First Gay Marriage in San Francisco

[+ deej]

RE: Author! Author!

 

>Yes, this is a perfect description of what the Mass. Supreme

>Judicial Council did when it pretended that the Mass.

>Constitution requires gay marriage.

 

I don't remember the words "requires gay marriage" anywhere in their ruling.

 

What they ruled is that there is nothing in the MA constitution *forbidding* gay marriage, and that legislation forbidding it denies rights guaranteed by their constitution.

 

Granted, your version is more juicy. It's just not entirely accurate. As usual.

[Doug69]

RE: Author! Author!

 

>What they ruled is that there is nothing in the MA

>constitution *forbidding* gay marriage, . . .

 

Whether there was anything in the MA Constitution forbidding gay marriage was most assuredly NOT the issue and was irrelevant to the issue that was discussed. Nobody claimed that the MA Constitution "forbid gay marriage." That issue would only be relevant if a law were passed REQUIRING gay marriage, and someone challenged its constitutionality by claiming that the MA Constitution forbid that law. That's not what happened.

 

So I'm sorry to tell you (actually, I'm not) that you are mistaken when you claim that the holding of the MA Supreme Judicial Council was "that there is nothing in the MA constitution *forbidding* gay marriage."

 

<<and that legislation forbidding it denies rights guaranteed by their constitution.">>

 

What is the difference between the Court holding that: (a) "legislation forbidding gay marriage denies rights guaranteed by their constitution" (which is what you say, correctly, the Court held) and (b) the Mass. Constitution requires gay marriage (which is what I said the Court held)?

 

If - as you say, correctly - the Mass. SJC held that it is unconstitutional to deny gay people the right to marry, isn't this exactly the same as saying that the Mass. Constitution requires gay marriage?

 

>Granted, your version is more juicy. It's just not entirely

>accurate. As usual.

 

Attack the issue, not the person, please. Thanks. Aside from being against the rules, this comment was also quite hurtful.

[+ deej]

RE: Author! Author!

 

>If - as you say, correctly - the Mass. SJC held that it is

>unconstitutional to deny gay people the right to marry, isn't

>this exactly the same as saying that the Mass. Constitution

>requires gay marriage?

 

No, it is not the same. I'm sorry you can't see that.

 

>>Granted, your version is more juicy. It's just not entirely

>>accurate. As usual.

>

>Attack the issue, not the person, please. Thanks. Aside from

>being against the rules, this comment was also quite hurtful.

 

It served its intent, then, just as your comments do routinely.

[Boston Guy]

RE: Author! Author!

 

>Yes, this is a perfect description of what the Mass. Supreme

>Judicial Council did when it pretended that the Mass.

>Constitution requires gay marriage.

 

A minor point: The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court did not find that the Massachusetts constitution requires gay marriage, per se. Instead the Court found that denying gay people the right to marry was an unconstitutional abridgment of freedoms and rights guaranteed by the constitution. Thus the Court's order prohibiting the state from continuing its unconstitutional action.

 

A major point: Constitutions are interpreted all the time and reasonable people can disagree on what a particular constitution means or requires in any given situation. The US constitution is a good example of a relatively short document that is continually being interpreted and re-interpreted. For any given constitution, there must be a final arbiter -- some authority that can rule on constitutional questions. In Massachusetts, that arbiter is the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. By definition, their judgment is final. So, when you state the Court "pretended that the Mass. Constitution requires gay marriage", you overlook one critical thing: the Massachusetts constitution actually does mean, exactly and finally, what that Court says it does. In legal terms, no other opinion counts, including that of the US Supreme Court.

 

A final point: The struggles over gay marriage (and also those over recent cultural battles) have led many to decry "judicial activism" and the actions of "unelected judges". These people seem to forget that one of the most important reasons for the very existence of the judicial branch in our system of government is to prevent the tyranny of the majority over the minorty. Legislatures are often far too timid to make much progress on things like civil rights, so progress often comes when judges are presented with law suits that require them to make decisions about whether or not certain rights exist or certain actions are legal or constitutional. Absent this mechanism, the rights of the minority -- any minority -- would be subject to the whims of the moment and what any particular set of legislators felt would be most likely to help them attain re-election. That's not a system under which I'd choose to live and we are very fortunate indeed that the Founding Fathers foresaw a need for a judicial branch that would not just try criminals but also defend the very rights by which we live.

