Arrest the Mayor of San Francisco

[OCA]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/02/21/MNGEP55KO81.DTL

I'm deeply saddened and troubled that a judge sworn to uphold the law feels that he needs to interpret a law that is clearly written. If he needs interpretation of the law maybe his being seated on the bench needs reevaluation.

 

[OCA]

WW you always talk about private behavior but its the gays who made this a public issue not the other way around. I propose we put the gay marriage issue to a NATIONAL vote and let the chips fall where they may. But that won't happen because gays know they will lose just like they know that their little deal in S.F. is just speeding up the anti gay marriage constitutional amendment which they know they can't defeat.

 

[RobertOne]

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.

Yes you can, you can challenge the constitutionality of a law in the courts very easily. It is a seperate type of case, but it is still commonly used.

I agree with most of the people here, this isn't an issue about the law, it has to do with process. The mayor of SF has no business interpreting the constitution, his job is to enforce the laws as defined by his judicial department. He is trying to expand his job description and it won't work.

I will say it again. Only the courts have the authority to interpret law. There is a reason there has never been gay marriage in SF before, and you have to take into consideration court precident, and legislation when enforcing laws. You cannot INTERPRET what you think "equal protection" means.

 

[Isaac Brock]

It's exactly for all of your above arguments that the goverment should stay out of the marriage business all together whether it be same sex, or opposite sex marriage. The government has no right to endorse a religious institution, in this case marriage. This is why civil unions make so much more sense. I say leave the concept marriage to religious institutions, where it rightfully belongs, and let them debate the morality of it. I prefer my government tackling real issues other than issues on the ethical fringe.

 

[wonderwench]

Absolutely correct, Isaac.

 

[RobertOne]

Isaac I absolutely agree with you.

The issue is, the government recognizes the insitution of marriage as a unit of child raising. They see the "traditional family" as something that preserves a certain value system that the government sees as part of our national identity. While it may promote heterosexual relationships, there are also other values that are being promoted.

Civil Unions give the same legal recognition as marriage, just basically--I know there are more--the primary difference is that Married people get tax breaks.

The real issues are:

Should any marriage be recognized?

Do homosexual couples promote the same values as heterosexual couples?

Should we even care about the promotion of family values?

 

[Bry]

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.

you can probably look for the thread here. I seem to remember an exchange I had with Moi on that very issue. The difference is that then, I was arguing which side was right according to the constitution, not the mechanism for bringing a law into question vis a vis the constitution. I think I was saying that the sculpture of the ten commandments was unconstitutional because of the freedom of religion. I still think that applies in this case, along with the equal protection clause of which WW is such a fan.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by Bry
you can probably look for the thread here. I seem to remember an exchange I had with Moi on that very issue. The difference is that then, I was arguing which side was right according to the constitution, not the mechanism for bringing a law into question vis a vis the constitution. I think I was saying that the sculpture of the ten commandments was unconstitutional because of the freedom of religion. I still think that applies in this case, along with the equal protection clause of which WW is such a fan.

So I guess I'm to infer you were against roy moore? Then, you were concerned about enforcing the law. Now you're exploring the mechanism by which unjust laws are corrected. You could have gone in that direction with roy moore, but since he's christian, and you disagree with him, all you focused on was the egregiousness of elected officials disobeying the law. Can you say 'biased'?

How does a display of the ten commandments threaten anyone's freedom of religion, since you brought it up?

 

[eric]

Look either the law must be followed and enforced in all cases, not just when it suits the purposes of an individual group. The mayor violated the law and should be charged, period !!

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by wonderwench
Absolutely correct, Isaac.

Odd that you would say that after so vehemently defending the actions of the law breaking mayor.

The equal protection argument is a bunch of bullshit too. THEY HAVE THE EXACT SAME RIGHTS AS EVERY OTHER CITIZEN OF THE USA. That cannot be disputed.

The gay supporters can argue this until they're blue in the face, I really don't care. There WILL be a constitutional amendment and that'll be the and of that. I'll rest my case here and laugh my ass off as the gays crawl back into their closets.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Bry
I still think that applies in this case, along with the equal protection clause of which WW is such a fan.

Nope, sorry.

They are given the EXACT same rights as straight men and women. Both sides are receiving no more and no less than the other. You can't get much more equal than that!

 

[Bry]

no, it would be exactly equal only if gays and heterosexuals were equally permitted to marry someone of the same sex.

 

[Bry]

RWA:

So I guess I'm to infer you were against roy moore? Then, you were concerned about enforcing the law. Now you're exploring the mechanism by which unjust laws are corrected. You could have gone in that direction with roy moore, but since he's christian, and you disagree with him, all you focused on was the egregiousness of elected officials disobeying the law. Can you say 'biased'?

Yeah, I can say "biased", but I recognize that having an opinion is very different from being biased. You'll notice that in this thread, I said that if the Mayor fails to fulfill the obligations of his office, he should be prosecuted. And that, my polemical friend, refutes perfectly your accusations of bias. As much as I don't like the idea, Judge Moore should be permitted his ten commandments if it is found not to violate the laws or the constitution. As much as I do like the idea of gays marrying the person they love, the Mayor should be prosecuted for violating the resonsibilities of his office.

