Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Gavin Newsome

Ty -- you live here. Learn to spell the guy's name.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Ty -- you live here. Learn to spell the guy's name.

Aren't you paying attention? I live in Marin, baby. I only visit the city. He's not my mayor.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Let's recap: Someone said I welcome this civil disobediance. You said, no, that's not good, because we're a nation of laws, not men. I said, well, as civil disobediance goes, this isn't even as far out as Rosa Parks or lunch counters. From that you get Burger sez laws are just suggestions.

I welcome civil disobedience, but this is not it. This is an elected official breaking the law of the State/the will of the people. There is a difference, which even Ty recognizes (and when Ty and I agree it must be a valid point).

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) No. I said that if you're going to tolerate any forms of civil disobediance, this is a most tolerable form, because there is no harm to anyone prior to its resolution by the courts. Unlike, say, an assault weapon license, which, upon presentation to a salesman, would allow the immediate purchase of a device of mass mayhem.

What is the harm in issuing the weapons license? It would allow someone to purchase a specific type of gun? Don't see the harm.

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) But let's go back to what's going on here. Each public official is sworn to uphold the laws that they are to enforce. If marraige clerk says I'm obligated to enforce not only the marriage laws but also the law/const. guaranteeing equal rights, and I can't comply with both so I'm going to comply with the equal rights law, how is that disobedient? It's a gray area, at least in light of the decisions of two state supreme courts. This isn't a southern sheriff saying that it's unclear whether the 4th/8th amendment allows him to shackle and flog a "Nee-grow" for looking at him funny.

At best, it's a police officer refusing to enforce separate lunch counters because his belief is that such would violate the 14th amendment. Would you be opposed to his refusal?

This is not the roll of the executive branch. I firmly support a couple who was turned down for a marriage license using the courts to get redress, and I think it would be appropriate for the executive branch to not submit any briefs (if that is the term you people use) in the matter. And to compare the plight of the gays to the plight of the blacks in this country is offensive.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
I would have a different take on this if Newsom was issuing assault weapon licenses, or letting grade-schoolers go joy-riding in SFPD cruisers, but those situations seem to me to present a tangible risk of harm to the citizenry. Neither I, nor Judges Warren and Quidichey, for that matter, see that sort of risk here. In fact, that is the best answer to the whining on the other side. Lots of gays and lesbians have gotten married here in the last few weeks, and the sky has not fallen.

edited, per Sidd's directive, to fix the spelling of the mayor's name, and to point out, in my defense, that I know how to spell Judge Quidachey's name

And neither do I, but that is not the point. Look at the mental gymnastics you have to jump through in order to reach the desired result you wish to obtain in the specific case. Don't you see how incredible dangerous this is to our system?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Don't you see how incredible dangerous this is to our system?

No, I'm really not getting it. What's the next thing down the hillside on this slippery slope?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
No, I'm really not getting it. What's the next thing down the hillside on this slippery slope?

Cue: polygamy post

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
If we do, why? I think it's because of why I said. If Newsom looked at the state constitution, or the federal one, and had a credible basis for saying the 3d amendment compelled him to issue such licenses, and did so, I would not have a problem with it. So long as he suspended his implementation/grant of the licenses until the issue was resolved. But why would I require the issue to be resolved first there, but not here? For the reasons I said above--assault weapons cause immediate, tangible harm, whereas a marriage license's grant causes harm (if any) that is neither immediate nor tangible. The worst I can imagine it doing is that some folks will have to pay slightly higher premiums on insurance or taxes for benefits that are claimed, and I seriously doubt that any payments to a new spouse will actually go out before the resolution of this issu, and certainly not without a disclaimer that the payor is entitled to recoupment in the event the marriage is voided by court decision.

(ETA) I don't think it's that radical an idea. It's not much different from the standard for a preliminary injunction--balance of harms. You'd enjoin the non-enforcement of a weapons ban, but maybe not on marriages, because no one's getting hurt in the interim.

