Your homework assignment
- Thread starter Couture
- Start date
Rumple Foreskin
The AH Patriarch
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2002
- Posts
- 11,109
Couture,Couture said:
You're talking about rights and justice, not the law. While most forms of discrimination are now against the law, under some circumstances, think Title 9 and Affirmative Action, certain types are legal. And if the California Supreme Court, one of the most liberal in the nation, really has said that law is constitutional, then appealing it to the right-wing dominated US Supreme Court would be a waste of time.
By the way, the issue you mentioned was the Dred Scott case which was decided prior to the ACW by the United States Supreme Court, not voters.
I'd be very, very careful about letting the moral opinion of a minority ever trump the will of the majority. Imagine if the "Moral Majority" types got to impose all their opinions.
Rumple Foreskin
Boxlicker101
Licker of Boxes
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2003
- Posts
- 33,665
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Boxlicker101
Four years ago, the people of California voted by a big margin that marriages could only be between men and women. This is now state law and it has already been ruled to be constitutional. I hate to rain on anybody's parade but the state law trumps a mayor's personal opinion any time. All the city is doing is getting themselves involved in an expensive legal hassle that they can't win. As for the couples involved, this won't change anything for them, except to maybe make some of the unions stronger. There really isn't that much of an advantage to being married over being domestic partners anyhow, at least not in SF
I don't think there is much relationship betwen the two laws. First, I don't think the people of the South actually voted on such a law. The state legislatures probably did. The law I am citing in California was actually voted in by a big majority of the voters in an initiative. Whether it is just or not, it does reflect the attitudes of the majority of the voters in the state and it is the law. The mayor of SF is flouting that law and ordering employees of the City and County of SF to do the same.
As for the laws against helping runaway slaves, those laws were on the books until slavery became illegal, and then the laws became moot. People broke the law sometimes, and sometimes got arrested and sent to prison. Had I been around thenm, I like to think that I would have been one of the lawbreakers. Personally, I see nothing wrong with gay marriages and I voted against the initiative that outlawed them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Boxlicker101
Four years ago, the people of California voted by a big margin that marriages could only be between men and women. This is now state law and it has already been ruled to be constitutional. I hate to rain on anybody's parade but the state law trumps a mayor's personal opinion any time. All the city is doing is getting themselves involved in an expensive legal hassle that they can't win. As for the couples involved, this won't change anything for them, except to maybe make some of the unions stronger. There really isn't that much of an advantage to being married over being domestic partners anyhow, at least not in SF
Couture said:
I don't think there is much relationship betwen the two laws. First, I don't think the people of the South actually voted on such a law. The state legislatures probably did. The law I am citing in California was actually voted in by a big majority of the voters in an initiative. Whether it is just or not, it does reflect the attitudes of the majority of the voters in the state and it is the law. The mayor of SF is flouting that law and ordering employees of the City and County of SF to do the same. As for the laws against helping runaway slaves, those laws were on the books until slavery became illegal, and then the laws became moot. People broke the law sometimes, and sometimes got arrested and sent to prison. Had I been around thenm, I like to think that I would have been one of the lawbreakers. Personally, I see nothing wrong with gay marriages and I voted against the initiative that outlawed them.
minsue
Gosling
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2002
- Posts
- 22,062
Boxlicker101 said:
As for the laws against helping runaway slaves, those laws were on the books until slavery became illegal, and then the laws became moot. People broke the law sometimes, and sometimes got arrested and sent to prison. Had I been around thenm, I like to think that I would have been one of the lawbreakers. Personally, I see nothing wrong with gay marriages and I voted against the initiative that outlawed them.
IIRC, a court can and should overturn a law, even one voted on by the public, if it is found to be unconstitutional. The majority is not always right and, if the courts find a law to be unconstitutional, they then need to ammend the state constitution which is a much more difficult process and rightly so in my opinion.
Boxlicker101
Licker of Boxes
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2003
- Posts
- 33,665
minsue said:
The courts have done so on several occasions. Initiatives have passed, sometimes by big majorities, and then been found to be unconstitutional, and overturned. I'm not sure what the rest of your post means.
minsue
Gosling
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2002
- Posts
- 22,062
Boxlicker101 said:
That's pretty much it. I just mean that the fact that the voters went to the polls and stated they don't believe same sex marraige should be allowed doesn't mean it's so.
Boxlicker101
Licker of Boxes
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2003
- Posts
- 33,665
minsue said:
When the voters in California go to the polls and vote on an initiative, they are not JUST expressing an opinion; they are passing a law or turning one down. They are expressing an opinion, of course, you always do that when you voter. Sometimes the legislature is too afraid (or too fair-minded) to pass a law, even though most people want it, so the people go to a lot of time and effort to put it on the ballot and the voters pass it. They don't always pass them but usually they do.
Last edited:
G
Guest
Guest
This is astonishing to me. I read it as the governor being inciteful. It's frightening and despicable and I do think he's idiotic. There has been no "unrest" to speak of, not even the protesters blocking the door. If any violence occurs I will blame this stooge.
very angry, Perdita (my emphases in bold)
Governor fears unrest unless same-sex marriages are halted
Schwarzenegger voices concern over potential civil clashes in S.F., Edward Epstein, Chronicle Washington Bureau, 2.23.2004
Washington -- Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger turned up the rhetoric against San Francisco's move to allow same-sex marriages, saying on national TV Sunday that he fears outbreaks of serious civil unrest if the ceremonies continue at City Hall.
