Gary Drescher wrote:

"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?

Since the organization received income from the $60.00/plate event, yes. If
Dick Cheney speaks at a dinner to raise income, say also for $60.00 per plate,
would that not be a "fundraiser?" even if someone tries claiming otherwise
after the fact?

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)?

SJC Court Rule 3:09 - Canon 4 (C)


As far as I'm aware, such speeches are
routine and proper.

Then I invite you to make yourself aware of the Massachusetts Code of Judicial
Conduct.



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".

In 1999, Ms Marshall had made direct remarks about praising legislation on an
issue and favoring "jurisprudence" on the issue. She later wrote an opinion on
the same issue.



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?

It is not proper for judges to hear cases on which they have announced personal
biases in the issue. Massachusetts codifies this in the judicial conduct rules,
but apparently there is no need to bother with such formalities.
Think about it like this, if a case was before a supreme court involving oil
drilling near the coast of California (or Florida, North Carolina, whatever),
would it be proper for a Justice to hear and deliver an opinion on the case
after previously expressing his desire to build more coastal oil drilling?



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.

Of course it is, it always was.



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).

A public debate is *NOT* an assault! It is not battery, it is not pointing a
weapon at anyone's face or body. Debates have always been absolutely essential
to the institution of democracy. If we squelch debates by claiming that they
are too harmful to have, then we start killing off democracy.





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.

That's fine. If such a right does indeed exist, than there are appropriate
facilities to deal with that.



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?

Passing the 13th amendment followed the appropriate documented procedure to do
so. Passing a state constitution amendment would also follow the appropriate
procedure to do so.



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.

I don't recall anything being '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.)

If that's true, it's fine. But that doesn't justify shutting down a
constitutional process after people did everything necessary to have that
process followed.



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.)

Then by your definition, there is a "right" to marry same sex in every state in
the country, not just Massachusetts, and indeed any country in the world.



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?

Those laws were written out of prejudice, when blacks were not able to vote,
could not have certain jobs, could not use certain schools, certain facilities,
and indeed even certain restrooms. Those indeed were civil rights. And today
many blacks reject that latching on of their civil rights struggle.

Curiously, at least one high school in the country, in New York City, has
decided to be exclusively for gay students. Should straight high school
students not enjoy the same right to go there? By what measure do they
determine if someone is gay or straight? If a prospective employer does not
hire someone with that school on the résumé, is that a per-se violation of civil
rights?

Equal rights? People who describe themselves as gay have a higher than average
income and have a political power much greater than their their population
numbers, compared to other people.



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?)

When people who do not agree with Goodridge vs. Board-o-Health are ridiculed as
merely "bigots" and -phobes, it certainly is.



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.

This occurred after the opinion was written. There are no mention of it in the
decision, of course.



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.)

But halting a constitutional process is NOT support for gay marriage! There
would be ample time for each legislator to vote support/no support of gay
marriage if the process was followed.



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,

What "civil right" was trying to be being repealed in 2002 ?

but does not get
to hold a binding referendum on the question, has thereby been silenced
(rather than just defeated)?

There is no defeat when there is no process.