Can someone who thinks this will help the cause of gay marriage explain exactly how it is gonig to help? Other than “it makes me feel good that it happened”. The marriages will have no legal standing, so it’s entirely symbolic. How many people who are sitting on the fence on this issue will be convinced to support it now?
Well, making the millions of gay and lesbian citizens feel good is a nice side effect, I’d say. But to address the question…
There have been some good explanations so far this thread. If I may line them up for you:
And, as presidebt pointed out, two women who have loved each other for generations get to marry, something they never thought could happen.
Now on to points you haven’t yet ignored…
The marriages performed today, and the marriages which will be solemnized in Massachusetts in a few months, shift the legal battle considerably. Before, the argument was about whether to deny us the right to marry. Now, they have to take our marriages away from us.
That means that the state and local authorities need to decide on what means of prosecution to use against these people for joining in a caring, long-term relationship. And trust me, if the cops show up to take away two sweet, brave little old ladies’ marriage license, it’s going to play beautifully in the press. That goes double if they get hauled off in handcuffs, or face criminal charges.
Before this, gay marriage was some vague, nebulous threat. Now, there are a few dozen gay couples who are married. And the whole brouhaha seems a bit silly. How can these people threaten marriage? Answer: they can’t. Watching the weight of the law come down on them is going to do wonders for the people who’ve been undecided about this issue.
It also changes the public perception of the gay movement slightly. It’s a brave thing to disobey an oppressive law, and people respond to courage. We’ve been pleading and arguing and begging for equality for decades. Now, seeing an opportunity to jump on it, we have. That’s going to play well.
Honestly, the momentum behind the same-sex marriage amendment and the states’ anti-gay laws is already there. 38 states have laws on the books denying us our equality right now, and most of them have been enacted recently. I don’t see how things can get much worse. And this is a shot at making them much, much better.
Meanwhile, two old ladies who love each other are finally, after more than half a century, married. If this achieves nothing else, it’s achieved that.
That’s not civil disobedience. It’s rebellion. Frankly, I think martial law should be declared by the Governor and the SF Mayor dragged off to jail.
An elected official openly flouting the law of the land, which was passed by a significant margin here in CA should be removed immediately from office.
I certainly hope that those who support this move also supported Judge Moore in GA.
No they’re not. They have a piece of paper that may say they are, but they’re no more married than they were a week ago.
Aside from that piece of paper, what makes anyone married?
The weight of law as far as gov’t is concerned. A fraudulent marriage certificate has no more weight than toilet paper.
Actually, it’s considerably heavier stock.
The marriage certificates aren’t fraudulent. They’re issued by the same authority that issues marriage licenses for heterosexuals. They’re the same document that heterosexuals get. No-one was defrauded in the course of their acquisition.
No they were not. The state gives the cities authority to marry. The authority to marry a man and a woman is the explicit limit of that authority. The SF officials fraudulently claimed to have more authority than they do have.
And now, we get to see if the states have the authority to discriminate against citizens who’ve done no harm to anyone, because a county official stepped over that boundary in order to create test cases which will need to be settled in the state supreme court.
When a law is unjust, brave people break it. Let’s just hope it stays broken.
Sorry, I thought this was a thread about gay marriage in science fiction. Carry on, don’t mind me.
We aren’t going to see a federal constitutional amendment. Not only does it not even poll with a majority (which is at least a bear MINIMUM for the probable success of a constitutional amendment), but many of the big names in even the conservative side of things oppose it.
What we will see are states doing what they can to ban.
But I do think having gay marriages on some books, even illegally, does get us something. Suddenly we have the family values crowd trying to break up people’s marriages. That’s a pretty powerful irony that the gay rights crowd can and should play to the hilt.
The only way to challenge a law in court is to break it, and sue when you’re not allowed to. You can’t just go to the court and say “We’d like to do this, will you let us?” because that’s a hypothetical situation and hypotheticals are not justiciable in most states. The Mayor of San Francisco, beliving that the law in question violates the California Constitution, elected to break the law in order to challenge it.
