Forums

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
It doesn't authorize them to blatantly violate statutes, either, by substituting their own constitutional interpretation for the explicit wording of statutes. Last I checked, prop 22 is the law of California. It is explicit. For him to have thumbed his nose at that is outrageous.

Moreover, all of his arguments can apply to polygamy, so if he denies any polygamist from getting a marriage license, is he authorized to make that determination, too? Is that how we want our country run, by mayors blatantly violating statutes under the guise that they believe that the statute is unconstitutional and then selectively violating that statute only for specific groups that the mayor thinks are being discriminated against?

That isn't how things work in this country and you know it. You just happen to agree with him on this so you try to make it out as if he is serving some higher purpose.

What if a mayor in rural Utah decides that discriminating against polygamists violates the Utah constitution and starts giving out polygamous marriage licenses? Would you stand up for that, too?

What I said doesn't even apply to a legislative body. Congress doesn't enforce the law, the executive branch does. Congress just makes the law. And Congress considering what is constitutional and what is not before it passes a law is very different from an executive branch official choosing to violate a statute because he personally believes that it is unconstitutional.

Then he needed to wait for the court ruling before rewriting the law himself and high-jacking the county clerk's office like that.

What you think of Gavin Newsom surely depends -- at least in part -- on what you think of gay marriage. If you think civil disobediance is justified, then he's acting like a leader.

You don't seem to be particularly bothered by same-sex marriage, but you do seem to enjoy trolling on the subject.