

From a local blog... and the reference to how gay marriage went down in Massachusetts

Sheep in the State House

The old leadership told the representatives a couple of years ago to vote against legalizing gambling, and they did it. The new leadership told the representatives this week to vote for legalizing gambling, and they did it. A large number of the members of the state house of representatives appear to have no principles behind their voting records; they are just following their speaker like a flock of sheep..... Since these legislators appear to operate under no principle other than following their leader, then what does this mean about their votes a few years back to kill efforts to ban gay marriage? Were those votes not based on principle? Will they gladly reverse their votes when a new speaker takes over who wants to get rid of gay marriage? Gay marriage advocates watch out