Schwarzenegger said on NBC's "Meet the Press'' that he fears worsening protests about the divisive issue and worries the situation could get out of hand if courts don't quickly stop the marriages, which are being performed in defiance of existing state law.
"All of a sudden, we see riots, we see protests, we see people clashing. The next thing we know, there is injured or there is dead people. We don't want it to get to that extent,'' the Republican said in his first appearance as governor on a Sunday talk show.
A number of protesters were escorted out of San Francisco City Hall on Friday when they tried to disrupt the weddings, but no one was arrested.
That same day, the governor ordered state Attorney General Bill Lockyer to go to court to try to stop the marriages as soon as possible. Lockyer -- a Democrat and an independently elected state official -- said he resented the order and said Schwarzenegger had no authority to order him to do anything.
However, Lockyer's office has decided to expedite its reply to a lawsuit San Francisco filed last week challenging the laws that forbid same-sex marriage, Hallye Jordan, a spokeswoman for the attorney general, said Sunday. She said the reply would probably be filed early this week.
"We want a quick resolution of this issue," Jordan said. "We've got 30 days to file, but we're not going to wait. We have every intention of moving quickly because we think it's important for the people of California and for those same-sex couples who have obtained marriage licenses.''
She said she was taken aback by Schwarzenegger's comments that there are "riots," "protests" and "people clashing" in San Francisco. She said the attorney general's office knew only of the clashes Friday in which some 25 people blocked the door of the county clerk's office.
"We are not aware of any riots or any threat to public safety in San Francisco," Jordan said. "As we have said, if there is violence, we would step in. At this point we see peaceful acts of civil disobedience on both sides. We are unclear as to what the governor is referencing in terms of riots. We urge a toning down of the political rhetoric. This is a complex issue, and we will be dealing with it in the courts."
An aide to Mayor Gavin Newsom also denied Sunday there has been any violence surrounding the marriages, which have garnered international publicity. "It's been largely peaceful, and we don't see that changing,'' said spokesman Peter Ragone.
San Francisco Assemblyman Mark Leno, speaking Sunday before a reception of some 2,000 people gathered at the Hyatt Regency in San Francisco to celebrate gay marriage, said Schwarzenegger owes the city an apology.
"His comments were inappropriate and shameful," Leno said. "There were no riots in the street. There was peace, love and commitment."
Doretha Flournoy, 43, who attended the reception, said, "What you see is people standing around trying to get into City Hall. If there is any unrest, it's from those folks who don't want to see us get married."
Schwarzenegger praised Newsom as a "reasonable guy. He's a wonderful mayor.'' But he criticized the mayor for allowing the same-sex ceremonies. "We cannot have mayors all of a sudden go hand out licenses for various things. In the next city, it'll be handing out licenses for assault weapons. In the next, it'll be someone handing them out to sell drugs.''
He and others, including California's two Democratic senators, have also suggested that Newsom should have gone to court first to get a ruling on California's marriage laws before starting to allow same-sex marriages in the city.
But Ragone said that argument doesn't wash. "There's a big difference between handing out AK-47s and marriage licenses. And this issue is in the courts, precisely the way it is supposed to work,'' he said.
Newsom, appearing on CNN's "Late Edition" on Sunday, defended his decision against critics, saying he has an obligation to fairness.
"It's about human beings," he said. "It's about human dignity. It's about advancing and affirming marriage in a unique bond and relationship. It's about, I think, holding truth, faith and allegiance to the constitution."
San Francisco has issued more than 3,000 same-sex marriage licenses since Feb. 12. After more than a week of block-long lines, the city is now issuing the licenses by appointment only. A judge has given San Francisco until March 29 to explain its actions in court.
Schwarzenegger went out of his way Sunday to appear conciliatory toward Lockyer, whose office is responsible for defending the state against San Francisco's claim that the gay marriage ban violates the equal protection clause of the California Constitution.
"Maybe there's a little sensitivity in the office where he feels the governor should not push him,'' Schwarzenegger said of Lockyer.
At the National Governors Association meeting in Washington, the first the new governor is attending, he was asked about his relations with Lockyer, who on Saturday had called Schwarzenegger's order preposterous.
"We're straightening it out now with Attorney General Bill Lockyer. He's on it. Everything is going in the right direction,'' Schwarzenegger said.
very angry, Perdita (my emphases in bold)
Governor fears unrest unless same-sex marriages are halted
Schwarzenegger voices concern over potential civil clashes in S.F., Edward Epstein, Chronicle Washington Bureau, 2.23.2004
Washington -- Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger turned up the rhetoric against San Francisco's move to allow same-sex marriages, saying on national TV Sunday that he fears outbreaks of serious civil unrest if the ceremonies continue at City Hall.
Schwarzenegger said on NBC's "Meet the Press'' that he fears worsening protests about the divisive issue and worries the situation could get out of hand if courts don't quickly stop the marriages, which are being performed in defiance of existing state law.
