Patriotism

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

I've seen examples cited here where breaking the law and civil unrest were justified, but I don't think this qualifies by any means.

One way or the other, a law is being broken. Either the law against gay marriage, or the law against discrimination. Breaking the law when there are two laws opposed to each other is an inevitability.

You see the law against gay marriage being broken, others see that the law against discrimination is being followed and that it's been getting broken all along.

This is the system, it's how it works. You just didn't have a problem with the other law being broken because it fit in with your beliefs, along with the majority of Californians, hence the statute. However, just because a majority says so, the rights of minorities should not be infringed.

If you want to call it something else, fine. It's a gay marriage.

[billvon 3,090]

>I have a question: didn't CA voters pass the no gay marriages thing?

Yep, just as 68% of Virginia voters opposed interracial marriage when the courts made that statement. Doesn't make it right. If a local mayor had been doing interracial marriages back then, I would have supported him in his efforts.

>I just think that there is a better way to go about deciding the issue
>than how it was done.

I agree, but better a poor effort than no effort.

[billvon 3,090]

>which is that if gays want to be legally joined and have equal rights,
> then fine -- just call it something besides "marriage".

That's fine; heck, I think the government should get out of the wedding business. Priests, rabbis, ministers etc should marry people, and they can do it however they want (man-woman, man-man, interracial, single race, whatever.) The state should just set up a civil (and legally recognized) union between two people, the same way they currently issue 'marriage licenses.'

[Nightingale 0]

We have two conflicting legal documents. The first, Prop 22, says marriage is only between a man and a woman, which denys a certian status to gays and lesbians. Pretty clear cut.

HOWEVER... the california constitution (which overrides laws, just like the US constitution... a law can get overturned because it is unconstitiutional in that state because of what the state constitution says) says that one cannot discriminate on the basis of race, gender, disability, color, religion, family status, and SEXUAL ORIENTATION.

We have two conflicting documents, and the document that takes precedent by law is the state constitution. The position of the San Francisco Mayor is that a law is not valid if it violates the state constitution, and that he is in violation of the state constitution if he continues to allow the city to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. He does actually have a fairly good legal leg to stand on. Looks like about the only way conservatives will get their way on this one is by amending the state constitution, which probably, like Massachusetts, isn't going to happen.


From what I can tell through my research (and perhaps Lawrocket can weigh in on this if I'm not correct), to file a discrimination suit, you must have a plaintiff. The plaintiff must be a human being, or an entity (state, organization, etcetera...) filing on behalf of a person or group of people. Regardless, there must be an actual person involved who is being denied his or her civil rights. The city can't simply randomly sue over something they don't like. the PEOPLE have to sue. What the mayor of San Francisco has done is create a giant pool of plaintiffs. The City can now sue on the behalf of those plaintiffs. At least, that's what I can figure out without going down to the City Attorney's office and commandeering their law library for a couple of hours.

[Keith 0]

Quote

The sentiment lately among many on the left is more like "squat down and take a crap on it".

Quote

. . . mayors who say "screw the law" and allow gay couples to marry are a GREAT example of what I was getting at.

How, may I ask, does someone wanting equal rights in this country equate to "squat down and take a crap on it?" "Sitting down and crapping on it" is when people insist on repressing others. I don't know about anybody else, but I have more important things to worry about than who gets their blow jobs from whom.

Keith

Don't Fuck with me Keith - J. Mandeville

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

From what I can tell through my research (and perhaps Lawrocket can weigh in on this if I'm not correct), to file a discrimination suit, you must have a plaintiff. The plaintiff must be a human being, or an entity (state, organization, etcetera...) filing on behalf of a person or group of people. Regardless, there must be an actual person involved who is being denied his or her civil rights. The city can't simply randomly sue over something they don't like. the PEOPLE have to sue. What the mayor of San Francisco has done is create a giant pool of plaintiffs. The City can now sue on the behalf of those plaintiffs. At least, that's what I can figure out without going down to the City Attorney's office and commandeering their law library for a couple of hours.

Umm, dear, they can sue on the grounds that they are not allowed to marry under Prop 22. You don't have to have a show wedding and get it denied before you can sue.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Kennedy 0]

ps - if you're going to jack my posts for minor hijacks, can you send them to the thread I started next time? Just a peasant's request, oh great and mighty greenie, sir.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Michele 1]

Interesting perspective.

