Thrown out of an FBO...

No! Really?!

mike

"Jessica Taylor" wrote in message
...

To clarify for you, midwes was typed in error, the correct word was
midwest.

Ahhh...grasshopper.

Such wisdom...from one so young, yet.

mike

"Jessica Taylor" wrote in message
...

The intolerant only prefer to be amongst themselves and could certainly
not love anyone else.

Gary Drescher wrote:

"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?

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. She also exclaimed her beliefs as being pro gay
marriage. The code also states that judges must disqualify themselves from
hearing cases whenever they have an acknowledged bias in the issue. In her
later hearing and voting on the Goodridge case, Ms. Marshall broke both of these
simple requisites.
Unfortunately in Massachusetts it is ok to not bother following law, even for
judges and legislators.




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.

Because it is a slap in the face to the people who actually follow the
constitution.

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.

Judges and justices exist to interpret laws. When did "we the people" establish
filibusters and destroying process?

If one more SJC member had voted against Goodridge, there would have been no gay
marriage enacted. So, if petitioners favoring gay marriage had been trampled in
the same way, would you support that too? I would not.



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.

I must have missed that explanation, all I saw were strange analogies to
referendums about Jews, etc.

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.

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

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.

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



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

No, I did not.

If you consider having the petition trampled by legislators being "heard," fine.





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.

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. 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?"

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?"

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.

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).



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, and
twice. Finally you conveniently forget to note that the first time the
constitution convention was disbanded before it began was BEFORE the supreme
court delivered its OPINION. So there were no "rights" to repeal. When a
decision is found because a justice did not follow the judicial rules, there is
no justice.

There's more where these came from...

At least I KNOW when I'm insulting somebody. And I usually do it
intentionally.

mike

"Jessica Taylor" wrote in message
...


mike regish wrote:

Well, at least I didn't call a charter owner a cheap SOB employer.

mike

So what? You have displayed no shortage of personal insults.

Yep. Ok. You win.

mike

"Jessica Taylor" wrote in message
...


Win what? I was just pointing out who absurd your claims are.

Intolerance is about the only thing I can't tolerate.

Oh...yeah, there's religion, too.

mike

"Jessica Taylor" wrote in message
...

Pot, kettle, black. You preach tolerance and then accuse others of
bigotry.
You make unfounded accusations and then when you are called on it, you
just duck
and say to go search something to prove what *you* claimed. You say that
you
are "progressive" but then admit that you are so intolerant that you
cannot even
talk to someone who has other views than your own narrow mindset.

Peter Duniho wrote:

"Jessica Taylor" wrote in message
...
Again, the only one who is tossing "100%" around is you.

You wish that were the case, obviously.


I have no need to wish.


Any blanket generalization is necessarily applied to the entire
population.

Maybe.

No maybe about it. By definition.

Whose definition?



That's why blanket generalizations are so offensive in the first place.

Sort of like somebody stating that they know their politics will be
different
because they "are from mass [sic]," right?

Yes, much like that. So?

You stated no quarrel with that generalization in this same thread.

You were claiming that blanket generalizations are "so offensive." How so?



I understand just fine, thank you.

Clearly, you do not. You're welcome.

"Do not...". There is not even any indication of what you think you are
talking about.

If you can't figure it out by now, you never will.

mike

"Jessica Taylor" wrote in message
...
mike regish wrote:

I know. He just exposed them. They've always been like that. They just
hid
it better.
mike

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

George Bush didn't magically change all Republicans, or even the
party,
all by himself in the span of 6 years.

Exposed what? What are you talking about? "Been like 'that'" --what
stereotype are you trying to make?

mike regish wrote:

Wadda maroon...

mike

"Jessica Taylor" wrote in message
...

Not true. The very foundation of Statistics is infering facts about an
entire
population through the use of a much smaller representative sample.

??? Can you actually support any of your statements, or you just prefer to
make callow drive-by comments?

mike regish wrote:

To you...?

Nope.

mike

"Jessica Taylor" wrote in message
...


Care to explain what you might have been trying to say?

To anyone, but it's clear that you don't know what you're trying to say
either.