Arrest the Mayor of San Francisco

[Moi]

Originally posted by Bry
maybe you're right, Jim. this is a very interesting example, however. Hypothetically speaking,

if the legislature signs a law, and that law for what ever reason may be deemed unconstitutional, what is the mechanism for briniging that law into question? Isn't it precisely the breaking of said law in order to have it ajudicated by the courts? Moi probably knows something about this...

Well, I don't know California law but here are a few things to keep in mind:

A mayor takes an oath to UPHOLD the laws. Any case against this mayor would probably only adjudicate whether his actions were outside his scope of authority. It would not adjudicate the law itself. He did not interpret a law incorrectly, as in he believed the law said green when in fact it said blue. He clearly said that he avoided enforcing the law because he thought it was invalid. That's not his job nor his right. That's the right of the courts.

Also, in order to sue for the invalidity of a law, one must have standing. That means that you have to have been harmed by the law or the potential for harm. This mayor, as a married heterosexual, could not possibly have standing. Now, if SF has an attorney general or a city attorney as I am sure that the state must, they could, I believe, sue the state legislature if the laws are invalid. Has that happened?

The constitution of california and the laws of california must comply with the us constitution. Thus, if the california constitution stated that marriage is defined as between a man and a woman, and the laws of california stated such too, the ultimate test on it's authority would be if the SC says its okay vis a vis the us constitution.

The mayor can advocate all he wants for the repeal of the law or for the courts to side with the gay marriage proponents. But until the court decides a case wherein they declare the law unconstitutional, his agreement with the voters was to uphold the laws as they are legislated.

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by Bry
I agree, but if he broke the law, then he would be tried in court, and if the court decided that the law which was broken was unconstitutional, then retroactively, no law will have been broken.

As far as I know, courts don't review constitutionality of laws arbitrarily. An actual case must be brought before them before the constitutionality can be examined.

Generally speaking, laws cannot be retroactive in this country.

 

[Bry]

Thanks for the answer. I have to agree with you on this one.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by Bry
Is that the judge with the ten commandments? As far as I know, that case was handled more or less along the lines that I just outlined. But I really don't know if enough to opine.

If you're asking for my feelings, I felt the guy was a bit of a twit, but my feelings are irrelevant to the governmental procedure which finally prevailed.

Yeah. That's the guy. I just wonder if you were giving this sort of civil disobedience by government officials themselves the same wide berth that you're giving it now.

 

[wonderwench]

I suggest a reading of:

Gay Marriage and Ambivalent Conservatives

To many of them, one argument advanced by the non-partisan writer Jonathan Rauch in his forthcoming book "Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights and Good for America" is likely to prove attractive. Rauch says that, if an amendment is to be pushed by conservatives, it needn't be the FMA that defines marriage as a union of one man and one woman.



In an email exchange, Rauch explains:



"I don't think any amendment is necessary or desirable. The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is certainly constitutional, and amending the Constitution unnecessarily is a bad idea.

"But I grant that some federal judge might disagree with me and set off a national panic before being clobbered by the U.S. Supreme Court.

"So if the problem is the worry that federal judges will impose Massachusetts's gay marriages on the entire country, the way to take care of that would be to constitutionalize DOMA. The sample wording I give in my book is:

"'Nothing in this Constitution requires any state or the federal government to recognize anything other than the union of one man and one woman as a marriage.'

"That's an ironclad guarantee that the states and federal government can all go their own ways, without any national court mandate.

"This is consistent with federalist principles. It's consistent with three centuries of marriage being in the states' purview. It keeps overweening federal judges out of the picture. (Activist state judges are the states' business, so long as no state can impose its own decision on others.) It prevents the polarization and culture war that nationalizing this debate will spark. It would be a cinch to enact, at least compared with the Federal Marriage Amendment sponsored by Musgrave et al. And it's in tune with what a majority of Americans are telling the pollsters -- namely, that this issue should be left to the states."

 

[phadras]

It is in the realm of the Courts to make interpetations of Cali's constitution, NOT THE STUPID MAYOR geez get some clue as to how judicial review functions...

 

[wonderwench]

It is the "realm" of a mayor to oversee the city agencies which administer the law.

The CA Consitution and body of law have contradictions which enable an interpretation either supporting or forbidding gay marriage.

I favor the interpretation in which all citizens receive equal protection under the law for life, liberty and property.

