Dang, I wanted to post this last night, but the hamsters were sleeping.
But yes, I agree; while Roy Moore’s monument and the same-sex marriage ceremonies were superficially the same, the latter is a case of disobedience for a right that is not already available. Moore’s ability to worship as he chooses is not affected by whether or not the 10 Commandments were in the judicial building, but the rights and abilities of a couple are affected by whether or not they’re considered “married” under the law.
John, I understand what you’re saying. I really do. But I can’t help feeling like we’re being told that if we’re good little girls and boys and don’t shout to loudly, and be nice and happy and cute and keep doing those amusing dances and such, and just be happy that we have a few sitcoms on network television right now, that everything will turn out like we want it to. But if we actually be human beings with feelings (both good and bad) and act up like a bunch of nasty ingrates when someone slaps us in the face (or, more to the point, holds a legislative/constitutional gun to our heads), then we forfeit any gains we may have made.
I want to make it clear that I am NOT accusing you of homophobia or racism here, but this is the same argument that timid white supporters of equal rights gave to the black activists. “Just be patient and happy and entertaining, and eventually people will give you your rights.” It’s demeaning, and I would personally rather lose the rights I’ve been given if the only reason I have them is because straight people see us as cuddly, happy toys who dance and dress well. The idea that we’re only good enough for full citizenship if we suppress all of our anger and fear and just show a shiny, happy, full-of-light-and-love countenance to the world is especially sharply felt by gay folk, because most of us above a certain age spent a large portion of our lives pretending to be something we weren’t already, and refuse to go into a semi-closet of turn-the-other-cheekness just because our being real human beings who do get angry and spiteful makes our ‘supporters’ uncomfortable.
Indeed, that was the position of many gay rights activists prior to Stonewall. They were not particularly effective at it though. It took the Stonewall Riots – a group of gay and transgendered individuals who had had enough and would not just sit around waiting for their rights – for real change to start.
Sorry, no. The battle for gay rights has only been effective when it was “in your face”.
“It seems to me,” said Booker T.,
“That all you folks have missed the boat
Who shout about the right vote,
And spend vain days and sleepless nights
In uproar over civil rights.
Just keep your mouths shut, do not grouse,
But work, and save, and buy a house.”
“I don’t agree,” said W.E.B.,
"For what can property avail
If dignity and justice fail?
Unless you help to make the laws,
They’ll steal your house with trumped-up clause.
A rope’s as tight, a fire as hot,
No matter how much case you’ve got.
Speak soft, and try your little plan,
But as for me, I’ll be a man."from “Booker T. and W.E.B.”, by Dudley Randall
History shows that W.E.B. was right. Standing down, now or at any other time, will gain us nothing.
I don’t think we’re actually as far apart on this as it might seem. My point is specifically with Newsom, not with those gays who chose to take advantage of this situation. I understand where they are coming from, and think their actions are a legitimate form of protest. It’s the action of the mayor, who seems to be using this to further his career w/o regard to the consequences, that I think is questionable.
Just to note: I often find myself arguing issues within the current political framework, even though my true position is different. In this case, I’d like to see the gov’t completely out of the marriage business altogether and offer anyone the option to have a civil agreement with anyone else on legal issues related to child custody, inheritance, etc. But no special tax breaks (or penalties), no special treatment in any way. That will never be realized in this country, so I look at the issue from within the current political reality.
Eh? How does that work? The “middle of the roaders” are the segment of people who most likely don’t give a rat’s ass one way or the other, so they are precisely the group that can be safely ignored. The religious right are the peple who are actively campaigning to ban or remove equal rights from gays, so that is precisely the group that must be dealt with, and the only area where any productivity is going to occur.
Besides which, this gives the opportunity for those folks who are undecided (which, in itself is an indication that those folks are probably more aligned with the religious right anyway, since there are no rational reasons for being con in this issue) to examine those beliefs which render them unwilling to outright state that gays are entitled to the same rights as heteros - a situation that they would never have been faced with if gays didn’t actively fight to obtain those rights. If it forces them into the “pro-gay-marriage” camp, great. If it forces them into the “anti-gay-marriage” camp, well, those are the people being fought against anyway. But if they are truly undecided hand-wringers, they are inconsequential. And I don’t see this incident in San Francisco as being the “straw that broke the camel’s back”, which forces them “anti”, for many people. Anyone who is truly up in arms about it was anti to begin with.