I still think there was a way to challenge it without being so over the top, I suppose. Granted, the mayor just created a large pool of plaintiffs, but why not sue on the proposition being passed, which, if I've read correctly, is illegal and discriminatory? It would seem to me that each and every person who was denied a marriage license prior to this last weekend is already a plaintiff....and there was no need to do it in the way it was done.

Irrespective of all of that, I think this will move up the ladder to the Supreme Court of the US, and it should be a very interesting journey.

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[Keith 0]

The reason for "being over the top" is to light a fire under the issue to precipitate the "move up the ladder to the supreme Court."

Keith

Don't Fuck with me Keith - J. Mandeville

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

That's fine; heck, I think the government should get out of the wedding business. Priests, rabbis, ministers etc should marry people, and they can do it however they want (man-woman, man-man, interracial, single race, whatever.) The state should just set up a civil (and legally recognized) union between two people, the same way they currently issue 'marriage licenses.'

You said it - even more though...

Why do we need any government (state or otherwise) sanctioned contract?

Let it be religious or ceremonial or whatever.

Property and inheiritance (inhieratance, inheretense, inheri whatever) can be written up in contracts, there doesn't need to be a separate deduction level or tax level for being married vs single, etc etc.

I always thought that "marriage" was a religious institution so the other combinations can have their own titles and not be any concern of the government.

If we group out 'legally partnered' whatevers from the single, it's just another opportunity to take those individuals and treat them differently (like the marriage penalty in taxes that was fixed this year - why did it ever even exist in the first place??)

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Nightingale 0]

do NOT call me "dear."

The marriage licenses issued in SF will give the plaintiffs a stronger legal position.

if you are so certain about your legal "correctness" then why are you so worried? if you're correct, the courts will simply uphold prop 22, and this whole thing will be for nothing. and, if I'm correct, frankly, its not going to affect your life one damn bit anyway. go marry whoever you want. I can marry whoever I want. I just want others to have the same right that I enjoy.

[billvon 3,090]

>Why do we need any government (state or otherwise) sanctioned contract?

You don't! You can get married and never have the civil union done. The civil union just makes it easier to have joint bank accounts, determine parentage of children (i.e. both partners are legal parents after the union.) But like you said, you can also do that separately if you want to.

[Nightingale 0]

what the issuing of licenses did was provide a swift kick in the rear to both the government and the wronged parties.

the wronged parties now have even MORE of a vested interest. they're not going to sit back and wait for someone else to do something now that they have even more of a personal stake in it, because they now have that little piece of paper that says they're married.

Its not going to change what would happen eventually anyway. It'll just make it happen faster.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

its not going to affect your life one damn bit anyway

That's what I don't get. It's not like someone's going to come along and say...."Hey, here's your marriage license. Contrary to your will you are now married to someone of the same gender."

Why does anyone want to restrict other people from having the same rights they have? What good does it do you? What benefit do you derive by not allowing gays to marry?

[billvon 3,090]

>ps - if you're going to jack my posts for minor hijacks, can you send
>them to the thread I started next time?

What thread did you start?

[benny 0]

Quote

just call it something besides "marriage".

I just can't understand why people are so hung up on words. It's like the whole obscenity, "7 words you can't say on television" crap. Marriage is a word to describe a union between two (presumably of the opposite sex) people which can be broken by none other than death itself. Apparently the heteros (I love you my peeps) don't show much respect for it. So, if I stub my toe does it matter if I say fuck or fudge when the meaning is the same? Same for marriage, get over it, it's language, it doesn't really matter. If you have a problem with the meaning that's one thing and you can debate that to eternity but you've got a problem with what they call it? Gimme a break, call fuckmeupthegoatass for all I care.

Never go to a DZ strip show.

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

>which is that if gays want to be legally joined and have equal rights,
> then fine -- just call it something besides "marriage".

That's fine; heck, I think the government should get out of the wedding business. Priests, rabbis, ministers etc should marry people, and they can do it however they want (man-woman, man-man, interracial, single race, whatever.) The state should just set up a civil (and legally recognized) union between two people, the same way they currently issue 'marriage licenses.'

Right, at least that would keep this argument where it belongs -- within the churches.

