I am against all …all…what am i against? i can;t remember…
Rebel without a cause…
Napolitano said that like Vermont’s civil unions law, California does have a domestic partnership law that is barely distinguishable from marriage. But Newsom’s classification of the unions as “marriages” goes beyond the boundaries of that law.
“His heart may be in the right place, but he doesn’t make the law on marriages, the Legislature does,” Napolitano said.
My point here again is that no one’s rights are being affected. It’s not like the Jim Crow laws of the South. Gays can vote. Gays can eat where they want. Gays have the same rights if arrested. Gays can write and print what they want or meet when they want with the same legal guarantees that others have. Gays can form civil unions with whomever they want. Under those civil unions, their rights are protected “nearly” the same as with marriage so the question then becomes, why is this “marriage” so important? Equally, for those who are against, why is this sanctity of “marriage” so important for you to defend?
But finally, as always, I want to know when it will be appropriate for others to use the same arguments to overturn laws that we do not like? Anyone? Standards?
Just in …
Following the flouting of the law by civil servants in San Francisco to support gay marriage, various Christian and Republican groups in the South and Midwest have moved to outlaw homosexual acts, making them punishable by prison terms and mandatory counseling sessions. Lawmakers are moving to stop religious activists but admit that they are being stymied by failure to stop similar actions in California. “Just what are we supposed to tell these people?” asked Jim Mitchell, a civil rights lawyer in Atlanta Georgia. “That it is okay for one group of citizens in San Francisco to ignore the law because it’s the right thing to do? Well, what about people, here, who believe that they are doing the right thing, too?”
[quote=“fred smith”]
But finally, as always, I want to know when it will be appropriate for others to use the same arguments to overturn laws that we do not like? Anyone? Standards?[/quote]
“Where does all it end? Where do we DRAW THAT LINE? Oh god, oh god! I’m just a regular normal ordinary law-abiding joe and I don’t want to marry, because I don’t have FEELINGS…and I just don’t seem to understand that some people DO. Like those poor oppressed homosexuals…They have almost the same rights, so why should they have the EXACT same rights? Somebody please tell me why the world has gone mad and left me behind?” Swwoooonnn…(thud!) :?
Alien:
I think that you missed my post.
Look at what’s happening in Georgia and Nebraska. See above.
fred
Interesting change of tactics. Now, it’s not about racism but about lacking feelings? And again despite all your hysteria, have you stopped to notice even once that I have NEVER said that I oppose homosexual marriage?
My dog wants to marry Tigerman’s dog. Is that OK?
Now Wolfman:
I guess that depends on age of consent. If your dog is three, then that would be 21 in human years and that would be acceptable but if your “bitch” was say 2.75 years that might fall before the age of consent in which case there might be issues of statutory rape in the event of any “union” between your two “pets.” I suggest that you refer to the legal code of whichever particular state you reside in or better yet get enough civil servants on your side to question the legality of any such laws. Maybe they can also nullify and void any leash laws, poop scooping laws, barking at night and other nuisance variances at the same time?
I was wondering when someone would bring up the old “What’s next, bestiality or (insert whatever behavior you think this will lead to here)?” argument.
I cannot help but wonder what would have happened if the Alabama officials had refused to remove the Ten Commandments from the supreme court. Would the San Francisco brigade also sympathize, understand and high five in that case? But then how does one justify one and not the other. This is my major concern.
Absolutely not!
like many others on here, i have nothing against gay marriages, but i’m appalled at the way newsom has decided to abuse his mayorship and the disrespect he shows to our political institutions. how long do you think it will be before redneck towns all over the bible belt start passing more homophobic laws and shutting down gay hangouts? what does the federal government say then?
i hate being on the same side as the homophobes, so it’s sad that this will be the issue that gets bush elected. there’s no way kerry can address this issue and NOT lose votes. the latest surveys show americans dissapproved of gay marriage by around 60-40. and almost all those 40 percent live in states that kerry wins without even trying. you do the math.