 

BG

[Guest DevonSFescort]

Doug, you and I have sparred about gay marriage before. I expressed a preference for separate institutions for what I considered distinct phenomena (male-male relationships, male-female relationships, female-female relationships). As best as I can recall my arguments were always defensible and at times provocative and compelling, but whatever merits they had little bearing on what was actually happening (and I was flat-out wrong to second-guess the motive of conservative supporters of gay marriage). Now they have been rendered thoroughly irrelevant. From Andrew Sullivan, a writer I admire, whose motives I smeared (thinking, no doubt, that I was being clever and "principled"):

 

"Something is happening out there. Instead of begging for the basic right to marry, gay couples are now demanding it. In San Francisco, they are simply getting married as an act of civil disobedience. And that is also happening across the country. This will alter the debate - as will the actual existence of marriages in Massachusetts in May. The debate will become how to tear gay couples apart, how to demean and marginalize them, rather than an abstract debate about theories of marriage. And as these couples begin to feel what marriage is like, as they experience what civil equality actually is, they will become emboldened. Just as those who refused to leave segregated lunch-counters began to deepen their sense of moral outrage and conviction, so the act of getting married - something heterosexuals simply assume they have - is empowering. When Massachusetts becomes the first free state for gay citizens, the movement will explode. I predict thousands of couples from all over the country and the world will arrive to claim their dignity and rights - and this experience will help transform the argument. I've always believed that if we could get every gay man and lesbian to fully internalize their own equality, to get past the brutalization that society has wrought upon their souls, nothing could stop us from achieving our dream. Now the process is accelerating. Already consciousness has been changed. Already the very idea of equal marriage rights is in the minds and souls of a new generation. And when the religious right try to strip us of those marriages, and force us back into second-class status, then we will see something else: resistance. We are on the verge of the next phase of this civil rights movement: when we become the change we want to see in the world."

 

(link: http://www.andrewsullivan.com/index.php?dish_inc=archives/2004_02_08_dish_archive.html#107678351686768322 )

 

I wanted to share this with you because it was so helpful in clarifying for me how wrong I was that I hope it will have a similar impact on you.

[Guest DevonSFescort]

>What he did is no different than what Chief Justice Roy Moore

>in Alabama did.

 

Yes it is. Moore SNUCK the statue in, like a thief in the night. Um, who brings stuff instead of taking it away, but you get my drift. Following up on an act of cowardice with (more than) a little public posturing doesn't measure up to the verve, and I would add, sheer brilliance of Newsom's move. California, to uphold its disgusting law, will be forced to undo these marriages, taking the denial of equality to a whole new practical and symbolic level. The ante has been upped. All around the US, gays are watching their fellow gay Americans GET MARRIED. We're in a whole new ballgame. Newsom took us there. Did Moore?

[Boston Guy]

>The Massachusets and California Constitutions differ. Their

>Supreme Courts also differ. California's Constitution

>specifically prohibits same-sex marriage. It was a referendum

>issue just recently.

>

 

No, that's not correct. Proposition 22, which states “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” was a ballot initiative that established an Act. An Act that is established in this manner is legally the same thing as an Act that has been established through the legislative process. (An Act is a bill that has been passed by the legislature and signed by the governor.)

 

In both cases, the Act can be overturned by another Act or by a court with the proper jurisdiction. One of the bases on which an Act can be overturned by a court is that it is unconstitutional.

 

Gavin Newsom, the Mayor of San Francisco has stated that he believes that Proposition 22 is illegal on the basis that it is unconstitutional. He believes that it is his constitutional duty to take the steps he has taken.

 

Some here have said that his actions are criminal and that he should be imprisoned. Curiously, his actions right now could be called "civil disobedience" but are most certainly not illegal and there is no basis on which he could be arrested for committing a crime. At the moment, all he can be accused of is exercising the powers and responsibilities of his office according to the law as he sees it.

 

Certainly, this is going to end up in front of a court -- probably several courts -- probably starting next week. At that point, judges are going to get a chance to decide if his actions are, in fact, legal or not. If they find his actions are not legal, he will ordered to stop. If, at that point, he does not, then he will have committed a crime.

 

However, the whole point of this exercise in SFO is to have the courts decide if Proposition 22 is legal or not. This will probably end up in front of the California Supreme Court, which will have to decide the constitutionality of Prop 22. If it decided that it illegally violates the rights provided to gay people by the California constitution, the gay marriages will be upheld and Prop 22 will be history.

 

We are living in interesting times.

 

BG

[Boston Guy]

>What he did is no different than what Chief Justice Roy Moore

>in Alabama did. They both think they have the right to

>violate the law because they know best. It is equally wrong

>and dangerous in both cases, and it's so interesting to see

>many of the same people who strongly condemned Judge Moore's

>violation of the law praise the same conduct by the Mayor

>here.

 

Judge Moore's original action was roundly condemned. But it was not what cost him his job. Instead, his undoing was his disobedience of a properly-constituted order from a higher court.

 

BG

[Boston Guy]

SFO elected officials support the Mayor's action

 

From the San Francisco Chronicle:

 

Newsom, who made the decision to defy state law as a matter of executive fiat, nonetheless has the backing of most of the city's other elected officials. Many stood by his side at an afternoon press conference.

