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

[Guynemer]

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]

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]

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]

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

[mindseye]

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.

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"?

(...) 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?

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[Ramo]

Or rather, for those with a fanatical devotion to the law (well, some of it anyways ), DD is correct.

[MrFun]

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

Take that however you want to.

[DinoDoc]

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.