"All of a sudden, we see riots, we see protests, we see people clashing. The next thing we know, there is injured or there is dead people. We don't want it to get to that extent,'' the Republican said in his first appearance as governor on a Sunday talk show.
A number of protesters were escorted out of San Francisco City Hall on Friday when they tried to disrupt the weddings, but no one was arrested.
That same day, the governor ordered state Attorney General Bill Lockyer to go to court to try to stop the marriages as soon as possible. Lockyer -- a Democrat and an independently elected state official -- said he resented the order and said Schwarzenegger had no authority to order him to do anything.
However, Lockyer's office has decided to expedite its reply to a lawsuit San Francisco filed last week challenging the laws that forbid same-sex marriage, Hallye Jordan, a spokeswoman for the attorney general, said Sunday. She said the reply would probably be filed early this week.
"We want a quick resolution of this issue," Jordan said. "We've got 30 days to file, but we're not going to wait. We have every intention of moving quickly because we think it's important for the people of California and for those same-sex couples who have obtained marriage licenses.''
She said she was taken aback by Schwarzenegger's comments that there are "riots," "protests" and "people clashing" in San Francisco. She said the attorney general's office knew only of the clashes Friday in which some 25 people blocked the door of the county clerk's office.
"We are not aware of any riots or any threat to public safety in San Francisco," Jordan said. "As we have said, if there is violence, we would step in. At this point we see peaceful acts of civil disobedience on both sides. We are unclear as to what the governor is referencing in terms of riots. We urge a toning down of the political rhetoric. This is a complex issue, and we will be dealing with it in the courts."
An aide to Mayor Gavin Newsom also denied Sunday there has been any violence surrounding the marriages, which have garnered international publicity. "It's been largely peaceful, and we don't see that changing,'' said spokesman Peter Ragone.
San Francisco Assemblyman Mark Leno, speaking Sunday before a reception of some 2,000 people gathered at the Hyatt Regency in San Francisco to celebrate gay marriage, said Schwarzenegger owes the city an apology.
"His comments were inappropriate and shameful," Leno said. "There were no riots in the street. There was peace, love and commitment."
Doretha Flournoy, 43, who attended the reception, said, "What you see is people standing around trying to get into City Hall. If there is any unrest, it's from those folks who don't want to see us get married."
Schwarzenegger praised Newsom as a "reasonable guy. He's a wonderful mayor.'' But he criticized the mayor for allowing the same-sex ceremonies. "We cannot have mayors all of a sudden go hand out licenses for various things. In the next city, it'll be handing out licenses for assault weapons. In the next, it'll be someone handing them out to sell drugs.''
He and others, including California's two Democratic senators, have also suggested that Newsom should have gone to court first to get a ruling on California's marriage laws before starting to allow same-sex marriages in the city.
But Ragone said that argument doesn't wash. "There's a big difference between handing out AK-47s and marriage licenses. And this issue is in the courts, precisely the way it is supposed to work,'' he said.
Newsom, appearing on CNN's "Late Edition" on Sunday, defended his decision against critics, saying he has an obligation to fairness.
"It's about human beings," he said. "It's about human dignity. It's about advancing and affirming marriage in a unique bond and relationship. It's about, I think, holding truth, faith and allegiance to the constitution."
San Francisco has issued more than 3,000 same-sex marriage licenses since Feb. 12. After more than a week of block-long lines, the city is now issuing the licenses by appointment only. A judge has given San Francisco until March 29 to explain its actions in court.
Schwarzenegger went out of his way Sunday to appear conciliatory toward Lockyer, whose office is responsible for defending the state against San Francisco's claim that the gay marriage ban violates the equal protection clause of the California Constitution.
"Maybe there's a little sensitivity in the office where he feels the governor should not push him,'' Schwarzenegger said of Lockyer.
At the National Governors Association meeting in Washington, the first the new governor is attending, he was asked about his relations with Lockyer, who on Saturday had called Schwarzenegger's order preposterous.
"We're straightening it out now with Attorney General Bill Lockyer. He's on it. Everything is going in the right direction,'' Schwarzenegger said.
G
Guest
Guest
a bit more backup material
Lockyer rejects halt to nuptials - He dismisses governor's demand as a political ploy
Nanette Asimov, Ryan Kim, Chronicle Staff Writers, 2.22.2004, SF Chronicle
State Attorney General Bill Lockyer on Saturday rebuffed Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's demand that he force an end to San Francisco's same-sex marriages, calling the directive political rhetoric.
"The governor can direct the Highway Patrol. He can direct the next 'Terminator 4' movie if he chooses. But he can't direct the attorney general in the way he's attempted to do," Lockyer said, adding that Schwarzenegger's written directive "was a statement designed for consumption at the Republican convention."
In a fax Friday night to the home of a Lockyer aide, the governor wrote: "I hereby direct you to take immediate steps to obtain a definitive judicial resolution of this controversy." The message also said that San Francisco's actions to wed gay couples "present an imminent risk to civil order."
Lockyer called that statement "preposterous" and said it is the kind of "exaggerated, hot rhetoric" that risks stirring people up to commit hate crimes.*
He said that he and Schwarzenegger have agreed all along that same-sex marriage is illegal under California law. He said it is his duty to defend the state against a lawsuit by San Francisco that calls the state's prohibition against same-sex marriage unconstitutional. Lockyer said his office will file a response early this week.
