Update: Over 3000 Gay couples married in SF

[Midnight Son]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=533&e=1&u=/ap/20040214/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage

Despite accusations that the mayor is riding roughshod over the law, conservative groups failed to stop San Francisco from issuing same-sex marriage licenses Friday as hundreds more gay couples rushed to tie the knot before the opportunity slipped away.

All day long, the marble passages beneath City Hall's ornate gold dome echoed with applause as one couple after another got hitched, promising to be "spouses for life." As of Friday afternoon, 489 couples had gotten married.

Gay couples received more good news when a judge denied a request by conservatives to immediately block the marriage spree, allowing the weddings to continue on Valentine's Day and through the long holiday weekend. The judge ordered attorneys to come back Tuesday and make their case.

See, there is plenty of support for the sanctity of marriage! :)

Meanwhile, conservatives are seething.... "These degenerates are... Happy! We must strike them down, cuz the Bible sez blah blah blah...."

[Bob Cherub]

Another moderate stance brought to you by Midnight Son!

Seriously, dude, why are you even faking it any more? Even most DEMOCRATS don't agree with gay marriage. You're like lefter than left. You're like leftest left. Lefty left.

[Anaxagoras]

Another moderate stance brought to you by Midnight Son!

Seriously, dude, why are you even faking it any more? Even most DEMOCRATS don't agree with gay marriage. You're like lefter than left. You're like leftest left. Lefty left.

Wow. Obviously if even most DEMOCRATS don't agree with a position, then it must be really out there.

Seriously, dude, why do you insist on seeing everything in simplistic left/right terms? You're like, simpler than simple. You're like simplest simple. Simply simple.

[Bob Cherub]

Oh, so supporting gay marriage isn't a left or right issue? I didn't realize that.

Thanks for educating me again! BTW, what's the definition of "protest" again?

[Mark Asher]

Oh, so supporting gay marriage isn't a left or right issue? I didn't realize that.

Thanks for educating me again! BTW, what's the definition of "protest" again?

Are civil libertarians left or right? Isn't it a reasonable stance that government should have no business in regulating sexual preference? To me, that's almost a classic Goldwater Republican stance. Keep government out of our bedrooms. It's really only the religious right that has problems with it.

[Dave Markell]

Sadly, the religious right has pretty much taken over the Republican party platform. Libertarians of any sort now feel very, very out of place there, which is a big change from the way things were several decades ago. The Republicans used to have a pretty vocal libertarian wing, but it's been drowned out by the chanting chorus of the religious right.

[Jason McCullough]

Another moderate stance brought to you by Midnight Son!

Seriously, dude, why are you even faking it any more? Even most DEMOCRATS don't agree with gay marriage. You're like lefter than left. You're like leftest left. Lefty left.

Last poll I saw was fairly evenly split, but:

Oh, so supporting gay marriage isn't a left or right issue? I didn't realize that.

Correct, mostly.

[quatoria]

Oh, so supporting gay marriage isn't a left or right issue? I didn't realize that.

Thanks for educating me again! BTW, what's the definition of "protest" again?

So, Cherub, do you have an actual rational position for opposing gay marriage, or is it just "THE RIGHT SAYS IT'S BAD, SO FUCK THEM FAGS!"

[Theodore Rex DX]

Last poll I saw was fairly evenly split, but

So I guess there must be a lot of republicans in favour of gay marriage. I mean, if most DEMOCRATS are against it.

[Dave Markell]

The only reason gay marriage isn't officially a "left" issue is that the leaders of the left don't have the courage of their convictions. They're too afraid of alienating a lot of moderates by taking a stand on what they see as a minor issue compared to beating Bush.

I really don't see how anyone can argue otherwise. The left is the traditional home for progressive social policy, which this certainly qualifies as. Further, the far right is rabidly opposed to gay marriage. If the country is evenly split, and a big chunk of the right is against it, that means an equally big chunk of the left must be for it--moderates are split down the middle, like normal.

The math isn't difficult.

[Theodore Rex DX]

I was taking a sarcastic shot at Cherub's bullshit.

[Dave Markell]

I was responding to Jason, Theodore. Read his last post where he says "Correct, mostly" about this not being a left/right issue. I approve of your sarcasm. :)

[Bob Cherub]

Oh, so supporting gay marriage isn't a left or right issue? I didn't realize that.

Thanks for educating me again! BTW, what's the definition of "protest" again?

So, Cherub, do you have an actual rational position for opposing gay marriage, or is it just "THE RIGHT SAYS IT'S BAD, SO FUCK THEM FAGS!"

Hey, thanks for asking quatoria!

Actually, you might be shocked. I don't support gay marriage in the "legal marriage sense" but I support civil unions and other symbolic couplings.

See, I'm diversified! Unike you who will blindly follow the left into oblivion.

[Jason McCullough]

I meant that the lost poll of democrats I saw was like 60/40 or something; it's not remotely a consensus there. On the left, yes, but Democrats aren't all way to the left.

[Anders Hallin]

Actually, you might be shocked. I don't support gay marriage in the "legal marriage sense" but I support civil unions and other symbolic couplings.
Do you support civil unions for all, and marriage for those married religiously?
Because I think your "civil unions and other symbolic couplings" aren't worth crap if they're intended just to throw the gay community a bone and make them stop their bitching, while making it fully clear that it's in essence different from proper, straight marriages.

[John Reynolds]

Do you support civil unions for all, and marriage for those married religiously?
Because I think your "civil unions and other symbolic couplings" aren't worth crap if they're intended just to throw the gay community a bone and make them stop their bitching, while making it fully clear that it's in essence different from proper, straight marriages.

Completely agree. It's the social equivalent of the military's don't ask, don't tell BS.

[Midnight Son]

My thoughts on the subject, as expressed elsewhere: you can't force a church to marry gay people if it's against the church's will. I'm in favor of civil marriages that have the same legal standing as church sanctified weddings.

[Menzo]

Legal question: I thought you could only sue if you had actual damages - emotional, physical, or monetary. I mean, I know anyone can sue anyone, but I thought in order to win you had to prove you were actually damaged.

So these conservative groups that are suing the mayor - do they have to prove they were damaged by him breaking California law, or in these cases can anyone sue anyone they think is simply breaking a law even though they are not actually damaged?

[Mark Asher]

Actually, you might be shocked. I don't support gay marriage in the "legal marriage sense" but I support civil unions and other symbolic couplings.
Do you support civil unions for all, and marriage for those married religiously?
Because I think your "civil unions and other symbolic couplings" aren't worth crap if they're intended just to throw the gay community a bone and make them stop their bitching, while making it fully clear that it's in essence different from proper, straight marriages.

The way it should work, as Kyle Wilson noted, is that the government shouldn't sanctify marriages in the first place. The government should do what they do now, issue marriage licenses, but instead rename them civil union licenses.

Let marriage be the province of religion, and let each church make its own decision on gay marriage. For property rights, extension of benefits, and other legal matters, let the civil union contract be preeminent.

[DennyA]

Because I think your "civil unions and other symbolic couplings" aren't worth crap if they're intended just to throw the gay community a bone and make them stop their bitching, while making it fully clear that it's in essence different from proper, straight marriages.
Civil unions are more than a bone, though. They at least allow gay partners to be with thier mates in the hospital if they're critically ill, to share in insurance policies, and lots of other legal benefits formerly only available to heterosexual couples.

So while there's still a distinction, it at least affords them the same legal benefits, and that's a huge boon.

Calling it "marriage" is obviously important to many for equality perception reasons, but civil unions should not be dismissed as a bone. They're a huge step forward for these folks.

[Rywill]

Legal question: I thought you could only sue if you had actual damages - emotional, physical, or monetary. I mean, I know anyone can sue anyone, but I thought in order to win you had to prove you were actually damaged.

So these conservative groups that are suing the mayor - do they have to prove they were damaged by him breaking California law, or in these cases can anyone sue anyone they think is simply breaking a law even though they are not actually damaged?
That's an excellent point. You're right that citizens generally cannot sue government agencies simply because the agency isn't following the law. They have to claim some sort of damage. I haven't read the papers filed by the conservative groups, but somehow they must have come up with an argument that they are being harmed by the mayor's actions.

[Anaxagoras]

So what's the exact benefit of marriage priveleges?

Job health insurance (spouses are often covered)
Wills
Life insurance (?)
Social validity of their union

Anything else?

[Dirt]

Oh, so supporting gay marriage isn't a left or right issue? I didn't realize that.

Thanks for educating me again! BTW, what's the definition of "protest" again?

So, Cherub, do you have an actual rational position for opposing gay marriage, or is it just "THE RIGHT SAYS IT'S BAD, SO FUCK THEM FAGS!"

Hey, thanks for asking quatoria!

Actually, you might be shocked. I don't support gay marriage in the "legal marriage sense" but I support civil unions and other symbolic couplings.

See, I'm diversified! Unike you who will blindly follow the left into oblivion.

Oh crap, I actually agree on something with Cherub.

Somebody shoot me.

[Dirt]

So what's the exact benefit of marriage priveleges?

Job health insurance (spouses are often covered)
Wills
Life insurance (?)
Social validity of their union

Anything else?

My company has allowed coverage for "domestic partners" for years and years. A Will is independent of a marriage; you can give your money to anybody you want. You can give your money to anybody on a life insurance as well, mine goes to my sister. So far as money goes, I think taxes are the main benefits for when one spouse dies before another.

The only thing that marriage really gives is social validity, that society has always accepted that a marriage is a social contract between 2 people (a man and a woman). Therefore, I think that gay people are marrying for the wrong reason, or at least, their methodology is flawed.

[Derek Meister]

Anything else?

Appointment as guardian of a minor and the ability to make medical decisions for partner, among others that spring to mind in the case of death and disabilities.

[Jason McCullough]

My company has allowed coverage for "domestic partners" for years and years.

Ok. So you'd have no problem with a law mandating coverage of domestic partners for all companies?

The thing with wills and life insurance is that without at least domestic partnership laws the partner is the legal equivalent of a casual friend to the deceased, whenever any will-related legal troubles come up (and they do). Back of the line, effectively, after the family.

Oh yeah, can't get Social Security survivor benefits if you're gay.

[Dirt]

My company has allowed coverage for "domestic partners" for years and years.

Ok. So you'd have no problem with a law mandating coverage of domestic partners for all companies?

I've said before that I have no problems with civil unions. What is fucked up in this country is that people _can_ give their 'domestic partners' their health insurance but I can't put my parents on mine.

[Dirt]

The thing with wills and life insurance is that without at least domestic partnership laws the partner is the legal equivalent of a casual friend to the deceased, whenever any will-related legal troubles come up (and they do). Back of the line, effectively, after the family.

As it should be. At least in a marriage, the other family members can expect to have grandkids or nieces and nephews (and it does happen more often than not). In a union between 2 gays, there is absolutely no chance of them producing a child between the 2 of them.

[Midnight Son]

Clearly it hasn't all been hashed out legally.... but can the first gay divorce be far away?

[Bullhajj]

Anything else?

If you don't have a benificiary defined, your partner would get your estate should you die.

Divorce, oddly enough. If you've been a couple for a long time and then split up, you can have the state help decide how to divide property.

[Angie Gallant]

In a union between 2 gays, there is absolutely no chance of them producing a child between the 2 of them.

Artificial insemination or adoption. It can and does happen, and the way gay families are dealt with right now (since they don't have the benefits of divorce proceedings to make visitation set down by the law) sucks.