 

Board of Supervisors President Matt Gonzalez, who lost to Newsom in last year's mayor's race, even found himself defending his former opponent during an interview with a Midwest radio station.

 

"It's really interesting to see a law get challenged, one that so many of us believe has been interpreted in a way that has been discriminatory," Gonzalez said. "And I think the history of the United States is such that we take for granted certain things until one day somebody has the courage to stand up and really challenge a law.''

 

Here's a link to the whole article:

 

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/02/14/MNG3R517C21.DTL

 

BG

[eastbayguy]

>Because we live in a democracy, we have mechanisms in place to

>enable unjust laws to be changed. That's how most gay rights

>have been won - not by judicial fiat, but by convincing our

>fellow citizens that anti-gay laws are wrong. I think that

>violating the law in a democracy is wrong, and that goes for

>everyone. Black people aren't exempt from this requirement.

 

Progress in the struggle for gay rights seems to happen more quickly when our community defies the law and engages in radical action. Much progress was made by those brave souls who stood up and fought for the rights of our community at Stonewall. Look at the after-effects of the Dan White riot. Look at what ACT-UP accomplished.

 

While I have not always agreed with the means, the results have been very positive. I've participated in HRC's lobbying days and other in the system events. It is always fun to watch my highly homophobic congressman squirm when forced to greet an office full of his gay constituents. But, in terms of making actual progress, events like the one unfolding in San Francisco will have marked impact, felt for years. Our congressman just ignores us as soon as we all leave. While I've done my share of in the system things, I've also been quite the activist. I'm very proud to have participated in the Dan White riot.

 

My hat is off to Gavin Newsom. I was not enthusiastic about his candidacy for Mayor of SF. But, not voting there any more I really didn't pay a ton of attention. Gosh, was I wrong on this one. This is a brilliant and bold move, which apparently has broad support. What the Mayor has done in SF has changed the gay rights movement, again, forever. If Newsom needs a defense fund for his actions, I'm ready to write a check.

 

Discrimination, open and blatant, against gay men and lesbians needs to end. Now. Not when some legislature gets around to it, which they won't. Not when someone feels like tossing us a bone, but NOW. Period.

 

>Do you think anyone should have the right to violate whatever

>laws they want as long as they think those laws were unfair?

 

This is why we have three branches of government. If one branch acts incorrectly, which legislators and voters have done repeatedly, then either the executive or judicial branch can fix it. Undoing bad legislation by judicial fiat is not bad. That's what the framers of the US Constitution had in mind. Action by judicial fiat is only bad when it runs counter to your point of view.

 

Personally, I'm wishing I was in SF this weekend to watch the fun. I hope they're dancing in the streets of the Castro celebrating. If they're not, they should be. This is really, really important.

 

What's going to be even more fun is watching the courts, the legislature and so on try to undo this without saying they're discriminating against our community. Those who are married in SF are going to be a powerful, living testimony to the appropriateness and overall correctness of these actions. Doing the right thing, for the right reasons is sometimes violates the law.

 

Don't forget that the authors of the US Constitution started a rebellion against the legal, civil government of the King of England. They could have paid with their lives and we could all be British subjects today. If we believe in the Constitution, we're the children of rebels and should, sometimes, behave as such.

 

--EBG

[Doug69]

RE: Author! Author!

 

>>If - as you say, correctly - the Mass. SJC held that it is

>>unconstitutional to deny gay people the right to marry,

>isn't

>>this exactly the same as saying that the Mass. Constitution

>>requires gay marriage?

>

>No, it is not the same. I'm sorry you can't see that.

 

The reason I can't see the distinction is because I have an understanding of basic principles of logic, which negate the distinction you think you see.

 

If X prohibits the absence of Y, then by definition, X requires the presence of Y.

 

In case you still don't get it, X = the Mass. Constitution. Y = gay marriage.

 

You said that the MJC held that: X (the Mass Constitution) prohibits the absence of Y (gay marriage).

 

By YOUR premise, then, the following conclusion must flow: X (the Mass. Constitution) requires the presence of Y (gay marriage).

 

I know you're in petulant, I'm-not-going-to-answer mode, but I really couldn't permit you to slink away while misleading people into believing that there is a distinction between these two propositions.

 

>>Attack the issue, not the person, please. Thanks. Aside

>from

>>being against the rules, this comment was also quite

>hurtful.

>

>It served its intent, then, just as your comments do

>routinely.

 

Oh, ok then - I'll be in the back, tending to my wounds.

[Doug69]

RE: Author! Author!

 

>A minor point: The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court did

>not find that the Massachusetts constitution requires gay

>marriage, per se. Instead the Court found that denying gay

>people the right to marry was an unconstitutional abridgment

>of freedoms and rights guaranteed by the constitution. Thus

>the Court's order prohibiting the state from continuing its

>unconstitutional action.