By dumping the gay marriage hot potato in Lockyer's lap, Schwarzenegger has managed to ease the concerns of his conservative supporters while still staying well clear of an issue he doesn't really need to get involved in.**
Schwarzenegger told Republicans at their state convention in Burlingame Friday that he is opposed to gay marriage, but his letter to Lockyer leaves all the heavy lifting on the issue to the attorney general. The fact that Lockyer is a possible Democratic challenger to Schwarzenegger in 2006 is just a bonus for the Republican governor.
Attacking San Francisco has always been a surefire applause line for the conservative activists who typically fill the seats at Republican conventions, and the governor's assault on same-sex marriage brought the crowd to its feet Friday night. On Saturday, the GOP Senate candidates also used the stage to bash Mayor Gavin Newsom and the city.
"On the issue of civil defiance, San Francisco has to follow the law,'' said Bill Jones, former secretary of state. "It needs to be laid in the lap of the attorney general and he needs to deal with it.''
The tiff at the top between Schwarzenegger and Lockyer serves to clarify the lines of authority in the otherwise messy, often emotional struggle over same-sex marriage, legal experts told The Chronicle on Saturday.
A governor cannot tell an elected attorney general what to do, and neither can he tell a mayor what to do.
"The governor really has very limited authority to do anything in this situation," said Jesse Choper, a constitutional law professor at UC Berkeley's Boalt Hall and the school's former dean. "And the mayor does not report to the governor. The mayor is the chief executive officer of the city and county of San Francisco. He works by himself."
Nor, apparently, can a governor tell a judge what to do. Despite urging from Schwarzenegger, a Superior Court judge decided on Friday not to impose a temporary restraining order on the city to halt the marriages.
Legal experts said Saturday that regardless of the legal outcome in California, the question of whether gays and lesbians may marry someone of their own sex is almost certainly destined for federal court.
If California's Supreme Court ultimately upheld the legality of same-sex marriage, a couple might decide to file a joint tax return, said Joseph Grodin, a former state Supreme Court justice. Or, if the court rejected such marriages, a same-sex couple from Massachusetts might attempt the same thing. (Earlier this year, the Massachusetts Supreme Court upheld same-sex marriages and said the state may issue licenses beginning in May.)
"So if a couple tried to take advantage of the federal law and was rebuffed, then someone may raise the constitutionality of that statue and argue that under the federal Constitution, it is unconstitutional to discriminate," Grodin said.
Under another scenario, Grodin said, the issue might jump to the federal level if another state questioned its obligation to recognize same-sex marriages authorized in California or Massachusetts.
"One way or the other, the issue of gay marriage is likely to reach the U. S. Supreme Court," he said.
Two recent rulings also lend favor to the viability of same-sex marriage, said Vikram Amar, a professor at Hastings College of the Law. One is the ruling by the Massachusetts Supreme Court, he said. And the other is the U.S. Supreme Court's recent ruling that invalidated a Texas law, which said homosexuality was illegal. The high court's ruling made such sodomy laws illegal everywhere, he said.
"The court was clear that that wasn't about marriage," Amar said. "But together, these rulings suggest that both state and federal constitutions have something to say about discriminating against same-sex couples when it comes to marriage."
Looming in the background, Amar said, is the possibility that Congress would propose a constitutional amendment barring same-sex marriage, which would have to be ratified by three quarters of states.
"Then it wouldn't matter what (state law) had to say on the issue," Amar said.
Meanwhile, in San Francisco, Mayor Newsom said he will continue allowing same-sex marriages until a judge says otherwise.
"I'll respectfully keep moving forward and doing the right thing and stopping the practice of discrimination," said Newsom, as he paused for an event honoring black heritage at Yerba Buena Gardens.
He brushed aside criticism from U.S. Sens. Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein, fellow California Democrats who said last week that Newsom was wrong to defy state law and to force the sticky issue in an election year.
"Next year won't be the best time, and the year after won't be," Newsom said. "There are midyear elections, mayoral elections and governor elections. There will never be the best time. It's the same script."
Newsom said he has received threats but declined to elaborate. Flanking the mayor were a pair of suited bodyguards not often seen at the mayor's public appearances before the weddings began on Feb. 12.
Newsom acknowledged he is taking the issue of security seriously, adding: "You don't do the same things you did yesterday, every day."
--------------
*And after that statement, the gov. goes on national TV and makes his peculiarly inciteful statements.
**chicken-shit evidence
Lockyer rejects halt to nuptials - He dismisses governor's demand as a political ploy
Nanette Asimov, Ryan Kim, Chronicle Staff Writers, 2.22.2004, SF Chronicle
State Attorney General Bill Lockyer on Saturday rebuffed Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's demand that he force an end to San Francisco's same-sex marriages, calling the directive political rhetoric.
"The governor can direct the Highway Patrol. He can direct the next 'Terminator 4' movie if he chooses. But he can't direct the attorney general in the way he's attempted to do," Lockyer said, adding that Schwarzenegger's written directive "was a statement designed for consumption at the Republican convention."