If you want to dig up the argument over freedom of religion, go look for the thread. I won't discuss it here, and I won't take the time to rewrite all the previous arguments just to humor your love of polemics. I will say that you seem to find it easier to attack what you think I argued rather than taking the time to look for it and make your response. Can you say "lazy"? "boreish"? "unsubstantiated rumor mongering"?

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Bry
As much as I do like the idea of gays marrying the person they love, the Mayor should be prosecuted for violating the resonsibilities of his office.

Excellent.

Whether in support of gay marriages or not, everyone should realize that the mayor ignoring voters and the law is wrong.

What if a regular citizen disagrees with a law and finds it unconstitutional? Should this citizen be allowed to thumb his nose at the law? This mayor is setting a very dangerous precedent. He should be prosecuted at the very minimum to show everyone that even he is not above the law.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Bry, I'd say breaking state law is definitely NOT fulfilling the obligations of office. Wouldn't you? This is actually a slight change from your previous thought about the nobility of the mayor's actions. I mean," how are laws to be changed if not through public officials brazenly ignoring them? "

For the record I was against Roy Moore defying a higher court. But I also think liberal, anti-religious zealots are off base and, in fact, being flagrantly dishonest in saying that the sight of the ten commandments violates anyone's right to freedom of religion. If you don't want to talk about the church/state pseudoissue here, that's fine. Then you lose, here. Run, bry, run. Run from me. Run from reality.

Or if you grown a spine. You could give me a one sentence simple explanation of how the sight of the ten commandments violates anyone's rights to freedom of religion. Or, is this one of those liberal concepts that's so complex it defies rational explanation? There are a lot of these floating around these days.

 

[jimnyc]

In 2000, 61 percent of Californians voted in favor of a law defining marriage as the union between a man and a woman.

A CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll shows 64 percent of Americans believe gay marriages should not be recognized as legally valid.

And here's what the dopey mayor had to say:

"If I wait for the polls in this country to turn around, we're never going to change the order of things in this country"

"Polls, to me, don't matter," he said. "Principles matter."

So when the next mayor decides to legalize marijuana, on principles of course, should he not be reprimanded?

 

[jimnyc]

Those in favor keep erroneously referring to the constitution. What does the second amendment say about the right to bear arms? How would you all feel if a local mayor decided to bypass local gun laws and issue guns to applicants on the spot?

Would it now be ok for any mayor across the nation to bypass laws if his opinion is that it goes against the constitution? Does this apply to ALL laws that a mayor interprets to be 'wrong'?

At what point does it stop?

 

[jimnyc]

Bush to Back Gay Marriage Ban Amendment

WASHINGTON - President Bush (news - web sites) will back a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in an attempt to halt same-sex unions like the thousands that have been allowed this month in San Francisco, his spokesman said Tuesday.

"He has always strongly believed that marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said.

He said the president wants to end "growing confusion" that has arisen from court decisions in Massachusetts, and San Francisco's permitting more than 3,000 same sex unions.

"The president believes it is important to have clarity," McClellan said.

He said Bush believes that legislation for such an amendment, submitted by Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, R-Colo., "meets his principles" in protecting the "sanctity of marriage" between men and women.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...p/20040224/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_gay_marriage_4

 

[DKSuddeth]

This is an issue that certainly got way out of hand. Both sides are to blame on this issue, first and foremost are the Gays and Lesbians who wouldn't stop pushing and give time for the rest of the country to breathe.

Gays and Lesbians had an opportunity to further their agenda of recognized unions, maybe even marriage (eventually) If they would have taken the time to realize that, although you don't stop progress or change, you have to allow people to catch up.

By not doing this and continuing to antagonize by taking the actions, as they did in san francisco, that have inflamed a majority of this nation we now have to endure the backlash of getting a federal entity involved and screwing around with the constitution of the united states. This isn't a document to take lightly and change on a whim. Thats what happened with prohibition, among some other amendments, and only serve to further divide groups of people in this country.

So, thank you to all the gays and lesbians who couldn't rest easy for a few years more with the 'civil union' deal and thank you to all the rest pushing now for an amendment to the constitution when we have more frickin important issues to deal with in this nation.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
This is an issue that certainly got way out of hand. Both sides are to blame on this issue, first and foremost are the Gays and Lesbians who wouldn't stop pushing and give time for the rest of the country to breathe.

Gays and Lesbians had an opportunity to further their agenda of recognized unions, maybe even marriage (eventually) If they would have taken the time to realize that, although you don't stop progress or change, you have to allow people to catch up.

By not doing this and continuing to antagonize by taking the actions, as they did in san francisco, that have inflamed a majority of this nation we now have to endure the backlash of getting a federal entity involved and screwing around with the constitution of the united states. This isn't a document to take lightly and change on a whim. Thats what happened with prohibition, among some other amendments, and only serve to further divide groups of people in this country.

So, thank you to all the gays and lesbians who couldn't rest easy for a few years more with the 'civil union' deal and thank you to all the rest pushing now for an amendment to the constitution when we have more frickin important issues to deal with in this nation.

Good post dk. Have you started taking vitamins recently? I agree 100%. I don't think Bush should do this. It's too much. And like you said, it's not worth messing with the constitution over.