[Bullhajj]

The thing with wills and life insurance is that without at least domestic partnership laws the partner is the legal equivalent of a casual friend to the deceased, whenever any will-related legal troubles come up (and they do). Back of the line, effectively, after the family.

As it should be. At least in a marriage, the other family members can expect to have grandkids or nieces and nephews (and it does happen more often than not). In a union between 2 gays, there is absolutely no chance of them producing a child between the 2 of them.

Not sure what your point is, but I personally know literally dozens of gay couples that have children.

[Kalle]

As it should be. At least in a marriage, the other family members can expect to have grandkids or nieces and nephews (and it does happen more often than not). In a union between 2 gays, there is absolutely no chance of them producing a child between the 2 of them.

First of all I just want to make it clear that I find your double standards and anti-gay prejudice appaling. Secondly you can't even make a coherent and logical argument out of your prejudiced viewpoints that would force me to take you at least somewhat seriously. Lesbian couples can have kids. Insemination is an option, and the child would have the same genetic ties to the family of the mother as it would if it had been produced in a hetero relationship.

So what you are effectively saying here is that homosexual men should have no rights, but homosexual women should.

[Ben Sones]

As it should be. At least in a marriage, the other family members can expect to have grandkids or nieces and nephews (and it does happen more often than not). In a union between 2 gays, there is absolutely no chance of them producing a child between the 2 of them.

So should heterosexual couples that are unable to reproduce, for whatever reason, not be allowed to marry?

[Bullhajj]

So should heterosexual couples that are unable to reproduce, for whatever reason, not be allowed to marry?

Yeah, the state could be like my mom asking my little brother and his wife for a grandchild. That's awesome.

[Dirt]

In a union between 2 gays, there is absolutely no chance of them producing a child between the 2 of them.

Artificial insemination or adoption. It can and does happen, and the way gay families are dealt with right now (since they don't have the benefits of divorce proceedings to make visitation set down by the law) sucks.

In an artificial insemination situation, what the protects the rights of the grandparents to see their grandchildren should one parent die?

[Dirt]

As it should be. At least in a marriage, the other family members can expect to have grandkids or nieces and nephews (and it does happen more often than not). In a union between 2 gays, there is absolutely no chance of them producing a child between the 2 of them.

First of all I just want to make it clear that I find your double standards and anti-gay prejudice appaling. Secondly you can't even make a coherent and logical argument out of your prejudiced viewpoints that would force me to take you at least somewhat seriously. Lesbian couples can have kids. Insemination is an option, and the child would have the same genetic ties to the family of the mother as it would if it had been produced in a hetero relationship.

So what you are effectively saying here is that homosexual men should have no rights, but homosexual women should.

Seriously enough for you to reply.

Neither should receive rights by marriage.

[Dirt]

As it should be. At least in a marriage, the other family members can expect to have grandkids or nieces and nephews (and it does happen more often than not). In a union between 2 gays, there is absolutely no chance of them producing a child between the 2 of them.

So should heterosexual couples that are unable to reproduce, for whatever reason, not be allowed to marry?

Isn't it considered 'unnatural' for an individual to not be able to reproduce?

[Dirt]

So should heterosexual couples that are unable to reproduce, for whatever reason, not be allowed to marry?

Yeah, the state could be like my mom asking my little brother and his wife for a grandchild. That's awesome.

My mom asks me everyday. 150 years ago, she would have some societal controls to enforce it.

I don't see why gays need the validation of marriage anyways. William Godwin and Mary Wollstonecraft married only to give their daughter Mary Godwin Shelley acceptance in society, so that she wouldn't be a bastard. Does being married give gays greater validation in society? Quite the opposite, it just raises the ire of individuals who've always cherished marriage as it has always existed in history.

[Ben Sones]

Isn't it considered 'unnatural' for an individual to not be able to reproduce?

I don't know, but that wasn't really my question. "Natural" or not, do you think that heterosexual couples who can't reproduce (or, if you want to make it interesting, don't want to reproduce) should be allowed to marry? If so, then that's not a rational argument against gay marriage.

[Jason McCullough]

What is fucked up in this country is that people _can_ give their 'domestic partners' their health insurance but I can't put my parents on mine.

Uh, so? Why should you be able to put your parents on your health insurance? I mean, I'd actually prefer a national health care system where it'd all be irrelevant, but the legal/society interpretation has never included parents as member of immediate familes, while spouses have always been. I think it'd actually be a bigger change to put parents on there than gay spouses.

In an artificial insemination situation, what the protects the rights of the grandparents to see their grandchildren should one parent die?

The same thing that protects the visitation rights of grandparents with straight couples, I'd assume.

[Duality]

The same thing that protects the visitation rights of grandparents with straight couples, I'd assume.
Is he referring to the blood grandparents? I can't imagine why grandparents rights of an artificially inseminated child would be any different than any other case.

Blood grandparents, along with blood parents, would have no rights to speak of.

[Kalle]

Seriously enough for you to reply.

Neither should receive rights by marriage.

...but you can't justify why neither should recieve these rights, except by your own logically incoherent intuitions. All your arguments on this issue eventually boils down to "I don't like it, and it should be banned". So tell me why I should take your opinions seriously. Right now you are just being a parody of a homophobe.

[Anaxagoras]

...but you can't justify why neither should recieve these rights, except by your own logically incoherent intuitions. All your arguments on this issue eventually boils down to "I don't like it, and it should be banned". So tell me why I should take your opinions seriously. Right now you are just being a parody of a homophobe.
Kalle... he's not basing his beliefs off of homophobia. All his beliefs (near as I can tell) are based off of the Confucian ideal of the family and state. Why he chooses to rigidly extend those beliefs to homosexuals, I can't quite figure out, but I'm pretty sure he's not motivated by either fear or hatred of homosexuals.

[Kalle]

Kalle... he's not basing his beliefs off of homophobia. All his beliefs (near as I can tell) are based off of the Confucian ideal of the family and state. Why he chooses to rigidly extend those beliefs to homosexuals, I can't quite figure out, but I'm pretty sure he's not motivated by either fear or hatred of homosexuals.

I'm aware of that, parody of a homophobe seemed like a decent description.

[Anaxagoras]

Kalle... he's not basing his beliefs off of homophobia. All his beliefs (near as I can tell) are based off of the Confucian ideal of the family and state. Why he chooses to rigidly extend those beliefs to homosexuals, I can't quite figure out, but I'm pretty sure he's not motivated by either fear or hatred of homosexuals.

I'm aware of that, parody of a homophobe seemed like a decent description.

Sorry... didn't mean to sound condescending.

[extarbags]

...but you can't justify why neither should recieve these rights, except by your own logically incoherent intuitions. All your arguments on this issue eventually boils down to "I don't like it, and it should be banned". So tell me why I should take your opinions seriously. Right now you are just being a parody of a homophobe.
Kalle... he's not basing his beliefs off of homophobia. All his beliefs (near as I can tell) are based off of the Confucian ideal of the family and state. Why he chooses to rigidly extend those beliefs to homosexuals, I can't quite figure out, but I'm pretty sure he's not motivated by either fear or hatred of homosexuals.

That's what's so disturbing. I can understand if someone just says they hate gays so they should all be killed... at least they're consistent. But if people are like Dirt, and really don't have anything against gays but still think they should be denied rights... I don't know what to say.

Then again, his argument is essentially the same as the Christian Right's argument... it's against his religion (or ok, philosophical quasi-religion... whatever), so it should be outlawed. So it's countered the same way: the US shouldn't make laws respecting an establishment of religion. I think I read that somewhere, actually. Confucianism or Christianity, it's still treatable as a circular and invalid religious argument.

I'm so disgusted with the US that this is even an issue. Free-est country in the world, my ass.

[Robert Sharp]

I'm so disgusted with the US that this is even an issue. Free-est country in the world, my ass.

Amen to that. It's a joke. granted, no country can be totally free, but let's not pretend that we are. I get sick of hearing rednecks and other ignorant morons saying it's a free country. Ironically enough, most of these same people are the ones who say "if you don't like it, why don't you leave?"

I have seriously considered moving to another country lately.

[Theodore Rex DX]

As it should be. At least in a marriage, the other family members can expect to have grandkids or nieces and nephews (and it does happen more often than not). In a union between 2 gays, there is absolutely no chance of them producing a child between the 2 of them.

So should heterosexual couples that are unable to reproduce, for whatever reason, not be allowed to marry?

Isn't it considered 'unnatural' for an individual to not be able to reproduce?

Say, here's an idea: Why don't we make the event of a menopause mean an automatic divorce? That could be a lot of fun.

I don't think any religious ceremony should be recognised by law, and that all marriages between anybody are essentially civil unions. Civil unions between men and women shouldn't get special treatment, or even a special name. If gays want gay marriages recognised by society in general as something other than a civil union, I guess they'll have to start their own religions and create their own ceremonies. Or they could just call them 'marriages', same as everybody else. It shouldn't make a difference to the legal side of things.

[Dirt]

Prejudice exists. Deal.

In the USA, upon divorce, custody is generally assumed to go to the woman. The father has to fight for custody.

[Anders Hallin]

Civil unions are more than a bone, though. They at least allow gay partners to be with thier mates in the hospital if they're critically ill, to share in insurance policies, and lots of other legal benefits formerly only available to heterosexual couples.
No denying that, but it should be no more than a stepping stone to a complete marriage reform, in the interest of reducing stigma towards certain behaviours.
It was the "not allow marriage, but other symbolic couplings" that angered me. They can take their "symbolic couplings" and shove it up their arse.

Man, I wish gay marriage would be widely accepted soon so I can go on to oppose marriage in general :)

[Duality]

Prejudice exists, and that makes it okay!!

Murder exists, and that makes it okay!!

[Dirt]

Prejudice exists, and that makes it okay!!

Murder exists, and that makes it okay!!

Did I say it was okay?

Denial is the worst solution.

[Theodore Rex DX]

Prejudice exists. Deal.

In the USA, upon divorce, custody is generally assumed to go to the woman. The father has to fight for custody.

I am dealing. This is me dealing. This is how I deal.

It's bad enough that prejudice is an inevitability of life. It shouldn't have some kind of legal basis. That's fucking idiotic.

[Anders Hallin]

I don't see why gays need the validation of marriage anyways.
I'm against marriage, since it places the focus of society on creating couples instead of individuals, which I would prefer. However, as society is now, the answer to "Does being married give gays greater validation in society?" is a resounding YES. It means a hell of a lot that their love is seen just as valid as that of heterosexual couples and that they are just as much an accepted norm to society, something that can mean a hell of a lot. Homosexual youths have a higher incidence rate of suicide. I may be crazy, but I think that may have something to do with society considering their lust and love to be wrong. Allowing gay marriage is far from the be-all, end-all to the issue, but it's a very significant step. (the next step is of course replacing every Barbie as Rapunzel video with the Revolutionary Girl Utena movie).

William Godwin and Mary Wollstonecraft married only to give their daughter Mary Godwin Shelley acceptance in society, so that she wouldn't be a bastard. Does being married give gays greater validation in society? Quite the opposite, it just raises the ire of individuals who've always cherished marriage as it has always existed in history.
Some of the most fascinating persons in history had to marry to make sure their child, and by association their lifestyle was accepted by society. This is an argument against gay marriage how? It's not, as far as I can tell, realpolitically speaking.
The ire of the opposition will surely fade, as the segregationists are all but forgotten today.