In a fax Friday night to the home of a Lockyer aide, the governor wrote: "I hereby direct you to take immediate steps to obtain a definitive judicial resolution of this controversy." The message also said that San Francisco's actions to wed gay couples "present an imminent risk to civil order."
Lockyer called that statement "preposterous" and said it is the kind of "exaggerated, hot rhetoric" that risks stirring people up to commit hate crimes.*
He said that he and Schwarzenegger have agreed all along that same-sex marriage is illegal under California law. He said it is his duty to defend the state against a lawsuit by San Francisco that calls the state's prohibition against same-sex marriage unconstitutional. Lockyer said his office will file a response early this week.
By dumping the gay marriage hot potato in Lockyer's lap, Schwarzenegger has managed to ease the concerns of his conservative supporters while still staying well clear of an issue he doesn't really need to get involved in.**
Schwarzenegger told Republicans at their state convention in Burlingame Friday that he is opposed to gay marriage, but his letter to Lockyer leaves all the heavy lifting on the issue to the attorney general. The fact that Lockyer is a possible Democratic challenger to Schwarzenegger in 2006 is just a bonus for the Republican governor.
Attacking San Francisco has always been a surefire applause line for the conservative activists who typically fill the seats at Republican conventions, and the governor's assault on same-sex marriage brought the crowd to its feet Friday night. On Saturday, the GOP Senate candidates also used the stage to bash Mayor Gavin Newsom and the city.
"On the issue of civil defiance, San Francisco has to follow the law,'' said Bill Jones, former secretary of state. "It needs to be laid in the lap of the attorney general and he needs to deal with it.''
The tiff at the top between Schwarzenegger and Lockyer serves to clarify the lines of authority in the otherwise messy, often emotional struggle over same-sex marriage, legal experts told The Chronicle on Saturday.
A governor cannot tell an elected attorney general what to do, and neither can he tell a mayor what to do.
"The governor really has very limited authority to do anything in this situation," said Jesse Choper, a constitutional law professor at UC Berkeley's Boalt Hall and the school's former dean. "And the mayor does not report to the governor. The mayor is the chief executive officer of the city and county of San Francisco. He works by himself."
Nor, apparently, can a governor tell a judge what to do. Despite urging from Schwarzenegger, a Superior Court judge decided on Friday not to impose a temporary restraining order on the city to halt the marriages.
Legal experts said Saturday that regardless of the legal outcome in California, the question of whether gays and lesbians may marry someone of their own sex is almost certainly destined for federal court.
If California's Supreme Court ultimately upheld the legality of same-sex marriage, a couple might decide to file a joint tax return, said Joseph Grodin, a former state Supreme Court justice. Or, if the court rejected such marriages, a same-sex couple from Massachusetts might attempt the same thing. (Earlier this year, the Massachusetts Supreme Court upheld same-sex marriages and said the state may issue licenses beginning in May.)
"So if a couple tried to take advantage of the federal law and was rebuffed, then someone may raise the constitutionality of that statue and argue that under the federal Constitution, it is unconstitutional to discriminate," Grodin said.
Under another scenario, Grodin said, the issue might jump to the federal level if another state questioned its obligation to recognize same-sex marriages authorized in California or Massachusetts.
"One way or the other, the issue of gay marriage is likely to reach the U. S. Supreme Court," he said.
Two recent rulings also lend favor to the viability of same-sex marriage, said Vikram Amar, a professor at Hastings College of the Law. One is the ruling by the Massachusetts Supreme Court, he said. And the other is the U.S. Supreme Court's recent ruling that invalidated a Texas law, which said homosexuality was illegal. The high court's ruling made such sodomy laws illegal everywhere, he said.
"The court was clear that that wasn't about marriage," Amar said. "But together, these rulings suggest that both state and federal constitutions have something to say about discriminating against same-sex couples when it comes to marriage."
Looming in the background, Amar said, is the possibility that Congress would propose a constitutional amendment barring same-sex marriage, which would have to be ratified by three quarters of states.
"Then it wouldn't matter what (state law) had to say on the issue," Amar said.
Meanwhile, in San Francisco, Mayor Newsom said he will continue allowing same-sex marriages until a judge says otherwise.
"I'll respectfully keep moving forward and doing the right thing and stopping the practice of discrimination," said Newsom, as he paused for an event honoring black heritage at Yerba Buena Gardens.
He brushed aside criticism from U.S. Sens. Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein, fellow California Democrats who said last week that Newsom was wrong to defy state law and to force the sticky issue in an election year.
"Next year won't be the best time, and the year after won't be," Newsom said. "There are midyear elections, mayoral elections and governor elections. There will never be the best time. It's the same script."
Newsom said he has received threats but declined to elaborate. Flanking the mayor were a pair of suited bodyguards not often seen at the mayor's public appearances before the weddings began on Feb. 12.
Newsom acknowledged he is taking the issue of security seriously, adding: "You don't do the same things you did yesterday, every day."
--------------
*And after that statement, the gov. goes on national TV and makes his peculiarly inciteful statements.
**chicken-shit evidence
jfinn
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2002
- Posts
- 593
The Rule of Law and Cival Disobedience
All week I've been watching the news and reading about the gay marriages being performed in San Francisco's City Hall. I've seen the pictures and they've touched my heart. I have a brother who is gay and the thought that someday he may legally be able to claim his partner as his spouse is something I hope very much will happen. That isn't specifically why I'm posting however.
