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

[mindseye]

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:

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Stop MrFunning.

[DinoDoc]

It was an accident. I quoted the wrong post.

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

[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

[Flubber]

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]

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]

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

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]

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

[Dis]

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]

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.