For those who followed it closely, the constitutional convention at the statehouse on Thursday offered an enlightening primer on procedural tactics.

Legislators in favor of gay marriage voted repeatedly for an amendment that bans it. Legislators mortally opposed to according same-sex couples civil-union status rallied around to save an amendment that grants such unions the full benefits of marriage.

Perhaps this complex dance of feign and counter-feign is nothing unusual – legislative history is rich with examples of strategically changed votes, broken promises, alliances forged and betrayed at the last roll-call. Sometimes noble laws arise from less-than-noble intentions. When the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was originally being debated, it contained no reference whatsoever to gender equality. That language was introduced by Rep. Howard W. Smith, D-Va., and other Southern opponents of the Act who thought that adding gender to the language would make it a laughingstock and prevent its passage.

Their strategy backfired, of course, with the result that today it is illegal to discriminate against women in hiring or promotion.

Clearly, this kind of procedural footwork is an unavoidable part of any legislative process. Even so, it is distressing that so much of the constitutional convention has hinged on this kind of procedural gamesmanship, and so little of it has seen forthright debate between legislators who state their positions honestly and without secret motives.

One of the great virtues of public debate is that it can help individuals, states, and nations to clarify and refine their thinking on a knotty and contentious suspect.

If ever there were a need for this kind process, it is here and now.

The Great and General Court should be leading the Commonwealth in a deep, rigorous and unflinchingly honest conversation about gay marriage. Instead, they are focusing exclusively on winning a favorable tactical result.

The Massachusetts Constitution of Massachusetts, written by John Adams, was designed to make the legislature move slowly and deliberately. The legislature should embrace this charge, and find the time and the collective courage to discuss gay marriage frankly until everything has been said.

Only then will their amendments rest on solid ground, and only then will the people of Massachusetts feel confident voting on them.

It is ironic enough that partisans of both sides are voting one way and planning another – it will be a great disappointment if either side succeeds in passing its agenda through shrewd manipulation of the rules of order, but must compromise the public debate in order to do so.