This strikes me as an supposition. The mayor has indicated that he has done this specifically to challenge the CA DOMA. He would pretty much have to know the consequences.
And when has a politician ever done anything that wasn’t intended to further his/her career?
This isn’t just a legal challenge, you know. This is a political movement, made up of people. Making those people feel good, giving them hope that this can succeed, showing them actual, married gay people, could be enormously effective in energizing the whole movement.
Unless I’m reading the news accounts incorrectly, Prop. 22 did not amend the Constituition of California, it enacted the proposition. The voters of California voted on a proposition, one which may just be unconstitutional because the California Constitution disallows discrimination in some way, though I don’t know the exact wording since I haven’t read it. Regardless, you’re completely incorrect that Newsom violated the state constitution until the courts have ruled on the issue of whether Prop 22 and any other laws preventing gay marriage in California are constitutional.
It should also be noted that there was already a law on the books in California that made marriage “between a man and a woman.” Prop 22 was to prevent California from having to legally recognize gay marriages of those that were married somewhere legally and then ended up residing in California.
Maybe I was unclear. I meant “middle of the road” in terms of the conservative/liberal spectrum, not on this issue in particular. Most Americans (something like 60%) oppose gay marriage. Of that, a small subset is the religious right, who will not be changing their minds. The folks of concern are those in the subset of “oppose gay marriage” and “not belonging to the religious right”. Note that even registered Democrats are pretty split on this issue
and that independents look a lot like Pubs on this issue.
The poll numbers I cited above do not support your thesis. Most people in this country are religious. There is no rational basis for a belief in religion, but many, many people use relgion to inform their politcal opinions. If you classify all those people as “the religious right” then that term ceases to have any operative meaning.
True, but given the timing, it seems like a good supposition. Was there any indication in his campaign that he would make it an issue to mount an extra-legal challenge to the DOMA?
Probably true, but irrelevant to the question of whether or not it’s a good idea or not.
So Hizzoner’s actions were illegal? That’s necessary if you’re going to push a political-rights case in the courts, a route that existing laws makes necessary. To get a law ruled unconstitutional, there first has to be a case challenging it so a court can take it on, or be forced to take it on. That’s what has just happened - either these marriages will be allowed to stand, or a state court will have to rule them invalid after some challenge by a hardline anti-gay-rights organization (and you know how much sympathy their argument will draw from the public), creating the appeal route.
If it advances the mayor’s political career in the bargain, as you say upsets you, again so what? Looks like a convergence of interests at work here, nothing more. Politics is rarely a morally-pure business.
I’ll agree with others that I don’t see who this feared backlash is going to come from. How many are going to wake from their apathetic slumber, notice the debate going on, and decide to take up the pitchforks and torches in opposition? How many are going to notice that the world hasn’t collapsed because more loving couples have some official recognition of it? I just don’t see the downside to it, just the upside that more people will be examining their beliefs closely. When they do so, I’m convinced many more will come down on the side of “What’s the problem? We don’t believe in discrimination here; if Britney can get married they should be able to, too” than on the side of “It’s just unnatural, a violation of the will of God as revealed to me in the Book”.
We’re living through the latest chapter in a future history book on the advance of civil rights in the US. I don’t know about the rest of you, but I’m fascinated.
Not true. What laws were broken in the MA situation to get the courts to rule as they did? None. A couple could have applied for a marriage license, then gone to court to get the authorities to offer them the license if they were turned down (which, btw, is exactly what happened in MA).
A simple suit was brought in MA instead; you’re right. MA also does not have a constitutional clause or even a law against gay marriage, just an administrative practice of not licensing it, so there was no law to be broken in order to get the matter into court. In CA, there *is * a law, and that *had * to broken to get the matter into court. Different situations requiring different tactics to reach the same goal. Happy now? If that’s the only thing you’re still hung up about, we’re done.
In MA the law that was broken was Article 182 (IIRC) of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts; it was broken when a same-sex couple requested a marriage license and their request was denied.
