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

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Ramo
If there's no substantive difference between those two cases, there's no substantive difference between the actions of MLK and OBL.

One killed people and the one didn't. I'll let you figure out which is which.

[Ramo]

I'm not the one saying there's no substantive difference. You were saying that there's no substantive difference between these people and the judge because they both broke the law.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Ramo
Well, what you so blithely dismiss as a fashion statement, I consider fighting a fundmental injustice in this country.

I don't really see how that is at all relevent when it comes to governments overstepping the authority given to them.

[Ramo]

So if a local magistrate in India decided to ignore British law and not prosecute folks like Gandhi, he'd be an evil fashionable criminal because he usurped the crown's authority?

[DinoDoc]

Is this going to be a battle of stupid questions? Anyway, so if the mayor of Austin decided to start locking up people who go by the screen name Ramo anywhere on the internet because people like that pose a great risk to public safety and does it in violation of Texas law, would you turn yourself in? Simply because someone supports an end goal doesn't mean they have to support the means used to achieve it.

[Ramo]

If it's a stupid question, it's because I'm refuting a stupid attitude.

[Ramo]

You're saying it's wrong because it's illegal. If that's true, any illegal action is wrong (at least as pertaining to governments).

[Az]

Generally, breaking the law IS bad, and has it's own negative ethical value. But If the positive value from the action itself is bigger than the negative value from the fact that you're breaking the law, the action is still moral.

Goddamn, Utilitarian ethical calculus NEVER FAILS.

[DinoDoc]

When it comes to the use and abuse governmental authority, yes.

[Ramo]

So are you going to answer my stupid question?

[DinoDoc]

I already answered it.

[Ramo]

I already have: "No. I never said that any act of civil disobedience is ok."

[Ramo]

Is that a yes or no? Ashamed of your answer?

[DinoDoc]

You: If that's true, any illegal action is wrong (at least as pertaining to governments).

Me: When it comes to the use and abuse governmental authority, yes.

What more do you need Ramo? Or is there another stupid question I missed?

[Ramo]

Just wanted you to make you admit that you're an authoritarian who believes it's ok to lock up Gandhi.

I have no more questions.

[DinoDoc]

Silly anarchist. I'm probably less of an authoritarian than you when it comes to the issues in this thread simply because I dislike when governments expand thier powers by fiat.

[Ramo]

The government didn't increase its power. Local government took away the power to prohibit gay marriage from state government through its elected officials and gave it to the people.

[GePap]

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.

The question is a jurisdictional one: Legislatures make laws: in this case, the legislature of the City of San Francisco passed a lwa saying it would recognize gay marriage AND that city officals could marry gays...NOW, the city of San Fran can make it so City Institutions accept gay marriage as equal to hetrosexual marriage -ie, get all the benefits and so forth as far as City benefits and city controlled operations and services are concerned..

NOW, the city legislature may have (did really) overstep its jurisdiction becuase it is threading into areas and services reserved for the State legislature. So at this point opponents of this statue can bring a court challenge saying just that-that the city legislature has oversteped its bounds: but has in not broken the law- the city will be in breach of the law once a court finds against the city and states that X and Y parts of the new statue are invalid.

A judge may run his courtroom (part of his job), but he had NO jurisdiction ever to bring into the court a monument of personal religious belief-and then he refused to abbide by the direct ruling of a federal judge-which is what he lost his job for.

[Arrian]

Good for San Fran.

This issue is absurd. Marriage carries with it certain benifits bestowed by society - as in the United States government. Not the Kingdom of Heaven. Legal benifits bestowed on citizens by the State. These are denied to those who are not allowed to marry. Gays are not allowed to marry. Why? FOR RELGIOUS REASONS. "They're sinners! Marriage is sacred!" and other such nonsense.

Which should have abso****inglutely NOTHING to do with benifits bestowed by the U.S. goverment!

-Arrian

[GePap]

To rephrase my answer: in congress passes a law found to be unconstitutional later, congress did not break the law.

The law passed by the San Francisco legislature may be found to have violated the california constitution- if so, it will be reversed by the courts, and the legislature will not have broken the law.

Which makes this very different form the actions of the Alabaman judge.

[Starchild]

Originally posted by Adam Smith
I asked this question a couple of days ago and still have not seen an answer.

The man in Asher's post is holding a paper saying "Civil Unions are Separate and Unequal". If civil unions have the same substantive rights as marriage (adoption, inheritance, health care, taxes, etc., etc.), what is it about the mere nomenclature that makes them unequal?

