"Jessica Taylor" wrote in message
...
Gary Drescher wrote:
"Jessica Taylor" wrote in message
...
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?

A justice is a judge. In 1999, Margaret Marshall was a Keynote speaker
for a
Gay / Lesbian fundraiser.
The Judicial Conduct code for Massachusetts states that judges may not
participate in fundraisers.

Marshall spoke at an annual dinner (for which there was an admission fee) of
the Mass. Lesbian and Gay Barr Association. Does that make it an
impermissible 'fundraiser' in the sense of the state Code of Judicial
Conduct? What is the relevant section of the Code, and what are the
precedents as to its application to giving speeches at bar association
meetings (or other civic gatherings)? As far as I'm aware, such speeches are
routine and proper.

She also exclaimed her beliefs as being pro gay marriage.

Really? What did she supposedly say? In the only quote I find, Marshall
merely stated generally (with no mention of marriage) that gays and lesbians
should enjoy equality before the law in accordance with the "civil liberties
of all people".

Is *that* a disqualifying point of view for a judge? Is someone eligible to
be a judge only if she *has no opinion* as to whether gays (or blacks or
Jews) should be equal before the law?

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.

No it would not be harmful. It would get laughed off the stage and life
would go
on.

If you also believe a yellow-star referendum would be harmless (provided it
were defeated), then you are at least being consistent, and our disagreement
is indeed about a procedural question rather than about same-sex marriage pe
se.

To me, saying there's no harm caused by such a referendum is like saying
there's no harm caused by someone pointing a gun at a bystander's face and
pulling the trigger, as long as it turns out that the gun wasn't loaded (in
fact, the law recognizes that such an act still constitutes a serious
assault).

I'm curious...If it is such a basic right, then how come other states do
not
recognize said "right?"

How come most other states didn't recognize the right of interracial couples
to marry a hundred years ago? How come no country in the world recognized
the right of women to vote until the latter 1800s?

Ancient prejudices can persist for a long time, but previous nonrecognition
of basic rights does not undermine moral entitlement to those rights.

I'm also curious if it is such a basic right, how come
it is more special than the constitutional process? Following your logic,
the
13th amendment (and the first and all of them really) were gravely harmful
to
make.

Huh? What I said was harmful is a referendum (even if it doesn't pass) that
singles out a minority group for a repeal of a basic right under the
constitution. If you're "following my logic", how do you conclude that the
13th amendment or the Bill of Rights meets that criterion?

Oh, so if there is a newspaper debate, then it is not necessary to have a
debate
in the forums of democracy that the constitution have laid for this
purpose.

As I pointed out, there has also been extensive debate in the state
legislature. Various amendments to abolish same-sex marriage were debated
and defeated. The matter has been settled.

If
there was so much debate in the legislature, and the legislature was so
favorable to gay marriage, then why on earth did it take a Court to create
this
"right?"

At the time of the court ruling, a majority of the legislature did not favor
gay marriage. It is now years later; several anti-gay-marriage legislators
were ousted in subsequent elections, and others have been persuaded to
change their minds. (Since you youself acknowledge that there's no reason
not to have equal marriage rights for same-sex couples, you shouldn't be
surprised that more voters and legislators have come to be convinced of that
view.)

And by the way, courts and legislatures *recognize* rights (or not); they
don't "create" rights, at least in the moral sense. Rights are inherent, and
governments and citizens have a moral obligation to craft their laws
accordingly. (Hence, for example, slavery was wrong even when it was legal.)

Do you also disagree with the state and federal court rulings supporting
interracial-marriage rights in Perez v. Sharp or Loving v. Virgina? Or
should the courts have permitted states to prohibit interracial marriage
(and sentence interracial couples to jail) until a majority of their
citizens were ready to respect equal rights?

Also, please explain why the Lesbian member of the supreme court voted
AGAINST
the gay marriage enactment, since you say this is a basic "right?"

The dissenting opinions are clearly explained in the decision itself. (How
is a dissenter's sexual orientation relevant?)

Margaret Marshall, an African-American even admitted that she derived her
opinion on South African law. Silly me, I thought a Massachusetts supreme
court
would base its opinions on Massachusetts law, or even US law.

Uh, what "admission" are you referring to? The majority decision in
Goodridge was explicitly grounded in the state constitution, and in an
extensive body of case law in Massachusetts and the US.

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.

I'm sorry, but could you name a date when it was rejected by the executive
branch? Could you name a date when it was rejected by the legislative
branch?
The legislature did not vote to favor gay marriage, they voted to abort a
process (which as you say would have almost certainly legitimized gay
marriage
in law).

The legislature voted to reject various anti-gay-marriage measures, and
voted to adjourn rather than ratify an anti-gay-marriage amendment
referendum. And the governor-elect has declared his support for gay marriage
rights as well. (If you need me to google it for you I can provide
citations.)

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.

No mis-representation at all, it is a depiction of what actually happened,

So everyone who would like to repeal others' civil rights, but does not get
to hold a binding referendum on the question, has thereby been silenced
(rather than just defeated)?

--Gary