 

[phadras]

No it's not equal protection as this is not a civil rights issue.. This is in reality a moral issue.. Is marriage an institution created by God or man? What is the function of the institution? My assessment being: Marriage, as we know it in the Judeo-Christian West, is a social institution based on religion.. And the function of marriage? The procreation and proper rearing of offspring.. Therefore gay "marriage" cannot in fact exist.. It is merely a union of convenience with no redeeming social value and certainly little social function...

 

[Big D]

Originally posted by wonderwench
.
I favor the interpretation in which all citizens receive equal protection under the law for life, liberty and property.

So a mother or father should be able to marry her son/daughter, brothers and sisters should be able to marry?

 

[wonderwench]

That is a tired ruse. Gays marrying do not produce inbred children. Society has an interest in prohibiting incest due to the health issues.

If anything, it is in society's interest to encourage monogamous, stable gay relationships instead of promiscuous sex.

 

[Big D]

Originally posted by wonderwench
That is a tired ruse. Gays marrying do not produce inbred children. Society has an interest in prohibiting incest due to the health issues.

So if two brothers or sisters wanted to get married that would be OK.

As far as health issues:
It is widely acknowledged that homosexual men suffer from a disproportionately high rate of sexually transmitted diseases. When AIDS was first observed in 1981 it was called GRIDS (Gay Related Immunodeficiency Syndrome) since all cases seemed to be in homosexual men. It was later discovered in those who injected drugs, and other groups. During the past 20 years, millions of dollars have been spent on educating the homosexual community to practise so-called "safe sex", with the prediction that HIV/AIDS would cease to be a particularly "gay disease" in America. However this prediction has not come true.

The Annual Surveillance Report for HIV/AIDS in the year 2000 states: "Transmission of HIV in America continues to be overwhelmingly through sexual contact between men. Approximately 85% of all HIV transmissions in America were estimated to have been via this route. Similarly, most reported diagnoses of newly acquired HIV infection were in men who were exposed through homosexual contact."

Moreover, the HIV/AIDS Report notes that the "American Gay Community Periodic Survey, a 6-monthly cross sectional survey of gay and other homosexually active men, has recently detected an increase in the proportion of residents reporting unprotected anal sex with casual partners. The proportion increased from 14% of respondents reporting unprotected anal sex with casual partners in February 1996 to 28% in August 1997 and 32% in 1999... the number of (men with rectal gonorrhoea) in NSW has increased steadily, from 72 in 1997 to 195 in 1999."

Lesbians have problems similar to, but generally not as pronounced as, male homosexuals - according to the largest-ever study of American lesbians. In the year 2000, 1432 lesbian women who visited a U.S sexually transmitted infections (STI) clinic between 1991 and 1998 were interviewed. The lesbians were matched to a group of heterosexual controls. Both sets of women were tested for sexually transmitted infections such as chlamydia, gonorrhea, genital herpes and genital warts, and asked questions about their sexual history.

The vast majority of the lesbians had, in the past, had sex with men. Only 7% of these women had been exclusively lesbian all their lives. The lesbians were much more likely than other women to have been a prostitute (22% vs 11%) and to have injected drugs (23% vs 4%).

The lesbians also had more sexually transmitted infections - or a history of them - than their heterosexual controls. They were also more likely to report having had sex with a homosexual or bisexual man, or a person who injected drugs

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by wonderwench
That is a tired ruse. Gays marrying do not produce inbred children. Society has an interest in prohibiting incest due to the health issues.

If anything, it is in society's interest to encourage monogamous, stable gay relationships instead of promiscuous sex.

I find it rather humorous that you don't see the irony of defending the incest laws in the country on the grounds of health; for in order to ascertain that the risks of inbreeding are unacceptable to society, you are making a value judgment.

Quite the opposite from equal protection ain't it?

 

[wonderwench]

There is nothing wrong with making a moral / value judgement. We all do it every day. The difference between you and me is that you want to apply your moral / value judgements in a way which violates the Constitutional principle of equal protection.

Two gay adults in a consenting relationship is not comparable to incest, which generally involves underage victims.

 

[wonderwench]

A civil union is just a contract to share certain assets, benefits and liabilities. Why does it have to be defined by sex?

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by wonderwench
A civil union is just a contract to share certain assets, benefits and liabilities. Why does it have to be defined by sex?