[Jason McCullough]

Prejudice exists. Deal.

In the USA, upon divorce, custody is generally assumed to go to the woman. The father has to fight for custody.

No, custody goes to "what's best for the child." Normally the father doesn't express interest so the mother gets them, but legally it doesn't just default to the mother.

[Dirt]

Prejudice exists. Deal.

In the USA, upon divorce, custody is generally assumed to go to the woman. The father has to fight for custody.

No, custody goes to "what's best for the child." Normally the father doesn't express interest so the mother gets them, but legally it doesn't just default to the mother.

And "what's best for the child" usually means that, unless the father expresses interest, the child goes to the mother.

Why is that?

[Jason McCullough]

Uh, because the father normally doesn't care? Your inital statement wasn't accurate; fathers can get the kid if the court judges that's what best, and it sometimes is.

[Dirt]

Uh, because the father normally doesn't care? Your inital statement wasn't accurate; fathers can get the kid if the court judges that's what best, and it sometimes is.

Show me the numbers that show you the fathers don't care.

[Theodore Rex DX]

Not until you learn how to deal.

[Anders Hallin]

Show me the numbers that show you the fathers don't care.
If it's not because they don't care enough, what's your explanation? And how does this have anything to do with gay marriages?

[Jason McCullough]

Uh, because the father normally doesn't care? Your inital statement wasn't accurate; fathers can get the kid if the court judges that's what best, and it sometimes is.

Show me the numbers that show you the fathers don't care.

What, this is actually controversial? You don't think it's statistically accurate?

[Dirt]

Uh, because the father normally doesn't care? Your inital statement wasn't accurate; fathers can get the kid if the court judges that's what best, and it sometimes is.

Show me the numbers that show you the fathers don't care.

What, this is actually controversial? You don't think it's statistically accurate?

You don't think that the fact that the majority of people CA only want marriages to be between 1 man and 1 woman isn't accurate?

[Jason McCullough]

I don't even know where to start. Whatever.

[Dirt]

Show me the numbers that show you the fathers don't care.
If it's not because they don't care enough, what's your explanation? And how does this have anything to do with gay marriages?

It's about equality. I think that fathers in western countries are programmed to believe that women are more fit parents than men, that it's better and more important to have a mother's love than a father's. That women are naturally more nurturing than men.

Back in the 19th century, women began to empower themselves by creating this idea called 'sphere of influence' where women tried to acheive equality with men in America. They did this by showing their importance in the household, that the resposibility in raising well adjusted, productive children lay virtually completely in their hands. They validated their position by arguing that they, as the ones who carried the child, were the most fit and most loving and had the most vested interest in the child (Mom and apple pie).

This idea influences us to this day. And hurts many men who are fathers who cannot and do not have much say in their children's lives because of their ex-wive's 'sphere of influence'. An old idea that's served and outlived it's purpose. Men as are just as caring, just as loving, just as devoted to their children as the women, in some cases, more so. But, the prejudice still exists. Why not deal with this problem before talking about gay marriages?

[Jobe]

Because the squeakiest wheel gets the grease.

[Anders Hallin]

This idea influences us to this day. And hurts many men who are fathers who cannot and do not have much say in their children's lives because of their ex-wive's 'sphere of influence'. An old idea that's served and outlived it's purpose. Men as are just as caring, just as loving, just as devoted to their children as the women, in some cases, more so. But, the prejudice still exists. Why not deal with this problem before talking about gay marriages?
I wholeheartedly agree that such a problem exists. And is a more difficult one than gay marriage. The importance of gay marriage and its beneficiaries (which I think include everyone, since I believe a removal of the stigma towards homosexuality would make us more free in regards to sexuality, and more freedom for the individual is something I generally agree with) is vast, however, and most importantly, set in legislation. There is no reason to wait to change that, and certainly not now, just because there is something as important that also needs changing.
I think gay marriage could well have an effect on the issue you espouse, since it also goes against the idea that every child must have a mother.

[Robert Sharp]

If both parents want the children, then all things being equal, the woman will get them and the man will have to pay support. I'm not really sure why Jason is denying this. It's absurd to think that fathers don't want their children, or even to assume that most don't. That's as bad as assuming that all (or most) women want to have children (I don't mean in custody; I mean actually conception). It generalizes.

The truth is that tradition dictates that the children go to the mother. Mothers are seen as more affectionate and thus better for the child. That's sexist, and Dirt is absolutely right to point out that it is based on traditional myths of motherhood.

[Mark Asher]

This idea influences us to this day. And hurts many men who are fathers who cannot and do not have much say in their children's lives because of their ex-wive's 'sphere of influence'. An old idea that's served and outlived it's purpose. Men as are just as caring, just as loving, just as devoted to their children as the women, in some cases, more so. But, the prejudice still exists. Why not deal with this problem before talking about gay marriages?

This "problem" is between two people and is about parenting and marital relationships. There are no laws that prevent fathers from being the primary care givers in a family. If a father feels shut out, he needs to work that out with his wife. What other kind of relief would you expect?

There are laws that prevent gays from having the same rights as married couples, though. It's much easier to remedy this situation than it is to deal with two parents in a tug-of-war over children.

[Jason McCullough]

If both parents want the children, then all things being equal, the woman will get them and the man will have to pay support. I'm not really sure why Jason is denying this. It's absurd to think that fathers don't want their children, or even to assume that most don't. That's as bad as assuming that all (or most) women want to have children (I don't mean in custody; I mean actually conception). It generalizes.

The truth is that tradition dictates that the children go to the mother. Mothers are seen as more affectionate and thus better for the child. That's sexist, and Dirt is absolutely right to point out that it is based on traditional myths of motherhood.

Um, I'm not; I agree with all other things being equal that'd be what happens. But that's not what Dirt said; he was talking like the woman gets 'em by default, and then it's a uphill battle for the father no matter the circumstances.

Anyway, as Mark points out, it's a cultural attitudes problem. The legal side of things on child custody looks just fine.

[Dirt]

If both parents want the children, then all things being equal, the woman will get them and the man will have to pay support. I'm not really sure why Jason is denying this. It's absurd to think that fathers don't want their children, or even to assume that most don't. That's as bad as assuming that all (or most) women want to have children (I don't mean in custody; I mean actually conception). It generalizes.

The truth is that tradition dictates that the children go to the mother. Mothers are seen as more affectionate and thus better for the child. That's sexist, and Dirt is absolutely right to point out that it is based on traditional myths of motherhood.

Um, I'm not; I agree with all other things being equal that'd be what happens. But that's not what Dirt said; he was talking like the woman gets 'em by default, and then it's a uphill battle for the father no matter the circumstances.

Anyway, as Mark points out, it's a cultural attitudes problem. The legal side of things on child custody looks just fine.

Legally, it looks like many people have no problems with civil unions. Culturally, gays want the social contract of marriage.

So, why can't we just give gays the legal aspects but reserve the cultural contract to 1 man and 1 woman?

[Robert Sharp]

Basically, I agree with that, Dirt. Gays should have the legal ability to gain the priviledges (such as they are) associated with legal marriage. What they should not get, is the religious privileges because most religions are against the idea of homosexuality. The problem of course, is that most people can't separate the legal idea of marriage from the religious. But there IS a difference. You can get married at a court house (I did) and no religion can keep that from happening. I don't see why gay couples shouldn't be allowed to do the same thing. According to the state and the country I am married, even though I didn't go through any religious rituals. They don't call it a civil union or anything else. I am married. What's the difference?

[Jason McCullough]

*What* religious priviledges? I keep seeing people asserting that it's a horrible idea, but I don't think anyone's actually advocating it - not that I'm sure what they're talking about. Forcing churches to marry anyone who walks in?

So, why can't we just give gays the legal aspects but reserve the cultural contract to 1 man and 1 woman?

Ok. Can you explain what this "cultural contract" is? Is it written down somewhere?

[Anders Hallin]

Legally, it looks like many people have no problems with civil unions. Culturally, gays want the social contract of marriage.

So, why can't we just give gays the legal aspects but reserve the cultural contract to 1 man and 1 woman?
Because it's insulting. And it won't be enough in the long term. As a stop-gap measure, I could sort of support it, but it's far from an acceptable resolution.

[Derek Meister]

Personally, I think we need to change what most couples, straight or gay, have over to being a civil union.

Marriage has always been more of a religious term, with traditional conservative concepts like "till death do us part" being wrapped tightly into the deal.

In a world with Britney's 55 hour "marriage" and a billion-dollar divorce industry what most people have is more of a civil union anyways.

Maybe we should just give the conservatives what they want and only call unions that are done in a religious level "marriages", which only have legitimacy within the eyes of their church and have no legal standing otherwise. Make it so you can't easily get out of one as per the traditional religious laws of most churches, etc.

Make all legal rights given only if they also get a civil union, something equally available to all couples, straight or gay.

[Robert Sharp]

*What* religious priviledges? I keep seeing people asserting that it's a horrible idea, but I don't think anyone's actually advocating it - not that I'm sure what they're talking about. Forcing churches to marry anyone who walks in?



No one is advocating that from a LEGAL perspective. What I mean is that the problem that most people seem to have with gay marriage is the word 'marriage' itself, which is seen as a religious ceremony rather than a legal one. 'Civil union' is meant to remove that connotation. Unfortunately, it is also being used as a tool to keep gays from having equal marriage rights. When you start to call something a different name, you can start to justify making it different in practice, even from a legal perspective. As far as I can tell, however, religion is the main reason most people are against gay marriage. Am I wrong about that?

[Robert Sharp]

Personally, I think we need to change what most couples, straight or gay, have over to being a civil union.



I would agree with that. I dislike most of the religious implications of 'marriage' anyway.

[Jason McCullough]

http://www.calpundit.com/archives/003289.html#107820

Neat eyewitness SF comment over on Calpundit.

[Dirt]

I always find it amusing that people think only the 'religious right' disagree with gay marriages.

[XPav]

Yes, because the 50% statistic that we've posted before in fact means not that there many types of people against gay marriage, but that the religious right consists of half the country.

[Anders Hallin]

It's up to 2,464 couples (www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/gate/archive/2004/02/16/licenses16.DTL), which is about 13 times more than what is usually seen on similar weekends.
And today, the battle starts (www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/02/17/SAMESEX.TMP).

Dirt, I don't think it's just the religious right, sadly. They're the fundies of the movement, though.

[Brian Koontz]

This idea influences us to this day. And hurts many men who are fathers who cannot and do not have much say in their children's lives because of their ex-wive's 'sphere of influence'. An old idea that's served and outlived it's purpose. Men as are just as caring, just as loving, just as devoted to their children as the women, in some cases, more so. But, the prejudice still exists. Why not deal with this problem before talking about gay marriages?

I'm not sure that's a "problem". Its debatable whether a woman's love or a man's pride is greater, but them being "equal" is unlikely. I'm also on the side of "woman's love"... the emotional bond of mother/child is unique. Of course, that bond is eroding under, ironically enough, more recent Feminist actions, so it can be said that women may become just as uncaring as men and thus "equal" ;).

Woman: "I'm a truly liberated woman. I don't care for my child."

Man: "Well, neither do I."

Woman: "I saw you looking fondly at it."

Man: "I was checking to see if it had crapped its pants."

Woman: "Hmph, I doubt that. I win this round!" {High fives herself}

Man then competes by either trying to outdo Woman in the contest of who cares less, or attacking the terms of the contest by caring for the child (taking the traditional Woman role).

