San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom cites a, “fundamental decency to extend the same privileges and rights” to all - and asks, “what is the fundamental right to perpetuate a policy of separate but unequal” with regards to the issuing of same-sex marriage licenses.
I’m sure the majority of fair-minded individuals consider Newsom’s reasoning both well grounded and fair. Currently, California state law defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Though I’ve read some very valid & impassioned points that make the any law that treats individuals unequally should be ignored argument, I haven’t heard many concerns regarding the overturning of laws through executive fiat.
Could the nullification of laws based on an executive’s interpretation of the protections provided by their state’s ‘separate and unequal’ protections become a slippery slope?
If Newsom went another step further, and: [ul][li]Released prisoners from county jails citing economic or racial disparity, or[/li][li]Eliminated all physical and age requirements for government employment, or[/li][li] (The ever-popular right-wing fear) Issued marriage licenses to polygamists?[/ul]Anarchy could very well ensue.[/li]
Hypothetically, if another mayor or governor’s political views were from the other side of the spectrum, and they:[ul][li]Declared a moratorium on abortions, or[/li][li]Started issuing gun licenses to anyone who applied, or[/li][li]Provided state tax amnesty for those in higher brackets?[/ul]All hell would break loose.[/li]
These hypothetical arguments could be construed as right wing, metaphorical straw men or convoluted reasoning. In most of the debates concerning Newsom’s actions, I haven’t heard many concerns raised about the possible slide toward lawlessness – no matter how unjust certain statutes are (or have been interpreted).
Around the nation, as more and more calls go out urging actions similar to Mayor Newsom’s, is ‘executive activism’ that goes and nullifies other laws possible?
That’s something I’m apprehensive about and that’s why I’m would be against a federal amendment to legalize gay marriage. I think it’s clearly a state issue and should remain as such. As for actually legalizing it, I doubt there will really be a problem since it only takes one state to effect changes in all the others. I just hope the Massachusetts decision won’t be overturned, but, ultimately, the social conservatives are fighting a losing battle.
Executive fiat is not how the USA runs things, and it is not how any democracy should run things. If a mayor can legally decide to ignore one state law merely because it suits him, nothing on earth exists to prevent some other mayor from becoming a de facto monarch. San Francisco’s mayor is within his rights to permit gay marriage in violation of state law? Then some Georgian mayor is 100% equally within his rights to call a hunting season on homosexuals.
You completely missed the point. The original post has questioned whether or not it is proper for an executive to ignore the law and rule by decree. San Francisco’s mayor is doing this. His motive is irrelevant. He is ruling by decree. If he is right to rule by decree in this fashion, then some other mayor would be equally right to order the summary rounding up and execution of all homosexuals in his city. If it is right for any one US mayor, in any one US city, to unilaterally suspend state law, then it is right for ALL US mayors in all US cities.
Mayor Newsom cites the equal protection clause in his state’s constitution as the grounds for “illegally” issuing gay marriage licenses.
It would be quite a stretch to find wording in any state constitution where a local gov’t executive could use their interpretation of a specific legal protection and twist it to call for the ‘rounding up’ or ‘open hunting season’ of homosexuals.
I know a bit more about the NY side of this, with the mayors of New Paltz and Ithaca joining in. We live in a government of checks and balances, no one person can do very much without the acceptance of other branches of the government.
The state Attorney General can issue an injunction forcing the mayors to stop. The NY AG hasn’t yet, citing that “irreparable harm” is not being risked. The state can also invalidate all of the licenses retroactively, if they so choose. There really is no danger that these marriages will become valid purely due to these mayors’ actions.
What the mayors are really doing is forcing the hand of the rest of the government. Forcing them to take an active step against gay marriage, rather than allowing them to sit passively and just let the status quo reign.
Never, EVER underestimate the human capacity for conveniently twisting the “truth” to serve their own purposes. The fact of the matter is that every mayor who enforces their personal interpretation of the law as “more right” than the actual meaning of the law is absolutely opening the door for greater and greater distortions and abuses.
Every state (and municipality) is obligated to uphold the Constitution as the highest law of the land. And the separation of powers – the legislature creates the law, the executive enforces the law, and the judiciary interprets the law – is the backbone that the Constitution is built upon. Any mayor who begins to ignore laws that don’t suit him is overturning the balance of power and acting in violation of the law (of course, at that point the executive in question probably doesn’t care). While Newsome may feel obligated to protect the rights of his constituents who are being unfairly treated by the law, his obligation in that case is to work to change the law, not break it.
In NYC, a spokesman for Mayor Bloomberg said something that seemed very sensible to me in response to gay marriage activists who are planning to protest at the city clerk’s ofice, demanding to be issued marriage licenses:
Bloomberg has also gone on record as opposing Bush’s proposed amendment. This is, I feel, the correct stance for an executive to take. While it won’t satisfy the immediate demands of reformers, it keeps the way open for meaningful discussion on the topic. This is a situation that will require legislative reform, and that takes time. I agree, it’s not a perfect situation, and right now a lot of people are harmed by the status quo, but that obligates our public leaders to work even harder to change the law, not break it.
By the way, in pursuing this course of action it is possible that he is actually doing more harm to the people he wishes to help. Just think what would happen if the constitutional amendment banning gay marriage passes. What would Newsome do then? And how do you think he’d react to being vilified as one of the mayors directly responsible for bringing it about?