I do oppose doing stuff just so it can be shoved into the face of people who oppose it for moral or religious grounds 
One thing that hasn’t been mentioned here is one of the rights not given to homosexual couples by the 2003 domestic partner legislation (which will go into effect in 2005). The law doesn’t give homosexual partners the right to file for joint tax assessment. Of course, it can’t give that right for federal taxes, but it also doesn’t allow homosexual couples the right of joint assessment for state taxes.
It burns my brother and his partner up when they file taxes every year. They own a house and have been living together for about ten years (which satisfies common law marriage requirements for straights), but they lose big at tax time. I can fully understand why homosexuals want their unions to be treated the same as straight marriages in this respect, but does it justify breaking the law? IMO, no.
The folks in SF may think that what they are doing is a step toward more rights and acceptance. I don’t think this will be the case, though. First, they will gain no rights above what they will get in 2005; they will still have to pay state and federal income taxes as singles. Other than making a lot of noise and getting attention, their actions have done little or nothing to further their cause. I think there is a strong chance of a backlash, not necessarily in California, but in mid-western and southern states, and also at the federal level. If they get really lucky when their actions are addressed in a California court soon, the court might recognize these marriages and order that the state allow these people to file jointly for their state income taxes. I strongly doubt that will happen, and if it does, many people outside of California will still see it as illegitimate.
As I said above, the main right that homosexual couples will lack even after 2005 is the right to file a joint income tax statement. In my view, homosexuals have three ways of getting this right. The first is to find a sympathetic mayor or civil servant who is enough of a political whore to be willing to violate the law and marry them. Then they’ll say that their illegal marriage should give them the same rights as straight married couples. This, as we can see, makes a lot of noise and gets a lot of attention, but any judge who’s worth the cloth in his/her robe will strike it down. God, I hope the courts will do it soon, too, if only to shut up the conservative backlash in Redneckdom.
The second option also involves breaking the law, but in a way that gets less attention. However, it would probably have more success than what has been done in California. Homosexuals who are in state recognized same sex unions (I guess this won’t happen until 2005) could ignore the law and file jointly for state income tax assessment. Possible reactions from the state would be to try to filter out all their tax statements and order them to file separately (which would probably be difficult to do), or to just let it slide. In a liberal state like California, the chances of civil servants letting it slide are pretty good. Yes, the law would be broken, but if they’re going to break the law, this is a much more practical way of doing it. At least they’ll get the treatment they want, even if such treatment isn’t enshrined in legislation. After a few years of this being accepted as the de facto practice, they can push legislation through to support it. It’s still breaking the law, though, and there is a very real risk that the state or interest groups will try to make examples of a few homosexual couples in the courts.
And of course the third way is to follow normal processes in legislatures or courts. This is the way I favor. It will have to happen state by state. If California does it by the book, there will be much less fuel for backlashes in redneck states. When I see these self righteous prics getting “married” and pumping their fists in SF, the first thing I think is “shit, this probably means that my brother and his partner, living in Tennessee, will now have to fight a lot harder to advance their agenda, and actually run a risk of their rights being infringed more.” Just remember that, Alien. Those folks who are breaking the law in SF are giving right wingers the only excuse they need (in their minds) to justify treating homosexuals even worse. All this because a few idealist activists and an opportunist mayor couldn’t be bothered to think strategically.
Absolutely not![/quote]
Mr T. Is your response based on the fact that your dogs are the same gender or on the fact that they are different breeds? Is the issue can be so black and white? (Insert Dalmation gag?) don’t you think you are being a little dogmatic…?
As for freddie…
Well, civil disobedience is an interesting topic I agree. Setting guidelines will be an interesting exercise, but far more than I can handle alone. So, let’s kick off a discussion.
-
Civil disobedience seems tome to be a non-violent way to remove bad laws (look at Ghandi)
-
Nevertheless, it harder to make the same case in a democratic government. but not impossible…
let’s try it this way:
Ultimately, both the political decisions (congress/president) and judicial decisions (supreme court) will come down to a democratic process. one person, one vote. If this is necessarily a rational outcome, then there would seem to be little to say for civil disobedience.