[Dirt]

I'm not sure that's a "problem". Its debatable whether a woman's love or a man's pride is greater, but them being "equal" is unlikely. I'm also on the side of "woman's love"... the emotional bond of mother/child is unique. Of course, that bond is eroding under, ironically enough, more recent Feminist actions, so it can be said that women may become just as uncaring as men and thus "equal" ;).


I'm pretty sure that gay marriages is a "problem". It's debatable whether heterosexual love or homosexual love is greater, but them being "equal" is unlikely. I'm very much on the side of heterosexual love...the emotional bond of man/woman is unique in the child they can produce. Of course, that bond is eroding under, ironically enough, more recent Feminist actions, so it can be said that heterosexual love may produce no child and may become just like homosexual love and thus "equal". ;)

[Brian Koontz]

I'm not sure that's a "problem". Its debatable whether a woman's love or a man's pride is greater, but them being "equal" is unlikely. I'm also on the side of "woman's love"... the emotional bond of mother/child is unique. Of course, that bond is eroding under, ironically enough, more recent Feminist actions, so it can be said that women may become just as uncaring as men and thus "equal" ;).


I'm pretty sure that gay marriages is a "problem". It's debatable whether heterosexual love or homosexual love is greater, but them being "equal" is unlikely. I'm very much on the side of heterosexual love...the emotional bond of man/woman is unique in the child they can produce. Of course, that bond is eroding under, ironically enough, more recent Feminist actions, so it can be said that heterosexual love may produce no child and may become just like homosexual love and thus "equal". ;)

LOL... a style after my own heart.

It doesn't take love to produce a child, but it helps greatly in the stability of the family if love is present and maintained.

One of the bases on which Feminism rests is the idea of the disempowerment and disrespect of women. Working off this idea, two camps emerged... those who saw history as a Man vs. Woman war, who saw the war concluded with Man winning, and Woman then imitating Man (becoming Man), which primarily entailed a departure from Femininity (and subsequent worship of masculinity), and those who sought to either subvert masculinity and/or idolize femininity. The Androgyny movement is part of this branch.

Its kind of funny... a noble goal for Feminism might have been to improve the status of women to better their relationships with men... to increase the love. Instead, Feminism turned to the improvement of the status of women as a goal in and of itself. Feminism turned ultimately and only Political.

Corpses such as Femininity and Children are necessities. Both are seen as albatrosses around the neck, better done without. Both remind Feminists of what women USED to be, not what they, according to Feminism, should be.

A Noble Beginning, lots of Passion, and very little Vision. Hopefully those corpses are worthwhile. Hopefully some Vision will emerge before the pile gets too high to see over.

[Anaxagoras]

I remember someone suggesting that if you left Midnight Son and Bob Cherub alone in a room together, they would have a coherent discussion. I think we're seeing just such an exchange here between Koontz and Dirt.

[Bob Cherub]

My name appears so I must chime in.

I heard a great analogy from a GAY talk show host in LA.

What if the San Diego mayor decided to issue concealed weapon permits to anyone who wanted one. Just come up to city hall and here's your concealed weapon. It's against California law, JUST LIKE MARRYING GAYS IS. How would the California socialists view that one? There would be a total outrage. The national media would be shitting itself.

But since it's a cause they support, it's OKAY to break the law. You don't hear any national media criticisms. There's no outrage.

Whether you believe in gay marriage or not, you should at least believe in the LAW. Proposition 22 approved by 66% of California residents.

As usual, the Democrats only protect the "rights" of those that believe in their causes.

[XPav]

I'm trying to figure out how the Civil Rights movement would have worked in Bobland. Any ideas?

[Anaxagoras]

But since it's a cause they support, it's OKAY to break the law. You don't hear any national media criticisms. There's no outrage.

Whether you believe in gay marriage or not, you should at least believe in the LAW. Proposition 22 approved by 66% of California residents.

As usual, the Democrats only protect the "rights" of those that believe in their causes.

Umm... actually, this idea has already been covered on this board. Me and Rywill had a very acrid argument about this in the thread about the California drivers license immigrants something something... I can't quite remember the title of the thread, but it was something like that. Anyways, I'm not saying that it is verboten to mention an already discussed idea, but I have already given a thorough argument on this. And I came out strongly against universal respect for the LAW. So... no, I don't think the law should always be obeyed.

[Rywill]

I'm going to do a Bob Cherub-style appearance after my name is invoked. Imagine a cloud of sulfurous smoke if you like.

My reaction is the same as the one I had in the driver's licenses thread: it's wrong for the mayor to grant marriage licenses in disregard of the law. It's one thing for citizens to civilly disobey and accept the punishment for that, but government officers should not disobey the law just because they disagree with it. I'll back off from my previous position to admit that in extreme circumstances--like if you're asked to summarily execute someone, or round up all Japanese-Americans for internment--I think it's justified for a government official to refuse a lawful command. But granting driver's licenses to illegal immigrants or marriage license to gay couples is clearly not one of those times.

Which is a tough thing. I'm all for gay marriage and I'm very excited to be around during what I hope is a momentous change in gay rights. Much as I intellectually really do disagree with the mayor of San Fran, my heart cheers every time I see one of those couples interviewed on TV. And I'm happy that the issue is being forced, even though I don't agree with the WAY it's being forced.

[Jason McCullough]

For what it's worth, I think the history of these kind of things is inseparable from "it being forced in the wrong way." Without MLK's constant "illegal" marches and whatnot the civil rights movement wouldn't have happened.

[extarbags]

I'm going to do a Bob Cherub-style appearance after my name is invoked. Imagine a cloud of sulfurous smoke if you like.

My reaction is the same as the one I had in the driver's licenses thread: it's wrong for the mayor to grant marriage licenses in disregard of the law. It's one thing for citizens to civilly disobey and accept the punishment for that, but government officers should not disobey the law just because they disagree with it. I'll back off from my previous position to admit that in extreme circumstances--like if you're asked to summarily execute someone, or round up all Japanese-Americans for internment--I think it's justified for a government official to refuse a lawful command. But granting driver's licenses to illegal immigrants or marriage license to gay couples is clearly not one of those times.

Which is a tough thing. I'm all for gay marriage and I'm very excited to be around during what I hope is a momentous change in gay rights. Much as I intellectually really do disagree with the mayor of San Fran, my heart cheers every time I see one of those couples interviewed on TV. And I'm happy that the issue is being forced, even though I don't agree with the WAY it's being forced.

Mark me down for agreement with this.

Jason: MLK was not a government official. Doing this, even though it's for the right reasons, is really not much different from that judge (can't remember his name) who put that massive ten commandments statue outside of his courthouse.

[Bitterman]

I'll be convinced gay marriage is bad and that we should follow laws banning it when I hear a rational, logical, and reasonable argument why it should be outlawed.

I figure that will happen sometime around the heat-death of the universe.

Let me summarize what I seem to have heard so far.

"They can't have kids" -- stupid. We allow sterile people to marry.

"It's against my religion" -- stupid. Non-kosher food isn't outlawed. Seperation of church and state, you know.

"Nonsensical psychobabble with absolutely no redeeming quality" -- stupid, because it is pretty much non-comprehensible to people who aren't taking LSD. But I will try. Dirt sez: "But them there homos can't love each other like me an my wahf. We's done had seven kids already!"
Koontz says: "The spaceship is behind the comet! Cut off your nuts and they'll give us all a ride! I am an operating thetan."

"It's unnatural" -- stupid. There are homosexual animals. in addition, lots of things we have (like medicine, the internet, houses) aren't natural.

Now the wisdom of peacefully breaking the law to protest unjust laws can be debated, I guess, if you are mentally handicapped in some way.

Anyway, I declare this thread closed since it is evident that there is no real discussion, just a couple of people yelling that the sky is falling.

[extarbags]

Now the wisdom of peacefully breaking the law to protest unjust laws can be debated, I guess, if you are mentally handicapped in some way.


Lawmakers shouldn't peacefully break the law in protest though. The citizenry should, although that's not possible in this case.

[Dirt]

Dirt sez: "But them there homos can't love each other like me an my wahf. We's done had seven kids already!"

Aw Lawdy, you ez gone 'an spoke it all. I's culd nut haf spoken bettah. Wells, I's done gonna seit reight heah and 'jus let yu speke foh me frum nows on.

[Jason McCullough]

Jason: MLK was not a government official.

True. I still think the point stands: in retrospect, things people criticize as "unnecessary," or "lawbreaking," or "inflammatory" turn out to be critically necessary.

Actually, now that I think about it, what difference does it make if he's a government official? The law in the south was that black's couldn't vote unless they passed poll tax a, literacy requirement b, and grandfather clause c) - were southern government officials obligated to obey those laws?

I agree that there's a fuzzy line there, but I'm not sure how being a government official changes anything.

[extarbags]

Jason: MLK was not a government official.

True. I still think the point stands: in retrospect, things people criticize as "unnecessary," or "lawbreaking," or "inflammatory" turn out to be critically necessary.

It happens. But when the government "civilly disobeys" the overriding government, it can cause problems.

[Rywill]

Actually, now that I think about it, what difference does it make if he's a government official? The law in the south was that black's couldn't vote unless they passed poll tax a, literacy requirement b, and grandfather clause c) - were southern government officials obligated to obey those laws?
Of course. They're free to criticize the laws, do everything in their power to get the laws repealed, or even resign their posts if that's how strongly they feel about it. But a government official cannot go "rewriting" the law however he or she sees fit. I'm still surprised people don't agree. I mean, the whole point of rule of law versus rule of man is that laws are decided by a legislative process, not by the whims of any individual person. America suffers no dictators, no matter how benevolent a dictator they may be. Believe me, the vast majority of his constituents thought that George McGovern was a benevolent civil protestor. That's just not the way it works.

[Jason McCullough]

I know it's legally incorrect, but I'm not following how it's immoral or unethical. We don't elect people to slavishly follow the laws regardless of content.

[Rywill]

Because it's immoral and unethical to take an oath swearing to uphold the law and then instead uphold your own personal version of what you think the law ought to be. I guess you either agree or disagree--it's a pretty fundamental issue. If you think it should be okay for any executive officer to simply disregard, or even act contrary to, any law he or she doesn't like, I will just agree to disagree.

[Dirt]

If I was President of the United States, I'd never break a law. Oh wait, it's against the law for me to be the President of the United States, I wasn't born in the USA. Bigoted bastards!

[Anders Hallin]

I'll have to agree with Rywill, I really can't see a future for Newsom as mayor after this. However, that doesn't mean I think he did wrong, as such. If he tried to avoid the consequences of his actions however, that'd be wrong.

[Oppressor]

While I have to concede the point that the Mayor of San Francisco is violating the law here, I also think that if the gays make enough noise, they'll eventually shout down their opposition, and that will be a wonderful thing...

This whole civil union versus marriage debate so reminds me of separate but equal, and we all know how that ended...

And since when did any elected official, including the POTUS, stick to the law? It's been scandal after scandal in administration after administration and the dogs and cats have been living together for decades...

If a couple more fundies expire from congestive heart failure over this, well they should have had better eating habits anyway...

[XPav]

I'll have to agree with Rywill, I really can't see a future for Newsom as mayor after this. However, that doesn't mean I think he did wrong, as such. If he tried to avoid the consequences of his actions however, that'd be wrong.
Can't see a future?

He's like 30-something. In 20 years, when gay marriage will probably be accepted, don't you think that being "the guy that brought equal rights to a group of discriminated people" won't be a good thing to have on his resume?