 

There's no difference between what you said and what I said. As I just explained to my good friend Deej, as a logical proposition, if X prohibits the absence of Y, then by logical necessity, X requires the presence of Y.

 

So, if (as you say the MJC held), the Mass. Constitution prohibits the absence of gay marriage, then by definition, it is necessarily the case that the Constitution requires gay marriage.

 

> For

>any given constitution, there must be a final arbiter -- some

>authority that can rule on constitutional questions. In

>Massachusetts, that arbiter is the Massachusetts Supreme

>Judicial Court.

 

Yes, there must be a final arbiter, and the Mass. SJC is the final arbiter here. But while the decision of that court is final, it doesn't mean it's infallable. Judges are human beings and make mistakes all the time. That's why some courts disagree with others and it's also why various Supreme Courts often reverse itself. When they do so, they are saying that what they said before is WRONG.

 

By definition, their judgment is final. So

>when you state the Court "pretended that the Mass.

>Constitution requires gay marriage", you overlook one critical

>thing: the Massachusetts constitution actually does mean,

>exactly and finally, what that Court says it does. In legal

>terms, no other opinion counts, including that of the US

>Supreme Court.

 

So does that mean that if the MJC tomorrow issued a decision holding that the Mass. Constitution requires black people to be treated as slaves, then you believe that the Mass. Constitution requires that?

 

Before the Lawrence decision last year, the U.S. Supreme Court in Bowers said that the U.S. Constitution was NOT inconsistent with anti-gay sodomy laws. Then, 17 years later, in Lawrence, the same Court, interpreting the same Constitutional provisions, said that they were inconsistent with such laws. Who was right? They can't both be right - after all, it can never be the case that X and NotX are true.

 

Also, you must believe that the U.S. Constitution prohibited the recount in the 2000 election ordered by the Florida Supreme Court. After all, the U.S. Supreme Court said it did, so by your view, that

must be the case, right?

 

What if a Court flat out admitted that it was going to strike laws which it didn't like and uphold laws which it liked, even if the laws it struck were consistent with the Constitution and the laws it upheld were prohibited by them. Do you really think that every final Judicial constitutional decision is, by definition, right, merely because it's a final decision from the Court?

 

You don't think the judges can exceed their authority and strike laws which are, in fact, perfectly consistent with the Constitution?

 

>Absent this mechanism, the rights of the minority -- any

>minority -- would be subject to the whims of the moment and

>what any particular set of legislators felt would be most

>likely to help them attain re-election. That's not a system

>under which I'd choose to live and we are very fortunate

>indeed that the Founding Fathers foresaw a need for a judicial

>branch that would not just try criminals but also defend the

>very rights by which we live.

 

Yes, but this begs the question. I don't know of anyone on either side of the ideological divide who doesn't believe that some judicial decisions regarding constitutional principles are just wrong. That's because judges can exceed their authority.

 

The Conservative U.S. Supreme Court, for instance, has struck down all sorts of laws which liberals love, such as the Violence Against Women Act on Commerce Clause grounds. The U.S. Supreme Court also held that the internment of Japanese-Americans during WW2 was perfectly constitutional. It also held that the Equal Protection Clause barred a recount in the 2000 election. It also held that the death penalty is virtually always permissible under the Constitution.

 

So I guess you must agree with all of those decisions. After all, the role of the Court is to say what the Constitution means, right?

[Doug69]

>Progress in the struggle for gay rights seems to happen more

>quickly when our community defies the law and engages in

>radical action.

 

This may be true, but the key is the change comes from CHANGING PEOPLE'S MINDS, not shoving changes down their throats which they don't accept. On virtually every gay issue, public opinion polls as well as legal developments have almost uniformly trended towards the pro-gay position. The world for gay people now doesn't even compare to the world 10 years ago or 20 years ago, let alone 30-40 years ago.

 

The only exceptions to this trend have been the backlash that has come from 2 judicial decisions which IMPOSED pro-gay changes on the majority before they decided they approved. The first was the Lawrence decision from the U.S. Supreme Court invalidating sodomy laws, and the second was the SJC in Mass. compelling gay marriage. People's minds were being changed - then the courts stepped in and shoved it down their throats, and they backlashed.

 

People don't like being forced to think or do things without having their elected representatives approve it. It's in the American character to resent it. For the main resaon why, see your reference below to the rebellion against the King.

 

A majority of California voters said that they wanted marriage to between a man and a woman. The Mayor of San Fransisco said that he knows better than they do and doesn't give a shit what they think. So he ignored the law and did this anyway. Don't you think that might make the citizens of California resentful - understandably so?