However, its not always rational: (for mathematical nerds, do a google on Arrow’s Theorem / Marquis de condorcet.)
For a simple example, see this:
So, there will always be times when the democratic process fails to produce a rational result.
When this failure produces an outcome that denies rights to one set of individuals on the basis of what seems unnecessary discrimination, then, to get the “reasonable” result, some kind of subversion of the democratic process is required.
A) One type of subversion is dictatorship. And that is what some accuse the SF geezer of doing.
B) Another type is simply civil disobedience - civillians ignore the law and act as they wish.
Bill O’Reilly would have us believe that 2) is the same as anarchy. But its not in my opinion. its a reasonable reaction to the irrational outcome of the democratic process.
Fred.
All this is a first blush at showing why civil disobedience is necessary even in a democracy. But its still full of terms like 'irrational" and 'reasonable." Which makes it somewhat vague.
But I hope I have demonstarted that the democratic proces is not always ideal and some kind of civil disobedience may be required to defend certain basic ideas such as “All men are created equal.”
The US is lucky, in this sense, to have a constitution to refer to. perhaps a constitution of this sort can play the role of “dictator” in A) above.
Thank you for those interesting comments IYBF. I guess in my opinion, one thing that has been consistently lost in this debate is that gays CAN vote so this is not the same as the Civil Rights question of the 1950s and 1960s in my opinion. They can vote to change things. They can organize and assemble without some white sheriff breaking things up or having some ku klux klan outfit burn down their meeting halls or churches. So my perception of this (and I do not have a complete understanding) is that essentially civil unions have been in existence for quite some time. They offer almost all the rights and protections of marriage and I would argue that jointly filing tax statements is a privilege and not a constitutional right so lack of that privilege is not going to keep me up at night tossing and turning and gnashing at my pillow.
So to me, given that there are no serious rights violations in any of these cases, and again I may be wrong on this, but it seems to me more about perceived slights to gays rather than actual denial of rights. So given that no one is really suffering (at least in my perhaps mistaken view) where’s the big beef that would require flouting laws. What this boils down to in my opinion is nothing more than the fact that IN NAME gays want civil unions to be called marriages. Otherwise please point out WHICH RIGHTS (not privileges) are being lost here? Right to adoption? Right to legal protection? etc. etc.
Now, many are pumping their fists but I would argue from my experience that this is so typical of San Francisco which is a city that in my humble opinion is made up of outsiders who form communities based on “identities” rather than “individualities” so what keeps them all together giving them purpose? In my opinion, that is perpetual outrage and action for a cause. There are no set moral or ethical standards in these groups for when sufficient results have rendered further action unnecessary. By their very nature, they require that new causes and new outrages be found to give meaning to their lives and to hold their communities together. Be it environmental, gay marriage, free trade, antiglobalization, fair trade for coffee beans, anti fur, anti-SUV, anti-Bush. There must always be some new cause. That is why this particular cases fails to generate any sympathy for me despite the fact that I do not oppose gay marriage. In fact, it is an issue of negligible concern for me one way or another vote it in. BUT…
What I see here is a very big danger. Today, the civil servants of San Francisco who all vote Democrat no doubt and believe that they are the most enlightened people in our hopelessly backward country filled with racists, bigots and rightwing fascists have unilaterally decided how and when they will uphold the law. Again, this is NOT the same as the civil rights case because Blacks were not allowed or were actively prevented from voting or assembly. This is not the case here. So, ironically, these people may think they have won a great victory but what happens when Alabama and Nebraska decide to pump their fists in the air by outlawing or refusing to protect the laws of gays in whatever county or state that they are in? or when it comes to refusing to protect immigrants or blacks or women or whomever? Maybe women will lose the vote when heavily Mormon Utahans decide that women should not get to vote or Muslim immigrants with their own officials in Dearborn decide to flout protection of women and children laws? Has anyone here given this a thought?