[Jason McCullough]

Because it's immoral and unethical to take an oath swearing to uphold the law and then instead uphold your own personal version of what you think the law ought to be. I guess you either agree or disagree--it's a pretty fundamental issue. If you think it should be okay for any executive officer to simply disregard, or even act contrary to, any law he or she doesn't like, I will just agree to disagree.

So what's that executive officer supposed to do if asked to enforce an unjust law? Resign?

It's all about framing. I agree execs shouldn't just go around not-enforcing willy-nilly, but there's got to be some room in the system for protest.

[Oppressor]

Because it's immoral and unethical to take an oath swearing to uphold the law and then instead uphold your own personal version of what you think the law ought to be. I guess you either agree or disagree--it's a pretty fundamental issue. If you think it should be okay for any executive officer to simply disregard, or even act contrary to, any law he or she doesn't like, I will just agree to disagree.

So what's that executive officer supposed to do if asked to enforce an unjust law? Resign?

It's all about framing. I agree execs shouldn't just go around not-enforcing willy-nilly, but there's got to be some room in the system for protest.

Typical liberal doublespeak - You should know it's only OK to violate the law when you're funding a private army through drug-running to stop communism or terrorism, which of course, gay marriage is a form of, so if you were to fund a private army to stop gay marriage, well that would be A-OK!

[Jason McCullough]

Funny, I'd forgotten about that. Secrecy is a whole nother area.

[Ben Sones]

It's all about framing. I agree execs shouldn't just go around not-enforcing willy-nilly, but there's got to be some room in the system for protest.

There already is. But is this the sort of protest you really want to support? Because you can't just give this sort of power to the people you like, on matters that you support. And the next time an elected offical decides to uphold personal fiat over rule of law, you may find yourself on the short end of the stick.

[Oppressor]

It's all about framing. I agree execs shouldn't just go around not-enforcing willy-nilly, but there's got to be some room in the system for protest.

There already is. But is this the sort of protest you really want to support? Because you can't just give this sort of power to the people you like, on matters that you support. And the next time an elected offical decides to uphold personal fiat over rule of law, you may find yourself on the short end of the stick.

Seems to me (butting in rudely) that this is a hell of lot more positive a protest of the law to support than say, Iran-Contra, Watergate, Whitewater, or a host of other brouhahas in which the people had little or no say. So, in essence, if I don't like the next one, I'll jump up and down like the fundies are jumping up and down right now. It's the American Way(tm)! Talk Radio Nation 4Ever!

[Anaxagoras]

But is this the sort of protest you really want to support? Because you can't just give this sort of power to the people you like, on matters that you support. And the next time an elected offical decides to uphold personal fiat over rule of law, you may find yourself on the short end of the stick.

He's not giving this sort of power to anyone.... they'll take it whether we give them approval or not. The only question is: do you support this particular usurpation of power?

If you argue in favor of the general case (you supported the usurpation over there but not here) that kind of argument will hold probably hold sway in a court of law (and rightfully so) but I don't think it will seriously sway anybody on the street.... which is how I would characterize both the mayor of SF and the 10 commandments judge. Should it sway "the common man"? Maybe... but I don't think it actually does. So I don't see the harm in selectively supporting usurpations.

[Dirt]

I'll be convinced gay marriage is bad and that we should follow laws banning it when I hear a rational, logical, and reasonable argument why it should be outlawed.

I figure that will happen sometime around the heat-death of the universe.

Let me summarize what I seem to have heard so far.

"They can't have kids" -- stupid. We allow sterile people to marry.

"It's against my religion" -- stupid. Non-kosher food isn't outlawed. Seperation of church and state, you know.

"Nonsensical psychobabble with absolutely no redeeming quality" -- stupid, because it is pretty much non-comprehensible to people who aren't taking LSD. But I will try. Dirt sez: "But them there homos can't love each other like me an my wahf. We's done had seven kids already!"
Koontz says: "The spaceship is behind the comet! Cut off your nuts and they'll give us all a ride! I am an operating thetan."

"It's unnatural" -- stupid. There are homosexual animals. in addition, lots of things we have (like medicine, the internet, houses) aren't natural.

Now the wisdom of peacefully breaking the law to protest unjust laws can be debated, I guess, if you are mentally handicapped in some way.

Anyway, I declare this thread closed since it is evident that there is no real discussion, just a couple of people yelling that the sky is falling.

So, tell me. Why should we allow gays to 'marry'. Why not just give them civil unions?

Does having a civil union versus being married mean they have to sit in the back of the bus? Do they have to use a different restroom than married folk? A different water fountain?

[Pace]

I'll have to agree with Rywill, I really can't see a future for Newsom as mayor after this. However, that doesn't mean I think he did wrong, as such. If he tried to avoid the consequences of his actions however, that'd be wrong.

Yeah. Allowing Gay Marriages as an act of Civil Disobedience is really not the best move for the Mayor of San Francisco... you know, the guy who gets elected by a group of people that include one of the largest homosexual demographics in the world, as well as some of the biggest proponents of the uses of Civil Disobedience.

Especially one whose main weak points in the last election were the fact that his opponent was pulling the majority of both groups.

As for the random concealed-carry permit analogy from earlier, let's put it this way, what possible way is there for two people getting married to hurt you, or anyone other than those two people? Which is really the main point. If it's against your religion, or you think it's unnatural, or you think married couples should have kids, I applaud your lack of brain cells, and encourage you to not marry someone of the same sex as you, but enforcing your beliefs to the detriment of others is, to me, far more reprehensible than taking one in the poopchute once in a while.

[Jason McCullough]

It's all about framing. I agree execs shouldn't just go around not-enforcing willy-nilly, but there's got to be some room in the system for protest.

There already is. But is this the sort of protest you really want to support? Because you can't just give this sort of power to the people you like, on matters that you support. And the next time an elected offical decides to uphold personal fiat over rule of law, you may find yourself on the short end of the stick.

Specifically, in this case the harm if he's wrong is pretty minimal. It's not like he's spending money on hookers, or shooting people, or releasing murderers from prison. The ten commandments judge is a pretty good analogy; I disagreed with him, but nothing bad really came of it.

[Anaxagoras]

Does having a civil union versus being married mean they have to sit in the back of the bus? Do they have to use a different restroom than married folk? A different water fountain?

Pretty much, actually. They have to accept a different set of legal definitions for their union. A different system for wills and estate transfers, a different system for legal visitations, a different system for child adoption, and a different system for divorce proceedings. Those are just the ones off the top of my head... I'm sure there are others.

[Anders Hallin]

I'll have to agree with Rywill, I really can't see a future for Newsom as mayor after this. However, that doesn't mean I think he did wrong, as such. If he tried to avoid the consequences of his actions however, that'd be wrong.
Can't see a future?

He's like 30-something. In 20 years, when gay marriage will probably be accepted, don't you think that being "the guy that brought equal rights to a group of discriminated people" won't be a good thing to have on his resume?
Note "as a mayor". Maybe he could get re-elected, I don't know, but this term? Nuh-uh.

[Anders Hallin]

Does having a civil union versus being married mean they have to sit in the back of the bus? Do they have to use a different restroom than married folk? A different water fountain?
No, we're not that obvious anymore. We just have to make them believe that they are different. And since their unions and such are differently labelled seemingly because of the will of the majority group, it's quite obvious that "different" means "lesser".
And that's bad. That's an outrage. And I'll be damn glad the day we're past that.

By the way, regarding the laws in Sweden for those joined in a "registered partnership" (translation by me):
3 chap. Legal effects of registered partnership
1 § A registered partnership has the same legal effects as that of a marriage except for the exceptions detailed in 2--4 §§.
Legal ordinances or other texts in association to marriage and spouses will be utilized in the same way for registered partnerships and registered partner unless excepted by 2--4 §§.

2 § The law (1984:1140) of insemination and the law (1988:711) of conception outside the body are not applicable for registered partner. Law (2002:603)

3 § Ordnances that apply to spouses and which application mean a specific treatmen of one spouse because of the spouse's gender are not applicable for registered partner.

4 § The regulation in the ordnance (1931:429) of certain international legal conditions regarding marriage, adoption and guardianship does not apply to registered partnership.

[ydejin]

The ten commandments judge is a pretty good analogy; I disagreed with him, but nothing bad really came of it.

I agree it's a good analogy. However, I wonder if the fact that one is a judge and the other a mayor doesn't play in a bit here. A mayor isn't exactly a law enforcer, although you certainly would expect them to uphold the law. You don't expect your mayors to act impartially in all situations -- it's a political office. In contrast, being a judge is not a political office. A judge should be completely impartial and should interpret the law. Somehow I think having a judge do this type of "civil disobedience" is much more troublesome than having a mayor do it.

I think I weight slightly on the "it's always bad for public officials to do" side, although I do see arguments in extreme cases for public officials ignoring the law.

[Guido Jones]

Eugene Volokh does a good run down on why the Judge Moore 10 Commandment thing and what is going on in SF aren't exactly similar:

http://volokh.com/2004_02_15_volokh_archive.html#107705524603138461

Still, I do think the basic point remains: A government official is entitled to -- and sometimes possibly even obligated to -- refuse to comply with laws that he thinks are unconstitutional, when there's a serious argument that they're unconstitutional, when there's no clear precedent that says they're constitutional, and when there's no court order ordering him to comply with the laws. That's Mayor Newsom's situation, at least right now. Such challenges to existing laws are part of our rule-of-law tradition. But when a government official (especially a judge) refuses to follow pretty clearly binding precedent, and also flouts a court order, then I do think the rule of law is jeopardized

[Anders Hallin]

I seem to flip-flop on this issue over and over again. That it's a statute, might be unconstitutional and that they will stop it as soon as a court order appears, may well be enough for Newsom to keep his position.

[Philomath]

I don't think this is a right/left issue: it's a faith issue. If you live your life according to tenets of Christian, and other religious faiths, you can't help but recognize that the relationship between a man and woman is different than any other human relationship. It's also a biological fact, of course.

I'm gay, and compared to the rest of this board right-wing, but I'm not offended in the least by the relationship between a man/woman being given special recognition, because my Christian faith necessarily supports that position. The "benefits" of marriage, if there are any like dental plans, should be extended to civil same sex unions too, but if you want to fight same sex discrimination, strike down the state sodomy laws. They're not enforced regularly, but the idea that I'm committing a crime by hooking up with a boyfriend is outrageous and offensive to anyone that respects human values. The marriage issue is a red herring political issue, and the politicians who deliberately broke the law should be fired immediately.

[XPav]

I'll have to agree with Rywill, I really can't see a future for Newsom as mayor after this. However, that doesn't mean I think he did wrong, as such. If he tried to avoid the consequences of his actions however, that'd be wrong.
Can't see a future?

He's like 30-something. In 20 years, when gay marriage will probably be accepted, don't you think that being "the guy that brought equal rights to a group of discriminated people" won't be a good thing to have on his resume?
Note "as a mayor". Maybe he could get re-elected, I don't know, but this term? Nuh-uh.

He can't get reelected in San Francisco for pushing gay rights?

[XPav]

I'm gay, and compared to the rest of this board right-wing, but I'm not offended in the least by the relationship between a man/woman being given special recognition, because my Christian faith necessarily supports that position. The "benefits" of marriage, if there are any like dental plans, should be extended to civil same sex unions too, but if you want to fight same sex discrimination, strike down the state sodomy laws. They're not enforced regularly, but the idea that I'm committing a crime by hooking up with a boyfriend is outrageous and offensive to anyone that respects human values. The marriage issue is a red herring political issue, and the politicians who deliberately broke the law should be fired immediately.