This is exactly civil disobedience by the Mayor and those in agreement with him, against a statute the Mayor believes to be in violation of the California Constitution; if he’s right, the law is a nullity. He is putting himself and his career on the line for this. And you have the gall to chastize him for upholding his conviction as to what the law of his state actually requires?
Dewey, take that sock off!! :mad:
The Right is already threatening more DOMA legislation. They’re already mobilizing support for a constitutional amendment. Gay people have nothing more to lose at this point on the political front; sitting by and doing nothing out of fear of “backlash” ensures that what meager rights have been acquired will be swept away forever.
The real backlash is going to be when crazed homophobes start shooting up gay weddings and marriage bureaus that are registering gay couples to marry. I expect violence against gays to increase. And once that happens, we will have civil rights for gays. Sadly, I suspect this issue will be not be finally decided until someone dies over it, the same way people had to die before the idea of civil rights for blacks became a reality.
Not all civil disobdience is justifiable. The difference in these two cases is that Moore erected his monument in defiance of the U.S. Constitution, which is the law of the land. What happened in SF was done to rectify violations of the U.S. Constitution. That Moore cannot erect his statue in a government area does not violate his civil rights; that gay people cannot marry when heterosexuals can does violate their civil rights.
And whether or not that’s a stunt, at least he’s got the yarbles to take the chance on what he thinks is a matter of rights, on something that brings him no benefit. As for Roy Moore, he took his chances (IMO knowing he did not have a leg to stand on other than appeal-to-popularity) and lost. Now, if the courts find against the Mayor, IMO then he’d be obligated to state that he cannot remain in a post that compels him to enforce an immoral law – which Moore did not have the integrity to do, remaining defiant until kicked out of office.
BTW, if the courts find that SF had no authority to do this, then the marriage licences will be legally null ab initio, no need for the police to go to the couples’ homes to “take it away” or arrest them. I believe it will be a little bit trickier in MA, where since the Amendment cannot take effect until 2006, you will have people with a constitutionally sanctioned marriage license as of two years earlier – haven’t heard how the MA legislature plans to deal with that not-so-small detail.
Nope, those are not reasons that this is good for the cause of gay marriage. Those are things that make you feel good.
Your other arguments are a bit better. I’m not talking about the MA situation here, just the SF one. As for the what legal method to use, it’s no biggie at all. The law clearly states that marriage is between a man and woman only. The mayor is in violation of that law. As for the people “married”, I agree with those who say they are not. No one is going to put them in jail (this is a civil offense, at worst). But they will be breaking the law if they try to file joint tax returns.
What a load of crap.
Moore (an elected official) defied a judicial order, which is an interpretation of the constitution, and one which violates states rights and mocks the constitution in the opinion of many. The SF Mayor (also an elected official) defied the CA constitution which limits marriage to a man and woman and the will of the people of CA which passed Prop. 22 by a 60% margin–the intent of which was to not be required to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.
More crap. The decision against Moore violated his 1st amendment rights. Marriage has never been defined in this country (and only recently in some others) as anything other than wrt a man and a woman. A gay man has just as much right to marry a woman as a straight man does.
First of all, when did Roy Moore suddenly get the right to place a massive monument to his personal religious tradition in a government venue?
Second of all, your last sentence makes as much sense as a proponent of a Christian theocracy saying that a Jew has as just as much right to worship Jesus as a Christian does.
emarkp:
The CA constitution is silent on gay/hetero marriage. The mayor is not violating the constitution, per se, he is violating a pecific law. The Judge Moore case is not a good analogy, either. In his case he was defying a specific court order directed at him. If Newsom gets a similar order directed at him and he defies it, then it might be similar. So far, it’s not.
jayjay:
You are correct in that the gay community has nothing to lose wrt the thoughts of the religious right. But how about the middle of the road folks? That is the segment of interest. Focusing on the religious right is an emotional response that is mostly unproductive; focusing on the middle of the roaders is an intellectual response.