City of San Francisco issuing marriage licenses to gays, weds 1 couple so far... - Page 11

mindseye · February 17, 2004, 06:02

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc

I fail to see the fundamental difference unless of course someone can point to me how San Fran is allowed to do this according the CA law.
(...)
I get it now. We apparently only support violating the law when it makes us feel good. How far can we extend this rule?

Sorry I wasn't around earlier to answer this.

The law isn't being violated because "it makes somebody feel good". Here's how the officials involved justified their action:

Quote:

City and county officials acknowledge that the state's family law forbids same-sex marriage, but they argue that the state's Constitution protects equal rights and takes precedence.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/17/national/17GAYS.html?hp

mindseye · February 17, 2004, 06:14

Quote:

The assessor-recorder, Mabel S. Teng, said her office, responsible for issuing the $83 licenses, performed 825 weddings on Monday, bringing the number of same-sex marriages to about 2,425 since the city opened the gates to gay couples on Thursday.

The clerk's staff, the sheriff's department and volunteers from other offices worked through the three-day holiday weekend without pay, Ms. Teng said. "It's purely out of love and commitment to equal rights."

At least 200 city workers, with additional help from the public, kept the doors to City Hall open over the weekend.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/17/na...17GAYS.html?hp

Wow! I'm d*mn proud to be a former San Franciscan!

My feelings towards those tireless hetero city workers volunteering to work for free through their holiday weekend is the same as my feeling toward all you straight Poly posters who have advocated gay marriage so forcefully:

Thanks to Mabel Teng and others like her, the wedding bells are ringing furiously in San Francisco! Let's hope that sound is soon heard across the nation!

DinoDoc · February 17, 2004, 11:37

Quote:

Originally posted by mindseye
Here's how the officials involved justified their action:

The fact remains that the reach of the city officials in this instance seems to have far outreached thier legally alotted grasp in this instance.

gamenaught · February 17, 2004, 14:23

It is interesting how many of those that complain how the San Francisco officials exceeded their authority had no problem when Alabama judge Roy Moore ignored the law.

chequita guevara · February 17, 2004, 14:42

Quote:

Originally posted by gamenaught
It is interesting how many of those that complain how the San Francisco officials exceeded their authority had no problem when Alabama judge Roy Moore ignored the law.

Moore ignored the Constitution. There's a difference.

DinoDoc · February 17, 2004, 15:32

Quote:

It is interesting how many of those that complain how the San Francisco officials exceeded their authority had no problem when Alabama judge Roy Moore ignored the law.

Prove it.

chequita guevara · February 17, 2004, 15:38

Stop MrFunning.

DinoDoc · February 17, 2004, 15:42

It was an accident. I quoted the wrong post.

Get away from me with that thing! AHHHHHH! Help me!

Arrian · February 17, 2004, 15:48

Actually, wouldn't that be DanS'ing? Or are you guilty of BOTH (I figured "Mr. Funning" was harping on one issue, particularly an issue you brought up and didn't feel was adequately addressed by others).

-Arrian

Flubber · February 17, 2004, 16:08

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc
The fact remains that the reach of the city officials in this instance seems to have far outreached thier legally alotted grasp in this instance.

While I haven't reviewd the laws in question, Dinodoc appears to be right. It is generally not a City official's function to determine that a state law is unconstitutional and should not be enforced. Imagine the anarchy if all the cities in a country decided to apply or not apply laws as they saw fit.

BUT

I applaud the action in many ways. This again brings the issue to the forefront and the courts will have to rule on this now .

chequita guevara · February 17, 2004, 16:11

Quote:

Originally posted by Arrian
Actually, wouldn't that be DanS'ing? Or are you guilty of BOTH (I figured "Mr. Funning" was harping on one issue, particularly an issue you brought up and didn't feel was adequately addressed by others).

-Arrian

He didn't edit soon enough to DanS me nor did I quote him. True DanSings requires there to be no last editted by in the lower right corner and for the post to be different than what was quoted.