California state sodomy laws were repealed in 1976.

Next.

[Anders Hallin]

Well, I don't know the percentages for San Fran, so I really don't know. I admit that I thought about California as a whole when I wrote that.

[XPav]

Well, I don't know the percentages for San Fran, so I really don't know. I admit that I thought about California as a whole when I wrote that.

He beat his opponent in a runoff election by 5%... and his opponent was a member of the Green Party. Normal political logic doesn't work in San Francisco -- its the most liberal big city in the country.

[Philomath]

I'm gay, and compared to the rest of this board right-wing, but I'm not offended in the least by the relationship between a man/woman being given special recognition, because my Christian faith necessarily supports that position. The "benefits" of marriage, if there are any like dental plans, should be extended to civil same sex unions too, but if you want to fight same sex discrimination, strike down the state sodomy laws. They're not enforced regularly, but the idea that I'm committing a crime by hooking up with a boyfriend is outrageous and offensive to anyone that respects human values. The marriage issue is a red herring political issue, and the politicians who deliberately broke the law should be fired immediately.

California state sodomy laws were repealed in 1976. Next.

So this is only a California issue, moron?

[XPav]

California state sodomy laws were repealed in 1976. Next.

So this is only a California issue, moron?[/quote]

Hey, lets play follow the bouncing logic ball.

We say "yay for gay marriage in San Francisco!".
You go "boo for gay marriage, lets get rid of sodomy laws instead!"
I go "California already got rid of its sodomy laws nearly 30 years ago, and is taking the next step in the establishment of equal rights for gay people."
You go "you're a moron." (with the implied subtext being that I'm ugly too).

The overarching point that I'm trying to make is that most states have already removed their sodomy laws by legislative action or have had their laws struck down, and there's a good chance that most of the rest of the sodomy laws wouldn't stand up in court, because you know, the US Supreme Court said they were unconstitutional.

That fight is won -- I'll pull a Rywill here and bring games into this forum -- the enemy command center is hacked, the courtyard is taken, and all that's left to do is kill the people spawning in the spawn tubes and wait for the capture timer to expire.

You're the one throwing the red herring here, and you're being a troll.

And besides, my girlfriend thinks I'm cute. So there.

[Guido Jones]

I go "California already got rid of its sodomy laws nearly 30 years ago, and is taking the next step in the establishment of equal rights for gay people."

That's not what you said, but probably what you meant. The way I took it (and I'm assuming the way Philomath took it) was "your thing about sodomy laws doesn't matter it's already repealed, what's your next argument fuck tard"

But I could be wrong.

[Dirt]

I don't think this is a right/left issue: it's a faith issue. If you live your life according to tenets of Christian, and other religious faiths, you can't help but recognize that the relationship between a man and woman is different than any other human relationship. It's also a biological fact, of course.

I'm gay, and compared to the rest of this board right-wing, but I'm not offended in the least by the relationship between a man/woman being given special recognition, because my Christian faith necessarily supports that position. The "benefits" of marriage, if there are any like dental plans, should be extended to civil same sex unions too, but if you want to fight same sex discrimination, strike down the state sodomy laws. They're not enforced regularly, but the idea that I'm committing a crime by hooking up with a boyfriend is outrageous and offensive to anyone that respects human values. The marriage issue is a red herring political issue, and the politicians who deliberately broke the law should be fired immediately.

Amen. Let's deal with real problems.

I'm a naturalized citizen of the United States. I'm barred from being POTUS and Vice President. I can appreciate, but I'm not even able to be Speaker of the House or President Pro-Tempore of the Senate. I am, in a very minor way, a second class citizen, unable to get to the highest echelon of power and influence in the USA.

[XPav]

I go "California already got rid of its sodomy laws nearly 30 years ago, and is taking the next step in the establishment of equal rights for gay people."

That's not what you said, but probably what you meant. The way I took it (and I'm assuming the way Philomath took it) was "your thing about sodomy laws doesn't matter it's already repealed, what's your next argument fuck tard"

But I could be wrong.
His thing about sodomy laws really doesn't matter anymore -- the Supreme Court rules the Texas law unconsitutional. Any enforcement of any existing laws would be impossible, and removing them would be nothing more than a symbolic gesture.

So yeah, if you were feeling ornery or thinking I was feeling ornery, I can agree with the "what's your next argument fuck tard" interpretation.

(Is fuck tard 2 words? I always thought it was one.)

[Philomath]

Hey, lets play follow the bouncing logic ball.

'kay.

[pav]We say "yay for gay marriage in San Francisco!". You go "boo for gay marriage, lets get rid of sodomy laws instead!"

No. I said gay marriage isn't as big an issue for gays as sodomy laws, which criminalize natural behavior.

[pav] I go "California already got rid of its sodomy laws nearly 30 years ago, and is taking the next step in the establishment of equal rights for gay people." You go "you're a moron." (with the implied subtext being that I'm ugly too).

No (other than the implied subtext). We are both saying that the rights of gays is an issue that doesn't just affect Californians, and when I indicated that if you're concerned about the rights of gays, there's more important issues to tackle, you tell me that "it was solved. next."

That fight is won -- And besides, my girlfriend thinks I'm cute.

Please stop talking about your looks. And that fight ain't won, as long as those laws are still on the books. How'd you feel if you grew up in a state, like I did, where the only reason you're not charged for hooking up with boyfriend (or girlfriend who thinks you're cute) is because of the "goodwill" of the local sheriff's office, which doesn't prosecute for those crimes. Saying you could probably get the supreme court to exhonerate isn't particularly comforting. It's a much more serious issue in the gay community.

Gay marriage, on the other hand, is probably less important for most gays than not being charged for sex in parks.

[John Reynolds]

Gay marriage, on the other hand, is probably less important for most gays than not being charged for sex in parks.

That makes sense. Strike the sodomy laws and gays having sex in parks won't be arrested? How 'bout indecent public exposure? I try to be very open-minded and tolerant of others, but this one time in band camp. . .er, wrong story. OK, seriously, this one time I swung by the local park to take a quick leak before heading out of town. So I'm standing at the urinal and I hear a sound behind me. . .it's an older guy who's whipped his penis out and was whacking away at it. I think you could've heard me a mile away when I suggested he either gets the *#*@ away from me or I was going to beat the living hell out of him. But had there been no sodomy laws. . .well, then that's a whole other story.

Needless to say, last damn time I went into that bathroom.

[XPav]

[No. I said gay marriage isn't as big an issue for gays as sodomy laws, which criminalize natural behavior.
And I'll just point out that most states don't have sodomy laws on the books, and the remainings ones are unconstitutional. You don't have to go to the Supreme Court anymore.

http://www.sodomylaws.org/lawrence/lawrence.htm

All sodomy laws in the US are now unconstitutional and unenforceable when applied to non-commercial consenting adults in private.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/26/scotus.sodomy/

CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin said the decision appeared to strike down most laws governing private sexual conduct, but he said laws governing marriage would be unaffected.

Its solved. Judges, no matter what post they hold, cannot enforce any of the laws that they could in the past.

[Mark Asher]

Gay marriage, on the other hand, is probably less important for most gays than not being charged for sex in parks.

Probably only for those gays who have sex in parks. And then, probably mostly for gay men who like to have sex with teenagers, who tend to be the ones who actually get prosecuted with any frequency.

I think what gays ultimately want is for their unions to be perceived as legitimate.

[Jason McCullough]

Call me crazy, but I think everyone should be chased with sticks for having sex in a public park. Do you have any evidence for it being a big issue in the gay community, btw? I'd always thought it was an incorrigible minority.

[Anders Hallin]

Call me crazy, but I think everyone should be chased with sticks for having sex in a public park. Do you have any evidence for it being a big issue in the gay community, btw? I'd always thought it was an incorrigible minority.
In a survey done a few years back, the percentage of Swedish gay men victimised (because of their homosexuality) in parks, out of a total of victimised gay men, was 12%. The percentage of victimised gay men out of the entire population was 28%.
I think it's feasible to think that having sex in parks made one more likely to be targetted, so it's probably somewhere under 12%. I have no more certain numbers than those.
(Tiby, 2000)

[Bub, Andrew]

Wait a minute, is Philomath suggesting that straight people have the right to have sex in parks?!? Don't tell me I've been wasting my time with all those picnics.

[Dirt]

What's wrong with having sex in the park?

All that's required is a little discretion.

[Anders Hallin]

Wait a minute, is Philomath suggesting that straight people have the right to have sex in parks?!? Don't tell me I've been wasting my time with all those picnics.
In that vein, I liked this editorial (www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/0204a/17equal.html).
As Georgia law presently stands, pedophilic homosexual marriages would immediately be legal if same-sex marriage were instituted today. A 50-year-old man or woman could marry a 16-year-old (and in some cases younger) boy or girl.
Doesn't this just say that under Georgia law, pedophilic heterosexual marriages are already legal?

[Bub, Andrew]

What's wrong with having sex in the park?
All that's required is a little discretion.

And now we know where you got your Internet nickname.

[XPav]

Wait a minute, is Philomath suggesting that straight people have the right to have sex in parks?!? Don't tell me I've been wasting my time with all those picnics.
In that vein, I liked this editorial (www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/0204a/17equal.html).
That's a funny editorial.

Legalization of same-sex marriage would be a seismic event across this culture. Nothing would ever be the same. Every young child asks his parents, "Can boys [or girls] get married to each other"? If the answer changes from "no" to "yes," homosexuality would have then achieved equal status with heterosexual conduct and marriage....

So I'm like "ok", so far.

This equivalence would be taught in schools, observed in the workplace and eventually imposed even on churches.

And then I go WTF?

And it just gets stranger and more out there, and scarier that people think that way.

[Jason McCullough]

Yeah Anders, if gay men who get it on in public parks are more likely to be victimized than the gay population, that implies an upper bound of 12% or so. Probably a lot less than that.

[Dirt]

What's wrong with having sex in the park?
All that's required is a little discretion.

And now we know where you got your Internet nickname.

Not quite.

Would it be better if I told you it wouldn't make a difference to me if it was a hetero or homo-sexual act?

[Ben]

Whichever one of you suggested this was OK because it's a mayor, not a judge like the 10 commandents thing. Wow. Didn't you get taught civics in middle school? The mayor is in the executive branch. They enforce the laws.

[Bob Cherub]

But since it's a cause they support, it's OKAY to break the law. You don't hear any national media criticisms. There's no outrage.

Whether you believe in gay marriage or not, you should at least believe in the LAW. Proposition 22 approved by 66% of California residents.

As usual, the Democrats only protect the "rights" of those that believe in their causes.

Umm... actually, this idea has already been covered on this board. Me and Rywill had a very acrid argument about this in the thread about the California drivers license immigrants something something... I can't quite remember the title of the thread, but it was something like that. Anyways, I'm not saying that it is verboten to mention an already discussed idea, but I have already given a thorough argument on this. And I came out strongly against universal respect for the LAW. So... no, I don't think the law should always be obeyed.

hilarious.. so laws voted on by the entire populous of the STATE should not be followed. Brilliant, brilliant plan. Can't wait until you run the country and all of the sudden murder is legal.

Countries with no respect for the law... that ALWAYS works.