So what? What COURT does he sit on? When did he become a JUDGE? He is not of the judicial brance, and it is not the place of the mere executive to arrogate the priviliges of the judiciary.
This is exactly what Mayor Newsom is doing. He sees a conflict between the state constitution, which has an equal protection clause, and the law which denies the right to marry to same-sex couples. The constitution being the higher law, he is upholding it, rather than the contradictory law.
There is no question that it can be a dangerous thing when members of the executive start interpreting the law on their own. Fortunately we have a system of checks and balances that allows other branches of the government to step in when there are problems. The case of the same-sex marriages in San Francisco is now proceeding through the courts, which will make the final decision. Contrary to what California’s governor has said, there have been no riots and no anarchy in the City.
I see the Mayor’s act of civil disobedience as courageous and heroic. It is also dangerous, less as a precedent than because of the potential for it to backfire. But if it wasn’t risky, it wouldn’t be courageous.
The obvious difference between the two being that no one is harmed in the first, and people are killed in the second. Unless you think there’s some level of equivalency between life commitments between loving same-sex partners and murder?
You must be intentionally missing the point–there is no other way you could come to such an conclusion. These mere executive officers are arrogating the powers of the courts and the legislature. If such a thing is permitted even once, for any rationalization at all, there will be no limit to tyranny. If the mayor of a city is within his rights to ignore legislation, then George W. Bush is within his rights to ignore the US Constitution. They are exactly the same thing–an executive arrogating the powers of the courts and the legislature.
Therefore, if you agree with the legal theory behind the mayoral extralegal shenanigans, you have no ethical grounds to argue against Bush’s extralegal shenanigans.
These comparisons to the U.S. Constitution are really missing the point. The Mayor is not ignoring the state constitution – he is following it where in his judgement it conflicts with legislation. He is doing exactly what posters in this thread have proclaimed it is his duty to do, obeying the highest law of the land.
Mayor Newsom may not be being politically courageous in San Francisco, where pretty much everyone fully supports his actions, but he is without question being personally courageous.
This in a city where a previous Mayor was assassinated along with a gay supervisor.
I would not feel the same if the Mayor started releasing prisoners or issuing blanket gun permits, because I don’t feel strongly in my heart that those situations involve the violation of inherent human rights. However, if the Mayor could show why he feels that a higher law (the state or U.S. Constitution) requires those actions, I would still have to admire his willingness to fight for a principle.
Evil triumphs when good men do nothing. The Mayor saw something wrong happening, and he acted to correct it. I admire him because I felt exactly the same way he did when I heard the State of the Union address, and I wanted to do something, but I didn’t know how. I do not consider the Mayor’s actions lawful. I consider them to be a necessary act of civil disobedience. There are no easy answers here. It would be nice if we could say that all laws must be obeyed, period, end of story. But in the real world, there are bad laws, and in this case, laws that conflict with one another. I believe that faced with this particular situation, the Mayor made the right choice.
He sits on the court of public opinion. This action will make or break his career (such as it is- he is, or was, the Democratic Party’s rising star in California.)
In any case, he is not abrogating (I assume that was a typo) the privileges of the judiciary. They could certainly issue an injunction against further licensing, and I believe he is on record saying he would then stop.
I’m probably oversimplifying, but if some mayor did any of these:[ul]
[li]Someone would sue.[/li][li]A judge would decide whether or not to issue an injunction based on whether or not permanent harm was being done.[/li][li]The courts make a final decision.[/li][li]Criminal charges would get brought up where appropriate (here’s the incentive to not do it).[/li][/ul]
[QUOTE]
I’ll ask again: Would you have the same feelings/reaction if he released prisoners from the city jail citing economic or racial disparity?
or (maybe) worse yet,
If he started issuing gun carry permits to anyone who applied regardless of criminal or psychological background?
[/QOUTE]
No, I would not feel the same about any of those actions, because I don’t agree with them. I wouldn’t go start looting either, I would hope that the courts come to the right decision. And, if irreperable harm is done, I would hope that the mayor is sued and/or goes to jail.
The Bush administrations interpretation of many laws is different from the Clinton administrations. Each president chose how to have the same laws enforced. Is this really so different from Newsom choosing between what he sees as two contradictory laws?
Legislation is presumed to be constitutional until action is taken by the courts to make it otherwise. Newsom has neither the qualifications nor the authority to make any decisions regarding constitutionality. Pointing to the state constitution just looks good on TV. It doesn’t add any sort of weight or authority to his actions.
Court of public opinion? That’s utter bullshit. He is overstepping his authority. He is arrogating powers that are not his.
In any case, he is not abrogating (I assume that was a typo) the privileges of the judiciary. They could certainly issue an injunction against further licensing, and I believe he is on record saying he would then stop.
[/QUOTE]
The word is “arrogating”. Look it up. He has ruled that the law is unconstitional. He has no right and no power to do this. He is a criminal and should be locked up. If he were an honest man and not merely a grandstanding crypto-fascist, he would have filed a suit and let the courts decide if it is a matter of constitutionality. Instead, he has appointed himself a court and arrogated powers that are not his.
This thread proves a long-time contention of mine:
Liberal == fascist.
They are happy to go along with any little tin dictator who oversteps the legal boundaries of power so long as that dictators dogmas agree with their own.
Liberal and Conservative–they are fundamentally identical.