SF throws down the gauntlet to Cali

[Ned]

Let us put it this way. San Francisco is in revolt. The Governator could declare marshall law, arrest the Mayor and run San Francisco from Sacramento pending new elections.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Giancarlo
What the mayor of San Francisco did was right. He challanged an unconstitutional proposition that banned gay marriage.

I do not disagree.

I do disagree with his methods.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The whole point is that SF believes the ban violates the state constitution, and their civil disobedience is a means of bringing that issue to the forefront in preface of a challenge to the law. Now these couples will be involved in a direct challenge in the courts for their rights.

They should have challenged it in courts in the first place. Violating the law first because they don't like it smacks of the same thing as Judge Moore in Alabama did. Sorry, but it just ain't justifiable. You go the court route first and then you can try civil disobediance, but then, of course, the state can smack you down a notch for violating a superior law.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Ned
Let us put it this way. San Francisco is in revolt. The Governator could declare marshall law, arrest the Mayor and run San Francisco from Sacramento pending new elections.

No he couldn't as this is a legal revolt and so far there has been one judge that has sided with San Francisco. This is not an armed rebellion.

[Imran Siddiqui]

No he couldn't as this is a legal revolt

So? Nullification in South Carolina was almost met with martial law. Nullification in any context can be met with force.

[Giancarlo]

Not in this context. So you want to play dictator now? Why don't you just order that all political activities be banned while you are at it?

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
They should have challenged it in courts in the first place. Violating the law first because they don't like it smacks of the same thing as Judge Moore in Alabama did. Sorry, but it just ain't justifiable. You go the court route first and then you can try civil disobediance, but then, of course, the state can smack you down a notch for violating a superior law.

There's no point in discussing this with him. He believes that a citizen's highest duty is to follow the law. Even in Nazi Germany.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Ned
The Governator could declare marshall law, arrest the Mayor and run San Francisco from Sacramento pending new elections.

He couldn't declare martial law but I did hear on the news today that it is well within his rights to have the mayor and others arrested for this. It's apparently a misdemeanor though.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
He believes that a citizen's highest duty is to follow the law. Even in Nazi Germany.

Invoking Godwin means you loose.

[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.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Invoking Godwin means you loose.

I'm not invoking Godwin. Imran explicitly stated this in a thread about the capital punishment.

[Giancarlo]

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.

And no it is not in context as a judge already ruled in San Francisco's favor.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I assumed that was the reason for the pompous tone of the post.

Then you

a) misinterpreted the tone

b) made an ass of yourself


And Pedro Poopy Pants- I don't need to pay a professor of English anything- although you might, to get your insults past the 'idiot' 'moron' and 'fool' stage, as they're becoming somewhat repetitious.

Still, at least I feel I'm in good company, you crinitory cratchy crena.

[Imran Siddiqui]

And no it is not in context as a judge already ruled in San Francisco's favor.

No he didn't. A judge simply did not issue a preliminary injunction. Get your cases straight, Pedro Poopy Pants.

I'm not invoking Godwin. Imran explicitly stated this in a thread about the capital punishment.

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).

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?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ned
Let us put it this way. San Francisco is in revolt. The Governator could declare marshall law, arrest the Mayor and run San Francisco from Sacramento pending new elections.

Bull**** it is a "revolt." There is no armed insurrection going on. As TWO judges have ruled, there's no damage being done by the marriages, and the fact that the state isn't forced to recognize the marriages shows that the net effect is simply a mayor granting licenses that are meaningless by state law. There's been no violence whatsoever.

And the civil disobedience part is precisely what has made this issue such a dominate part in the news. People getting to actually SEE the happy couples who love one another getting what they want is a huge PR boone. Perfectly legal? We'll see what the courts say, but the challenge based on the state's non-discrimination policy looks like it could stand.