 

>My hat is off to Gavin Newsom. I was not enthusiastic about

>his candidacy for Mayor of SF. But, not voting there any more

>I really didn't pay a ton of attention. Gosh, was I wrong on

>this one. This is a brilliant and bold move, which apparently

>has broad support. What the Mayor has done in SF has changed

>the gay rights movement, again, forever. If Newsom needs a

>defense fund for his actions, I'm ready to write a check.

 

The same is true of Judge Roy Moore and the religious conservative movement. He defied the law also and they love him for it.

 

But I know - it's totally difference, becuase you like the law he defied, so he's bad. But you don't like the law which the Mayor defied, so he's good.

 

>Discrimination, open and blatant, against gay men and lesbians

>needs to end. Now. Not when some legislature gets around to

>it, which they won't. Not when someone feels like tossing us

>a bone, but NOW. Period.

 

You sound like a dictator talking here. We don't live in a dictatorship. This is not how laws are enacted - by people violating the law and decreeing what the law should be. If you want to change the laws, you have to convince a majority of your fellow citizens that the change in the law is good.

 

Usually, people want to circumvent that process and forget the whole thing about democracy when they lack confidence in their ability to persuade.

 

>This is why we have three branches of government. If one

>branch acts incorrectly, which legislators and voters have

>done repeatedly, then either the executive or judicial branch

>can fix it. Undoing bad legislation by judicial fiat is not

>bad. That's what the framers of the US Constitution had in

>mind.

 

You couldn't be more wrong about this. "Undoing bad legislation" is absoultely NOT the role of the judiciary. If it were, we'd live in a judicial tyranny. Invaliding UNCONSTITUTIONAL legislation is its role. No matter how bad a law is, if the Constitution doesn't prohibit it, judges are NOT permitted to strike it.

 

Holy shit - it's seriously scary how people just come out and admit that they want judges to just strike whatever laws they don't agree with. Don't you understand what type of tyranny we would have if they did that - or, I should say, if they continue to do that?

 

>Action by judicial fiat is only bad when it runs

>counter to your point of view.

 

This is YOUR philosophy, not mine. I am an ARDENT supporter of gay marriage. I think there is NO VIABLE ARGUMENT to confine marriage to opposite-sex only couples. But I know that the Constitution does not require gay marriage, and judges have no business imposing it.

 

YOU are the one who wants judges to strike any laws they think are "bad". You are the one who wants judges to cheat for you by forcing laws down the throats of your fellow citizens even though they haven't voted for those laws or voted against them.

 

Let me ask you: How did you like the ruling in Bush v. Gore that said that the U.S. Constitution prohibited the recount? Let me guess - THAT was judicial activism and was awful, rigth?

 

>Don't forget that the authors of the US Constitution started a

>rebellion against the legal, civil government of the King of

>England. They could have paid with their lives and we could

>all be British subjects today. If we believe in the

>Constitution, we're the children of rebels and should,

>sometimes, behave as such.

 

I will remind you that they started that revolution because they were against taxation without REPRESENTATION. If unelected judges continue to cram laws down the throats of citizens whose elected representatives haven't enacted, or whose elected representatives opposed, THAT is going to lead to the same resentment. That, to me, is not a very smart way to try to achieve gay marriage.

[Doug69]

>I wanted to share this with you because it was so helpful in

>clarifying for me how wrong I was that I hope it will have a

>similar impact on you.

 

Thanks for posting this, Devon. I had already read it on his site and admittedly found it persuasive and potent. I rarely find anything he writes these days to have any vibrancy or life. He's become so staid and redundant. But that paragraph came from his gut and I thought it was worthwhile.

 

Having said that, it didn't change my mind. I think that long-term, gay people are much better served by persuading our fellow citizens - as we have done so successfully - and are ill-served by having judges cram change down their throat or be perceived as overriding the will of our fellow citizens and violating the law in order to get what we want.

 

For my reasons as to why I think this, please see my reply to EBG, which is just above.

[Doug69]

>Yes it is. Moore SNUCK the statue in, like a thief in the

>night. Um, who brings stuff instead of taking it away, but

>you get my drift. Following up on an act of cowardice with

>(more than) a little public posturing doesn't measure up to

>the verve, and I would add, sheer brilliance of Newsom's move.

 

These are distinctions without a difference. Christian conservatives hate laws banning public religious displays every bit as much as gay people hate discriminatory marriage laws. By standing up and defying these laws, both Moore and Newsom became heroes to their disgruntled groups, but all of the lofty rhetoric from Moore-haters about the obligation of elected officials to adhere even to laws they think are unjust has to apply equally to Newsom.

 

> California, to uphold its disgusting law, will be forced to

>undo these marriages, taking the denial of equality to a whole

>new practical and symbolic level.

 

I don't see that this is true at all. Neither the federal nor the state government will recognize these marraiges under their current laws (DOMA and the voter initiative act in California). They won't have to do anything; they will just refuse to extend benefits to these marriages.