[Jason McCullough]

So executing Jews for Hitler was ok, right?

There, the argument's over. Everyone go home.

[Oppressor]

hilarious.. so laws voted on by the entire populous of the STATE should not be followed. Brilliant, brilliant plan. Can't wait until you run the country and all of the sudden murder is legal.

Countries with no respect for the law... that ALWAYS works.

So you're saying we should try Karl Rove^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hthe rapscallions who blew Valerie Plame's cover for treason lest we have no respect for the law?

[Matthew Gallant]

hilarious.. so laws voted on by the entire populous of the STATE should not be followed. Brilliant, brilliant plan.
And of course, a majority would never and has never enacted laws which are unfair to a minority. It just couldn't happen.

[Bob Cherub]

Catching up with the thread and reading all of the insanity by some of you... hilarious stuff. Glad to see even those I fundamentally disagree with most of the time (like Rywill) have the common sense to realize that a LAW is a LAW.

Why have the ENTIRE STATE vote on a law if you're not going to uphold it? Completely ridiculous.

I love how Jason says that: but uphold a ridiculous law?? Like the entire state would pass a law that eating babies is legal. Love the bleeding heart, brother. But like 99% of the stuff you make up, it doesn't exist in the real world.

My analogy still stands true and no one disputed it. If another mayor in another California town DISOBEYED California law by shutting down abortion clinics or issuing concealed weapons, state officials would be shutting it down in a heartbeat. He'd probably be arrested.

As many of the rational ones here have stated, the mayor is the executive branch and upholder of the law. There is a system in place that's been in place for over 200 years to deal with changing laws. This is not how you do it.

Jason and others suggested, bleeding heart squishing out, that civil rights would never have happened!!! But as the smart ones pointed out, those weren't government officials breaking laws.

Change does not occur by ONE man making the decision of the entire state. As much as you guys hate Bush, he couldn't take the country to war without the approval of Congress. I'd love to see you guys react like rabid dogs if Bush ever decided to break constitutional law on his own.

It doesn't matter what side you're on, breaking laws is breaking laws. To suggest that a government official could break laws is insane and NOT what this country was founded on. 8th grade Civics people.

[Bob Cherub]

So executing Jews for Hitler was ok, right?

There, the argument's over. Everyone go home.

Wow another FANTASTIC analogy by the most inept person on this board.

I can't tell if you're just stupid or actually thought my last statement was meant as sincere. Oh well.

[Bob Cherub]

hilarious.. so laws voted on by the entire populous of the STATE should not be followed. Brilliant, brilliant plan.
And of course, a majority would never and has never enacted laws which are unfair to a minority. It just couldn't happen.

Oh, so this gives the mayor the right to break the law?

Oh and please point me to a modern day law (one that was put on the books in the last few years) that fits your description.

[Matthew Gallant]

Besides the one the mayor is breaking?

[Anaxagoras]

It doesn't matter what side you're on, breaking laws is breaking laws. To suggest that a government official could break laws is insane and NOT what this country was founded on. 8th grade Civics people.

Oh please... as if you've made it through 8th grade.

[extarbags]

It doesn't matter what side you're on, breaking laws is breaking laws. To suggest that a government official could break laws is insane and NOT what this country was founded on. 8th grade Civics people.

Oh please... as if you've made it through 8th grade.

PUNK'D

[Jason McCullough]

Like the entire state would pass a law that eating babies is legal.

Maybe you should look into the history of laws on interracial marriage.

[Anders Hallin]

My analogy still stands true and no one disputed it. If another mayor in another California town DISOBEYED California law by shutting down abortion clinics or issuing concealed weapons, state officials would be shutting it down in a heartbeat. He'd probably be arrested.
No, he'd probably be stopped by the courts in a snap, because those two would be clearly harmful.
Now I believe it's a statute being broken here.

[Oppressor]

My analogy still stands true and no one disputed it. If another mayor in another California town DISOBEYED California law by shutting down abortion clinics or issuing concealed weapons, state officials would be shutting it down in a heartbeat. He'd probably be arrested.
No, he'd probably be stopped by the courts in a snap, because those two would be clearly harmful.
Now I believe it's a statute being broken here.

Notice how fast the neocon equates gay marriage to packing a concealed weapon. There's a whole thesis to be written there...

[XPav]

The mayor of Chicago says that he would have no problems with gay marriages.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-gay19.html

Mayor Daley said Wednesday he would have "no problem" with County Clerk David Orr issuing marriage licenses to gay couples -- and Orr said he's open to a San Francisco-style protest if a consensus can be built.

"They're your doctors, your lawyers, your journalists, your politicians," the mayor said. "They're someone's son or daughter. They're someone's mother or father. . . . I've seen people of the same sex adopt children, have families. [They're] great parents.

"Some people have a difference of opinion -- that only a man and a woman can get married. But in the long run, we have to understand what they're saying. They love each other just as much as anyone else.''

A devout Catholic, Daley scoffed at the suggestion that gay marriage would somehow undermine the institution of marriage between a man and a woman.

"Marriage has been undermined by divorce, so don't tell me about marriage. You're not going to lecture me about marriage. People should look at their own life and look in their own mirror. Marriage has been undermined for a number of years if you look at the facts and figures on it. Don't blame the gay and lesbian, transgender and transsexual community. Please don't blame them for it," he said.

The county clerk, who's the one that actually does it, wouldn't have problems with it either, and he's thinking about doing it..

Good.

[Anaxagoras]

There's hope for this country yet. Now if only we could jettison all the Southern states....

And Ohio, apparently.

[Duality]

There's hope for this country yet. Now if only we could jettison all the Southern states....

And Ohio, apparently.
That's great imagery. I just imagined this giant finger below the earth's surface poking state-shaped holes, and watching the segments of earth sail out of orbit.

[Guido Jones]

(Is fuck tard 2 words? I always thought it was one.)

Just one, but I got lazy and was leaving work so didn't bother to edit to correct.

[XPav]

Ohmigod.

http://ephemera.org/sets/?album=justlymarried

Look at all the happy people! Don't they know that they're destroying society?

[extarbags]

Ohmigod.

http://ephemera.org/sets/?album=justlymarried

Look at all the happy people! Don't they know that they're destroying society?

That's why they're so happy. Because their plot is finally succeeding.

[Dirt]

Ohmigod.

http://ephemera.org/sets/?album=justlymarried

Look at all the happy people! Don't they know that they're destroying society?

Aren't those Michael Jackson's kids?

[Euri]

Ohmigod.

http://ephemera.org/sets/?album=justlymarried

Look at all the happy people! Don't they know that they're destroying society?

Those pictures are all great. Even the "just maryed" sign!

[Oppressor]

Ohmigod.

http://ephemera.org/sets/?album=justlymarried

Look at all the happy people! Don't they know that they're destroying society?

The destruction of society won't actually commence until their honeymoons...

[Duality]

But ... what happens when the honeymoon is over?

[Midnight Son]

Hey, do you think gays will "multiply and inherit the earth?" I've got my doubts.

[Anders Hallin]

http://ephemera.org/sets/?album=justlymarried&img=20

Are you thinking what I'm thinking?

[Kalle]

http://ephemera.org/sets/?album=justlymarried&img=20

Are you thinking what I'm thinking?

I doubt it. :wink:

[Derek Meister]

To suggest that a government official could break laws is insane and NOT what this country was founded on.

Wasn't this country founded on a revolution which involved a good number of local government types going against the laws of the larger entity that ruled over them?

Sorry ... couldn't resist.

[Anaxagoras]

To suggest that a government official could break laws is insane and NOT what this country was founded on.

Wasn't this country founded on a revolution which involved a good number of local government types going against the laws of the larger entity that ruled over them?

Sorry ... couldn't resist.

Silence! This country was founded on a bunch of people shuffling over to England and passing some laws that allowed us to shoot at Redcoats. It says so, right there in the Book of Mormon, Part II.

Honestly, people. Laws aren't sacrosanct. They're just extremely useful. But they're not straitjackets.

[John Reynolds]

To suggest that a government official could break laws is insane and NOT what this country was founded on.

Wasn't this country founded on a revolution which involved a good number of local government types going against the laws of the larger entity that ruled over them?

Sorry ... couldn't resist.

And to someone like Mr. Cherub it's probably just fine to pass an anti-gay amendment, a law that's patently unconstitutional.

[Jason McCullough]

To suggest that a government official could break laws is insane and NOT what this country was founded on.

Wasn't this country founded on a revolution which involved a good number of local government types going against the laws of the larger entity that ruled over them?

Sorry ... couldn't resist.

Silence! This country was founded on a bunch of people shuffling over to England and passing some laws that allowed us to shoot at Redcoats. It says so, right there in the Book of Mormon, Part II.

Honestly, people. Laws aren't sacrosanct. They're just extremely useful. But they're not straightjackets.

There! Fixed.

[milo]

And to someone like Mr. Cherub it's probably just fine to pass an anti-gay amendment, a law that's patently unconstitutional.
Am I misparsing you? How can an amendment be unconstitutional?

[Anaxagoras]

And to someone like Mr. Cherub it's probably just fine to pass an anti-gay amendment, a law that's patently unconstitutional.
Am I misparsing you? How can an amendment be unconstitutional?

I think that's a typo. An amendment is not a "law that's patently ....". I think he meant "an anti-gay law". I hope so, anyways. His statement doesn' t make much sense, otherwise.

[XPav]

And it appears that gay marriage is legal in New Mexico already.

http://www.wane.com/Global/story.asp?S=1656147

Sandoval County Clerk Victoria Dunlap says the county plans to issue marriage licenses for same-sex couples.

She made the decision after asking for an opinion from the county attorney, who said New Mexico law isn't clear on the issue. He also says refusing to issue marriage licenses to gay couples could open the county to legal action.

State law defines marriage as a civil contract between contracting parties. It doesn't mention gender.

[extarbags]

http://www.meninhats.com/comics/20040220.gif

[XPav]

Oh, and here's some rationale about how Newsom is within his rights to marry gay couples, because "unconstitutional laws aren't laws at all."

http://volokh.com/2004_02_15_volokh_archive.html#107705524603138461

A government official is entitled to -- and sometimes possibly even obligated to -- refuse to comply with laws that he thinks are unconstitutional, when there's a serious argument that they're unconstitutional, when there's no clear precedent that says they're constitutional, and when there's no court order ordering him to comply with the laws. That's Mayor Newsom's situation, at least right now. Such challenges to existing laws are part of our rule-of-law tradition. But when a government official (especially a judge) refuses to follow pretty clearly binding precedent, and also flouts a court order, then I do think the rule of law is jeopardized.

[Dirt]

I want Newsom to change the law that says I can't be President of the United States.

[extarbags]

I want Newsom to change the law that says I can't be President of the United States.

That law isn't unconstitutional. In fact, I'm pretty sure that the name of that law is actually "The Constitution."

[Rywill]

Oh, and here's some rationale about how Newsom is within his rights to marry gay couples, because "unconstitutional laws aren't laws at all."
Very interesting article, and it tends to sway my opinion somewhat. I'm very sympathetic to the cause already, so I'm trying to keep a level head about the whole thing. But it's an interesting argument--that he's upholding what is already a constitutional command against a mere statute.

[Anaxagoras]

Oh, and here's some rationale about how Newsom is within his rights to marry gay couples, because "unconstitutional laws aren't laws at all."
Very interesting article, and it tends to sway my opinion somewhat. I'm very sympathetic to the cause already, so I'm trying to keep a level head about the whole thing. But it's an interesting argument--that he's upholding what is already a constitutional command against a mere statute.