In the California case, we don’t know yet if any law has been broken. If the Mayor is correct, no law has been broken because Proposition 22 is a nullity. If the Mayor is incorrect, then he broke the law when he disregarded Proposition 22 (or, actually, he encouraged a county official to disregard Proposition 22; the Mayor himself has no actual role in the issuance of marriage licenses). However, until the California Supreme Court rules, you can’t say, with certainty, that any law has been broken because we don’t yet know what the law is.
I admit that I haven’t studied California’s constitution with any degree of care, so I can’t say whether California’s equal rights provisions mandate a finding similiar to that of the Massachusett’s Supreme Judicial Court (with respect to Massachusett’s constitution). However, the Mayor swore an oath to, inter alia, uphold the Constitution of the State of California, and he is perfectly justified in forming his own opinion as to what that document mandates, and in holding that position until and unless the California Supreme Court determines that his position is incorrect. If he has concluded that, to the best of his knowledge and understanding, Proposition 22 is contrary to the Constitution, he is obliged to disregard it.
I’m really sick of this “definition” dodge. Definitions are not the issue. The issue is why one family should be able to get a bundle of benefits, rights, and responsibilities, and another shouldn’t. Define things any way you please: definitions are arbitrary creatures of common usage. We are talking about substantive issues, not definitions.
no, John Mace is right. the law could’ve been challenged without being broken. and the law, supposing the mayor is guilty of breaking proposition 22, was broken.
proposition 22 is on the books; it is law. someone can be convicted of breaking it, and if they don’t appeal, the conviction will stand. the law is not nullified until it is challenged and found to be null and void by the authorities on the subject (presumably, eventually, the CA supreme court).
someone could’ve tried to get a marriage license and been denied in ca, and then brought suit against the law or practice that denied them their rights under ca law. that is what was done in ma. that is what is done in many cases.
breaking the law, being arrested or having a civil suit brought against one’s person, serves a possibly grander purpose than simply bringing suit. if one breaks a law that is unjust, and one is convicted or a suit brought against him is successful, that person’s status as a martyr can be proclaimed, whereas if one brings suit and loses, most often, the case just fades away from memory. the defendant always has this advantage; either way he wins.
note that this is not true for criminal statutes, and i think this is from where the confusion comes. one can’t gain standing to bring suit against a criminal law if one has no stake in that suit, and one gains stake in that suit by being convicted under that law. the ca law governed the practice of its government, rather than providing penalties against those who misbehaved according to that statute. so it is a matter of civil law, and those denied their rights could’ve brought suit against it.
Just a few points – while California voters may react badly to Gavin Newsom’s actions, there is no question that the San Francisco voters who chose him to be their mayor wholeheartedly support them. Last November he was endorsed by and made campaign appearances with Phyllis Lyon and Del Martin, the lesbian activists who were married this week. He emphatically supported gay marriage during his campaign, and to give you an idea of the political climate in San Francisco, he was the more conservative mayoral candidate, the one who had his picture tacked up next to Bush and Schwarzenegger in attack ads. Whatever flack he may face for taking his stand, it won’t be coming from the voters who elected him. It is telling that of the two groups which are filing suit to bar the gay weddings, one is from Palmdale and the other is from Sacramento.
This section follows the part talking about recognizing marriages from other states:
But even that (without section 300) is a stretch for the mayor to claim that the law does not apply to in-state marriages. And given section 300, the mayor’s claim is ridiculous on the face of it.
Yes, it was meant to be a bit over the top. presidebt asserted that not allowing same-sex marriage was a violation of civil rights. That’s still being debated. His assertion is as valid as mine.
I live close enough to SF to be aware of the politics there. And, IIRC, the opponent in the run-off election was in the Green Party. At any rate, I agree that Newsom is in no trouble among his constituents (which highlights the fact that this wasn’t some daring political act for him). We’ll see what happens in the rest of the state as a result. I could be wrong about this, and I’m not saying that a CA amendment banning gay marriage is a slam dunk due to this action, but I do believe it will give such an amendment more support than it might otherwise get.
The CA DOMA passed with a wide margin-- something like 60%. This was a ballot initiative, so it was voted on directly by the people. If the voters feel their will is being thwarted, they may feel there is no alternative than to amend the constitution. We’ll see.
An interracial couples getting “married” used to be a willfull and deliberate violation of the law in many States also. If you were around during that time, and the mayor of a town in one of those states handed out marriage licenses to interracial couples would you have suggested to those couples that they elect not to get “married”?
)