He had previously quoted himself.

Adam Smith · February 17, 2004, 16:36

I don't have much time to post right now. Just a couple of short responses.

Quote:

Originally posted by Theben
Adam Smith & Drake, re: civil union vs. marriage:

say that at 1st marriage & the civil union laws start out legally equal- someone decides to amend the civil union law, downgrading it in some fashion, BUT leaves marriage laws unchanged. Now explain to me how that's "separate but equal".

This is a legal technicality. First, I any law were changed in that manner, I would oppose it. Second, the problem could easily be fixed by adding one line to the legislation to the effect that all subsequent rights would be the same.

Mindseye:

One point I have been trying to make is that laws can only impose requirements on people's tangible actions. In terms of your entrance example, when people in Massachusetts or Vermont start putting "Civil Union Only" signs over selected water fountains, I will oppose their actions. There is no way laws can impose requirements on people's feelings. In the absense of any tangible actions, how is any law supposed to mediate between gays who in some way "feel" like second class citizens" and some religious people who in some way "feel" that their marriages are demeaned?

So far as I can tell, there is no right to have someting called a specific name of one's choosing, especially when others might be opposed. Calling it a civil unoin (with all rights attached) seems appropriate to me. In terms of Asher's numerical argument, 5 = 10/2. The names are different, but any operation you do to one you can do to the other and get the same result.

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent."
- Eleanor Roosevelt

(edit: removed double negative)

Lawrence of Arabia · February 17, 2004, 16:39

hasnt Mabel Teng been there forever? like is her job secure or what?

Dis · February 17, 2004, 16:39

just look at the pictures. How could anybody deny these people their happiness? I don't understand how anyone could be against this.

chequita guevara · February 17, 2004, 16:47

I wonder how many people would be doing this if they thought the marriage licenses were going to be upheld by a court? It's one thing to get married when it's not legally bindnig, but the real legal thing is very different.

Guynemer · February 17, 2004, 19:13

Wouldn't it be great if mayors of other major U.S. cities decided to go ahead and do the same thing tomorrow? LA, NY, Chicago, San Diego, Seattle, Detroit, Cleveland, Atlanta, DC...

Revolution.

Agathon · February 17, 2004, 19:24

I saw a hilarious thing on CBC Newsworld Yesterday. A lesbian activist was arguing against gay marriage because she didn't want to see the core institution of evil patriarchy being used to ruin the lives of gay people.

I'm serious, that's almost verbatim. I nearly cried laughing.

DinoDoc · February 17, 2004, 19:34

Quote:

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I wonder how many people would be doing this if they thought the marriage licenses were going to be upheld by a court?

A fair number I imagine.

One thing I do question however is why it is Conservative Groups that are challenging San Fran's violation of the law and not the State. I can only imagine the Federal government's reaction if a state started nullifying laws it disagreed with.

JohnT · February 17, 2004, 20:11

Maybe the state doesn't have enough money for long court cases? (said somewhat jokingly).

mindseye · February 18, 2004, 19:05

Quote:

Originally posted by Adam Smith

One point I have been trying to make is that laws can only impose requirements on people's tangible actions.In terms of your entrance example, when people in Massachusetts or Vermont start putting "Civil Union Only" signs over selected water fountains, I will oppose their actions. There is no way laws can impose requirements on people's feelings.

But we are talking about actions. With "civil unions" gay people still cannot get married, i.e. they will be legally barred from using the same water fountain as everyone else. Their only chance to drink water will be at the "gays only" fountain. You really think that's decent or fair? I'm surprised.

Quote:

In the absense of any tangible actions, how is any law supposed to mediate between gays who in some way "feel" like second class citizens" (...)

Again, it's not about feelings, gays will be treated as second class citizens by being refused the opportunity to marry, and being asked to accept something else instead. Only gays will be asked this. Serial killers on death row will still be able to marry, as well as those who have divorced five times. But not gays. And you don't think that implies "second class"?