. . =(_8^(1)

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

This is the system, it's how it works. You just didn't have a problem with the other law being broken because it fit in with your beliefs, along with the majority of Californians, hence the statute. However, just because a majority says so, the rights of minorities should not be infringed.

I don't know if the "other law" is being broken or not, but if so, then it should be ok for a man to "marry" his mom or sister, or brother or daughter. Is that ok with you?

. . =(_8^(1)

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

I don't know if the "other law" is being broken or not, but if so, then it should be ok for a man to "marry" his mom or sister, or brother or daughter. Is that ok with you?

Is it ok with me? Sure...what do I care for? If someone wants to do that, I would think they have some issues they should discuss with a professional, but how does it affect me? Why should I spend one second of my life worried about it? As long as they're all adults, do what ever the hell they want.

[lawrocket 3]

Nightingale:

I've been sitting this whole thing out with the gay marriage stuff.

1. I'm in favor of it. Let em marry whomever they want.

2. But my opinion on this is that a government has no business doing things against its laws, even if it believes it the right thing to do.

Here, SF has issued marriage licenses in contravention of state laws. Still, the California Constitution will predominate over that law (unless the law is a part of it, which I do not know.)

But, the city has to follow the law. People who wish to be married can challenge the law individually, without the city getting involved.

My thoughts on this? The mayor's office wants gay marriages. It also wants income. SF has an 80 dollar marriage license fee, I think. With probably at least 3,000 couples getting hitched, that's a righteous amount of dough. On top of that, all the people from across the country coming in certainly add money to local businesses.

I don't blame them! Let the market rule. I just think they should have waited until the law was declared unconstitutional under the CA Constitution. This is for the same reason that I thought Judge Moore should have been removed from the Alabama bench - those whose job it is to enforce laws have no business breaking them.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 2,117]

Quote

Quote

just call it something besides "marriage".

I just can't understand why people are so hung up on words. It's like the whole obscenity, "7 words you can't say on television" crap. Marriage is a word to describe a union between two (presumably of the opposite sex) people which can be broken by none other than death itself. Apparently the heteros (I love you my peeps) don't show much respect for it. So, if I stub my toe does it matter if I say fuck or fudge when the meaning is the same? Same for marriage, get over it, it's language, it doesn't really matter. If you have a problem with the meaning that's one thing and you can debate that to eternity but you've got a problem with what they call it? Gimme a break, call fuckmeupthegoatass for all I care.

People are hung up on words because humans are not telepathic. So we use words to convey ideas. If everyone has the option to define words to mean whatever they wish, then it will be like Babel.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,117]

Quote

do NOT call me "dear."

Please may I call you "Sweetie Pie"?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

Quote

just call it something besides "marriage".

I just can't understand why people are so hung up on words

I'm hung up on the word 'homophobe'.

Not that I fear it, mind you, I just don't approve of it.

. . =(_8^(1)

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

How, may I ask, does someone wanting equal rights in this country equate to "squat down and take a crap on it?"

Keith, I guess I am just a believer and promoter of following the law, and changing it as needed through the system. I don't know how else to express this.

Quote

I don't know about anybody else, but I have more important things to worry about than who gets their blow jobs from whom.

Me too, but that isn't relevant to the issue.

. . =(_8^(1)

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

do NOT call me "dear."

The marriage licenses issued in SF will give the plaintiffs a stronger legal position.

if you are so certain about your legal "correctness" then why are you so worried? if you're correct, the courts will simply uphold prop 22, and this whole thing will be for nothing. and, if I'm correct, frankly, its not going to affect your life one damn bit anyway. go marry whoever you want. I can marry whoever I want. I just want others to have the same right that I enjoy.

OK honey, I won't call you dear, no problem sweetie pie. Just kidding.

The "licenses" issued don't change a thing for their legal standing in the case. It just shows they took advantage of a mayor ignoring the law. No real bearing on the case. The state government is refusing to recognize them anyway.

(A) I'm not worried. (B) I know it's not correct for a public official to break the law when there are other avenues open to him. (C) California affects the rest of the country because the further left they go, the wider the spectrum is stratched and further left the apparent "middle ground" shifts. (D) You can marry anyone you want, as long as they're of the opposite sex. Everyone has that right.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*