Words and names matter. If it's marriage in all but name, then why not call it marriage? Why jump through the hoop of giving it a different title? The very fact that you don't call it marriage implies that it's lesser than marriage. Sure, the legal side can be perfectly equal but the context isn't.

The one fact that I can't help but notice is that the whole "seperate but equal" thing screams Jim Crow era in the South. Sure, both African-Americans and WASPS both have access to toilets and water fountains but they have to use seperate ones. Gays and Straights might both have access to the same rights but one has to go through a door marked "marriage" and the other through a door marked "civil unions".

There's no true equality in 'seperate-but-equal'. It's still being a second class citizen, being given a privelage instead of having a right (oh, here's a nice civil union. Go behave now or we might take it away), and is still unfair. I want to get married dammit. I want the same right to marriage as any other person recieves. The right to marry the person I love and announce that love to the world.

I will not use a seperate water fountain because that is wrong. I will not ride at the back of the bus because that is wrong. I will not settle for less than marriage because anything less than marriage is wrong.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


And this is the ultimate tragedy, Asher.

Regardless of what you call it, be it marriage or civil unions, or if you are given equal benefits, you cannot force society to give gay marriages equal standing. That is outside the realm of law, and the provisions of government.

You will receive everything yet gain nothing.

So our government never should have compelled the removal of legal segregation because they would not be able to force everyone to give blacks equal social standing?


And as for your earlier question about second-class citizenship. It's a status that is based on legal discrimination, which is the reality at this point in many states in United States, and it is also based on social ostracization and sexual degradation of gays.

[DanS]

So our government never should have compelled the removal of legal segregation because they would not be able to force everyone to give blacks equal social standing?

The essential detail not mentioned in this argument is that these court enforcements of the law would never have been durable had the majority of the country supported segregation. With integration, the majority forced its views on the minority.

Last time I checked, gay marriage was opposed by 61% of Americans. Because of this, I think it unlikely that any durable gains will come from fighting this thing primarily through the courts.

[MrFun]

DanS -- do you have any statistics from the Civil Rights movement era that you can provide?

[Starchild]

Originally posted by DanS
Last time I checked, gay marriage was opposed by 61% of Americans. I think it unlikely that any durable gains can come of fighting this thing through the courts.

That makes it no less wrong, no less unjust.

[DanS]

Not handy. But the majority support is shown by successive civil rights acts.

[MrFun]

So no statistics to support your claim? Ok -- people will take that however they want to.

[DanS]

That makes it no less wrong, no less unjust.

Well, that's your opinion. But practically speaking, if you actually want to have gay marriage in the long run, you have to convince the majority that it is the right thing to do. You can take a shortcut through the courts, but don't come crying when you get burned.

[Adam Smith]

Originally posted by Starchild
If it's marriage in all but name, then why not call it marriage? Why jump through the hoop of giving it a different title?

The argument seems to be that we live in a pluralistic society and some other people have a very different concept of what marriage is, and a very different concept of what right and wrong is.

Originally posted by Starchild The one fact that I can't help but notice is that the whole "seperate but equal" thing screams Jim Crow era in the South.

As was pointed out in a related thread the Brown vs. Board of Education case to which you refer contained extensive evidence that the two systems were not equal in very tangible ways. I ahve no problem with the civil rights part. But if the only difference is nomenclature, I don't see how the Jim Crow argument applies.

Moreover, in Brown vs. Board of Education the Supreme Court was at great pains to reach a consensus and render a unanmious decsion. What we now have in Massachusetts is a 4-3 decision by a court in one of the most liberal states in the nation saying that gays must have the same civil rights (I have no problem with that); the same 4-3 vote by the same court saying that these rights must be called "marriage"; and a
filibuster in the Massachusetts Legislature to prevent reconsideration of the issue.

Building consensus is one way to try to bring about change. Venue shopping, finding the smallest legal crack you can, and exerting maximum leverage is another way. If you like the latter approach, don't complain when Right to Lifers, gun owners, polluting industries, PETA, or anybody else you happen to disagree with does the same.

edit: fixed urls

[GePap]

To say there is no distinction in the law between "civil union" and "marriage" works both ways- why should gays want to call it marriage if it does not matter in terms of rights..AND..if they are the same things, why make up the name and just call it what it is, marriage?

The problem remains that currently marriage the civic institution is confused with marriage the sacrament. The state can NOT force churches to accept gay marriages as valid, or to preform them-so the question should be, what should the relation of civil and earthly powers be to the notion of marriage as a sacrament of some sort?

I would add that the "one man one woman" wording certainly runs counter to "traditional marriage" (did not Solomon have 700 wives?", so if it is being sold on the notion of tradition, it is stupid.