 

Also, to the extent any action is required, I think it will be easily accomplished. A majority already voted for straight-only marriages (AND for civil unions for gay people), so that same majority (plus some more who are offended at the Mayor's illegal behavior and disregarding of the wishes of the voters) would certainly support any efforts to undo this.

 

>All around the US, gays are watching their fellow gay

>Americans GET MARRIED. We're in a whole new ballgame. Newsom

>took us there. Did Moore?

 

Moore definitely did; whether or not Newsom did remains to be seen. Moore has become a powerful symbol for religious conservatives everywhere. He was an obscure local judge who got elected Chief Justice because of this. There is talk of his running for President. He emboldened Christians who feel persecuted as much as anyone has in the last 50 years, and shed light on this issue more than anyone else as well.

 

Other than the fact that Moore defied laws that I like and Newsom defied laws that I dislike, I don't see any meaningful distinction between the two at all.

[Doug69]

>Judge Moore's original action was roundly condemned.

 

It may have been "roundly condemned" in YOUR gay Massachusettes circle, but it was certainly not roundly condemned in most of the country. It lead to his elevation from an obscure local judge to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Alabama, and polls showed that 78% of Americans were opposed to the removal of those monuments.

 

>Instead, his undoing was his

>disobedience of a properly-constituted order from a higher

>court.

 

That's because, before the court order was issued, what he did was not in violation of any law. It only became a violation of the law once the Court order was issued.

 

The Mayor's conduct IS in violation of a law now. So what's the difference. If Judge Moore was removed for his illegal behavior and defiance of a law, why shouldn't Mayor Newsom be removed for his?

>

>BG

[VaHawk]

"Do you think anyone should have the right to violate whatever laws they want as long as they think those laws were unfair?"

 

ABSOLUTELY!!! After all doing so (see the Stamp Act and other repressive laws from Britain) as the basis of the American Revolution that resulted in the very founding of the United States.

 

Those original patriots put their lives on the line, none so boldly than John Hancock with his large, in your face! signature.

 

Doug69 is correct, imo, in his assessment of the illegality of such acts. And as all civil disobediants, from the founding fathers thru modern day, all were subject to/endured incarceration and even death. So why the hell is anyone disputing his statements, as they are only the truth!

[+ Charlie]

I we accede to Doug's political logic, that an issue should not be forced but that activists should wait until a majority agrees with a particular position (i.e., the right of gays to marry legally), then we would have to say that African-Americans should not have challenged Jim Crow laws in the courts during the 1950s and 60s, because a clear majority of voters in the states that had them strongly supported them. Did the Supreme Court, which had upheld "separate but equal" since 1896, reverse itself in 1954 (Brown vs. Board of Ed.) because it believed that a majority of white Southerners thought schools should be desegregated? Did everyone immediately decide that the court was now correct and move to effectively implement the new interpretation? We are at the beginning of a long and messy process to achieve what we believe are our civil rights as homosexuals, and there will be false steps and setbacks and bad feelings and alienation of allies along the way, but that doesn't mean we should hold back until the perfect moment, because it will probably never arrive.

 

By the way, I do not look forward to the day we finally succeed (if we do), because then those of us who are more interested in sexual promiscuity than monogamy will be more marginalized than ever.

[trilingual]

Why do you think we'd be more marginalized? Straight people have been able to marry forever, but modern American culture certainly doesn't marginalize promiscuous straights! All you have to do is tune into virtually any TV show for a glorification of promiscuous lifestyles. So why should it be any different once same sex couples get the right to marry?

[FrancoDiSantisxxx]

Stutter! Stutter! Stutter!

 

The difference in state constitutions is that we are talking about marriages in California, in this thread.

 

You (as do other people on this site) constantly make assertions as facts. Privacy, as founded in law, is the basis for a number of protections against discrimination, including marriage. Significantly, the fact that California has a constitutional basis for privacy is also more significant for finding a referendum unconstitutional.

 

Now, I realize that you (and others) tend to selective choose how you make your points and how you attempt to pass off bullshit as logic, however, if you carefully re-read my post, I only stated that the current Justices of the California Supreme Court had undertaken to overrule as unconstitutional, any number of actions taken by the voting public by majority vote in referendum. This does not suggest that they will do so in this particular case, relative to the Defense of Marriage referendum, because this particular Supreme Court has also shown itself willing to interperse their own judicial viewpoints and opinions in place of both well-founded law and tradition.

 

Finally, while I am, of course, please that someone enjoys the commentary of Woodlawn, your statement is factually incorrect in a number of ways, not the least of which is that I have never watched Law and Order.