Quote:

(...) and some religious people who in some way "feel" that their marriages are demeaned?

The feelings of religious people should not trump the basic right of marriage for others. If you do not agree, are you willing to give up your marriage for my religious feelings? I doubt it, not if your marriage means anything to you.

How would you feel if the government barred marriage to all Chinese-Americans (and only Chinese-Americans), asking them to accept "civil unions" instead? In that situation, you really wouldn't feel that Chinese-Americans were being treated differently?

Quote:

So far as I can tell, there is no right to have someting called a specific name of one's choosing, especially when others might be opposed.

We're not talking about the right to name something. We're talking about the right to be married. What is your objection to gays getting married? Why should gays be asked to accept anything else? No other group is asked to accept something else. This singling-out of one particular group for special treatment is what makes seperate-but-equal fundamentally unequal.

Quote:

Calling it a civil unoin (with all rights attached) seems appropriate to me.

That's fine, but I hope you don't mind if those of us actually asked to accept second-class marriages don't share your sanguinity over the prospect.

chequita guevara · February 18, 2004, 19:12

Adam Smith, the problem with civil unions is that only one state, so far, recognizes them. So couple could move to Vermont frmo Massachusetts, an still have their relationship legally recongized, but not to Florida.

mindseye · February 18, 2004, 19:12

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc
The fact remains that the reach of the city officials in this instance seems to have far outreached thier legally alotted grasp in this instance.

True, however I was just pointing out that the officials were not doing it because it "made someone feel good", they were doing it as an act of civil disobediance because they felt the law contradicted the state constitution. Big difference.

Would you engage in civil disobediance if the government decided to legally bar you from marriage? Or would you just accept it?

chequita guevara · February 18, 2004, 19:16

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc
A fair number I imagine.

One thing I do question however is why it is Conservative Groups that are challenging San Fran's violation of the law and not the State. I can only imagine the Federal government's reaction if a state started nullifying laws it disagreed with.

Maybe the state simply feels that it makes no difference if San Francisco hands out legally in-valid marriage licenses. IIRC, it's not against the law, it's just that SF's actions do not carry the force of law.

I don't think the state needs to get involved until someone files a lawsuit based upon having one of these marriages that the state will need to get involved.

It's along the lines of the city prcoclaiming Emperor Norton Emperor of the United States. They can say it, but nobody has to listen to hem.

DinoDoc · February 18, 2004, 19:17

mindseye: We're I in a similar position to that of the San Fran City council, I would choose the proper venue to air my grevences rather than engage in a showy abuse of my authority by engaging in something that hasn't been accepted practice since before the start of the American Civil War.

mindseye · February 18, 2004, 19:54

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc
mindseye: We're I in a similar position to that of the San Fran City council, I would choose the proper venue to air my grevences rather than engage in a showy abuse of my authority by engaging in something that hasn't been accepted practice since before the start of the American Civil War.

In that case, all I can say is that I very sincerely hope the government never threatens your right to marry.

DinoDoc, I hope your wedding day is a very happy one. I also hope that, on that special day, you will take a moment to remember your fellow citizens who are barred from marrying.

DinoDoc · February 18, 2004, 19:59

Quote:

Originally posted by mindseye
In that case, all I can say is that I very sincerely hope the government never threatens your right to marry.

I don't see how a just end can be used to excuse the means used to achieve it in this case.

Imran Siddiqui · February 18, 2004, 20:05

Indeed.. for those who believe the ends don't justify the means, DD is correct.

Ramo · February 18, 2004, 20:16

Or rather, for those with a fanatical devotion to the law (well, some of it anyways

), DD is correct.

MrFun · February 18, 2004, 23:46

Martin Luther King Jr. advocated for civil disobedience of unjust laws.

Take that however you want to.

DinoDoc · February 18, 2004, 23:58

Quote:

Originally posted by MrFun
Martin Luther King Jr. advocated for civil disobedience of unjust laws.

Take that however you want to.

We'll make a Confederate out of you yet, Mr Fun.