Gary Drescher wrote:

"Jessica Taylor" wrote in message
...
I believe that the Constitutional process should actually be followed
instead of
trampled on.

The constitution is being followed. Adjourning the constitutional convention
was lawfully accomplished by a vote of the legislature.

As lawful as putting a supreme court justice in the Court when she already
declared what she would do as a quid-pro-quo.

Parliamentary
maneuvering has always been a routine part of the constitutional process.

You are using bad behavior to justify more bad behavior.



Massachusetts' gay marriage is supported by the majority of the state's
population and all three branches of government (when the governor-elect
takes office). Elections have been held since same-sex marriage began, and
the number of legislators supporting equal marriage rights has increased,
not decreased.

Which is not relevant when a constitutional petition is recessed ad-infiniteum.
If there is so much support, which you claim, why can the legislators

Apparently the gay lobby just got their million dollars worth of legislators.
The best state legislature that money can buy, and the same legislature who
passed spending bills while partially (or fully) drunk a few years ago and
ajourned this summer because they were too busy raising money (from the gay
lobby for example) then to vote for war veteran state college benefits.

The democratic process is working just as it should here to
protect equal rights under the law.

If that it is true, then there surely there is no harm in following the
constitutional process and allowing people who petition the government under the
proper means to have their voice heard. You say that the majority of the
state's population is in favor of "gay marriage." You also said that "democracy
is distinct from tyranny of the majority." So why shouldn't a group of people,
even a minority, be in able to exercise their voice instead of being quenched?

Even if you favor gay marriage, the rule of law and the ability of people to
vote should actually mean something.



So if another Court says that same sexes cannot marry, that would be true
democracy too, right?

No, just as the Dred Scott decision was not an example of true democracy.
Court decisions in a democracy are *supposed to* protect individual and
minority rights against tyranny of the majority, but they do not always do
so.

Clearly. You pointed out that minorities in Massachusetts are not entitled to
have their voices heard.
By the way courts in other states, and direct true democracy via referendums
have been opposed to gay marriage, so using your own logic, that is true
justice as well. The difference, in a true democracy, representative or not,
there is debate. The gay lobby in Massachusetts is opposed to having a debate.