Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by bilmore
I look at it like, Rosa Parks certainly brought the fight to a head, too.

Maybe I just haven't gotten my head around this, but it seems different that local public officals are the ones breaking the law.

[eta]

We should expect public officials to instead work within the system.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Maybe I just haven't gotten my head around this, but it seems different that local public officals are the ones breaking the law.

[eta]

We should expect public officials to instead work within the system.

Well, wait, it was the bus driver who said sit at the back of the bus. This time the driver's not saying that, and forcing the state AG to tell him to keep enforcing the rule.

Are the clerks actually searching out gay couples to marry? I assumed that gay couples are probably walking into marriage bureaus all over the country, and when they find a friendly one who say "yeah, can do" they call a couple buddies and one of the rights orgs. and put out a press release.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by sgtclub
We should expect public officials to instead work within the system.

If I had a sense that the local officials involved were betraying the wishes and views of their local constituents, I would probably agree. If some mayor started leasing city space to NAMBLA, for instance, because he agreed with their views, in spite of local opposition, I would have a problem with it. But I get the sense that, in each of these places, the locals are supportive.

Of course, it may be that I'm just more willing to see the law broken when I agree with the justification. It's always easier to internally justify actions you agree with. I suppose I'd have a fit if some local official started issuing driver's licenses to illegal aliens.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Well, wait, it was the bus driver who said sit at the back of the bus. This time the driver's not saying that, and forcing the state AG to tell him to keep enforcing the rule.

Are the clerks actually searching out gay couples to marry? I assumed that gay couples are probably walking into marriage bureaus all over the country, and when they find a friendly one who say "yeah, can do" they call a couple buddies and one of the rights orgs. and put out a press release.

That is not what is happening in SF and you know it. Look, I hate slippery slope arguments as much as the next guy, but I can't help but worry that the next time a mayor does not agree with a state law, we now have precedent for a civil disobedience rational for the mayor not to enforce it, which leads to the possibility of (1) system breakdown and (2) tyranical rule by those in power.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
That is not what is happening in SF and you know it. Look, I hate slippery slope arguments as much as the next guy, but I can't help but worry that the next time a mayor does not agree with a state law, we now have precedent for a civil disobedience rational for the mayor not to enforce it, which leads to the possibility of (1) system breakdown and (2) tyranical rule by those in power.

Too late. Immigration violators constantly run into local police all over the country, but its not like anyone puts them on a boat and tells them to start rowing. Usually.

Granted, its mayor versus federal law, and passively not enforcing the law rather than actively engaging in prohibited conduct, but you get the drift.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by bilmore
If I had a sense that the local officials involved were betraying the wishes and views of their local constituents, I would probably agree. If some mayor started leasing city space to NAMBLA, for instance, because he agreed with their views, in spite of local opposition, I would have a problem with it. But I get the sense that, in each of these places, the locals are supportive.

Of course, it may be that I'm just more willing to see the law broken when I agree with the justification. It's always easier to internally justify actions you agree with. I suppose I'd have a fit if some local official started issuing driver's licenses to illegal aliens.

I would agree with you if our system was organized that way, but it is not. The problem in CA is that the people of the State have expressed their will as to what should count as marriage. The proposition would have failed if limited to SF residents. So, does SF get the opportunity to determine which state laws it wants to follow and which it doesn't? And by extension, does CA get to pick and choose which federal laws it wants to follow?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
I look at it like, Rosa Parks certainly brought the fight to a head, too.

I want a bumper sticker that says, I Recognize Gay Marriages.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sgtclub
That is not what is happening in SF and you know it. Look, I hate slippery slope arguments as much as the next guy, but I can't help but worry that the next time a mayor does not agree with a state law, we now have precedent for a civil disobedience rational for the mayor not to enforce it, which leads to the possibility of (1) system breakdown and (2) tyranical rule by those in power.

Yes, the gov-uh-nat-uh's point about providing licenses for assault weapons and illegal drugs was a reasonably compelling one.