[FrancoDiSantisxxx]

Judge Moore

 

Here is a classic example of selective "logic:"

 

1. Roy Moore was elected to the Court prior to his placing of the monument. You may be confused in that a similar practice (except it was not a monument, but rather a simple and easily moved plaque type of listing) is what got him elected in the first place, as Alabama is one of those states where anyone (including a non-lawyer such as Dougie) can be popularly elected.

 

2. Roy Moore was, once elected, an officer of the court. As such, particularly as a sitting judge, he took an oath to uphold the law. The placement of the monument was a violation of the law. He then refused a court order to abate his wrongfull act by refusing to remove the monument.

 

Once he refused to obey the law and refused to follow a lawfully issued and (once appealed) sanctioned order of the court, he was both in violation of the canon of ethics, his oath and the law. It is for these reasons that he was stripped of his position.

 

3. Nearly all of the polls taken found support for Mr. Moore throughout the south on the basis of support for the bible. When asked about breaking the law, the split was far different.

 

When polled nationally, Mr. Moore's position, amongst those who even knew or cared about what was going on in Alabama, was not supported. A simple search on CNN, the major newspapers who poll nationally, USA Today, Gallup, etc., on Google, will return these results.

 

A simple search on any news sites for "Roy Moore" will also return these facts as I have recounted them.

[Doug69]

RE: Judge Moore

 

>Here is a classic example of selective "logic:"

 

Everything you just said is equally true for Gavin Newsom. When government officials decide which laws they will comply with and which ones they will violate, that's the very definition of tyranny - regardless of whether it's being done by pro-Christian right-wing officials or pro-gay left-wing ones.

 

It's one thing for private citizens to engage in civil disobedience. It's a fundamentally different matter for government officials - who have the power of the State - to deliberately ignore and violate the law.

 

I can't believe how willing people are to praise an elected official for breaking the law and refusing to enforce laws he dislikes. Don't you get that that is the definition of a tyrannical govenrment? What are you going to say when some state DOES legalize gay marriage and compel its recognition, and then some Conservative Mayor refuses to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples based on his disagreement with that law?

 

I have a feeling that reaction will be quite different than it is to Mayor Newsom's identical conduct - at least among THIS crowd, that is.

[Boston Guy]

RE: Author! Author!

 

(snip)

>

>There's no difference between what you said and what I said.

>As I just explained to my good friend Deej, as a logical

>proposition, if X prohibits the absence of Y, then by logical

>necessity, X requires the presence of Y.

>

>So, if (as you say the MJC held), the Mass. Constitution

>prohibits the absence of gay marriage, then by definition, it

>is necessarily the case that the Constitution requires gay

>marriage.

>

 

One last time: the Court held that it is unconstitutional for the State to discriminate against gays by preventing them from getting married while allowing straight people to. It did not require anything, other than the cessation of the State's unconstitutional activities. If that distinction is too subtle for you, we'll just have to leave it there.

 

(snip)

 

>Yes, there must be a final arbiter, and the Mass. SJC is the

>final arbiter here. But while the decision of that court is

>final, it doesn't mean it's infallable. Judges are human

>beings and make mistakes all the time. That's why some courts

>disagree with others and it's also why various Supreme Courts

>often reverse itself. When they do so, they are saying that

>what they said before is WRONG.

 

I never said that courts are infallible or that they don't make mistakes. But it doesn't matter. When a supreme court rules on the constitutionality of the constitution under its jurisdiction, its ruling is binding. In a sense, it's impossible for any supreme court to be wrong about its own constitution, for when it says that the constitution says a particular thing or requires a particular thing, then, by definition, that's exactly what that constitution says or requires. If the constitution is changed or the supreme court alters its ruling at a later date, the conditions are changed.

 

(snip)

 

>So does that mean that if the MJC tomorrow issued a decision

>holding that the Mass. Constitution requires black people to

>be treated as slaves, then you believe that the Mass.

>Constitution requires that?

>

 

Well, yes. Because, as a matter of law, that's exactly what it would require. I'm also certain that Massachusetts would do something about that ruling expeditiously: pass a constitutional amendment or change the nature of the Court. Since an amendment takes more than two years to effect, I'd expect members of the Court to be impeached on the basis of such a ruling and replaced with other members who would overrule it. But, in the interim, the initial ruling would stand.

 

You and I and everyone else can believe what we want to believe about what a particular constitution says. But the only opinion that truly counts is the opinion of the relevant supreme court.

 

 

>Before the Lawrence decision last year, the U.S. Supreme Court

>in Bowers said that the U.S. Constitution was NOT inconsistent

>with anti-gay sodomy laws. Then, 17 years later, in Lawrence,

>the same Court, interpreting the same Constitutional

>provisions, said that they were inconsistent with such laws.

>Who was right? They can't both be right - after all, it can

>never be the case that X and NotX are true.