I don't think his argument stands. I support Newsom's actions as a frank attack on an unjust law, but if we're going to argue strictly within the stated bounds of the US government, that argument just doesn't hold. As a private citizen, it's Newsom's duty to disobey an unconstitutional law, thus bringing it before the judiciary, who (presumably) would declare it unconstitutional. However, as mayor, Newsom is part of the executive branch that's supposed to blindly uphold whatever laws are passed by the legislature. It's the judiciary's responsibility to decide what's constitutional, not the executive. And that law, even if unconstitutional, remains a law until it is officially declared unconstitutional by the judiciary.

[Ben]

The mayor is from the same branch as a cop. To turn the subject matter, if there was a grossly unconstitutional gun-control law passed, should the police take it upon themselves to not enforce it?

[Euri]

The mayor is from the same branch as a cop. To turn the subject matter, if there was a grossly unconstitutional gun-control law passed, should the police take it upon themselves to not enforce it?

I was just following orders.

[Jason McCullough]

The mayor is from the same branch as a cop. To turn the subject matter, if there was a grossly unconstitutional gun-control law passed, should the police take it upon themselves to not enforce it?

Maybe. They're not elected officials, though.

[Anders Hallin]

On a sidenote, I really the Atlanta Journal-Constitution's handling of the issue.

Also, weddings start taking place in New Mexico (www.cnn.com/2004/US/Southwest/02/20/samesex.marriage.nm.ap/index.html)

[Anders Hallin]

Oh wait, not anymore they're not (www.abqjournal.com/news/pdf/madridletter02-20-04.pdf) (pdf).

[Sam Jones]

Schwarzenegger says Gay Marriage is an "imminent risk to civil order:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3508969.stm

edit: first thing in the morning inability to spell "an".

[Midnight Son]

Risk to civil order? Can we expect the gays to man (and dyke) the barricades?

[Duality]

The gays will make our little citizen icons to turn into sad faces. We must allocate more workers and scientists for entertainers!

Or we could change our form of government. Maybe build a temple.

[Sam Jones]

The gays will make our little citizen icons to turn into sad faces. We must allocate more workers and scientists for entertainers!

Can't you see through Arnie's blatant attempts to micromanage a "We love the Prez" day?

[Rywill]

However, as mayor, Newsom is part of the executive branch that's supposed to blindly uphold whatever laws are passed by the legislature. It's the judiciary's responsibility to decide what's constitutional, not the executive. And that law, even if unconstitutional, remains a law until it is officially declared unconstitutional by the judiciary.
I agree, but what happens if two contradictory laws are passed? Doesn't the constitutional command trump the statute? Of course, the counterargument is that the laws only conflict because Newsom interprets them that way (i.e., he interprets the Cal Const as saying "Gays should be able to marry"), and when the constitutional command is vague ("Equal protection") but the statute specific ("No gay marriage"), he should presume the vague command doesn't forbid the specific one. Still, I can see the argument of "Newsom genuinely interprets the law as X, and if the courts disagree, they're welcome to tell him so and then he'll have to do what the courts say." IOW, yes the courts interpret the law, but an executive has to interpret it in the first instance, to get a case before the courts.

[milo]

Seems to me that the "right" way to go about this is to have the ACLU (or a gay-rights group) organize several hundred gay partners who want to get married in California. These people would then apply for marriage licenses, for which they would be rejected in accordance with Prop 22. Then they sue the State of California for violating equal protection by enforcing the proposition.

Why is it reasonable for the Mayor of SF take an activist role in interpreting the constitutionality of a clear statute enacted by due process according to the state constitution?

By the way, I'm not clear on how a gay-marriage ban is in violation of equal protection. Every man of legal age is permitted by law to marry any women of legal age, and vice versa. That sounds pretty equal to me.

--milo
http://www.starshatter.com

[Jason McCullough]

People used the exact same arguments for interracial marriage, Milo. Guess we'll see how it turns out.

[milo]

OK, but you haven't shown that gay marriage is, or should be, considered equivalent to interracial marriage. Just because the argument was used before in a situation where it should not apply, does not mean that the same argument should not be used in a different situation where it may apply.

As an example of how the situations are different, under the current statutes it is permissable for a gay man to marry either a gay women or a straight woman. Likewise, it is not permissable for either a gay man or a straight man to marry any other man. The law is applied exactly the same way to all people regardless of their sexual orientation.

So how is the protection unequal?

Note that I don't have a strong opinion either way on gay marriage, except that I think the burden of proof should be on the advocates to show why the state should recognize same-sex unions as marriages.

--milo
http://www.starshatter.com

[Jason McCullough]

I didn't say it was obviously the same, I was just trying to point out the definition of "equal" hasn't remained constant over the last 300 years. "The situation is equal - any man can marry any woman they want - but men can't marry other men" - assumes the premise that men being able to marry other men is outside the bounds of equality.

The law is applied the same regardless of sexual orientation, but it's not applied the same regardless of the gender of applicant.

[Rywill]

So how is the protection unequal?

This is the same argument they've been having all along. It all depends on how you frame the question. Conservatives take your approach: Hey, we're treating all gays the same way, so the protection is equal. Maybe we're not treating gays the same as straights, but gays are different than straights, in a way that we think is relevant to the law, so it's all fine.

Liberals frame the issue as one of gender discrimination. I can marry Sparky, because she's a woman, but I can't marry Ben, because he's a man. The only reason the state won't let me marry Ben is because of his gender; if Ben were a woman, rather than a man who happens to run like one, I would be allowed to marry him. Thus, Ben is being discriminated against on the basis of gender, which is not constitutional unless the state can show a compelling need for the discrimination.

On top of that, I think Jason's analogy is a lot more accurate than you would like to admit. Back in the day, the exact same distinction was used: "We'll let blacks marry other blacks, we just won't let them marry whites. We treat all blacks the same, and all whites the same, so there's no discrimination." How do you think gays are different than blacks? If you'll admit that blacks and whites should be able to marry if they want to--even though there are a lot of people who don't like it and even though there are some states who would outlaw it by popular demand if they could--why don't you think gays should be able to marry in the same situation?

[milo]

Rywill -

No, I still don't think you can make an analogy in which blacks : gays :: whites : straights. In short, your sexual orientation is not a consideration in who you are permitted to marry. The only limitations on marriage are gender, age, and cardinality (first line on the left, one spouse each).

I am still mulling over the gender discrimination argument that Jason just stated.

--milo
http://www.starshatter.com

[Theodore Rex DX]

Marriage is an arbitrary and discriminatory institution and should be outlawed.

[Anders Hallin]

I certainly wouldn't want to make up my mind on this issue without Jerry Falwell telling me what to think (www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/2/19/171126.shtml).

[Jason McCullough]

The Seattle-PI had dueling interviews with local ministers today.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/161566_progaymarriage21.html
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/161564_antigaymarriage21.html

The anti guy doesn't seem to have been paying attention. Apparently civil unions don't accomplish anything!

[Ben Sones]

The only limitations on marriage are gender, age, and cardinality (first line on the left, one spouse each).

As Ry said (and I tend to agree on this), the "gender" bit is the pertinent issue when it comes to equal protection. It's not legal for the state to pass any other law that says "men are allowed to do X, but women cannot do X" (or vice-versa), so why here?

[Rywill]

In short, your sexual orientation is not a consideration in who you are permitted to marry. The only limitations on marriage are gender, age, and cardinality (first line on the left, one spouse each).
I understand that. It's not like the state is saying "Gay people can't get married." They can, as long as they marry someone who is of the opposite gender. But the same was true of blacks. The miscegenation laws we're discussing here did not say "Blacks cannot get married." They could--as long as they married other blacks. And whites could marry, as long as they married a white person. Race was not a "limitation" on whether or not you could get married, just as sexual orientation isn't today.

But the problem back then wasn't that certain people weren't allowed to marry; it was that all people weren't allowed free choice of whom to marry. Whoever you were, whether you were black or white, you were only allowed to marry a certain type of person, determined by a factor of your birth over which you had no control. If you were white, you were limited to marrying white people.

It was later decided that this was unconstitutional and I think most people today would agree that it's morally wrong to tell people they may only marry a member of their own race (although there are certainly some people who still adhere to the old views). Personally, I think it was not only morally wrong, it was abhorrent. There's no rational reason to think that a mixed-race marriage is any worse or better than a single-race one. The only reason people objected (and still object) was because of prejudice and unfounded, irrational fear.

Gays today are in the same situation. They're not allowed free choice in whom to marry (actually, both gays and straights are not allowed free choice, but obviously the restriction impacts gays vastly more than straights). Whoever you are, man or woman, you're only allowed to marry a certain sublcass of people: those of opposite gender. Obviously, just as with the miscegenation laws, the group of people you're allowed to marry is not chosen by you, it's an accident of birth (i.e., if you're born female, you're stuck with the males as your marriage pool). There's no rational reason to think that gay marriages are any worse or better than straight ones. The only reason people object is because of prejudice and unfounded, irrational fears.

So on the moral side of the issue, the analogy is extremely clear, at least to me. The situation today is nearly identical to the one of 50 years ago, just with a different sort of useless discrimination.

On the legal side of the issue, I don't see your objection. You yourself say that "gender" is one of the restricting classifications for marriage. Well, gender biases are presumed to be unconstitutional unless the state can demonstrate a legitimate, overriding need for the classification. What do you think that legitimate overriding need is in this case?

[Philomath]

Xpav - interesting: didn't realize the ruling was as comprehensive. Good news.

Next question: who's initiating this discussion? The raving groups of gays who need to be married? The democrats who think this distinguishes them (not true, since most are against it)? Or the Republicans, who want to take advantage of public sentiment to critque the Democrats? Honestly don't know, but don't think it's the gays.

[Bitterman]

Regarding the executive branch failing to enforce statutes: This should be looked at as something of an OK thing. Someone posted that the executive branch is supposed to blindly follow orders and enforce the laws. This is not neccesarily so. The executive branch does need to have some leeway in enforcement, because that is one of the major checks against the other two branches of the government.

For example, if congress passed a law that all shoes should be confiscated, the police could refuse to enforce the law. This does carry consequences for the executive forces, but it also provides something of a balance against an unjust law. I think that the city, in refusing to follow a law set by the state, is providing the sort of check that we need to see. Just as the judicial system is able to overturn laws, or sentence someone to a single day in jail for stealing food, the executive branch has similar powers. Hence the ability for the policy of police to ignore small violations of the law (for example, ignoring a person's drug offenses in order for them to provide assistance with a homicide investigation).

So, in short, I don't feel that it is inappropriate for the city to allow gay marriages, even though the legislative branch has passed a law forbidding them. One could argue it is not just a citizen's, but also the executive branch's duty to oppose laws they feel are unjust. I'm certain that their consituencies support their actions.

[Ben Sones]

OTOH, overturning laws was never a check that the executive branch was meant to have. That's the job of the judiciary, as you point out.

[Robert Sharp]

You have mad grammar skillz, Rywill. It's very impressive in this day an age. You are a master of using 'who' and 'whom' correctly. Come take one of my classes so I won't have to teach ignorant peasants anymore.

[milo]

Mea culpa

[Midnight Son]

Sic semper tyrannis

[XPav]

Te audire no possum. Musa sapientum fixa est in aure.

[Midnight Son]

Well, take it out and give it to a monkey!