But I also think you can reasonably draw a line on the other side of this based on teh harm to others. There really is none, because the ultimate validity of the marriage license itself will be determined by a court. The act of granting the license is purely ministerial and doesn't really allow any of the recipients to do anything that won't be subject to exactly the same challenges as the person not doing anything, because they still have to get someone else to recognize its validity, be it an employer, a taxing authority, another state, etc.

I'm at a loss for an immediate analogy, but even the bus one is on the other side of the line, as had the driver (or a city, despite contrary state law) said, okay, Rosa, sit in the front, that would have directly affected all the white passengers (who, at the time, believed they had a right, under state law, not to have to sit with blacks) immediately. Same with lunch counters. Same with allowing someone to purchase assault rifles.

Having a marriage license does nothing except a) provide a "social" statement that one can already get through some churches and b) provide a basis for claiming certain other rights under state (and federal) law.

[sgtclub]

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040227/D80VMU681.html

[bilmore]

Originally posted by sgtclub
That is not what is happening in SF and you know it. Look, I hate slippery slope arguments as much as the next guy, but I can't help but worry that the next time a mayor does not agree with a state law, we now have precedent for a civil disobedience rational for the mayor not to enforce it, which leads to the possibility of (1) system breakdown and (2) tyranical rule by those in power.

I know what you're saying, but I think there is only a threat of massive spreading (and the resultant heightened possibility that the civil disobedience will eventually be ratified) when there is already a very large proportion of the population in strong support of the movement. Had this been my NAMBLA example, it would be shut down in a minute. But, for basic civil rights issues, where nothing has been happening for years out of inertia while the question is hotly debated, this forces the issue.

It will still have to go through the official path of the courts, but at least this way, it will be ruled on. And, I like the idea that each locality will get a crack at enacting its own idea of what marriage is, instead of a national vote that tells SF that it can't do that. Atticus must hate this "state's discretion" movement. It fractures us. But, on some issues, maybe we should be fractured.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
I want a bumper sticker that says, I Recognize Gay Marriages.

There is a guy with a Jaguar on my running route. He has several political bumper stickers- No Iraq War!, etc.

One is Free Mumia!

It bugs me that people fuck up a decent car with bumper stickers, but especially if the sentiment is vanity. Free Mumia! is a valid (but stupid) point to make in Pennslyvania, not in Michigan. If the entire population and gov't of the State of Michigan united in the sentiment, we could do nothing.

Every time I run past, I think Why did the man fuck up his car?

I thought of coloring over the "ee" and painting on a "y."

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by bilmore


It will still have to go through the official path of the courts, but at least this way, it will be ruled on.

And, I like the idea that each locality will get a crack at enacting its own idea of what marriage is, instead of a national vote that tells SF that it can't do that. Atticus must hate this "state's discretion" movement. It fractures us. But, on some issues, maybe we should be fractured.

Wouldn't a straight challenge to a clerk's denial to grant the license present the same question to the court?

Out of curiousity, if Bush et al. really wanted to shut this stuff down, could they have found a less efficient way than a constitutional amendment to do so? The issue will be settled in most states before 38 of them ratify (if it gets that far).

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Every time I run past, I think Why did the man fuck up his car?

You should ask him where they're giving away this mumia stuff.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Wouldn't a straight challenge to a clerk's denial to grant the license present the same question to the court?

Yeah, but that would be a fairly sterile act in a vaccuum. Here, we've now got a movement - people are being married (maybe) every minute, and the ranks of "married" gay couples is growing, and every minute that remains true without some biblical plague coming down on us adds strength to the movement and detracts from opposition. The vast bulk (no, that's not a fat joke) of the country isn't going to fight this expansion of marriage strongly - they simply aren't going to care that much. So, I think the explosive growth of married gay couples almost makes this a fait accompli. (I normally hate using cute french phrases like that, but this one is so expressive . . .)

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Out of curiousity, if Bush et al. really wanted to shut this stuff down, could they have found a less efficient way than a constitutional amendment to do so? The issue will be settled in most states before 38 of them ratify (if it gets that far).

They could just federalize marriage law, as with the drug laws.