So to me, the actions in San Francisco only confirm my already low opinion of Left Coast Democrats who shrilly scream about the rights of 600 noncitizens in Guantanamo Bay who are being held because they were not wearing uniforms and were actively fighting the US and because they posed a terrorist threat and had possible knowledge of other terrorists and terrorist plans. These people are therefore NOT protected in my opinion by the Geneva Convention or the US Constitution and posed a great security risk to the United States but the biggest outrage came from San Francisco and other activist cities. NOW we are faced with US laws being flouted and we have fists pumping in the air. Well, guess what? This may just open the Pandora’s Box of no laws being respected or followed or executed or when executed on the basis of random decisions by local officials based not on justice but by the ethnic and religious and sexual-orientation of the particular mix of officials at whatever court in whatever state that they are working.
If I am mistaken in my views, I would therefore humbly beg anyone to show me which “rights” gays lose by having to form civil unions rather than marriages? or where in the Constitution “right to marry” is a right, and finally where will this all end? I have several laws that I may choose to flout as well. When and how can I do this?
So my final point to IYBF (and most appreciative of your responses to start a serious discourse on civil disobedience) I do not believe that the Gandhi example is apt here because first no one’s rights have been lost here and second, even in our imperfect democracy, the Supreme Court rises up about these issues just like it did with the civil rights matter and decided what was right, fair and just even though perhaps the majority of Americans opposed, thus guaranteeing the rights of Blacks and women, etc.
Yeah, well Jesus was an idealist and he was crucified.
I disagree about states rights. How would that work? If a couple is legally married in one state, they would not be in another? It’s as ambiguous as Netherlands and Belgium having same-sex marriage whilst the rest of the EC doesn’t (yet). Or Ontario and BC, whilst the other parts of Canada don’t (although this is expected to be legislated soon).
And (offhand remark) I think (from what I know about) that show ‘Queer Eye for the Straight Guy’ hasn’t done shite to help gay stereotyping in the US… 
Right to adoption, of course!
If the law said ‘Daft rednecks with IQs under 100 cannot marry for fear of breeding more daft rednecks’ then I suppose those daft rednecks would be screaming for their rights.
So is IQ less important than sexual orientation? :?
But I know of gay couples that have adopted children so what is this a matter of states or what? Gay adoption is quite common (or am I wrong on this?)
I think that this issue can only be resolved one way and that is by the Supreme Court. But in the meantime, these idiots in San Francisco had better knock off all the shit they are pulling or they may find themselves having plenty of reason to be outraged when the rest of the country decides what works for one works just as easily for another.
Why oh why cannot San Francisco secede and take Berkeley with it. I guarantee not a shot would be fired! There’ll be no Fort Sumter at Alcatraz!
As to now allowing births between couples with average IQs of less than 100. Hmmm Perhaps a bit too extreme but I would vote for any such limits below 85! That should just about get rid of the Liberal Left. Take that Alien!
Right to adoption, of course!
[/quote]
What the hell? Honestly, how many homosexuals do you know who would actually like to adopt children? At best, one in ten. Besides, I know homosexuals living in redneck states who have been successful in adopting a child. For Christ’s sake, how many times do I have to say it? The right that homosexual couples are denied in every state (to my knowledge) and the one right that 100% of all homosexuals would like to enjoy is the right to JOINT TAX ASSESSMENT! Adoption is a right many would like to have, but I know very few homosexuals who would actually like to adopt children. On the contrary, EVERY homosexual couple I’ve known wanted the right of joint tax assessment. Many corporations treat homosexual unions and straight marriages the same for pensions and health insurance. Many states will probably do the same in the next few years. However, income tax is much more sensitive because it then becomes a national issue. Especially while Bush is in office, there is no way in hell that homosexual couples are going to get the right of joint tax assessment for federal income taxes. Even if we had a president who is sympathetic to this cause, it would still be extremely difficult to pass national legislation that would give homosexual unions the same rights as straight marriages. Most reps and senators between the two coasts won’t support it because their redneck constituents would vote them out of office. Changes will have to come slowly. Don’t like that? Tough shit. That’s federalism and democracy at work.