A lot has been said recently about the rule of law. That's as it should be. A country must live by its laws or run the risk of falling into anarchy. However we must be cautious. The laws were not created to form our opinions of what is acceptable in society, but rather they were established to reflect these ideals. So when I hear Governor Schwartzenegger state that something is wrong because it's against the law, as has been happening in the debates over gay unions, then I think we've taken a wrong turn and he needs to take a refresher civics class because the issue is not whether something is legal, it is whether the law is just and accurately defines the safety and rights of the citizenship.
We live in a society where the law is of great importance and as such is highly valued. It's the law. is a phrase that most of us hear for the first time when we are very young and it's the beginning of our training to not only learn to obey the rules and regulations of our government, but to instill in us a belief that those statutes are not only in place to control, but also to protect.
Unfortunately it is not always so. Governments and people are imperfect entities and as such often allow predjudice and fear to guide them into legislating against something soley for the purpose of keeping that which they do not understand or agree with, away from their door.
The United States has, as have all countries, had their fair share of these 'bad' laws. The Eighteenth Amendment (Prohibition), Executive Order 9066 (The internment of Japanese Americans during WWII.) and Plessy v Ferguson (Separate, but equal.) are just three in recent history, but they represent the danger of allowing personal beliefs, fears and predjudice to be enacted into the rule of law. They also represent the three ways that we do this, through the electorate, through executive mandate and through our courts, and conversely, how we correct our mistakes through the same means.
But these corrections did not occur because citizens and the president, and the courts suddenly woke up one morning and thought, You know, that was the wrong thing to do.In every case, the repeal, the restitution, the remedy, was brought on by individuals working to show, pushing to make us see, the inherent injustice in these laws, and in at least two of these cases, cival disobedience was the means chosen to achieve this end.
Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator? Why has every man a conscience then?...It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right. The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think right....If the injustice is part of the necessary friction of the machine of government, let it go, let it go. ...but if it is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then I say, break the law.
"On the Duty of Civil Disobedience" (1849), Henry David Thoreau
I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law.
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
This last week in San Francisco we've seen another example of cival disobedience, but this time with a twist. The person at the helm of the protest, the mayor of that city, is not an outsider seeking to redress wrongs he has no tangible power to control, but instead, is very much an insider who has used his own conscience and moral barometer to come to the conclusion that he cannot in good faith adhere to a Rule of Law he believes is unconstitutional even though he has been ordered to uphold it. He is not alone. Elected officials, bureaucrats, members of the police and other social services are donating their time to defy a law they believe unjust.
This cannot have been undertaken lightly. Jobs can be lost, elections overturned and arrests can be made. Even in a liberal city like San Francisco, there is no guarantee that the ultimate backlash will not be fierce and if the state steps in, well, Sacramento is not exactly a stronghold of liberal thinking. Don't think for a moment that these people of conscious don't know this and yet they persist in the small hope that what they risk will lead the way to open debate and ultimately, better, more just laws.
While I personally find that show of will admirable, there are many who say that what they are doing is the truly wrong thing. That they are there to enforce the laws, not deliberately flout them. And this invariably is the moment when the words, It's wrong, because they're breaking the law and they can't do that. comes into play like this is an argument that explains everything.
Of course it explains nothing. What it does say is that because these men and women are members of the government, they have lost the right to protest what they feel are its shortcomings. This isn't so. Citizenship doesn't diminish when you take an oath of office or hire on for a job. Nor does it absolve you from the responsibility of determining what is morally right. The I was only following orders, line of defense didn't work at the Nueremburg Trials and it cannot work now. If these people, these citizens, feel the law is intrinsically wrong, then it is not only their right, but their mandate to refuse to uphold it or in other words commit cival disobedience.
So when Governor Schwartzenneger says the officials of San Francisco are breaking the rules of law, what point does he think he's making? Does he honestly believe they don't already know that? Does he think that Mayor Newcomb is going to listen to that, then hit himself on the forehead and say, Oh no! I didn't realize. Well, if it's the law then I guess I'll have to honor it. Of course not. These people have committed to a course of action with full knowledge that they are breaking the law. If Schwartzenegger thinks simply reminding them of this will be enough to stop them, then he needs go back and reread some history. I'd recommend starting with Gandhi.
If the governor has any concrete reasons why the law protects, rather than harms the rights of California citizens, then I'll listen and I'm willing to bet that Mayor Newsom would be there with me. If he doesn't, then he'd better be prepared for a fight, because it's obvious his opponents are.
Jayne
All week I've been watching the news and reading about the gay marriages being performed in San Francisco's City Hall. I've seen the pictures and they've touched my heart. I have a brother who is gay and the thought that someday he may legally be able to claim his partner as his spouse is something I hope very much will happen. That isn't specifically why I'm posting however.