If homosexuals just wanted a "civil union" that would give them the benefits you've listed, I wouldn't have a problem with that. It's when the "marriage" comes into play that I have a problem.

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by wonderwench
There is nothing wrong with making a moral / value judgement. We all do it every day. The difference between you and me is that you want to apply your moral / value judgements in a way which violates the Constitutional principle of equal protection.

Two gay adults in a consenting relationship is not comparable to incest, which generally involves underage victims.

That's the most ludicrous thing I've ever heard. The application of morals is universal. Either it's okay to apply them or it isn't. It is not acceptable to choose only the instances that agree with your morals to defend their constitutionality.

If issues of health are so all important to society, then there should be a law preventing people with diseases that are hereditary from procreating. Obviously, that would not be constitutional as other men and women without disease are allowed to procreate regardless of the risks inherent.

There is nothing in the constitution which prevents a law restricting men to marry only women and women to marry only men. Just as it isn't unconstitutional to have separate men's and women's restrooms nor is it unconstitutional to allow women to abrogate their responsibility to their child (abortion) while forcing men to honor theirs (child support).

 

[Big D]

Originally posted by wonderwench
There is nothing wrong with making a moral / value judgement. We all do it every day. The difference between you and me is that you want to apply your moral / value judgements in a way which violates the Constitutional principle of equal protection.

Two gay adults in a consenting relationship is not comparable to incest, which generally involves underage victims.

Wonder, I find it interesting that on some issues you have no problem generalizing things.

If you are worried about children generally,
Children who are sexually abused can suffer lifelong psychological damage. Statistics show that homosexuals are more likely than heterosexuals to sexually abuse children.

Thomas Schmidt notes that "several studies reveal that while no more than 2% of male adults are homosexual, approximately 35% of paedophiles are homosexual... It is impossible to determine the number of male paedophiles, but they may constitute as much as 10% of male homosexuals."

Moreover, even though individual homosexual parents may not be paedophiles, their children are much more likely to mix with members of the gay community where the risk of coming into contact with paedophiles is much greater than normal. The New Orleans Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras parade has featured a fair-sized troop of children in recent years. Such children - said to be of homosexual parents - were exposed to the obscene content and actions of adults on a number of the floats in the parade

 

[eric]

He violated the law, period. I didn't hear you all bitch when the judge in Alabama would not remove the 10 commandments from his courthouse. He was doing the same thing protecting the constitution of the state.

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by wonderwench
A civil union is just a contract to share certain assets, benefits and liabilities. Why does it have to be defined by sex?

They are not- they are also not defined by marriage alone. There are ways in which property can be protected. I've proven more than once that this excuse is invalid as it pertains to marriage.

You can sit there and try to tell me that gay people shouldn't have to use the means at hand to protect their property but they aren't being prevented from protection nor are the means unfairly burdensome. Divorced people, widows, orphans, single people, second marriages- they all use means outside marriage to protect their property.

Face it, gay people aren't looking to protect their property for they have that right already. THEY ARE CHOOSING MARRIAGE.

 

[wonderwench]

Originally posted by Moi
That's the most ludicrous thing I've ever heard. The application of morals is universal. Either it's okay to apply them or it isn't. It is not acceptable to choose only the instances that agree with your morals to defend their constitutionality.

If issues of health are so all important to society, then there should be a law preventing people with diseases that are hereditary from procreating. Obviously, that would not be constitutional as other men and women without disease are allowed to procreate regardless of the risks inherent.

There is nothing in the constitution which prevents a law restricting men to marry only women and women to marry only men. Just as it isn't unconstitutional to have separate men's and women's restrooms nor is it unconstitutional to allow women to abrogate their responsibility to their child (abortion) while forcing men to honor theirs (child support).

It's only ludicrous because you seem to have a difficult time separating personal, religious/philosophy from legal principles.

The morals that are imbedded in the Constitution and the founding body of law are conistent in protecting individual rights as long as one doesn't infringe on the rights of another. Parents sexually abusing their children is an individual rights violation. Two gay people marrying do nothing to infringe on a third party's individual rights. Disliking someone else's private behavior is not a justification for government interference.

The Constitution leaves equal protection of life, liberty and property to the states. There is no constitutional justification for an amendment defining marriage as a strictly heterosexual relationship.