SF throws down the gauntlet to Cali

[DinoDoc]

Boris: I still fail to see where San Fran has standing.

[notyoueither]

They are the licensing agent, are they not? Doesn't that mean they have something to do with it?

[DinoDoc]

No that doesn't give them standing. If one of the happy couples currently lining up a City Hall for meaningless marriages had actually cared enough to go to get a license before all this started and been denied, they would have standing to challenge the law. San Fran still wouldn't.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I explicitly stated that you don't have a right to civil disobedience? I doubt that. I think what I said is that the judges in Nazi Germany shouldn't have been hung because they were just doing their jobs (ie, applying the law).

Here's what you said:

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=108112&perpage=30&pagenumber=6

That doesn't mean that people won't try to do wrong to change it, but it still is wrong to do so in that society. Like the USSR. It was wrong to try to change the code of society, but once a moral code was changed than the attempt to change that aspect was ok..

In other words, the only acceptable civil disobedience is one that is successful? What's the criteria for judging of success? What about someone who was advocating women's suffrage 250 years ago? Was he successful?

Of course that means I don't agree with civil disobediance at all, even though I've said countless time during this thread that they should go through the courts first, and then they can engage in civil disobedience (well not the city itself, perhaps), but that would require you actually reading my posts, right?

I did read your posts. I think the gay marriage proponents spent enough time in court as it is now.

[Ned]

Yeah, Arnie has turned into a real wimp. He should simply arrest the Mayor and have the city council appoint a replacement -- and arrest the replacement if he continues the disobedience.

During the mayor's trial, he can attempt to defend his lawlessness on the basis of his interpretation of the law. But even the Mayor admits that the current law is that only a man and a woman can marry in California. He simply believes the law is unconstitutional. But, until a court declares a law unconstitutional, it is the mayor's obligation to enforce it. Therefore, he would spend some time behind bars.

Arnie is being very "decent" about the whole matter. Too decent.

[Imran Siddiqui]

In other words, the only acceptable civil disobedience is one that is successful?

Basically, yes. The issue which is the result of civil disobedience must be successful somewhere between the point of time of the demonstration up to the present day. History does not judge well civil disobedience which has up to today, still failed (such as KKK demonstrations).

What's the criteria for judging of success?

If they get their issue realized.

What about someone who was advocating women's suffrage 250 years ago? Was he successful?

Yes, because eventually womens' sufferage came about.

I think the gay marriage proponents spent enough time in court as it is now.

Since the Texas decision? That may result in an entirely different jurisprudence. And of course, you do realize that the state of California is justified in putting an end to this.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Not in this context.

Yeah in this context. Arnold can have the mayor arrested and send down state police to make sure this doesn't happen. It is well settled, since the Civil War, that you can't simply ignore a superior law.

Martin Luther King Jr., as I have already stated, would disagree with this statement.

[Q Classic]

i say nobody gets married until they can prove that they sure as hell won't get a divorce.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Martin Luther King Jr., as I have already stated, would disagree with this statement.

No he wouldn't. MLK realized that the law he was protesting WAS valid law! That is why he was successful. He never said he was kept in jail wrongly. He accepted the law was valid, he simply wanted that valid law changed. There is a reason he was able to get it changed while those like Malcolm X who said the law is invalid didn't get really any traction at all.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
i say nobody gets married until they can prove that they sure as hell won't get a divorce.

Well there goes about 50% of heterosexual marriages.

[Q Classic]

and good riddens. if you can't stay married, why bother going through with the damn thing in the first place?

[Ramo]

He never said he was kept in jail wrongly.

Of course he believed that the imprisonment of himself and his comrades was wrong. Legal, but wrong.

The difference between himself and Malcolm X et al. is that he believed that one should react to injustice (such as locking up anti-segregationists) with non-violence.

[Ned]

Think of the Arkansas segregationists who would not follow court orders to desegregate following Brown versus Board of Education. Eisenhower sent in the troops. The states do not have the right to ignore federal law. Similarly, cities do not have the right to ignore state law, especially under circumstances where they still have the right to resort to legal process to determine the constitutionality of the state law to which they object.

[notyoueither]

Send the mayor to jail, by all means. That would lend aid to his cause more than you think.

Imran has it right. Disobey and then take it. Change is the goal, not endless debates.

[Ned]

NYE, if these judges do not make a decision soon, Arnie may be forced to act himself in the same manner as did Janet Reno when she took matters into her own hands in the Elian Gonzales affair. But, just as you suggest, her action had a huge negative impact on the opinion of the Cuban community in Florida, so much so that it probably cost Al Gore the election in 2000.

Any such action by Arnie would certainly cost the Republican Party the gay vote ad infinitum, a vote which it never had the first place, so no big deal.

But, it would also gain the votes of the religious and of the bigots. The net gain might be favorable to the Republicans.