A lot has been said recently about the rule of law. That's as it should be. A country must live by its laws or run the risk of falling into anarchy. However we must be cautious. The laws were not created to form our opinions of what is acceptable in society, but rather they were established to reflect these ideals. So when I hear Governor Schwartzenegger state that something is wrong because it's against the law, as has been happening in the debates over gay unions, then I think we've taken a wrong turn and he needs to take a refresher civics class because the issue is not whether something is legal, it is whether the law is just and accurately defines the safety and rights of the citizenship.
We live in a society where the law is of great importance and as such is highly valued. It's the law. is a phrase that most of us hear for the first time when we are very young and it's the beginning of our training to not only learn to obey the rules and regulations of our government, but to instill in us a belief that those statutes are not only in place to control, but also to protect.
Unfortunately it is not always so. Governments and people are imperfect entities and as such often allow predjudice and fear to guide them into legislating against something soley for the purpose of keeping that which they do not understand or agree with, away from their door.
The United States has, as have all countries, had their fair share of these 'bad' laws. The Eighteenth Amendment (Prohibition), Executive Order 9066 (The internment of Japanese Americans during WWII.) and Plessy v Ferguson (Separate, but equal.) are just three in recent history, but they represent the danger of allowing personal beliefs, fears and predjudice to be enacted into the rule of law. They also represent the three ways that we do this, through the electorate, through executive mandate and through our courts, and conversely, how we correct our mistakes through the same means.
But these corrections did not occur because citizens and the president, and the courts suddenly woke up one morning and thought, You know, that was the wrong thing to do.In every case, the repeal, the restitution, the remedy, was brought on by individuals working to show, pushing to make us see, the inherent injustice in these laws, and in at least two of these cases, cival disobedience was the means chosen to achieve this end.
Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator? Why has every man a conscience then?...It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right. The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think right....If the injustice is part of the necessary friction of the machine of government, let it go, let it go. ...but if it is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then I say, break the law.
"On the Duty of Civil Disobedience" (1849), Henry David Thoreau
I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law.
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
This last week in San Francisco we've seen another example of cival disobedience, but this time with a twist. The person at the helm of the protest, the mayor of that city, is not an outsider seeking to redress wrongs he has no tangible power to control, but instead, is very much an insider who has used his own conscience and moral barometer to come to the conclusion that he cannot in good faith adhere to a Rule of Law he believes is unconstitutional even though he has been ordered to uphold it. He is not alone. Elected officials, bureaucrats, members of the police and other social services are donating their time to defy a law they believe unjust.
This cannot have been undertaken lightly. Jobs can be lost, elections overturned and arrests can be made. Even in a liberal city like San Francisco, there is no guarantee that the ultimate backlash will not be fierce and if the state steps in, well, Sacramento is not exactly a stronghold of liberal thinking. Don't think for a moment that these people of conscious don't know this and yet they persist in the small hope that what they risk will lead the way to open debate and ultimately, better, more just laws.
While I personally find that show of will admirable, there are many who say that what they are doing is the truly wrong thing. That they are there to enforce the laws, not deliberately flout them. And this invariably is the moment when the words, It's wrong, because they're breaking the law and they can't do that. comes into play like this is an argument that explains everything.
Of course it explains nothing. What it does say is that because these men and women are members of the government, they have lost the right to protest what they feel are its shortcomings. This isn't so. Citizenship doesn't diminish when you take an oath of office or hire on for a job. Nor does it absolve you from the responsibility of determining what is morally right. The I was only following orders, line of defense didn't work at the Nueremburg Trials and it cannot work now. If these people, these citizens, feel the law is intrinsically wrong, then it is not only their right, but their mandate to refuse to uphold it or in other words commit cival disobedience.
So when Governor Schwartzenneger says the officials of San Francisco are breaking the rules of law, what point does he think he's making? Does he honestly believe they don't already know that? Does he think that Mayor Newcomb is going to listen to that, then hit himself on the forehead and say, Oh no! I didn't realize. Well, if it's the law then I guess I'll have to honor it. Of course not. These people have committed to a course of action with full knowledge that they are breaking the law. If Schwartzenegger thinks simply reminding them of this will be enough to stop them, then he needs go back and reread some history. I'd recommend starting with Gandhi.
If the governor has any concrete reasons why the law protects, rather than harms the rights of California citizens, then I'll listen and I'm willing to bet that Mayor Newsom would be there with me. If he doesn't, then he'd better be prepared for a fight, because it's obvious his opponents are.
Jayne
Last edited:
G
Guest
Guest
Jayne, I merely posted 'news', you eloquently analyzed it. Thank you so much. I do believe our Mayor and his staff put an extraordinary amount of thought and heart into their actions and are more prepared to listen and consider the fundamentals involved than our governor.
And welcome back!
Perdita
And welcome back!
Perdita
Svenskaflicka
Fountain
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2002
- Posts
- 16,142
Arnie, Arnie... so disappointed to see that Real Life isn't as dramatic and action-filled as his movies, so he uses his imagination to spice things up. A queue of people is a riot waiting to happen, he hears people protesting against gay marriage, and he thinks that they might start injuring and killing their opponents if the issue isn't removed altogether, and he sees his fancy title, and thinks that he's the president.
"I've been so busy being the governor of California, I haven't had time to contemplate becoming the president", MY ASS!
Someone set off a firework in his back yard, and we can watch him enter the deport-the-arabs debate...