What immediate harm is caused by an assault weapon? It does not fire itself and may not even be fired at all. The real harm I see in both cases is that harm to the will of the voters. If you consider the will of the voters to be fundamentally unfair, it should be redressed in the courts. If the courts do not provide proper redress, then, perhaps, at that stage it is fair to test the strenght of the system and engage in the more radical idea of public officals actively breaking the law.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Cue: polygamy post

I was going to say that, but I figured I'd leave it to you to do something funny with. So I get an assist. I'll be Chauncey to your 'Sheed.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by sgtclub
What immediate harm is caused by an assault weapon? It does not fire itself and may not even be fired at all. The real harm I see in both cases is that harm to the will of the voters. If you consider the will of the voters to be fundamentally unfair, it should be redressed in the courts. If the courts do not provide proper redress, then, perhaps, at that stage it is fair to test the strenght of the system and engage in the more radical idea of public officals actively breaking the law.

It will be tested in the courts, and the definitive answer will come from those courts. This move merely triggers that process. And, if the courts eventually disapprove, those marriages will all be void.

Not voided. Void. Big difference.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
What immediate harm is caused by an assault weapon? It does not fire itself and may not even be fired at all. The real harm I see in both cases is that harm to the will of the voters. If you consider the will of the voters to be fundamentally unfair, it should be redressed in the courts. If the courts do not provide proper redress, then, perhaps, at that stage it is fair to test the strenght of the system and engage in the more radical idea of public officals actively breaking the law.

The voters who elected Newsom like what he's doing. And Newsom sued the State over this, so it's not like he's ignoring the courts.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
No, I'm really not getting it. What's the next thing down the hillside on this slippery slope?

I don't know, and that's one of the dangers. I was not trying to be cute when I said I do not like the idea of laws being merely suggestions which can be followed or not depending on the whim of those in power. That is not a democracy, but rather a dictatorship.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
The voters who elected Newsom like what he's doing. And Newsom sued the State over this, so it's not like he's ignoring the courts.

And the voters who elected the hypothetical mayor in Eureka like that he issued assault weapon licenses.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sgtclub

And to compare the plight of the gays to the plight of the blacks in this country is offensive.

No, I was comparing the forms of civil disobediance used to bring about desired rights by a group that doesn't have them to the extent they should have.

You seem to be creating a distinction between non-enforcement of valid laws (Ty's prosecutorial discretion point) and what's happening here. The clerk has the authority to issue marriage licenses. She's disregarding, that is, not enforcing, the rule that says the two people she issues the license to must be of opposite genders.

On assault weapons--if you convinced me that any person possessing an issued license would have additional hurdles beyond finding a dealer with the right merchandise, then I would withdraw my concerns.

Finally, let me make clear my views. I agree with you that it's not appropriate to issue the licenses in these circumstances. The path taken in Vt. and Mass. was far more respectable, and the appropriate one. But if you're asking me to work up indignation on a par with that reserved for other deviating officials about it, simply because the city officials aren't following the law, I'll have a hard time doing it. Because I don't see the great harm other than the taxpayers' bill for the overtime and extra paper. And having to see Rosie O'Donnel smug-ass mug all over the news last night.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
I was going to say that, but I figured I'd leave it to you to do something funny with. So I get an assist. I'll be Chauncey to your 'Sheed.

Chauncey doesn't pass.

[Santorum]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Of course, and in this case specifically, just not by those elected to enforce the laws.

For civil disobedience to have any impact, it has to have consequences. In this case, the only useful civil disobedience is by elected officials.

The only other civil disobedience is me introducing my (same sex domestic) partner as my "husband" when -- gasp -- we are not legally married. That doesn't normally make the front page of the Times or result in the President proposing a consitutional amendment. Rather, people tend not to give a rat's ass about my "disobedience." They just assume I am an activist, roll their eyes, and quickly excuse themselves to freshen up their drink. Or is that because of my breath?