"Jessica Taylor" wrote in message
...
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.

Would you care to explain what you're referring to?

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

You are using bad behavior to justify more bad behavior.

You have not explained why such maneuvers are necessarily bad behavior. We
could abolish vote-suppressing maneuvers (such as filibusters) if we wanted
to; we could even have a government by plebiscite rather than by legislation
and judicial rulings if we wanted to. There are sound reasons not to want
to, and that's reflected in the structure of government that we, as a
people, have chosen to establish.

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.

On the contrary, there is grave harm in holding the referendum, even if it
is defeated, as I have already explained. For similar reasons, it would be
gravely harmful to hold a referendum that would require Jews to wear yellow
stars, or that would prohibit interracial couples from marrying. It is
gravely harmful to expose people to the threat of such a repeal of basic
rights, even if the threat can be defeated. Any such referendum should be
opposed at *every procedural step* by lawful political and parliamentary
means; the opposition should not wait for the final vote.

You pointed out that minorities in Massachusetts are not entitled to
have their voices heard.

No, I did not.

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.

That's preposterous. There has been extensive debate for the past few years
in the legislature, in the print media, on the internet, in the streets, and
in all manner of public and private venues. Opponents of equal marriage
rights in Massachusetts have an unfettered right to express their opinion,
which has in fact been widely heard, and has been rejected by the majority
of the public here and by all three branches of state government.

Getting to hold a binding referendum to amend the state constitution to
repeal a crucial facet of legal equality for a specified minority is not the
same as "having your voice heard". Your conflation of the two is a wild and
desperate misrepresentation.

--Gary