>

 

Not true. Constitutions are living documents, by design. The meaning of a constitution does not lie solely within the words of the document itself, but also the society and culture and legal tradition and history within which it exists. Reasonable people can read a document and disagree on its meaning. That happens all the time. Laws change, societies change, cultures change, new issues come up that didn't exist before. I believe that the US Supreme Court's original ruling in Bowers was a terrible ruling but it was the law of the land for a long time. When Lawrence overruled it, it was in light of changed conditions: our society had moved on and the world had moved on, too. The Court even referenced constitutional changes in other countries. In light of these changes, the Court held as it did in Lawrence. This is not a static world and constitutions are not static documents, but instead living, breathing things that must be able to change with the times.

 

 

>Also, you must believe that the U.S. Constitution prohibited

>the recount in the 2000 election ordered by the Florida

>Supreme Court. After all, the U.S. Supreme Court said it did,

>so by your view, that must be the case, right?

 

Not at all. Nothing I have said indicates that I would agree with that decision. There's a huge difference between agreeing with a particular decision and recognizing and affirming both a supreme court's right to rule on its constitution and the binding nature of such rulings.

 

 

>

>What if a Court flat out admitted that it was going to strike

>laws which it didn't like and uphold laws which it liked, even

>if the laws it struck were consistent with the Constitution

>and the laws it upheld were prohibited by them. Do you really

>think that every final Judicial constitutional decision is, by

>definition, right, merely because it's a final decision from

>the Court?

>

 

No, nor have I said that any such decisions are "right". What I've said is that they're legal and final until overturned. All 50 states and the federal government have mechanisms for overturning supreme court rulings that people want to overturn badly enough. Constitutions can be amended to do so and courts can be changed, either over time as members die or resign or through impeachment when that is warranted. But supreme court rulings do hold until overturned in one of the above ways.

 

 

>You don't think the judges can exceed their authority and

>strike laws which are, in fact, perfectly consistent with the

>Constitution?

 

I think courts can make rulings that are unpopular and I have disliked various rulings of various supreme courts over time. But, by definition, if a supreme court says a law is unconstitutional, then that law IS unconstitutional. The court's ruling makes it so. And ruling in this way is absolutely not exceeding their authority. In fact, it's the job of a supreme court to make such rulings. It's part of why they exist. People who don't like particular rulings talk about "activist" courts and "unelected judges". But that's only because they don't like the results.

 

(snip)

>

>Yes, but this begs the question. I don't know of anyone on

>either side of the ideological divide who doesn't believe that

>some judicial decisions regarding constitutional principles

>are just wrong. That's because judges can exceed their

>authority.

>

 

 

I don't see any basis on which you can make this claim. It is absolutely entirely within the authority of a supreme court to make rulings on the constitutionality of laws within its own jurisdiction. Making such a ruling is not exceeding its authority. You or others may not like or agree with a particular ruling but that has nothing whatsoever to do with the authority of the court to make such a ruling. Claiming otherwise is just incorrect.

 

 

>The Conservative U.S. Supreme Court, for instance, has struck

>down all sorts of laws which liberals love, such as the

>Violence Against Women Act on Commerce Clause grounds. The

>U.S. Supreme Court also held that the internment of

>Japanese-Americans during WW2 was perfectly constitutional.

>It also held that the Equal Protection Clause barred a recount

>in the 2000 election. It also held that the death penalty is

>virtually always permissible under the Constitution.

>

>So I guess you must agree with all of those decisions. After

>all, the role of the Court is to say what the Constitution

>means, right?

 

 

Again, you're really confusing issues and muddying the water, perhaps purposefully. Most educated, thinking people will have reasonably strong opinions about their own government and probably fairly strong opinions of their own about various rulings made by their supreme court. I know I do. As I said above, I've dislike various rulings of various supreme courts over time.

 

But that has nothing to do with my belief that part of the court's job is to rule on the constitutionality of laws, that it has both the right and the responsibility to do so, and that its rulings are binding until overturned in some proper way.

 

BG

[Boston Guy]

Ellen Goodman's article

 

A few of the posts above discuss whether this is the right time for this issue to come up or if it's wise to be pushing gay marriage at all. I saw Ellen Goodman's column in the Boston Globe and found her perspective interesting. I thought some of you might find the column interesting, too. Here's the link:

 

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/02/15/the_winds_of_change_on_beacon_hill/

 

BG

[+ Charlie]

Really? Name some shows that "glorify" promiscuity as the desirable norm rather than a common but unfortunate detour from the real happiness to be found in love and marriage. At best promiscuity is shown as a stage of development in trying to find the one partner with whom one will settle permanently into monogamy. I believe that once gay marriage is legitimized, there will be more social pressure--not only from outside but also from within the gay community--to settle down.

 

I think we should be trying to get rid of some of the privileges for married heterosexuals, not simply trying to appropriate them for one segment of the gay community.