"I've been so busy being the governor of California, I haven't had time to contemplate becoming the president", MY ASS!
Someone set off a firework in his back yard, and we can watch him enter the deport-the-arabs debate...
destinie21
Daddy's Brat
- Joined
- May 27, 2003
- Posts
- 3,612
Well we have to preserve the sanctity of the sanctimonious
Svenskaflicka
Fountain
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2002
- Posts
- 16,142
I'm actually a little confused. I can understand that the more money you have, the more to the right you vote. Still, I would have thought that Arnie would have been too horny for the word "democratic" to actually become a republican.
I mean, just look at our prime minister, Göran Persson - he's the leader of the socialdemocrats, but his politic believes are with the moderates.
I mean, just look at our prime minister, Göran Persson - he's the leader of the socialdemocrats, but his politic believes are with the moderates.
G
Guest
Guest
Yes, especially cigar-sucking men who have a habit of sexually harrassing and baiting women. Oh, but he did apologize puclicallydestinie21 said:
.Perdita
destinie21
Daddy's Brat
- Joined
- May 27, 2003
- Posts
- 3,612
perdita said:Yes, especially cigar-sucking men who have a habit of sexually harrassing and baiting women. Oh, but he did apologize puclically
Perdita
Well so long as he's sorry misogyny and the like is a-okay , it's those damn gays getting everyone in an uproar that's the problem. don't you know there's unrest.
Unrest I tell you.
let the witch hunt begin
BlackSnake
Anaconda
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2002
- Posts
- 9,196
shereads said:
My feelings is they might be giving the other side ammo to launch. It's like saying...here's mud in your eye. I think you have to allow people to support the cause without having to be apart of it.
G
Guest
Guest
Newsom says politics be damned
My emphases. - Perdita
--------------
by Ken Garcia, SF Chron, February 23, 2004
YOU'VE GOT TO GIVE San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom credit. Not many elected officials, standing in the middle of a political minefield, would go sprinting across the plain.
Yet that is exactly what the city's new leader has done, sending a shockwave across the national landscape, infuriating conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats alike, spurring "pro-family'' activists to call for his arrest and antagonizing colleagues and friends who believe he may have suffered a lapse of sanity.
"I feel like I'm in the middle of a bull's-eye,'' he told me a few days ago. "This is a heavy political weight to bear.''
Especially when so many former allies want to add to it.
Newsom's decision to have the city issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, in apparent defiance of state law, is being viewed by some as possibly the worst decision an ascending, young political star could make.
Or the bravest.
<snip>
So how did a moderate liberal who is generally pragmatic decide to see if his career could survive a political high-wire act without a safety net? He jumped.
"I'm not naïve,'' he said. "There was every reason not to do it. I looked at the worst-case scenarios of the consequences for me. But as I marched toward a decision, I really felt at the core that I had an obligation to do the right thing. If I were worried about the political consequences, I should have done just the opposite -- but I decided that politics be damned.
"I didn't start this -- this started with the president's divisive words about marriage during his State of the Union address. How are you going to escape a national debate on a subject so important?
"Life is bigger than politics. Guys like me can come and go. But in this case, it was not only right, but something I absolutely needed to do.'' . . .
full article
My emphases. - Perdita
--------------
by Ken Garcia, SF Chron, February 23, 2004
YOU'VE GOT TO GIVE San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom credit. Not many elected officials, standing in the middle of a political minefield, would go sprinting across the plain.
Yet that is exactly what the city's new leader has done, sending a shockwave across the national landscape, infuriating conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats alike, spurring "pro-family'' activists to call for his arrest and antagonizing colleagues and friends who believe he may have suffered a lapse of sanity.
"I feel like I'm in the middle of a bull's-eye,'' he told me a few days ago. "This is a heavy political weight to bear.''
Especially when so many former allies want to add to it.
Newsom's decision to have the city issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, in apparent defiance of state law, is being viewed by some as possibly the worst decision an ascending, young political star could make.
Or the bravest.
<snip>
So how did a moderate liberal who is generally pragmatic decide to see if his career could survive a political high-wire act without a safety net? He jumped.
"I'm not naïve,'' he said. "There was every reason not to do it. I looked at the worst-case scenarios of the consequences for me. But as I marched toward a decision, I really felt at the core that I had an obligation to do the right thing. If I were worried about the political consequences, I should have done just the opposite -- but I decided that politics be damned.
"I didn't start this -- this started with the president's divisive words about marriage during his State of the Union address. How are you going to escape a national debate on a subject so important?
"Life is bigger than politics. Guys like me can come and go. But in this case, it was not only right, but something I absolutely needed to do.'' . . .
full article
Svenskaflicka
Fountain
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2002
- Posts
- 16,142
That's a true believer, putting the needs of the people above himself.
I've got a new hero.
I've got a new hero.
G
Guest
Guest
Svenskaflicka
Fountain
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2002
- Posts
- 16,142
Hubba-hubba-hubba! 
Is that Newsom, or his husband?
Is that Newsom, or his husband?
G
Guest
Guest
Ha ha. He's straight, his wife's a lucky woman. P.Svenskaflicka said:
Svenskaflicka
Fountain
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2002
- Posts
- 16,142
No fucking way! No straight man looks that good!
